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

[bilby]

Ukraine isn't a prime suspect anymore

This implies that at some point they were, when?
If I remember correctly Russia have been assigned to be suspect from the day one. Long before any kind of data was analyzed.

Yes, back when all we had was the gleeful celebrations of the guilty party, before they realised that they hadn't shot down a Ukrainian transport plane, but had instead fucked up royally, and needed a disinformation campaign stat.

We know who did it. We knew right from the start; everything that has been said since by Russia has been a smokescreen to try to generate doubt where none was justified.

 

[barbos]

This implies that at some point they were, when?
If I remember correctly Russia have been assigned to be suspect from the day one. Long before any kind of data was analyzed.

Yes, back when all we had was the gleeful celebrations of the guilty party, before they realised that they hadn't shot down a Ukrainian transport plane, but had instead fucked up royally, and needed a disinformation campaign stat.

We know who did it. We knew right from the start; everything that has been said since by Russia has been a smokescreen to try to generate doubt where none was justified.

If you know who did it, then why don't you tell us that Ukrainian force did it?

 

[bilby]

Yes, back when all we had was the gleeful celebrations of the guilty party, before they realised that they hadn't shot down a Ukrainian transport plane, but had instead fucked up royally, and needed a disinformation campaign stat.

We know who did it. We knew right from the start; everything that has been said since by Russia has been a smokescreen to try to generate doubt where none was justified.

If you know who did it, then why don't you tell us that Ukrainian force did it?

Because that would be fibbing. And fibbing is naughty.

 

[barbos]

Between two extreme version where Russia is directly responsible and West knows ukrainians are responsible and covering for them that I have to go with the later one.
Russia had nothing to gain by supplying BUKs to rebels and rebels did not need such a capable system, because ukrainian bombers are not flying at altitudes which would require anything bigger than shoulder launched "stingers".
As for the west, with all that democracy they have a history of lying and covering for politically useful SOBs.

 

[Will Wiley]

Yes, back when all we had was the gleeful celebrations of the guilty party, before they realised that they hadn't shot down a Ukrainian transport plane, but had instead fucked up royally, and needed a disinformation campaign stat.

You haven't had a close enough look. The celebration you are talking about was a youtube video/audio released by the SBU (Ukrainian intelligence). I does not contain a confession. It contains a pastiche of various conversations spliced together.
It has one portion of a conversation where the anti coup forces had shot down a Ukrainian jet with a manpad some day earlier. this was spliced together with later conversations giving the appearance of it all being connected to the downing of MH17.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKNx0-6bUbI[/YOUTUBE] There is no reason to think these conversations are all about MH17.

We know who did it. We knew right from the start; everything that has been said since by Russia has been a smokescreen to try to generate doubt where none was justified.

None of the evidence used to implicate the anti coup forces stands up to scrutiny. If you think there is some let's have look.

Have a good listen to the audio above. Why must it be aboyt MH17? It is not an incredibly convenient "confession". Why would there be any need for any investigation if it was genuine?

Armed with Man-Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS), the separatists have been taking down Ukrainian military aircraft since the beginning of June. On June 13, separatists shot down a Ukrainian transport plane that had been carrying 40 paratroopers and nine crew members.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/u...-multiple-aircraft-over-the-past-month-2014-7

 

[Will Wiley]

Australia is not a part of NATO, and pretending that they have no independence when clearly they do is just nonsense.

You obviously don't know much aboyut Australia's history. They have never had an independent foreign policy. Why did you think they had?

Even if it were true that there was no evidence whatsoever;.

Do you know of any evidence?
If you have some evidence that has not been discredited then why not show it? A lot of evidence has been debunked of the past year. In fact everything pointing to the anti coup forces or Russia has been debunked.

But if you want to say " I have evidence but I'm not going to show anyone", then that itself is suspicious.

 

[barbos]

There is no reason to think these conversations are all about MH17.

Well, they can't be both right about about shooting that plane. And first one have nothing which would make you think they are talking about MH17. So it leaves us with the second intercept, where it's clear that they are talking about MH17. But the thing is, they say cossacks from some block-post shoot it. I find it extremely hard to believe that ordinary rebels would have BUK on their block-post. So "Grek" is obviously mistaken and that "admission" is nothing of the sort. So Westen media runs their whole propaganda machine on this clearly erroneous intercept.

 

[Harry Bosch]

There is no reason to think these conversations are all about MH17.

Well, they can't be both right about about shooting that plane. And first one have nothing which would make you think they are talking about MH17. So it leaves us with the second intercept, where it's clear that they are talking about MH17. But the thing is, they say cossacks from some block-post shoot it. I find it extremely hard to believe that ordinary rebels would have BUK on their block-post. So "Grek" is obviously mistaken and that "admission" is nothing of the sort. So Westen media runs their whole propaganda machine on this clearly erroneous intercept.

Who else would have a BUK in rebel controlled area that is shooting at aircraft?

 

[barbos]

Well, they can't be both right about about shooting that plane. And first one have nothing which would make you think they are talking about MH17. So it leaves us with the second intercept, where it's clear that they are talking about MH17. But the thing is, they say cossacks from some block-post shoot it. I find it extremely hard to believe that ordinary rebels would have BUK on their block-post. So "Grek" is obviously mistaken and that "admission" is nothing of the sort. So Westen media runs their whole propaganda machine on this clearly erroneous intercept.

Who else would have a BUK in rebel controlled area that is shooting at aircraft?

Don't know, ukrainian forces? And you assumed it was rebel controlled area.
All I am saying this intercept does not mean what western propaganda machine wants you to believe it means.
If it means anything then it is that these people did not actually know anything and clearly are not responsible. Of course it does not mean that some other rebels were not responsible, it's just these particular ones are not the ones.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Who else would have a BUK in rebel controlled area that is shooting at aircraft?

Don't know, ukrainian forces? And you assumed it was rebel controlled area.
All I am saying this intercept does not mean what western propaganda machine wants you to believe it means.
If it means anything then it is that these people did not actually know anything and clearly are not responsible. Of course it does not mean that some other rebels were not responsible, it's just these particular ones are not the ones.

I'm not going to debate conspiracy theories. But why are the Putanists so desperate to defend Russian aggression in Eastern Europe? I say Eastern Europe because I think that Russia will expand beyond eastern Ukraine.

 

[barbos]

Don't know, ukrainian forces? And you assumed it was rebel controlled area.
All I am saying this intercept does not mean what western propaganda machine wants you to believe it means.
If it means anything then it is that these people did not actually know anything and clearly are not responsible. Of course it does not mean that some other rebels were not responsible, it's just these particular ones are not the ones.

I'm not going to debate conspiracy theories. But why are the Putanists so desperate to defend Russian aggression in Eastern Europe? I say Eastern Europe because I think that Russia will expand beyond eastern Ukraine.

I am not going to respond to this obvious trolling. Have a nice debate with yourself.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'm not going to debate conspiracy theories. But why are the Putanists so desperate to defend Russian aggression in Eastern Europe? I say Eastern Europe because I think that Russia will expand beyond eastern Ukraine.

I am not going to respond to this obvious trolling. Have a nice debate with yourself.

I understand. I'd have a very hard time defending Putin's actions as well.

 

[dystopian]

You obviously don't know much aboyut Australia's history. They have never had an independent foreign policy. Why did you think they had?

I don't know, maybe because I'm not an idiot who thinks that because a country's foreign policy coincides with that of another more powerful country that therefore the first country is not independent and because I actually DO know a bit of history? Australia has been a fully independent country since WW2 and has done many things that ran directly contrary to the wishes and interests of the western countries you think control Australia; the same, btw, is true of just about any other western country you care to pretend is not an independent entity.

One can only hold the perception that Australia has no independent foreign policy if one's knowledge of Australia isn't more recent than 70 years; or if one, like yourself, has an ideological and paranoid reason to insist that Australia is not an independent entity because to accept it as independent would tarnish one's claim that a certain investigation is a conspiracy.

But if you want to say " I have evidence but I'm not going to show anyone", then that itself is suspicious.

No it's not; because you clearly don't understand the first thing about how legal systems operate (or are choosing to deliberately pretend you don't know). The police/prosecution don't go around publicizing evidence while the investigation is ongoing. They present that evidence during the trial. This isn't even remotely suspicious, this is just how reality operates. On the other hand, Russia using its veto to prevent the establishment of a tribunal that aims to punish the guilty IS highly suspicious... it all but screams "we had something to do with it".

Of course, we've gone over all this before. Who would've thought the resident putinbots would trot out old already refuted arguments?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ukraine isn't a prime suspect anymore

This implies that at some point they were, when?
If I remember correctly Russia have been assigned to be suspect from the day one. Long before any kind of data was analyzed.

Russia was the primary suspect because the shoot-down occurred over Russian-held territory.

The only reason Ukraine was a suspect at all is that it was within reach of their weapons.

 

[Will Wiley]

Don't know, ukrainian forces? And you assumed it was rebel controlled area.
All I am saying this intercept does not mean what western propaganda machine wants you to believe it means.
If it means anything then it is that these people did not actually know anything and clearly are not responsible. Of course it does not mean that some other rebels were not responsible, it's just these particular ones are not the ones.

I'm not going to debate conspiracy theories. But why are the Putanists so desperate to defend Russian aggression in Eastern Europe? I say Eastern Europe because I think that Russia will expand beyond eastern Ukraine.

The theory of the anti coup forces shooting the plane down with Russian help IS a conspiracy theory though.

 

[Will Wiley]

Of course, we've gone over all this before. Who would've thought the resident putinbots would trot out old already refuted arguments?

So you admit there is no evidence to implicate Russia, but you believe it inspite of having no evidence?
You have been duped!

 

[Will Wiley]

This implies that at some point they were, when?
If I remember correctly Russia have been assigned to be suspect from the day one. Long before any kind of data was analyzed.

Russia was the primary suspect because the shoot-down occurred over Russian-held territory.

Is that the only reason? IT was shot down very close to the "border", so that doesn't mean much. Are you aware of any evidence to implicate Russia or the anti coup forces?

 

[bilby]

You haven't had a close enough look. The celebration you are talking about was a youtube video/audio released by the SBU (Ukrainian intelligence). I does not contain a confession. It contains a pastiche of various conversations spliced together.
It has one portion of a conversation where the anti coup forces had shot down a Ukrainian jet with a manpad some day earlier. this was spliced together with later conversations giving the appearance of it all being connected to the downing of MH17.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKNx0-6bUbI[/YOUTUBE] There is no reason to think these conversations are all about MH17.

We know who did it. We knew right from the start; everything that has been said since by Russia has been a smokescreen to try to generate doubt where none was justified.

None of the evidence used to implicate the anti coup forces stands up to scrutiny. If you think there is some let's have look.

Have a good listen to the audio above. Why must it be aboyt MH17? It is not an incredibly convenient "confession". Why would there be any need for any investigation if it was genuine?

Armed with Man-Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS), the separatists have been taking down Ukrainian military aircraft since the beginning of June. On June 13, separatists shot down a Ukrainian transport plane that had been carrying 40 paratroopers and nine crew members.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/u...-multiple-aircraft-over-the-past-month-2014-7

No.

That is not the evidence I am talking about; it is a good example of the smokescreen I am talking about though. Anyone who was even vaguely familiar with my posting history on this board would know my disdain for YouTube as evidence for anything, and would be aware that I rarely watch video of any kind online - if a YouTube link is presented in a discussion, I am usually one of those calling for a textual synopsis.

The evidence has long since been deleted. There is no easy way to recover it; the FUD has served its purpose well.

But I don't care - I know what I saw and heard; I know the right answer; and it isn't my job to convince others.

I just wish to express my disgust and contempt for the lying shitbags who are trying to convince me that black is white.

I wish you would all just fuck off, but as you won't, I shall just pop up every once in a while to see how the trouser blaze is coming along, and to point it out to any neutral third parties.

I particularly like the way that you have the brass faced nerve to tell me what evidence I am basing my statements on. That kind of bald faced bullshitting takes real nerve. Or incredible stupidity.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Russia was the primary suspect because the shoot-down occurred over Russian-held territory.

Is that the only reason? IT was shot down very close to the "border", so that doesn't mean much. Are you aware of any evidence to implicate Russia or the anti coup forces?

Buddy: you need to get more current talking points from your Russian handlers! The Jet lost contact 31 miles over Russian controlled area. It crashed near Torez which is 25 miles from the border.

 

[Axulus]

Russia doesn't seem to oppose looking for who is responsible. They've already approved of other international investigations:

They also realize that they must recognize international investigations into the tragedy, such as the technical one by the Dutch Safety Board and the criminal one by a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) of Dutch, Australian, Belgian, Malaysian and Ukrainian detectives. Russia is in fact cooperating with the first one, though it’s not happy with its confidential preliminary conclusions. As for the Joint Investigation Team, Russia has long expressed doubts about its impartiality and insisted on closer U.N. supervision, but it can’t really object to its work — which hasn’t yet yielded results — because it’s sanctioned by U.N. Security Council resolution 2166, passed on July 21, 2014. Russia voted for that one, backing “the need for a full, thorough and independent international investigation” and condemning the downing of MH17 “in the strongest terms.”

What it seems to oppose is allowing jurisdiction of the case to be handled by outsiders:

Russia’s problem with the tribunal is different, though. It’s similar to the problem the U.S. has with accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in the Hague, whose function is to prosecute war crimes and instances of genocide. The judicial body was set up in 1998, after special tribunals on the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda proved lengthy and inefficient. The U.S. initially supported its creation but then withdrew its backing lest the court be used for the politically motivated persecution of Americans participating in various wars. In 2011, the U.S. backed Security Council Resolution 1970, which referred that year’s civil war in Libya to the ICC — a historic first for the U.S. — but made its vote conditional on a “carve-out” for countries that have not accepted the court’s jurisdiction.

...

Russia, like a number of other countries, never extradites its citizens wanted for crimes committed elsewhere. Submitting the MH17 case to a tribunal would, in practice, mean breaking that rule. And that’s not something Putin, with his great power nostalgia and ambitions, can allow. So his reasoning for vetoing the tribunal goes beyond the MH17 case. He’s not trying to cover up for a rebel or even a Russian Army officer who may have ordered the missile launch: He’s just not willing to give up ground that the U.S. isn’t giving up.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion...ia-vetoed-bid-set-mh17-tribunal/#.Vb6Xb_lVhBc

No one seriously doubts the rebel involvement in the shooting. The rebels had no air-force and Russia would not send in its own planes and still have any sort of ability to deny its involvement in the conflict. Thus, there would be absolutely no reason for the Ukrainian side to shoot down anything. On the other hand, Ukraine was using its air force for transportation of personnel and supplies. Hence why the Putinists have to come up with wild conspiracy theories that it was actually a false flag attack by NATO or Ukraine to make the rebels or Russia look guilty (despite not providing any credible evidence whatsoever). That is the mark of extreme desperation and an extremely deluded sense of reality.