A Year Since MH-17 Tragedy

[Sonc]

This video - proof.
There are victims.
There are witnesses.
There is a video of attack.

There is everything you need for the court. (More than is the case with Boeing.)
But the court is not. Why is that?

 

[Stratford57]

"and Ukraine would have to answer just like anyone else."
Ok.


So what? How? They were condemned?
Or is not clear who inflicted airstrike?
Or was at least ATTEMPT ... to find the culprits?

Your video has nothing to do with MH17 and it is pure propaganda to insinuate one side is more guilty than another side for atrocities, mistakes, collateral damage and other incidents common in any war. That video could have been caused by separatist or Ukraine government forces or Ukraine anti separatist forces. It could have been a mistake by any of them. This is what happens when people take up arms and start a violent revolution to separate and cause civil war. A war is started and this is what happens in war. Blame those who promote taking up arms to make change.

Propaganda, when Ukrainian air crufts have torn civilians (women!) into pieces???? That's not just cynic, it's insane.. Only CNN has shown that ^ and all the other Western/Ukrainian media remained silent, same way the are silent about crimes of official Kiev in Donbass. That is a great reason for war Tribunal.

Camp, "strong evidence" in your post N 3, which you are so proud of, is the four-minute clip posted by the News.com.au, which was followed by a transcript from a longer 17-minute (!) video, which has not been released.

In the clip a man's voice is heard, which is thought to be that of a rebel commander, who receives a number of phone calls apparently from other rebel fighters at different sites where the debris fell. The man is heard saying“What? There’s another plane?”and orders the men to“establish a perimeter and keep civilians away”.

The four-minute clip posted by the News.com.au is followed by a transcript from a longer 17-minute video, which has not been released. News Corp Australia told RT that they "stand by the transcript, it was taken from the full video, which investigators now have."

The text cites a rebel commander as saying that"the Sukhoi [fighter jet] brought down the plane and we brought down the Sukhoi."

Later on, the man is quoted as saying that"there’s two planes taken down,”while a voice in the background says,"the fighter jet brought down this one [MH17 Boeing], and our people brought down the fighter. They [the Ukrainians] decided to do it this way, to make it look like we have brought down the plane."

According to the transcript, there were also between two and"five parachute jumpers"who landed at the nearby Grabove village. These included a pilot“roaming about Rassypnoe"[a nearby village] and a commander ordering his men go and get him immediately.

One of the rebels is also wondering who and why they [the Boeing] was given permission to fly over the warzone.

The four-minute clip shows rebels searching the debris for black boxes and finding one, as well as personal IDs of the passengers, which they then filmed on the camera.

Was there a 2nd plane New footage shows MH17 crash site minutes after Boeing downing RT News

 

[Camp]

This video - proof.
There are victims.
There are witnesses.
There is a video of attack.

There is everything you need for the court.
But the court is not. Why is that?

You are arguing against a UN Tribunal in one case and complaining about not having a court in another. If no one will present case of war crimes to international court or UN who do you blame? Who represents separatist areas of Ukraine, what you call New Russia? Russia can supply bullets and BUKS, tanks and rifles, but can not provide diplomats and lawyers to make charges of war crimes?
Maybe you can explain why obvious military installation surrounded by defensive rows of tires and building with flags and protected by uniformed soldiers was located in middle of populated area. What was in that park that may have been target of strike but not shown in video?

 

[Stratford57]

Camp, I'm posting this just for you:

 

[Camp]

Camp, I'm posting this just for you:

View attachment 46248

That is known as a deflection Stratford. Deflections are used when you can not answer questions and you want to evade admitting you are unable to answer. The person arguing against your ideas is not the target when that person is arguing a widely accepted viewpoint. It is not Camp that is putting down your concepts, it is the international global community. Russia has some support even from some who normally are critical of Russia. In the end however, Russia looks bad and loses the argument. It will have to deal with the consequences for many years into the future. In the end the case will probably be determined in the worst places possible, multiple civil courts in multiple countries.

 

[Sonc]

You are arguing against a UN Tribunal in one case and complaining about not having a court in another.

I'm not complaining.
I point to the facts - fair trial does not exist.
I asked the question, but you did not answer. Why no one wants to judge the perpetrators of the events in the video?

Russia looks bad

On US television =)))

and loses the argument.

Arguments are needed for those who can think. But do not believe what is said by TV.

 

[ESay]

Why no one wants to judge the perpetrators of the events in the video?

Maybe you should ask your government about it?

 

[Sonc]

Why no one wants to judge the perpetrators of the events in the video?

Maybe you should ask your government about it?

I honestly try to understand the logic of the Ukrainians. The part that accuses Putin. But where is the logic? This Ukrainian plane.

 

[Camp]

You are arguing against a UN Tribunal in one case and complaining about not having a court in another.

I'm not complaining.
I point to the facts - fair trial does not exist.
I asked the question, but you did not answer. Why no one wants to judge the perpetrators of the events in the video?

Russia looks bad

On US television =)))

and loses the argument.

Arguments are needed for those who can think. But do not believe what is said by TV.

I answered your question. Someone of authority has to make a request of an investigation into a specific war crime. In the case you reference it is alleged by you that a Ukraine aircraft made a strike that killed and injured civilians. Evidence must be presented for investigation and some authority has to formally open an investigation. Some official group or authority most go to some official organization to make this request. That whole mess in eastern Ukraine should be investigated by a UN Tribunal or court for war crimes. Perhaps the ICC could do it. Maybe Russia could agree to MH 17 Tribunal with caveat that all crimes can be investigated. I think this will not happen because I think both sides have bad behavior to hide.

 

[Sonc]

Maybe Russia could agree to MH 17 Tribunal with caveat that all crimes can be investigated.

With caveat?
That judges must be fair and impartial?

They must be such without a request.
If they are not so
1) is not competent
2) prejudiced
3) 1 and 2

someone can tell where the plane that crashed into the Pentagon?
Everyone can see - no aircraft.

But none as though does not see.
And he does not want to talk about it.

Do you understand what that means?
You can write the obvious conclusion?

 

[PK1]

On July, 17 it will be exactly a year since the flight MH-17 has been intercepted by a rocket and the Malaysian Boeing with almost 300 people on its board crashed. And after a year we still have as much information about it as the first few days.

1. The communications between the pilots and the Ukrainian air traffic controllers have never been published. In all other cases the communications have been published same or the next day after the crash.
2. “Irrefutable evidence” of who has shot the Boeing, which Obama has been claiming to have, has never been presented.

All above sounds like everybody, who has access to the true information about the reasons and the causers of the tragedy [Obama and official Kiev] , are not interested for the truth to come out. Why? May be because it contradicts their geopolitical games?…

Obama is so arrogant to think that he is so great and all the world is so damn to believe his words automatically without any evidence.

---
I understand the evidence is presented in a "confidential" draft circulated among the investigating countries prior to the final report.
The draft report leaks point to its conclusion: MH17 was downed by a surface to air missile fired from a BUK system brought into east Ukraine from Russia and was most likely operated by a Russian crew.
The pic below (from Camp's source) shows a satellite view of this strike by the BUK's SA-11 missile:

 

[Stratford57]

Translation^: What is a Western Tribunal? It means: to have a trial on Serbs after NATO bombs a passenger train in Serbia.

Too bad many people have forgotten that...

 

[ESay]

With caveat?
That judges must be fair and impartial?

They must be such without a request.
If they are not so
1) is not competent
2) prejudiced
3) 1 and 2

someone can tell where the plane that crashed into the Pentagon?
Everyone can see - no aircraft.

But none as though does not see.
And he does not want to talk about it.

Do you understand what that means?

What can’t you still understand?

What the hell does the plane near Pentagon have to do with what is going on in Eastern Ukraine now?

What is being told to you is that if Russia wants a fair trial in what is going on in Ukraine now, then let Russia send a request to the UN (or some other international organization) about creation of an international tribunal which will be set up in order to investigate all possible military crimes in Eastern Ukraine – crimes committed by Ukrainian army, volunteer battalions, and the rebels; the downing of MH17; possible involvement of Russia in all that mess and so on.

Such a request has been sent? No. Why? Ask your government about it.

 

[Sonc]

Such a request has been sent? No.

And what's that?

 

[Sonc]

And what's that?
You can not love Yanukovych.
But you can not deny one important fact.

He never used the weapon. His car was shot. He did not give the order to fire on their own people!

 

[ESay]

And what's that?

Man, if that may be called ‘a request to the UN (or some other international organization) about creation of an international tribunal which will be set up in order to investigate all possible military crimes in Eastern Ukraine – crimes committed by Ukrainian army, volunteer battalions, and the rebels; the downing of MH17; possible involvement of Russia in all that mess and so on’ then I don’t know what to add to that.

I can only say that if you want to achieve something you need to act, sometimes act ‘aggressively’, rather than merely speak. Do something; come up with various resolutions; look for possible allies and so on. Your government is so proud about ‘special relationship’ with China, so proud about BRICS. Where is this relationship, where is China, where is BRICS?

 

[Sonc]

And what is your Petro Poroshenko promised? Sell a chocolate factory, if he becomes president.
He became president. Sold?=)))

 

[ESay]

And what's that?
You can not love Yanukovych.
But you can not deny one important fact.

He never used the weapon. His car was shot. He did not give the order to fire on their own people!

And what is your Petro Poroshenko promised? Sell a chocolate factory, if he becomes president.
He became president. Sold?=)))

Man, if you want to talk about the theme, let’s talk about the theme. If you want to ‘jump down’ to something else, then there is no point of talking about.

 

[Sonc]

Man, if that may be called

He says.
It's really amazing. Why are we here?
Dying people 10s in the east and you say that the Kiev authorities restrained.

Yes Churkin did not ask for an investigation.
He is 1,000 times asked to stop these crimes.

These crimes ... passed with the consent of the UN!
What do you think we need to ask the UN?

 

[Sonc]

Man, if you want to talk about the theme, let’s talk about the theme. If you want to ‘jump down’ to something else, then there is no point of talking about.

Just say yes or no.