logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Shooting down of MH17, What should U.S. response be?
Hobbes
post Jul 17 2014, 11:16 PM
Post #1


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,330
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Today, another Malaysian 777 crashed, in Ukraine. 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.

Putin's statement
Obama's first comments.
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?

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Jul 18 2014, 12:06 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 >  
Start new topic
Replies (120 - 139)
AuthorMusician
post Apr 26 2016, 02:38 PM
Post #121


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,377
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Apr 25 2016, 08:38 AM) *
Furthermore, eyewitness testimony is generally quite inaccurate 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Apr 26 2016, 03:39 PM
Post #122


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Apr 26 2016, 10:38 AM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Apr 25 2016, 08:38 AM) *
Furthermore, eyewitness testimony is generally quite inaccurate 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.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Apr 26 2016, 03:40 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Apr 27 2016, 01:56 PM
Post #123


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,377
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Apr 27 2016, 03:39 PM
Post #124


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



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)

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Apr 27 2016, 03:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Apr 27 2016, 08:40 PM
Post #125


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,377
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



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_Mart...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.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Apr 27 2016, 08:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Apr 27 2016, 09:53 PM
Post #126


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



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..."

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Apr 27 2016, 09:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post May 8 2016, 08:09 PM
Post #127


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,330
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post May 8 2016, 11:31 PM
Post #128


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,424
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post May 9 2016, 02:31 AM
Post #129


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,330
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post May 9 2016, 12:02 PM
Post #130


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,424
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post May 9 2016, 02:43 PM
Post #131


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,330
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



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 online messages.

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?

This post has been edited by Hobbes: May 9 2016, 03:07 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post May 10 2016, 11:25 PM
Post #132


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,330
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



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?

This post has been edited by Hobbes: May 10 2016, 11:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Jun 1 2016, 06:01 PM
Post #133


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,424
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Here is another article using facts to suggest the United States is guilty of propaganda once again.

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Jun 5 2016, 11:25 PM
Post #134


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,330
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Jun 7 2016, 11:40 AM
Post #135


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Here is an
OVERVIEW OF AIRCRAFT LOSSES BY HOSTILE FIRE, ARMED FORCES OF UKRAINE
(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?

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Jun 7 2016, 11:57 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Jun 7 2016, 12:35 PM
Post #136


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,424
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Jun 7 2016, 04:37 PM
Post #137


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,330
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



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.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Jun 7 2016, 04:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Jun 7 2016, 05:46 PM
Post #138


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,424
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Jun 8 2016, 11:26 PM
Post #139


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,330
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



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.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Jun 8 2016, 11:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Jun 9 2016, 12:46 PM
Post #140


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,424
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: November 14th, 2018 - 07:45 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.