Sweden, Finland, and Ukraine joining NATO?

[Jayjay]

Rebels did not have means to manufacture Sarin gas in the quantities used, and the missiles used were the same type used by Syrian military. The debris is consistent with the weapons being launched from Syrian military positions.

No that's wrong. The Americans lied and you swallowed it.
Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack

That's legit, but 2km range still puts Syrian army positions within reach.

So was the US data faulty? Yes, apparently it was, as it did not take into account the air drag. But was it lying? No, mistakes happen.

 

[Jayjay]

That sounds like a feasible scenario. Ukraine might not be entirely blameless, it's possible that they were deliberately flying military planes near civilian aircraft. But thre is little doubt that it was the rebels or Russians who actually took the shot.

And who is more to blame here?
a) Rebels who were genuinely surprised that civilians passenger airplanes were flying over them
b) Ukrainian millitary who deliberately tried to make rebels to shot passenger airplane with a lot of innocent people

Both sides would be to blame for recklessness. There is no need to assume malice from either side... Even if there was an SU-25 trailing MH17, it does not imply that the intent was to have rebels shoot it down. A more plausible motivation is that by flying close to civilian plane they'd be able to either hide in its shadow or deter rebels from shooting. They wouldn't have used themselves as bait, because there would still be a much higher likelyhood for the Ukrainian plane to be hit.

 

[barbos]

And who is more to blame here?
a) Rebels who were genuinely surprised that civilians passenger airplanes were flying over them
b) Ukrainian millitary who deliberately tried to make rebels to shot passenger airplane with a lot of innocent people

Both sides would be to blame for recklessness. There is no need to assume malice from either side... Even if there was an SU-25 trailing MH17, it does not imply that the intent was to have rebels shoot it down. A more plausible motivation is that by flying close to civilian plane they'd be able to either hide in its shadow or deter rebels from shooting. They wouldn't have used themselves as bait, because there would still be a much higher likelyhood for the Ukrainian plane to be hit.

Rebels had no idea that civilian planes were still or ever flying there, they had nothing to gain from shooting a civilian plane.
Ukrainians knew they were flying and they knew rebels had a system capable of shooting that high, that's a minimum. Maximum is that they tried to setup rebels into shooting a passenger plane, or pilots may have used passenger planes as cover thinking rebels are smart enough to realize that there was a passenger plane there.
One thing is for sure, rebels had no intents to shoot it, but you can't say the same about ukrainians.

 

[tupac chopra]

No that's wrong. The Americans lied and you swallowed it.
Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack

That's legit, but 2km range still puts Syrian army positions within reach.

So was the US data faulty? Yes, apparently it was, as it did not take into account the air drag. But was it lying? No, mistakes happen.

Yeah right....Right at the worst possible moment. At the stupidest moment, with the USA breathing down his neck, looking for any excuse to convince people they should intervene Assad fires sarin gas at people.
How can anyone believe such an unlikely story.

Then the USA unequivocally blames him giving themselves the excuse they wanted, but they weren't lying they just made a mistake.
Who believes such nonsense?

 

[tupac chopra]

I call bullshit. If the agreement is secret and not published anywhere, how does this guy know what the agreement says?

That comes from Elsevier. These things leak out. How do we know what is in the secret trade agreements presently being drawn up. They get leaked.
Seriously can't you smell there is a cover up going on?
There is something in the agreement that all parties are very very determined not to let us see. Can't you at least see that?

 

[Jayjay]

Both sides would be to blame for recklessness. There is no need to assume malice from either side... Even if there was an SU-25 trailing MH17, it does not imply that the intent was to have rebels shoot it down. A more plausible motivation is that by flying close to civilian plane they'd be able to either hide in its shadow or deter rebels from shooting. They wouldn't have used themselves as bait, because there would still be a much higher likelyhood for the Ukrainian plane to be hit.

Rebels had no idea that civilian planes were still or ever flying there, they had nothing to gain from shooting a civilian plane.
Ukrainians knew they were flying and they knew rebels had a system capable of shooting that high, that's a minimum. Maximum is that they tried to setup rebels into shooting a passenger plane, or pilots may have used passenger planes as cover thinking rebels are smart enough to realize that there was a passenger plane there.
One thing is for sure, rebels had no intents to shoot it, but you can't say the same about ukrainians.

First, civilian air traffic is not exactly a secret. Finding out whether there is a plane overhead is a matter of checking it on the internet, so shooting missiles at flying objects and not confirming what's up there is itself a matter of recklessness.

Second, it's debatable whether Ukrainian could have known that rebels had a BUK.

Third, you don't use yourself as a bait. It would be a suicide mission because there is no way to be sure that the rebels would actually hit the other plane when aiming at you. This is why the scenario of them using civilian planes as cover is more plausible, at least to a layman such as myself. I do know that rebels have accused Ukraine of using other planes as cover at least once before this incident.

 

[Jayjay]

That's legit, but 2km range still puts Syrian army positions within reach.

So was the US data faulty? Yes, apparently it was, as it did not take into account the air drag. But was it lying? No, mistakes happen.

Yeah right....Right at the worst possible moment. At the stupidest moment, with the USA breathing down his neck, looking for any excuse to convince people they should intervene Assad fires sarin gas at people.
How can anyone believe such an unlikely story.

Assad had been bombing and killing the rebels with conventional weapons for a while now without any repercussions. Plus, he could always deny it and blame the rebels.

Then the USA unequivocally blames him giving themselves the excuse they wanted, but they weren't lying they just made a mistake.
Who believes such nonsense?

Hanlon's Razor: never blame on malice what can be explained by incompetence. I find it incredulous that US intelligence would be able to deduce in two weeks what took these MIT guys, who are probably world's best chemical weapons experts, over four months. And that the CIA would then lie about their findings assuming nobody else would be able to figure it out!

 

[Jayjay]

I call bullshit. If the agreement is secret and not published anywhere, how does this guy know what the agreement says?

That comes from Elsevier. These things leak out. How do we know what is in the secret trade agreements presently being drawn up. They get leaked.
Seriously can't you smell there is a cover up going on?
There is something in the agreement that all parties are very very determined not to let us see. Can't you at least see that?

If there is any cover up, it's by Russia trying to turn attention away from itself by throwing every possible accusation and theory on the wall and seeing what sticks.

 

[Davka]

I was listening to the radio soon after this incident occurred, and the BBC had a reporter on the ground (probably an independent stringer) who was talking to the locals about what they saw. According to this reporter, all the locals said they saw a Ukrainian fighter jet flying overhead, then a rocket trail from the ground, followed by the crash of the airliner. The implication was pretty clear: rebels/russians fired a heat-seeking missile at the fighter jet and missed, instead taking down the much higher commercial jet.

Oddly, I have heard no follow-up on this report since that initial interview.

Probably because the BBC removed the video. Probably because the Ukrainians have said all along that they had not military jets in the air that day.


Obviously they are lying because one of their jets shot the plane down.

Yeah, that squares perfectly with all the eyewitnesses saying they saw a rocket trail going UP from the GROUND.

Because as we all know, Ukrainian jets have to land before firing rockets.

 

[tupac chopra]

Probably because the BBC removed the video. Probably because the Ukrainians have said all along that they had not military jets in the air that day.


Obviously they are lying because one of their jets shot the plane down.

Yeah, that squares perfectly with all the eyewitnesses saying they saw a rocket trail going UP from the GROUND.

Because as we all know, Ukrainian jets have to land before firing rockets.

Well if you say every witness saw that who are we to doubt you?

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah, that squares perfectly with all the eyewitnesses saying they saw a rocket trail going UP from the GROUND.

Because as we all know, Ukrainian jets have to land before firing rockets.

Well if you say every witness saw that who are we to doubt you?

another fair and balanced response*

*^{_{that most of the witnesses in the area were Russian heritage patriots really makes every view likely, eyup just like Lysenko said they would be}}

 

[tupac chopra]

Well if you say every witness saw that who are we to doubt you?

another fair and balanced response*

*^{_{that most of the witnesses in the area were Russian heritage patriots really makes every view likely, eyup just like Lysenko said they would be}}

Huh? No evidence has been presented. Was whatever anyone saw from a BUK, or from a Manpad. Was it in the right area?
Do you know?
We know that the rebels had been shooting down jets at lower altitudes, but not with BUK's. Can you explain to us how you decided that a BUK had been fired? Did you do it based on evidence or because you heard it on Fox News?

 

[Davka]

Yeah, that squares perfectly with all the eyewitnesses saying they saw a rocket trail going UP from the GROUND.

Because as we all know, Ukrainian jets have to land before firing rockets.

Well if you say every witness saw that who are we to doubt you?

You were responding to my post about an interview of eyewitnesses. You tried to pretend that interview supports your position. It does not.

Now you're trying to pretend that it's my opinion that's in question.

Shame on you.

 

[tupac chopra]

Well if you say every witness saw that who are we to doubt you?

You were responding to my post about an interview of eyewitnesses. You tried to pretend that interview supports your position. It does not.

Now you're trying to pretend that it's my opinion that's in question.

Shame on you.

Calm down
You mentioned you didn't hear more about the story. I pointed out that the reason you didn't hear more was that the BBC pulled the video because it showed eyewitnesses saying that there were military jets in the area at that time.

This was a direct and clear contradiction of Kiev's statements, even to this day, that they had no jets in the sky that day.

If our "friends" in Kiev are saying that they didn't have any military jets in the sky that day then the BBC needed to pull that video, and Fox news won't be mentioning it. That's why you didn't hear more about the BBC report.

There are two suspects in this case.
1. Rebels
2.Ukrainian airforce.

Right from the start Russia (though not Fox news) have been asking the Ukrainians to explain why military jets were tailing the aircraft. Kiev's respone has been. "We had no aircraft in the sky that day." This BBC report shows them to be lying.

Now that we have specific information about the name of the pilot who shot down MH17 where he flew from etc, we won't be hearing more about those reports. The reason is that they support the story that Kiev not the rebels shot down MH17.

Think about it for a minute. If those reports do provide such clear evidence that the rebels shot it down then why didn't you hear more?
Because the BBC report shows Kiev to be lying

 

[Davka]

You were responding to my post about an interview of eyewitnesses. You tried to pretend that interview supports your position. It does not.

Now you're trying to pretend that it's my opinion that's in question.

Shame on you.

Calm down

I'm perfectly calm. Don't be patronizing.

You mentioned you didn't hear more about the story. I pointed out that the reason you didn't hear more was that the BBC pulled the video because it showed eyewitnesses saying that there were military jets in the area at that time.

A) It wasn't a video. it was radio.
B) Sorry, but the BBC is not Pravda.
C) Your paranoid conspiracy theory is cute, but unfounded.

This was a direct and clear contradiction of Kiev's statements, even to this day, that they had no jets in the sky that day.

If our "friends" in Kiev are saying that they didn't have any military jets in the sky that day then the BBC needed to pull that video, and Fox news won't be mentioning it. That's why you didn't hear more about the BBC report.

This may or may not be the case. But you pretended that the report supported the idea that Ukrainian jets shot down the passenger plane. It did not.

The most likely scenario is that the passenger plane was accidentally shot down by a ground-to-air missile aimed at a Ukrainian fighter jet. Ukraine doesn't want to admit there were fighter jets in the area because that feeds into the Russian propaganda. And the most likely reason that there has been no follow-up reporting is that it's too dangerous for reporters in the region.

I worked as an independent stringer in Israel for a number of years. I saw firsthand what drives reporting, and it's not any of the nonsense you're jabbering about. It's whatever the media thinks will sell the most papers, on-air commercials, and so on. The profit motive trumps politics.

 

[tupac chopra]

Calm down

I'm perfectly calm. Don't be patronizing.

If you want to be patronzing with "shame on you" and "cute"then expect the same. If you don't like it then don't do it.

You make it seem like you can dish it out but you can't take it.

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah right....Right at the worst possible moment. At the stupidest moment, with the USA breathing down his neck, looking for any excuse to convince people they should intervene Assad fires sarin gas at people.
How can anyone believe such an unlikely story.

Then the USA unequivocally blames him giving themselves the excuse they wanted, but they weren't lying they just made a mistake.
Who believes such nonsense?

Can you say "a puppet of an extremist organization" followed by "a dupe arranging facts to suit his view"?

Great. You've just answered your claim with your opinion filtered evidence wrapped around your straw man claims.

Try this. Justify America is responsible for causing the Assad regime to attack its own people in the first place. Its just a bit more tricky, but hell, you've gone off the rails so far now you should be able to find or invent something you'll believe.

While you are doing this most of us will go back to addressing the OP which is whether Sweden, Finland and or the Ukraine are planning to join NATO.

 

[tupac chopra]

A) It wasn't a video. it was radio.
B) Sorry, but the BBC is not Pravda.
C) Your paranoid conspiracy theory is cute, but unfounded.

Then why did the video get pulled?
Why wasn't it mentioned on Fox News that the Ukrainians had jets near the downed plane?

I worked as an independent stringer in Israel for a number of years.

Sorry I'm not impressed.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah right....Right at the worst possible moment. At the stupidest moment, with the USA breathing down his neck, looking for any excuse to convince people they should intervene Assad fires sarin gas at people.
How can anyone believe such an unlikely story.

Then the USA unequivocally blames him giving themselves the excuse they wanted, but they weren't lying they just made a mistake.
Who believes such nonsense?

Can you say "a puppet of an extremist organization" followed by "a dupe arranging facts to suit his view"?

Great. You've just answered your claim with your opinion filtered evidence wrapped around your straw man claims.

Yes yes. And Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction too.

 

[fromderinside]

As I said, while back at the Sweden, Finland, Ukraine plans to join NATO discussion Some flamers in Ukraine would like that to be the topic. There have always been loose cannons like Curtis Le May running loose. The nearest we've come is VP Cheney. We are mending well and haven't succumbed to any of them yet. As we all know sane heads rule in Finland and Sweden. So such as them joining NATO when they are protected by it without needing to join it won't be happening any time soon.

The Ukraine will gain more support form the US and NATO during times of stress short of military intervention which should be enough to hold off a third rate economy like Russia generating war with Europe.

 

[Davka]

I'm perfectly calm. Don't be patronizing.

If you want to be patronzing with "shame on you" and "cute"then expect the same. If you don't like it then don't do it.

You make it seem like you can dish it out but you can't take it.

You seem to have a problem with the English language, specifically the definition of "patronizing." Shame on you isn't patronizing. It's genuine disgust at your dishonest debate tactics, of which you should be ashamed.

"Cute" and "you seem to have a problem with the English language," otoh, is most definitely patronizing. Because you earned it.