• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Russia: Don't look for who did the MH17 shootdown

barbos said:
Horatio Parker said:
It seems to me that the Dutch have the least interest in misrepresenting what happened to their citizens, therefore they have the most credibility.
Click to expand...
But the simple and undeniable fact is that they have in fact misrepresented Almaz-Antey claims.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with who shot down the plane?

Can't it be true that some interpret the report as deceptive, and yet that "fact" tells us nothing about what happened?

So we merely look for governmental lies and assign blame accordingly? If so, it could be anybody.

My point is that the Dutch don't really have a dog in the Ukrainian fight, or at least much less of an interest than the other parties. They do have interest in people continuing to buy airline tickets without fear of being shot down, and an interest in maintaining credibility where the lives of their citizens are at stake.

A better conspiracy point, IMO, is that the State Dept. says that intelligence exists to confirm that it was a rebel missile. But no one can see said intelligence. Why not?
 
Last edited:
Horatio Parker said:
barbos said:
But the simple and undeniable fact is that they have in fact misrepresented Almaz-Antey claims.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with who shot down the plane?
Click to expand...
A little, but it puts the whole report into question.
Can't it be true that some interpret the report as deceptive, and yet that "fact" tells us nothing about what happened?
Click to expand...
Yes it can, But report is in fact deceptive.
So we merely look for governmental lies and assign blame accordingly? If so, it could be anybody.

My point is that the Dutch don't really have a dog in the Ukrainian fight,
Click to expand...
US government may disagree with that. Same thing happened with Bulgaria, they did not have a dog in Russia in Syria, but then US assigned them a dog and they complied.
or at least much less of an interest than the other parties. They do have interest in people continuing to buy airline tickets without fear of being shot down, and an interest in maintaining credibility where the lives of their citizens are at stake.
Click to expand...
That's theory.
A better conspiracy point, IMO, is that the State Dept. says that intelligence exists to confirm that it was a rebel missile. But know one can see said intelligence. Why not?
Click to expand...
Yes, no one can see it because it does not actually exist. Same thing happened with WMD in Iraq and chemical attack in Syria where evidence actually exist that it was not Syrian Army but US allies in the region.
 
Boohoo, nobody likes us.

Meanwhile-in-Holland_o_139828.jpg
 
Horatio Parker said:
A better conspiracy point, IMO, is that the State Dept. says that intelligence exists to confirm that it was a rebel missile. But no one can see said intelligence. Why not?
Click to expand...
One obvious conclusion is that the evidence does not support the initial allegations that the rebels did it.
Almost immediately after the plane came down both Ukraine and the USA accused the rebels. I was sitting in my office, morning time in Australia when on TV a now discredited and no longer mentioned "proof" was aired.This proof is no longer mentioned.
Writing a crime play (And showing SBU MH17 taps are frauds)
John Kerry himself was soon saying the same thing. This was before intelligence analysts would have had time to reach a solid conclusion. This conclusion it seems, once the analysts had time to analyse, did not match with the evidence. Which puts the intelligence analysts in a difficult position (again).

It can be likened to the USA having to admit that Israel attacked the USS Liberty. If the USA admitted it, it would have made it impossible to support Israel.
And likewise in this instance, if the UAS were to admit that a rogue element of the Ukrainian army (under Kolmoisky) had shot down mh17 it would have made it impossible to continue to support Kiev. Kolmoisky, of course is now gone.
Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser explains the mindset.[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vxIvmXupzI&feature=youtu.be[/YOUTUBE]
 
dystopian said:
Boohoo, nobody likes us.
Click to expand...
People like you, they just wish you had your own mind. If Holland had some backbone they would have objected to having Ukraine as one of the investigators.
MH-17 investigation is an injustice to all the relatives of the 298 victims
We are facing a legal farce and a grave injustice for all the relatives of the 298 victims thanks to the fact that Netherlands and Ukraine have forgotten in the case of MH17 that “Nemo iudex in causa sua” or that no one should judge or investigate in his own cause, says Finnish judge and diplomat Peter Iiskola, who is expert in international air and space law.

- What makes it even more ridiculous is that Netherlands should know better, as it is the seat for at least eight international Tribunals, says Iiskola.
Click to expand...

?
 
barbos said:
Jayjay said:
You are going to have to be more specific what you are waiting for because I already addressed the false claim that the report "misrepresents" Almaz Antey in any way.
Click to expand...

No, you did not, You were "addressing" different from 146 pages.
Click to expand...
Why don't you tell me what is on page 146 that you have trouble understanding? I have quoted you the numerous pages that all explicitly say that the Almaz Antey simulation was based on Dutch data, yet you have trouble coming up with even a single quote that says otherwise.
 
Will Wiley said:
People like you, they just wish you had your own mind. If Holland had some backbone they would have objected to having Ukraine as one of the investigators.
MH-17 investigation is an injustice to all the relatives of the 298 victims
We are facing a legal farce and a grave injustice for all the relatives of the 298 victims thanks to the fact that Netherlands and Ukraine have forgotten in the case of MH17 that “Nemo iudex in causa sua” or that no one should judge or investigate in his own cause, says Finnish judge and diplomat Peter Iiskola, who is expert in international air and space law.

- What makes it even more ridiculous is that Netherlands should know better, as it is the seat for at least eight international Tribunals, says Iiskola.
Click to expand...

?
Click to expand...
Iiskola is a known paid shill for Russian propaganda. He has zero credibility. But even taking the argument at face value, it's false because Ukraine maybe part of the investigative committee but the committee also included Netherlands, Malaysia, Australia and Belgium. Ukraine isn't running the investigation and even if they were a suspect their ability to impact the investigation would be limited.
 
barbos said:
Jayjay said:
No, it wouldn't. The details are in Appendix X of the report.
Click to expand...
Read and think before you post.
Click to expand...
You have a lot to learn about logical argumentation. Usually it is customary when making a claim, to source it or back it up somehow, which you are not doing. The appendix in question actually details that according to the simulation, the left engine damage is explained by secondary fragmentation.
 
Jayjay said:
barbos said:
Read and think before you post.
Click to expand...
You have a lot to learn about logical argumentation. Usually it is customary when making a claim, to source it or back it up somehow, which you are not doing. The appendix in question actually details that according to the simulation, the left engine damage is explained by secondary fragmentation.
Click to expand...
Nobody cares about appendix and secondary fragmentation. It's page 146 and you keep avoiding addressing the point.
 
barbos said:
Jayjay said:
You have a lot to learn about logical argumentation. Usually it is customary when making a claim, to source it or back it up somehow, which you are not doing. The appendix in question actually details that according to the simulation, the left engine damage is explained by secondary fragmentation.
Click to expand...
Nobody cares about appendix and secondary fragmentation. It's page 146 and you keep avoiding addressing the point.
Click to expand...
That is a separate issue. And if you don't care about secondary fragmentation, why did you reply to a post about it? Sheesh.

I notice, you still have not explained what you think is wrong with page 146, which accurately says that the Almaz-Antey simulation was based on NLR/TNO data. Does your silence mean that you concede the point and agree that the DSB report does not misrepresent Almaz Antey in any way? :rolleyes:
 
Will Wiley said:
Horatio Parker said:
A better conspiracy point, IMO, is that the State Dept. says that intelligence exists to confirm that it was a rebel missile. But no one can see said intelligence. Why not?
Click to expand...
One obvious conclusion is that the evidence does not support the initial allegations that the rebels did it.
Almost immediately after the plane came down both Ukraine and the USA accused the rebels. I was sitting in my office, morning time in Australia when on TV a now discredited and no longer mentioned "proof" was aired.This proof is no longer mentioned.
Writing a crime play (And showing SBU MH17 taps are frauds)
John Kerry himself was soon saying the same thing. This was before intelligence analysts would have had time to reach a solid conclusion. This conclusion it seems, once the analysts had time to analyse, did not match with the evidence. Which puts the intelligence analysts in a difficult position (again).
Click to expand...

Because some phone intercepts were dummied up, doesn't mean the Russians didn't shoot the plane down.

If credibility is the only standard, it still seems to me that the Dutch are least likely to be carrying someone else's water. If this were a high tension, possible war producing situation where the Dutch report could set things off, that would be one thing. But it's not. So why should they respond to US pressure, assuming it exists?
 
Horatio Parker said:
Will Wiley said:
One obvious conclusion is that the evidence does not support the initial allegations that the rebels did it.
Almost immediately after the plane came down both Ukraine and the USA accused the rebels. I was sitting in my office, morning time in Australia when on TV a now discredited and no longer mentioned "proof" was aired.This proof is no longer mentioned.
Writing a crime play (And showing SBU MH17 taps are frauds)
John Kerry himself was soon saying the same thing. This was before intelligence analysts would have had time to reach a solid conclusion. This conclusion it seems, once the analysts had time to analyse, did not match with the evidence. Which puts the intelligence analysts in a difficult position (again).
Click to expand...

Because some phone intercepts were dummied up, doesn't mean the Russians didn't shoot the plane down.

If credibility is the only standard, it still seems to me that the Dutch are least likely to be carrying someone else's water. If this were a high tension, possible war producing situation where the Dutch report could set things off, that would be one thing. But it's not. So why should they respond to US pressure, assuming it exists?
Click to expand...
Just because there is absolutely no evidence of russian involvement does not mean they are not involved, I got it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom