Is shooting to evacuating crew members of aircraft is ....

Post Reply New Topic

Is shooting to evacuating crew members of aircraft is a war crime?

I'm Polish
I recently watched program of our Polish journalist Max Kolonko, he is a foreign correspondent for many Polish opinion-forming magazines.
He lived in the US, he has a Polish and American citizenship.

His latest film on youtube concerns the downing of the Russian Su-24 by Turkish F-16, Mr. Maximilian never been a supporter of Putin or Russia.

But in his last video, he gives vent to his anger, how Syrian "freedom fighters" shooting evacuating parachute, Russian aviators. That shooting airmen during the evacuation of a war crime and barbarity

And he can not understand how we (NATO) could enter into an alliance with such beasts.

You have two thing the Geneva Conventions and the International Criminal Court.

Syria is a member State party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court from 29 November 2000 however they have not ratified the treaty along with 31 states. Interestingly the US, Israel and Sudan no longer intend to ratifty the treaty. The court only come into force if the country concern is unable to prosecute the individual concerned.

Syria is a signatory to the Geneva convention in 1953 and ratified Protocol 1 in 1983.

They have not ratified Protocol II



These Syrian rebel are not party to the state, however crimes have been committed on both sides. It is unclear what category such combatants would charges under in which court.

I suspect you could only know the answer to that if it is pursued, and once you have stable enough state(s).

It was 100% a war crime and Turkey should be responsible. The leader of those "Turkmen rebels" is a Turkish citizen and member of the neo-fascist Grey Wolves. Protocol I Article 42, Turkey has not signed any of these amendment protocols which should tell you the type of state they are.

It's a war crime to shoot your enemy who was just bombing and killing tons of your friends. Suppose if they surrendered the you'd be shooting prisoners. But I doubt the Russian pilots surrendered. They probably like us are trained to try to escape avoid capture and likely are armed.

It is definitely a war crime. Turkey should be held accountable, but that'll be hard with the current Turkish government..

What is the point of having a trial then? Sorry but I'm proponent of due process. It would be a requirement to prove this is the case. Then complicity would have to proven. I'm not saying that is not the case but that is a requirement.

ICC only kicks in if the jurisdiction the crime happen under is either unable to have a trial or is unwilling to have one.

I suspect that both Syria an ICC are unable to make an investigation ATM.

It is murder, no declared conflict.

As murder, Russia has the right to respond.

Shooting down the plane was an Act of War. Russia has the right to respond.

It has responded, through sections. I think anything more wouldn't be sensible. The situation is complicated enough.

Grey Wolves???
Is it sometimes is not the same organization, which came Mehmet Ali Ağca who carried out unsuccessful assassination of of Pope John Paul II?

It's all on video tape, Allahu Akbars and all. Damn my lying eyes. There will be no trial, those" Turkmen rebels" and all terrorists in Syria will be liquidated.

Turkey has stabbed Western civilization in the back and are a state sponsor of terrorism; NATO has outlived it's purpose. Turkey is our enemy and we should be obligated to defend an ally of those who want to destroy us. NATO was made in order to prevent the Soviet's from overrunning western Europe after WWII, what is it's purpose now? If we treated the Russians with good faith instead of as a conquering superpower then we could work together as we much in culture and have common interests, maybe Russia should be apart of NATO and not Turkey? What domestic threat does Russia pose to the United States? Absolutely none, whereas Turkey is state sponsor of terrorism.

I guess the problem with all this is that American government is aligned with ISIS as well

Yes, this is the same organization.

Of only if you applied the the same level of verifiability to all situations.



This is not actually true. It was formed in 1949 to defend against any external force. It is up to individual members.

It is actually quite popular still. Even SNP want to join it (although without the nuclear determinant).

Have you considered sending your CV to RT? You might as well.

The reality is Russia's involvement in this war is not different from the other nations, it carries the same risks as we have seen.

I'm not fan of the Turkish government or Erdogan and arguably their role in NATO is questionable, however this is the front line with Europe.

ISIS want to draw nations, we have to put aside our differences for now and come up with a plan with international consensus.

If Russia was the boogeyman they were made up to be then perhaps I would believe differently but I have seen no evidence of that whereas I've seen our so called allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia take the side of ISIS but that is assuming they act independently of our governments which I am fairly certain they don't so our own governments are the ones who are creating this mess. I don't believe Russia is an aggressor, under Putin they've responded to our aggression which has never let up even with collapse of the Soviet Union so any deviation from that norm and we bust out the Hitler comparisons for Putin and threaten sanctions and proxy war when in reality it should be the US being called out for their 'global chess game'. Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, Russia's hand was forced in all these conflicts. If ISIS is to be defeated then we need to work closely with the Russians and not give shelter to those who wish to destroy us, our alliances must change. We've both tried our hand middle eastern proxy wars and I don't want to be apart of another one.

What I'm saying is Russia involvement in this the same naivety that led US, UK and other European nations into conflicts in the past decade, and carries the same risks.