|
|
xandcg
Rio de Janeiro, BR.
Posts 218
Joined on 09-07-2014
|
Post #:
|
20
|
|
Post ID:
|
26753
|
|
Reply to:
|
26751
|
|
|
|
Not professional, pure PR it seems.
|
|
|
|
|
I just passed an eye on the list and to start with most (if not all, I would need to consult and I'm not in a mood to get back studying International Public Law) of these "war crimes" were not crimes at the time when they happened but actually often normal practice.
For instance, he talks about the use cluster bombs somewhere which was made illegal more recently, and like every other international law (except by a handful of erga omnes ones) are just binding (and when they are, most not) just to those who signed them, and Russia did not signed that treat (nor Brazil (who sell cluster bombs) and many other countries).
In more recent events, there are a lot of complains about civilians deaths in Syria for instance, I have no idea if the numbers are true[1] nor I do care, because this is war and people die in wars. There is nothing new about it, and in fact the Russians actually have a well established practice to try to open humanitarian corridors before attacking civilian areas, but this is not always possible nor you can force the people to leave.
A friend of a close friend is from Ukraine, she has all her family in there (near Kiev) and they refuse to leave. The men cannot leave due to well know Ukranian prohibition and the women doesn't want to leave their husbands... they are not the only ones in this situation (the prohibition was likely create this situation) and if something happens in there, people will die...
Also, in order to establish humanitarian corridors and make it work, this is usually necessary to reach an agreement between the involved parts and these days, often, one of the sides doesn't want it in order to increase the number of causalities, what make a great PR show on (western) TV - this is well know and not a secret at all, NATO advisers train their proxies to use civilians as shield like the nazis...
In this Ukraine operation for instance, the humanitarian corridors were just accepted by the Ukies if and when the routes lead to a EU country instead of Russia/LDPR territory. Well, the actual combat is happening mainly in and around LDPR in this phase[2] which is close to Russia not EU...
This list is like that typical American who love to talk about the Chernobyl disaster but have no idea there were several nuclear disasters in USA,
including with tons of radioactive water begin dumped in rivers of which people
drink water from on purpose, since they had no way to filter the water
at the time (and in fact today, this is Russia who deal with US nuclear
waste)...
I mean, the same people who love to talk about the Russian incompetency in nuclear matters (they have no idea Russia is ages beyond them in the subject) but didn't acknowledge the Fukushima disaster just turned to be a disaster (instead of a near irrelevant accident) because their glorious American nuclear engineers, who designed the thing together with the mighty Japanese, connected the emergency water pumps to the main turbines instead of installing emergency diesel generators (not green enough?).
Well, ever the possibility of a minor accident leads to the shutdown of the reactor(s) which naturally leads to the stop of the steam turbines. How could then the emergency pumps work without electricity?
Btw, Rosatom would never ever consider constructing a nuclear plant in Japan simply because they do not construct them in place with relevant seismic activity. They run deep seismic studies before ever starting to consider the design of given nuclear plant.
Also, these PR people don't like when comparatives are made (e.g. Iraq) but yeah the main source of international law is exactly that, the practice (and violation of the established rules. The written law are not that relevant as they seem to be), and so a comparative with the previous similar events are the first and foremost important thing to acknowledge before starting any serious discussion about any subject related with international law...
Other thing, UN General Assembly resolutions are just recommendations, they have no power to impose anything to anyone[3]. Just UNSC have this power and just when the resolution is fundamented in the Seventh Chapter of the UN Charter - something super rare because if the target doesn't comply they will need to impose (read militarily, war). Who will pay for that? Who want to send their people to fight (and likely die) in some random country they have absolutelly no interest in?
[1] that famous chemical attack in Syria was completely staged by NATO members as was being proved by a OPCW whistle blower.
[2] the forces in other places like Kiev, Odessa, Nikolaiev where just to force UA to reinforce these cities (is specially Kiev) and immobilize them in there, what leads to negate the reinforcement of Donbass/LDPR region. Remembering Russia got in UA with nearly 1x3 ratio of troops, and they realy had to equalize it somehow.
[3] theoretically they can create peacekeeping operations but: they never did, every time they tried the UNSC did it before them; it can't be imposed, peace keeping operations need to be accepted by all involved parties (and they are nearly useless) - there were some peacekeeping operations with actual power to impose the peace but these were invented on the fly, they do not exist in the UN Charter (remember, practice and violation).
Think for yourself, do not be sheep.
|
|
|