RugbyRebels

Here is a map which shows conclusively that the following conflicts are the result of interest in pipelines:
Russian annexation of South Ossetia
Russian annexation of Crimea
Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine
Iranian involvement in Syria (providing the bulk of the Syrian armed forces manpower)
Russian involvement in Syria
Russian naval activity in the Eastern med
Russian agitation in Moldova
Increasing moves towards a dictatorship in Turkey
Turkish involvement in Syria

No really, it's true. A man on the internet told me.

Stones of granite wrote:
No really, it's true. A man on the internet told me.

Unless you're going to quote from agitprop sites who've not noted Russia isn't even pretending to be a communist country anymore I don't think you're onto much.

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
No really, it's true. A man on the internet told me.

Unless you're going to quote from agitprop sites who've not noted Russia isn't even pretending to be a communist country anymore I don't think you're onto much.

Find a conflict then look for a pipeline to blame it on. Even one that's not even been built yet. You know it makes sense.

caldeyrfc wrote:As in most things in life I am ignorant about this , but, why is this not a war crime? What actually constitutes a war crime? I really can't imagine what it was like to be put in a situation like that and hope I never am but at the end of the day even though with the celebrations of family and friends he still killed someone unlawfully

It is a "war crime", and he was (rightly) prosecuted for it. What more did you expect?

Stones reverts to an idiotic, point-the-finger-at-others tactic, which is the epitome of hypocritical denialism. Russia hasn't slaughtered 10 million Muslims right across the Middle East over the past few decades and isn't occupying half the region either. The occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (tbc) are all about oil and gas, and pointing the finger at the Crimea (which voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia in a peaceful transition) is peurile nonsense:

rowan wrote:Stones reverts to an idiotic, point-the-finger-at-others tactic, which is the epitome of hypocritical denialism. Russia hasn't slaughtered 10 million Muslims right across the Middle East over the past few decades and isn't occupying half the region either. The occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (tbc) are all about oil and gas, and pointing the finger at the Crimea (which voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia in a peaceful transition) is peurile nonsense:

"point-the-finger-at-others tactic"

You couldn't make it up you fucking simpleton.

Crimea was occupied by a Russian Spetnaz unit, THEN the Russians held a Referendum that nearly no one turned out for. When they counted the results, some fuckwit was dicked with making up the numbers. They went through the whole charade so that gullible idiots like you would bang on about for eternity to try and divert from stuff like them shooting down an airliner.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderi ... b75546f172

Stones of granite wrote:

caldeyrfc wrote:As in most things in life I am ignorant about this , but, why is this not a war crime? What actually constitutes a war crime? I really can't imagine what it was like to be put in a situation like that and hope I never am but at the end of the day even though with the celebrations of family and friends he still killed someone unlawfully

It is a "war crime", and he was (rightly) prosecuted for it. What more did you expect?

As far as I can find out he was convicted for murder and then manslaughter not a war crime. Don't know too much but if he was accused of committing a war crime (without inverted commas) isn't The Hague the place to do that?

caldeyrfc wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

caldeyrfc wrote:As in most things in life I am ignorant about this , but, why is this not a war crime? What actually constitutes a war crime? I really can't imagine what it was like to be put in a situation like that and hope I never am but at the end of the day even though with the celebrations of family and friends he still killed someone unlawfully

It is a "war crime", and he was (rightly) prosecuted for it. What more did you expect?

As far as I can find out he was convicted for murder and then manslaughter not a war crime. Don't know too much but if he was accused of committing a war crime (without inverted commas) isn't The Hague the place to do that?

Not necessarily. The ICC is the venue for war crimes which come under the scope: "part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes".

and in any case, the term "war crime" covers a number of different activities. Nobody is prosecuted for a "war crime", they are prosecuted for murder, or genocide or whatever.

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:Stones reverts to an idiotic, point-the-finger-at-others tactic, which is the epitome of hypocritical denialism. Russia hasn't slaughtered 10 million Muslims right across the Middle East over the past few decades and isn't occupying half the region either. The occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (tbc) are all about oil and gas, and pointing the finger at the Crimea (which voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia in a peaceful transition) is peurile nonsense:

"point-the-finger-at-others tactic"

You couldn't make it up you fucking simpleton.

Crimea was occupied by a Russian Spetnaz unit, THEN the Russians held a Referendum that nearly no one turned out for. When they counted the results, some fuckwit was dicked with making up the numbers. They went through the whole charade so that gullible idiots like you would bang on about for eternity to try and divert from stuff like them shooting down an airliner.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderi ... b75546f172

The Crimea is predominantly ethnic Russian, and it's been that way for longer than New Zealand has been mostly British, so it is hardly surprising. The Syrian and Ukranian conflicts were instigated by the US and that's not even controversial. The Russians were actually invited by the former to help liberate them from the US-armed rebels-cum-terrorists. Even Obama conceded America's involvement. As for Turkey, you don't have a clue what is going on here, I'm afraid. The dictatorship-to-be gets its strength directly from Washington, after the democratic government and its army refused to co-operate in the genocidal invasion of Iraq. That's what you get for disobeying orders - one-man-rule. But somehow in your glaringly Russophobic little world this has somehow all become Moscow's fault.

Anyway, I ought to thank you for this glimpse into the mentality of a shameless imperialist. You would have slotted right in with the Raj, blowing Indians out of cannons and all, while the whole time pointing the finger at others...

Shameless Imperialist.

Take that you bastard.

For an avowed scottish independence supporter, that's actually quite an insult. Or it would be if it came from someone who was worthy of any consideration.

Stones of granite wrote: Find a conflict then look for a pipeline to blame it on. Even one that's not even been built yet. You know it makes sense.

I'm afraid your sarcastic tone does nothing to hide the fundamental truth of what you've written. It is frighteningly accurate to characterise the middle east conflict as Gazprom v Halliburton. That is what the overwhelming proportion of wars are all about.
Out of interest,.....why do you think the west is involved/started wars based in the oil/gas rich region...?. Hmmm?.

caldeyrfc wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

caldeyrfc wrote:As in most things in life I am ignorant about this , but, why is this not a war crime? What actually constitutes a war crime? I really can't imagine what it was like to be put in a situation like that and hope I never am but at the end of the day even though with the celebrations of family and friends he still killed someone unlawfully

It is a "war crime", and he was (rightly) prosecuted for it. What more did you expect?

As far as I can find out he was convicted for murder and then manslaughter not a war crime. Don't know too much but if he was accused of committing a war crime (without inverted commas) isn't The Hague the place to do that?

In this context, the murder was a war crime. It is left to individual militaries to prosecute their own, only when they can't or refuse to is it referred to an international body. Ben then one murder probably wouldn't be investigated.

Blackman was subject to U.K. Law and the crime was murder. There are some crimes which don't exist in the civilian world, but where possible, military law refers back to civilian, hence the murder charge.

Stones of granite wrote:

caldeyrfc wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
It is a "war crime", and he was (rightly) prosecuted for it. What more did you expect?

As far as I can find out he was convicted for murder and then manslaughter not a war crime. Don't know too much but if he was accused of committing a war crime (without inverted commas) isn't The Hague the place to do that?

Not necessarily. The ICC is the venue for war crimes which come under the scope: "part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes".

British personnel would only get to the The Hague if the crime was huge or if the uk government basically failed in its obligations to investigate and prosecute.

rowan wrote:Digby's problem is that he is unable to grasp the reality of the situation - that this is a long-term occupation of another country in which NATO's primary interest is transporting gas out of the Caspian. Civilians are not being protected, as evidenced by the ongoing wholesale carnage, the Taliban and war lords haven't been reined in, the opium trade continues to flourish, and the women's rights America helped destroy by overthrowing the progressive socialist government of the 70s haven't been returned either - not even remotely. These guys aren't 'heroes.' They're no different to the troops who occupied Vietnam, India, Kenya and Egypt; no different, in fact, to the German troops which occupied Poland and France. I don't care much about this particular individual, but the case needs to be viewed in that context.

Good grief. Total and utter, ignorant rubbish.

jared_7 wrote:

caldeyrfc wrote:As in most things in life I am ignorant about this , but, why is this not a war crime? What actually constitutes a war crime? I really can't imagine what it was like to be put in a situation like that and hope I never am but at the end of the day even though with the celebrations of family and friends he still killed someone unlawfully

Well its been revealed that US-led strikes have killed close to 300 civilians in Mosul since February. When Russia does it, its a war crime, when we do it we launch a very very VERY serious investigation and "make sure these unfortunate events don't happen again".

I guess the same applies here. If its an Arab in a turban there is no hope, he is an evil, morally-lacking brutal war criminal. If its one of our guys, despite telling the victim to "shuffle off this mortal coil you cunt" and telling his fellow soldiers to keep it quiet, obviously its a case of high stress, its the struggles of war, he only deserves a couple of years and we will launch a very very VERY serious investigation and "make sure these unfortunate events don't happen again".

Now keep quiet and be thankful we are better than them.

Now to be fair, the Russian air strikes in Syria have been defended as not being a war crime by some.

For an act to be a war crime, it needs to break one of the principles of the laws of armed conflict; discrimination, proportionality and necessity. People die in war zones, the laws are designed to minimise civilian suffering, not prevent all non combatant deaths which would be impossible and mistakes do happen. That won't be a popular comment but it is a fact.

If the air strike was indiscriminate, or the us pilots attacked a civilian target without clearly identifying the legitimate target then there may be a case for a war crime. Comparison to Syria is that there was a prolonged bombardment of a civilian area with no attempt to strike legitimate targets with any precision. Incidentally, the Syrian onslaught continued for months, in this instance a review is underway.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:Digby's problem is that he is unable to grasp the reality of the situation - that this is a long-term occupation of another country in which NATO's primary interest is transporting gas out of the Caspian. Civilians are not being protected, as evidenced by the ongoing wholesale carnage, the Taliban and war lords haven't been reined in, the opium trade continues to flourish, and the women's rights America helped destroy by overthrowing the progressive socialist government of the 70s haven't been returned either - not even remotely. These guys aren't 'heroes.' They're no different to the troops who occupied Vietnam, India, Kenya and Egypt; no different, in fact, to the German troops which occupied Poland and France. I don't care much about this particular individual, but the case needs to be viewed in that context.

Good grief. Total and utter, ignorant rubbish.

No, it's you who spouts ignorant rubbish, I'm afraid. Being British doesn't make your views superior, as you so arrogantly assume, it in fact makes them inferior because you have been brainwashed all your life with apologist propaganda. Everything written there is totally on the money, which is why you didn't even attempt to dispute any of it. Remember that: I'm a neutral, you're not. To me you are the same as a German attempting to defend the Holocaust or a white American trying to deny slavery. No difference at all.

kk67 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Find a conflict then look for a pipeline to blame it on. Even one that's not even been built yet. You know it makes sense.

I'm afraid your sarcastic tone does nothing to hide the fundamental truth of what you've written. It is frighteningly accurate to characterise the middle east conflict as Gazprom v Halliburton. That is what the overwhelming proportion of wars are all about.
Out of interest,.....why do you think the west is involved/started wars based in the oil/gas rich region...?. Hmmm?.

Considering that the world is cross-crossed with pipelines to an extent that most people have no clue about, the correlation between a conflict and a pipeline or planned pipeline isn't exactly surprising.

Donny osmond wrote:For an avowed scottish independence supporter, that's actually quite an insult. Or it would be if it came from someone who was worthy of any consideration.

But as you say, in this context it's just more meaningless noise.

So the world's major super power disguised as NATO has been at war with the Taliban for 16 years but the Taliban seems to be winning? Oookay.

So their reason for invading and occupying Afghanistan was to hunt down bin Laden (who they claim to have murdered in Pakistan 5 years ago anyway) and those who are harboring him? Ooookay.

So this has nothing to do with transporting vast gas reserves out of the Capsian region to the Indian Ocean when no other route was available - despite a well-known pre-9/11 agenda to do so? Oooookay

But even the Guardian appears to concede otherwise:

In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan.

Transporting all the Caspian basin's fossil fuel through Russia or Azerbaijan would greatly enhance Russia's political and economic control over the central Asian republics, which is precisely what the west has spent 10 years trying to prevent. Piping it through Iran would enrich a regime which the US has been seeking to isolate. Sending it the long way round through China, quite aside from the strategic considerations, would be prohibitively expensive.

But pipelines through Afghanistan would allow the US both to pursue its aim of "diversifying energy supply" and to penetrate the world's most lucrative markets. Growth in European oil consumption is slow and competition is intense. In south Asia, by contrast, demand is booming and competitors are scarce. Pumping oil south and selling it in Pakistan and India, in other words, is far more profitable than pumping it west and selling it in Europe.

As the author Ahmed Rashid has documented, in 1995 the US oil company Unocal started negotiating to build oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and into Pakistani ports on the Arabian sea. The company's scheme required a single administration in Afghanistan, which would guarantee safe passage for its goods. Soon after the Taliban took Kabul in September 1996, the Telegraph reported that "oil industry insiders say the dream of securing a pipeline across Afghanistan is the main reason why Pakistan, a close political ally of America's, has been so supportive of the Taliban, and why America has quietly acquiesced in its conquest of Afghanistan". Unocal invited some of the leaders of the Taliban to Houston, where they were royally entertained. The company suggested paying these barbarians 15 cents for every thousand cubic feet of gas it pumped through the land they had conquered.

For the first year of Taliban rule, US policy towards the regime appears to have been determined principally by Unocal's interests. In 1997 a US diplomat told Rashid "the Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco [the former US oil consortium in Saudi Arabia] pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that." US policy began to change only when feminists and greens started campaigning against both Unocal's plans and the government's covert backing for Kabul.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/ ... errorism11

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:Digby's problem is that he is unable to grasp the reality of the situation - that this is a long-term occupation of another country in which NATO's primary interest is transporting gas out of the Caspian. Civilians are not being protected, as evidenced by the ongoing wholesale carnage, the Taliban and war lords haven't been reined in, the opium trade continues to flourish, and the women's rights America helped destroy by overthrowing the progressive socialist government of the 70s haven't been returned either - not even remotely. These guys aren't 'heroes.' They're no different to the troops who occupied Vietnam, India, Kenya and Egypt; no different, in fact, to the German troops which occupied Poland and France. I don't care much about this particular individual, but the case needs to be viewed in that context.

Good grief. Total and utter, ignorant rubbish.

Blah blah ranty blah...

But then...

Remember that: I'm a neutral, you're not.

[emoji23] killer punchline every time. Its all in the timing.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Care to debate the issue rather than just making infantile blubbering noises, Donny? Of course, it must be hard for a 12-year-old to have any understanding of historical context...

rowan wrote:So the world's major super power disguised as NATO has been at war with the Taliban for 16 years but the Taliban seems to be winning? Oookay.

So their reason for invading and occupying Afghanistan was to hunt down bin Laden (who they claim to have murdered in Pakistan 5 years ago anyway) and those who are harboring him? Ooookay.

So this has nothing to do with transporting vast gas reserves out of the Capsian region to the Indian Ocean when no other route was available - despite a well-known pre-9/11 agenda to do so? Oooookay

But even the Guardian appears to concede otherwise:

In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan.

Transporting all the Caspian basin's fossil fuel through Russia or Azerbaijan would greatly enhance Russia's political and economic control over the central Asian republics, which is precisely what the west has spent 10 years trying to prevent. Piping it through Iran would enrich a regime which the US has been seeking to isolate. Sending it the long way round through China, quite aside from the strategic considerations, would be prohibitively expensive.

But pipelines through Afghanistan would allow the US both to pursue its aim of "diversifying energy supply" and to penetrate the world's most lucrative markets. Growth in European oil consumption is slow and competition is intense. In south Asia, by contrast, demand is booming and competitors are scarce. Pumping oil south and selling it in Pakistan and India, in other words, is far more profitable than pumping it west and selling it in Europe.

As the author Ahmed Rashid has documented, in 1995 the US oil company Unocal started negotiating to build oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and into Pakistani ports on the Arabian sea. The company's scheme required a single administration in Afghanistan, which would guarantee safe passage for its goods. Soon after the Taliban took Kabul in September 1996, the Telegraph reported that "oil industry insiders say the dream of securing a pipeline across Afghanistan is the main reason why Pakistan, a close political ally of America's, has been so supportive of the Taliban, and why America has quietly acquiesced in its conquest of Afghanistan". Unocal invited some of the leaders of the Taliban to Houston, where they were royally entertained. The company suggested paying these barbarians 15 cents for every thousand cubic feet of gas it pumped through the land they had conquered.

For the first year of Taliban rule, US policy towards the regime appears to have been determined principally by Unocal's interests. In 1997 a US diplomat told Rashid "the Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco [the former US oil consortium in Saudi Arabia] pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that." US policy began to change only when feminists and greens started campaigning against both Unocal's plans and the government's covert backing for Kabul.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/ ... errorism11

Pipelines do of course explain why Russia was so happy to enact a monstrous breach of the Geneva convention in their actions across the Crimea. I don't have no sympathy for some of Russia's points of contention, namely that much of the area of the Ukraine would be in many respects better labelled as part of Russia, but the way Russia went about it, invading with unmarked troops, illegally taking Ukrainian troops as prisoners of war, threatening the families of Ukrainian military personnel, denying the prisoners food, denying the Red Cross access, shooting down civilian airliners...

I suppose it's just possible Russia didn't order all those men into the Crimea, it doesn't seem credible but I suppose it's technically possible. In which case Russia has simply armed/equipped a giant terrorist group.

And it seems odd to me, Russia could very likely have gotten much of what they wanted through diplomacy, though its rulers were happy to ignore laws to speed up the process and to hell with those they killed. Damn those pipelines

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:Digby's problem is that he is unable to grasp the reality of the situation - that this is a long-term occupation of another country in which NATO's primary interest is transporting gas out of the Caspian. Civilians are not being protected, as evidenced by the ongoing wholesale carnage, the Taliban and war lords haven't been reined in, the opium trade continues to flourish, and the women's rights America helped destroy by overthrowing the progressive socialist government of the 70s haven't been returned either - not even remotely. These guys aren't 'heroes.' They're no different to the troops who occupied Vietnam, India, Kenya and Egypt; no different, in fact, to the German troops which occupied Poland and France. I don't care much about this particular individual, but the case needs to be viewed in that context.

Good grief. Total and utter, ignorant rubbish.

No, it's you who spouts ignorant rubbish, I'm afraid. Being British doesn't make your views superior, as you so arrogantly assume, it in fact makes them inferior because you have been brainwashed all your life with apologist propaganda. Everything written there is totally on the money, which is why you didn't even attempt to dispute any of it. Remember that: I'm a neutral, you're not. To me you are the same as a German attempting to defend the Holocaust or a white American trying to deny slavery. No difference at all.

quote me the British ROE and targeting process. Then compare to historic methods and rules. Otherwise its just your bias.