Cyprus-Forum.com

[Londonrake]

In answer to the proposition that Russia's annexation of the Crimean province was illegal under international law (as frequently used by RH authoritively in defence of their activities in Syria)

https://www.un.org/press/en/2014/ga11493.doc.htm

General Assembly Adopts Resolution Calling upon States Not to Recognize Changes in Status of Crimea Region
Sixty-eighth General Assembly

Plenary

80th Meeting (AM)

100 Votes in Favour, 11 against, 58 Abstentions for Text on Ukraine

The Legal Position wrt International LaW:
https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroo ... ellum.aspx

"Russia’s claims in support of the Crimea annexation have taken various twists over the past six weeks, yet regardless of which claims Russia adopts, its position lacks justification under international law."

The Russian/Ukraine Friendship Treaty (1997)

"Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation — an agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, signed in 1997, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E ... hip_Treaty

RH's response "You posted something that ‘clearly showed’ nothing. You made a statement without foundation."

Frankly, I regard that as a load of desperate bollox.

I put it to members that RH's position is as a result of his obsessive anti-western attitude, in that absolutely anyone in the World perceived as against them simply has to be right. There is only one criteria in order to gain his support - hatred of the West (principally the USA).

I submit that the UN + the legal position (as stated) plus the contents of the Russian/Ukraine Friendship Treaty of 1997 clearly show, to anybody with an objective view, that the events which occurred and the current situation contravene International Law.

The same law frequently used by RH to support Russia's activities in Syria. Hypocrisy.

[Get Real!]

At a time when institutions that are meant to uphold/represent international law such as the UNGA or UNSC, are corrupt to the bone and very bribable then it is pointless in quoting them.

Those readers that have any doubts about the UN’s corruptibility need only look at the CyProb or the Palestinian problems to verify the obvious.

You can also contemplate why to this day not a single American politician or military person has been brought to trial despite America’s multiple invasions, occupations, and war crimes in about a dozen sovereign UN-member nations.

So, does the UN have a case against Russia with respect to Crimea?

Under the circumstances the answer to that is… >

Case closed.

[Get Real!]

The same law frequently used by RH to support Russia's activities in Syria. Hypocrisy.

Well it's not like you're not suffering from the same problem or you would've been just as concerned over US war crimes.

Btw, and not to mention British or Israeli war crimes…

Are you planning any threads to highlight British and/or Israeli war crimes?

No… I didn’t think you did!

What was that you were saying about hypocrisy again?

[Robin Hood]

At a time when institutions that are meant to uphold/represent international law such as the UNGA or UNSC, are corrupt to the bone and very bribable then it is pointless in quoting them.

Those readers that have any doubts about the UN’s corruptibility need only look at the CyProb or the Palestinian problems to verify the obvious.

You can also contemplate why to this day not a single American politician or military person has been brought to trial despite America’s multiple invasions, occupations, and war crimes in about a dozen sovereign UN-member nations.

So, does the UN have a case against Russia with respect to Crimea?

Under the circumstances the answer to that is… >

Case closed.

Another pragmatic rebuttal of his selective approach to International Law. The approach by LR is inevitably a question of ignoring inconvenient truths, something the poster excels at, but will readily condemn in others. He has now provided a foundation for his opinion, which as you have demonstrated is open to question.

A classic example of his double standards is calling for the release of a British NCO accused of murdering a seriously wounded/dying prisoner. The NCO was composed enough to tell colleagues to keep their mouths shut because he had committed an offence under the Geneva convention. So he was well aware he had committed a war crime.

LR was incensed and very vociferous at such a 'miscarriage of justice' when the NCO was jailed for his crime. He and his military colleagues and supporters were outraged and demanded the NCO be released as he was obviously suffering from PTSD and this needed to be given 'understanding'. His offence and his comments were recorded on his body cam and later leaked by one of his colleagues.

Hypocrisy? ...... is something he only sees in others, he is totally blind to his own, believe me!

[Robin Hood]

The same law frequently used by RH to support Russia's activities in Syria. Hypocrisy.

Well it's not like you're not suffering from the same problem or you would've been just as concerned over US war crimes.

Btw, and not to mention British or Israeli war crimes…

Are you planning any threads to highlight British and/or Israeli war crimes?

No… I didn’t think you did!

What was that you were saying about hypocrisy again?

A country, any country, that openly and publicly declares it is an 'Exceptional and indispensable Nation' and in so doing declares it is above International Law, as the US and by association its allies frequently demonstrate, cannot then dictate that others should be held accountable for breaches of those Laws which they themselves breach as a matter of routine and convenience.

You will also note that LR conveniently ignores and side-steps the illegality of the US instigated and well documented coup (Regime Change) in Ukraine, and the fact that the Ukraine Government in International Law, is an illegal one. Another inconvenient truth? Nor does he accept that it is an extreme right wing government with an association and a history stemming from The Nazi Party, who's emblems they display openly. Again an inconvenient truth ..... just ignored!

He is also anti-Palestinian and revers all Israeli actions in Palestine and their attacks on all their neighbours, declaring them 'defensive'! Again the simple fact the occupation of Palestine has been condemned in The UN since 1948 as an act of war and occupation, thus illegal, is an irrelevance. He conveniently dismisses the string of UN resolutions against Israel, as being evidence of 'the rest of the World' unfairly picking on Israel. The right of the Palestinians to self defence against the illegal occupiers, is treated with derision and deemed 'terrorist attacks'

He has a balanced and objective view? I don't think so.

[Get Real!]

The West hasn’t got a leg to stand on so I pity any foolish individual who sees fit to advocate on their behalf. Countering such fools is always a single post open and shut case!

[Londonrake]

Whatever your views on other aspects. The USA, the West, etc. My OP is straightforward. Is it reasonable to continually quote International Law as a justification for Russian involvement in Syria, whilst at the same time suggesting that the application of the same laws, by the same organisations wrt the Ukraine is irrelevant? Be that for whatever reason. US/Israeli/Maritan war crimes, the corruption of the associated organisations, etc? It's clearly rank hypocrisy, which in my experience is totally normal for RH.

Please note. I have not condemned Russian involvement in Syria. That is another matter. I merely point out the fact that double standards and rank hypocrisy are involved here.

"At a time when institutions that are meant to uphold/represent international law such as the UNGA or UNSC, are corrupt to the bone and very bribable then it is pointless in quoting them."

But the same organisations are quoted in support of a contrary point of view. Isn't that hypocritical?

"Another pragmatic rebuttal of his selective approach to International Law."

That sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. However, it isn't I that has a selective approach to international law. It's you that quotes it in support of Russian involvement in Syria whilst dismissing it out of hand for their activities in Ukraine. It's the same criteria. To quote it as righteous justification for one and corrupt nonsense for another is rubbish.

"LR was incensed and very vociferous at such a 'miscarriage of justice' when the NCO was jailed for his crime. He and his military colleagues and supporters were outraged and demanded the NCO be released as he was obviously suffering from PTSD and this needed to be given 'understanding'. His offence and his comments were recorded on his body cam and later leaked by one of his colleagues."

That's a complete distortion. No, I retract that. Actually it's a total lie and moreover absolutely nothing to do with the OP. I did warn you that if you moved the goalposts I would act accordingly. I was willing to confine my posts contextually to this Forum. So be it. Get used again to staring at the ceiling and wondering how you can "get back". Although, it seems the options are stacking up in my favour.

I was going to chill out. I just wanted to show that we are not and never have been "mates". Now though, I'm going to be your worst nightmare.................... again. Over 5 years, it's been a never ending revelation to me. How stupid somebody like yourself can be. In the sole pursuit of being a "big man" on some internet Forum or other. Keyboard warrior. Tick tock.

[Londonrake]

BTW

Any sensible comments on the UN's condemnation of the Russian land grab in Ukraine?

Any sensible comments on the condemnation of said under international law?

Any sensible comments about the 1997 "binding" agreement that Russia signed to guarantee the integral rights of Ukrainian territory?

Please - nothing that involves USA/Western/Israeli/Martian war crimes.

[Robin Hood]

BTW

Any sensible comments on the UN's condemnation of the Russian land grab in Ukraine?

Any sensible comments on the condemnation of said under international law?

Any sensible comments about the 1997 "binding" agreement that Russia signed to guarantee the integral rights of Ukrainian territory?

Please - nothing that involves USA/Western/Israeli/Martian war crimes.

Any comments on the Ukraine coup and its illegal government? No of course not!

[Londonrake]

BTW

Any sensible comments on the UN's condemnation of the Russian land grab in Ukraine?

Any sensible comments on the condemnation of said under international law?

Any sensible comments about the 1997 "binding" agreement that Russia signed to guarantee the integral rights of Ukrainian territory?

Please - nothing that involves USA/Western/Israeli/Martian war crimes.

Any comments on the Ukraine coup and its illegal government? No of course not!

Please address the above and I would be delighted to reciprocate.