Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

America's Debate _ Foreign Policy _ Shooting down of MH17

Posted by: Hobbes Jul 17 2014, 11:16 PM

Today, http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/17/world/europe/ukraine-malaysia-airlines-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_t1. All evidence indicates it was shot down, over separatist eastern Ukraine. We don't yet know who shot it down, or what equipment they used. So, an investigation is necessary, but I don't think it too early to discuss what the response should be, as responses have already been happening.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20140717-putin-s-statement-on-jetliner-crash.ece
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obama-vladimir-putin-talk-sanctions-109048.html
1. Assuming it was separatists that did it, what should U.S. response be? World response?
2. I'm not sure separatists would be capable of doing this. Even if they did capture a missile system from Ukraine, they probably wouldn't know how to use it (although this could be a symptom of that). So, the real possibility of Russians having done this, or being directly responsible for the people who did do it (many reports that they have brought mercenaries into the area). If Russia itself is directly implicated, how should the U.S. handle this?
3. To what degree should Malaysia Airlines be held responsible, for failing to avoid flying in this area?
4. What do you think of the responses from the U.S. and Putin so far? What do they say about how this will be played out?
5. What impact, if any, do you think this will have on the conflict in Ukraine?
6. Do you think the perpetrators of this will ever be brought to justice, as Malaysia is requesting? If so, will they be the real perpetrators, or just some scapegoats?

Posted by: Bikerdad Jul 18 2014, 12:04 AM

1. Assuming it was separatists that did it, what should U.S. response be? World response?
US and world response, which is already taking place, should be to re-route civilian aircraft around the conflict zone wherever possible. Beyond that, the question must be "was it intentional?" Investigate.

2. I'm not sure separatists would be capable of doing this. Even if they did capture a missile system from Ukraine, they probably wouldn't know how to use it (although this could be a symptom of that). So, the real possibility of Russians having done this, or being directly responsible for the people who did do it (many reports that they have brought mercenaries into the area). If Russia itself is directly implicated, how should the U.S. handle this?
They are capable of it. The missile system suspected of being used is produced by Russia, and has already been used by the militants to shoot down Ukrainian warplanes. The warplanes shot down were all hit at much lower elevations. Russia has apparently supplied these systems to the rebels.

3. To what degree should Malaysia Airlines be held responsible, for failing to avoid flying in this area?
They shouldn't. To my knowledge, nobody of any consequence anywhere in the world has suggested civilian airliners merely passing over would be at risk in the area.

4. What do you think of the responses from the U.S. and Putin so far? What do they say about how this will be played out?
I'm pretty sure that the US response on the foreign policy level will be handwaving and hashtags.

5. What impact, if any, do you think this will have on the conflict in Ukraine?
It's putting the separatists in a poor light, as well as putting their patrons, the Russians in a poor light. However, from a tactical/operational level, this may work to their advantage. By clearing the airspace above eastern Ukraine of civilian overflights, the rebels will have less concern about Ukrainian recon assets hiding among the airliners. That would mean the only things up there would be clean targets. Additionally, with no pesky civilians passing through, the Russians may be able to start using their own air assets to support their clients, which admittedly would slightly complicate the firing solutions. The effect of this may be similar to shooting a few rounds into the air outside the saloon. It clears the street before the gunfight.

6. Do you think the perpetrators of this will ever be brought to justice, as Malaysia is requesting? If so, will they be the real perpetrators, or just some scapegoats?
If by brought to justice you mean "Justice Court", only if it serves the interests of Russia, assuming that the perps are rebels or Russians. If by "brought to justice" you mean "buried 6 feet deep", that's hard to tell. It would REALLY serve the interests of most of Europe if the perps/suspected perps all mysteriously but very publicly died horribly. As for Malaysia, unless their airliner was deliberately selected as a target simply because they're essentially a non-entity in The Great Game, they're not but victims of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Of course, that truly could be all this is... wrong place, wrong time. It's possible that the rebels fired on a lower altitude Ukrainian warplane, and the missile, for whatever reason, ended up locking on to the 777 instead.

Posted by: Gray Seal Jul 18 2014, 01:39 AM

The 777 was knocked out of the air at 32,000 feet. Does this altitude eliminate quite a few weapons from the possible list?

Who has access to capable weapons?

I doubt this was deliberate by either side. But, someone could be stupid thinking this would possibly be to their advantage.

I agree with Bikerdad that the only sensible reaction is to avoid that airspace.

Posted by: Hobbes Jul 18 2014, 05:54 AM

QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jul 17 2014, 07:04 PM) *
1. Assuming it was separatists that did it, what should U.S. response be? World response?
US and world response, which is already taking place, should be to re-route civilian aircraft around the conflict zone wherever possible. Beyond that, the question must be "was it intentional?" Investigate.


It seems pretty clear that the plane was intentionally shot down. It doesn't seem like they realized it was a civilian aircraft when they did it. BUT the system they used should have been able to tell them that it was.

QUOTE
They are capable of it. The missile system suspected of being used is produced by Russia, and has already been used by the militants to shoot down Ukrainian warplanes. The warplanes shot down were all hit at much lower elevations. Russia has apparently supplied these systems to the rebels.

Used by the militants (ie, Ukranian separatists), or used by people Russia has put in place there (ie, Russian soldiers, or soldiers sent there by Russia or under Russian orders and training) to shoot down aircraft?

QUOTE
3. To what degree should Malaysia Airlines be held responsible, for failing to avoid flying in this area?
They shouldn't. To my knowledge, nobody of any consequence anywhere in the world has suggested civilian airliners merely passing over would be at risk in the area.


I tend to agree, but other countries (the US included) had already decided not to fly there. But it was perfectly acceptable at that time for airlines to fly there. The only restriction, which Ukraine had put in place, was for such traffic to be above 30,000 feet, which this flight was. The ICA (sp?--international version of the FAA) has since declared all of eastern Ukraine a no fly zone.

QUOTE
4. What do you think of the responses from the U.S. and Putin so far? What do they say about how this will be played out?
I'm pretty sure that the US response on the foreign policy level will be handwaving and hashtags.


I actually like the call by Obama for a multinational investigation---as long as he really pushes to make that happen. The site has already been contaminated, and I wouldn't be surprised if most evidence (black boxes, etc) is gone long before anyone gets there to investigate. This does open up the possibility for the U.S., and Europe, to push strongly for some sort of cease fire, and for Ukraine to assume control of the area during the investigation.

I didn't have any issues with Obama's brief statement today. Putin's statements, on the other hand, were very pointed and political, stating that this tragedy was due to Ukraine's efforts against the separatists (when, most likely, the opposite is the case).

QUOTE
5. What impact, if any, do you think this will have on the conflict in Ukraine?
It's putting the separatists in a poor light, as well as putting their patrons, the Russians in a poor light. However, from a tactical/operational level, this may work to their advantage. By clearing the airspace above eastern Ukraine of civilian overflights, the rebels will have less concern about Ukrainian recon assets hiding among the airliners. That would mean the only things up there would be clean targets. Additionally, with no pesky civilians passing through, the Russians may be able to start using their own air assets to support their clients, which admittedly would slightly complicate the firing solutions. The effect of this may be similar to shooting a few rounds into the air outside the saloon. It clears the street before the gunfight.


It may clear the airspace, but its going to fill the ground with investigators. Neither Russia, nor the separatists, will be happy with that.

QUOTE
Of course, that truly could be all this is... wrong place, wrong time. It's possible that the rebels fired on a lower altitude Ukrainian warplane, and the missile, for whatever reason, ended up locking on to the 777 instead.


Possible, but seeming less likely all the time. First, I think the weapons are more sophisticated that that...they hit what they were locked on to when launched (unless the other plane is in very close proximity). Also, there was a tweet right after the incident with someone bragging they had just shot down another cargo plane...which was removed a short time later when everyone realized they hadn't. There is also the purported cell phone conversations between the Russians and the separatists regarding this incident (which certainly places Russians in the conflict, despite their claims to the contrary) indicating that while they realized what they had just done, they weren't too worked up about it....with the Russian officer even exclaiming 'F them, they shouldn't have been there). Not exactly a public relations coup for Russia, if verified.

http://www.ibtimes.com/mh17-crash-full-transcript-alleged-phone-intercepts-between-russian-intelligence-officers-1631992

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 17 2014, 08:39 PM) *
The 777 was knocked out of the air at 32,000 feet. Does this altitude eliminate quite a few weapons from the possible list?


Yes. Shoulder fired missiles, like Stingers, can't go that high. So, it was definitely from a fairly sophisticated and powerful surface to air missile system, apparently https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1182&bih=922&q=Russian+buk&oq=Russian+buk&gs_l=img.3...3363.5256.0.6081.11.9.0.2.2.0.99.629.9.9.0....0...1ac.1.49.img.
.1.10.538.JWN2ha6UVEQ&gws_rd=ssl. Also, there is a picture of just such a system in the area shortly before the launch.

QUOTE
Who has access to capable weapons?
Russians, and various countries they have sold these systems to. Ukraine had some, too, so it is possibly the militants captured one.

QUOTE
I agree with Bikerdad that the only sensible reaction is to avoid that airspace.


That goes without saying, now, I think. The question was more around what other responses. Should Obama push hard for a full and complete investigation. Easy answer seems to be 'yes'...but to what extent should he push to make that happen? Because there will be lots of resistance, and tampering of evidence.

It could be used as an excuse to bring in U.S., U.N., other European troops as peace keepers to assist in the investigation. Russia would want nothing of the sort happening, which is the main reason to even consider doing it. But that's a big step, which could lead to other 'accidents'.

Posted by: Trouble Jul 18 2014, 07:13 AM

QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jul 17 2014, 05:16 PM) *
Today, http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/17/world/europe/ukraine-malaysia-airlines-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_t1. All evidence indicates it was shot down, over separatist eastern Ukraine. We don't yet know who shot it down, or what equipment they used. So, an investigation is necessary, but I don't think it too early to discuss what the response should be, as responses have already been happening.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20140717-putin-s-statement-on-jetliner-crash.ece
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obama-vladimir-putin-talk-sanctions-109048.html
1. Assuming it was separatists that did it, what should U.S. response be? World response?
2. I'm not sure separatists would be capable of doing this. Even if they did capture a missile system from Ukraine, they probably wouldn't know how to use it (although this could be a symptom of that). So, the real possibility of Russians having done this, or being directly responsible for the people who did do it (many reports that they have brought mercenaries into the area). If Russia itself is directly implicated, how should the U.S. handle this?
3. To what degree should Malaysia Airlines be held responsible, for failing to avoid flying in this area?
4. What do you think of the responses from the U.S. and Putin so far? What do they say about how this will be played out?
5. What impact, if any, do you think this will have on the conflict in Ukraine?
6. Do you think the perpetrators of this will ever be brought to justice, as Malaysia is requesting? If so, will they be the real perpetrators, or just some scapegoats?


As details emerge it will be easier to answer the questions. What is obvious is that American officials have been trying vigorously to become involved in Ukraine since the coup. The Russians have been trying to limit western support. This is beyond debate. Does shooting down a plane make that more or less likely? I think it would be more than fair to place a 2b question.

2b. Did the Poroshenko government or a faction inside of it fire on MH17?

I'd say the third question would be easiest to answer presently but is subject to revision.
To what degree should Malaysia Airlines be held responsible, for failing to avoid flying in this area?

A lot depends if the flight path was http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-17/was-flight-mh-17-diverted-over-restricted-airspace over Ukraine airspace.

Were the pilots aware of restrictions over the airspace? American http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/the-faas-notice-prohibiting-airline-flights-over-ukraine/374622/ is pretty clear.

QUOTE
Did aviation authorities know that this was a dangerous area?
Yes, they most certainly did. Nearly three months ago, on the "Special Rules" section of its site, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration put out an order prohibiting American pilots, airlines, charter carriers, and everyone else over whom the FAA has direct jurisdiction, from flying over parts of Ukraine.



So if this notice was put into effect three months ago, what is the Malaysian airlines policy in these matters?
The current http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-jet-was-in-airspace-deemed-safe-officials-say-1.2710774 of reasoning makes little sense considering insurance providers would pull coverage immediately if additional risk was taken to simply shorten the route on a civilian airline. Frankly this is too silly to swallow.

Hopefully with additional information, we can more rigourously assess how the plane was downed as the plane was up pretty high for "rebel" equipment to hit.

Posted by: moif Jul 18 2014, 12:57 PM

There were several other civilian aircaft operating in the same airspace. A Danish commercial flight out of Copenhagen was literally 180 seconds behind the Malaysian. According to the maps I've seen on Danish television, at least half a dozen civilian aircaft were operating in the airspace over eastern Ukraine at the time. The civil air authorities have explained their presence by pointing out that the airspace above 31,000 meters was considered safely out of range of the conflict.

My understanding of events, from local European sources is that a pro Russian seperatist group recently captured several tracked BUK SAM systems and this was confirmed by Sergey Kurginyan (http://youtu.be/iWuM4KWkmmI). The seperatists used these BUK systems to shoot down two Ukrainian military aircraft prior to the shooting down of MH17 and locals posted https://scontent-a-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t1.0-9/10270496_657452757684095_3025491651536809693_n.jpg of the captured BUKs parked in the region.

When MH17 was shot down, separatist military leaders Girkin and Strelkov posted online that their men had shot down a Ukrainian army AN-26 and http://youtu.be/kuX6rEOjyqA showing footage of the smoke plume. Then the seperatists militia who gone to investigate the wreckage found it was of a commercial airliner. http://youtu.be/4AWP8ClUL9Q and reveal their complicity. Girkin and Strelkov then removed their tweets and facebook posts and began pointing at the Ukraine military, claiming they did not have any SAM systems capable of hitting aircaft at that altitude.

The local Russian backed militia shot the missile at a blip on the radar, a blip they couldn't identify because they didn't have the means to see a commercial transponder. They are directly responsible for shooting down an aircraft full of families on vacation and http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-plane-crash/aids-expert-joep-lange-among-victims-mh17-attack-over-ukraine-n159111. Some of them have tried to shift the blame to their victims by claiming a commercial flight should not have been flying over a war zone. Rapists often use the same logic when they say 'she dressed like a slut'.

Putin however started all this with his dream of bringing back Greater Russia. Just like he did in Georgia. He has the blood of yet more children on his hands. He is directly responsible and so too are those Russians who support his eighteenth century megalomania.

Posted by: AuthorMusician Jul 18 2014, 03:00 PM

1. Assuming it was separatists that did it, what should U.S. response be? World response?

It's looking as if the separatists were indeed at fault, and it was a typical SNAFU/FUBAR, according to communications that have come out.

2. I'm not sure separatists would be capable of doing this. Even if they did capture a missile system from Ukraine, they probably wouldn't know how to use it (although this could be a symptom of that). So, the real possibility of Russians having done this, or being directly responsible for the people who did do it (many reports that they have brought mercenaries into the area). If Russia itself is directly implicated, how should the U.S. handle this?

Putin is now experiencing what a huge pile of poo he has stepped into. It'd be smart for the US to leverage this event against Putin's ambitions. The obvious place to exercise the leverage is among the European countries still doing trade with Russia.

3. To what degree should Malaysia Airlines be held responsible, for failing to avoid flying in this area?

Interesting way to put it. The airline will likely be sued by the dozen or so countries with flesh in this thing. The company was likely trying to save a few bucks on fuel.

4. What do you think of the responses from the U.S. and Putin so far? What do they say about how this will be played out?

I think the response is reasonable, in that the facts are being collected and analyzed. This doesn't say anything about how it will play out.

5. What impact, if any, do you think this will have on the conflict in Ukraine?

World sentiments have just gone to the Ukrainian government over the separatists. However, it was pretty much there anyway, and this also points to an accidental situation. Nobody had anything to gain, and Putin has already lost.

6. Do you think the perpetrators of this will ever be brought to justice, as Malaysia is requesting? If so, will they be the real perpetrators, or just some scapegoats?


It is fairly certain that this incident was not done on purpose. So what do you do with poorly trained men trying to be soldiers and having weapons far beyond their abilities to use them?

Throw them into the Stupid Slammer? Seriously, it'd be manslaughter. Up to 15 years in prison would be appropriate if this were not a war zone. The perps probably will get away with it.

Posted by: Aquilla Jul 19 2014, 03:47 AM

I am going to join "Team Obama" :gasp: Here is what we do.....


1. Assuming it was separatists that did it, what should U.S. response be? World response?




Hold a fund-raiser with a bunch of billionaire liberals (proving you don't need brains to make money).

2. I'm not sure separatists would be capable of doing this. Even if they did capture a missile system from Ukraine, they probably wouldn't know how to use it (although this could be a symptom of that). So, the real possibility of Russians having done this, or being directly responsible for the people who did do it (many reports that they have brought mercenaries into the area). If Russia itself is directly implicated, how should the U.S. handle this?


Some of the separatists are probably former Ukraine military that have been trained in the use of this system. Nothing there.

3. To what degree should Malaysia Airlines be held responsible, for failing to avoid flying in this area?


Kind of a dumb thing to do, but then again, it helps Boeing to sell more airplanes to them.


4. What do you think of the responses from the U.S. and Putin so far? What do they say about how this will be played out?


US response has been typical, "strong letter to follow". Putin? "Yeah right"

5. What impact, if any, do you think this will have on the conflict in Ukraine?


None, we'll "lead from behind" meaning Putin makes the calls. Everyone comfortable with that?

6. Do you think the perpetrators of this will ever be brought to justice, as Malaysia is requesting? If so, will they be the real perpetrators, or just some scapegoats?


We need to put that crack investigator, Eric Holder, on this. He'll get to the truth. Just don't send Lois Lerner to collect the black boxes, she'll break them.


Aquilla

Posted by: AuthorMusician Jul 19 2014, 04:01 PM

QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jul 18 2014, 11:47 PM) *
I am going to join "Team Obama" :gasp: Here is what we do.....

1. Assuming it was separatists that did it, what should U.S. response be? World response?
Hold a fund-raiser with a bunch of billionaire liberals (proving you don't need brains to make money).

Heh, yeah. It'd be better than the conservative response of running in there, guns blazing, we'll just rack up more debt to accomplish nothing and actually make things worse. Economy crashes, but so what? We'll just rack up more debt to keep it going, and onward we go for what might be a long time.

As more information comes out, this is still looking like a stupid accident. Hey, what happens when I push that button? Putin has been jumping all over the place trying to make it seem not his fault.

It isn't working, and now almost all of Europe is against him. It won't take much persuading from Obama to slap more sanctions on Russia. The problem with this is it might go too far, pushing Putin to start invading the places that have the stuff he wants in Russia. It could blow up into WW III, and this time with more nukes than WW II.

So let's hope that doesn't happen.

Posted by: Aquilla Jul 19 2014, 06:04 PM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jul 19 2014, 11:01 AM) *
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jul 18 2014, 11:47 PM) *
I am going to join "Team Obama" :gasp: Here is what we do.....

1. Assuming it was separatists that did it, what should U.S. response be? World response?
Hold a fund-raiser with a bunch of billionaire liberals (proving you don't need brains to make money).

Heh, yeah. It'd be better than the conservative response of running in there, guns blazing, we'll just rack up more debt to accomplish nothing and actually make things worse. Economy crashes, but so what? We'll just rack up more debt to keep it going, and onward we go for what might be a long time.

As more information comes out, this is still looking like a stupid accident. Hey, what happens when I push that button? Putin has been jumping all over the place trying to make it seem not his fault.

It isn't working, and now almost all of Europe is against him. It won't take much persuading from Obama to slap more sanctions on Russia. The problem with this is it might go too far, pushing Putin to start invading the places that have the stuff he wants in Russia. It could blow up into WW III, and this time with more nukes than WW II.

So let's hope that doesn't happen.



Nobody has supported running in with guns blazing. Reagan ended the cold war and defeated the Soviets without firing a shot. He did that with a coherent set of policies and strong leadership. Your Messiah is incapable of either. He does a good standup routine, but that's about it.

Our friends don't trust us, our foes don't respect us. Given the current state of the Presidency, my best solution would be to send John Kerry over to have a 4 hour chat with Putin. 4 Hours in the same room with Kerry would either result in complete surrender or a pre-emptive strike. rolleyes.gif

Aquilla

Posted by: Ted Jul 19 2014, 06:05 PM

the latest news is pretty damming for Russia. the sophisticated missile system could not have been operated by the "separatists"...this is no shoulder fired missile.
Our response should be to jack up the sanctions and consider at least arms to the Ukrainian government . we know for a fact that all kinds of heavy weapons including tanks are pouring in over the eastern border. clearly madman Putin intends to have the east as a minimum.

this will have little impact on the conflict unless NATO wakes up - unlikely. Russia will deny all proof, gram all evidence that can at the scene and ignore the world....Putin doesn't give a damn what the world thinks - he may care about what the world does - which has been nearly nothing to date.

Finally let me say again as I have in the past. with thousands of shoulder fired missiles lose all over the world and nuts like Putin giving (and operating) big air defense systems to whoever, we need to fund systems that will protect our airliners. the systems have been out there for some time....


Posted by: Aquilla Jul 19 2014, 06:31 PM

QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 19 2014, 01:05 PM) *
the latest news is pretty damming for Russia. the sophisticated missile system could not have been operated by the "separatists"...this is no shoulder fired missile.



Keep in mind, Ted, some of those "separatists" could have been in the Ukraine military and been trained in the use of that missile system prior to them going rogue.

Aquilla

Posted by: Ted Jul 19 2014, 06:50 PM

QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jul 19 2014, 02:31 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 19 2014, 01:05 PM) *
the latest news is pretty damming for Russia. the sophisticated missile system could not have been operated by the "separatists"...this is no shoulder fired missile.



Keep in mind, Ted, some of those "separatists" could have been in the Ukraine military and been trained in the use of that missile system prior to them going rogue.

Aquilla

the system came from Russia - we know that because they caught it on camera going back. if the Russians were stupid enough to give this system to people who clearly screwed up in using it they bear the blame...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2696847/They-shouldnt-f-g-flying-There-war-going-Ukraine-intelligence-officials-release-phone-calls-claim-PROVES-Russia-shot-Flight-MH17.html

Posted by: Aquilla Jul 19 2014, 06:59 PM

QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 19 2014, 01:50 PM) *
the system came from Russia - we know that because they caught it on camera going back. if the Russians were stupid enough to give this system to people who clearly screwed up in using it they bear the blame...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2696847/They-shouldnt-f-g-flying-There-war-going-Ukraine-intelligence-officials-release-phone-calls-claim-PROVES-Russia-shot-Flight-MH17.html



I don't question that at all. And I don't absolve the Russians/Soviets of any complicity in this. Putin's hands are all over it. But, I don't think the argument that the separatists lacked the training in that missile holds much water. They may very well have been trained at some point by the Russians/Soviets.

Aquilla

Posted by: AuthorMusician Jul 19 2014, 10:10 PM

QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jul 19 2014, 02:04 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jul 19 2014, 11:01 AM) *
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jul 18 2014, 11:47 PM) *
I am going to join "Team Obama" :gasp: Here is what we do.....

1. Assuming it was separatists that did it, what should U.S. response be? World response?
Hold a fund-raiser with a bunch of billionaire liberals (proving you don't need brains to make money).

Heh, yeah. It'd be better than the conservative response of running in there, guns blazing, we'll just rack up more debt to accomplish nothing and actually make things worse. Economy crashes, but so what? We'll just rack up more debt to keep it going, and onward we go for what might be a long time.

As more information comes out, this is still looking like a stupid accident. Hey, what happens when I push that button? Putin has been jumping all over the place trying to make it seem not his fault.

It isn't working, and now almost all of Europe is against him. It won't take much persuading from Obama to slap more sanctions on Russia. The problem with this is it might go too far, pushing Putin to start invading the places that have the stuff he wants in Russia. It could blow up into WW III, and this time with more nukes than WW II.

So let's hope that doesn't happen.



Nobody has supported running in with guns blazing. Reagan ended the cold war and defeated the Soviets without firing a shot. He did that with a coherent set of policies and strong leadership. Your Messiah is incapable of either. He does a good standup routine, but that's about it.

Our friends don't trust us, our foes don't respect us. Given the current state of the Presidency, my best solution would be to send John Kerry over to have a 4 hour chat with Putin. 4 Hours in the same room with Kerry would either result in complete surrender or a pre-emptive strike. rolleyes.gif

Aquilla

Heh, flying into the face of history has to be tough. But carry on with criticizing the sitting POTUS about foreign affairs that you know precious little about. Republicans seem to have invented cute little euphemisms to hide their real agenda to send our military into each and every situation out there:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/01/republicans-call-on-obama-to-act-in-ukraine/

They are not to be trusted, and that is the legacy of 9/11/01 that they have earned.

McCain should really keep his trap shut. He was the one wanting to stay in Iraq for a hundred years or so.

Anyway, I hope President Obama's team does indeed pull off some kind of deal that keeps Putin from launching nukes. The potential of global thermonuclear war should offset petty partisan politics. Sorry about spitting so much.

Posted by: Aquilla Jul 20 2014, 12:32 AM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jul 19 2014, 05:10 PM) *
Heh, flying into the face of history has to be tough. But carry on with criticizing the sitting POTUS about foreign affairs that you know precious little about. Republicans seem to have invented cute little euphemisms to hide their real agenda to send our military into each and every situation out there:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/01/republicans-call-on-obama-to-act-in-ukraine/

They are not to be trusted, and that is the legacy of 9/11/01 that they have earned.

McCain should really keep his trap shut. He was the one wanting to stay in Iraq for a hundred years or so.

Anyway, I hope President Obama's team does indeed pull off some kind of deal that keeps Putin from launching nukes. The potential of global thermonuclear war should offset petty partisan politics. Sorry about spitting so much.



I know as much about "foreign affairs" as Obama does since he claims to find out everything from "the news". Hell, I might even know more because I watch FOX News.

Face it, the guy is CLUELESS. He doesn't know what to do about anything, so he just plays golf and goes to fund-raisers. Good gig if you can get it.

Aquilla

Posted by: Dingo Jul 20 2014, 01:57 AM

QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jul 19 2014, 05:32 PM) *
I know as much about "foreign affairs" as Obama does since he claims to find out everything from "the news". Hell, I might even know more because I watch FOX News.

Throw in a little Limbaugh supplement with Beck for desert and you should have yourself covered. wacko.gif

Posted by: Aquilla Jul 20 2014, 03:30 AM

QUOTE(Dingo @ Jul 19 2014, 08:57 PM) *
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jul 19 2014, 05:32 PM) *
I know as much about "foreign affairs" as Obama does since he claims to find out everything from "the news". Hell, I might even know more because I watch FOX News.

Throw in a little Limbaugh supplement with Beck for desert and you should have yourself covered. wacko.gif



That's a useful comment, and quite typical of you. Obama himself has claimed to hear about his own ineptness from the news. If you have a problem with that, don't blame Rush or Glenn Beck. You elected the idiot.

Aquilla

Posted by: AuthorMusician Jul 20 2014, 12:56 PM

QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jul 19 2014, 11:30 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Jul 19 2014, 08:57 PM) *
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jul 19 2014, 05:32 PM) *
I know as much about "foreign affairs" as Obama does since he claims to find out everything from "the news". Hell, I might even know more because I watch FOX News.

Throw in a little Limbaugh supplement with Beck for desert and you should have yourself covered. wacko.gif



That's a useful comment, and quite typical of you. Obama himself has claimed to hear about his own ineptness from the news. If you have a problem with that, don't blame Rush or Glenn Beck. You elected the idiot.

Aquilla

OMG, now I see it! The enormous wisdom of the shills has finally penetrated my poor brainwashed noggin. I am so ashamed of having voted for Obama twice that I will never, ever vote for him again.

That is my solemn promise to the world and our country, tis of thee.

Anyway, Putin's goons screwed up and shot down a commercial airliner full of innocent people, and everyone died. Now what?

A. We intervene with our military and force Crimea back into the fold.

B. We increase sanctions on Russia, hoping that this doesn't force Putin to retaliate somehow (thinking nukes here).

C. We do nothing and wait for Putin's inevitable fall from power.

D. We sue the stuffing out of airlines that try to save a few bucks on fuel while risking their customers' lives.

E. We give tax cuts to the rich and deregulate Wall Street.

F. We restrict women's rights and promote corporations' rights.

G. We buy firearms in case we ever get invaded or something.

H. We vote for Republicans in 2014 and 2016 because Obama is such a poopy pants.

So, what's it going to be?

Posted by: Ted Jul 20 2014, 04:57 PM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jul 20 2014, 08:56 AM) *
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jul 19 2014, 11:30 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Jul 19 2014, 08:57 PM) *
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jul 19 2014, 05:32 PM) *
I know as much about "foreign affairs" as Obama does since he claims to find out everything from "the news". Hell, I might even know more because I watch FOX News.

Throw in a little Limbaugh supplement with Beck for desert and you should have yourself covered. wacko.gif



That's a useful comment, and quite typical of you. Obama himself has claimed to hear about his own ineptness from the news. If you have a problem with that, don't blame Rush or Glenn Beck. You elected the idiot.

Aquilla

OMG, now I see it! The enormous wisdom of the shills has finally penetrated my poor brainwashed noggin. I am so ashamed of having voted for Obama twice that I will never, ever vote for him again.

That is my solemn promise to the world and our country, tis of thee.

Anyway, Putin's goons screwed up and shot down a commercial airliner full of innocent people, and everyone died. Now what?

A. We intervene with our military and force Crimea back into the fold.

B. We increase sanctions on Russia, hoping that this doesn't force Putin to retaliate somehow (thinking nukes here).

C. We do nothing and wait for Putin's inevitable fall from power.

D. We sue the stuffing out of airlines that try to save a few bucks on fuel while risking their customers' lives.

E. We give tax cuts to the rich and deregulate Wall Street.

F. We restrict women's rights and promote corporations' rights.

G. We buy firearms in case we ever get invaded or something.

H. We vote for Republicans in 2014 and 2016 because Obama is such a poopy pants.

So, what's it going to be?

ya sure - so sanctions leads him right to a nuclear war he cannot win - Really??? LOL laugh.gif

so your argument is just do as Obama does - look weak and wait for the next attack/takeover...

Sanctions and their threat is probably all that is saving the rest of Ukraine - we need more of em right now. and I do believe the other NATO allies need to step up here.

and if you think Putin is going to "fall from power" tell me how that happens - and then tell me the guy that replaces him will be some nice guy ready for pressing the "reset button" again laugh.gif

Posted by: Aquilla Jul 20 2014, 09:20 PM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jul 20 2014, 07:56 AM) *
OMG, now I see it! The enormous wisdom of the shills has finally penetrated my poor brainwashed noggin. I am so ashamed of having voted for Obama twice that I will never, ever vote for him again.

That is my solemn promise to the world and our country, tis of thee.



I don't doubt that you voted for Obama twice. He is as delusional as you are. In your case, it's harmless, you just attempt to entertain us on a website. In his case, it's dangerous. He sees the world the way he wants it to be, but has no clue on how to make that "vision", blurred as it is, happen. He thinks that just by saying it he makes it true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2msbfN81Gm0

Aquilla

Posted by: Hobbes Jul 21 2014, 05:15 AM

QUOTE(Trouble @ Jul 18 2014, 02:13 AM) *
As details emerge it will be easier to answer the questions. What is obvious is that American officials have been trying vigorously to become involved in Ukraine since the coup. The Russians have been trying to limit western support. This is beyond debate. Does shooting down a plane make that more or less likely? I think it would be more than fair to place a 2b question.


Actually, I believe American officials have been doing everything they can to stay uninvolved in Ukraine. They have been working from a distance, imposing sanctions, etc. Obama, just prior (I believe the morning of?) this incident imposed harsher sanctions. I'm ok with that, but it does beg the question as to whether or not they're working. I do believe this incident creates an excuse to get more involved if they (or their European allies) choose to, but it seems they still have little interest in that.
QUOTE
2b. Did the Poroshenko government or a faction inside of it fire on MH17?

I'd say the third question would be easiest to answer presently but is subject to revision.


At this point, that seems beyond question. I don't believe they did it on purpose (was there anyone on board they might have wanted to take out?), but clearly they are running from it as fast as possible. John Kerry earlier today stated that we KNOW that Russia provided the missile systems, that they have brought them back inside of Russia, and that one of them appears to be missing a missile. We also now have further intercepted phone calls indicating the Russia has issued an edict that nothing of any value from the plane wreckage ever make its way into Western hands. Personally, I find that interesting---what is the black box going to really say that would incriminate Russia, or anyone? At best, it might indicate where the plane was when hit, and which part of the plane was hit first. We probably already know the first from other data, and knowing the second says nothing about who fired the missile. BUT this is still very incriminating information. Although I think most realize that Russia has been very involved in the uprising in the Ukraine, they have also very vociferously denied any involvement. This makes their involvement, and the degree of it, much more apparent than Putin would like.

QUOTE
Were the pilots aware of restrictions over the airspace? American http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/the-faas-notice-prohibiting-airline-flights-over-ukraine/374622/ is pretty clear.


The FAA is not the relevant party for international flights. That is the ICA (or some similar acronym) and they indicated flights there were fine. Just 90 seconds behind MH 17 was another flight, on the same path.

They quickly called all easter Ukraine restricted after this event.

QUOTE
Hopefully with additional information, we can more rigourously assess how the plane was downed as the plane was up pretty high for "rebel" equipment to hit.


Yes, it was. Which is why they were given Russian equipment.

-------------------

Given some of the information coming out, that this seems to have been done with equipment specifically supplied by Russian, almost certainly with Russian training (they are very sophisticated pieces of equipment, and this is an area that doesn't even have much refrigeration, or apparently even watches (most of the valuable belongings have been stolen, including money, watches, etc---one soldier joked in town about how everyone seemed to be sporting new watches today)...there is no way they would have any idea how to use this system without help. Interecepted phone calls clearly indicate that they were operating under the 'control' of Russia (indirect if not direct). Given this....how much should we hold Russia legally to blame? I wouldn't mind seeing a call for this. Not only is it justified, but it would force Putin on the defensive, which I can't really imagine how that would be a bad thing.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Jul 21 2014, 12:11 PM

QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jul 21 2014, 01:15 AM) *
QUOTE(Trouble @ Jul 18 2014, 02:13 AM) *
As details emerge it will be easier to answer the questions. What is obvious is that American officials have been trying vigorously to become involved in Ukraine since the coup. The Russians have been trying to limit western support. This is beyond debate. Does shooting down a plane make that more or less likely? I think it would be more than fair to place a 2b question.


Actually, I believe American officials have been doing everything they can to stay uninvolved in Ukraine.


Agreed. The fact that the plane was Malaysian Air, with the recent missing plane, really fuels conspiracy theories. Especially in Russia. This is a part of the world where past experience relied on the surreptitious passage of bits of information....it was the only way to find the truth behind the Iron Curtain. Conspiracy theories run rampant.

I don't think there is much to be done here...aside from redirecting air traffic, investigating, writing an angry letter/saying an angry speech, and some sort of civil action against the offending state (Russia, assumably) to compensate the families of victims in some way.
Objectively and realistically, this is a warzone. I doubt that the rebels/freedom fighters/loyalists/whatever in Ukraine have more resources and equipment to collect intel than the US Navy had in 1988.

Posted by: AuthorMusician Jul 21 2014, 12:39 PM

Not only is Putin in a world of hurt, his country's billionaires are shaking in their boots:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-20/russian-billionaires-in-horror-as-putin-risks-isolation.html

Nobody but Putin's inner circle believes that he isn't to blame. Well, maybe the rank-file Russians being fed nothing but propaganda from the state-run press. The Dutch lost the most people in the attack, and that country, along with the UK, is pushing for greater sanctions from the EU. One commentator in the article did say that Putin's actions have rolled back the clock to the 1980s, the height of the Cold War. Another worried that the Russian economy would collapse in six months.

On top of this, Russia has risked becoming a terrorist state like Libya was after the airliner bombing attributed to that country.

Looks to me that Putin isn't long for this world. Either he will voluntarily retire or be forcibly retired via a strange and mysterious accident. You don't mess with billionaires' money without serious repercussions. That would be a positive outcome.

Posted by: akaCG Jul 21 2014, 01:06 PM

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jul 21 2014, 08:11 AM) *
...
... The fact that the plane was Malaysian Air, with the recent missing plane, really fuels conspiracy theories. Especially in Russia. This is a part of the world where past experience relied on the surreptitious passage of bits of information....it was the only way to find the truth behind the Iron Curtain. Conspiracy theories run rampant.
...

Yup:
QUOTE
...
Did you know Malaysia Air Flight 17 was full of corpses when it took off from Amsterdam? Did you know that, for some darkly inexplicable reason, on July 17, MH17 moved off the standard flight path that it had taken every time before, and moved north, toward rebel-held areas outside Donetsk? Or that the dispatchers summoned the plane lower just before the crash? Or that the plane had been recently reinsured? Or that the Ukrainian army has air defense systems in the area? Or that it was the result of the Ukrainian military mistaking MH 17 for Putin’s presidential plane, which looks strangely similar?

Did you know that the crash of MH17 was all part of an American conspiracy to provoke a big war with Russia?

Well, it’s all true—at least if you live in Russia, because this is the Malaysia Airlines crash story that you’d be seeing.
...
... The best of the bunch is, of course, an elaborate one: MH17 is actually MH370, that Malaysia Airlines flight that disappeared into the Indian Ocean. According to this theory, the plane didn’t disappear at all, “it was taken to an American military base, Diego-Garcia.”
...
Floriana Fossato, a longtime scholar of Russian media, says that this, coupled with the media’s conscious use of the Soviet language of crisis—“traitors,” “fascists,” “fifth columns”—quickly brings to the surface the psychological demons of a society massively traumatized by the 20th century, traumas that society has never adequately addressed. The result, she says, is a kind of collective PTSD-meets-Stockholm Syndrome.
...

Link: http://www.newrepublic.com/node/118782


Posted by: Hobbes Jul 21 2014, 04:14 PM

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jul 21 2014, 07:11 AM) *
I don't think there is much to be done here...aside from redirecting air traffic, investigating, writing an angry letter/saying an angry speech, and some sort of civil action against the offending state (Russia, assumably) to compensate the families of victims in some way.
Objectively and realistically, this is a warzone. I doubt that the rebels/freedom fighters/loyalists/whatever in Ukraine have more resources and equipment to collect intel than the US Navy had in 1988.


Just for this incident, agree. But it creates an opportunity to put more pressure on Putin over his other actions, some of which led directly to this incident. Obama seems to be doing this, now that we have some direct evidence of their involvement. This is a good thing, I think.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jul 21 2014, 07:39 AM) *
Nobody but Putin's inner circle believes that he isn't to blame. Well, maybe the rank-file Russians being fed nothing but propaganda from the state-run press. The Dutch lost the most people in the attack, and that country, along with the UK, is pushing for greater sanctions from the EU. One commentator in the article did say that Putin's actions have rolled back the clock to the 1980s, the height of the Cold War. Another worried that the Russian economy would collapse in six months.

On top of this, Russia has risked becoming a terrorist state like Libya was after the airliner bombing attributed to that country.


Looks to me that Putin isn't long for this world. Either he will voluntarily retire or be forcibly retired via a strange and mysterious accident. You don't mess with billionaires' money without serious repercussions. That would be a positive outcome.


Yep! And I'll bet Putin's inner circle knows better than anyone the various lies he tells....they're just not going to say a thing about it.

FWIW....I think they are just making matters worse for themselves hiding all the 'evidence'. I can't imagine anything on the black box that is going to say who fired the missile that brought the plane down. Probably not even anything indicating for sure it was a missile. It might indicate where the missile struck (ie, what systems malfunctioned first).

Posted by: Hobbes Jul 22 2014, 05:57 PM

I also find it pretty comical that Russia is trying to say that it might have been Ukraine firing BUK missiles that downed this plane. What would Ukraine have needed BUK missiles there for? The separatists don't have any planes, do they? Especially not anything requiring something like this to shoot down. So, the only reason Ukraine would need such a system was to shoot down RUSSIAN planes in the area, which Putin denies having there---Putin is actually incriminating himself with this fabrication.

I think AM might be right...Putin's end may be coming. He's unraveling....

Posted by: Gray Seal Jul 22 2014, 06:07 PM

I am not sure what you are saying, Hobbes. I heard on The Independents that Ukraine has 60 of these BUK units. Are you saying it is impossible that Ukraine would use one of them?

It seems to me that there are plenty of idiots around. Idiocy is not exclusive to separatists, Russian, or any region you could name. Some idiot in control of one of the Ukraine BUK units could have fired a missile.

I do not know of any political region for which I have confidence to tell the truth. We do know it was a region at war which was firing missiles to take down planes before the Malaysian Airline incident. Airlines are getting smarter a bit late but flying in such a region is hazardous.

Posted by: Hobbes Jul 22 2014, 07:15 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 22 2014, 01:07 PM) *
I am not sure what you are saying, Hobbes. I heard on The Independents that Ukraine has 60 of these BUK units. Are you saying it is impossible that Ukraine would use one of them?


If they used them....what were they using them against? The separatists have no air force...the only thing they could have been there for was to shoot down RUSSIAN planes, which Russia denies are there.

QUOTE
It seems to me that there are plenty of idiots around. Idiocy is not exclusive to separatists, Russian, or any region you could name. Some idiot in control of one of the Ukraine BUK units could have fired a missile.


Again, at what? Why would they even be manning them, as there is no opposing air force they would be worried about.

So, my point is that the only reason Russia would even bring this up is that Putin knows he HAS been sending planes there, which he has denied. So his creation of this narrative for the MH17 incident actually implicates himself on something else.

FWIW...the U.S. has apparently confirmed that there were NO Ukraining BUK missile launchers any where near this area. Which makes sense...no reason for them to be there.

Posted by: Gray Seal Jul 22 2014, 08:40 PM

I do not trust the United States. The United States is not a good source.

As to what Ukraine might have been shooting at, I believe a commercial airliner was struck by a missile.

I do not think it is likely that the facts will ever be iron clad known.

Posted by: Hobbes Jul 22 2014, 09:31 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 22 2014, 03:40 PM) *
I do not trust the United States. The United States is not a good source.


The other source is Putin, who can't speak on this issue without issuing bald faced lies. Plus, what he says makes no sense, whereas what the U.S. is putting out does. But, if you aren't going to trust the U.S., or the West....who ARE you going to trust? Putin? Ukraine? The separatists? Those will be the only information sources we will have. And the separatists aren't going to say anything Putin doesn't tell them to say.

QUOTE
As to what Ukraine might have been shooting at, I believe a commercial airliner was struck by a missile.

I do not think it is likely that the facts will ever be iron clad known.


Why would Ukraine shoot at a commercial airliner???? Why would they even have missile launchers in the area?

Facts are never iron clad known. But what happened here seems pretty obvious. Russia gave the separatists some missile launchers, to help them in their fight against Ukraine, and they shot down this airliner with them.

Unless you believe Putin, and this was just a transport plane filled with corpses, masquerading as an airliner.

Posted by: Gray Seal Jul 22 2014, 10:45 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/07/no_author/awkward-questions-for-us-ukraine/

What is obvious to you does not seem to be based upon anything other than choosing to pick a side based upon faith. It is faith which is not earned.

I do not believe either Putin or Ukraine or the United States. There is no need to be forced to pick one.

Why does Ukraine have BUKs if the rebels do not have aviation? Why deploy them needlessly? These seem like good questions to me.

It is a quagmire. Sorting it out is not vital. It is important to not blindly believe governments which have not earned that trust. Such trust leads to support of bad decisions. We have done enough of that as voters here in the United States. It is time to quit being lenient.

Posted by: Hobbes Jul 23 2014, 03:17 AM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 22 2014, 05:45 PM) *
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/07/no_author/awkward-questions-for-us-ukraine/

What is obvious to you does not seem to be based upon anything other than choosing to pick a side based upon faith. It is faith which is not earned.


No, it is obvious based on what transpired, the current situation, what is known about Russia's involvement in the eastern Ukraine, and the evidence at hand. I'm not picking a side....I'm looking at what the various sides are saying, and noting which ones are clearly covering up their tracks---which is incriminating in itself.

QUOTE
I do not believe either Putin or Ukraine or the United States. There is no need to be forced to pick one.


I get your point, but in this situation, yes, you are going to be forced to pick one, because they will be ouallnly information sources you have (along with Europe/the Netherlands). There isn't going to be an unfettered investigation. The evidence on who might have actually been involved is going to come from one of the above sources. As is any of the various radar/satellite data. So, the best we can do is look at what is presented, and judge for ourselves. So far, what the U.S. is saying makes sense. What Putin is putting forth not only doesn't make sense, but is either completely outlandish (the plane was full of corpses? Really?) or doesn't make sense (Ukrainian missiles did it, when they have no reason to even be in the area or anything to shoot at).

QUOTE
Why does Ukraine have BUKs if the rebels do not have aviation? Why deploy them needlessly? These seem like good questions to me.


Fair enough...which is why I say what Putin is saying doesn't add up, whereas what I'm hearing from the U.S. does. For example, the info that the U.S. has verified that Ukraine didn't have any Buk launchers any where in that area. I would be skeptical on the surface....but there aren't any reasons they would have them there, and wouldn't want them captured and used against them, so it makes sense that they wouldn't be there. But Russia's initial story that it was Ukraine that shot the missile didn't make sense, for the reasons I stated---they had nothing to be shooting at, whereas the separatists did.

FWIW...if the U.S. were putting out a false story, there are other sources that could contradict it. We aren't the only ones with radar or satellites in the area. I think Obama is well aware of this, and understands that if they put out something false, they will lose whatever leverage they have against Putin on this. Putin, on the other hand, is either already neck deep in it, or doesn't care. His control over the media in his country is pretty absolute, so no other story but the ones he puts forth is going to get out.

QUOTE
It is a quagmire. Sorting it out is not vital. It is important to not blindly believe governments which have not earned that trust. Such trust leads to support of bad decisions. We have done enough of that as voters here in the United States. It is time to quit being lenient.


I get your point, and would normally agree with you. But, big difference between trust domestically and trust in foreign affairs. Obama has nothing to gain by putting forth a lie or something not backed up with evidence in this instance, and plenty to lose if contradictory evidence surfaces. If Russia had it, they would put it forth. So, no, I don't trust either party, and certainly skeptical of Ukrainian info, but that doesn't mean you can't see which side's story is adding up, and which sides isn't...or noting which side doesn't have much, if any, reason to lie, and which one does.

Posted by: Bikerdad Jul 23 2014, 08:23 AM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 22 2014, 02:40 PM) *
I do not trust the United States. The United States is not a good source.

As to what Ukraine might have been shooting at, I believe a commercial airliner was struck by a missile.

I do not think it is likely that the facts will ever be iron clad known.

Again, you are dodging the question. What possible reason would the Ukrainians have had for shooting AT an aircraft overflying them, from WEST (i.e. friendly territory) to EAST? Especially given that the Ukrainians had tactical control over the airspace? To date, NO "separatist" air assets have been identified, claimed, or even hinted at. The claim that the Ukrainians shot it down makes as much sense as a claim that MH370 has actually been forced into a real world instantiation of Lost.

Sure, its possible, but stands as a amorphous blob of Jello in the face of Occam's Razor.


QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 22 2014, 04:45 PM) *
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/07/no_author/awkward-questions-for-us-ukraine/

What is obvious to you does not seem to be based upon anything other than choosing to pick a side based upon faith. It is faith which is not earned.

I do not believe either Putin or Ukraine or the United States. There is no need to be forced to pick one.

Why does Ukraine have BUKs if the rebels do not have aviation?

hmmm, perhaps because their neighbor is Russia?? Ukraine also has strategic bombers. They inherited both, as well as many other weapons, during the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. All military equipment, with the exception of nukes, became the property of whatever Republic nee country it was in when the dissolution took place.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Jul 23 2014, 12:26 PM

QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jul 23 2014, 04:23 AM) *
QUOTE
Why does Ukraine have BUKs if the rebels do not have aviation?

hmmm, perhaps because their neighbor is Russia?? Ukraine also has strategic bombers. They inherited both, as well as many other weapons, during the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. All military equipment, with the exception of nukes, became the property of whatever Republic nee country it was in when the dissolution took place.


I was thinking the same. Furthermore, the Ukraine is a sovereign country, responsible for its own defense, and should have an air defense system. It would be odd in the extreme if they didn't.

Of the scenarios:
1. The Russian-backed separatists accidentally fired on a passenger plane, believing it to be a Ukrainian military plane.
2. The Ukrainian military fired on a passenger plane for PR points against Putin (which would require a massive coverup, to say the least).

The first is the most plausible by far. The second passes neither the reasonability test nor reasonable doubt standard.

Posted by: Hobbes Jul 23 2014, 12:44 PM

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jul 23 2014, 07:26 AM) *
Of the scenarios:
1. The Russian-backed separatists accidentally fired on a passenger plane, believing it to be a Ukrainian military plane.
2. The Ukrainian military fired on a passenger plane for PR points against Putin (which would require a massive coverup, to say the least).

The first is the most plausible by far. The second passes neither the reasonability test nor reasonable doubt standard.


Which is what my point is. It's not that I inherently trust any side here to provide the unfiltered truth, but what one side is saying adds up, and what the other side is saying doesn't.

Posted by: Gray Seal Jul 23 2014, 03:11 PM

I have less faith in the miscreants in leadership of Ukraine. I do think they are capable of mischief such as taking down a commercial craft and blaming the rebels.

The scenario of a mistaken firing of a missile does seem most likely. Most likely, not a slam dunk.

The United States has lots of information is could release to the public about the incident. Instead it is playing a blame game for political reasons. I do not appreciate nor agree with the politics. I am neither blind nor naive about shenanigans with the truth our administration is capable of in recent history whether it be Bush or a Obama.

There seems to be two sources: internet chat and Russian data. The absence of information from the United States is glaring.

There will be some information from the flight recorder soon. I doubt this black box data will make the picture clear.

If everyone is labeling the rebel accidental firing of a missile as the most likely scenario, I can understand that. If everyone is saying this is what happened and there is no reasonable doubt, I believe this to be prejudiced opinion and more driven such as a fanboi than actual data to back it up.

The rhetoric from the United States is predictable and disturbing. The militaristic attitude is disruptive to the world.

-------

Does the data showing a fighter jet in the near vicinity of MH-17 immediately before the tragedy give any of you pause? Maybe there was no BUK involved?

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Jul 23 2014, 03:26 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 23 2014, 11:11 AM) *
There seems to be two sources: internet chat and Russian data. The absence of information from the United States is glaring.


The US will probably not release any information that would endanger (compromise, whatnot) evidence that might become necessary for trial in the future.

Even, hypothetically, if that weren't the case I'm sure there are a lot of checks and balances that have to be made for security reasons before that type of thing could be released.

Posted by: Gray Seal Jul 23 2014, 03:30 PM

Trial? What trial?

And if there is to be a trial, how do facts become damaged from public knowledge? Facts are suppose to be public knowledge.

Excuses, whatever they are, are lame, false, and attempted divergence.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Jul 23 2014, 03:34 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 23 2014, 11:30 AM) *
Trial? What trial?

And if there is to be a trial, how do facts become damaged from public knowledge? Facts are suppose to be public knowledge.

Excuses, whatever they are, are lame, false, and attempted divergence.


You don't believe there will be any trial after this? There often are. Furthermore the investigation itself isn't finished. Facts before the end of an investigation are usually NOT public knowledge.

Even, hypothetically, if that weren't the case I'm sure there are a lot of checks and balances that have to be made for security reasons before such information could be released to the public.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=12288&view=findpost&p=187405.

Posted by: Gray Seal Jul 23 2014, 03:52 PM

Was there a trial when the United States shot down the commercial airplane over the Persian Gulf? Is there another example you are thinking of?

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Jul 23 2014, 03:55 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 23 2014, 11:52 AM) *
Was there a trial when the United States shot down the commercial airplane over the Persian Gulf? Is there another example you are thinking of?


Yes. There was a settlement for that one. It wasn't the only one. A big one that comes to mind was Lockerbie.

Posted by: Aquilla Jul 23 2014, 07:28 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 23 2014, 10:11 AM) *
The United States has lots of information is could release to the public about the incident. Instead it is playing a blame game for political reasons. I do not appreciate nor agree with the politics. I am neither blind nor naive about shenanigans with the truth our administration is capable of in recent history whether it be Bush or a Obama.



The US is not going to release all of the information they have on this, nor should they. The last thing they want to do is tell the gangster Putin how good our intel gathering is.

Aquilla

Posted by: Gray Seal Jul 23 2014, 07:52 PM

The cloak and dagger game angle is tiresome. It is a weak excuse to keep voters in the dark. It is a harmful means to propagandize a willing segment who are optimistic about government actions in spite of a trickle of information which points otherwise. I do not think the rest of the world is fooled like many Americans seem to be. When it is your team you want to believe in them.

Posted by: Aquilla Jul 24 2014, 02:14 AM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 23 2014, 02:52 PM) *
The cloak and dagger game angle is tiresome. It is a weak excuse to keep voters in the dark. It is a harmful means to propagandize a willing segment who are optimistic about government actions in spite of a trickle of information which points otherwise. I do not think the rest of the world is fooled like many Americans seem to be. When it is your team you want to believe in them.



We aren't talking about a James Bond novel or Spy vs. Spy in MAD magazine, it's not a game. In the real world means and methods can mean the difference between life and death, and between freedom and tyranny. Some things are best left secret for all concerned. I believe this situation falls into that category.

The US has already disclosed to the news media that they monitored the launch of the SAM-11, plotted it's trajectory, and determined the intercept point. They determined the launch point to be in the "rebel" held region of Ukraine, not far from the Russian border. The SAM system was Russian made. To suggest that anyone other than Russian-backed separatists, or covert Russian military is responsible flies in the face of any form of logical thought.

Nobody from the outside could even get into the crash site area for days, so how in the hell could the Ukraine army get in there to fire the missile? Beyond rational belief. Distrusting the government is one thing, but man, you need to pick your battles. Neither you nor Lew Rockwell is going to win on this one. rolleyes.gif


Aquilla

Posted by: Gray Seal Jul 24 2014, 01:59 PM

The US monitored the launch of the SAM-11? Where did you find this information? All I could find was that US conclusions were based upon social media.

Posted by: Aquilla Jul 24 2014, 04:04 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 24 2014, 08:59 AM) *
The US monitored the launch of the SAM-11? Where did you find this information? All I could find was that US conclusions were based upon social media.



I saw it on the news, specifically FOX news, but even CNN had it. They didn't say how the US was able to monitor the incident, just that we did. Remember we have some pretty sophisticated ships in the area and some very sophisticated satellites overhead. I don't know what they can do now, but back in the day when I worked in the industry it was pretty impressive. And that was 20 years ago.


Edited to add...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/20/us-embassy-report-offers-strong-evidence-russian-back-forces-behind-airplane/

And that goes back to sources and methods. Offering "social media" as a source is a safe thing to do The reports I saw on television didn't come from social media, they were pretty specific on where and when the launch occurred. Identifying the missile as an SA-11 is a no-brainer, they've been around for a very long time and we know what they look like.

Aquilla

Posted by: Hobbes Jul 24 2014, 04:43 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 24 2014, 08:59 AM) *
The US monitored the launch of the SAM-11? Where did you find this information? All I could find was that US conclusions were based upon social media.


Hopefully you aren't getting that info from Russian sources, Gray Seal, because that is the story that Russia has been putting forth. The information has been pretty widespread on U.S. News channels. It shows the launch position and trajectory of the missile, from satellite and radar sources. It has also been put out, separately, by various European countries, based on their own data.

There was a Russia Today anchor on a show with CNN (Cuomo was the interviewer), who went on and on about Russia releasing all their info on this, which I haven't seen at all. I've heard their conclusions, but not seen any of the data. And none of it is definitive. For example, they say they have a Ukrainian SU25 on radar a few kilometers behind MH17. That might be true, but doesn't say anything about them seeing a missile launched from that plane towards MH17. The Russian info seems intended to obfuscate, whereas data from the West seems to clarify.

FWIW...the social media evidence is real evidence. Their was a tweet about shooting down a tanker right after MH17 was hit, and then it was deleted when it was discovered what it was that was shot down. Both of those are valid data points, even coming from social media. The Ukrainian intercepted phone calls have also been corroborated by the U.S., at least so far as apparently the voices on those calls match voice patterns we have for the people Ukraine says were on each end of the calls.

Posted by: Gray Seal Jul 24 2014, 05:18 PM

I can not find any information from FoxNews or CNN on their websites about the US having monitored the launching of the missile which took down MH17. There has been a media frenzy with lots of speculation. Don't get caught up in it and think there are facts when there are not. Taking speculation as facts leads to poor conclusions.

I had a link to the Russian data in this thread earlier.

Both of you seem to be sucked in by wanting to believe. You need to be as skeptical about US news and government sources as you are about Russian.

Posted by: Aquilla Jul 24 2014, 06:19 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 24 2014, 12:18 PM) *
I can not find any information from FoxNews or CNN on their websites about the US having monitored the launching of the missile which took down MH17. There has been a media frenzy with lots of speculation. Don't get caught up in it and think there are facts when there are not. Taking speculation as facts leads to poor conclusions.

I had a link to the Russian data in this thread earlier.

Both of you seem to be sucked in by wanting to believe. You need to be as skeptical about US news and government sources as you are about Russian.



I honestly don't know where you are going with this, Gray Seal. If you are saying the US News media, sorry state as it is in, is as bad as the State controlled Russian/Soviet media, you are wrong. Social media plays a part in this story to be sure, but social media didn't pinpoint the launch point and trajectory of that missile. That was the animation I saw on both CNN and FOX, and it was identical. That had to come from military/intel sources. The fact that they didn't tell you exactly how that information was obtained doesn't make it untrue. There are reasons for that.

Now, if you really want to know how, go to school for 5 years like I did and get 2 engineering degrees, then go to work for 20 years in the defense industry, keep your nose clean, get a bunch of security clearances and maybe then they'll tell you how they did it. thumbsup.gif

Aquilla

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Jul 24 2014, 06:30 PM

For context, http://airheadsfly.com/2014/07/15/ukraine-latest-an-26-downing-more-advanced/ is a link that contains a list of all the flights shot down by Russian-backed separatists in the last three months (not including this one).
There are ten of them.

Edited to add: I'm a bit surprised that the Russian General would question why a plane would gain altitude and speed up when traversing the area after reading this. Yes, wow...sure is suspicious.

Edited again to add: Tried to watch the video a second time and maybe he didn't say that. The video is incredibly difficult to sit through. From the sound of things there was a lot of traffic in the area, and aircraft were at an altitude that had been considered safe until about three days before, when the anti-aircraft capabilities of the separatists seemed to have improved and they took out a plane at a higher altitude. I've also read that the pilot was attempting to avoid a storm and diverted a bit from the flight plan, which isn't unusual.

Posted by: Hobbes Jul 24 2014, 07:37 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 24 2014, 12:18 PM) *
Both of you seem to be sucked in by wanting to believe. You need to be as skeptical about US news and government sources as you are about Russian.


Why? Would reason does the U.S. have to lie in this situation, especially since its lies would be discovered? Russia, on the other hand, uses its media to obfuscate all the time--that is its purpose in their scheme. Further, you have one side putting forward very plausible scenarios, and the other side talking about how this was a plane full of corpses, which the pilots bailed out of after take off, shot down just to make Russia look bad. If you truly think that is just as plausible as what you are hearing from the West, then you need to look harder at the situation. That doesn't mean blindly accepting what you hear from the West, but there is big difference between that, and putting what the two side are saying on equal footing, when such is so obviously not the case. Not only do the Russian 'theories' not make much sense, but notice that there are a bunch of them---if they were being objective at all, those would be narrowing down, not expanding out.

So, again, you actually do have to pick a side to believe in this. You have logic, reason, and data on one side, with no real reason to lie, and strange, implausible theories on the other side, with lots of reasons to lie. Paying more attention to the former isn't being blind, it is simply paying attention to the situation. Giving Russia much credence, though, based on what they've put out, is being blind.

Posted by: Ted Jul 26 2014, 03:14 AM

QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jul 24 2014, 03:37 PM) *
QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 24 2014, 12:18 PM) *
Both of you seem to be sucked in by wanting to believe. You need to be as skeptical about US news and government sources as you are about Russian.


Why? Would reason does the U.S. have to lie in this situation, especially since its lies would be discovered? Russia, on the other hand, uses its media to obfuscate all the time--that is its purpose in their scheme. Further, you have one side putting forward very plausible scenarios, and the other side talking about how this was a plane full of corpses, which the pilots bailed out of after take off, shot down just to make Russia look bad. If you truly think that is just as plausible as what you are hearing from the West, then you need to look harder at the situation. That doesn't mean blindly accepting what you hear from the West, but there is big difference between that, and putting what the two side are saying on equal footing, when such is so obviously not the case. Not only do the Russian 'theories' not make much sense, but notice that there are a bunch of them---if they were being objective at all, those would be narrowing down, not expanding out.

So, again, you actually do have to pick a side to believe in this. You have logic, reason, and data on one side, with no real reason to lie, and strange, implausible theories on the other side, with lots of reasons to lie. Paying more attention to the former isn't being blind, it is simply paying attention to the situation. Giving Russia much credence, though, based on what they've put out, is being blind.

ya its laughable bull crap at best. I heard an expert on CNN that could tell what type of Russian SAM was used by the holes in the plane wreckage... - and now the Russians are moving in heavy equipment and even firing rockets and artillery from Russia into Ukraine

guess Obama and the EU really scared them with those sanctions on a few people .....LOL

so now we will see if the NATO countries and the EU in general wake up because if they expect us to help they are delusional. I see no reason for Putin to stop after he owns eastern Ukraine....

Posted by: Gray Seal Jul 26 2014, 05:25 PM

We have Russia, Ukraine, and the United States putting out misleading if not false information. We have mass media at the bidding of our rulers. The best argument is that Russia is the worst? By what standard? When you have three crumb bums why in the world would you enthusiastically think you have to go with one of them?

Why not admit you choose sides and accept "facts" which fit your own desired preference? Choosing sides is not going to lead to good outcomes. If there is a principle that good neighbors do not stick their nose in other's business then stick to that. Do not pick and choose when to apply such principle. An arbitrarily applied principle means there is no principle, you are simply fooling yourself.

The United States as well as Russia have inappropriately been involved with Ukraine. The unrest in Ukraine is a dispute between different regions within Ukraine. Some regions which to dominate other regions. This brings resentment and conflict. If you believe in regional democracy you would not be supporting outside influence supporting such domination. Both the United States and Russia are way too involved.

The solution to a wrong is not another wrong. If Russia involvement in Ukraine was the first wrong the fix is not the United States becoming involved. Frankly, who can tell who was the first to make the wrong. First, second...it does not matter. This a regional problem which will have to be decided by the regions involved.

Knowing who shot down the MH17 because of choosing sides is not decisive nor conclusive. You can have your best guess but do not claim clairvoyance based upon choosing sides. Certainly, the MH17 incident is no reason to greenlight greater involvement in Ukraine.

Posted by: Hobbes Jul 26 2014, 06:19 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 26 2014, 12:25 PM) *
We have Russia, Ukraine, and the United States putting out misleading if not false information.


What misleading or false information has the U.S. put out? Or even Ukraine? Ukraine certainly has reason to do so, but so far, what they have been saying seems to have been corroborated, and certainly makes sense. But you go on believing in the plane full of corpses flying on autopilot thing. It does nothing to me, but certainly detracts from your credibility on the topic.

QUOTE
We have mass media at the bidding of our rulers.


We don't...Russia does. Our media is biased, but not so much by that.

QUOTE
The best argument is that Russia is the worst? By what standard?


By looking at what they put out. Again, unless you think a plane full of corpses, flying on autopilot after the pilots jumped out (how what that even happen) is just as plausible as what the West is saying, all of which seems reasonable and based on actual evidence....

QUOTE
When you have three crumb bums why in the world would you enthusiastically think you have to go with one of them?


Enthusiastically? No. Realistically? Yes. If something comes out that the West is saying about this that there is evidence it isn't true, then I'll look at that. So far, I haven't seen anything. What Russia is putting out isn't always false, but it's clearly trying to throw out other theories, none of which either match up or make much sense. But this is how they always handle these things. Domestically, it works. Imagine if the 9-11 conspiracy theorists here controlled the media, and that that group had a vested interest in creating and pushing out false information.

QUOTE
Why not admit you choose sides and accept "facts" which fit your own desired preference?


Because it isn't true. If you have something to contradict any 'facts' I have brought up, please bring them forth. Until then, you are just using the ostrich approach, which might feel good for a while but never leads to anything positive, either for the ostrich or others, except for the lion.

QUOTE
Choosing sides is not going to lead to good outcomes.


Neither is buying into the propoganda put out by one side.

QUOTE
If there is a principle that good neighbors do not stick their nose in other's business then stick to that. Do not pick and choose when to apply such principle. An arbitrarily applied principle means there is no principle, you are simply fooling yourself.


What's that got to do with buying into the crap Russia is putting out?

QUOTE
The United States as well as Russia have inappropriately been involved with Ukraine.


How so?

QUOTE
The unrest in Ukraine is a dispute between different regions within Ukraine.


If you really believe that, you aren't paying any attention.

QUOTE
Some regions which to dominate other regions. This brings resentment and conflict. If you believe in regional democracy you would not be supporting outside influence supporting such domination. Both the United States and Russia are way too involved.


How is the U.S. way too involved? If anything, we have been extremely hands off. Plus, you are ignoring the simple fact that if another power exerts influence in an area, doing nothing simply in the name of principle is just another name for losing the fight, while also encouraging the other side to exert more influence elsewhere. You either are way too idealistic about foreign policy, or way too naive about how things really work.

QUOTE
The solution to a wrong is not another wrong. If Russia involvement in Ukraine was the first wrong the fix is not the United States becoming involved.


Ok...what is the fix then?

QUOTE
Frankly, who can tell who was the first to make the wrong.


Just about anyone paying attention.

QUOTE
First, second...it does not matter. This a regional problem which will have to be decided by the regions involved.


And when that conflict extends beyond that region, with the other side having increased power and leverage because of failure to act sooner....what then?

QUOTE
Knowing who shot down the MH17 because of choosing sides is not decisive nor conclusive.


No, but knowing who shot down MH17 based on the evidence at hand is. ALL of the evidence points to it being separtists, or perhaps Russians themselves. NONE of the evidence indicates anything else.

QUOTE
You can have your best guess but do not claim clairvoyance based upon choosing sides.


You continued assertion, without any evidence, that I am doing this by choosing sides is becoming tiresome. I guess you are just a Russian plan, sent here to create further obfuscation. I have just as much, more actually, evidence of that as you do. So, I'll just to with that every time you bring this up. Tell Putin hi for me next time you see him.

QUOTE
Certainly, the MH17 incident is no reason to greenlight greater involvement in Ukraine.


Figuring out what to do about it is completely separate from looking at what actually happened. And your 'certainly' carries no weight, as it is based on nothing more than the training you received in Russia on creating false propoganda to further Russia's aims (see, isn't this fun!).

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 26 2014, 12:25 PM) *
We have Russia, Ukraine, and the United States putting out misleading if not false information.


What misleading or false information has the U.S. put out? Or even Ukraine?

QUOTE
We have mass media at the bidding of our rulers.


We don't...Russia does. Our media is biased, but not so much by that.

QUOTE
The best argument is that Russia is the worst? By what standard?


By looking at what they put out. Again, unless you think a plane full of corpses, flying on autopilot after the pilots jumped out (how what that even happen) is just as plausible as what the West is saying, all of which seems reasonable and based on actual evidence....

QUOTE
When you have three crumb bums why in the world would you enthusiastically think you have to go with one of them?


Enthusiastically? No. Realistically? Yes. If something comes out that the West is saying about this that there is evidence it isn't true, then I'll look at that. So far, I haven't seen anything. What Russia is putting out isn't always false, but it's clearly trying to throw out other theories, none of which either match up or make much sense. But this is how they always handle these things. Domestically, it works. Imagine if the 9-11 conspiracy theorists here controlled the media, and that that group had a vested interest in creating and pushing out false information.

QUOTE
Why not admit you choose sides and accept "facts" which fit your own desired preference?


Because it isn't true. Why don't you just admit that you believe the propoganda and farsical notions being put out by Russia?

QUOTE
Choosing sides is not going to lead to good outcomes.


Neither is buying into the propoganda put out by one side, particularly when that side is the transgressor.

QUOTE
If there is a principle that good neighbors do not stick their nose in other's business then stick to that. Do not pick and choose when to apply such principle. An arbitrarily applied principle means there is no principle, you are simply fooling yourself.


What's that got to do with buying into the crap Russia is putting out? And exactly which principle are you invoking when paying attention to clearly false and misleading propoganda, while ignoring anything that comes out which is both corroborated and makes sense?

QUOTE
The United States as well as Russia have inappropriately been involved with Ukraine.


How so? What has the United States done that you feel is inappropriate?

QUOTE
The unrest in Ukraine is a dispute between different regions within Ukraine.


If you really believe that, you aren't paying any attention at all.

QUOTE
Some regions which to dominate other regions. This brings resentment and conflict. If you believe in regional democracy you would not be supporting outside influence supporting such domination. Both the United States and Russia are way too involved.


How is the U.S. way too involved? If anything, we have been extremely hands off.

Plus, you are ignoring the simple fact that if another power exerts influence in an area, doing nothing simply in the name of principle is just another name for losing the fight, while also encouraging the other side to exert more influence elsewhere. You either are way too idealistic about foreign policy, or way too naive about how things really work. The Sudetenland usurping by Hitler was viewed as just a regional issue, too...look how well your policy of staying out of it worked out then. History is replete with similar examples

QUOTE
The solution to a wrong is not another wrong. If Russia involvement in Ukraine was the first wrong the fix is not the United States becoming involved.


Ok...what is the fix then? Because Russia is going to keep on doing this until they are stopped. What is your grand plan for stopping them, that also then includes our complete uninvolvement? Or do we just let them take over the rest of the world, and only get involved if they invade us, never mind all the disastrous consequences that would ensue prior to that?

QUOTE
Frankly, who can tell who was the first to make the wrong.


Just about anyone paying attention.

QUOTE
First, second...it does not matter. This a regional problem which will have to be decided by the regions involved.


No it isn't (see above re: paying attention). Let's say we invaded Mexico. Is that just a regional problem, too? What if we then continued down into Central and South America? At what point, in your perspective, does it stop being just a regional problem, I wonder?

And when that conflict extends beyond that region, with the other side having increased power and leverage because of failure to act sooner....what then? And, no, it isn't a regional problem. It affects everyone...and those effects will just increase over time, as Russia uses its power elsewhere.

QUOTE
Knowing who shot down the MH17 because of choosing sides is not decisive nor conclusive.


No, but knowing who shot down MH17 based on the evidence at hand is. ALL of the evidence points to it being separtists, or perhaps Russians themselves. NONE of the evidence indicates anything else. Failing to recognize the reality of the situation certainly isn't conducive to making any sound decisions or conclusions, either.

Posted by: Gray Seal Jul 27 2014, 02:36 PM

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and her comments were revealed in February. The United States has been intruding into Ukraine politics.

What facts are you using? All they seem to consist of is: a commercial jet came down in Eastern Ukraine and I think Putin is a crumbbum. Have you looked at the Russian data? The United States has provided nothing (gotta maintain secrecy and whatever we suggest is the truth because we are not Putin).

Both parties have BUKs. Maybe the rebels stole one of the BUKs which seems odd as some media stories claim the Ukraine BUKs were not in the area.

One party had a fighter jet in the immediate area of the disaster. Why? Training? Attempts to draw missile fire into commercial air traffic which are directed by the Ukraine government? Using commercial air traffic as cover?

We do not know what took down MH17.

False stories about Russia confiscating the black box.

I do not know what happened from the available facts. But then again, I require more than the two facts it seems others use to make a conclusion.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Jul 27 2014, 02:46 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 27 2014, 10:36 AM) *
One party had a fighter jet in the immediate area of the disaster. Why? Training? Attempts to draw missile fire into commercial air traffic which are directed by the Ukraine government? Using commercial air traffic as cover?


Though this is unsubstantiated, that would actually add weight to the idea that the passenger jet was hit by accident. Military planes (in the US at least) travel just as civilian planes do, there is no special military air path to travel, though there are military training areas where the jets then "do their own thing" but otherwise, they are like all other civilian air travel. If they could not do this, they would not be able to get to and from training areas, or deploy anywhere.

The Russian controlled separatist area had all initial access to the black boxes and debris…not the Ukrainian government. On the (astronomically unlikely) event that the Ukrainian government staged the shoot down of a passenger plane for PR purposes one would have to wonder at their motivation for doing so. First, they would be taking an incredible risk in an area with serious civilian air traffic where the ruse might be observed. There should be some really compelling objective. PR purposes to place pressure on Russia doesn’t seem enough of a motivation for all of the EU and the US to cover and lie for the Ukrainian government. That is a conspiracy theory to usurp most other conspiracy theories in implausibility.

How often does Putin fold under stern International disapproval? Answer: I can't think of any time, ever. If I were in his position, what would I do? Answer: cover my backside, and quickly. No surprise the Russians are filling the internetz with the “true story" here. This is the person who poisoned an ex KGB agent who ratted out to the UK, while he was under serious MI5 and MI6 protection.

Posted by: Gray Seal Jul 27 2014, 03:04 PM

Putin is a crumbbum. No need to convince me as I agree. The argument that the Ukraine government is a bunch of swell guys who would not do stunts similar to Putin has not been proven. Ukraine actions point in the opposite direct of swell guys to me. Would a political power hanging by a thread attempt to get more foreign aid, at least give the United States administration cover to further its already too much involvement, by such a massacre? I hope not but unfortunately such behavior is not unprecedented. False flags is not a idea but something which has happened over and over.

The Ukraine government was in charge of where the commercial traffic was and I presume the Ukraine government is in charge of its jets. Why would a Ukraine jet be tailing a commercial jet? Was it tailing a commercial jet? Oh yeah, can not give out such information as the United States has to secretive. All you need to know is that Putin is on the other side.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Jul 27 2014, 03:08 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 27 2014, 11:04 AM) *
The Ukraine government was in charge of where the commercial traffic was and I presume the Ukraine government is in charge of its jets. Why would a Ukraine jet be tailing a commercial jet? Was it tailing a commercial jet?


I doubt that it was tailing a commercial jet. More than likely, if a military jet was in the area, it was there because it's a separatist controlled area. They probably fly in that area quite often, much like we had F15s flying all over areas of the US for many months after 911.

Posted by: Hobbes Jul 28 2014, 01:48 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jul 27 2014, 09:36 AM) *
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and her comments were revealed in February. The United States has been intruding into Ukraine politics.


I don't doubt this...but you can't even bother to share a link, or any details? Therefore, no information about what was inappropriate about our involvement. Most countries are 'involved' with most other countries...nothing inappropriate about it. And you equate what we were doing with what Russia is doing, which seems to include committing acts of war (shelling Ukrainian territory from within Russia)? Further, have you considered that what Russia is doing would be the reason why we would be involved there?

QUOTE
What facts are you using? All they seem to consist of is: a commercial jet came down in Eastern Ukraine and I think Putin is a crumbbum. Have you looked at the Russian data? The United States has provided nothing (gotta maintain secrecy and whatever we suggest is the truth because we are not Putin).


Yes, they have. They provided the flight path of the missile. There have been photos on the news here of damage to the plane consistent with a missile attack. We have intercepted phone calls between Russian operatives and the separatists discussing the downing of the plane. We have the separatists tweeting about shooting it down immediately after it happened. Pretty much everyone on earth accepts that this plane was shot down by a missile fired by separatists (including Russia--they are just throwing out these other conspiracy theories to muddy the waters)...but you. Being skeptical is fine....letting that skepticism to allow you to fall victim to the propoganda Russia is putting out is just playing into their hands. You call out the U.S. for not putting out data (when they have)...what data has Russia really put out? They've said they have various pieces of data, but what data have they actually put out? None that I am aware of. Yet you seem open to believing them, while you just discount anything the U.S. has been saying, ignoring that what the U.S. has been saying makes sense, that we don't really have any reason to lie, that what Russia has been saying doesn't have much behind it, doesn't make sense, and they have every reason to lie. You can't equate those two situations into being equal, yet you seem to be doing so.

QUOTE
Both parties have BUKs. Maybe the rebels stole one of the BUKs which seems odd as some media stories claim the Ukraine BUKs were not in the area.


That was one of the original theories. The story was that they had stolen it a period of time ago (it was abandoned), which might explain why the others aren't in the area any more. Still haven't seen anyone put forward any reason as to why they would be, when they have nothing to shoot at. Nor does it detract from the real question, which is 'who fired it?' Nor does it answer the other question---who taught them how to fire it?

QUOTE
One party had a fighter jet in the immediate area of the disaster. Why?


Combat operations. Which is why having this area open to commercial traffic was not a very sound decision.

There doesn't appear to be any evidence that the crew firing the missile was shooting at SU 25s....they thought they shot down a tanker. So, the SU 25 being there isn't really relevant. If they had been shooting at it, that would be a very valid piece of information---but it seems that that information came out after the incident, not during it (ie, they knew they were shooting at a big plane carrying lots of people, and they hit just what they shot at).

QUOTE
We do not know what took down MH17.
No, but all the evidence points in one direction....whereas you seem to be looking every where else.

QUOTE
False stories about Russia confiscating the black box.


How do we know they were false? They got the black boxes, they disappeared for a couple days, and then they were handed over. They seem to have been unaltered...but I didn't expect there to be much on the black boxes that would tell what happened, anyway. It's not as if commercial airliners have sophisticated threat analysis systems on board. Probably the best they'll get from them is what systems failed first, if even that. That was all we got from the Space Shuttle Challenger, with far more sophisticated flight information systems sending real time data on just about everything. The only way we were able to deduce what happened based on that data is that we already knew there had been some tile damage in those areas, from other sources (ie, the video tapes of the launch). So, I don't think the black box is going to reveal much, which is probably what the Russians deduced also.

QUOTE
I do not know what happened from the available facts. But then again, I require more than the two facts it seems others use to make a conclusion.


There are more than just 2 facts, but withholding reaching a conclusion is fine, I have no issue with that. Disregarding the facts, and giving excess attention to 'facts' put out by the side with the most to lose, and weighing those just as heavily, if not moreso, than much more reasonable facts put out by the other side is what seems out of place.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Jul 28 2014, 02:05 PM

QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jul 28 2014, 09:48 AM) *
QUOTE
One party had a fighter jet in the immediate area of the disaster. Why?


Combat operations. Which is why having this area open to commercial traffic was not a very sound decision.


And it's http://airheadsfly.com/2014/07/23/again-two-ukrainian-su-25-downed/. Two more aircraft were shot down five days ago performing CAS. It's really no mystery why a fighter would be in this area.

Also keep in mind, the Ukrainian airforce was seriously depleted when the Russians took over Crimea. They lost a lot of aircraft, which is still sitting on the airbases in the separatist-occupied area. As far as I know, the separatists and/or Russians haven't used them, but I would be concerned about that if I lived in the Ukraine.

Edited to add: http://airheadsfly.com/2014/03/01/overview-air-forces-ukraine/.

QUOTE
Combat aircraft: about 76 to 80 of an official active 120 fully operational (before the Russian take-over of the Crimea 160 officially operational). A total of 507 combat planes with all planes in reserve and mothballed included. As far as we know, no Air Force aircraft – like the MiG-29s at Belbek – have been returned yet by Russia.
Transport aircraft: 21 or less (was 24 or less before February 2014)


Pretty amazing read, overall. I can't believe the average Ukrainian fighter pilot only gets 40 flight hours per YEAR. About three hours per month, on average? Jesus. That's dangerous.

Posted by: Hobbes Jul 28 2014, 05:33 PM

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jul 28 2014, 09:05 AM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jul 28 2014, 09:48 AM) *
QUOTE
One party had a fighter jet in the immediate area of the disaster. Why?


Combat operations. Which is why having this area open to commercial traffic was not a very sound decision.


And it's http://airheadsfly.com/2014/07/23/again-two-ukrainian-su-25-downed/. Two more aircraft were shot down five days ago performing CAS. It's really no mystery why a fighter would be in this area.


And those might well have been shot down FROM Russia, not Ukraine. Which would make sense, since the SA -11's seem to have been pulled out of Ukraine after MH17, and Russia has been shelling Ukraine from Russia. So, they probably wouldn't have much of a qualm over launching missiles from there. But we should have radar data for that, and if so, we haven't released it.

QUOTE
Also keep in mind, the Ukrainian airforce was seriously depleted when the Russians took over Crimea. They lost a lot of aircraft, which is still sitting on the airbases in the separatist-occupied area. As far as I know, the separatists and/or Russians haven't used them, but I would be concerned about that if I lived in the Ukraine.


Indicative of the greater problem.

QUOTE
Pretty amazing read, overall. I can't believe the average Ukrainian fighter pilot only gets 40 flight hours per YEAR. About three hours per month, on average? Jesus. That's dangerous.


Ya, wow.

But, apparently the SU 25's had been turning the war in eastern Ukraine, which is why Russia was desperate to get some counters to them in there.

Posted by: Gray Seal Aug 7 2014, 05:18 PM

Bits of news have filtered out about MH-17. http://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/ contains thoughts which point towards the Ukraine government as the culprit. Some reports have been out stating fuselage has bullet holes in it which would incriminate the fighter. Still nothing concrete but further evidence that hasty conclusions about Putin being behind it to be premature.

Posted by: Ted Aug 7 2014, 07:51 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Aug 7 2014, 01:18 PM) *
Bits of news have filtered out about MH-17. http://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/ contains thoughts which point towards the Ukraine government as the culprit. Some reports have been out stating fuselage has bullet holes in it which would incriminate the fighter. Still nothing concrete but further evidence that hasty conclusions about Putin being behind it to be premature.

Its nonsense. it says there are no pictures of the BUK in Ukraine or being taken back into Russia.

LIE

http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-intel-points-to-russian-rebel-missile-connection-in-malaysia-airlines-flight-17-crash-1405816389

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/separatist-links-malaysia-airlines-mh17-removed

as for "bullet holes" its how the missile works - it explodes behind the plane and sends fragments to punch holes in the plane.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Aug 8 2014, 12:00 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Aug 7 2014, 01:18 PM) *
Bits of news have filtered out about MH-17. http://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/ contains thoughts which point towards the Ukraine government as the culprit. Some reports have been out stating fuselage has bullet holes in it which would incriminate the fighter. Still nothing concrete but further evidence that hasty conclusions about Putin being behind it to be premature.


From the linked article:
QUOTE
Some independent analyses of the initial evidence from the crash site suggest the jetliner may have been destroyed by an air-to-air attack, not by an anti-aircraft missile fired from the ground.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/german-pilot-speaks-out-shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/5394111
QUOTE
"As an expert in aviation I closely looked at the images of the wreckage that are circulating on the Internet."


The above is all the evidence I need that this person is not credible. I dont' know any person trained in crash site investigation who would form any conclusions that they would share for widespread circulation based only on pictures found on the internet. He himself doesn't even claim to have knowledge or background in crash site investigation.

Posted by: Gray Seal Aug 8 2014, 01:05 PM

I do not think there is any information available which can lead to a conclusion. Persons with the information we do have can suggest possibilities. Other people have reached conclusions based upon this same information (internet pictures and banter) and that conclusion was that Putin is behind it. Would these people not be guilty of leaping to conclusions equal to reaching a conclusion from the speculation of the German pilot? I agree with you that perfectly credible on-site investigation has not been done and reaching conclusions at this point is premature. There is more than one plausible explanation for what happened. We probably will never know for sure what happened. Anyone having formed a conclusion has done so on preconceptions rather than iron clad investigations.

Posted by: AuthorMusician Aug 8 2014, 04:14 PM

We do have iron-clad evidence that Putin is at fault. Had he not helped out the separatists, no commercial flight would have been at risk. He instigated the situation that led to the loss of innocent life in a cowardly attack that someone actually did, and it doesn't matter who this sad sack was. I still think the incident was a SNAFU wrapped in a FUBAR.

Now that Putin is waist-deep (and probably shirtless) in the poo pile of his own invention, he has doubled-down by refusing food imports that amount to 40% of the Russian food supply. He hopes that the few countries that are still sort of his buddies will fill in the gap, but these countries have problems of their own. What will come of this is that the general Russian population will want to get rid of him ASAP.

What better way than an unfortunate car accident on his way to Siberia? Or maybe an unfortunate encounter with a Siberian tiger? I'm pretty sure Siberia will be the setting and misfortune the claimed cause.

Posted by: Paladin Elspeth Aug 8 2014, 05:34 PM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 8 2014, 12:14 PM) *
We do have iron-clad evidence that Putin is at fault. Had he not helped out the separatists, no commercial flight would have been at risk. He instigated the situation that led to the loss of innocent life in a cowardly attack that someone actually did, and it doesn't matter who this sad sack was. I still think the incident was a SNAFU wrapped in a FUBAR.

Now that Putin is waist-deep (and probably shirtless) in the poo pile of his own invention, he has doubled-down by refusing food imports that amount to 40% of the Russian food supply. He hopes that the few countries that are still sort of his buddies will fill in the gap, but these countries have problems of their own. What will come of this is that the general Russian population will want to get rid of him ASAP.

What better way than an unfortunate car accident on his way to Siberia? Or maybe an unfortunate encounter with a Siberian tiger? I'm pretty sure Siberia will be the setting and misfortune the claimed cause.

Yes, I'm pretty sure it is Pooty-Poot's fault, too.* There was one transmission the news media revealed early on with some guy reporting that he had really screwed up regarding the downing of the passenger jet. Apparently he was talking to a Russian advisor/officer.

By cutting out imports of food from other countries, Putin appears to be building a case for the Russian people to really get steamed at the U.S. and European countries. He seems to be determined to return Russia to the Soviet Union era when it was the largest country on earth and was feared by the leaders of other countries, and he needs ordinary Russians to get angry. But maybe he "just" wants more seaports that do not freeze over in the winter time, and mention in the Russian Who's Who as the Biggest, Baddest Russian Leader who looks buff without a shirt. Obviously, I really don't know. I just know a bad actor when I see one.

Does Putin hold the opinion that the demise of the Soviet Union was shameful and that there should be a reckoning for those responsible in other countries? Does he blame it on the gays for "polluting" his country? Some parallels could easily be drawn to another leader who wanted to restore to another country its former greatness and who blamed one group of people in particular for all its ills.

*And maybe we should ask former President GWB what he did see when he looked into Vladimir's eyes, whether it was "his soul," or something else. I personally see more "soul" in the eyes of my Golden Retriever.

Posted by: Gray Seal Aug 8 2014, 06:06 PM

And what of the United States pumping in billions to fulminate the rebellion which has resulted in this civil war? Can you pile blame upon Putin when the United States has done more ( $$) to cause unrest and conflict? If outside influence of other countries into foreign lands is the problem the United States is the champion of such policy.

I do not think any of this is iron clad evidence about MH-17. It is just ironclad prejudice and preconception.

Posted by: Hobbes Aug 9 2014, 12:59 AM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Aug 8 2014, 01:06 PM) *
And what of the United States pumping in billions to fulminate the rebellion which has resulted in this civil war?


What billions? And how did it fulminate the rebellion? You keep referencing this, but never providing any evidence at all of it.


QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Aug 8 2014, 01:06 PM) *
It is just ironclad prejudice and preconception.


But what you fail to realize is that the prejudice and preconception is coming from you. You're the one discounted what the West is saying, for no reason, yet propogating what Putin is saying. You're the one buying into the side not really providing any evidence, just lots of innuendo. You're the one ignoring the bulk of the evidence, even though it points to a conclusion that is logical and fits the evidence, and clinging to theories which are illogical and don't fit the evidence. The prejudice here is on your end. Looking at facts and drawing reasonable conclusions is not prejudice. Ignoring facts and clinging to strange theories is. That the side byuying into the plane full of corpses, with pilots that bailed out after takeoff is calling the other side prejudiced is comical.

Posted by: AuthorMusician Aug 9 2014, 06:09 AM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Aug 8 2014, 02:06 PM) *
And what of the United States pumping in billions to fulminate the rebellion which has resulted in this civil war? Can you pile blame upon Putin when the United States has done more ( $$) to cause unrest and conflict? If outside influence of other countries into foreign lands is the problem the United States is the champion of such policy.

I do not think any of this is iron clad evidence about MH-17. It is just ironclad prejudice and preconception.

We only know what we read in the virtual papers. If Putin was lured into a trap, then it was a really good trap. I won't dismiss the conspiracy theory out of hand, but it's obvious that making up conspiracy theories for just about everything has become a popular fiction genre.

Somehow I suspect it's tied into attempts to trash President Obama. You know, he keeps overstepping his authority less than his predecessor by doing established lawful things, like trying to please Republican leadership. Reminds me of a girl named Lucy and a football.

Just out of curiosity, how do you do $$? I know how to make it, spend it, and save it. I've never done it. I'm looking at some of it right now, and doing it seems not very attractive. It's flat, wrinkly, and there's a dead white guy on it. I also don't know where it's been.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Aug 9 2014, 01:41 PM

Facts that are not in dispute:
-A passenger plane was shot down over/at the edge of a separatist-controlled area in the Ukraine.
-This happened in an area of heavy domestic traffic...another plane was three minutes in front and one three minutes behind.
-If Ukrainian separatists did this, it would be the 13th plane they shot down in the past three or so months, to include one of similar size at 22000 feet three days before.
-The Ukrainian separatists/Russians swept some social media entries made after they found out what was shot down'
-The black box was taken to Russia before being returned to Ukrainian officials.
-The debris from the aircraft fell in the separatist controlled area and could not be recovered right away.

From the above we could either conclude that:

1) The separatists accidentally shot down the aircraft in error.

or (I'll just use the claim made by the "aviation expert" above)

2) The Ukrainian government sent fighters near the separatist area to strafe a passenger plane because Putin's plane "was nearby" and the plane might have been mistaken for it (about 150 to 200 miles....not as near as the other passenger planes 3 minutes behind and in front, requiring some very skillful timing indeed). This was a risk, because in order to strafe a plane with bullets and take it down the fighter would get close enough to trigger the ACAS (air collision avoidance system) at which time air traffic control would probably be alerted (and this would be all over the radio). As a side note, if one is going to surreptitiously fire on a plane and doesn't want to be detected, spraying the plane with a bunch of bullets wouldn't be the way to do it. Furthmore, recorded evidence would be all over the black box that Russia actually had in its possession.

Only one passes the reasonable doubt test. By far.

Posted by: Gray Seal Aug 9 2014, 03:26 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/europe/senate-approves-1-billion-in-aid-for-ukraine.html?_r=0

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/why-does-ukraine-seem-so-much-like-syria/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-14/ukraine-just-issued-1-billion-bonds-backed-us-taxpayer

The United States has handed over 5 billion since 1992 before any of the above.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/04/30/US-Loans-3-Billion-to-Ukraine

Posted by: Hobbes Aug 9 2014, 03:59 PM

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 9 2014, 08:41 AM) *
2) The Ukrainian government sent fighters near the separatist area to strafe a passenger plane because Putin's plane "was nearby" and the plane might have been mistaken for it (about 150 to 200 miles....not as near as the other passenger planes 3 minutes behind and in front, requiring some very skillful timing indeed). This was a risk, because in order to strafe a plane with bullets and take it down the fighter would get close enough to trigger the ACAS (air collision avoidance system) at which time air traffic control would probably be alerted (and this would be all over the radio). As a side note, if one is going to surreptitiously fire on a plane and doesn't want to be detected, spraying the plane with a bunch of bullets wouldn't be the way to do it. Furthmore, recorded evidence would be all over the black box that Russia actually had in its possession.

Only one passes the reasonable doubt test. By far.


Not just ACAS...the Ukrainian government would know that European, Russian, and American surveillance would ALL pick this up on their radars, meaning there would be no way to avoid the activity being known.

We also have the radar traces of the missile going to the plane, the pictures of the BUK's in the area, the pictures of them leaving the area afterwards (1 of them missing a missile), etc etc.

Posted by: Gray Seal Aug 9 2014, 04:10 PM

Hobbes, I can find no provided radar on a missile. I expect it would be available from US surveillance. But it isn't. Oh yeah, it is a secret the US has radar and we can not divulge radar data as it is a secret the US has radar...

There are no pictures of BUK's in the area. There are no pictures of a BUK on the move from the area. Yes, there are pictures of BUKs and BUKs in transport but that is not the same thing as evidence on a particular day. You would have to be naive to accept such pictures on the word of an administration spokesperson.

Posted by: Hobbes Aug 9 2014, 07:12 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Aug 9 2014, 10:26 AM) *
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/europe/senate-approves-1-billion-in-aid-for-ukraine.html?_r=0

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/why-does-ukraine-seem-so-much-like-syria/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-14/ukraine-just-issued-1-billion-bonds-backed-us-taxpayer

The United States has handed over 5 billion since 1992 before any of the above.


5 billion dollars spread out over 22 years isn't all that much, we give aid and send money to most countries, particularly those that have some strategic importance, and none of this indicates how that fulminated the revolution.

From the first article, those were loan guarantees, not money, and, from that very article...
QUOTE
But the next steps are unclear. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that “we’re appearing a little bit cautious today.” The United States’ $1 billion in loan guarantees is dwarfed by the $18 billion in loans that the International Monetary Fund has provisionally agreed to provide and the $15 billion promised by the European Union.


... you can see that the U.S. contribution was a small, almost insignificant percentage. So, again, please do elaborate on how this fulminated the rebellion there.

The Daniel MacAdams article is interesting, but completely lacking in any evidence for the statements made there. Nor does it make any sense. Why would U.S. backed rebels be working essentially hand in hand with the Russian separatists? Why would we do this while simultaneously sending all that money you reference there, when those would be working at cross purposes? The 'reports' it links say nothing whatsoever about any U.S. involvement---the U.S. isn't even mentioned. This reminds me of the connect a couple of dots theories similar to the Nibiru groups---all these conspiracy theory or well out of the mainstream groups latch onto 1 or 2 unrelated pieces of 'evidence', and construct a story from them out of whole cloth that isn't supported. In short, they took reports of rebels rising against the government in Ukraine, and simply added in 'U.S. backed' on their own, to create a good headline, but with no evidence at all that that was the case. Again...why would we do this while sending this same government all that money? It has no evidence, and it makes no sense. That you follow this while simply disregarding the far more substantial evidence simply indicates your bias. Not that I think we don't do these things in some places....but the case for it happening here isn't just weak, it is non-existent.


QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Aug 9 2014, 11:10 AM) *
Hobbes, I can find no provided radar on a missile. I expect it would be available from US surveillance. But it isn't. Oh yeah, it is a secret the US has radar and we can not divulge radar data as it is a secret the US has radar...


It was on all the newscasts.

QUOTE
There are no pictures of BUK's in the area. There are no pictures of a BUK on the move from the area. Yes, there are pictures of BUKs and BUKs in transport but that is not the same thing as evidence on a particular day.


You are contradicting yourself. Were there pictures of BUKs in the area or not?

No one ever said they were from the same day...but they were recent relative to the indident.

QUOTE
You would have to be naive to accept such pictures on the word of an administration spokesperson.


But how naive would you have to be to buy into the crap that Russia is putting out there? You seem to completely discredit anything the West says, but accept at face value the completely nonsensical things that Russia is putting out there, all while ignoring that they have every reason to lie, and we really don't---especially since Russia would have data showing we lied, and make us look pretty stupid, thereby defeating the purpose of the lie.

As to the pictures...has Russia provided any contradictory evidence? No. Has anyone? Not that I'm aware of. Why? Because there isn't any, because the BUKs actually WERE there, and Ukraine HAS been shooting down planes with them. Or do you think the couple of transports that crashed were also shot down by their own military, or simply full of corpses, etc etc.? Again, you are ignoring the vast bulk of evidence, while clinging to what is essentially propoganda. Were there any real evidence of some other scenario, I would be open to it. But there is all kinds of evidence of what really did happen there, and you are closed to all of it---and yet you keep thinking we are the biased ones.

As for Putin being behind it, I don't think anyone here is made that direct correlation. Is Putin clearly behind much of the rebellion? Yes, absolutely. If you doubt that, you are just being intentionally obtuse. Putin himself has stated his goals and objectives, quite openly---there is no mystery to this.

I am surely not one that most people here would say blindly follows the Obama administration. When they've said things, or put stuff out there, that made no sense, I pointed that out. Did the same thing during the Bush terms, too. I don't just accept what they throw out there; I look at the situation, and see if it makes sense. Everything the West is putting out on this makes sense. Almost nothing the Russians are saying does. Following that doesn't make one biased. Ignoring it does.

Posted by: Gray Seal Aug 9 2014, 07:39 PM

Hobbes, you are mistaken with your suggestion that I have chosen sides. I have not. I have suggested a number of people have chosen sides. I have not. I think there is more than enough evidence to be skeptical of any declarations by either side without substantial evidence to back it up. I do not put more faith in one camp or another. Russia, the United States, and Ukraine have all demonstrated they will hide information and make up information. Any of the three will risk civilian lives seeking political propaganda.

It is not possible to prove a negative. Asking for negative proof is pointless. Wanting pictures to show something is not there is illogical.

If I show you a picture of a million dollar mansion does it mean I own it? Does it mean it is next door? Does it mean it exists today? It means I have a picture of a million dollar mansion.

An error by rebels in SE Ukraine is a plausible explanation for what happened. Another plausible contributing factor is culpability that the then government of Ukraine diverted commercial aircraft into harms way and placed their own military planes on military missions in the same airspace.

Lots of bad decisions and risking of civilians lives by multiple parties seems a good conclusion.

None of this is known for sure. It could be that something else happened.

Posted by: Hobbes Aug 10 2014, 04:45 AM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Aug 9 2014, 02:39 PM) *
Hobbes, you are mistaken with your suggestion that I have chosen sides. I have not. I have suggested a number of people have chosen sides. I have not. I think there is more than enough evidence to be skeptical of any declarations by either side without substantial evidence to back it up.


That's just it...there HAS been a substantial amount of evidence put out to back it up.

QUOTE
It is not possible to prove a negative. Asking for negative proof is pointless. Wanting pictures to show something is not there is illogical.


First, this is precisely what the Russian propoganda machine is counting on. Throw out a bunch of false narratives, and see the other side scurrying out trying to disprove them. Wisely, the West has mostly chosen to ignore them, and focus on gathering more evidence.

How do dispute pictures showing something somewhere, if it wasn't there? You show pictures, or some other evidence, of where it really was. Or you provide some evidence that the picture showing it somewhere is false. Not that complicated, and completely logical. Neither of those have been done in this case, btw.

QUOTE
If I show you a picture of a million dollar mansion does it mean I own it? Does it mean it is next door? Does it mean it exists today? It means I have a picture of a million dollar mansion.


You say this, yet you are willing to buy into stories of U.S. led rebellions, when nothing in the story even mentions the U.S., other than the opening sentence stating these are 'U.S. led' rebellions. You see the conundrum anyone trying to follow you here faces, particularly when you then claim you are equally skeptical of both sides.

QUOTE
An error by rebels in SE Ukraine is a plausible explanation for what happened. Another plausible contributing factor is culpability that the then government of Ukraine diverted commercial aircraft into harms way and placed their own military planes on military missions in the same airspace.


First, those aren't mutually exclusive scenarios. Second, Ukraine doesn't set international flight paths...other bodies do. So, it would have been hard for Ukraine to divert these planes anywhere, and certainly not without that being very well known and documented. FWIW, that call has indeed been questioned, given some of the preceding events. But that doesn't mean Ukraine was behind it.

That scenario also doesn't follow logically. With U.S., European, and Russian surveillance in the area, such an attempt would quickly be discovered. This would have a severe backlash on Ukraine, not Russia, leading to all sorts of things that would work against their goals. So, it wouldn't make sense. Given these factors, no, it isn't really plausible.

We also know that the shooters knew they had shot down a big plane, not a fighter--they thought it was a transport plane. Meaning we then know they weren't targeting any Ukrainian fighters in the area, at least not at that particular time...meaning that really didn't have anything to do with the downing of MH17.

QUOTE
Lots of bad decisions and risking of civilians lives by multiple parties seems a good conclusion.


That much seems certain.

QUOTE
None of this is known for sure. It could be that something else happened.


No, it isn't. But as I have been pointing out, most of the evidence, and examination of the situation, points one way. These things are seldom even known 'for sure'. I don't know that we know 'for sure' what caused any crash such as this. Teams of people look at the evidence, and decide, based on that, what the most likely scenario was. Which, again, is part of the frustration occurring here. Are some other scenarios possible? Sure---it could have been space aliens that shot down this plane. Is that the most likely scenario? No, of course not. You seem to placing all these scenarios on the same plane as far as liklihood....when they are vastly different in terms of plausibility and probability. You'll notice, just in this thread, that very serious flaws can be found in all of the other scenarios, in terms of either evidence or logic. I haven't really heard or seen any evidence or reasoning indicating that the BUK missile story is false, or doesn't make sense. It is clearly the most plausible scenario out there currently.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Aug 10 2014, 02:10 PM

This morning I read http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/ukraine-says-rebels-mistook-doomed-flight-mh17-for-aeroflot-plane/504793.html and was astounded that the Ukrainians have a conspiracy theory bordering on lunacy too. In fact, it's very similar to the Russian one...but now the Ukrainians are the ones pretending that Russia had planned to shoot down its own citizens to give Russians the excuse to invade.

Then I realized I was reading the Moscow Times. laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Not only have they overplayed their hand, they must now understand exactly how ludicrous their story sounds...and their one play left is to pretend the Ukrainians are saying the same thing.

Posted by: Gray Seal Aug 10 2014, 02:19 PM

Mrs. Pigpen, what do you know about the Moscow Times? Did you dismiss it because it comes out of Russia or is there something else you are familiar with about it?

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Aug 10 2014, 03:26 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Aug 10 2014, 10:19 AM) *
Mrs. Pigpen, what do you know about the Moscow Times? Did you dismiss it because it comes out of Russia or is there something else you are familiar with about it?


Yes, I'm dismissing it because it's the Moscow Times, and I haven't read this ostensible "Ukrainian account of things" elsewhere.

Is there something else confirming this ostensible Ukrainian account? How about word from the actual Ukraine?
If the Ukrainian government is saying this (that the Russians were attempting to hit their own passenger plane to obtain an excuse to invade), I'll be happy to eat crow and I'll even throw in that they are equally wacko.

Edited to add: Okay, I'll eat crow. http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/en/148/573400/. If the head of Ukrainian security has really made this claim I think that's nuts.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Aug 12 2014, 05:55 PM

http://justsecurity.org/13269/prosecute-perpetrators-malaysian-jet-downing/ on the method behind the madness of the above claim. If they can make a case that the separatists willfully intended to hit civilians it might change the charge and method of prosecution.
I think this is a big stretch.

QUOTE
The fighting in Ukraine certainly qualifies as an “armed conflict,” determined in a non-international conflict by looking at the intensity of fighting and the organization of the parties on each side, and therefore international humanitarian law and international criminal law apply. In this case, investigators would consider whether the killing of the civilians on the plane constituted war crimes. But here is where the difficulties would begin if it is in fact true that the perpetrators thought that they were shooting at a military transport plane. In a non-international armed conflict, the Rome Statute criminalizes both the murder of civilians (Article 8(2)©(i)) and “intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population” (Article 8(2)(e)(i)). As set out in the ICC Elements of Crimes, murder requires proof that the perpetrator was aware of the civilian status of the victim. With respect to intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population, one might argue that this includes attacks that are indiscriminate, that is where the perpetrators take insufficient steps to ascertain the status of the target (see the ICTY Galić Appeals Chamber judgment at paragraphs 131-132, which provides some support for this argument).

But, according to the ICC Elements of Crimes,, the crime of directing attacks against civilians requires proof that “[t]he perpetrator intended the civilian population as such … to be the object of the attack.” Therefore, the ICC prosecutors would likely have to prove that the perpetrators knew that they were targeting civilians, which apparently was not the case according to the facts uncovered to date (though further investigation might establish otherwise). It has also been suggested that the ICC could investigate the act as a crime against humanity, but that crime also requires proof of an intentional attack on a civilian population—a threshold that may not yet have been met in Ukraine. In either case, if ICC investigators get the case they will want to consider whether the shooting down of the plane was an isolated incident or part of a broader pattern of indifference to the well-being of civilians in the conflict.

More promising might be to consider a domestic prosecution, either under ordinary murder statutes or, in the alternative, war crimes statutes that are broader than the Rome Statute. Since the shoot-down occurred in Ukraine, it could assert jurisdiction over the act according to the territorial principle of jurisdiction. In the alternative, one of the countries whose citizens were killed in the attack could assert extra-territorial jurisdiction on the theory of passive personality jurisdiction (which can be controversial when used to prosecute ordinary crimes but less so when international crimes are pursued). Because the conflict between the government of Ukraine and the rebels is a non-international armed conflict, the rebels would not enjoy combatant immunity, and therefore they could be prosecuted for their acts under domestic criminal statutes. (If it is determined that the perpetrators were in an international armed conflict with Ukraine—due to their being under the overall control of another state, such as Russia—they could try to claim combatant immunity as a defense to a domestic prosecution of their actions, but this seems unlikely under the known facts and whether they would need to satisfy other criteria for that protected status.)

Posted by: Hobbes Aug 12 2014, 06:27 PM

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 12 2014, 12:55 PM) *
http://justsecurity.org/13269/prosecute-perpetrators-malaysian-jet-downing/ on the method behind the madness of the above claim. If they can make a case that the separatists willfully intended to hit civilians it might change the charge and method of prosecution.
I think this is a big stretch.


I agree. I don't think it was intentional. No one would really benefit from that, and the tweets and intercepted cell phone calls all indicate it was not intentional. If it was the separatists, or the Russians, that did it---they certainly wouldn't want all this scrutiny and pressure put upon them. Ditto for Ukraine---I can't think of a plausible scenario where this was intentional. Plus, even if it were..proving it would be near impossible, unless somebody screwed up in a major way, and let some international communication on that get out. I do think it may be possible to determine it was a BUK missile that did it (rocket fragments, etc), and possibly then whether it was separatists or Russians operating the equipment. If separatists, the next step would be how did they get the equipment and the training? All of this wouldn't be for purposes of determining criminal or even civil liability for the separatists, but to try to get hard evidence that Russia was involved, and use that to put pressure back on them.

Posted by: Gray Seal Aug 24 2014, 03:32 PM

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/08/was-putin-targeted-for-mid-air-assassination/

There is no conclusive evidence sited in the article but it is another plausible explanation of the incident.

Posted by: Hobbes Aug 24 2014, 09:27 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Aug 24 2014, 10:32 AM) *
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/08/was-putin-targeted-for-mid-air-assassination/

There is no conclusive evidence sited in the article but it is another plausible explanation of the incident.


There's not just 'no conclusive evidence' cited in the article....there is no evidence provided whatsoever. There's not even any evidence provided that U.S. Intelligence analysts are even examining this scenario, although I suspect they would have.

Two noteworthy absences: Any mention of the other planes that Russian separatists have also shot down with their missile systems, indicating that they do in fact have them.

Also, any mention of the radar traces the U.S. has stated they have placing the launching of the missile firmly in separatist territory. Any investigation, if there were one, would certainly have to address that point. They would have to address that first, in fact: if they had no evidence against that, this whole theory requires no further investigation, as it would already have been disproven.

They also fail to mention that Putin's plane was hundreds of miles away, while mentioning that they have similar physical appearance, which of course would be irrelevant, as radar dots don't care what colors are painted on your plane.

In short...this smacks of all the conspiracy theory statements that you see on just about any topic. Allusions to supposed investigations, smattering of random but irrelevant facts, and no real evidence provided at all. Some of these ommissions (the radar trace and the actual route and location of Putin's plane at the time) are definitely enough to kick this out of any 'plausible' category. Is it possible? Sure, lots of things are possible. But plausible implies a degree of reasonableness and probability that doesn't exist without at least some addressing of the issues above, and some level of evidence.

Posted by: Gray Seal Aug 24 2014, 11:12 PM

There is no public evidence of a radar trace by any party. It does not seem prudent to me to have a conclusive determination of what happened without evidence.

Posted by: Hobbes Aug 25 2014, 06:47 AM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Aug 24 2014, 06:12 PM) *
There is no public evidence of a radar trace by any party. It does not seem prudent to me to have a conclusive determination of what happened without evidence.


Then why did you link an article that had no evidence at all in it?

FWIW...there is public evidence, from both the West and Russia regarding radar traces. The U.S. released what it said the radar track was, and the Russians have released evidence showing the Su25 some miles behind the Malaysian airplane. Neither is conclusive evidence, but both are evidence. The U.S. evidence is noteworthy in that Russia has not denied any of it, which they clearly would do if they had anything to back it up. The Russian evidence is noteworthy in that it has no missile trace at all in it (from systems that clearly could have captured it were it there).

No one is claiming to have conclusive determination yet. So, yes it is prudent not to assume there has been. But it is also prudent to examine the theories each is putting forth, and looking at how plausible each is. So far, the theories put out by Russia are either bizarre (plane was full of corpses to begin with), or have substantial holes in them. The story being put out by the West seems to be standing up, and no evidence inidicating it might not be the case has been provided.

Posted by: Gray Seal Aug 25 2014, 01:36 PM

Hobbes, your post has statements which incorrect and/or unsubstantiated.

The US has not released any radar tracks.
Russia has denied the US version.
Russia has never put forth a story about a plane full of dead corpses (that was a Russian tattoo artist).

Posted by: Hobbes Aug 25 2014, 03:57 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Aug 25 2014, 08:36 AM) *
Hobbes, your post has statements which incorrect and/or unsubstantiated.

The US has not released any radar tracks.


http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/07/20140722_MH17.jpg.

QUOTE
Russia has denied the US version.


Of course they have. But they haven't released any evidence indicating it isn't true, which is what I stated.

QUOTE
Russia has never put forth a story about a plane full of dead corpses (that was a Russian tattoo artist).


Who knows where it started. But it is part of the http://www.newrepublic.com/node/118782, just as it always does in such situations. That's how that tattoo artist heard about it. So, yes, it has been part of the stories Russia has been putting forth. It is their propoganda machine in action. They control the media, and usually do put forth all kinds of conspiracy theories.

Which is why it is ironic that you keep harping about no conclusive evidence, but applying credibility to the very strategy and media being used to spread misinformation.

Posted by: Gray Seal Aug 25 2014, 04:27 PM

Hobbes, that picture of the missile and plan paths are computer generated. It is not radar evidence.

Russia has put forth actual evidence unlike the United States which has disclosed no evidence in the hopes to keep it a secret that they have radar and satellites capable of seeing what was going on. (lots of luck on that)

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Aug 26 2014, 09:09 AM

The Dutch Safety Board is in charge of the investigation. The majority of fatalities were Dutch.
The investigation http://airheadsfly.com/2014/08/11/mh17-preliminary-findings-in-a-few-weeks/ and then we'll probably get more information.

Posted by: Hobbes Aug 26 2014, 01:42 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Aug 25 2014, 11:27 AM) *
Hobbes, that picture of the missile and plan paths are computer generated. It is not radar evidence.


Radar is where they got the data points. So, yes it is radar evidence.

QUOTE
Russia has put forth actual evidence unlike the United States which has disclosed no evidence in the hopes to keep it a secret that they have radar and satellites capable of seeing what was going on. (lots of luck on that)


Such as???? I haven't seen one single thing that points to what actually happened to MH17. Lots of innuendo and conspiracy theory type stuff, which you keep falling into their trap and assigning credibility and plausibility to, but no evidence at all as to what actually happened. Just innuendo to steer people away from what seems to have been what really happened, which is what their propoganda machine is designed to do.

The U.S. has disclosed lots of evidence, you keep doing Putin's work for him and discounting all of it. Yet, as I keep pointing out, you readily buy into the conspiracy theories they throw out there. It's baffling. Being skeptical of what the West is saying is fine (although there is a line between skeptical and denial, and you seem to have crossed it). Buying into the Russian propoganda at the same time, when the whole purpose of their media machine is to throw out alternative scenarios to steer one away from the real truth, is baffling.

As for the secret...everyone knows they have radars and satellites monitoring the area. The U.S. has lots of classified surveillance they won't release because they don't want everyone knowing just how good it is. That they don't release the actual doesn't indicate at all that they don't have the data.

Even if they did release the 'actual'...it is computer generated as well. So you would just discount it, too, indicating that releasing the 'actual' in addition to harming national security would serve no purpose at all. But meaningless and irrelevant Russian data, from sources whose modus operandi is spreading conspiracy theories....that is all on the up and up, and should be taken as face value regardless of lack of any substantiation, or even plausibility or relevance. Baffling.

Posted by: Gray Seal Aug 26 2014, 05:54 PM

The picture is based upon real evidence? That is assuring. It is good to know the United States has some really really good evidence from some really really good equipment which is so good we can not provide it because it is too good for anyone to know about. But that picture says it all, eh?

What other impressive evidence has the United States provided among the "lots of evidence"?

Hobbes, you have a very good point that we should not be convinced we know what is going on based on propaganda.

Posted by: Hobbes Aug 26 2014, 07:11 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Aug 26 2014, 12:54 PM) *
The picture is based upon real evidence? That is assuring. It is good to know the United States has some really really good evidence from some really really good equipment which is so good we can not provide it because it is too good for anyone to know about. But that picture says it all, eh?


In the absence of any evidence to the contrary...yes. I'm not sure why you are so hung up on this....news reports all the time indicate synopsis of what happened. Or reports from officials. This is no different. Is it absolutely conclusive without the actual data? No. Is it evidence? Yes. What you are saying is like stating the the analysis of DNA has absolutely no relevance unless you can see the actual blood, even though the blood itself is fairly useless without the analysis anyway. Especially when this type of analsysis is what you get 99% of the time...yet for some reason, in this particular instance, when there is actual reason not to release the raw data, and even if they did it wouldn't lend any more credence as it too could be doctored, you completely disregard it.

As for Putin denying this sequence of events, http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/07/30/is-putins-non-denial-an-admission-that-russia-shot-down-mh17/. He, and Russia, have put forward alternative scenarios, but I don't think he's ever denied this one. Plus do share a link if that is not the case.

But, by all means, lets lend full credence to all the outrageous, uncorroborated, and irrelevant data and stories Russia is putting out there. Yes, that is so much more assuring. unsure.gif



QUOTE
What other impressive evidence has the United States provided among the "lots of evidence"?


Corroboration of the voices on the intercepted cell phone calls shortly after the incident. Pictures of the Buk launchers in the vicinity shortly before the incident. Validation of the twitter postings boasting of the shoot down, along with validation of the corresponding removal of those postings once it was discovered what had actually been shot down. Initial forensic analysis of the plane indicating that the puncture holes there would be consistent with a missile detonation. There is a lot more, but those are some of the key points.

Still waiting for the list on all the evidence Russia has provided. Everything I've seen so far doesn't really indicate at all what happened to MH17...just fluff to create smoke.

QUOTE
Hobbes, you have a very good point that we should not be convinced we know what is going on based on propaganda.


We are on the same page on that. And, yes, I know this includes the U.S. and the West as well. But, as I have been stating all along, what the West is saying on this makes sense, and seems to be corroborated with what evidence has been gathered. What Russia is putting out either has no relevance to the actual downing of MH17, or has very large holes in it that their stories don't address, or that don't add up.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Sep 4 2014, 04:33 PM

Just thinking further on the anatomy of a flight rumor today. It seems pertinent to the topic.

My husband's altitude chamber currency has expired. This means that he can still fly, but he has to keep it below 17,000 feet. So today he took a trip across Florida at low altitude (to go to the chamber to get current, so he can fly higher). It's pretty foreseeable that some people just might look outside and say, "wow, that military plane sure is flying low" and there might be all sorts of conspiracy angles as to why. If anything unforeseen were to happen (knock on wood), there would probably be theories about that too. Per illumination....well, there are probably five people on the planet that know my husband's altitude currency has expired and none of them would be fielding internet questions. The US government certainly wouldn't know, nor would the US Airforce know.

Posted by: Curmudgeon Sep 4 2014, 09:13 PM

The phrase, "altitude currency has expired," caught my interest. Rather than ask directly what it is... I was sitting at a computer, so I did an Internet search.

The only relevant link appeared to be: http://flightsafety.org/hf/hf_sep-oct92.pdf It is a PDF type article, over twenty years old, which stated something to the effect of, "the equipment is 30-50 years" (22 years ago) and may be dangerous to use...and may be of no value whatsoever as far as determining a pilot's ability to function at high altitudes... It went on to day that the only place to be tested is on military bases and it is not an FAA requirement; but Civil Aviation Corporations require their pilots to be tested because the Military requires their pilots to be tested...

That link at least, seemed more relevant than "http://www.citiheartbeat.com/la-paz/useful-information-la-paz/altitude-language-and-currency" did...

Has the equipment been updated? Is it safe? Can the need for this "currency" be justified?

I came into work one day after a brief vacation to learn that a card partner had died doing a "routine task," the way we had "always done it..." The safety engineers had come in and shut the plant down until they could determine how to restart it in a safe fashion. When I retired twenty years later, the engineers had never found a safe way to restart that process...

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Sep 4 2014, 09:30 PM

QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Sep 4 2014, 05:13 PM) *
The phrase, "altitude currency has expired," caught my interest. Rather than ask directly what it is... I was sitting at a computer, so I did an Internet search.

The only relevant link appeared to be: http://flightsafety.org/hf/hf_sep-oct92.pdf It is a PDF type article, over twenty years old, which stated something to the effect of, "the equipment is 30-50 years" (22 years ago) and may be dangerous to use...and may be of no value whatsoever as far as determining a pilot's ability to function at high altitudes... It went on to day that the only place to be tested is on military bases and it is not an FAA requirement; but Civil Aviation Corporations require their pilots to be tested because the Military requires their pilots to be tested...



Yeah, it's kind of like ancestor worship to still make them sit in the altitude chamber.

It's a little different now though...used to be they'd have to sit in the chamber every five years, now they just do it once and then all that's needed is a little test or something...nothing physical. Which is good, because it isn't good for you. It's pretty silly to require currency every five years anyway when all it is is basically signing a card. But them's the rules. And there are a lot of stupid rules.

Posted by: Gray Seal Sep 19 2014, 12:06 PM

http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/2014/09/18/malaysian-flight-mh17-crash-analysis-by-the-russian-union-of-engineers/

Posted by: Gray Seal Mar 21 2016, 12:40 PM

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/03/16/the-ever-curiouser-mh-17-case/

I suppose all of this can be dismissed as protecting intelligence capabilities. This argument does not hold water as the United States has already stated it has the information.

Posted by: Hobbes Mar 21 2016, 05:06 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Sep 19 2014, 07:06 AM) *
http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/2014/09/18/malaysian-flight-mh17-crash-analysis-by-the-russian-union-of-engineers/


I only had time to glance through it, but it definitely seems...highly biased... towards the Russian version of events. It spends a great deal of time talking about air to air combat alternatives, for example, without providing any evidence that said fighter(s) were in the area. In short, it seems like not much more than a scientific propoganda report. Yes, there are points made in it that have some validity...but then there always are in these sort of things. This reminds me a lot of the Nibiru hoax. Lots of 'scientific data'...yet still completely a hoax.

Could the West's version be contrived as well? Sure. BUT it at least adds up. The Russian versions do not. Given that, I completely fail to see why we'd give the side that has the most reason to contrive alternatives, and the least evidence supporting them, and the biggest holes in their story, even the same validity as stories from the West, much less enhanced credibility.

This is a good scenario in which to apply Occam's razor. We know that the Ukranians had the Russian surface to air missiles. We have radio intercepts of their communication, indicating that they just shot a plane down, thinking it was a transport. We know the plane was flying in an area where such could have occurred (and which was why other airlines were avoiding the airspace). We know that up close, no one would confuse a Boeing 777 with a troop transport (making the air to air friendly fire scenario highly unlikely). We know that it would be quite easy for anxious troops not highly trained in the use of sophisticate equipment like the Buk missile launcher to make mistakes (heck, the U.S. did so with highly trained troops..re: Iranian airliner). We also know from that Iranian incident that the U.S. indicated what had happened, even though it didn't reflect very well back on the U.S. Given all this...why would we assume that something else happened, barring any concrete evidence that that was the case? In short, while I certainly agree that spin occurs through the Western media, we also know that it is part and parcel of how Russia operates, and that any information put out from their side is therefore propoganda. So, we would ever choose to place more credence on that than on other sources escapes me, particularly when the propoganda side has large issues in its story, and the Western side does not.

Posted by: Gray Seal Mar 21 2016, 11:21 PM

I think the chance of propaganda being flung is strong on both sides of the downing of MH-17. It does not make sense for either side to shoot down the passenger plane. I would think providing all known data to the public would be highly advantages for both sides. Russia has done so. The United States? Crickets. All the United States and Ukraine have is propaganda.

Posted by: akaCG Mar 22 2016, 12:31 AM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Mar 21 2016, 07:21 PM) *
..
... All the United States and Ukraine have is propaganda.

Whenever you wonder about why just about nobody takes you/"ideologically yours" seriously, please refer yourself/them to the above statement of yours.

Good grief.


Posted by: Hobbes Mar 22 2016, 12:37 AM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Mar 21 2016, 06:21 PM) *
I think the chance of propaganda being flung is strong on both sides of the downing of MH-17. It does not make sense for either side to shoot down the passenger plane. I would think providing all known data to the public would be highly advantages for both sides. Russia has done so. The United States? Crickets. All the United States and Ukraine have is propaganda.


What makes you think Russia has provided all known data? Russia has provided data that fits with the story they desired to put out. We don't even know how real the data is. There is no reason at all to assume it is all known data.

The U.S. has certainly not been silent on the issue. Lots of data has been provided. The cell phone intercepts, pictures of the missile launchers in the Ukraine, pictures of Ukrainians manning them, etc. They have talked about what radar showed. They've released a lot of data.

So, while I don't discount that both sides practice spin, I see a lot more meaningful data coming from the West. About the only thing they haven't released is the actual radar data itself. Has Russia done that?

No, it doesn't make sense for either side to shoot down the flight. But the circumstances surrounding the separatists doing it is a lot more plausible than the other scenarios. Why would a friendly fighter shoot down a friendly passenger jet? Even less reasonable. If it was a fighter jet, it would have been Russian or separatist. Which leaves the same issue...the separatists shooting down a passenger jet. By missile or by plane, really doesn't matter. Or was it a Russian fighter? How do we know that wasn't the scenario, if indeed we buy the 'data' the Russians put out? Russia would have been more likely to shoot down the jet than NATO would have...they've done it before.

Again...Occam's razor. The missile shootdown still remains the most likely scenario. Russia has every reason to muddy the waters around that, which is exactly what they seem to be doing.

Posted by: Gray Seal Mar 22 2016, 10:48 AM

Hobbes, The United States has provided lots of data? Pretty hard to find it. Families have have asked for such data and been denied.

akaCG, when such a strong response is produced it probably means statements have challenged some core beliefs. Challenging beliefs stimulates emotional responses while challenging thought processes stimulates debate.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Mar 22 2016, 11:10 AM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Mar 21 2016, 07:21 PM) *
I think the chance of propaganda being flung is strong on both sides of the downing of MH-17. It does not make sense for either side to shoot down the passenger plane.

This is correct, which means it was more likely an accident.
Ergo, accidental shooting, not purposeful strafing of a passenger plane by a fighter.
If the culprit had been a fighter there would have been something on the http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/09/mh17-crash-malaysia-airlines-black-box-recorders_n_5789224.html to indicate that, and the Russians sure would have brought that up.
What information are you looking for that hasn't been released yet?

QUOTE
The damage to the plane, which was completely destroyed, was "consistent with the damage that would be expected from a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside", the investigators said.


The above is alligned with the damage a http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2697068/How-MH17-obliterated-just-12-seconds-BUK-missile-carrying-150lbs-explosives-fired-doomed-Malaysian-flight-95-accuracy.html.

Posted by: Gray Seal Mar 22 2016, 11:49 AM

That is a good link with information about the BUK system. I had not seen an explanation of the shrapnel damage to the downed aircraft before.

I was looking for radar information.

Posted by: Hobbes Mar 23 2016, 04:13 AM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Mar 22 2016, 05:48 AM) *
Hobbes, The United States has provided lots of data? Pretty hard to find it. Families have have asked for such data and been denied.


Yes. Finding it was not hard at all...it was readily available. All over the news, etc. I listed such in my earlier post. I find it highly ironic that you find the propoganda the Russians put out to be so incredibly forthcoming, when all it does it follow up on their attempts to obfuscate by creating 'alternative scenarios', and this many many months later, whereas the U.S. and the West released very similar data, almost immediately, yet you laud the Russians and act as if the West released nothing. It is completely baffling. Are you part of the Russian propoganda machine? ph34r.gif smile.gif

And neither you, nor anyone else, including the Russians, has pointed out any reason not to follow Occam's Razor, and assume that the most plausible scenario is in fact the one that happened. The Russians have yet to put out such scenario. Most likely (Occam's Razor again) because no such plausible alternative scenario exists.

What scenario do you think happened, and why?
QUOTE
I was looking for radar information.


Understandable, as is the reason the U.S. has not released it. But failing to release one specific piece of data certainly does not correlate with releasing of no data at all. I do wonder if they would be better off releasing it. I do not know nearly enough about radar to know what secrets would be revealed if they did.

Would love to look at the Russian radar data clearly showing said fighter in close proximity to the plane immediately before it exploded, as well as the corresponding tracking data showing where it originated from and went back to. The Russians, being so forthcoming, must have released that. Not sure why they omitted it from their report. Kindly do provide the link.

Plenty of corrobarative and scientific evidence that is was indeed a missile from a BUK 17 that downed the plane. This is ahttp://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/oct/13/mh17-crash-report-ukraine-live-updates. There is a lot of data supporting this, and not really any data indicating something else is what happened, and NO data that I have seen or heard of indicating that it couldn't have been a missile that did it. Combine that with its use being fairly plausible. We know the separatists had the missiles. We also know they are very complex systems, and the separatists would have had minimal training on them. We know they used them to shoot down other planes. We have the radio intercepts indicating that they had thought they shoot down a transport. We have the blast patterns indicating a missile. We have sound patterns indicating a missile. We even have parts of the missile itself! I guess said fighter had those parts, and threw them into the plane as it flew by?

It seems pretty clear what happened, and that the Russians are trying to obfuscate attention away from it. They knew that they needed to release a report countering the Dutch report. So they created one, and released it. All as one would have expected.

Posted by: droop224 Mar 23 2016, 12:07 PM

QUOTE(Hobbes)
And neither you, nor anyone else, including the Russians, has pointed out any reason not to follow Occam's Razor, and assume that the most plausible scenario is in fact the one that happened. The Russians have yet to put out such scenario. Most likely (Occam's Razor again) because no such plausible alternative scenario exists.
What reasoning would we arrive to using Occam Razor?

We have missile fired from a BUK system manufactured within Russia. This system is known to be in the hands of the Ukrainian people, and possibly the rebels.

I guess that the part that baffles me. Yes Russia has the system. Yes Ukraine has the system. The Russian manufacturer states the missile used was of an old design. So it seems everyone is arguing over nothing, the question is... where did the missile come from.

And then that's not that important, maybe it was the Ukrainians shooting down the plane believing it was Putin, as Russia suggest. Maybe it was the rebels shooting down a plane, not sure what that motive would be... maybe incompetence or maybe they think it plane carrying troops.(doesn't make much sense)

Either way no one wants to claim it so it was shot down which leads me to believe, the intention of the shooter was not to kill a plane full of civilians.

Now the only motive I can believe for intentionally shooting down a plane full of civilians knowing that this is what the flight is Ukraine power structure wanted to use this as a powerful piece of propaganda for the West legitimizing its right to deny the people their HUMAN right to no longer be a part of Ukraine, especially after the unlawful coup.

I do not put this past the Ukrainian elites, but I do not believe it either.

Which leaves me with a stinking pile of "SO WHAT!"

What do you think happens when you destabilize a government and promote regime change from the outside? War. Death. Tragedy.

But hey, someone is getting paid!!

But that's my POV, Hobbes and GS what are you two trying to convey? What if either of you are able to prove definitively that it was the rebels or it was Ukrainian nationalists, what then does that show?

Posted by: Gray Seal Mar 23 2016, 01:29 PM

I am pointing out that we should not leap to conclusions based upon ingrained meme that whatever the United States says is factual and good while anything having to do with Russia is untruthful and evil. The United States has shown a pattern of becoming overly involved in other countries and destabilizing them. This has occurred in the middle east. A similar pattern is exhibited in Ukraine.

I do not know who launched the BUK missile. I believe my country shows signs of being involved in a cover-up. The United States is unduly being secretive. My country is not being a straight shooter and I do not like it.

Posted by: Hobbes Mar 23 2016, 01:35 PM

QUOTE(droop224 @ Mar 23 2016, 07:07 AM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes)
And neither you, nor anyone else, including the Russians, has pointed out any reason not to follow Occam's Razor, and assume that the most plausible scenario is in fact the one that happened. The Russians have yet to put out such scenario. Most likely (Occam's Razor again) because no such plausible alternative scenario exists.
What reasoning would we arrive to using Occam Razor?

We have missile fired from a BUK system manufactured within Russia. This system is known to be in the hands of the Ukrainian people, and possibly the rebels.

I guess that the part that baffles me. Yes Russia has the system. Yes Ukraine has the system. The Russian manufacturer states the missile used was of an old design. So it seems everyone is arguing over nothing, the question is... where did the missile come from.


There are pictures of a Buk system in rebel controlled area, in fact the area near where the plane was shot down. There are then pictures of it leaving the area, and also pictures of such a system with a rebel team operating it.

Was not aware that the Ukrainian's also had such a system, but that makes sense given their past relationship with Russia. But they had nothing to shoot at...the rebels don't have an air force. Nor would they have had it in the rebel controlled area where the plane was shot down. So, again, not really a plausible scenario.



And then that's not that important, maybe it was the Ukrainians shooting down the plane believing it was Putin, as Russia suggest. Maybe it was the rebels shooting down a plane, not sure what that motive would be... maybe incompetence or maybe they think it plane carrying troops.(doesn't make much sense)

QUOTE
Either way no one wants to claim it so it was shot down which leads me to believe, the intention of the shooter was not to kill a plane full of civilians.


I think there is fairly universal agreement on this point.

QUOTE
Now the only motive I can believe for intentionally shooting down a plane full of civilians knowing that this is what the flight is Ukraine power structure wanted to use this as a powerful piece of propaganda for the West legitimizing its right to deny the people their HUMAN right to no longer be a part of Ukraine, especially after the unlawful coup.

I do not put this past the Ukrainian elites, but I do not believe it either.

Which leaves me with a stinking pile of "SO WHAT!"

What do you think happens when you destabilize a government and promote regime change from the outside? War. Death. Tragedy.


Agree. I think Mrs P said it best, the scenario of the West that it was the rebels who fired the missile that downed the plane still gets chalked up as wartime tragedy... a very unfortunate accident.

I think Malaysian airlines bears a fair amount of the blame. Why fly a huge jet over a known war zone? Allowable, it seems...but smart? not so much...

QUOTE
But that's my POV, Hobbes and GS what are you two trying to convey? What if either of you are able to prove definitively that it was the rebels or it was Ukrainian nationalists, what then does that show?


Not that much, which is why I think the U.S. is not bothering to release the radar images. Not much to gain, and potentially a lot to lose, in terms of indicating the sophistication of their radar. It would show that the Russians are supplying the rebels with these types of weapons, but that seems pretty well established already.

A lot more fallout if someone were to prove that it wasn't the rebels..but again, those scenarios don't seem that plausible, and there certainly isn't any smoking gun.

The only reason I keep debating this is that while I certainly understand that spin occurs everywhere, there seems to be a willingness to buy into the Russian propoganda (and anything that comes out of Russia is progoganda, their system is set up that way), and a complete disregard of the information being provided by the West, which is much more open and accountable. The scale seems way too tilted, and in the wrong direction.

Posted by: Trouble Apr 2 2016, 06:17 AM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Mar 23 2016, 07:29 AM) *
I am pointing out that we should not leap to conclusions based upon ingrained meme that whatever the United States says is factual and good while anything having to do with Russia is untruthful and evil. The United States has shown a pattern of becoming overly involved in other countries and destabilizing them. This has occurred in the middle east. A similar pattern is exhibited in Ukraine.

I do not know who launched the BUK missile. I believe my country shows signs of being involved in a cover-up. The United States is unduly being secretive. My country is not being a straight shooter and I do not like it.


Well Mr. Kerry's https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/kerrylettermh17.pdf to Mr. Thomas Schansman's https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/SchansmanMH17LettertoKerry.pdf was less than inspiring. For reasons known only to Mr. Kerry, he has refused to release satellite data which he refers to immediately after the crash. The http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/07/obama-should-release-mh-17-intel.html of curious intelligence professionals will most likely grow.

Much could be made clear if more satellite data was released. Or flight logs. Or black box data. I would also like to understand why Malaysia was excluded as an investigating party but Ukraine was included. Could someone explain why a suspect could be part of evidence collection?

The results are not surprising.

When reading the Dutch http://english.ctivd.nl/documents/reports/2015/10/13/index, despite it reading as a painful exercise in wordsmithing, a couple nuggets can be gleamed.

QUOTE(26 van 38)
The Separatists gradually obtained more and better weapons with greater potential. The AIVD was aware that the Separatists, in addition to a broad range of artillery (eg machine guns), light anti-aircraft artillery (e.g. rocket launchers), anti-tank weapons and tanks, also possessed MANPADS and possibly short-range vehicle-borne anti-aircraft systems. Both types of systems are considered surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). Due to their limited range, the aforementioned weapons do not constitute a danger to civil aviation at cruising altitude.

On 16 July, the AIVD received a report from a reliable source that stated that there was no information that indicated that the Separatists possessed a medium-range SAM system. This comment was made in view of the circumstances related to the Ukrainian armed forces' Antonov being shot down on 14 July 2014 in Eastern Ukraine.The AIVD did not have any information that indicated that the Separatists possessed an operational, powerful anti-aircraft system such as a Buk system, also called an SA-11, prior to the crash of light MH17.


QUOTE(29 van 38)
The AIVD and the MIVD did not have any indication that the Separatists had the capacity to hit civil aeroplanes at cruising altitude. Moreover, there were no indications either that they would target civil aeroplane or that they were engaged in activities with this objective in mind.


After spending much of the night running through this document frontwards and backwards, an omission springs forth. Dutch researchers did not narrow the 320 square kilometer area within eastern Ukraine. No where in the report have the Dutch investigation team successfully refuted the results produced by Buk missile system producer Almaz-Antey. Their launching area was much tighter. Could Almaz-Antey been under state pressure and fudged the results? Possibly. However I think these MIVD guys were under enormous pressure from their Ukrainian associates to keep the window of launch wide so the pretense of separatist culpability could be maintained.

Remember the equipment in question is old and the chances of an independent client test very likely. I think the manufacturer may have been telling the truth. The company put themselves in a position where they could sustain a hit to their reputation by publishing false data. As in real life Myth Busters with consequences.

Posted by: Hobbes Apr 2 2016, 05:18 PM

QUOTE
However I think these MIVD guys were under enormous pressure from their Ukrainian associates to keep the window of launch wide so the pretense of separatist culpability could be maintained.


What pretense? Who the frack else would have launched it? The ONLY other possible source would be Russia itself. The separatists had no air force, therefore nothing for Ukraine to shoot at. Were it Russia itself, that would actually be a much worse scenario, and it would be Russia seeking to supress that, not the West.

This is another example of the ridiculousness being applied here. Claiming a story is being made up, while buyng into the conspiracy theories being spread by Russia, even though none of the alternate scenarios they keep putting out there (and that there are multiple of them is further proof of what they are spreading) hold up to basic common sense tests. They seem to fall into two categories: Non existent fighters shooting down what they could clearly see was a passenger jet, or Ukraine firing missiles at planes that never existed. Yet somehow those are being bought into, while the story from the West, which not only does make sense and is quite plausible, but has lots of data backing it, is some massive cover-up, yet of what there is hint.



QUOTE
Remember the equipment in question is old and the chances of an independent client test very likely. I think the manufacturer may have been telling the truth. The company put themselves in a position where they could sustain a hit to their reputation by publishing false data. As in real life Myth Busters with consequences.


Myth busters would have a field day with all the conspiracy theories coming out around this, none of which make even the slightest sense, yet those backing them talking about the bias and rush to judgement of others. It's ridiculous. Especially when combined with a willingness to buy into a known propoganda producing machine that has every reason to lie and cover up in this situation (they weren't supposed to be shipping arms like that missile to Ukraine, and they also know that this would produce a swing against them in any support for their invasions).


QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Mar 23 2016, 08:29 AM) *
I am pointing out that we should not leap to conclusions based upon ingrained meme that whatever the United States says is factual and good while anything having to do with Russia is untruthful and evil.


While also pointing out that we should apparently all buy into the ingrained meme that Russia puts out, and is factual and good.

Russia IS untruthful. Their state depends on it. Why do you think they control the media there?

QUOTE
The United States has shown a pattern of becoming overly involved in other countries and destabilizing them. This has occurred in the middle east. A similar pattern is exhibited in Ukraine.


More of the same. You are inherently stating here that Russia actually invading these areas is somehow much lower involvement than whatever the United States has been doing. Ridiculous.

QUOTE
I do not know who launched the BUK missile. I believe my country shows signs of being involved in a cover-up. The United States is unduly being secretive. My country is not being a straight shooter and I do not like it.


What do you believe they are covering up?

And you would apparently prefer that they release sensitive data putting our national security at risk. But then given your belief that Russia is completely benign and only has good intentions for the world, maybe that is understandable. Completely ridiculous, but understandable in that context.

Trouble/Gray Seal: Since you clearly don't believe it was the separatists that shot down MH17, please elaborate on what you do think happened, and how it came about. None of the other stories I've heard hold up, and they fail the common sense test. But perhaps you have better ones. What are they? What do you think happened, if not the separatists launching a missile?

Posted by: droop224 Apr 3 2016, 12:27 AM

Hobbes

QUOTE
The only reason I keep debating this is that while I certainly understand that spin occurs everywhere, there seems to be a willingness to buy into the Russian propoganda (and anything that comes out of Russia is progoganda, their system is set up that way), and a complete disregard of the information being provided by the West, which is much more open and accountable. The scale seems way too tilted, and in the wrong direction.


Well lets see.

We know that our government consistently propagandizes us the people, or passively allows private persons to do so over the media, with no correction of facts. We just don't know to what degree they are willing to do so. So i don't talk about how much Russia propagandizes its people, because... I'm not Russian, never spoke Russian, never read Russian, so how would i know about Russian propaganda? By a Russian defector? By my own government which has been caught time and time again promoting ignorance, obfuscation, and misdirection, over abundance of factual information, and transparency to the people.

I think the difference is in viewpoints is where one side thinks you need to "cheer" for your team(our country) when dealing with foriegn policy issues, the other side is take a note from former President G.W.Bush
"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, 'Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.' – Nashville, Tennessee; September 17, 2002

To say you have heavy skepticism of all US media in foreign policy reporting is far beyond understating the the point. And that should be the concern of all of us American. What is our media feeding us?

How does it serve you Hobbes as an American citizen for our government to withhold the information? Does it provide your family security? Does it provide our country greater security?


Posted by: Hobbes Apr 4 2016, 03:45 AM

QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 2 2016, 07:27 PM) *
We know that our government consistently propagandizes us the people, or passively allows private persons to do so over the media, with no correction of facts. We just don't know to what degree they are willing to do so. So i don't talk about how much Russia propagandizes its people, because... I'm not Russian, never spoke Russian, never read Russian, so how would i know about Russian propaganda?


By being aware of history, and a general understanding of how various governments operate. That the Russian government works by propoganda is a well known fact. Any investigation at all will reveal this.

QUOTE
I think the difference is in viewpoints is where one side thinks you need to "cheer" for your team(our country) when dealing with foriegn policy issues, the other side is take a note from former President G.W.Bush


This isn't a matter of 'cheering for one team' (well, I'm not, but there definitely seems to be a Russian cheer squad). it is a matter of the abandonment of reason. I don't take what we say about things for granted: I look at what was said, and see if it makes sense, seems plausible, has any holes, etc. Pretty much everything coming out of the West on this passes those tests, and all of the conspiracy theories and alternate stories being thrown about..don't. I'd say the same thing if the origin of the stories were reversed. It's not the source of the stories...it's what is in them.

QUOTE
What is our media feeding us?
A wealth of information. There is certainly no shortage at all of information on this incident. The issue seems to be some disregarding everything that comes from 'the West' while buying into everything coming from 'the East'...when all common sense indicates more the opposite should be the case, given that the facts and events put forth by the West make sense and agree with the other facts, and what Russia is putting out does not. Everything coming from the West passes the commons sense test, while the East is throwing up various conspiracy theories, and people are buying into them. I'm very surprised the Nigerian inheritance scam people haven't caught on and sent them PM's here.

QUOTE
How does it serve you Hobbes as an American citizen for our government to withhold the information? Does it provide your family security? Does it provide our country greater security?


Yes, it does. Keeping our enemies in the dark about our true surveillance capabilities is very important to our security, which is why we've had a long standing policy of not doing so. Especially as there is no need to release it, as the facts of the matter are pretty clear without it. So, not only would they be risking our national security, they would be doing so for no purpose. Yes, I am taking the government's word on this being sensitive, but, again, that makes sense and passes the common sense test. So, the real question is why are others so anxious for our government to risk our national security, and all for no real purpose? Or, if they have evidence that this wouldn't pose a security risk...why are they withholding that evidence? What are they hiding???

Meanwhile, those lamenting this particular piece of information not being released are giving the East a total pass for...not releasing the very same information. Which brings us back to their being in a cheering section.

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Mar 23 2016, 08:29 AM) *
I do not know who launched the BUK missile. I believe my country shows signs of being involved in a cover-up. The United States is unduly being secretive. My country is not being a straight shooter and I do not like it.


What do you think they are covering up?

And how are they being 'unduly' secretive when not releasing just how good their satellite data is has been a long standing policy, and with good reason. Ditto for their radar capabilities. Again, Occam's razor. The most likely reason for not releasing this data is that one. Which is neither new, surprising, or even necessary in this case. I really don't understand why you are so hung up on this one small point...while at the same time giving Russia a pass for not providing similar data for any of the theories they are putting out there.

Posted by: Gray Seal Apr 4 2016, 01:41 PM

What do I think they could be covering up? Data which does not support their narrative. Do I believe statements as facts because John Kerry says so? I am not a fool.

Posted by: Hobbes Apr 5 2016, 01:00 AM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Apr 4 2016, 08:41 AM) *
What do I think they could be covering up? Data which does not support their narrative.


Like what? And what other narrative do you think it would show?

And why would you assume that is the case, when the U.S. has a long standing policy of not releasing data or images which show our surveillance capabilities?

QUOTE
Do I believe statements as facts because John Kerry says so? I am not a fool.


Fair enough...but all the other data, and investigations, point to the same thing. It is also the only proposed scenario that passes the plausibility test. If the US were to release the satellite data, it wouldn't really add much to the story. But it would potentially have a negative impact on our national security. Not releasing data which shows our surveillance capabilities is nothing new, it is a long standing policy. So, why should we violate it, and endanger our national security, in this particular case, when doing so doesn't even add much value?

FWIW, I don't take Kerry at his word, either. Without seeing the satellite data, I just factor it out. I have no idea what it does, or does not, show. or even if they have it or not. I tend to think they probably do have it, but with you on not just taking their word for it. The difference then, seems to be that I don't see anything nefarious in their not releasing it.

Posted by: Gray Seal Apr 5 2016, 11:55 AM

Hobbes: Like what? And what other narrative do you think it would show?

Exactly. Those are my questions.

I do not buy the need to hide the technology at all. That does not make sense. It is not plausible.

Posted by: Hobbes Apr 5 2016, 07:08 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Apr 5 2016, 06:55 AM) *
I do not buy the need to hide the technology at all. That does not make sense. It is not plausible.


Well, it has been the stance of the U.S. Government for...forever. It is also the policy of pretty much every country on earth. It certainly makes sense to them, and it certainly is plausible, given its universal prevalence. Why would you want your potential enemies to know how good your surveillance capabilities might be? That materially detracts from their effectiveness, and hence materially detracts from our security. If the enemy knows what your capabilities are, they can take steps to thwart them. Conversely, if they aren't sure, they have to be more cautious, so just their not knowing is a powerful countering force. What does not make sense or seems implausible about that, especially given that it is the policy of every country?

Further, what would be the benefit of releasing it? It has already been fairly clearly determined what occurred, and only one scenario explains all the data. Releasing the satellite or radar data wouldn't change that, it would only expose details about the sensitivity of our equipment we don't want exposed. So, nothing really to gain, and lots to lose.

Posted by: Gray Seal Apr 25 2016, 12:24 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3556177/Was-MH17-shot-Ukrainian-fighter-jet-BBC-documentary-claims-Boeing-777-targeted-plane.html

I wonder if the documentary will be available via the internet?

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Apr 25 2016, 12:38 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Apr 25 2016, 08:24 AM) *
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3556177/Was-MH17-shot-Ukrainian-fighter-jet-BBC-documentary-claims-Boeing-777-targeted-plane.html

I wonder if the documentary will be available via the internet?


I don't see any "dent". No one said there weren't any fighters anywhere in the area.

That would actually support the suspicion the plane was targeted by accident, and the missile was intended for a military plane. And in fact, they had been shooting down fighters with missiles, actively and currently.

Or we could go with the theory that the fighter shot a passenger plane on purpose...for some discombobulated reason (bad Russian PR? One suspected VIP?) that makes no sense whatsoever. Of course, that would be taking a REAL risk since...passenger planes have radios and the first thing the pilot would do it report a fighter coming very close, very quickly...but hey, anything for bad PR for Russia (the world thinks they're such great guys and all) or....to get. that...VIP? Because assassinations via fighters shooting down passenger jets are an efficient way to do that.

Furthermore, eyewitness testimony is http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ under far more ideal conditions, even at close range, in regular time. This, by contrast, was 30,000 feet away up in the sky and happening faster than the speed of stink.

Posted by: AuthorMusician Apr 26 2016, 02:38 PM

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Apr 25 2016, 08:38 AM) *
Furthermore, eyewitness testimony is http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ under far more ideal conditions, even at close range, in regular time. This, by contrast, was 30,000 feet away up in the sky and happening faster than the speed of stink.

Using Occam's Razor, this makes the most sense. Humans aren't built for handling the conditions of extremely rapid movement and split-second decisions on a continual basis. So we SNAFU a lot. Get enough SNAFUs going, and along comes FUBAR:

Sx = F

The next obvious step is to make robotic-driven jet fighters. Then we can ship all the robots to Mars, and we can have our wars there. Then to save money, it'll all be an international video game played by robots. Soon we'll all see that the whole thing has always been dumber than a sack full of crabgrass seed and go do something else.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Apr 26 2016, 03:39 PM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Apr 26 2016, 10:38 AM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Apr 25 2016, 08:38 AM) *
Furthermore, eyewitness testimony is http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ under far more ideal conditions, even at close range, in regular time. This, by contrast, was 30,000 feet away up in the sky and happening faster than the speed of stink.

Using Occam's Razor, this makes the most sense. Humans aren't built for handling the conditions of extremely rapid movement and split-second decisions on a continual basis. So we SNAFU a lot. Get enough SNAFUs going, and along comes FUBAR:

Sx = F

The next obvious step is to make robotic-driven jet fighters. Then we can ship all the robots to Mars, and we can have our wars there. Then to save money, it'll all be an international video game played by robots. Soon we'll all see that the whole thing has always been dumber than a sack full of crabgrass seed and go do something else.


While it's true that most humans aren't built for handling conditions of extremely rapid movement and split-second decision making, a fighter pilot is actually trained for exactly that so he should have no trouble avoiding shooting down passenger planes "by accident". In fact, these guys fly around other planes all of the time...sometimes just three feet between wingtips and doing tricks.

Passenger planes avoided that area in general for a reason. And that reason wasn't because a fighter jet might just shoot them down by accident but because an anti aircraft missile might hit them by accident.

So Occam's razor sure does NOT point to the fighter as the culprit. It is, however, very very likely that the random civilian who happened to look up in the sky and saw something far far away didn't get an accurate impression.

Posted by: AuthorMusician Apr 27 2016, 01:56 PM

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Apr 26 2016, 11:39 AM) *
So Occam's razor sure does NOT point to the fighter as the culprit. It is, however, very very likely that the random civilian who happened to look up in the sky and saw something far far away didn't get an accurate impression.

Human error, exactly. I have my doubts that whoever was flying fighters that day were trained in the USAF or any of our other air forces (Navy, Marine, Army). But I understand your sensitivity to the issue, so I'll not list the SNAFUs that our air forces have experienced.

The basic deal is that nobody can be trained to be not human, and humans can't keep up with machinery. Poor old John Henry, he was a steel driving man.

And of course the entire insanity of war. Let's automate that, get robots fighting robots like on Wall Street. Heh, soon it'll be on social media too -- DJTbot verses HRCbot. The rest of us can go do something else that's way more interesting.

Although I personally find politics interesting in an entertaining manner. Like comedies and comedians, except not as insightful.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Apr 27 2016, 03:39 PM

In the interest of being constructive, I find it very hard to respond to your post above AM.
I have to assume you are being purposely absurd for entertainment value or something. I could go into USAF snafus but I don't see the point, they are certainly FAR different from the situation here and much more explainable.

It is worth mentioning that the last time we accidentally shot down a passenger airliner**it was the Aegis Combat System that was in error. The computer and radar system misidentified the aircraft (said it was descending when it was ascending and said it was military when it was civilian).

**(a surface to air weapon, as they generally are..NOT a fighter misidentifying a passenger plane, the only air to air misidentification I can think of happen in the first Gulf war and it was a helicopter that looked very much like an Iraqi one..are there a bunch of Russian migs flying over the Ukraine? Do they look like passenger planes? no and no)

Posted by: AuthorMusician Apr 27 2016, 08:40 PM

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Apr 27 2016, 11:39 AM) *
In the interest of being constructive, I find it very hard to respond to your post above AM.
I have to assume you are being purposely absurd for entertainment value or something. I could go into USAF snafus but I don't see the point, they are certainly FAR different from the situation here and much more explainable.

It is worth mentioning that the last time we accidentally shot down a passenger airliner**it was the Aegis Combat System that was in error. The computer and radar system misidentified the aircraft (said it was descending when it was ascending and said it was military when it was civilian).

**(a surface to air weapon, as they generally are..NOT a fighter misidentifying a passenger plane, the only air to air misidentification I can think of happen in the first Gulf war and it was a helicopter that looked very much like an Iraqi one..are there a bunch of Russian migs flying over the Ukraine? Do they look like passenger planes? no and no)

Yes, the post was mostly comedy. However, to take a quote from My Cousin Vinny, are you sure? All anyone knows about what was in the air that day, other than those privy to tippy-top secret military intel, is what they've read in the online funny pages. We do agree that someone screwed up somewhere, and the only people I can point to for sure in the screw-up are those in the commercial airline who allowed the passenger liner to fly through dangerous air space. So while speculating, pilot-launched or ground-launched missile doesn't make much of a difference.

BTW, I didn't bring up the USAF, you did. Apparently, some people think it was a US pilot who messed up. I'm not one of them. For all I know, it was some guy in a crop duster with another guy working the shoulder-fired missile, maybe supporting Russia and maybe not. Maybe the target was indeed a fighter jet of some make and origin they were shooting at, missed, and then the flash of light way up there. Better land and get lost quick, doing their best Laurel and Hardy imitations.

Of course now there's the possibility of a high-altitude drone attack (with stealth tech FCS):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ-170_Sentinel

That changes a lot of assumptions and introduces a bunch of possibilities for SNAFUs.

But I still like the idea of having robots fight our wars on Mars via video games. It'd show the true end of history, if history is defined as tracking wars and their outcomes. Some thought the end of the Cold War was the end of history, as defined. Nope, still messing with it and acting surprised when things don't work out. Pretty sure there's a whole lot more history coming before it finally dissipates into natural history, in which destruction and self-destruction is constantly going on. But then there's still hope . . . and so it shall be. Creation is also a big part of natural history, so says this stardust.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Apr 27 2016, 09:53 PM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Apr 27 2016, 04:40 PM) *
However, to take a quote from My Cousin Vinny, are you sure?

Yes.

QUOTE
We do agree that someone screwed up somewhere, and the only people I can point to for sure in the screw-up are those in the commercial airline who allowed the passenger liner to fly through dangerous air space. So while speculating, pilot-launched or ground-launched missile doesn't make much of a difference.


Yes, yes it does make a difference. Anyone asserting that a fighter jet shot down this plane is ipso facto asserting this was NO mistake. I'm not going to argue the ludicrous leaps it would take to pretend anything else.

QUOTE
BTW, I didn't bring up the USAF, you did.


You brought it up.
QUOTE(AM)
I have my doubts that whoever was flying fighters that day were trained in the USAF or any of our other air forces (Navy, Marine, Army). But I understand your sensitivity to the issue, so I'll not list the SNAFUs that our air forces have experienced.


This is like saying, "I'm not going to blame your aunt Ethel for that horrible meal...even though she has made a lot of horrible meals".
(following response)
"Hey I'm not the one who brought up your aunt's cooking..."

Posted by: Hobbes May 8 2016, 08:09 PM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Apr 27 2016, 03:40 PM) *
We do agree that someone screwed up somewhere, and the only people I can point to for sure in the screw-up are those in the commercial airline who allowed the passenger liner to fly through dangerous air space. So while speculating, pilot-launched or ground-launched missile doesn't make much of a difference.


We have the cell phone intercepts from the rebels both indicating that they shot a plane down...and also that they subsequently realized it was a passenger liner. Which moves that out of the speculation category. One might say they believe those calls were faked...but THAT would, for now, belong firmly in the speculation category, absent any evidence behind it.

Personally, I really don't get the resistance to the official report here. Yes, governments cover things up...but none of the alternative scenarios here makes any sense. At least with the moon landing being fake stuff (which, btw, makes a good analogy to the article listed here...are we calling the moon landings into question too??), one could see why our government might do that. There isn't really any reason Ukranian fighters would shoot down this jet...all of the repercussions would be bad for them. It would also indicate a believe in the monumental task of getting all the other parties on board with this in the coverup. Much like the 911 conspiracy theorists...the degree of complicity inherent in their theories is just not possible....and if it really were, no one would speak publicly about it, because doing so would be certain death, because such a group would never allow an opposing story to gain any traction, and clearly would be capable of making people disappear quite easily. Ie...they clearly don't believe their own story.

Posted by: Gray Seal May 8 2016, 11:31 PM

Who is the "we" that has the cell phone intercepts? All reports on this said it was Ukraine which made the intercepts. Perhaps Ukraine is technologically advanced and has cell phone intercepts up. Perhaps they can sift through the monumental amount of data accumulated via intercepting cell phone traffic. I do not know about the Ukraine government sophistication.

It seems a stretch to me. Ukraine comes up with a tape and presents it. Some trust the Ukraine government completely. 'Not sure why.

Posted by: Hobbes May 9 2016, 02:31 AM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ May 8 2016, 06:31 PM) *
Who is the "we" that has the cell phone intercepts? All reports on this said it was Ukraine which made the intercepts. Perhaps Ukraine is technologically advanced and has cell phone intercepts up. Perhaps they can sift through the monumental amount of data accumulated via intercepting cell phone traffic. I do not know about the Ukraine government sophistication.

It seems a stretch to me. Ukraine comes up with a tape and presents it. Some trust the Ukraine government completely. 'Not sure why.


I don't trust them....but do you have any evidence it was faked? Surely the tape was examined and analyzed. Did that indicate it was a fake?

Also, news of the recordings came out pretty quickly, as I recall. That would detract from the ability to make and distribute a fake.

Could it have been faked? Sure. But it lines up with lots of other evidence...which is why this gets back into the massive conspiracy theory realm. If there is some evidence it was faked, I'm open to it. But...is there?

Posted by: Gray Seal May 9 2016, 12:02 PM

Has there been any studies on the validity of the captured cell phone conversations? By whom? There are none that I am aware of.

How did these conversations get captured? What was the process? How does one capture specific cell phone conversations about an important event before you know there will be an important event?

Posted by: Hobbes May 9 2016, 02:43 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ May 9 2016, 07:02 AM) *
Has there been any studies on the validity of the captured cell phone conversations? By whom? There are none that I am aware of.


Not sure. Will check..released by the Ukanian Intelligence Agency, so they may have withheld many of the details.

Do you have any evidence it was fake?

There were also http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/ukrainian-rebel-claims-shot-malaysian-plane-article-1.1871322

QUOTE
How did these conversations get captured? What was the process? How does one capture specific cell phone conversations about an important event before you know there will be an important event?


There was already an 'important event' ongoing...war with the rebels. Why would they not be monitoring their conversations?

Posted by: Hobbes May 10 2016, 11:25 PM

fwiw, the official report does state that they can't categorically rule out the missile being shot by Ukraine (just as no one can categorically rule out that purple unicorns don't actually exist smile.gif, it is hard to prove something isn't true ), BUT that, as we have been saying, there isn't any plausible scenario in which that would have occurred. The rebels have no air force, so nothing for Ukrainian forces to have been shooting at. Intentionally shooting down the airliner makes even less sense. The report in fact highly criticizes Ukraine for not having closed the airspace to commercial traffic...Ukraine gained nothing from this. Certainly nothing worth risking worldwide condemnation and the loss of any international support.

Which, again, is why I really don't get all the skepticism here. The scenario of the rebels shooting down the plane with one of their missiles is by far the most plausible scenario. It is in fact the only scenario that makes any sense at all. Even absent any other evidence, and there was lots of it, that scenario would carry the most weight.

Since you seem pretty convinced that isn't what happened....what do you think happened, and why?

Posted by: Gray Seal Jun 1 2016, 06:01 PM

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/24/more-game-playing-on-mh-17/

The article does not provide conclusive evidence as to what happened. The article states this is the case. It does present evidence of dishonorable communication about the incident from the United States. It also demonstrates selective use of the excuse to hide technology. The United States is not providing data while making statements the official investigation does not recognize as fact.

Blind faith that the United States is a honorable source is blind.

Posted by: Hobbes Jun 5 2016, 11:25 PM

Although there are places it contradicts itself, this article at least lists some plausible alternatives. I have no problems advocating investigating those. I still think the Ukrainian theory is a reach, though, just considering the number of elements of that theory that would need to be onboard for it to work. I don't buy the U.S. withholding evidence to make Russia look bad...that's happening without it. Would the U.S. do so to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine and possibly starting WWIII? That I could see happening, but again, still would need everyone else on board.

Perhaps the U.S. isn't releasing the exact location of the launch site (if indeed they have it) not because it shows something else happened, but merely because it is inconclusive. ie, the battlefield was in flux, the launch location wouldn't say for sure which side did it.

It would be interesting to hear more about what our own intelligence thought/knew initially, and what happened afterwards and whether that was manipulated. I certainly have no blind faith in our government, but have always just been looking at this from a preponderance of evidence standpoint. In situations like this its always possible to concoct conspiracy theories, and point to little factors that can be twisted to support them. 9-11 comes to mind. I don't disagree with your statement on blind faith in the U.S....but blind faith in the conspiracy theorists is generally even blinder. This article lends more credence to alternative theories than the others, however.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Jun 7 2016, 11:40 AM

Here is an
http://airheadsfly.com/tag/ukrainian-air-force/
(I linked to this a while back on this thread)

2014.??.??: 2 Su-25s, 2 Mi-24s and 1 Mi-8 in separate incidents
2014.08.29: Su-25, over Donbas, likely SAM
2014.08.17: MiG-29, over Luhansk, likely SAM
2014.08.07: Mi-8, eastern Ukraine, weapon unknown
2014.08.07: MiG-29, near Zhdanivka (Donetsk region), by SAM
2014.07.23: 2 Su-25, Ukrainian Air Force, near Dmytrivka (Donetsk region), by SAM while providing CAS
2014.07.16: SU-25, Ukrainian Air Force, near Amvrosiyivka / Russian border, hit in tailsection. Second Su-25 hit as well, made successful emergency landing.
2014.07.14: AN-26, Ukrainian Air Force, near Izvaryne, by SAM
2014.06.24: Mi-8, near Slovyansk, by MANPADS or AA / heavy-calibre gun
2014.06.14: IL-76, Ukrainian Air Force, upon landing at Luhansk Airport, by anti-aircraft fire
2014.06.06: AN-30B, Ukrainian Air Force, near Slovyansk, by MANPADS
2014.05.29: Mi-8, Ukrainian Army Guard, near Slovyansk, by MANPADS
2014.05.05: Mi-24, Ukrainian Army Avation, near Slovyansk, by heavy-machine gun fire
2014.05.02: 2 Mi-24s, Ukrainian Army Aviation, near Slovyanks, by MANPADS
2014.04.25: Mi-8, Ukrainain Army Aviation, at Kramatorsk Airbase, by (rocket-propelled?) grenade

I couldn't find a list of downed Russian or pro-Russian aircraft. Anyone have that list?
Are there a lot of Russian aircraft fying over the Ukraine and getting shot down by the Ukrainian anti-aircraft, during this exact timeframe?
If not, why exactly would anyone conclude this very LONG pattern suddenly changed and this time it was a Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile, intentionally destroying a passenger plane? Or accidentally? For any reason at all?

Posted by: Gray Seal Jun 7 2016, 12:35 PM

Doing some searching I could not find any reports that Russia is flying over Ukraine. If there are no planes to shoot down none will be.

The list Mrs. Pigpen linked did not list any aircraft being shot down by a BUK.

BUKs are loud with a profound exhaust trail. There are no reports of civilians or anyone seeing or hearing a BUK on the day MH-17 was downed.

All of these bits are part of the puzzle but not enough for me to draw a confident conclusion as to what transpired.

Posted by: Hobbes Jun 7 2016, 04:37 PM

From the article you provided, even the BUK manufacturer (Russian company) states that it was a BUK that shot down MH17. They certainly wouldn't do that if they had any doubts (or if Russia thought they could make something else stick). So, any other scenario we should be able to rule out at this point.

Posted by: Gray Seal Jun 7 2016, 05:46 PM

Hobbes, I missed that. Surveying the article I did not find the statement from the manufacturer about their conclusion that a BUK was involved. How many paragraphs into the article will I find this?

Posted by: Hobbes Jun 8 2016, 11:26 PM

Third paragraph, which is the following sentence:

QUOTE
However, even assuming that this Buk battery was the one that fired the missile that destroyed MH-17, its location in the video is to the west of both the site where Almaz-Antey, the Russian Buk manufacturer, calculated the missile was fired, around the village of Zaroshchenskoye (then under Ukrainian government control), and the 320-square-kilometer zone where the Dutch Safety Board speculated the fateful rocket originated (covering an area of mixed government and rebel control).


There wouldn't be 'the missile' or even a firing location, without a conclusion that that is what downed the plane. Certainly not from the missile manufacturer, and even more certainly not if the manufacturer was Russian (Russia wouldn't let them state this if it was avoidable).

Now, the location puts the ownership in doubt, but presumes that it was a BUK missile that downed the plane.

Posted by: Gray Seal Jun 9 2016, 12:46 PM

QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jun 8 2016, 06:26 PM) *
Third paragraph, which is the following sentence:

QUOTE
However, even assuming that this Buk battery was the one that fired the missile that destroyed MH-17, its location in the video is to the west of both the site where Almaz-Antey, the Russian Buk manufacturer, calculated the missile was fired, around the village of Zaroshchenskoye (then under Ukrainian government control), and the 320-square-kilometer zone where the Dutch Safety Board speculated the fateful rocket originated (covering an area of mixed government and rebel control).


There wouldn't be 'the missile' or even a firing location, without a conclusion that that is what downed the plane. Certainly not from the missile manufacturer, and even more certainly not if the manufacturer was Russian (Russia wouldn't let them state this if it was avoidable).

Now, the location puts the ownership in doubt, but presumes that it was a BUK missile that downed the plane.

I read a preposition there: "even assuming". I see no conclusion by the BUK manufacturer. Presumption of the missile firing can not be proof a missile was fired. I do not think declaring who fired the missile was the intent. I think a possible scenario was being explored. No citizens from this location were found who heard or saw a BUK being fired.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Jul 19 2017, 12:53 PM

Has it really been 3 years?!? blink.gif

Thought I'd post an update on this one, since something new has come up. Don't see much reason to start a new thread even though this one is old....

https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2017/07/05/statement-by-the-minister-of-foreign-affairs-on-mh17-5-july-2017

(Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Ukraine) – have announced their decision to initiate domestic prosecutions in the Netherlands in relation to the incident.

Posted by: Gray Seal Sep 19 2018, 05:58 PM

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/09/paul-craig-roberts/evidence-is-no-longer-a-western-value/

I am impressed by the information provided by Russia. It comes across as factual as opposed to tortured to fit a narrative.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Sep 21 2018, 12:39 AM

Up until this time, the Russian side had been shooting down all aircraft (the Ukrainians had air superiority so they didn't have to shoot anything down) on a regular basis.

So either:
1) The Russian side accidentally shot down this aircraft, thinking it was an enemy aircraft like the others....
or
2) The Ukrainians shot down an airliner (flying in a war zone they suggested everyone avoid) with an anti-aircraft missile they had up until now not used, on purpose...in the hope they could frame the Russians and make them look bad. They were so indiscrete that service members (who said this? I'd think they'd keep something like that on the DL but, heh word gets around, eh?) mentioned it casually over the radio....as often happens in these little capers.

Sorry, not buying it. Hanlons' razor applies.

Edited to add: I'm not sure how any of us could come to any conclusions on how "factual" ANY of this information is from our small vantage point.
If you are not guilty of a crime and have nothing to prove because no one is attempting to prosecute you for a crime, how much explaining are you going to do?
By contrast, if someone is attempting to hold you accountable for gross negligence you'll probably go through more CYA work.
It's no surprise that Russia has been more "forthcoming" with information (that unsurprisingly fits their narrative) here.

Posted by: droop224 Sep 21 2018, 02:57 PM

QUOTE(Mrs. P)
Edited to add: I'm not sure how any of us could come to any conclusions on how "factual" ANY of this information is from our small vantage point.
If you are not guilty of a crime and have nothing to prove because no one is attempting to prosecute you for a crime, how much explaining are you going to do?
Exactly, wait, what... If someone accuses you of a crime you didn't do you'll explain why you didn't do it, wouldn't you?? I mean if not then the opposite would be true, which is someone accuses you of a crime that you didn't do and you stay silent. In which case, to those who DON'T know, your silence would only serve as affirmation the accusation is true. You'd know the truth that it didn't happen, but you would also know, no one else knows that. That being said your first sentence and point is spot on for me. Who really know knows the truth.
I also think you did a decent job explaining the two possibilities. So my question is this. If option one is what happened why demonize Russia and the Eastern rebels? Is it not the war policy of most Western democracies, that killing civilians is "OK" (still not good) if its an accident when trying to defend yourself.

So
1. Ukraine did it and did so to use the incident as propaganda against Russia and the rebels or;2. The rebels mistakenly did it and we used the incident to propagandize our own citizens.
Either way, the incident will be used to mislead citizens of Western Democracies, the civil unrest will continue, thousands of human beings will continue to die, and our governments will not side with freedom and self determination, but rather with usurpers and America's best business interests. On this though.. it light support so i won't complain too much. Sorry rebels, your on your own.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Sep 22 2018, 12:48 AM

QUOTE(droop224 @ Sep 21 2018, 09:57 AM) *
If someone accuses you of a crime you didn't do you'll explain why you didn't do it, wouldn't you??


Yes. In this case a multi-national investigation team was involved. So any ostensible "subterfuge" would require the direct participation of several nations, and the inspectors of those nations. It would take an extreme level of difficulty for the collaborative findings from the inspectors of multiple nations to support a single criminally nefarious, equivocal narrative to cover a war crime of mass proportions (as it would be if a passenger plane full of civilians were shot down for the express purpose of anti-Russian propaganda).
It just isn't practical...and that is an extreme understatement.
So again, I go with Hanlon's razor.

Posted by: Trouble Sep 23 2018, 04:24 AM

The original https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLBpLVwa-lM had a sleepy translator that fell behind when it came to the digital format discussion but otherwise was watchable. The revised https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAFZbjyoqok has someone with a better grasp of english and was more to the point.

My issue was and still pertains to the disclosure of the radar data. I'm confident that American forces as well as at least one or two European countries were monitoring the situation that day. Disclosure on their part could either confirm or deny the Russian radar data. This would either confirm or deny the JIT's conclusion of the BUK's launch location of Kursk and we could all go about our day. The issue could have concluded either way years ago. The fact that it was not and allowed to linger does not bode well for the JIT's objectivity. That and the fact that Ukraine withheld air traffic controller data because it was allowed to be member of the steering committee boggles the mind.

With such important information it is hard to take what is this investigation seriously. I look at it this way. The JIT had a golden to opportunity to conclusively refute the Russian side of the information and blew it spectacularly. Further, if multiple parties had the same information and it was in opposition to the Russian radar data, the loss of face Russia would have suffered would be too tempting for anyone in the Pentagon to pass up. But it was passed up nonetheless.

One must come to the conclusion that the JIT's behaviour was either grossly incompetent or ideological. If ideology played a role then we must ask if the omissions were withheld to create confusion. What is omitted creates doubt and where there is doubt entire narratives can be maintained.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Sep 23 2018, 01:33 PM

Trouble, the JIT includes Malaysia. The victim. Do you honestly believe the actual victims would cover up for the "real" culprits? They have nothing to "prove" to you.
The opinion of you or I (or the rest of the ignorant masses) really isn't a factor on who should receive whatever information they want to receive.
This reminds me very much of the Truther movement. "Hey! This janitor says he smelled cordite!"
Remember after many months the first Russian claim was that the Ukrainians straifed the passenger plane with bullets from a fighter. And, much like the truthers, they had a "expert" who was some random passenger pilot tell his version based on monumental ignorance.

I don't really have time to watch the video...it's over 20 minutes long and I live up in the mountains where it is difficult to watch online videos.
Is there anything pertinent in particular I should listen to? If so, I'll scroll to that mark in time and watch a few minutes.
The first part they are talking about serial numbers....since i am not an expert on serial numbers I'm not sure how that is relevant.
They could claim anything. Every serial number might be a reference to a Doctor Seuss book for all I know.

QUOTE(Trouble @ Sep 22 2018, 11:24 PM) *
The JIT had a golden to opportunity to conclusively refute the Russian side of the information and blew it spectacularly. Further, if multiple parties had the same information and it was in opposition to the Russian radar data, the loss of face Russia would have suffered would be too tempting for anyone in the Pentagon to pass up. But it was passed up nonetheless.


If they revealed data (a security concern, but let's ignore that for now) how would you (or I or any of the rest of the ignorant masses) know it was real?
Your claim is that the entire JIT is collaborating on a ruse...so why wouldn't they collaborate there as well?

Posted by: Hobbes Sep 23 2018, 04:40 PM

QUOTE(Trouble @ Sep 22 2018, 10:24 PM) *
My issue was and still pertains to the disclosure of the radar data. I'm confident that American forces as well as at least one or two European countries were monitoring the situation that day. Disclosure on their part could either confirm or deny the Russian radar data.


They HAVE disclosed. What they haven't done is release highly classified data that would give away military capabilities. So, what exactly are you thinking they should do that they haven't done?
QUOTE
This would either confirm or deny the JIT's conclusion of the BUK's launch location of Kursk and we could all go about our day. The issue could have concluded either way years ago. The fact that it was not and allowed to linger does not bode well for the JIT's objectivity.


How do you know that it wasn't, behind the scenes (ie, to preserve classified data from going public)?

QUOTE
That and the fact that Ukraine withheld air traffic controller data because it was allowed to be member of the steering committee boggles the mind.


What was contained in the ATC data that changed the conclusions? It was in the black boxes, which were recovered.

QUOTE
With such important information it is hard to take what is this investigation seriously.


Really? Reading the report, it's hard to come to that conclusion, unless one is predisposed to that conclusion to start with.

QUOTE
Further, if multiple parties had the same information and it was in opposition to the Russian radar data, the loss of face Russia would have suffered would be too tempting for anyone in the Pentagon to pass up. But it was passed up nonetheless.


I imagine these discussions took place, and it was felt the preponderence of evidence still carried the day, and the additional information that could have been provided was not worth the deterioration of our military due to releasing classified information.

QUOTE
One must come to the conclusion that the JIT's behaviour was either grossly incompetent or ideological. If ideology played a role then we must ask if the omissions were withheld to create confusion. What is omitted creates doubt and where there is doubt entire narratives can be maintained.

Again, reading the report, I find this conclusion very difficult to back up.

Conversely I also find it hard to argue that ideology did play a key role in Russia's responses, which mostly could be summarized as throwing fluff into the air to undermine the JIT report. Ideology on the JIT side varied considerably throughout all the members. It would hard to even identify what 'idealogy' it actually had, much less how everyone was brought into line on it. Conversely, Russia has always had a single idealogy, which is ever present in all their media and any released data.

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 23 2018, 07:33 AM) *
Your claim is that the entire JIT is collaborating on a ruse.?


And, is there any actual evidence this occurred? A ruse of that scale would surely leave evidence. Have any of hundreds, if not thousands, of people involved in the investigation said anything about it being a ruse? I haven't heard of any. Which, on a ruse of this scale...means it didn't happen. You can't keep that many people in line with no one speaking, even accidentally.

Posted by: Gray Seal Sep 25 2018, 07:46 PM

I echo what droop224 has written, as well as Trouble. There is a lack of convincing evidence to know one way or the other. Some conclusions seem to be based upon preconceptions more than evidence. I would liken it to the Kavanaugh sex accusations. There is not any evidence but there sure is a lot of people reaching definitive conclusions anyhow.

People will look and believe they have found something to substantiate what they already believe.

I can not understand drawing conclusions based upon the idea that someone must have this definitive evidence even though that evidence has never been produced.

Certainly, US policy should not be based upon the conclusions of the of the JIT. The JIT investigation stinks of being a political instrument.

The people of Ukraine have a tough time with Russia or the corrupt government as their choices. The United States should not be backing either. It should be up to the people in the region to find a better direction.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Sep 26 2018, 03:00 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Sep 25 2018, 02:46 PM) *
I would liken it to the Kavanaugh sex accusations. There is not any evidence but there sure is a lot of people reaching definitive conclusions anyhow.


NO evidence? This is not similar to the Kavanaugh accusations in any way.
There was actually a plane that was shot down...and a lot of people know it, and people saw the parts. And there was an actual investigation.
And it didn't happen 35 years ago.

I'd liken this more to the moon landings.
Did they happen or did the government just fabricate it? There's the basic reasonability test.

Honestly, GS do you believe the Malaysians, who are part of the JIT, are purposely pointing their fingers at the wrong culprit? They they would actually side with the folks who shot down their passenger plane on purpose?

QUOTE
People will look and believe they have found something to substantiate what they already believe.


I couldn't care less about the outcome and have no pre-conceived opinion beyond disputing the absurd.
I'd agree we shouldn't be involved politically but that has nothing to do with this crash.
Per Droop's commentary...well, yes the Russians are getting bad press.
One might reword this and say the opposition is "using the crash" but you can't really expect the press to say something GOOD about shooting down a passenger plane can you?

Furthermore, no one is seriously suggesting (well, except the Russians...and I guess some folks in here who believe them) that the plane was shot down on purpose.
It's not a war crime (unless the Russians have it right).

Posted by: droop224 Sep 27 2018, 02:36 PM

QUOTE(Mrs. P)
I couldn't care less about the outcome and have no pre-conceived opinion beyond disputing the absurd.
I'd agree we shouldn't be involved politically but that has nothing to do with this crash.


But we are involved, so where does that place in terms of team rahh-rahh, "team spirit". mrsparkle.gif Does it make you bias?

QUOTE
Honestly, GS do you believe the Malaysians, who are part of the JIT, are purposely pointing their fingers at the wrong culprit? They they would actually side with the folks who shot down their passenger plane on purpose?


QUOTE(Hobbes)
And, is there any actual evidence this occurred? A ruse of that scale would surely leave evidence. Have any of hundreds, if not thousands, of people involved in the investigation said anything about it being a ruse? I haven't heard of any. Which, on a ruse of this scale...means it didn't happen.
Both of you make me laugh with this rhetoric. Oh how hard would it be... i mean super difficult... impossible...

Tell me how hard was it to usurp the rightful government of Ukraine, put in OLIGARCHS in charge? How hard was it to pretend Russia invaded Crimea when Russian military was already there and Crimea wanted to leave due to Ukrainian government was overthrown. Impossible, right? Riiiight???

We have to stop acting like we don't understand the possibilities and the lengths humans will go to achieve power.

Do i think Malaysia will go with doing what it has too to satisfy European-centric nations desires... yes. Would they do it for Ukraine... nope. Would they play along when it comes to the combined strength of NATO allies? It's not absurd to believe they would.

In fact unless there is new news i am aware of... "https://globalnews.ca/news/4246323/mh17-crash-malaysian-transport-minister-russia/" is exactly what malaysia is doing.



QUOTE
But Loke told Channel NewsAsia that it was premature to "pinpoint at Russia" in explaining the crash."There is no conclusive evidence to point at Russia under the JIT [Joint Investigative Team] evidence," Loke said, adding that investigators' final report will be released in July.
This comes out May 31, 2018. That "wording" doesn't raise eyebrows?

I've been part of investigations and report writing. Not that my personal experience matters as evidence, but i guess i know its not hard to steer auditors and investigators.

The investigators are not colluding on the act of bringing down a airplane. They are following leads "they are given" They are allowed to go down "these roads"; they are told to not go down "these roads". The report will then be written, then edited, then edited, then edited, then edited... and each edit goes further up in that chain of bureaucracy. You don't need hundreds or thousands of people on board.. you need less than a dozen. Everyone else is just like the rest of us... we aren't truth seekers, just employees.

I ask these questions.

Were each country independent of the other? if not; red flag. We should not see one report, every country should have had their own independent report, if TRUTH was what we were after.

Are there any rules to what evidence they could see? If yes, red flag.

QUOTE(Hobbes)
They HAVE disclosed. What they haven't done is release highly classified data that would give away military capabilities. So, what exactly are you thinking they should do that they haven't done? ... How do you know that it wasn't, behind the scenes (ie, to preserve classified data from going public)?
ROFL We don't know! WE - DON'T - KNOW!! We know what they want us to know, now do you have a problem with that Hobbes? If not, then let's not pretend you care about the truth? Its been 4 years.

QUOTE(Mrs P)
Per Droop's commentary...well, yes the Russians are getting bad press.
One might reword this and say the opposition is "using the crash" but you can't really expect the press to say something GOOD about shooting down a passenger plane can you?

Furthermore, no one is seriously suggesting (well, except the Russians...and I guess some folks in here who believe them) that the plane was shot down on purpose.
Porshenka, the soon to be President at the time, called it a terrorist act. That's not bad press. That's propaganda. That words to get the citizens of western democracies to sympathize with the usurping oligarchs of Ukraine. Its a little more than bad press.

QUOTE(Grayseal)
I echo what droop224 has written, as well as Trouble. There is a lack of convincing evidence to know one way or the other. Some conclusions seem to be based upon preconceptions more than evidence. I would liken it to the Kavanaugh sex accusations. There is not any evidence but there sure is a lot of people reaching definitive conclusions anyhow.
I have to agree with Mrs. P, i think you are just trying to slip some apples in with some oranges and hope no one notices.

And just to be clear.. small nuance. For me there is enough evidence to make either story plausible. What the usurping government and western allies were willing to do to create a new Ukranian government is evidence of the human life they are willing to sacrifice for power. Its just as plausible that untrained rebels were armed with a rocket system and said "what's this button do??"

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Sep 28 2018, 11:59 AM

QUOTE(droop224 @ Sep 27 2018, 09:36 AM) *
Its just as plausible that untrained rebels were armed with a rocket system and said "what's this button do??"


It's far more plausible that they knew what the buttons did....having shot down a Ukrainian military transport plane, with a missile, in virtually the same location a few days before.
Highly plausible they believed this to be another military transport plane...hard to tell over 20 thousand feet in the air.

Edited to add:
Apparently they initially https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/07/18/smoking-guns-russian-separatists-shot-down-malaysian-plane/#774494554f0b on social media....before they realized what they'd done.

Posted by: droop224 Sep 28 2018, 01:22 PM

QUOTE(Mrs P.)
It's far more plausible that they knew what the buttons did....having shot down a Ukrainian military transport plane, with a missile, in virtually the same location a few days before.
Highly plausible they believed this to be another military transport plane...hard to tell over 20 thousand feet in the air.
LOL, you are absolutely right. Its also just as plausible the Ukrainians (by extension western allies) helped play a part, if not orchestrated the event themselves. That all I'm saying.

QUOTE
Edited to add:
Apparently they initially https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/07/18/smoking-guns-russian-separatists-shot-down-malaysian-plane/#774494554f0b on social media....before they realized what they'd done.
But even with that tweet from your own source the "self appointed commander of Donetsk" says "they shot down", not "we shot down" The next video is a bunch of people talking Russian that at the beginning one of the people say "we the miners company" did it in translation. Remember how they https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W6QLfXE3wA? I don't have a clue who is talking ot the authenticity of every conversation.

Again, there is just no way for an unbias person to think one side "wouldn't do that" For me the greater point is: its a tragic accident by the rebels or Russians \ or it was an act of "evil" intent by the Ukranians or the West.
So if makes you wonder, if you think like me... WHY?!?!!? Lets assume Ukraine had NOTHING to do with this. Let's ASSUME the West\NATO Allies had nothing to do with this. Then, what are we left with? Can anyone help with that? A civilian plane flew through a war zone and was mistaken for a military transport plane and shot down? Why would this be important to people who believe that it is perfectly fine to kill human beings mistakenly or even purposefully if there is a "valid" military reason to do so?




Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Sep 28 2018, 01:48 PM

QUOTE(droop224 @ Sep 28 2018, 08:22 AM) *
[/b]Lets assume Ukraine had NOTHING to do with this. Let's ASSUME the West\NATO Allies had nothing to do with this. Then, what are we left with? Can anyone help with that?


Yes, I'll help you. Likely negligent homicide. But it would depend on the facts brought to the case.

QUOTE
A civilian plane flew through a war zone and was mistaken for a military transport plane and shot down? Why would this be important to people who believe that it is perfectly fine to kill human beings mistakenly or even purposefully if there is a "valid" military reason to do so?


I think we've had the conversation 50+ times about the concept of necessity and proportionality, Droop.
I'm not going to do it again.
We do have a precedent for this....our Navy shot down an Iranian airliner believing it to be an enemy aircraft (computer error combined with human error).
We settled in court and paid them a bunch of money.

Posted by: droop224 Sep 28 2018, 03:14 PM

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 28 2018, 07:48 AM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Sep 28 2018, 08:22 AM) *
[/b]Lets assume Ukraine had NOTHING to do with this. Let's ASSUME the West\NATO Allies had nothing to do with this. Then, what are we left with? Can anyone help with that?


Yes, I'll help you. Likely negligent homicide. But it would depend on the facts brought to the case.
Since you brought up Iranian incident. it happened in 1988 we didn't agree to pay until 1996. Did we plea out to negligent Homicide? (not even sure how that would happen collectively) Did we even publicly apologize, yet? Did anyone get held personally responsible and go to jail for the incident?

QUOTE
QUOTE
A civilian plane flew through a war zone and was mistaken for a military transport plane and shot down? Why would this be important to people who believe that it is perfectly fine to kill human beings mistakenly or even purposefully if there is a "valid" military reason to do so?


I think we've had the conversation 50+ times about the concept of necessity and proportionality, Droop.
I'm not going to do it again.
We do have a precedent for this....our Navy shot down an Iranian airliner believing it to be an enemy aircraft (computer error combined with human error).
We settled in court and paid them a bunch of money.
And to be fair i wouldn't want you to go through it again. Its a difference in our individual morality where we place the line of acceptability and it has no real place in this debate. The greater point is that you are one of billions of people that share you moral world view in this regard. I'm not going to say who shares your world view IMO, because then you'd see the comparisons as an attack on your character. Why do people who share the opinion that the loss of innocent life is tragic but necessary part of war really care about this flight going down?

Is our goal the protection of innocent life when discussing this current situation or is our goal to successfully create propaganda to be used to forward a national agenda unknown to most Americans? What's your opinion on that?

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Sep 28 2018, 04:23 PM

QUOTE(droop224 @ Sep 28 2018, 10:14 AM) *
Since you brought up Iranian incident. it happened in 1988 we didn't agree to pay until 1996.

We took responsibility right away. The investigation was over within a month.
By the leaps on logic you have presented here (to include a Truther video) one must wonder why we didn't just blame it on Iran?
If we're so adept at deception to the conspiracy level extremes you are asserting, it made no sense to take responsibility for it.
Iran didn't have many friends at the time, mining the Gulf and all that...the reason our Navy had to serve as escorts through the strait of Hormuz.

I'm not sure how much more of a time investment I want to make here.
I don't see the point...but there is a the difference between negligent homicide (a criminal offense) and wrongful death (a civil tort).
The evidence pointed to the latter in our case (I could explain as the details have been released and there was a war college study on it...but again I don't see the point...there isn't one is there? If your default answer is that anything and everything was/is/could be fabricated there's no point).
It might point to either in the MH17 case.
At present, they haven't even accepted responsibility the facts of the investigation would answer and we don't have them.

Posted by: droop224 Sep 28 2018, 05:39 PM

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 28 2018, 10:23 AM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Sep 28 2018, 10:14 AM) *
Since you brought up Iranian incident. it happened in 1988 we didn't agree to pay until 1996.

We took responsibility right away. The investigation was over within a month.
By the leaps on logic you have presented here (to include a Truther video) one must wonder why we didn't just blame it on Iran?
If we're so adept at deception to the conspiracy level extremes you are asserting, it made no sense to take responsibility for it.
Iran didn't have many friends at the time, mining the Gulf and all that...the reason our Navy had to serve as escorts through the strait of Hormuz.

I'm not sure how much more of a time investment I want to make here.
I don't see the point...but there is a the difference between negligent homicide (a criminal offense) and wrongful death (a civil tort).
The evidence pointed to the latter in our case (I could explain as the details have been released and there was a war college study on it...but again I don't see the point...there isn't one is there? If your default answer is that anything and everything was/is/could be fabricated there's no point).
It might point to either in the MH17 case.
At present, they haven't even accepted responsibility the facts of the investigation would answer and we don't have them.
What leaps of logic have i presented? What are you just ranting at me? You quote me as saying something that as far as i know that is factually true, then chastise me about it. We knew right a way we were responsible... didn't show any sign contrition for the act until we paid them in 1996 and as far as i know never apologized as a nation to the people of Iran. We took responsibility for the act with a national mentality of "yeah, we did it, sh-stuff happens." It was a fake Bin laden video. Its extremely hard to find any information on that fake bin laden video.

And when you say "If we're so adept at deception to the conspiracy level extremes you are asserting, it made no sense to take responsibility for it.
Iran didn't have many friends at the time, mining the Gulf and all that...the reason our Navy had to serve as escorts through the strait of Hormuz. " That's what i call a leap of logic. There is plenty of information for "conspiracy extremes" but when it does come out generally no one cares... or... it is STILL classified. Something you understand VERY well. But just because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh9r1LY9jCI to the people does not mean that 1) they won't be caught 2) they feel a need to do it with every single thing. it take effort to cover things up. it take effort to conspire. You don't do it if you don't feel a need to.

And to your question "Is there a point?" Well it mirrors my questions of "Why\What's the point\What's the goal?" But instead of addressing that with your opinion like i asked, you decided to go off on another tangent about some other statement i made. Remember i asked:

QUOTE(droop)
Why do people who share the opinion that the loss of innocent life is tragic but necessary part of war really care about this flight going down?

Is our goal the protection of innocent life when discussing this current situation or is our goal to successfully create propaganda to be used to forward a national agenda unknown to most Americans? What's your opinion on that
?






Posted by: Hobbes Sep 29 2018, 10:31 PM

QUOTE(droop224 @ Sep 28 2018, 07:22 AM) *
Then, what are we left with? Can anyone help with that? A civilian plane flew through a war zone and was mistaken for a military transport plane and shot down? Why would this be important to people who believe that it is perfectly fine to kill human beings mistakenly or even purposefully if there is a "valid" military reason to do so?
f

You left out Russian weapons being used directly in the Ukraine, when they weren't supposed to be. Which the West could then use as leverage, getting them to pull those out. Which, ironically, would achieve the end GS would desire, even though he is adamantly against it. (ie, less foreign power involvement in the Ukraine). Conversely, the Russians have every reason to lie, to keep their weapons and support present there, to extend the conflict..yet that is the version GS supports. Apparently, he is not concerned about Russia intervention, only Western responses. Which is very similar to the approach that Chamberlain adopted prior to wWII (as are the incursions Russia is making also similar to event that led to wWII).

FWIW, we aren't really involved in the Ukraine. What involvement do we have? Please elaborate. Sure, we SIDE with Ukraine, against Russia, but we don't have involvement there, that I am aware of.

The conclusion the investigation came to was also the only really viable one to start with. The others were somewhere between extremely unlikely and totally farcical. Those stipulating that something else occurred and really simply ignoring the basic facts and realities of the situation.

Does Malaysian Airlines itself bear perhaps the biggest 'blame' here? I wouldn't argue that. They shouldn't have been flying over a war zone. But then, the rebels had no weapons that could reach a passenger liner, so that probably wasn't that outlandish a decision.

Posted by: Gray Seal Sep 30 2018, 04:41 PM

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen)
Honestly, GS do you believe the Malaysians, who are part of the JIT, are purposely pointing their fingers at the wrong culprit?

I am surprised you do not think the United States puts pressure on smaller countries to capitulate to United States' political manipulations.

QUOTE(Hobbes)
FWIW, we aren't really involved in the Ukraine. What involvement do we have? Please elaborate. Sure, we SIDE with Ukraine, against Russia, but we don't have involvement there, that I am aware of.

Huh? I suppose if you mean involvement to be the presence of at least five figures of troops you are correct. Political support of a evil regime, money support of that same regime, weapons support...why do these not count in your mind?

Picking sides just to pick a side is not good foreign policy. If foreign policy is "Russia it is evil and anyone who is contrary to Russia is good", we have a woe begotten policy. Our policy in the Ukraine is exemplified by the pronouncement we see with the Ford/Kavanaugh political show. People are convinced Kavanaugh must be shredded even though there is no evidence. Why? Because some people are evil and if we must punish anyone who has a hint of similar evil whether they are guilty or not. IT is a mindset of the American people which is the opposite to honorable.

The United States has been guilty of lying. The United States has killed civilians in foreign lands without a declaration of war for political gains. Russia has lied. Russia has killed for political gains.

There must be better evidence of guilt than has been presented in the MH17 case. Declaring the Ukraine government and the United States as good and Russia is bad is not evidence.

I do not like the idea of Russia intervening into Ukraine politics. I do not want my government doing it either. I will continue my minuscule efforts to throw the bums out here in the United States. Supporting the bums in their attempts to put the fingers around the world? No way.

--------

(1)The desire to reach a conclusion when one can not be made is a path to bad results. (2)To punish because you want someone to be punished is repugnant. I would guess some would disagree with these two sentences and think there is good in sending messages. I can not think of a world more scary than one guided by such.

Who cares about truth? Who cares about fair? It would be all about power and violence being the guiding principle.

Citizens should not be approving bold actions based upon bad information and bad conclusions. Governments, no matter if foreign or your own, should be opposed if they act badly.


Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Sep 30 2018, 04:55 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Sep 30 2018, 11:41 AM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen)
Honestly, GS do you believe the Malaysians, who are part of the JIT, are purposely pointing their fingers at the wrong culprit?

I am surprised you do not think the United States puts pressure on smaller countries to capitulate to United States' political manipulations.


Therein lies the conspiracy theory hydra (which I was referring to with Droop).
Anything and everything can be explained away as the US either fabricating and/or placing (secret of course) pressure to force compliance.
There's no end. Lop off one end, here comes another.

Posted by: Gray Seal Sep 30 2018, 05:12 PM

I do think this hydra is alive and doing well. It could be proven with a audit of the FED and public availability of all money spent by the government. We do not know, because of the secrecy. The secrecy is not just an idea. It is in the "open" that such information is secret.

I guess if you have faith in your elected officials there is no need to question.

It is the United States. It is the most good and free country. No need to look behind the curtain. Move along.

------

If the Ford/Kavanaugh hearing has any benefit it is the exposure of who our Senators are. They are a bunch of politically driven ignorants who care less about truth and even less about people. They care about "what is in it for me?"

Just look at the votes. Party line. 'Just gotta love those parties! They are swell. No need to look behind the curtain. Move along.

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen Sep 30 2018, 06:03 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Sep 30 2018, 12:12 PM) *
I guess if you have faith in your elected officials there is no need to question.


Faith isn't the word for it...I would say I'm aware enough to know that "government" is not a single entity but vast...and in this case such subterfuge (much like 911) would require so much collaboration between different agencies and governments it would be impossible to pull off. Air travel is very well monitored and heavily regulated.

QUOTE
If the Ford/Kavanaugh hearing has any benefit it is the exposure of who our Senators are. They are a bunch of politically driven ignorants who care less about truth and even less about people. They care about "what is in it for me?"


No argument there.
I've no doubt some of the Senators questioning Kavanaugh about his highschool activities 35 years ago were likely snorting a line of coke off a hooker's backside last week.

Posted by: Hobbes Sep 30 2018, 11:25 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Sep 30 2018, 11:12 AM) *
I do think this hydra is alive and doing well. It could be proven with a audit of the FED and public availability of all money spent by the government. We do not know, because of the secrecy. The secrecy is not just an idea. It is in the "open" that such information is secret.

I guess if you have faith in your elected officials there is no need to question.

It is the United States. It is the most good and free country. No need to look behind the curtain. Move along.


Questioning is fine. Simply discarding what they say despite all evidence to the contrary is, well, none on the adjectives are flattering. Simply accepting what Russia says as fact, when they have a LONG and gloirous hisotry of fabrication, and all sorts of reasons to lie in this particular instansce? Well, none of those adjectives are flattering, either.

Posted by: Gray Seal Oct 1 2018, 03:01 PM

Hobbes, it makes no sense to say all evidence points one way when I provided a link recently with evidence that the attack came from Ukraine. Simply accepting Russia is guilty when there is lack of evidence to make any conclusion is telling. I do not accept what either has said as fact. Evidence is contrary. Why would anyone accept one version over another simply based upon preconceptions when strong political motivations are evident? It does not fly with me that only one side of this is misleading and the other is as pure as driven snow.

It is not ever a good idea to jump to conclusions for what you want to be true. It is not ever a good idea to reach a conclusion based on prejudice. You can not pick and choose what evidence you want to examine. You can not disregard evidence as if it does not exist because it does not fit the narrative you want to believe is true.

Posted by: Hobbes Oct 1 2018, 05:11 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Oct 1 2018, 09:01 AM) *
It does not fly with me that only one side of this is misleading and the other is as pure as driven snow.


Yet that is EXACTLY your position on this.

QUOTE
It is not ever a good idea to jump to conclusions for what you want to be true. It is not ever a good idea to reach a conclusion based on prejudice. You can not pick and choose what evidence you want to examine. You can not disregard evidence as if it does not exist because it does not fit the narrative you want to believe is true.


Agree! yet that is exactly what you are doing.



Posted by: Gray Seal Oct 1 2018, 05:54 PM

I will restate my position on MH17. I do not know what happened. There is no compelling evidence to make definite conclusions.

I have been arguing against making conclusions when there is insufficient evidence. Accusations are not evidence.

We have suspect operators with the current Ukraine government and the Russian government. We can not depend upon either to be good players.

Posted by: droop224 Oct 2 2018, 02:50 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal)
I will restate my position on MH17. I do not know what happened. There is no compelling evidence to make definite conclusions.
State it to your heart's content. What is heard when you do not speak pro-American rhetoric is anti-American rhetoric. Trust me, I know.

I'll simply reiterate your statement and add that there is a clear difference between either side could be lying or either side could be telling the truth and saying we should disregard Western propaganda and accept Russian propaganda.

QUOTE(Hobbes)
You left out Russian weapons being used directly in the Ukraine, when they weren't supposed to be. Which the West could then use as leverage, getting them to pull those out. Which, ironically, would achieve the end GS would desire, even though he is adamantly against it. (ie, less foreign power involvement in the Ukraine). Conversely, the Russians have every reason to lie, to keep their weapons and support present there, to extend the conflict..yet that is the version GS supports.


Why are you for it? Let's start there? The Ukrainian usurped the rightfully elected government. Those people that supported that government no longer want to be governed by the usurpers. (not propaganda, my own research as far as looking at what their Constitution said at the time) Russians are giving support to ethnic Russians that had their government stolen from them. I don't care one way or the other if Russia decides to get involved. What i can't understand is why any freedom loving American\Westerner would want to see the usurping Ukrainians government force their will on human beings that had their government betrayed and stripped from them. Can you help me with that Hobbes, what do we want from your POV and WHY do we want it? Or do you care, is it simply enough that our side wants it and you are a team player.

QUOTE(Mrs P)
Therein lies the conspiracy theory hydra (which I was referring to with Droop).
Anything and everything can be explained away as the US either fabricating and/or placing (secret of course) pressure to force compliance.
There's no end. Lop off one end, here comes another.
By product of secrecy Mrs P. It's really just that simple. Conspiracies happen, i think you would acknowledge that. When you are "team spirit" every conspiracy and secret is necessary for the public good. I get that, i really do. I'm sure there are secrets are for the public good or to protect operation and I'm sure some secrets are just maneuvers of power from stations above my lowly head.

Posted by: Hobbes Oct 2 2018, 04:32 PM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Oct 1 2018, 11:54 AM) *
I will restate my position on MH17. I do not know what happened. There is no compelling evidence to make definite conclusions.
I have been arguing against making conclusions when there is insufficient evidence. Accusations are not evidence.


Read through your replies in this thread. You consistently state the Russians are telling the truth, and everyone else is lying. You have not been arguing against making conclusions, you CLEARLY have already made them. And that conclusion is that the West is lying and Russia is telling the truth.

QUOTE(droop)
State it to your heart's content. What is heard when you do not speak pro-American rhetoric is anti-American rhetoric. Trust me, I know.


Ya, never mind that we have an entire thread full of evidence to the contrary.

QUOTE
I'll simply reiterate your statement and add that there is a clear difference between either side could be lying or either side could be telling the truth and saying we should disregard Western propaganda and accept Russian propaganda.


Yes, there is indeed. and GS has been doing the latter throughout this thread. Simply reread his post on the latest Russian statements, and you can CLEARLY see that.

QUOTE
Why are you for it? Let's start there?


Why am I for what? If we're going to start 'there', at least tell us where 'there' is. I suspect this is an example of exactly what you stipulate in your opening comment, only in reverse. But at least take the covers off the specific strawman being applied.

Posted by: Gray Seal Oct 2 2018, 05:38 PM

The english language is prone to being imprecise. Words and sentences can be taken to mean different things. We all aim to be as precise as we can. It is a continual learning process, for myself, to communicate simply, clearly, and correctly.

I hoped my post #166 is simple and clear. I guess it is still not up to standards. I am not sure how it can be interpreted to be white and black support of Russia. I remain flummoxed.

Posted by: droop224 Oct 2 2018, 06:03 PM

Hobbes

Maybe, he is backtracking... or maybe he present the "con"-side to the "pro"-side too forcefully. I can not read gray seal mind anymore than i can read yours. I can see he clearly and repeatedly has made the argument that he doesn't understand how a person could believe either side.

I've looked at Gray Seal argument and that's how they read to me. Somehow that's not how it is reading to you... or maybe your argument is "that's not what he was saying earlier he changed his tune". I'm not his savior, there will be no cape on Droop coming to the rescue, I'll leave that to you two from here on out.

QUOTE
Why am I for what? If we're going to start 'there', at least tell us where 'there' is. I suspect this is an example of exactly what you stipulate in your opening comment, only in reverse. But at least take the covers off the specific strawman being applied.
Well I'll do you one better lets not even create a strawman.

You said:
QUOTE
You left out Russian weapons being used directly in the Ukraine, when they weren't supposed to be. Which the West could then use as leverage, getting them to pull those out. Which, ironically, would achieve the end GS would desire, even though he is adamantly against it. (ie, less foreign power involvement in the Ukraine).
To me, this implied you were against Russia helping the rebels and for the usurping Ukranian government to be able to more quickly destroy the "rebels" in Donetsk and other Eastern regions?

Am I incorrect? If I am incorrect, tell me what you are for and what you are against and why. Then we don't have to deal with a strawman. Leave it outside with the crows.

Posted by: Hobbes Oct 3 2018, 12:58 AM

QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Oct 2 2018, 11:38 AM) *
The english language is prone to being imprecise. Words and sentences can be taken to mean different things. We all aim to be as precise as we can. It is a continual learning process, for myself, to communicate simply, clearly, and correctly.

I hoped my post #166 is simple and clear.


It is and fair enough. There have been various statements you've made elsewhere which would give a different impression, but I'll take this at face value. In which case I don't think we are in any disagreement.


QUOTE
QUOTE
Why am I for what? If we're going to start 'there', at least tell us where 'there' is. I suspect this is an example of exactly what you stipulate in your opening comment, only in reverse. But at least take the covers off the specific strawman being applied.
Well I'll do you one better lets not even create a strawman.

You said:
QUOTE
You left out Russian weapons being used directly in the Ukraine, when they weren't supposed to be. Which the West could then use as leverage, getting them to pull those out. Which, ironically, would achieve the end GS would desire, even though he is adamantly against it. (ie, less foreign power involvement in the Ukraine).
To me, this implied you were against Russia helping the rebels and for the usurping Ukranian government to be able to more quickly destroy the "rebels" in Donetsk and other Eastern regions?

Am I incorrect? If I am incorrect, tell me what you are for and what you are against and why. Then we don't have to deal with a strawman. Leave it outside with the crows.


What I am for or against wasn't relevant to the response. I was simply indicating, as I often do, various factors involved which weren't being included..and what the impact of including those factors would likely be.

Am I against Russian support of the rebels? Militarily...yes. Russia has a clearly stated strategy of reacquiring all the territory they lost from the Soviet Union, something that the US and pretty much the rest of the world should be against. This led to them stirring up tensions there, to create an opening for them to get involved militarily. Are there cultural and ethnic issues there? Yes. But then that is exactly what Hitler said when invading Czechoslovakia, which led to WWII. So, anyone not in favor of WWIII should be concerned about that. It also, as I said in the post, escalates an issue increasing the likelihood for that happening from the West...marching things farther down that path. Containing that issue, and others like it around the globe, is in most people's favor.

I gather you support the rebels? And hence dislike the MH17 report conclusions?

Posted by: droop224 Oct 3 2018, 04:19 AM

QUOTE(hobbes)
What I am for or against wasn't relevant to the response. I was simply indicating, as I often do, various factors involved which weren't being included..and what the impact of including those factors would likely be.
If you say so.
QUOTE
Am I against Russian support of the rebels? Militarily...yes. Russia has a clearly stated strategy of reacquiring all the territory they lost from the Soviet Union, something that the US and pretty much the rest of the world should be against. This led to them stirring up tensions there, to create an opening for them to get involved militarily.
So its Russia fault that the West and Ukrainian oligarchs organized a Coup on an Russian friendly government? Alright, again, if thats what you want to believe. That being said there was a coup and you seem to support the oppressors over the oppressed and I'm not sure how you find yourself in that position.

QUOTE
Are there cultural and ethnic issues there? Yes. But then that is exactly what Hitler said when invading Czechoslovakia, which led to WWII. So, anyone not in favor of WWIII should be concerned about that. It also, as I said in the post, escalates an issue increasing the likelihood for that happening from the West...marching things farther down that path. Containing that issue, and others like it around the globe, is in most people's favor.
I'm confused who is it that can't control their appetite the Russians or the West? I mean if we don't support the Coup, the Coup doesn't happen and Ukrainian government belongs to all the people.
QUOTE
I gather you support the rebels? And hence dislike the MH17 report conclusions?
In a manner, yes to the first question, indifferent to the second. MH17 is about propaganda for Western Democracy uneduccated populace, A.K.A "us". It has no real bearing on the circumstances of the conflict. I'm loyal to my ideals of equality and justice. In this case the rebels represent the oppressed. I can't stand Trump, i would never support a Coup on the President. He was elected. Same case there. The government exists at the consent of the governed (sound familiar). I'd accept this as a civil war if some region wanted to break away because they didn't like the elected government. But when there is a coup, well its not a civil war to break away. Your lawful government was stolen, your country is broke, it should be your natural right to determine a new government.
I mean i don't know if the Rebels are the type of people I would support, i don't know their politics. But in this situation, i admit that the "just" course after overthrowing a rightfully elected government would be to allow geographical areas that are heavily populated with opposition to separate.
I think i answered your questions, here are a couple from me to you so i don't assume.

Do you understand that the Ukrainians are killing human beings in order to make them submit to the current government? Are Russians killing Ukrainians trying to make them submit?


Moral Compass.

Posted by: Hobbes Oct 3 2018, 10:33 PM

QUOTE(droop224 @ Oct 2 2018, 10:19 PM) *

Moral Compass.


And....we're back to this again. Which, as I indicated previously, pretty much removes the incentive to discuss So...I won't

Posted by: droop224 Oct 3 2018, 11:17 PM

QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 3 2018, 04:33 PM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Oct 2 2018, 10:19 PM) *

Moral Compass.


And....we're back to this again. Which, as I indicated previously, pretty much removes the incentive to discuss So...I won't

I completely understand and it speaks volumes without you writing another word!! I, personally, could not have my political views so divorced from my morals and ethics that the mere mention of the words "moral compass" destroys my incentive to discuss my political views.
It speaks volumes about your political views on this issue.
Human beings are once again dying by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ukrainian_crisis, we are siding with the killers. Let the "rebels" live freely.

And please, just in case you were thinking it... I am not calling you evil, i am not saying you have no morality. I am saying that the ethics and morality of supposed American values such as Justice, Freedom, and Equality are not aligned with having a political position of supporting Ukraine. In the case of Ukraine there was a coup #fact They usurped their government #fact and now they are killing the people by the thousands in an attempt to force them into submission to recognize a new Ukrainian government supported by the West #fact. Check that alignment... its pushing a little too much to the right. thumbsup.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)