Not as important as petty rockets in Israel, but apparently Malaysian Airliner downed by rocket fire

[barbos]

The game playing with the BLACK BOX by Pro-Russsian Forces and their allies proves beyond any doubt that, that part of the world and their political thinking is barbaric and unacceptable in a modern world .. One could only attribute it to inbreeeding by their Viking forefathers or an abominable civic and education system.

It might cause some societies to re-think nuclear solution as the only solution.

Yes, russians are worthless subhumans and need to be exterminated, Heil Merkel!

 

[ZiprHead]

Tupac, and anyone else who cares to answer. I am far from coming to a decision on what I believe in this but I understand the facts being that this aircraft was shot down by a Buk launcher in rebel held territory. You claimed that all excursions into that territory by Ukrainian forces have been turned back, embarrassingly if I remember correctly the term you used, by the Russian backed rebels. How do you explain this discrepancy? How could Ukrainians get in to take this shot if they cannot get in?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wouldn't be sure even from examining the wreckage. Many SAMs are really just air-launched missiles fitted with an extra booster capable of ground launch. (An off-the-shelf air to air missile can't be ground launched because it has a minimum airspeed.)

The fragments of the missile in the debris field (some no doubt embedded in the remains of the aircraft) will tell an expert exactly what kind of missile it was.

The point is there might be no difference. SAMs are just AAMs with extra boosters. By the time it reaches it's target the booster has fallen off.

Of course, it really doesn't matter one whit; the end result of the investigation will be that the investigators will report the facts, and the perpetrators will say that they are lying or mistaken, the factions involved in the fighting will continue to blame each other, and the conspiracy theorists will continue to be unhinged from reality.

Unassailable evidence might lead to an apology, or even compensation, from the guilty party; but the more evidence is presented to conspiracy theorists, the less likely they are to change their minds. Hard evidence is, to conspiracy theorists, merely an indication of just how effective the cover-up has been.

Barring major surprises we already know what happened. That doesn't mean the conspiracy theorists will ever accept it and those who don't want the truth coming out will encourage this.

 

[Sabine Grant]

It wasn't the rebel's airspace at all, so nobody needed to ask their permission.

De facto it was.

If the rebels wanted to lay claim to the airspace, as they did with the Simferopol FIR, then the ICAO would have responded exactly as they have with Simferopol; the entire FIR is closed to international transit due to conflicting Air Traffic Authorities.

Yeah, ukrainians wanted to control airspace which they had no control of. That describes ukrainian national psychology well.

Both the Russians and the Ukranians claim to be in charge, and the ICAO applies the Highlander rule - There can be only one.

In the Dnipropetrovsk FIR there is only one Air Traffic Authority; Apart from that authority, from whom should an airline request permission to use the airspace? The rules are quite clear - had the rebels made an attempt to set up their own ATC in Dnipropetrovsk FIR, the airspace would have been closed.

Fact is, ukrainians let civilian plane fly directly into the war zone.

Barbos, some of your comments are a tad misguided and this is why :

http://www.smh.com.au/business/avia...ons-flights-ukraine-route-20140718-zuilw.html

Ron Bartsch, who now heads international aviation consultancy AvLaw International, said airline network planners had a choice over whether they wanted to fly over dangerous areas or to go around them, even if it would require more fuel.

Mr Bartsch said that while bodies like the International Air Transport Association issued advisories and warnings from time to time, incidents like MH17 “really hit home that it is up to individual airlines to continually monitor and assess the risk on a daily basis”.

Ultimately it was up to the airlines themselves to determine whether potential hazards on their routes were within “an acceptable level of safety”, he said.

European air traffic control group Eurocontrol said Ukrainian authorities had closed the airspace from the ground level to 32,000 feet but the airspace at 33,000 feet, where MH17 was flying at the time it was shot down, had remained open.
Malaysia Airlines said the usual flight route was earlier declared safe by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The International Air Transportation Association has stated that the airspace the aircraft was traversing was not subject to restrictions

So...the facts are ( in view of you stating "the fact is ukrainians let civilian plane fly directly into war zone" :

1) Airline network planners are the party deciding whether a flight route/plan is to me modified based on safety assessment.

2) The statement issued by the European Air Traffic Group Eurocontrol confirming that Ukraine had closed the airspace from the ground level to 32000 feet. Such should not be confused for meaning "ukrainians let civilian plane fly directly into war zone".

3) Malaysian Airline followed the information provided by The International Civil Aviation Organization while the International Air Transportation Association has stated that the airspace the aircraft was traversing was not subject to restrictions.

What all the above means, barbos, is that if some heads have to roll when it comes to responsibility, the "ukrainians" are not on the top of the list.

Bilby, if you read my post, as you seem to know your stuff about aviation/air traffic regulations, does the above accurately describe the status of airlines when it comes to who will be the party deciding of the flight plan/route even as warnings/advisories may be issued by the IATA?

 

[barbos]

Sabine Grant, your quotes do not support your claim.
Fact is, it is a war zone. Ukrainians knew for sure that rebels had something bigger than stingers. Because they lost a plane or two at much higher altitude. They even suggested that it was Russian fighter planes doing it. At one point they stopped flying.
It's responsibility of the state to advise ICAO, because ICAO themselves don't have spies to inform them about real situation. Yes it was ultimately up to airlines themselves, but only because Ukrainians did nothing.
The fact is, 300 people are dead because Ukrainian government is criminally incompetent.

 

[Ford]

The fact is, 300 people are dead because Ukrainian government is criminally incompetent.

No, the fact is those people are dead because the people who fired the missile were criminally incompetent. In your rush to blame Ukraine, you've left out the fact that the people responsible for the crash are the people who shot the fucking thing from the air in the first place.

The territory where it was shot down is controlled by the rebels. If they have the sort of air defenses that can shoot down something flying that far up (and this is now pretty damned obvious), then they are responsible for anything which gets shot down in their territory. They get credit - such as it is - for shooting down Ukrainian military aircraft, and blame when they fuck up and shoot down a civilian aircraft.

As has been mentioned before, you can't very well trumpet the victory of the rebels when they take control of a region, then blame everyone else when something like this happens there. They took territory, declared themselves a sovereign state, and one of the things you get with sovereignty is responsibility.

The missile came from their territory, so even if it was an accident the rebels are still responsible.

The only way you can realistically blame this on Ukraine is if you can demonstrate that they had air superiority (and therefore control) of the airspace above the area.

 

[bilby]

De facto it was.

If the rebels wanted to lay claim to the airspace, as they did with the Simferopol FIR, then the ICAO would have responded exactly as they have with Simferopol; the entire FIR is closed to international transit due to conflicting Air Traffic Authorities.

Yeah, ukrainians wanted to control airspace which they had no control of. That describes ukrainian national psychology well.

Both the Russians and the Ukranians claim to be in charge, and the ICAO applies the Highlander rule - There can be only one.

In the Dnipropetrovsk FIR there is only one Air Traffic Authority; Apart from that authority, from whom should an airline request permission to use the airspace? The rules are quite clear - had the rebels made an attempt to set up their own ATC in Dnipropetrovsk FIR, the airspace would have been closed.

Fact is, ukrainians let civilian plane fly directly into the war zone.

Barbos, some of your comments are a tad misguided and this is why :

http://www.smh.com.au/business/avia...ons-flights-ukraine-route-20140718-zuilw.html

Ron Bartsch, who now heads international aviation consultancy AvLaw International, said airline network planners had a choice over whether they wanted to fly over dangerous areas or to go around them, even if it would require more fuel.

Mr Bartsch said that while bodies like the International Air Transport Association issued advisories and warnings from time to time, incidents like MH17 “really hit home that it is up to individual airlines to continually monitor and assess the risk on a daily basis”.

Ultimately it was up to the airlines themselves to determine whether potential hazards on their routes were within “an acceptable level of safety”, he said.

European air traffic control group Eurocontrol said Ukrainian authorities had closed the airspace from the ground level to 32,000 feet but the airspace at 33,000 feet, where MH17 was flying at the time it was shot down, had remained open.
Malaysia Airlines said the usual flight route was earlier declared safe by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The International Air Transportation Association has stated that the airspace the aircraft was traversing was not subject to restrictions

So...the facts are ( in view of you stating "the fact is ukrainians let civilian plane fly directly into war zone" :

1) Airline network planners are the party deciding whether a flight route/plan is to me modified based on safety assessment.

2) The statement issued by the European Air Traffic Group Eurocontrol confirming that Ukraine had closed the airspace from the ground level to 32000 feet. Such should not be confused for meaning "ukrainians let civilian plane fly directly into war zone".

3) Malaysian Airline followed the information provided by The International Civil Aviation Organization while the International Air Transportation Association has stated that the airspace the aircraft was traversing was not subject to restrictions.

What all the above means, barbos, is that if some heads have to roll when it comes to responsibility, the "ukrainians" are not on the top of the list.

Bilby, if you read my post, as you seem to know your stuff about aviation/air traffic regulations, does the above accurately describe the status of airlines when it comes to who will be the party deciding of the flight plan/route even as warnings/advisories may be issued by the IATA?

Yes, that's right.

The NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) for the region closed the airspace below FL240 (roughly 24,000ft), presumably - although reasons are not given - because that is sufficiently high to rule out the threat from shoulder-launched anti-aircraft systems like the Stinger; they then added a 33% 'safety' margin, and closed the airspace up to FL320. The airway in question is a 'one way' airway at that point, and is designated for eastbound traffic only (Airway A83, slightly further North, carries westbound traffic in this area).

MH017 filed a flightplan to fly at FL350 on this corridor, and this flight plan was in accordance with the ICAO rules in force at the time.

With hindsight, it is easy to say that the threat should have been reassessed to allow for the possibility that someone in the area might fire a more advanced SAM capable of hitting aircraft at higher altitudes; but the failure of the Ukraine air traffic authorities to do so is not particularly surprising, nor is it without precedent. The world is dotted with conflict zones that have similar flight level restrictions in place; in the past, the idea that people with the ability to shoot down an airliner at cruise altitude would also have the ability to identify the difference between civil airliners and enemy planes has generally been correct.

No doubt the rules for restricting airspace over conflict zones will be revised as a result of this incident. The Ukraine could have prevented this from happening by closing their airspace to FL600, but it would not be reasonable to expect them to do so, given the information available to them at the time (above FL600 airspace reverts to class E, which is less strictly controlled; since the retirement of the Concorde fleet, this airspace is generally only accessible by military aircraft, as civil airliners simply can't get anywhere near that high).

Sure, the Ukrainians 'let civilian plane fly directly into war zone'; but then, so did Eurocontrol, ICAO, IATA, and the management of Malaysia Airlines, Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa, Etihad, Emirates, Thai Airways, Jet Airways and others, all of whom had flights using L980 on July 18. Up until the plane was shot down, not one of those other groups indicated that they felt the area was dangerous above FL320; as such, it is disingenuous to single out the Ukrainians for blame.

The responsibility for this incident lies with whoever fired an anti-aircraft missile at a civilian airliner without first confirming the identity of the target; and with those above him in the chain of command who authorised him to do so, or who gave him access to a Buk launcher without adequate training.

Others contributed - no disaster occurs without multiple failures - but they can't reasonably be held responsible for not guessing that somebody would do something so dumb as shooting a SAM without first positively IDing his target.

 

[tupac chopra]

Tupac, and anyone else who cares to answer. I am far from coming to a decision on what I believe in this but I understand the facts being that this aircraft was shot down by a Buk launcher in rebel held territory.

Why is that a fact though?

You claimed that all excursions into that territory by Ukrainian forces have been turned back, embarrassingly if I remember correctly the term you used, by the Russian backed rebels. How do you explain this discrepancy? How could Ukrainians get in to take this shot if they cannot get in?

What is the evidence it was fired from Chernukho? There are some questions that might need to be answered if it was shot from, Chernukhino, as claimed.

Note: Half of the Post Translated; The Remaining Half is Speculative
Complete Original of the Post (in Russian) Can Be Found at Eugene-DF LiveJournal

In the disseminated intercept, the place from which the missile was allegedly launched is clearly indicated: the checkpoint at the settlement of Chernukhino.

Pay close attention at the Alleged Map of the MH17 Catastrophe.

As you can see, the distance from the point of launch to the point of the fall is 37 kilometres. At the same time, the elevation of the plane was 10-11 kilometres. For the Russian BUK M2 this distance is, in fact, achievable (although with a very important caveat discussed below).

However, Ukraine does not, and cannot, have modern digital high-tech Anti-Aircraft systems in its arsenal. What it does have, at best, is the older version BUK M1. The system itself is not too bad, and could even fit the stated distance. Except for the caveat that was mentioned.

The thing is that most short to medium range Anti-Aircraft systems work extremely poorly in a “pursuit” mode. There are a number of reasons for this, and I do not intend to belabor the point, but you can take it as an axiom that when the launch is made in “pursuit” of the target, the maximum distance of the launch that successfully hits the target is at least half of the advertised maximum distance (in reality, it even worse, but let’s leave aside the sad part). Accordingly, the real distance of a “pursuit” launch for BUK M1 is 16 kilometres. What’s more, the last 3 kilometres are purely “God willing” and “without guarantees.”

And, so, we have the background. Let’s see how the picture unfolds:

The launch is alleged to have been made from Chernukhino. The maximum distance of the launch is 16 kilometres. The aircraft fell between Snezhnoye and Torez. That’s 37 kilometres, which is 20 kilometres more than the maximum possible point at which the plain could have been hit. You know, even a plane with turned-off engines can’t glide like that. But the trouble is that the aircraft was not whole.

According to the pattern of the spread of fuselage fragments and bodies, the plane was ruptured practically with the first shot. Here it must be mentioned that the high-explosive/fragmentation warhead of the rocket has a mass of approximately 50 kilograms (by the way, Ukrainians have an outdated modification, which is only 40 kilograms).

Overall, that’s not too little; however, it must be understood that it detonates not when it sticks into an airplane, but when it is still at a certain, and fairly significant distance. Moreover, the main strike factor is not the blast wave, but far more significantly – the stream of fragments. These fragments are previously prepared rods (and in the earlier versions – little cubes, if I recall correctly). And yes, for a jet fighter, that, in itself, is more than sufficient.

However, here we are dealing with a huge airliner. Yes, one rocket will rip the casing, cause depressurization, and will kill a lot of passengers. But it will not break up the airliner into pieces. Given certain conditions, the pilots may even be able to land it. And, in fact, there have been precedents (to be provided in future posts). For example – the very same An-28, which is alleged to have been the first victim of a BUK system; even though it was done for, but the crew was able to successfully catapult out. Which, in some way, symbolizes. An An-28, by the way, is far smaller than a Boeing.

Nevertheless, this has relation to the next part of our analysis. For now, let’s accept as a fact the break-up of the aircraft in the air, at a significant height (which is, in essence, what was observed. Allow me to remind you: “fragments spread over a radius of 15 kilometres.” The key here is that this means the following: the aircraft (or, more precisely, the core of the aircraft) fell literally at the point where the rocket impacted it. Clarifying: as soon as the aircraft turned into a host of fragments of different mass, the separation of these fragments began due to air resistance and the difference in inertia. The densest fragment flew a further 3-6 kilometres, falling more and more steeply. The lightest – spread out and, due to gliding and air currents, fell somewhere within a 10 kilometre radius. The medium ones (primarily pieces of casing with high sail-effect and the victims’ bodies) – fell almost vertically.

In other words, the rocket caught up to the plane no closer than 25 kilometres away from Chernukhino. Which is absolutely impossible for a BUK system.

By the way, we can’t overlook the fact that, at maximum distances, BUK can be used only provided there is support from an external radar installation for location and guiding purposes. In other words, even if a rockets flies far, BUK’s mobile radar does not cover its entire distance.

Accordingly, if SBU’s video above is not fake, then, to our surprise, we discover that it was literally impossible for the aircraft to be shot down by the rebel’s BUK. By the way, what exactly this BUK was doing in Chernukhino with the Cossacks is pretty much inexplicable. It is 60 kilometres whether you go to Donetsk or to Lugansk from there, and this BUK would be unable to protect the skies over either of the key cities. Nor are there any hostilities in the area. It’s also strange for the Militia to expect enemy planes there – it’s not like the pilots are their own enemies to make such detours over the enemy’s territory, is it? Well, all right. As I already stated, let’s accept, for the moment, that the intercept is not fake.

And that is what is so strange here: SBU literally offers evidence that proves that that the Militia had no part in the shooting down of the Boeing! The fact that they blame themselves in the recording is quite understandable. Unlike the fascists, they have a conscience, which takes its toll until you are sure it was not you who did it.

Ok. But somebody did, in fact, shoot down the plane?

Of course it was shot down. And here we have another question: what if this recording is a falsification through and through? Then it had to have been prepared somehow? And then disseminated?

Whether this guy is right or wrong , these are the questions that need to be asked. But Kiev and the USA and Australia etc...aren't interested in even asking these questions.

At the moment too, we don't even know how the plane was downed. BUK has been repeated so many times that it is now accepted as true.

 

[tupac chopra]

The territory where it was shot down is controlled by the rebels.

We don't know that. Sure it's been repeated so many times now people are accepting it, but that doesn't make it true.
You need to explain how a missile launched from Chernukhino left debris in the places it did. Or explain where the missile was launched from and why the Ukrainians released youtube video pointing to the what looks like the wrong place, yet trying to incriminate the rebels

You also need to tie it in with the eyewitnesses who saw the plane/s.

 

[ZiprHead]

The territory where it was shot down is controlled by the rebels.

We don't know that. Sure it's been repeated so many times now people are accepting it, but that doesn't make it true.
You need to explain how a missile launched from Chernukhino left debris in the places it did.

You also need to tie it in with the eyewitnesses who saw the plane/s

This is just plain bullshit.

 

[bilby]

Why is that a fact though?

You claimed that all excursions into that territory by Ukrainian forces have been turned back, embarrassingly if I remember correctly the term you used, by the Russian backed rebels. How do you explain this discrepancy? How could Ukrainians get in to take this shot if they cannot get in?

What is the evidence it was fired from Chernukho? There are some questions that might need to be answered if it was shot from, Chernukhino, as claimed.

Note: Half of the Post Translated; The Remaining Half is Speculative
Complete Original of the Post (in Russian) Can Be Found at Eugene-DF LiveJournal

In the disseminated intercept, the place from which the missile was allegedly launched is clearly indicated: the checkpoint at the settlement of Chernukhino.

Pay close attention at the Alleged Map of the MH17 Catastrophe.

As you can see, the distance from the point of launch to the point of the fall is 37 kilometres. At the same time, the elevation of the plane was 10-11 kilometres. For the Russian BUK M2 this distance is, in fact, achievable (although with a very important caveat discussed below).

However, Ukraine does not, and cannot, have modern digital high-tech Anti-Aircraft systems in its arsenal. What it does have, at best, is the older version BUK M1. The system itself is not too bad, and could even fit the stated distance. Except for the caveat that was mentioned.

The thing is that most short to medium range Anti-Aircraft systems work extremely poorly in a “pursuit” mode. There are a number of reasons for this, and I do not intend to belabor the point, but you can take it as an axiom that when the launch is made in “pursuit” of the target, the maximum distance of the launch that successfully hits the target is at least half of the advertised maximum distance (in reality, it even worse, but let’s leave aside the sad part). Accordingly, the real distance of a “pursuit” launch for BUK M1 is 16 kilometres. What’s more, the last 3 kilometres are purely “God willing” and “without guarantees.”

And, so, we have the background. Let’s see how the picture unfolds:

The launch is alleged to have been made from Chernukhino. The maximum distance of the launch is 16 kilometres. The aircraft fell between Snezhnoye and Torez. That’s 37 kilometres, which is 20 kilometres more than the maximum possible point at which the plain could have been hit. You know, even a plane with turned-off engines can’t glide like that. But the trouble is that the aircraft was not whole.

According to the pattern of the spread of fuselage fragments and bodies, the plane was ruptured practically with the first shot. Here it must be mentioned that the high-explosive/fragmentation warhead of the rocket has a mass of approximately 50 kilograms (by the way, Ukrainians have an outdated modification, which is only 40 kilograms).

Overall, that’s not too little; however, it must be understood that it detonates not when it sticks into an airplane, but when it is still at a certain, and fairly significant distance. Moreover, the main strike factor is not the blast wave, but far more significantly – the stream of fragments. These fragments are previously prepared rods (and in the earlier versions – little cubes, if I recall correctly). And yes, for a jet fighter, that, in itself, is more than sufficient.

However, here we are dealing with a huge airliner. Yes, one rocket will rip the casing, cause depressurization, and will kill a lot of passengers. But it will not break up the airliner into pieces. Given certain conditions, the pilots may even be able to land it. And, in fact, there have been precedents (to be provided in future posts). For example – the very same An-28, which is alleged to have been the first victim of a BUK system; even though it was done for, but the crew was able to successfully catapult out. Which, in some way, symbolizes. An An-28, by the way, is far smaller than a Boeing.

Nevertheless, this has relation to the next part of our analysis. For now, let’s accept as a fact the break-up of the aircraft in the air, at a significant height (which is, in essence, what was observed. Allow me to remind you: “fragments spread over a radius of 15 kilometres.” The key here is that this means the following: the aircraft (or, more precisely, the core of the aircraft) fell literally at the point where the rocket impacted it. Clarifying: as soon as the aircraft turned into a host of fragments of different mass, the separation of these fragments began due to air resistance and the difference in inertia. The densest fragment flew a further 3-6 kilometres, falling more and more steeply. The lightest – spread out and, due to gliding and air currents, fell somewhere within a 10 kilometre radius. The medium ones (primarily pieces of casing with high sail-effect and the victims’ bodies) – fell almost vertically.

In other words, the rocket caught up to the plane no closer than 25 kilometres away from Chernukhino. Which is absolutely impossible for a BUK system.

By the way, we can’t overlook the fact that, at maximum distances, BUK can be used only provided there is support from an external radar installation for location and guiding purposes. In other words, even if a rockets flies far, BUK’s mobile radar does not cover its entire distance.

Accordingly, if SBU’s video above is not fake, then, to our surprise, we discover that it was literally impossible for the aircraft to be shot down by the rebel’s BUK. By the way, what exactly this BUK was doing in Chernukhino with the Cossacks is pretty much inexplicable. It is 60 kilometres whether you go to Donetsk or to Lugansk from there, and this BUK would be unable to protect the skies over either of the key cities. Nor are there any hostilities in the area. It’s also strange for the Militia to expect enemy planes there – it’s not like the pilots are their own enemies to make such detours over the enemy’s territory, is it? Well, all right. As I already stated, let’s accept, for the moment, that the intercept is not fake.

And that is what is so strange here: SBU literally offers evidence that proves that that the Militia had no part in the shooting down of the Boeing! The fact that they blame themselves in the recording is quite understandable. Unlike the fascists, they have a conscience, which takes its toll until you are sure it was not you who did it.

Ok. But somebody did, in fact, shoot down the plane?

Of course it was shot down. And here we have another question: what if this recording is a falsification through and through? Then it had to have been prepared somehow? And then disseminated?

Whether this guy is right or wrong , these are the questions that need to be asked. But Kiev and the USA and Australia etc...aren't interested in even asking these questions.

This guy is wrong.

About pretty much everything.

Just to take a few of this idiots statements that are demonstrably false:

The 'pursuit' mode performance of a SAM is largely irrelevant when targeting subsonic aircraft. If you aim at a fighter doing in excess of Mach 2, then sure, it massively reduces the effective SAM range; but MH017 was doing Mach 0.8 or so; at that speed, the aircraft might as well be stationary as far as pursuit effects are concerned.

From Chernukhino to the site of the ELB reported by Malaysia Airlines is 22km, not 37km.

A pressurised aircraft at FL330 will disintegrate fairly rapidly from even a small breach of the fuselage; Pan Am 103 was broken in half by a device hidden in a tape recorder - even in the 1980s, a tape recorder massing in excess of 40kg would have raised eyebrows

The real question that needs to be asked is 'Why are people so easily sucked in by insane conspiracy theories?'

And as a corollary to that, 'Why are vague, non informative statements like 'What if...' and 'Questions need to be asked...' more compelling to such morons than hard facts?'

And of course, the real clincher, 'Why don't you fuck off and come back when you have some hard evidence for your nutty claims?'.

 

[Ford]

The real question that needs to be asked is 'Why are people so easily sucked in by insane conspiracy theories?'

This is pure speculation on my part, but what appears to be happening in this case is not a person sucked in by the conspiracy theory, but a person deliberately propagating the theory.

 

[tupac chopra]

We don't know that. Sure it's been repeated so many times now people are accepting it, but that doesn't make it true.
You need to explain how a missile launched from Chernukhino left debris in the places it did.

You also need to tie it in with the eyewitnesses who saw the plane/s

This is just plain bullshit.

What is bullshit exactly?

 

[barbos]

The fact is, 300 people are dead because Ukrainian government is criminally incompetent.

No, the fact is those people are dead because the people who fired the missile were criminally incompetent.

Nope, and you know that I am right, and all these Eurocrats know that too.

 

[Ford]

No, the fact is those people are dead because the people who fired the missile were criminally incompetent.

Nope, and you know that I am right, and all these Eurocrats know that too.

Oh, so the people who fired the missile are not responsible in any way for what the missile did. They are innocents. They did nothing wrong.



Really?

 

[barbos]

Nope, and you know that I am right, and all these Eurocrats know that too.

Oh, so the people who fired the missile are not responsible in any way for what the missile did. They are innocents. They did nothing wrong.

Really?

They are 10% responsible, 90% is on ukrainian government

 

[bilby]

Oh, so the people who fired the missile are not responsible in any way for what the missile did. They are innocents. They did nothing wrong.

Really?

They are 10% responsible, 90% is on ukrainian government

No.

No matter what government they swear allegiance to; no matter what orders they had; and no matter how their target ended up within range of their weapons, the guys who fired on the plane are responsible for their actions; and they are the guilty parties here.

I don't know for sure whether they were Ukrainian troops, Russian troops, or irregulars. But none of that changes the fact that the guilty party is the crew of the SAM that brought the plane down.

All the political posturing in the world won't change that simple fact.

 

[Melange_Thief]

They are 10% responsible, 90% is on ukrainian government

This is a completely insane proposition. Is it really Ukraine's job to foresee that someone with the training to use the Buk system will fire on a plane without doing basic IFF, but the Buk user's responsibility to fucking do basic IFF in the fucking first place is just icing on the cake to avoid this tragedy? Here is a fact: If the user of the Buk system did their proper identification on their targets before use every time a possible target flew overhead, there would not have been this tragedy. There would not be any tragedy involving a civilian airliner whatsoever. And all without diverting commercial flights miles in different directions to prevent something that has never happened before anyway (that is, a civilian plane being shot down accidentally by a non-state actor).

Let's apply this logic to a different situation. Someone from out of town wanders into a somewhat dangerous section of a city where gang violence has been happening. All information suggests that it's safe to pass through as long as you aren't a member of a gang and stick to certain safe streets, so the out-of-towner sticks to the safe streets and isn't a member of a gang. However, one gang mistakes this out-of-towner for a rival gang's member and shoots them. By your logic, this poor traveler's death is 10% the fault of the person who actually shot them, and 90% the fault of the police for not cordoning off the entire area ahead of time.

 

[tupac chopra]

Nope, and you know that I am right, and all these Eurocrats know that too.

Oh, so the people who fired the missile are not responsible in any way for what the missile did. They are innocents. They did nothing wrong.
Really?

As we don't know who fired the missile or what their aim was we don't know how much to blame them, yet. The present Ukranian government is surely to blame. Or as former CIA analyst Ray Mc Govern wrote.

On Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin deflected questions about who may have fired the missile as he called for an international investigation. But he made a telling point when he noted that the “tragedy would not have happened if military actions had not been renewed in southeast Ukraine.”
Those likely to agree with that statement include German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande who, during a lengthy four-way conference call with Poroshenko on June 30, tried desperately to get him to prolong the ceasefire. Only the U.S. voiced support for Poroshenko’s decision to spurn that initiative and order Ukrainian forces into a major offensive in the east.

What have the rebels in Eastern Ukraine been doing? Lets see.
1.The US sponsored a coup that ousted a democratically elected leader.
2.Those in the East of the country did not accept this unelected US stooge, and so hostilities broke out.
3.The newly elected guy kept the hostilities going, when European leaders were begging him to have a ceasefire.
4.The warmongering USA supported the Ukrainian leader in not having a ceasefire.
5. This tragedy emerged.

So rather than trying to blame someone else, US taxpayers and those who live in the USA should do something about their warmongering government, because the rest of the world is getting sick of it.
Isn't that obvious?
Ford, rather than saying I should do something about spouting Kremlin propaganda, why don't you do something about your warmongering government?
I'd hate to take you out of your comfort zone though.....like happens in the places you bomb.

 

[bilby]

Oh, so the people who fired the missile are not responsible in any way for what the missile did. They are innocents. They did nothing wrong.
Really?

As we don't know who fired the missile or what their aim was we don't know how much to blame them, yet.

Oh yes we fucking well do.

The present Ukranian government is surely to blame.

Only if they ordered the plane shot down. If you have evidence that they did, present it. If not, shut up. Your half baked guesses are not helpful; and playing stupid political games is disgusting. Real people are dead. People who had fuck all to do with this petty regional conflict. The guys who fired upon the plane are responsible, and they should ideally be identified and brought to justice.

Dumb conspiracy theories and asinine political games do not help to achieve this. So stop. Just stop.