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

[barbos]

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.

I guess you can explain presence (and operation) of Ukrainian BUKs in the area of conflict.
Also what was the reason for ukrainian army to shoot Russian passenger plane in 2001?

 

[Ford]

I guess you can explain presence (and operation) of Ukrainian BUKs in the area of conflict.

I guess you'd have to back that claim up with some kind of evidence.

 

[barbos]

I guess you can explain presence (and operation) of Ukrainian BUKs in the area of conflict.

I guess you'd have to back that claim up with some kind of evidence.

Ask NSA or ukrainians, they don't deny presence of their BUKs in the conflict zone.

 

[Ford]

I guess you'd have to back that claim up with some kind of evidence.

Ask NSA or ukrainians, they don't deny presence of their BUKs in the conflict zone.

Oh yeah. That's a great idea. There's an NSA data center a couple miles from my work. I'll head up there and ask them tomorrow. I'm sure they'll be very forthcoming.

 

[tupac chopra]

.

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.

I presume you mean the social media post from the rebels about the plane coming down? That is not what you wish it to be. The rebels had shot down many planes in the lead up to July 17, so naturally assumed they had down another military plane. When they found out a passenger plane had been shot down from a much higher altitude they realized it had not been shot down by themselves with their MANPADS.

If you have been shooting down fighter jets with manpads and you see another plane come down then it's reasonable to assume that was another fighter jet shot down.
So this is not the evidence you want it to be.

 

[dystopian]

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!

That is obviously not what I said. I admit only to the fact that you and your ilk will reject any evidence or argument that doesn't fit your narrative, no matter how solid or factual the evidence and arguments may be; offering up only white noise in response in order to try and distract and confuse.

 

[bilby]

.

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.

I presume you mean the social media post from the rebels about the plane coming down? That is not what you wish it to be. The rebels had shot down many planes in the lead up to July 17, so naturally assumed they had down another military plane. When they found out a passenger plane had been shot down from a much higher altitude they realized it had not been shot down by themselves with their MANPADS.

If you have been shooting down fighter jets with manpads and you see another plane come down then it's reasonable to assume that was another fighter jet shot down.
So this is not the evidence you want it to be.

Thank you so much for clearing that up.

If only I had any reason to give a shit about your rationalisation, you wouldn't have completely wasted your time 'explaining' that to me.

Perhaps you didn't bother reading my earlier post, disparaging the stupidity of people trying to rewrite history in this fashion; or perhaps you are just too stupid or thick-skinned to think it might apply to you as well as to every other idiot who is trying to obscure the facts.

 

[tupac chopra]

Perhaps you didn't bother reading my earlier post, disparaging the stupidity of people trying to rewrite history in this fashion; or perhaps you are just too stupid or thick-skinned to think it might apply to you as well as to every other idiot who is trying to obscure the facts.

What facts arebeing obscured?

 

[Cerberus]

And for all this to be followed by the resurrection of the Litvinyenko incident of 9, repeat 9 years ago, and the talking heads blaming Putin without any evidence of it whatsoever, yet more proof if proof were needed that the West is definitely provoking Russia into war. This is seriously weird!

 

[tupac chopra]

That is obviously not what I said. I admit only to the fact that you and your ilk will reject any evidence or argument that doesn't fit your narrative, no matter how solid or factual the evidence and arguments may be; offering up only white noise in response in order to try and distract and confuse.

What facts or evidence are you referring to?

 

[bilby]

Perhaps you didn't bother reading my earlier post, disparaging the stupidity of people trying to rewrite history in this fashion; or perhaps you are just too stupid or thick-skinned to think it might apply to you as well as to every other idiot who is trying to obscure the facts.

What facts arebeing obscured?

What makes you think I am interested in engaging you in debate on this topic?

I know who is responsible, as does anyone else who was paying attention. There is no debate; facts are not up for discussion, they are simply facts - and remain so no matter how much ink is spilled in an attempt to drown them.

 

[tupac chopra]

What facts arebeing obscured?

What makes you think I am interested in engaging you in debate on this topic?

I know who is responsible, as does anyone else who was paying attention. There is no debate;

You know from reading the internet even before the official report is released. wow!

facts are not up for discussion, they are simply facts - and remain so no matter how much ink is spilled in an attempt to drown them.

You have no facts

 

[tupac chopra]

No one seriously doubts the rebel involvement in the shooting. .

I do because there are no facts which point that way. If you have some I'm willing to reconsider

 

[Will Wiley]

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.

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.

Ok so you have some evidence but you wont say what it is. But it totally convinced you but you wont say what it is. At a guess i'd say your evidence is not very convincing.

But in addition to believing your secret evidence that you can't show us you also
A) believe the fake youtube audio is real
or
B)Believe that the SBU produced a fake tape to incriminate the people who actually did it..

Neither A or B make any sense if they are also held with your secret evidence.

 

[Will Wiley]

I know who is responsible, as does anyone else who was paying attention.

How do you know who did it?

There is no debate.

There is a debate but one side presents evidence, and another side keeps the alleged evidence secret.

 

[barbos]

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;

You need to contact dutch investigation ASAP.

 

[Axulus]

No one seriously doubts the rebel involvement in the shooting. .

I do because there are no facts which point that way. If you have some I'm willing to reconsider

How deep does your delusion go?

A rebel commander talking about how they downed a plane on social media immediately after MH17 was hit:

Сводки от Стрелкова Игоря Ивановича
17.07.2014 17:50 (мск) Сообщение от ополчения.

"В районе Тореза только что сбили самолет Ан-26, валяется где-то за шахтой "Прогресс".
Предупреждали же - не летать в "нашем небе".
А вот и видео-подтверждение очередного "птичкопада".
Птичка упала за террикон, жилой сектор не зацепила. Мирные люди не пострадали.

А также еще есть информация о втором сбитом самолете, вроде бы Су."

https://web.archive.org/web/20140717152222/http://vk.com/strelkov_info

Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit.
One eyewitness saw the missile-launcher roll off a low-loader at Snezhnoye, around ten miles from the crash site, at around 13:30 local time (10:30 GMT).
"We just saw it being offloaded and when the BUK started its engine the exhaust smoke filled the whole town square," he said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398

The report is split into three sections. The first examines the open source evidence relating to the movements of the Buk in eastern Ukraine on July 17th, the second
presents evidence that the Buk filmed and photographed on July 17th originated in Russia and was part of a convoy headed towards the Ukrainian border in late June, and the third looks at the activity of vehicles seen in the same convoy after July 17th.

It is the opinion of the Bellingcat MH17 investigation team that there is undeniable evidence that separatists in Ukraine were in control of a Buk missile launcher on July
17th and transported it from Donetsk to Snizhne on a transporter. The Buk missile launcher was unloaded in Snizhne approximately three hours before the downing of MH17 and was later filmed minus one missile driving through separatist-controlled
Luhansk.

https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-conte...paratists-Buk-A-Bellingcat-Investigation1.pdf

Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was brought down by a 'Buk' ground-to-air missile, which exploded near the Boeing's cockpit then peppered the plane with shrapnel, a state-run Russian weapons manufacturer says.
The claim confounds previous Kremlin claims that the flight was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet.
Moscow-headquartered Almaz-Antey – which has manufactured Buk missile systems since 2002 – said it conducted its own analysis of the pattern of damage seen on pieces of MH17 wreckage recovered from the fields of eastern Ukraine.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/mh17-pl...turer-says-20150602-ghfdco.html#ixzz3hjqnVAnc

Video of rebels immediately after the crash, on site, acknowledging that they had just brought down a plane, and claiming that they had brought down a "fighter jet", which they claim is what brought down MH17. Except, whoops, there was no 2nd plane brought down that day, and there is conclusive evidence it was the Buk that brought down MH17 (even admitted by the Russian manufacturer of Buk weapons), not some fighter jet.

Cmdr: The other plane that fell down, they are after them, the pilots.

Background: The second one?

Cmdr: Yes, there’s 2 planes taken down. We need the second.

Background: The second one is a civilian too?

Background: The fighter jet brought down this one, and our people brought down the fighter.

Background: They decided to do it this way, to look like we have brought down the plane.

You can watch the video here:

http://www.news.com.au/national/ful...-17-minute-video/story-e6frfkp9-1227444629703

If you can be fooled so heavily that there are "no facts which point that way", I can only say that your level of sanity is such that it is absolutely impossible to have any kind of rational discussion with you.

 

[bilby]

No one seriously doubts the rebel involvement in the shooting. .

I do because there are no facts which point that way. If you have some I'm willing to reconsider

No, you are not.

 

[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.

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.

Ok so you have some evidence but you wont say what it is. But it totally convinced you but you wont say what it is. At a guess i'd say your evidence is not very convincing.

But in addition to believing your secret evidence that you can't show us you also
A) believe the fake youtube audio is real
or
B)Believe that the SBU produced a fake tape to incriminate the people who actually did it..

Neither A or B make any sense if they are also held with your secret evidence.

You can find the evidence if you want to; you can even search the archives and find posts where I presented it, at the time of the event.

There is nothing secret about it; I just refuse to debate whether two plus two actually equals five.

You are wrong. It's not my job to give a fuck that you are wrong; there is no way for me to prevent or dissuade you from being wrong.

All I care to do is point out that you are wrong, in case anyone else is dumb enough to believe the lies you are spreading.

Let it be recorded that your (bizarre and stupid) opinion is at odds with the facts, and is not unopposed.

I don't have any belief at all about a YouTube video I haven't watched, nor about a tape I haven't heard; your claim that I must believe something about these things is a good indication, for any third party, of your level of commitment to logic and honesty.

Presenting non-evidence, and then declaring that your opponent must be basing his position on that non-evidence is extraordinarily dishonest. Why you would expect anyone to take your word for anything after having done this, I do not understand. Perhaps you think people are stupid. Perhaps you are frequently right to think that; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

 

[barbos]

I do because there are no facts which point that way. If you have some I'm willing to reconsider

How deep does your delusion go?

A rebel commander talking about how they downed a plane on social media immediately after MH17 was hit:

Сводки от Стрелкова Игоря Ивановича
17.07.2014 17:50 (мск) Сообщение от ополчения.

"В районе Тореза только что сбили самолет Ан-26, валяется где-то за шахтой "Прогресс".
Предупреждали же - не летать в "нашем небе".
А вот и видео-подтверждение очередного "птичкопада".
Птичка упала за террикон, жилой сектор не зацепила. Мирные люди не пострадали.

А также еще есть информация о втором сбитом самолете, вроде бы Су."

https://web.archive.org/web/20140717152222/http://vk.com/strelkov_info

How is that an evidence of anything other than rebels thinking that they just shot down ukrainian plane?

Three eyewitnesses, all civilians, separately told Panorama that they saw a missile-launcher in rebel-held territory a few hours before the Boeing jet was hit.
One eyewitness saw the missile-launcher roll off a low-loader at Snezhnoye, around ten miles from the crash site, at around 13:30 local time (10:30 GMT).
"We just saw it being offloaded and when the BUK started its engine the exhaust smoke filled the whole town square," he said.

There is a lot of eyewitnesses which say a lot of stuff. One of such eyewitnesses even says ukrainian fighter jet shot MH17.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398

The report is split into three sections. The first examines the open source evidence relating to the movements of the Buk in eastern Ukraine on July 17th, the second
presents evidence that the Buk filmed and photographed on July 17th originated in Russia and was part of a convoy headed towards the Ukrainian border in late June, and the third looks at the activity of vehicles seen in the same convoy after July 17th.

It is the opinion of the Bellingcat MH17 investigation team that there is undeniable evidence that separatists in Ukraine were in control of a Buk missile launcher on July
17th and transported it from Donetsk to Snizhne on a transporter. The Buk missile launcher was unloaded in Snizhne approximately three hours before the downing of MH17 and was later filmed minus one missile driving through separatist-controlled
Luhansk.

https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-conte...paratists-Buk-A-Bellingcat-Investigation1.pdf

Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was brought down by a 'Buk' ground-to-air missile, which exploded near the Boeing's cockpit then peppered the plane with shrapnel, a state-run Russian weapons manufacturer says.
The claim confounds previous Kremlin claims that the flight was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet.
Moscow-headquartered Almaz-Antey – which has manufactured Buk missile systems since 2002 – said it conducted its own analysis of the pattern of damage seen on pieces of MH17 wreckage recovered from the fields of eastern Ukraine.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/mh17-pl...turer-says-20150602-ghfdco.html#ixzz3hjqnVAnc

Video of rebels immediately after the crash, on site, acknowledging that they had just brought down a plane, and claiming that they had brought down a "fighter jet", which they claim is what brought down MH17. Except, whoops, there was no 2nd plane brought down that day, and there is conclusive evidence it was the Buk that brought down MH17 (even admitted by the Russian manufacturer of Buk weapons), not some fighter jet.

Again, rebels thinking they brought down a plane.
I have previously addressed all these "admissions". All these "admissions" includes inforrmation which allows to discount them as erroneous. They can admit assassinating JFK but it does not mean they did it.

Cmdr: The other plane that fell down, they are after them, the pilots.

Background: The second one?

Cmdr: Yes, there’s 2 planes taken down. We need the second.

Background: The second one is a civilian too?

Background: The fighter jet brought down this one, and our people brought down the fighter.

Background: They decided to do it this way, to look like we have brought down the plane.

You can watch the video here:

http://www.news.com.au/national/ful...-17-minute-video/story-e6frfkp9-1227444629703

If you can be fooled so heavily that there are "no facts which point that way", I can only say that your level of sanity is such that it is absolutely impossible to have any kind of rational discussion with you.

These all were debunked to different degrees.
What was not debunked is Almaz-Antey report, which was thoroughly ignored.