Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just saw a video on Channel 4 News in the Uk of what were proported to be rebels shooting a grounded but running Russian Helicopter with a Milan AT missile.

Some irony about it being a French Missile system if you're so inclined.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The Geneva conventions are there, but do you seriously think that people on a battlefield care?

I know for a fact that some do. On the other hand I would be surprised if some militiamen on the borders of Syria have even heard of the Geneva convention.

Then again shooting down an airliner with Buk missile also counts as a warcrime.

Hyperbole, aye. A lot of people care. The problem starts when you do and your opponents don't.

 notprop wrote:
Just saw a video on Channel 4 News in the Uk of what were proported to be rebels shooting a grounded but running Russian Helicopter with a Milan AT missile.

Some irony about it being a French Missile system if you're so inclined.

If it was the video I saw, I think it was a TOW.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Very wrong. Shooting at pilots parachuting down has explicitly been defined as a war crime under Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions. The same goes for other combatants unable to participate in combat, like those who are wounded and sick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_parachutists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hors_de_combat

Also, the Turkmen are unlawful combatants, which means that most of the normal laws of war and protections do not apply to them. Unlawful combatants are not allowed to shoot anything at all./[/url]

Your statement is full of contradictions, I fear. Firstly, you state that they are committing war crimes under the Geneva Convention, but then state that the Geneva Convention does not apply to them as 'unlawful combatants'. You then state that 'unlawful combatants' are not allowed to shoot at anything at all, which means that since they are (shooting at things), they must be definition be 'lawful combatants'.

The Geneva Conventions are a very nice thing when enacted and enforced between two consenting parties/nations, but there is no 'Law of the World' that dictates in detail what is and is not a war crime, and enforces itself upon the inhabitants of the globe, whether they've heard of it or not. The truth is that throwing around terms like 'war crimes' because some militia got lucky enough to shoot a pilot before he liquified them with a missile is just missing the point.

The point being primarily that when you set out to kill people in a foreign country from a distance, sometimes they get to do it back. And when they do, you have no moral high ground to stand on.

 Frazzled wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You assume he has a right to surrender.

Yeah, because that's something every soldier should have, whether he's from a country whose politics you like or not.

You call him a soldier. They would call him a terrorist. If he had been busy attempting to bomb my family, a bullet is the least bad option he is going to have.

You ought to rethink that. We hit them by any means because they hit us. Is that what you are saying? Even if it involves Geneva convention breaches?

If we take your logic to its own conclusion:
You just justified Al-Quaeda, You just justified (by your own standards) 9/11, which was a retaliation for prior bombings and anti-Islamic activities of the US state.

Is this really how you see this? Retaliation by any means is not of itself a justification, a response has to be measured within the bounds of international law.

Law is made up by the victors.
We napalm people we don't like and that get excited when they set pilots on fire. Who is the criminal, the baby burner or the pilot burner?
Both are worse.

There is no justice. Just Us.

On the flipside, Turkey is a bad actor as well. So Bombs away!

 Ketara wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Very wrong. Shooting at pilots parachuting down has explicitly been defined as a war crime under Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions. The same goes for other combatants unable to participate in combat, like those who are wounded and sick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_parachutists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hors_de_combat

Also, the Turkmen are unlawful combatants, which means that most of the normal laws of war and protections do not apply to them. Unlawful combatants are not allowed to shoot anything at all./[/url]

Your statement is full of contradictions, I fear. Firstly, you state that they are committing war crimes under the Geneva Convention, but then state that the Geneva Convention does not apply to them as 'unlawful combatants'. You then state that 'unlawful combatants' are not allowed to shoot at anything at all, which means that since they are (shooting at things), they must be definition be 'lawful combatants'.

The Geneva Conventions are a very nice thing when enacted and enforced between two consenting parties/nations, but there is no 'Law of the World' that dictates in detail what is and is not a war crime, and enforces itself upon the inhabitants of the globe, whether they've heard of it or not. The truth is that throwing around terms like 'war crimes' because some militia got lucky enough to shoot a pilot before he liquified them with a missile is just missing the point.

The point being primarily that when you set out to kill people in a foreign country from a distance, sometimes they get to do it back. And when they do, you have no moral high ground to stand on.

You are conflating different things. You said that shooting down parachutists is not a war crime. I said that shooting down parachutists is a war crime. This is true.

Then, I said that the Turkmen are unlawful combatants and that a lot of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them. This changes nothing about the fact that shooting down parachutists is still a war crime.
Only lawful combatants are allowed to kill enemy combatants during a war. Someone who fights in a conflict without meeting the requirements for being a combatant according to the Conventions, is not allowed to shoot anyone, because shooting people is a crime . If you shoot someone it is a crime. Shooting someone despite that makes you a criminal, not a lawful combatant. So if a soldier shoots an enemy soldier, this is legal. But if a civilian shoots an enemy soldier, this is illegal, because it is murder (and falls under normal laws, not international ones). Now if a civilians actively starts to take part in a conflict, he stops meeting the requirements for a civilian under the Convention, and if he, like the Turkmen, also does not meet the requirements for being a lawful combatant, he falls into a grey area that has been called 'unlawful combatant'. Unlawful combatants however, can and have been tried for war crimes. So in short, they are not allowed to shoot people because nations (including Syria) generally have laws against such things. Also, because they do participate in a war (despite not being allowed to do so), they can be tried not only under national, but also international laws if they commit warcrimes. The Yugoslavia Tribunal is a good example of this.

There is a 'Law of the World', if the UN says so, which can be enforced regardless of whether people have heard of it or not. This depends on the will of the UN security council.
And here, a militia did not "shoot a pilot before he liquified them with a missile", here it was a state shooting down the aircraft of another state (I don't know about the legality of this), and the militia then killing the pilot hors de combat. The pilot was no threat to them, and they were not allowed to kill him.

There is no moral high ground, to that I agree, but there is a legal high ground, which is what matters when determining war crimes. It is the law, not the morality, that matters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
WTF Turkey? 17 seconds? Apparently the plane was just flying over a tiny 2 km stretch of Turkey that protrudes into Syria. If all such airspace violations were responded to like that, aircraft would be shot down every day...

Leaked Ankara UN letter claims Su-24's ‘air space violation’ lasted 17 seconds

Even if two Russians jets did indeed violate Turkish airspace (which Moscow denies), the intrusion would have lasted for just 17 seconds before one of the Su-24s was shot down, a leaked Turkish letter to the UN revealed.



Two Su-24 planes approached Turkish airspace on Tuesday morning, a letter addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the 15 members of the UN Security Council said.

The Russian planes are described in a document, published by WikiLeaks and Al Jazeera, as aircraft “the nationality of which is unknown.”

The letter allegedly from Turkish UN Ambassador Halit Cevik reiterates Ankara’s claim that the two planes were “warned 10 times during a period of five minutes via ‘emergency’ channels” to change direction.

“Disregarding these warnings, both planes, at an altitude of 19,000 feet, violated Turkish national airspace to a depth of 1.36 miles and 1.15 miles in length for 17 seconds from 9:24:05 local time,” the leaked document said.

One of the planes then left the Turkish airspace, while “plane two was fired at while in Turkish airspace by Turkish F-16s,” Cevik allegedly wrote.

This provided ground for Turkish forces to attack the Russian warplanes in accordance with the new rules of military engagement adopted in 2012 over the deterioration of the situation in Syria.

“Following the violation, plane one left Turkish national airspace. Plane two was fired at while in Turkish airspace by Turkish F-16s performing air combat patrolling in that area,” the leaked letter said. “Plane two crashed onto the Syrian side of the Turkish-Syrian border.”



Russia denies these claims, saying its plane was downed in Syrian airspace, where Russia is conducting an air operation against Islamic State and other terrorists.

Russia’s General Staff said that airfield radar at the Hmeymim base showed that it was the Turkish fighter jet that actually entered Syrian airspace as it attacked the Russian bomber.

Vladimir Putin called Ankara’s actions “a stab in the back delivered by accomplices of the terrorists,” adding that the incident will have “severe consequences” for relations between Russia and Turkey.

There are conflicting reports on the fate of the two pilots from the downed Su-24 warplane.

The Turkmen militia, fighting the Syrian government in the area, claimed to have killed both pilots as they were parachuting from their jet after it was hit.

The Free Syrian Army affiliate, the 10th Brigade in the Coast also said that it is in possession of the corpse of one of the Russian pilots and is searching for another one.

The General Staff said that, according to preliminary data, one of the Su-24 pilots died after being fired at from the ground, while a rescue operation for his partner is underway.

However, Reuters cited a Turkish government official, who said that both pilots are alive and Ankara is working to retrieve them from the rebels.

https://www.rt.com/news/323343-turkey-un-syria-russian-plane/ has the leaked letter.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34914375 has the map showing the "can you really call that an incursion?".

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Again, they would need to forward base those Migs and Sus, AND the logistics of maintaining them and all the support assets needed for an air to air campaign. From a C2 perspective alone Turkey has a much easier time, plus their assets are protected by a sophisticated and established IADS.

The Russians have had trouble maintaining air to ground sortie rates. They are not good at force projection against third world targets that don't fire back much. Attempting to take on a country with AWACs and other C2 assets coupled with the IADS Turkey has won't be easy. They had a hard time doing it in Georgia and that did not require near the logistic capability fighting the Turks will.

Plus that whole - hard to force project when all your assets are slags of now radioactive material.
Turkey is a NATO country. There is no Russia/Turkey air war. There could however be an escalated Russia / US nuke war.

Not necessarily, Russia could shot down all the Turkish planes over Syria and NATO would do nothing about it as NATO only protects against attacks on the members' territories.

 Ketara wrote:

 IGtR= wrote:


To quote from the ICRC Guidelines on war crimes:
"(ii) Perpetrators. Practice in the form of legislation, military manuals and case-law shows that war crimes are violations committed either by members of the armed forces or by civilians against members of the armed forces, civilians or protected objects of the adverse party.[28] National legislation typically does not limit the commission of war crimes to members of the armed forces, but rather indicates the acts that are criminal when committed by any person.[29] Several military manuals contain the same approach.[30] A number of military manuals, as well as some legislation, expressly include the term “civilians” among the persons that can commit war crimes.[31] "

Sorry, but I'm going to pick a few holes in what you've just posted. Primarily along the lines that

a) Your own post admits that the definition of a 'war crime' can vary according to the military and legal system used. Might makes right when it comes to enforcing 'war crimes' in foreign locations,
b) the agreed norms are agreed between governments, and any irregular/civilian force cannot be automatically considered to have signed up to/agreed to enforce and be judged by random international laws, and
c) if Russia can declare that their laws of engagement permit them to fire on defenceless targets, those selfsame targets can declare that their law of engagement permits them to do the same thing (because as an irregular armed civilian group in a geographic location with no government present, they can be considered the de facto government).

You then go on to assert the Rome statute supports your position vis a vis Russian airstrikes

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

Firstly none of the quoted position justifies your position. You, or any prosecutor cannot demonstrate or even deductively or abductively reason that Russian airstrikes are targeted at civilians. This is a wild assertion and does not stand up to any serious scrutiny, and certainly would not be upheld in the ICC, widely recognised as the leading authority on war crimes.

Secondly onto your rebuttal

a) My post admits that rules of engagement are situational. This is a statement of fact and it is a misrepresentation of my argument to state that the definition of "war crime" is a contextual one. The enforcement of war crimes whether that is a meaningful statement is done through the ICC and is international and outside of any nation states control. Any determination of war crimes can be made externally and with a degree of legal objectivity. Rules of engagement are evidential not legally binding for the ICC.

b) Irregular forces and there commanders fall under the authority of the ICC, see the case law and the list of indicted persons here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Court
Many of these people had no connection to regular armed forces at the time their alleged crimes took place. Irregular forces operating in a situation where war crimes are alleged to have been committed are as much under the jurisdiction of the ICC as regular forces.

c) Rules of engagement here do not determine what is legal under international law. They merely determine what the accepted practice is amongst the members of a particular system. You cannot oust the jurisdiction of the ICC through these memoranda. Furthermore your reasoning here is confusing. Are you arguing that for the presence of establishing legal authority we can treat rebels as governments but that individual rebels can act with impunity as they are not agents of any lawful authority and therefore not military persons? Regardless of this the issue of RoE is irrelevant as the body trying them would be the ICC not their domestic courts.

Again your anti-Russian bias is making you conflate several issues and to deny the independance and the jurisdiction of the ICC.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

You are conflating different things. You said that shooting down parachutists is not a war crime. I said that shooting down parachutists is a war crime. This is true.

Then, I said that the Turkmen are unlawful combatants and that a lot of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them. This changes nothing about the fact that shooting down parachutists is still a war crime.
Only lawful combatants are allowed to kill enemy combatants during a war. Someone who fights in a conflict without meeting the requirements for being a combatant according to the Conventions, is not allowed to shoot anyone, because shooting people is a crime . If you shoot someone it is a crime. Shooting someone despite that makes you a criminal, not a lawful combatant. So if a soldier shoots an enemy soldier, this is legal. But if a civilian shoots an enemy soldier, this is illegal, because it is murder (and falls under normal laws, not international ones). Now if a civilians actively starts to take part in a conflict, he stops meeting the requirements for a civilian under the Convention, and if he, like the Turkmen, also does not meet the requirements for being a lawful combatant, he falls into a grey area that has been called 'unlawful combatant'. Unlawful combatants however, can and have been tried for war crimes. So in short, they are not allowed to shoot people because nations (including Syria) generally have laws against such things. Also, because they do participate in a war (despite not being allowed to do so), they can be tried not only under national, but also international laws if they commit warcrimes. The Yugoslavia Tribunal is a good example of this.

So just to clarify here. You believe if a civilian kills a soldier, it's a crime, but not a war crime. If a soldier kills a soldier, it's legal. But if someone 'actively takes part in a conflict', he's now a 'unlawful combatant' and when he kills a soldier without following the Geneva Convention it's a 'war crime'? By that logic, there must be literally millions of 'war criminals' out there, from people who were alive in WW2, through to every member of every even slightly revolutionary movement across South America, Africa, and the Middle-East.

And when you stretch a term out that far, it ceases to have any real meaning or purposet. Which is, I suppose, my point. I think everyone would agree that a group of soldiers executing civilians in a field is a war crime, as is a revolutionary movement rounding two hundred hostages they've taken prisoner and chopping off their heads. Taking potshots at a pilot who's just bailed out an aircraft engaged on attack runs/surveillance runs for later attack runs? Not so much.

There is a 'Law of the World', if the UN says so, which can be enforced regardless of whether people have heard of it or not. This depends on the will of the UN security council.

The UN can whistle laws up until the cows come home, they're essentially a group of bureaucrats sitting in a room. They're unelected, and have no jurisdiction over people who have no representation there (the Syrian Government could no longer be said to represent Syria), and what's more, their ability to enforce laws is completely dependent upon member states choosing to do so. In a situation between what you would dub 'lawful combatants', namely, conventional militaries and nation-states they can meddle to their hearts content.

The fact remains though, that UN law in no more applies to the situation in Syria right now any more than it does uncontacted Indian tribes in Peru.

And here, a militia did not "shoot a pilot before he liquified them with a missile", here it was a state shooting down the aircraft of another state (I don't know about the legality of this), and the militia then killing the pilot hors de combat. The pilot was no threat to them, and they were not allowed to kill him.

Says who? You seem really hung up on what people are 'allowed' and 'not allowed' to do, as if the Geneva Convention was more than just an agreement between conventional powers that somehow binds every man and woman on this planet under a moral and legal harness. People do what they're going to do, and not everything fits into nice neat legal classifications, and there's no world Government that determines the law for all of us.

It was a group of people who've been getting by airstrikes. They saw one of the planes that's been delivering those strikes getting shot down, and, most likely high on the fact that they could finally do something to hit some of the people who've been lobbing explosives into their houses, took some potshots on him as he was descending. Let's not make more of this than it is. If this is a war crime, then frankly, the term ceases to have any meaning or relevance.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IGtR= wrote:


Firstly none of the quoted position justifies your position. You, or any prosecutor cannot demonstrate or even deductively or abductively reason that Russian airstrikes are targeted at civilians. This is a wild assertion and does not stand up to any serious scrutiny, and certainly would not be upheld in the ICC, widely recognised as the leading authority on war crimes.

I would be very interested to hear how you would separate 'civilian' from 'civilian with a gun', 'civilian with a gun who hates Assad and keeps an eye on the neighbourhood to take pot shots at any Government troops', 'civilian with a gun who is an islamic extremist and out to promote ISIS', 'civilian with a gun who will take potshots at both ISIS and Government troops', 'civilian with a gun who is willing to travel to fight ISIS', 'deserter with a gun who bands together with a mixture of the above to keep Assad out because he knows he'll be shot if Assad comes back into power', and so forth(I could keep going for a while), and point out which ones are 'civilians' and which ones are these mysterious 'unlawful combatants'.

The truth is, the line between 'civilian' and 'combatant' is a heavily fluid one, and airstrikes from anyone rarely make distinctions. I daresay the Russian airstrikes have hit practically everyone on that list above and more. But which ones are civilians? Nobody cares. It's a guy with a gun, possibly hanging out with lots of guys with guns, and that alone is enough in most people's minds to tag them 'non-civilian'. As you've just clearly demonstrated. Individual motivations are irrelevant and removed by the desire to group and homogenise people into easy categories.

So not, not so much wild assertion that Russia is hitting civilians as a recognition of the fact that the people who make up the casualty lists have personal individual motivations and lives beyond the bite sized overly simplistic labels of 'civilian' and 'unlawful combatant'. And demonstrating that 'Because these guys have guns they're not civilians' when the air strikes hit is just sloppy thinking.

a) My post admits that rules of engagement are situational. This is a statement of fact and it is a misrepresentation of my argument to state that the definition of "war crime" is a contextual one. The enforcement of war crimes whether that is a meaningful statement is done through the ICC and is international and outside of any nation states control. Any determination of war crimes can be made externally and with a degree of legal objectivity. Rules of engagement are evidential not legally binding for the ICC.

b) Irregular forces and there commanders fall under the authority of the ICC, see the case law and the list of indicted persons here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Court
Many of these people had no connection to regular armed forces at the time their alleged crimes took place. Irregular forces operating in a situation where war crimes are alleged to have been committed are as much under the jurisdiction of the ICC as regular forces.

c) Rules of engagement here do not determine what is legal under international law. They merely determine what the accepted practice is amongst the members of a particular system. You cannot oust the jurisdiction of the ICC through these memoranda. Furthermore your reasoning here is confusing. Are you arguing that for the presence of establishing legal authority we can treat rebels as governments but that individual rebels can act with impunity as they are not agents of any lawful authority and therefore not military persons? Regardless of this the issue of RoE is irrelevant as the body trying them would be the ICC not their domestic courts.

I'll repeat what I just said in another format. The ICC claims it has world jurisdiction. This is patently untrue, as evidenced by the fact that many people who commit atrocities go untouched. The ICC's actual jurisdiction stretches as far as it's constituent supporters are willing to support it for. In much the same way as any lawmaking body. Me and three of my mates can claim jurisdiction over scorpion farms in Australia, but it doesn't mean much if the Australian Government isn't willing to go collect the scorpion taxes for us, and lock up the people we judge guilty, eh wot?

As far as I can see, you could argue that them shooting down the parachutist is a war crime. But then again, you could argue practically any offensive military action a war crime given a sufficiently good lawyer. In this context? Even if you won, you'd effectively remove the meaning from the phrase 'war crime' and turn it into such a general label as to be meaningless in the context of conflict studies.

Again your anti-Russian bias is making you conflate several issues and to deny the independance and the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Oh dear. I recommend rebooting your 'Motivations of Internet Strangers' psychic reader, it's clearly on the blink.

 Ketara wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

You are conflating different things. You said that shooting down parachutists is not a war crime. I said that shooting down parachutists is a war crime. This is true.

Then, I said that the Turkmen are unlawful combatants and that a lot of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them. This changes nothing about the fact that shooting down parachutists is still a war crime.
Only lawful combatants are allowed to kill enemy combatants during a war. Someone who fights in a conflict without meeting the requirements for being a combatant according to the Conventions, is not allowed to shoot anyone, because shooting people is a crime . If you shoot someone it is a crime. Shooting someone despite that makes you a criminal, not a lawful combatant. So if a soldier shoots an enemy soldier, this is legal. But if a civilian shoots an enemy soldier, this is illegal, because it is murder (and falls under normal laws, not international ones). Now if a civilians actively starts to take part in a conflict, he stops meeting the requirements for a civilian under the Convention, and if he, like the Turkmen, also does not meet the requirements for being a lawful combatant, he falls into a grey area that has been called 'unlawful combatant'. Unlawful combatants however, can and have been tried for war crimes. So in short, they are not allowed to shoot people because nations (including Syria) generally have laws against such things. Also, because they do participate in a war (despite not being allowed to do so), they can be tried not only under national, but also international laws if they commit warcrimes. The Yugoslavia Tribunal is a good example of this.

So just to clarify here. You believe if a civilian kills a soldier, it's a crime, but not a war crime. If a soldier kills a soldier, it's legal. But if someone 'actively takes part in a conflict', he's now a 'unlawful combatant' and when he kills a soldier without following the Geneva Convention it's a 'war crime'? By that logic, there must be literally millions of 'war criminals' out there, from people who were alive in WW2, through to every member of every even slightly revolutionary movement across South America, Africa, and the Middle-East.

No, it would not be a war crime. You know full well that I did not say that. A war crime is a war crime, shooting a soldier (if you are not a lawful combatant in a combat situation) is a "normal" crime and is persecuted under regular national laws.

 Ketara wrote:

And when you stretch a term out that far, it ceases to have any real meaning or purposet. Which is, I suppose, my point. I think everyone would agree that a group of soldiers executing civilians in a field is a war crime, as is a revolutionary movement rounding two hundred hostages they've taken prisoner and chopping off their heads. Taking potshots at a pilot who's just bailed out an aircraft engaged on attack runs/surveillance runs for later attack runs? Not so much.

You are wrong. Again, Protocol I of the Geneva Convention defines shooting a bailed out pilot as a war crime.

 Ketara wrote:

There is a 'Law of the World', if the UN says so, which can be enforced regardless of whether people have heard of it or not. This depends on the will of the UN security council.

The UN can whistle laws up until the cows come home, they're essentially a group of bureaucrats sitting in a room. They're unelected, and have no jurisdiction over people who have no representation there (the Syrian Government could no longer be said to represent Syria), and what's more, their ability to enforce laws is completely dependent upon member states choosing to do so. In a situation between what you would dub 'lawful combatants', namely, conventional militaries and nation-states they can meddle to their hearts content.

The fact remains though, that UN law in no more applies to the situation in Syria right now any more than it does uncontacted Indian tribes in Peru.

The Syrian government, under international law, fully represents the Syrian state (that should be like, really really obvious. There is no state without government). An internal conflict does not have any effect on the legal representation of Syria. UN has full jurisdiction over all of its member states, which include both Syria (and thus anti-government groups as well) and Peru (and thus uncontacted Indians as well). The UN is not a democracy and has never pretended to be. It is ruled by the security council, only for the permanent members is there a democracy. Now enforcement of the laws is a different matter of course. Enforcement falls to the great powers, but they are often reluctant to do so even in the rare cases they agree on something. The UN isn't very useful in most cases, but that changes nothing about the legality of its laws.

 Ketara wrote:

And here, a militia did not "shoot a pilot before he liquified them with a missile", here it was a state shooting down the aircraft of another state (I don't know about the legality of this), and the militia then killing the pilot hors de combat. The pilot was no threat to them, and they were not allowed to kill him.

Says who? You seem really hung up on what people are 'allowed' and 'not allowed' to do, as if the Geneva Convention was more than just an agreement between conventional powers that somehow binds every man and woman on this planet under a moral and legal harness. People do what they're going to do, and not everything fits into nice neat legal classifications, and there's no world Government that determines the law for all of us.

*sigh* Any state that is a UN member is bound by UN laws. Feel free to ask your state to leave the UN if you disagree with those laws. The Geneva Conventions are a document of international law and apply to all nations that have signed and all of their citizens (including citizens that are in rebellion against the state). Since every state in the world has signed the Conventions, it applies to every single person in the entire world. Since when do you need to agree to laws personally in order to be bound by them? You have to obey the Conventions, even if you never signed them or disagree with them. If you break them, you can be persecuted if the security council decides so.

 Ketara wrote:
It was a group of people who've been getting by airstrikes. They saw one of the planes that's been delivering those strikes getting shot down, and, most likely high on the fact that they could finally do something to hit some of the people who've been lobbing explosives into their houses, took some potshots on him as he was descending. Let's not make more of this than it is. If this is a war crime, then frankly, the term ceases to have any meaning or relevance.

Your opinions, emotions and feeling of morality do not change reality. According to the Conventions, this was a war crime. Laws are laws, it doesn't matter how you feel about it. "war crime" is a legal, not an emotional term. Killing thousands of civilians as collateral damage might be worse than killing a single harmless pilot, but the first is not a war crime, while the second is. That is just the way things work, and there is sound logic and reasoning behind it.

I wonder if NATO would decide to go to war for Turkey. I feel like Turkey is the least liked NATO member, with all the gakky things they do.

Ketara
I would be very interested to hear how you would separate 'civilian' from 'civilian with a gun', 'civilian with a gun …. and so forth(I could keep going for a while), and point out which ones are 'civilians' and which ones are these mysterious 'unlawful combatants'.

Response
I do not believe in unlawful combatants. It is simply a matter of confusing who does it with whether this matters. Murder is murder. War crimes are war crimes regardless of who does them. You don’t have to be a regular member of a fighting force to be indicted for a war crime and the court will examine the situation, but the accusation war crime can be levelled prima facie against an irregular, rebel, civilian with a gun, whatever you want to call them, if it is a war crime the perpetrator is not important.

I do not really understand the point you are after in your next two paragraphs. You cannot demonstrate intention to ONLY kill civilians so perhaps you are conceding that Russian airstrikes could not be characterised as war crimes

Ketara
I'll repeat what I just said in another format. The ICC claims it has world jurisdiction. This is patently untrue, as evidenced by the fact that many people who commit atrocities go untouched. The ICC's actual jurisdiction stretches as far as it's constituent supporters are willing to support it for. In much the same way as any lawmaking body. Me and three of my mates can claim jurisdiction over scorpion farms in Australia, but it doesn't mean much if the Australian Government isn't willing to go collect the scorpion taxes for us, and lock up the people we judge guilty, eh wot?

Response
Well of course its jurisdiction extends as far as it claims in most of its cases, but we can see situations where this has been upheld, even outside of the normal model. Nuremberg was way outside of what you would have said was international law in 1940 and yet the claims were upheld, so too the ICC has jurisdiction in many instances across the world presently. Where necessary international law, and the norms of the international legal system of rights protection, can be imposed, even retroactively, on to parties not subject to the treaties.

Here it is important to distinguish between the conceptual and the practical. Yes it is unlikely that the ICC will claim jurisdiction over every infraction of international law as this is not politically expedient, but it theoretically has this power. Do not confuse the non-exercise of power with its non-existance. As to your argument about scorpions that is clearly a ridiculous comparison. If I have international jurisdiction, and I exercise this I am clearly not creating a problem.

Ketara
As far as I can see, you could argue that them shooting down the parachutist is a war crime…. Even if you won, you'd effectively remove the meaning from the phrase 'war crime' and turn it into such a general label as to be meaningless in the context of conflict studies.

Response
The definition of a war crime is anything under the Geneva Conventions 1949 as well as any other “serious violations of the laws and customs of war”. This is already a phrase so meaningless so as to mean that anything could be under the remit of war crimes so long as it seemed outside of normal combat operations. That boat has sailed. Don’t try to argue that it could not be a war crime as it clearly meets the threshold for this label. You have a problem with the label and that is fine, but do not misrepresent the state of the legal system that you are referring to. The whole point of the label for the ICC is that it is a general label and is fairly inclusive.

I apologise for assuming that you were blindingly anti-Russian, you are clearly just determined to be wrong.

I think I'm going to bow out on this one, as my interest in the affair doesn't quite extend to another book length post.

Have a good evening Gentlemen.

Russia has been pushing the limits of air space for a while now, and about a month ago Turkey warned Russia to stay out of its airspace. I believe this illustrates the point pretty well

Here's how I personally see things.

Turkey's been acting increasingly schizophrenic, bipolar, and belligerent in general.

At the same time, Russia has also been acting in a very similar manner. Both are mucking about with external parties to satisfy internal politics.

However, Turkey has also repeatedly issues warnings to Russia for some time now, and it would appear that Russia was fairly routinely basically daring Turkey to do something about it, or simply ignoring the Turks, who seem to be looking for an excuse to reinforce their wartime "chops" for internal audiences.

With the poor attitudes, lack of coordination of efforts, mutually exclusive goals, and twitchy trigger fingers, something like this was only a matter of time. I'm sorry it cost lives, but lots of people have been talking about *exactly* this kind of a situation developing for several months now, it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

I'm just glad it wasn't a US plane involved in taking down a Russian aircraft.

So, what we have:

- One pilot killed by turkmen rebels during landing with parachute

- Another one hided and saved by Assad spetznaz

- One trooper died when rescue helicopter destroyed on the ground by AT missile

No, one airman killed by Turkmen, the second probably the same but unclear. One naval infantryman killed in the helicopter hit by ground fire from said Turkmen. The same guys Russia was bombing before the shoot down. Damaged helicopter abandoned, and later destroyed by a TOW missile.

Russia should have stuck to just bombing ISIS, and not acting as air support for Hezbollah, the Iranian Revolutionary guard, and a dictator who has used chemical weapons on his own civilian population.

According to our media, everything where bombs falling is ISIL. We know that's not true. But it's ok, because other terrorists almost same evil as IS is. IS actually bombed too (hundreds of their fuel trucks burned).

 Vaktathi wrote:
However, Turkey has also repeatedly issues warnings to Russia for some time now, and it would appear that Russia was fairly routinely basically daring Turkey to do something about it, or simply ignoring the Turks, who seem to be looking for an excuse to reinforce their wartime "chops" for internal audiences.

Well, airspace violations do happen when you fly in tight corridors at high speeds. I don't actually think Russian transport planes enroute to Kaliningrad violate Finnish or Estonian airspace because they deliberately choose to, it's just the pilot looking away for 15 seconds during which he's already several klicks late for his next turn. What seems deliberate is the way these planes never respond to radio communications about their violation, and lately have been flying with transponders off. Message being mighty Russia doesn't need to explain small mistakes.

As you say Turkey has been complaining earlier and could well have been looking for an excuse to make an example. It's not just the airspace violations though. IIRC the turks also consider the turkmeni (being bombed by Russia) rebelling against Assad as allies they should help a bit. And none of the others bombing ISIS is interested in bombing some Kurds on behalf of Turkey... There's just too many agendas involved here to make everyone happy.

Turkey is an evil empire! Their leader is psychotic dictator! Turkey support ISIL! They byuing oil from terrorists! They provide traveling service for europeans who wants join ISIS! Turkey bombed kurds! Kurds are good guys! They are friends of USA. Turkey mad! They use NATO for their own plans against Greece, slavs, Kavkaz and non-islamic arabs. They violated Syrian airspace, blablabla

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Turkey is an evil empire! Their leader is psychotic dictator!

Pot. Kettle.

They byuing oil from terrorists!

Pot. Kettle. Technically speaking there is literally no one not buying oil from ISIS right now. Once they smuggle it out of their immediate territory, it just gets mixed in with all the other oil leaving the region. There's probably heaping helpings of gallons of it in Europe, Africa, and South East Asia by now.

They provide traveling service for europeans who wants join ISIS!

No they aren't. They simply had no special procedures to block anyone from using their airports and borders as a gateway to Syria and Iraq. Foreign nationals fighting ISIS are going through all the same places.

Kurds are good guys!

Well, good might be stretching it. They're convenient and reliable, but they're also very ethnocentric. The Syrian Civil War started originally with significant support from and for Kurdish equality in Syria. However, as the war has dragged on and ISIS has become a players, the Kurds have broken away from the other rebel groups. They've been getting much more support and enjoy much better reputations (despite engaging in most of the same activities). However they've begun deporting non-Kurds from the territories they control and are refusing a lot of non-Kurdish refugees.

non-islamic arabs.

I suddenly get the sense you don't know much about ethnic groups in the region.

They violated Syrian airspace

Who isn't?

 LordofHats wrote:

Pot. Kettle.

wat?

Technically speaking there is literally no one not buying oil from ISIS right now. Once they smuggle it out of their immediate territory, it just gets mixed in with all the other oil leaving the region. There's probably heaping helpings of gallons of it in Europe, Africa, and South East Asia by now.

Turks should bomb or arrest that oil caravans.

No they aren't. They simply had no special procedures to block anyone from using their airports and borders as a gateway to Syria and Iraq. Foreign nationals fighting ISIS are going through all the same places.

In other "normal" countries ISIS not moving freely as in Turkey. Turkey even don't stop armed technicals with terrorists.

Well, good might be stretching it. They're convenient and reliable, but they're also very ethnocentric. The Syrian Civil War started originally with significant support from and for Kurdish equality in Syria. However, as the war has dragged on and ISIS has become a players, the Kurds have broken away from the other rebel groups. They've been getting much more support and enjoy much better reputations (despite engaging in most of the same activities). However they've begun deporting non-Kurds from the territories they control and are refusing a lot of non-Kurdish refugees.

I hope, Soviet-Kurd relations will be continued by Russia.

I suddenly get the sense you don't know much about ethnic groups in the region.

They hate kurds and alavites and like fundamental islamists like Nusra and Saudi Arabia, because Turkey always had plans to became Islamic World centre

Who isn't?

Japan?

Turks should bomb or arrest that oil caravans.

Because the whole mess is their sole responsibility?

In other "normal" countries ISIS not moving freely as in Turkey. Turkey even don't stop armed technicals with terrorists.

ISIS is moving across multiple borders, not just Turkey's. Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq are all in the same boat.

I hope, Soviet-Kurd relations will be continued by Russia.

Oh I'm sure they will.

They hate kurds and alavites

They don't hate Kurds per se, they hate the idea of a Kurdish state, because such a state would involve secession of large chunks of Southern and South-Eastern Turkey. I'm unaware of any state that is okay with the idea of losing huge chunks of its territory to independence movements.

fundamental islamists like Nusra and Saudi Arabia

Like? No. But like we find it convenient and reliable to back the Kurds in fighting ISIS, Middle Eastern states like Jordan, Turkey, and SA, find it convenient to back Islamist groups in the same fight (especially since none of them want to back the Kurds). The amount of pawns in play in the Syrian war might be a record. Kurds, Syrians, Turkmen, Islamists, Assyrians, others I don't bother remember but probably are there, and they all come in like, 6 different flavors.

because Turkey always had plans to became Islamic World centre

Pot. Kettle.

Seriously. The least you can do is be honest and instead of whining about how 'evil the Turkish imperialists' are, just be straight up and say 'Turkey's imperialist ambitions is in the way of my imperialist ambitions.' Seriously. The posturing is completely transparent. Keeping it just makes Russia look stupid.

Japan?

I'll give you that one

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Pot. Kettle.

wat?

"The pot calling the kettle black."

Just an idiom meaning that you accuse someone of doing something you're doing yourself.
(Meaning, put into context : Putin and Erdogan are the same).


(Am I correct ? It's quite different from my own idiom for this kind of situation "Bonnet blanc, blanc bonnet", and they're not meaning the exact same thing anyway)


Back on topic, calling Erdogan a "psychotic dictator" is kinda funny coming from a Russian. Putin and Erdogan roughly use the same methods. As for the bombing of Kurds, Russians are doing the same with "moderate" rebels and civilian populations.

Yes, Erdogan is just a president. But how can I loose a chance to call someone "dictator"? You did that many times I too want to do that


Automatically Appended Next Post:
News: Russia will bring S-400 AA system into Syria. OMG things being heatening

Second pilot has been saved from rebel/terrorist groups by Syrian commandos in a 12-hour mission.

Good.

I am impressed they managed to track him and his captors to their hiding place.

I recall there was a video of him, bruised and unconscious. He was presumed dead, though.