Gesprek op Niveau - Jan Roos en Pieter Omtzigt
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Deze week: Pieter Omtzigt, dossiervreter, bevlogen bemoeial en allround eenmansleger van het CDA. Ditmaal geen tennisstoelen (iets met hoogtevrees), Jan mocht aanschuiven in de werkkamer van Omtzigt. GespreksTopic du Jour: MH17, MinPres Rutte's onderste steen en de sturende rol van de Onderzoeksraad.
Wie is hier na "Functie Omtzigt: Positie Elders"? 🔥
NSC, hoewel ik dit al ken van vroeger.
Met de kennis van nu.
Heel pijnlijk
Hr. Omzight heeft voorbeeld aan alle Parlamenaiers hoe een volksvertegenwoordiger zjjn werkt hoort te doen.
Omtzigt. Schrijf op z'n minst iemand zijn naam goed als je roem spreekt.
@@tothepast dank voor de correctie en excuus aan de hr. Pieter Omtzigt
This hits different in 2021
Translation part 2:
..to the Secretary-General of the United Nations or the chairman of the safety commission saying, a week after the attack a resolution has been passed wich states that all countries are obligated to cooperate to the OVV investigation. We state that Russia did have data and didn't adhere to that anyway, and other countries didn't supply it either. Would you please take actions against these countries so that the data will emerge. But what strikes me in these matters... look, that aeroplane... I get that takes time, but the radar data, it cannot be that we hear it 15 months later?
Interviewer: Did the investigation counsel headed by ... Jouwstra actually do their job?
P: well I think that its incomplete..
I: what is missing?
P: the radar and satellite images.
I: are those the only thing missing?
P: I am not able to check all technical details of the investigation, I also don't think that is my task, but that is by far the most important. It was also mentioned in their intermediate report after three months, that that was what they intended to do. So I also looked at "What did you say you would do and what did you do?". That was on the radar and satelite images. So they didn't do what they intended themselves to do. Well alright they tried...
i: well "tried"?
P: well I think they honestly...
i: this is about a murder on 298 people.
P: yes they had to inform...
i: (saying something I couldn't hear because they where both speakinh) " they have tried..." (not conviced).
P: They had to call in the Dutch government earlier.
I: and they didn't do it, and that is weird, because Mark Rutte made himself personally responsible for the trial of the perpetrators. He literally said that in a press conference.. at the moment that Jouwstra apparently doesn't ask the government:" give us or help us to get the information "... isn't it strange that M. Rutte - who makes himself personally responsible - doesn't do that on his own initiative? My question is: " is this research counsel independent enough - mister Jouwstra is a member of the VVD ( political party) and so is Rutte..
p: Well they say "we are so independent that we didn't inform the government.."
i: that's funny... because meanwhile my feeling says that the "bottom of this" (wich he said he was going to get to) is burried underneath a big bubble of Russian gas.
P:... ehm.. I expected that he would publicly be in a conversation with Putin where he would publicly ask him questions.
I: he doesnt do this each time, just after the year (...something I wasnt able to hear) he comes up with 3 promises... he keeps one a little bit..
p: well the circumstances have been established, but the most important one, the third one.
I: the trial of the perpetrators... therefore you should have a good investigation, and therefore the images are needed, and he doesn't make any effort for it.
P: well we have not publicly seen that yet...
i: does the Dutch government have any co-responsibility for the MH17 attack?
P: sighs.. well the OM (public prosecutor) has decided to discontinue the investigation about the responsibility.
I: Yes but that doesn't tell me anything.. cause otherwise I have to take the investigation seriously as well... and that I also don't do.
P: Wel I wouldn't exclude the possibility that relatives or a few of them are going to sue the government. I: in a civilian case?
P: yes and the other thing that hasnt been investigated -that was evident from the hearing- is that the one who has spoken from the traffic tower with MH17, they haven't even spoken to him /her. That surprised me very much when I asked that question because it would seem to me that you would want to speak to the last person who spoke to the people on board. They thought the tapes where enough and from the tapes they only found the last million seconds. So I would have thought an interview to know what had happened in the tower would also seem very interesting. But there are some cases.. that is why I intend to organize hearings in the (2e kamer) and I have also asked if there will be a representeter from the ikao from Montreal who will explain to us what the procedures are to file a complaint about not information not being available. So that we can inform the Dutch government exactly how they are able to do that. And could understand clearly what the independent air aviation athorities think of the fact that the radar images where not available for the investigarors.
I: but it means, mister Omtzigt that you have to show Rutte- who has made it his personal goal to get to the bottom of this- and take him by the hand and lead him the way for him to be able to keep his promises.
P: its is the task of the 2e kamer to check the government.
I: I get that but..
p: I do that all day long mister Roos.
I: I know that is your job, but my is strange, that you have to guide the prime minister who made himself responsible to keep his promises...
p: I have my own responsibility as a member of the 2e kamer and the promise of Rutte I think it's a very good one and I will help him to get to the bottom of it.
I: I get that but the weird thing is that when I make a promise, I am promising something and it is not very often that I need help from others to remind me that I promised something.
P: and still I do it as I do.
I: can't they or won't they? Look, you cannot let a kid drive a car either, it's s simple as that. Does it just mean that they are not good enough? That they are just not capable? Or is there a not wanting behind it?
P: there is ehrmmm... there is in the Netherlands the misconception behind it, that this is an independent non political investigation.
I: yes and that is not true.
P: no this is one of the highest political investigations we have ever had in the Netherlands.
I:yes but not independent .
P: yeah besides that.. everyone is trying to put political pressure onto his investigation. You know that from day one. From day one you knew this is geopolitical investigation, the consequence of pointing at someone is politically very big.
I: but does Jouwstra have to lead it then?
P: Jouwstra is head of the institute that has been assigned in the Netherlands to investigate...
i: yeah well Jouwstra is co writing the VVD election programme...
p: he is allowed to do that in his own time, I need to look into it to see if the investigation counsel did their jobs and where I disapprove on is the fact that they did not asked/pressed for the radar and satellite images hard enough neither at one side nor by the other. And for that did not call in the Dutch government. And to say now that the new general of states has to write to the safety counsil... I think it would be good if the priminister would do that and I think it would increase the chances of finding out who did it in any case.
I: the bottom.. will we ever get to it?
P: I will put very much effort into it to see to that we do, but it will be a very difficult process... they will have to work incredibly hard right now and the data they will have to retrieve.
I: the report... did we get to the bottom a little bit?
P: yes. I: but not enough? P: it's a step... and many are needed, and I had hoped this step would be slightly bigger.
I: Pieter Omtzigt, thank you for this conversation.
P: yes( and shakes hands).
~The end~
I am not a professional translator but I did my best.
De allerbeste kamerlid Ooit!!!! Meneer Omzigt HULDE petje af voor u!!!!!
Rutte had toen al geen geheugen en loog dus toen ook al smerig zakje
Pieter bijten hoor Pitbull 👍
Wie vliegt er over een oorlogsgebied.... Nederland. Met alle gevolgen van dien!
Het was geen Nederlandse maatschappij
@@drietrapsraket6885 maar wel met 100 kankeronderzoekers die een genezings apparaat hadden gemaakt voor genezing en dat wilde de farmaceutische industrie Niet ..en die zijn allemaal omgekomen op Antartica. Daar is nl de MH17 geland ....en de MH70 is neer gelegd op de plek in Oekraïne verrotte regeringd medewerking met regering Rutte de Medbeds mochten niet voor het gewone volk gebruikt worden zei ene labbekak nog met de genezende middelen van hun inbreng de ziektens in de vaccins en pillen industrie
Zo scherp die Jan Roos
Laat Pieter nou eens uitpraten
Hier is aardig in geknipt... dus de kans bestaat dat er nog ettelijke Omtzigt-seconden op de edit-tafel zijn achtergebleven.
Of Roos heeft zichzelf hier en daar wat te weinig wegge-edit... Of juist teveel erin. Kan ook nog, hè, we weten het niet. ;)
An Inconvenient Truth
Die go-pro is niet al te best.
De Russen hadden hun radar gewoon aanstaan hoor.
De Amerikanen niet?
Wauw is dit normaal vvd
Follow the money . How to sue putin
Psalm 42
Zingen ?
subtitles?
Part1
Jan roos, intervieuwer: this week on a conversation at great level. Pieter omtzigt of CDA. It's going to be about MH17. Is it a human catastrofe or a political scandal (blot). You said "Mark Rutte. Lets get to the bottom of this. We will get to the bottom of this.. do you know where the bottom is at the moment?
Pieter: mark Rutte Had three goals. The first of them was to identify the victims and to bury them. He succeeded. The second goal was to find out the cause. We received this report and highly likely the cause will be described in there. But the third and most important goal to find out who did it, I cannot say how far we are at the moment with that.
Interviewer: have had the research commission who say- without a smile- at the moment of the MH17 disaster...they still call it that.
Pieter: it was an attack.
I: Well. Priminister Rutte still calls it a disaster and not an attack, till this very day.
P: Well that is very interesting because if you see the conclusion which states it was a rocket, it was an attack.
I: Why would Rutte constantly be talking about a disaster and not an attack?
P: It is very simple, if you shoot down people with a rocket it is an attack.
I: What else is the definition of an attack?
P: I dont go about the words of Rutte, I think he means that he doesn't know whether it was intended to shoot down an airplane.
Interviewer: well they weren't trying to shoot a peacock with a rocket. ..
@@josje26 wow, amazing, thank you very much
@@tibchy144 you re welcome.
@@tibchy144 part 2
P: no but if i mean If it was intended to take down the MH17. I think that is what people mean with by an attack. To me it is an attack at the moment the plane is fired at with a rocket. And that has in the mean time been proven to be a fact.
Interviewer: Apparantly Rutte has a different definition of what is a disaster or an attack.
Pieter: Everybody is responsible for his or het own words.
Interviewer: Yes but this is the priminister of our country.
P: Yeah well I have constantly been referring to it from the beginning as an attack and I think this report confirms that. I did understand his carefullness, when the report was not there yet.
Interviewer: but the carefullnes right now?
P: Thats what I mean, that I think is really different. The interesting thing is that they did speak about an attack the first week after the crash and after that...
interviewer: it became a disaster?
P: It became a disaster in the letters towards "de kamer" ( part of the government where they debate and such).
Interviewer: a weird turn. But we where talking about the onderzoeksraad (investigation commission). They said:" well you know... at the moment of the attack the military radar didn't work and the civilian radar was under construction. To be honest with you... I hear lame excuses very often, I come up with them a lot myself.
P: (Pieter laughing)
I: but this is a war zone, but also a zone where is being flown over a lot... and then all radars where suddenly off when an aeroplane was being shot down. At the moment of a war.. how unincredible do you want to have it?
Pieter: very.. and the OVV say it themselves as well. Because 7 months after they have been.. everybody knows this report, but the most important report is the accountability report because in there they have said what they did and the Ukraine say this seven months after. (Interviewer pausing before saying yes). Pieter: So 7 months after they say:" oh ehm yeah we found out that well, the radar was off...They should have said it at day one. And if they didn't say it at day one it sounds very incredible. So the Ukraine where saying firstly we had the radar turned off both military and civilian even though 15 of our planes where shot out of the air. However the russians at the 21nd of july -so 4 days after the disaster- we had those big press conferences for half an hour long, with those generals with those big hats and all. They are all telling about how they have radar footage and they show video's of it. So they could not deny to the OVV : "we don't have radar footage". Because they have said it themselves.
Interviewer: but they dont want to hand it over?
Pieter: well... no, they deleted it...yeah it seems a bit like Srebrenica..(names a few other scandals as well). So to be clear, we can blame the Russians for that, but here things like that also happen sometimes. The Russians deleted it. The americans said in public " we saw it dissapear from the radar". John Kerry in at least 5 interviews. He has been in all the important stations and used the same texts. A month later he also said it in Australia. It literally says so on the website of the ministry of foreign affairs as being his text. Well I would say to the OVV- when I hear someone say" I have seen it dissapear from the radar"- I would send a letter saying may I receive the radar footage of you?
@@tibchy144 part3:
i: they didn't do that?
P: I was not able to find out about that, we didn't get a clear answer on that.
I: anyway we have an investigation commission..
p: and NATO was the 4th that could have them, they had (something I didn't get, a name of some sort of programm? Or instrument?) in the air as well as a large amount of ships laying around of several surrounding NATO countries that where busy exercising drills.. amongst other things... in the black sea where the goal was explicitly to monitor radar..ehm.. air traffic. They Are all obligated to save it. So there are at the very least 4 sources that could have had radar data. And for IKAo protocols they are all obligated to save the data and give it to the investigators. It's a UN protocol.
I: that hasn't happened. Why hasn't that happened?.
P: well that is my big question.
I: The media has only said:" The Russians". From politics: " The Russians". The Americans say:" the Russians". Ukraine is able to prove - Ukraine fights against the Russians- prove with the radar images:" it wasn't us". And still both their radars where off.. wich is not true. What could that mean?
P: it could mean - but I always find it difficult to speculate- that on the radar and satellite images - because we haven't spoken about satellite yet- but also they aren't there, that from both sides things are on it that they prefer not to tell. And what it is... as long as we don't see it we dont know. but the interesting thing is..
i: but the Ukraine benefits from it when it is able to say:" it wasn't us". Then it would be simple.
P: but the Russians also still say it wasn't us so they... normally..
i: they both don't deliver the evidence they're not it.
P: no..no. that is the whole problem. The satelite images could be even clearer. But those aren't there as well, and now that the accident- most likely a bomb explosion, the Americans say within a couple of days we even have the infra red satellite images
(i: says something about a light flash, we saw it) and that is...
P: because that is (something I couldn't hear) wich is actually for military use to see where rockets take off.
I: and those where also under "construction " at the moment of the MH17?
P: no, well there is a Dutch expert in that field, and he registers neatly when and where those are hanging, because they have to hang there... there where 2 or 3 from above that could have seen it.
I: and what was going on with those? Where they getting repainted or... was the energy low, was the battery needed to be replaced? Was there a quarter needed?
P: well, mr. Jouwstra and Muller say that they where allowed to see satelite images and secret classified information but that they aren't able to share the content. But then I ask at the Americans:"Why doesn't Rutte publicly ask Obama or Kerry: "guys , you also voted for the investigation commission, there in is stated that the investigators need to be given all information they need for evidence. Why then is absolutely nothing released? And therefore I think Rutte should write a letter to...
Translation part 1:
Jan roos, intervieuwer: this week on a conversation at great level. Pieter omtzigt of CDA. It's going to be about MH17. Is it a human catastrofe or a political scandal (blot). You said "Mark Rutte. Lets get to the bottom of this. We will get to the bottom of this.. do you know where the bottom is at the moment?
Pieter: mark Rutte Had three goals. The first of them was to identify the victims and to bury them. He succeeded. The second goal was to find out the cause. We received this report and highly likely the cause will be described in there. But the third and most important goal to find out who did it, I cannot say how far we are at the moment with that.
Interviewer: have had the research commission who say- without a smile- at the moment of the MH17 disaster...they still call it that.
Pieter: it was an attack.
I: Well. Priminister Rutte still calls it a disaster and not an attack, till this very day.
P: Well that is very interesting because if you see the conclusion which states it was a rocket, it was an attack.
I: Why would Rutte constantly be talking about a disaster and not an attack?
P: It is very simple, if you shoot down people with a rocket it is an attack.
I: What else is the definition of an attack?
P: I dont go about the words of Rutte, I think he means that he doesn't know whether it was intended to shoot down an airplane.
Interviewer: well they weren't trying to shoot a peacock with a rocket. ..
@JadeRabbit part 2
P: no but if i mean If it was intended to take down the MH17. I think that is what people mean with by an attack. To me it is an attack at the moment the plane is fired at with a rocket. And that has in the mean time been proven to be a fact.
Interviewer: Apparantly Rutte has a different definition of what is a disaster or an attack.
Pieter: Everybody is responsible for his or het own words.
Interviewer: Yes but this is the priminister of our country.
P: Yeah well I have constantly been referring to it from the beginning as an attack and I think this report confirms that. I did understand his carefullness, when the report was not there yet.
Interviewer: but the carefullnes right now?
P: Thats what I mean, that I think is really different. The interesting thing is that they did speak about an attack the first week after the crash and after that...
interviewer: it became a disaster?
P: It became a disaster in the letters towards "de kamer" ( part of the government where they debate and such).
Interviewer: a weird turn. But we where talking about the onderzoeksraad (investigation commission). They said:" well you know... at the moment of the attack the military radar didn't work and the civilian radar was under construction. To be honest with you... I hear lame excuses very often, I come up with them a lot myself.
P: (Pieter laughing)
I: but this is a war zone, but also a zone where is being flown over a lot... and then all radars where suddenly off when an aeroplane was being shot down. At the moment of a war.. how unincredible do you want to have it?
Pieter: very.. and the OVV say it themselves as well. Because 7 months after they have been.. everybody knows this report, but the most important report is the accountability report because in there they have said what they did and the Ukraine say this seven months after. (Interviewer pausing before saying yes). Pieter: So 7 months after they say:" oh ehm yeah we found out that well, the radar was off...They should have said it at day one. And if they didn't say it at day one it sounds very incredible. So the Ukraine where saying firstly we had the radar turned off both military and civilian even though 15 of our planes where shot out of the air. However the russians at the 21nd of july -so 4 days after the disaster- we had those big press conferences for half an hour long, with those generals with those big hats and all. They are all telling about how they have radar footage and they show video's of it. So they could not deny to the OVV : "we don't have radar footage". Because they have said it themselves.
Interviewer: but they dont want to hand it over?
Pieter: well... no, they deleted it...yeah it seems a bit like Srebrenica..(names a few other scandals as well). So to be clear, we can blame the Russians for that, but here things like that also happen sometimes. The Russians deleted it. The americans said in public " we saw it dissapear from the radar". John Kerry in at least 5 interviews. He has been in all the important stations and used the same texts. A month later he also said it in Australia. It literally says so on the website of the ministry of foreign affairs as being his text. Well I would say to the OVV- when I hear someone say" I have seen it dissapear from the radar"- I would send a letter saying may I receive the radar footage of you?
i: they didn't do that?
P: I was not able to find out about that, we didn't get a clear answer on that.
I: anyway we have an investigation commission..
p: and NATO was the 4th that could have them, they had (something I didn't get, a name of some sort of programm? Or instrument?) in the air as well as a large amount of ships laying around of several surrounding NATO countries that where busy exercising drills.. amongst other things... in the black sea where the goal was explicitly to monitor radar..ehm.. air traffic. They Are all obligated to save it. So there are at the very least 4 sources that could have had radar data. And for IKAo protocols they are all obligated to save the data and give it to the investigators. It's a UN protocol.
I: that hasn't happened. Why hasn't that happened?.
P: well that is my big question.
I: The media has only said:" The Russians". From politics: " The Russians". The Americans say:" the Russians". Ukraine is able to prove - Ukraine fights against the Russians- prove with the radar images:" it wasn't us". And still both their radars where off.. wich is not true. What could that mean?
P: it could mean - but I always find it difficult to speculate- that on the radar and satellite images - because we haven't spoken about satellite yet- but also they aren't there, that from both sides things are on it that they prefer not to tell. And what it is... as long as we don't see it we dont know. but the interesting thing is..
i: but the Ukraine benefits from it when it is able to say:" it wasn't us". Then it would be simple.
P: but the Russians also still say it wasn't us so they... normally..
i: they both don't deliver the evidence they're not it.
P: no..no. that is the whole problem. The satelite images could be even clearer. But those aren't there as well, and now that the accident- most likely a bomb explosion, the Americans say within a couple of days we even have the infra red satellite images
(i: says something about a light flash, we saw it) and that is...
P: because that is (something I couldn't hear) wich is actually for military use to see where rockets take off.
I: and those where also under "construction " at the moment of the MH17?
P: no, well there is a Dutch expert in that field, and he registers neatly when and where those are hanging, because they have to hang there... there where 2 or 3 from above that could have seen it.
I: and what was going on with those? Where they getting repainted or... was the energy low, was the battery needed to be replaced? Was there a quarter needed?
P: well, mr. Jouwstra and Muller say that they where allowed to see satelite images and secret classified information but that they aren't able to share the content. But then I ask at the Americans:"Why doesn't Rutte publicly ask Obama or Kerry: "guys , you also voted for the investigation commission, there in is stated that the investigators need to be given all information they need for evidence. Why then is absolutely nothing released? And therefore I think Rutte should write a letter...
Een gesprek op niveau met Jan Roos??? Nee... dat is niet mogelijk.
Toch wel. Je ziet het.
In de rechtbank csu pentioen
Dna van ing...knap /egonbank,,????
Welke naam draag smeets trustfons heden
en er is geen beeld, waarom deze censuur youtube..
zo werkt youtube's censuur niet, de video was gewoon nog niet verwerkt. Het probleem is eerder dat je geen leven hebt.
Jan Roos strak aan de coke
Waar baseer je dat op?
Ik geloof Putin