Ukraine says has 'compelling evidence' of plane shoot down

[Elldallan]

Doesn't really matter whether they intentionally left out the IFF, it takes an active action to launch the missiles so it was an intentional and malicious act fully intended to take down the aircraft it was aiming at.
They probably thought that it was a Ukrainian troop transport(which is a legitimate military target) but that doesn't resolve them of any responsibility or guilt whatsoever in whether they intended to shoot down a civilian airliner or not.
International law is crystal clear on that part, it lies upon every soldier to establish beyond any doubt that the target is not civilian(typically this is filtered down the chain of command through standing orders because ICAO goes out of it's way to inform nations what civilian air traffic will be crossing their skies), hence there can be no excuse or justification to shoot down a civilian target other than an electrical malfunction where the missile launched without being commanded to do so.

The rebels are thugs and terrorists and so are Russia for arming them(not to mention that Russia annexed Ukrainian territory, also in violation of international law)

[freemehul]

Doesn't really matter whether they intentionally left out the IFF, it takes an active action to launch the missiles so it was an intentional and malicious act fully intended to take down the aircraft it was aiming at.

actually no it does matter. The difference is in the motive. One is stupidity, the other a lot more inhumane. If it is the latter you have to consider far tougher and more active stance against Putin and his allies.

They probably thought that it was a Ukrainian troop transport(which is a legitimate military target) but that doesn't resolve them of any responsibility or guilt whatsoever in whether they intended to shoot down a civilian airliner or not.
International law is crystal clear on that part, it lies upon every soldier to establish beyond any doubt that the target is not civilian(typically this is filtered down the chain of command through standing orders because ICAO goes out of it's way to inform nations what civilian air traffic will be crossing their skies), hence there can be no excuse or justification to shoot down a civilian target other than an electrical malfunction where the missile launched without being commanded to do so.

The rebels are thugs and terrorists and so are Russia for arming them(not to mention that Russia annexed Ukrainian territory, also in violation of international law)

what is it with this culpability and international laws on the news? I'm going to quote Pompey here. "Stop quoting laws, we carry swords." If you really think Putin gives a **** about international law, you are sorely mistaken. And if you think the relatives and friends care about legal retribution, you are also sorely mistaken. Ask any parent who lost a child and give them two options, where they must choose one of the two proposed options, A) receive money from the murderer as a form of punishment or compensation for their loss (whatever way you want to see it) or B) see the murderer isolated from society so he can pose no further harm to society. I say to you most sensible parents will choose the latter option. No more lawyer prattle please. I'd rather see political action over legal action here. It is far more effective.


Also do these newsanchors seriously believe Russia will ever pay any damages. Heck Putin will admit his complicity when pigs fly. So don't go that road, it leads to nowhere. In this situation "to carry a big stick and speak softly" will get you a lot further, than to yell "because" or to say "Putin needs to man up", since he won't do that. His silence already speaks volume.

Seriously I dont get some of these American newsanchors in particular. Each time they speak of culpability, to me it only shows that they don't give a rats-ass for their fellow American citizen who died there. It may only be one American, but he was a human being too for goodness sake. To me Kerry really is the bigger man here than for example Candy Crowley, she really doesn't get it.

[Elldallan]

actually no it does matter. The difference is in the motive. One is stupidity, the other a lot more inhumane. If it is the latter you have to consider far tougher and more active stance against Putin and his allies.

The rebels are nutcases that either are unwilling to take the precautions to not shoot down civilian airliners(that's not stupidity, it's maliciousness) or they're doing it on purpose, that's not much of a distinction and they're still nutcases that needs to be stopped.
And the rebels motives doesn't really matter for how we should treat Putin, we(the western world) should have sanctioned Russia back to the middle ages the second they annexed Crimea, the current conflict is just a natural extension because nobody bothered pushing back after Putin took the first step.

what is it with this culpability and international laws on the news? I'm going to quote Pompey here. "Stop quoting laws, we carry swords." If you really think Putin gives a **** about international law, you are sorely mistaken.

No I don't, if he cared he wouldn't have annexed Crimea.
International law matters because it's essentially what gives us(the western world) the justification to act.

And if you think the relatives and friends care about legal retribution, you are also sorely mistaken. Ask any parent who lost a child and give them two options, where they must choose one of the two proposed options, A) receive money from the murderer as a form of punishment or compensation for their loss (whatever way you want to see it) or B) see the murderer isolated from society so he can pose no further harm to society. I say to you most sensible parents will choose the latter option. No more lawyer prattle please. I'd rather see political action over legal action here. It is far more effective.

Emotionally distraught people are rarely rational so yeah they'd probably go for the "kill the bastards and their entire extended families" option, if there were a death by torture option they'd check that box too. They want vengeance but vengeance is the antithesis to justice and not something society as a whole should endorse or accept.

Also do these newsanchors seriously believe Russia will ever pay any damages. Heck Putin will admit his complicity when pigs fly. So don't go that road, it leads to nowhere. In this situation "to carry a big stick and speak softly" will get you a lot further, than to yell "because" or to say "Putin needs to man up", since he won't do that. His silence already speaks volume.

No I don't think anybody seriously thinks that Putin would do any of that, on the other hand before we can act we need to offer him that way out, if he doesn't take it then that's his choice but it's not one we can make for him.

Seriously I dont get some of these American newsanchors in particular. Each time they speak of culpability, to me it only shows that they don't give a rats-ass for their fellow American citizen who died there. It may only be one American, but he was a human being too for goodness sake. To me Kerry really is the bigger man here than for example Candy Crowley, she really doesn't get it.

You can only say that we empathize with the victims so many times. Besides, no matter how much we empathize with them culpability is more interesting in the grand scheme of things because while 1 death may be a tragedy if the US sends the 1st Marine Expeditionary Unit there because they thing the rebels are culpable and needs to be punished it carries a whole lot more ramifications.

[freemehul]

Look I'm not saying international law doesn't matter. I am saying that quoting international law, will not get you very far in this situation when it comes to prevention and taking care of things.



Where there is no justice, I hate to say it, vengeance becomes an effective tool against further injustice. Its not because it is emotional, in such a situation it actually becomes rational to enact realpolitik. There is an evolutionary reason why vengeance exists as an emotion and granted it can be bad, but within limits it can be used to prevent further evil. What you're thus saying, is that any person that has an emotion must be a bad human being. I seriously disagree with that kind of reasoning.

You can only say that we empathize with the victims so many times. Besides, no matter how much we empathize with them culpability is more interesting in the grand scheme of things because while 1 death may be a tragedy if the US sends the 1st Marine Expeditionary Unit there because they thing the rebels are culpable and needs to be punished it carries a whole lot more ramifications.

culpability is entirely ineffective in the grand scheme of things, because as I mentioned before, it gets you nowhere. Also I'm not saying you should send in the marines. I have never said that. Sending in the marines would be utter foolishness. Someone like Bontes for instance who is advocating for this, is a complete fool in my opinion and should not be taken seriously in anything. Rutte for example ignores this man and he's entirely correct in doing so. Never act directly against a person the likes of Putin, you will not gain anything from it.



Look you clearly wish for the guest and host to exchange roles by advocating for a trial. That is strategically unsound here. The strategically sound option is to pilfer a goat. Take of your judges robe here for a second and start thinking like a statesman.

Also consider this. You're optimistic in the sense that Putin will take the way out. You clearly haven't seen the pictures here, where Putin went to the Orthodox church and engaged in prayer. He's hiding, he's not taking the option out. I'm telling you, he will not take that way out, because he doesn't see it. His perception is too narrow for that. Tyrants are blind like that, even when they escape death and be given a second chance, they still won't see it. I think you're way too optimistic here and certainly not realistic.

Look if it were true that he sees that way out and he takes that option out, I would have agreed with you here on this culpability issue, but Putin doesn't see it, therefore he will not take it.

[Elldallan]

Look I'm not saying international law doesn't matter. I am saying that quoting international law, will not get you very far in this situation when it comes to prevention and taking care of things.

Agreed that it cannot prevent anything on it's own. But it is what gives us(the western world) the basis from which we can justify taking action. If the west takes strong and decisive action it will create a deterrent because the ones taking the actions will have to worry that they will be actioned in one manner or other.
Now, the west hasn't exactly been great at upholding these values which is part of the reason that we're where we're currently at.

Where there is no justice, I hate to say it, vengeance becomes an effective tool against further injustice. Its not because it is emotional, in such a situation it actually becomes rational to enact realpolitik. There is an evolutionary reason why vengeance exists as an emotion and granted it can be bad, but within limits it can be used to prevent further evil. What you're thus saying, is that any person that has an emotion must be a bad human being. I seriously disagree with that kind of reasoning.

It's not that vengeance can be bad, it is always bad without exception. Because the reason from whence it stems is not to mete out just punishment, it is from your own urge to cause greater harm to those that hurt you than they inflicted, it can therefore never be right to any reasonable person(distraught persons are rarely reasonable or rational).
No, I'm not saying that you'd be bad for having the emotion, emotions are part of being human, it's nothing we can turn off at our convenience. But acting on it will make you no better than the original perpetrator and no free society should ever endorse it, it should punish it without remorse whenever and wherever it manifests itself.

culpability is entirely ineffective in the grand scheme of things, because as I mentioned before, it gets you nowhere. Also I'm not saying you should send in the marines. I have never said that. Sending in the marines would be utter foolishness. Someone like Bontes for instance who is advocating for this, is a complete fool in my opinion and should not be taken seriously in anything. Rutte for example ignores this man and he's entirely correct in doing so. Never act directly against a person the likes of Putin, you will not gain anything from it.

It is not ineffective because we as a state(or states) of law needs to have justification in taking action, we cannot just take action because we feel like it, not when the stakes are this high.
Therefore culpability is a way of gaining us that justification, if it can be proved that the crash was not due to an accident but was in fact because it was shot down with a SAM system then we can justify crushing whatever remains of Russia's economy with crippling sanctions, and even(if that is what we wish) to send in the cavalry to clean up the mess that is the rebels in eastern Ukraine.

Look you clearly wish for the guest and host to exchange roles by advocating for a trial. That is strategically unsound here. The strategically sound option is to pilfer a goat. Take of your judges robe here for a second and start thinking like a statesman.

I'm not advocating that there should be any trials, I'm advocating that we should use international law to justify our actions. There will be no courtrooms, no judges and no juries, but there will be states taking action(hopefully) and if we can establish guilt or culpability it is easier to justify the actions we take. If we can eliminate any reasonable doubt it will be easier to get other nations to rally behind sanctions and other necessary actions. Look at France for example who insists on continuing shipping their Mistral carriers to Russia, if we can eliminate the doubt that The rebels shot down the aircraft and that Russia is behind the rebels then they have to choose between stopping their shipment or being ostracized by the rest of Europe, as long as it's not clear where the guilt lies they can justify continuing their shipment by the fact that there's no evidence that Russia is behind all of this.

Also consider this. You're optimistic in the sense that Putin will take the way out. You clearly haven't seen the pictures here, where Putin went to the Orthodox church and engaged in prayer. He's hiding, he's not taking the option out. I'm telling you, he will not take that way out, because he doesn't see it. His perception is too narrow for that. Tyrants are blind like that, even when they escape death and be given a second chance, they still won't see it. I think you're way too optimistic here and certainly not realistic.

Look if it were true that he sees that way out and he takes that option out, I would have agreed with you here on this culpability issue, but Putin doesn't see it, therefore he will not take it.

I never actually thought that Putin would actually take the way out, I was hoping against hope that he would though because it'd let the world deescalate this in a sensible manner, without it only passivity or escalation remains and personally I hope the west takes the latter option.
Putin already had his Anschluss, we've seen this happen before so lets not tread down the same old path again, this time we need to tell "Hitler" that this is enough, either you back here and now or we take you out like the rabid dog you are, not a step further. The last thing the world needs is another Neville Chamberlain pronouncing that he's created peace in our time. We can't keep pandering to the madman because he'll only take that as a blessing to keep going, we need to stop him before it gets out of control

And yes I know I just invoked Godwins law but for once the comparison is too accurate to ignore so please bear with me.