Avionski udesi i nesreće

[Krošek]

1 minute ago, mraki said:

Pa to.

Ovde se raspravlja o tome koliko je ovo iracionalno i glupo, kako im ne ide u korist... revolucionarna garda, alo! General im ubijen.

 

čini mi se da se na forumu stepen vesti iz nesvesti, očajnih linkova i banalnih zamena teza progresivno povećava, valjda neka opšta mentalna atrofija. internet stvarno zaglupljuje, mentalno zagađuje i ne uči ljude nikakvim kritičkim veštinama ako se sami ne potrude da ih steknu.

[goofs]

54 minutes ago, 3opge said:

da, ti naravno znas sta je u glavama manijaka iz revolucionarne garde.

malo je prevelika greska da bi bila slucajna. 

 

29 minutes ago, 3opge said:

naravno da je ogavna je ti govorim sta je u njihovim glavama.

 

:isuse: 

[Redoran]

11 minutes ago, mraki said:

Ovde se raspravlja o tome koliko je ovo iracionalno i glupo, kako im ne ide u korist... revolucionarna garda, alo! General im ubijen.

 

General im ubijen pa su rešili da se osvete Ukrajini i Kanadi?

 

Imam osećaj da je dobar deo javnosti zapravo frustriran time što su pošteno priznali kakvu svinjariju su napravili. Sad valja upregnuti tviter-forenzičare da nekako pokažu da je svrha tog priznanja da prikrije mega zaveru i dijabolični plan da se namerno sruši ukrajinski avion i tako postigne... nešto.

[mraki]

Pošteno priznali?

[Krošek]

mhm. imaš nešto da dodaš?

[Redoran]

2 minutes ago, mraki said:

Pošteno priznali?

 

Pa jesi li pratio vesti od jutros? Imaš gore i moj post gde piše kako su se druge zemlje ponašale u sličnim situacijama.

[mraki]

Konkretno ovo sam ispratio, ali ne bih se baš složio sa formulacijom da su pošteno priznali.

Generalno, ne pratim većinu Tviter linkova, previše je informacija, i nemam ni vremena ni živaca da filtriram šta odakle dolazi, i koji su interesi u pozadini...

Moj je stav da u ovom slučaju logika ne važi previše. Svete se za ubijenog generala i uzimajući u obzir šta je Revolucionarna garda, zaista mi nije teško zamisliti da su namerno oborili avion. Da, ukrajinski avion sa kanadskim putnicima. Ne verujem u slučajnu grešku ovaj put.

Edited January 11, 2020 by mraki

[Krošek]

deklaracija sopstvenog zaumlja promptno isklepana na nivou 1 simbola vere

 

"Исповедам једно крштење за опроштење грехова..."

 

 

[villiem]

15 minutes ago, mraki said:

Konkretno ovo sam ispratio, ali ne bih se baš složio sa formulacijom da su pošteno priznali.

Generalno, ne pratim većinu Tviter linkova, previše je informacija, i nemam ni vremena ni živaca da filtriram šta odakle dolazi, i koji su interesi u pozadini...

Moj je stav da u ovom slučaju logika ne važi previše. Svete se za ubijenog generala i uzimajući u obzir šta je Revolucionarna garda, zaista mi nije teško zamisliti da su namerno oborili avion. Da, ukrajinski avion sa kanadskim putnicima. Ne verujem u slučajnu grešku ovaj put.

 

 

izgledalo je da paze Kako gadjaju vojnu bazu pa bi bilo cudno da nakon toga paze da pogode civilni avion, jedino da ne postoji lanac komande ili koliko je realno da neko radi ovakvu odluku na svoju ruku, mora dosta da se cita, verovatno ce biti vise informacija jer su reagovali sa priznanjem, mozda ce neko traziti jos detalja

jbg neko jeste reko enter

[Krošek]

1 hour ago, Filozof manijak said:

 

Dakle, po Ljiljinoj logici, Tramp je odgovoran za rušenje aviona 

 

Kakva žena - silovatelj logike, leptejebo

 

još malo silovanja logike od jednog doktora prava spec. za oblast međ. hum. prava

 

Quote

Opinion | Iran and Trump likely broke international law. And 176 innocents paid the price.

---

Iran plane crash likely caused by violations of international law — by both Tehran and Trump

Would the 176 souls who perished on that plane still be alive had the United States not sought to kill Gen. Qassem  Soleimani?

Jan. 11, 2020, 10:31 AM CET

By Gabor Rona, former legal advisor for the International Committee of the Red Cross

The governments of the United States and Canada say they have evidence that  an  Iranian missile  —  rather than mechanical failure or a terrorist’s bomb — brought down a Ukraine International Airlines jet shortly after takeoff in Iran on Wednesday, killing all 176 persons aboard.  Video shows the moment the missile collided with the plane above Tehran. And Iran on Friday night also finally admitted blame, although it chalked the tragedy up to "human error."

This is not the first time such a thing has happened.  In 2014, a Russian missile killed 298 people aboard a Malaysian airliner  over  eastern Ukraine.  In 1988, a U.S. warship shot  down an Iranian aircraft over the  Gulf, killing 290 aboard, after thinking it was an attacking Iranian fighter plane.

 

Still, there is insufficient information to conclude that this was an unspeakable war crime  —  the deliberate targeting of civilians —  or instead,  a merely tragic accident  as Iran now claims.  Perhaps  it was something in between. What is certain, however, is that violations of international law led to this tragedy. 

Several realms of international law are at play here. Jus ad bellum  is the Latin term commonly used to describe the  rule  that states may not use, or threaten to use, force in their international relations. This is a natural and necessary  rule  to protect each state’s sovereign rights. It is accepted and asserted by all nations  and  was  codified  in international law with the drafting of the  United Nations Charter in 1945.

There are three exceptions to this prohibition. The first exception is when the force is conducted by the state within the state’s boundaries, with no violation of sovereignty. (The attacks must still comply with other international human rights law or law of armed conflict, discussed below.) Since the missile was launched by Iran in its own airspace, the consent issue  is irrelevant.  Consent, however,  is indeed an issue concerning last week’s U.S. drone strike that killed several people, including Iranian commander  Qassem  Soleimani at the Baghdad airport. Iraqi assertions that the U.S. conducted the drone strike without Iraqi consent lie at the heart of the  Iraqi Parliament’s vote  to expel American forces from the country. 

Get the think newsletter.

 

A second exception to the prohibition of the use of force, inapplicable here, is when force is authorized by the U.N. Security Council, for example in peacekeeping operations. 

But the third exception is important. The prohibition does not apply to acts of self-defense in response to an attack. This exception, also written into the U.N. Charter, provides most of the fodder for debate about the recent hostilities between the U.S. and Iran.

By now, most people are familiar with the notion that the right of self-defense applies only in response to, or in the event of “imminent threat.” What has received less airplay, however, are the elements of an imminent threat and other conditions that apply to uses of force. To be imminent, a threat must be so direct as to provide no option but the use of force. An unspecified threat that may materialize in the future doesn’t count. Even then, the force must be reasonably calculated to ameliorate the threat.

 

Killing a government official is not permitted if it is not likely to stop or prevent an attack. Thus, the U.S. targeting of Soleimani is likely unlawful, not only because no imminent threat has been identified, but also because even if one was identified, it is difficult to see how Soleimani’s death would end the threat. He has been replaced and his forces can still act.

Bringing down a civilian airplane is even more obviously prohibited for similar reasons.  Where  force is permitted in response to an attack or an imminent threat, it must also be proportional to the attack or threat posed. You can’t destroy the interior ministry and kill all its employees because the minister of interior leads a force that throws rocks at your embassy wall.

Finally, acts of revenge are not self-defense.  The claim that the “blood of U.S. forces” is on Soleimani’s hands is not a justifiable reason for an assassination — and neither are Iranian promises to avenge his death.  Were it otherwise,  endless cycles of revenge would make the world a considerably more dangerous place than it already  is. 

 

The second realm of international law at play is the law of war. In war, people may be targeted not only based on their conduct, but also based merely on their status as enemy combatants. For this reason, it is crucial to avoid asserting the laws of war where war does not exist. The “war on terrorism” is not a real war. Wars are fought by proper nouns, like Germany, Japan, al Qaeda and ISIS:  organized  entities  with command structures, capable of complying with laws of war (whether they do so or not) and capable of being defeated and promising not to do it again.  “Terrorism”  is a common noun that  fits none of these criteria. That’s not to say acts of terror cannot create, or be present in, a state of war. And though Iran may rightfully be classified as a  “state sponsor of terrorism,”  that fact alone does not create a state of war. 

And even in a real war, there are limitations on the use of force. Only combatants may be targeted, precautions must be taken to avoid civilian casualties, and even attacks against combatants are prohibited if they create an unreasonable risk of disproportionate civilian harm (“collateral damage”). Thus, even if Iran deemed itself at war  —  a questionable assertion  —  deliberate targeting of a civilian airliner would be a heinous war crime.

In the absence of armed conflict and the application of the laws of war, a third realm of international law prevails: human rights law. There are a couple of important differences between law of war rules and human rights law rules. One, already mentioned, is that in war, killing can be justified based on  a  person’s status as the enemy, while in the absence of war, human rights law permits killing only  on the need to act in self-defense. In war, I can shoot my enemy while he is eating in his barracks. Outside of war, I can only shoot a person who poses a threat to life that cannot be stopped otherwise. But what if it was an accident, or a mistake,  as President Donald Trump seems to be suggesting in the case of the Ukrainian plane? If the attack was undertaken without  sufficient  precautions to make sure the target was a military object, that too would be a war crime in armed conflict. 

Another important difference between peace and war is that in war, lawful combatants may not be punished for their lawful actions, which include targeting of enemy forces. This is another reason why the “blood on his hands” argument about Soleimani falls flat. The Gulf  War is long over and those who fought in it, whether Iraqi, Iranian or American, broadly violated no international law in targeting their enemy.  While more recent acts of terrorism allegedly organized by Soleimani violate international law, measures short of assassination, such as sanctions and criminal prosecution, by an international tribunal if necessary, must take precedence. Even if such measures are unavailing, the notion that any state can kill terrorists because their home country is “unwilling or unable” to bring them to justice is questionable.

Related

None of what I’ve written here concerns the wisdom of any of these resorts to force, only their legality. But as a practical matter,  whether or not  they  violate international law, civilian casualties are  common, always tragic, and often preventable. Iran  might have  deliberately targeted a civilian object  or  simply committed a tragic error.  We may never know. Even  if it’s  the latter,  Iran likely violated international law, as has the United States.  There are various ways to determine responsibility. One way, perhaps posing a moral rather than legal question, is to ask whether the 176 souls who perished on that plane would still be alive had the United States not sought to kill  Qassem  Soleimani.  /kakav bestijalni atak na logiku! /

Gabor Rona is a law professor at Cardozo Law School, the former international legal director of Human Rights First, and a former legal advisor in the legal division of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

 

[Radoye]

49 minutes ago, mraki said:

Da, ukrajinski avion sa kanadskim putnicima.

 

Svi ti kanadski putnici su Iranci, jebiga.

[ObiW]

3 hours ago, Krošek said:

mhm. imaš nešto da dodaš?

Pošteno priznali kad su po twiteru počeli da iskaču snimci projektila koji pogadja avion. Do tada su bagerima ravnali mesto gde je avion pao. 

[Krošek]

pa tako uvek funkcioniše priznanje. izbegavaćeš krivicu i prikrivati tragove, sve dok to jedini smislen postupak ne postane suočavanje sa sopstvenom krivicom, a tada, kada si priznao, pitanje je - da li si pošteno priznao ili si dao lažno priznanje, možda formalno prihvatajući odgovornost, ali svaljujući uzrok na nešto drugo, relativizujući i dr. iranci su prvo bagerisali što je glupo i jezivo, a zatim su priznali, i to u celosti, bez ograda i uočljivih laži.

[Filozof manijak]

Ali to nije dovoljno, jer je trebalo da priznaju da su namerno oborili avion. E tada bi im tek poverovali 

[Zabalujev]

A jes, usrali se od tviter snimaka, a Ukrajinci, Kanađani, predstavnnici Boinga i ostali na licu mesta i pregledanje crnih kutija nemaju nikakve veze.