red750 Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 (Edit: Title should say "Report..) Just watched a live coverage of the MH17 report, with reconstruction of the B777 from pieces recovered. The warhead appears to have exploded outside the captains window, showering the cockpit area with shrapnel, and killing the crew. It caused the cockpit area to break away, followed by the tail, while reached the ground before the centre section with wings and engines. No responsibility apportioned. A criminal case will try to determine this.
eightyknots Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 There are already people who say "the BUK missile is definitely the Russian made weapon that caused this crash so it must have been the Russians who did this". This, of course, is faulty logic. As we all know, Kalashnikov (AK-47) guns are Russian made. If anyone uses an AK-47 inappropriately anywhere in the world, can we say that Putin clearly ordered this? 2
fly_tornado Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 BUKs aren't coming out of factories all around the world like the AK47
Robbo Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 There are already people who say "the BUK missile is definitely the Russian made weapon that caused this crash so it must have been the Russians who did this".This, of course, is faulty logic. As we all know, Kalashnikov (AK-47) guns are Russian made. If anyone uses an AK-47 inappropriately anywhere in the world, can we say that Putin clearly ordered this? AK-47's are very easy to smuggle. Can't smuggle a buk as easy as an AK.
DrZoos Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Apparently the version of BUK from the fragments in the flight crews bodies indicated is was a very late version and thus "likely" to be actual Russian troops or very recently supplied by Pro-Russian Rebels . I have no idea about these models personally..but that sounds like something worth clinging to and going to war over... At times like these it pays to have a President like Obama rather than Bush V1 V2 or RR.. The Russians will say its propaganda, the US will say its fact and Australia will make a lot of noise about shirt fronting or similar and do nothing. But the sun will come up tomorrow and a new news headline will have us on our merry way. And the truth will probably never be known. But the one thing for certain is justice will never be served. 3
Phil Perry Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 I have read a large quantity of complete dross with regard to this incident on many blogsites. Some "people" seem convinced that it was shot down from behind by a military aircraft, and some follow the BUK missile bit. One thing is certain from all of this, those poor souls abourd that flight wouldn't give a toss about which end their aircraft was struck in flight, and Dr. Z, I concur with your closing comments that only a sketchy version of events will ever be finalised. Whether the families of the dead will derive any peace from this is a moot point. "Justice" ? Hmm,. . .I doubt if overall blame will ever be properly attributed. I ( personally ) doubt whether serving Russian soldiers would blindly fire at an aircraft without some severe and direct orders, AND it may well have been fired by Russian - backed, insufficiently trained Ukranian rebels, but sadly, a proper aircrash investigation as WE understand it is far too late, and would not have been the best idea in a warzone. Gives the uneddifcated internet trolls out there amongst US SENSIBLE BLOG COMMENTERS ( ! ) something to rabbit on about ceaselessly doesn't it. 1
bexrbetter Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Pro-Russian Rebels . They can not be "Rebels" when the Russians were legally and Democratically in power, only the Ukraines can be rebels - and supported into action and with cash from the USA. Veritable and absolute facts, the USA State documents are available in public, if I got a moment tomorrow I will look them up again. The last 2 Elections are common factual knowledge, the 2nd last election the Russians won but the UN asked them to step down due to vote fraud, which they did immediately and peacefully (note that the vote was close to 50/50 either way). Note that 2 Jewish Pollies were voted in for the first time in history. Then the last election the Russians were unanimously voted in, validated by the UN, and the Jews kicked out. The Ukraine is the 3rd largest supplier of food which the Europeans desperately need in the future as do Russia, and even though the US were very unhappy about the Jews getting kicked out of Government and were cashing up protests (US State documents show this), things were reasonably fine while the Ukraine Russians were running with the Euros, but the moment they announced preference for Russian trade, that's when it escalated. 5 minutes on the net, even Wiki will confirm all of that, sadly people won't spend 5 mins to research themselves, prefering to blindly follow what's in the Press. How many countries has America gone into screaming "We will give these people Democracy!" and yet here they orchestrated a war against a Democratically elected Government. 1 1
DrZoos Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Bex , I tried to understand foriegn policy for a long time...gave up as they all lie, run covert operations, propoganda, biased press etc...dont fool yourslef that 500 hours reading will get you any closer to the truth. there are simply to mang hidden ops and agendas and too much misinformation for the average punter to get remotely close It will undoubtably give you a better understanding of some issues, but the picture of whos right or wrong only becomes more blurred
Kiwi303 Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 I have Ukrainian friends on VK.com, the Russian language facebook clone. One lived just a block from Donetsk town hall in the early days of the fighting. It's not as simple as ousting a democratically elected government. Billions of dollars of public funds went missing into the private pockets of govt placeholders and other issues arose before the Maidan protests started. Also while the Pro-russian president and co were elected, it was on a platform of moderation, promising that despite his pro Russian view, he would recognise the mainly pro-euro general Ukrainian feelings and steer a neutral path. Instead he steered the country sharply towards Russia. The vast majority of Ukrainians are Pro Euro, the Pro Russia groups in the east are mainly Ethnic Russian themselves rather than ethnic Ukrainians, many resettled from Russia in the USSR days and renationalised as Ukrainians in 1991 due to their address, but russians in all else but name. The 1991 and onwards generation are pretty universially pro euro. Even in the russianised east, having grown up without the USSR history. 2
willedoo Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 The politics in Ukraine are quite complicated, to say the least. The simplest part of it was Crimea's reunification. Almost all of the population is Russian, and it was part of Russia until 1954 when Nikita Krushev (a Ukranian) gave it to Ukraine. That wasn't much of a problem when it was all the USSR. When the Union was disolved in 1991, people weren't all that happy to be under Ukraine's sole rule, but got on fairly peacefully. The problem started there with the coup in Kiev. All of a sudden, the government of the country was in chaos with the Banderists calling most of the shots. Knowing the historical hatred Right Sector has for ethnic Russians, the Crimean's were understandably worried. One of the first acts of the new government was to introduce a bill banning the use of Russian language in the entire country. That's when the Crimeans decided to give them the flick. A lot of Crimeans are alive today who wouldn't be if they'd stayed part of Ukraine. After the massacre by Right Sector thugs in Odessa, the ethnic Russians there are keeping their heads way down. The Crimeans were lucky that Russia had about 16,000 troops stationed there under the base lease agreement with Ukraine. In the Donbass, they weren't so lucky. They thought they'd jump on the bandwagon and Putin would back them for a Crimea type deal. That was in the too hard basket for Russia, so it didn't happen. The people of the Donbass were split into three camps. About a third wanted total independance, a third wanted to become part of Russia, and the other third wanted to remain part of Ukraine, but under a federal state system like ours, with some constitutional rights and semi autonomy. This last option has always been Putin's preferred option, but the Ukranian government wants no part of federation. Most of the coverage of the Ukraine conflict by our press has been BS, and that's still an understatment. With our press, it's not so much presenting lies that's the problem, more so omitting the truth. They never screen footage of the Azov Battalion and other Right Sector militias wearing swastikas on their helmets and uniforms, because the narrative is that they're the guys with the white hats. It's disgusting. The whole show's a mess. State prosecutors are talking about prosecuting the PM for corruption, the President's billions have doubled since the coup last year, and the privately owned Right Sector militias have been threatening to turn around and march on Kiev if the Government doesn't do what it's told. Australia's looking good, I recon. 2
eightyknots Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 The politics in Ukraine are quite complicated, to say the least.The simplest part of it was Crimea's reunification. Almost all of the population is Russian, and it was part of Russia until 1954 when Nikita Krushev (a Ukranian) gave it to Ukraine. That wasn't much of a problem when it was all the USSR. When the Union was disolved in 1991, people weren't all that happy to be under Ukraine's sole rule, but got on fairly peacefully. The problem started there with the coup in Kiev. All of a sudden, the government of the country was in chaos with the Banderists calling most of the shots. Knowing the historical hatred Right Sector has for ethnic Russians, the Crimean's were understandably worried. One of the first acts of the new government was to introduce a bill banning the use of Russian language in the entire country. That's when the Crimeans decided to give them the flick. A lot of Crimeans are alive today who wouldn't be if they'd stayed part of Ukraine. After the massacre by Right Sector thugs in Odessa, the ethnic Russians there are keeping their heads way down. The Crimeans were lucky that Russia had about 16,000 troops stationed there under the base lease agreement with Ukraine. In the Donbass, they weren't so lucky. They thought they'd jump on the bandwagon and Putin would back them for a Crimea type deal. That was in the too hard basket for Russia, so it didn't happen. The people of the Donbass were split into three camps. About a third wanted total independance, a third wanted to become part of Russia, and the other third wanted to remain part of Ukraine, but under a federal state system like ours, with some constitutional rights and semi autonomy. This last option has always been Putin's preferred option, but the Ukranian government wants no part of federation. Most of the coverage of the Ukraine conflict by our press has been BS, and that's still an understatment. With our press, it's not so much presenting lies that's the problem, more so omitting the truth. They never screen footage of the Azov Battalion and other Right Sector militias wearing swastikas on their helmets and uniforms, because the narrative is that they're the guys with the white hats. It's disgusting. The whole show's a mess. State prosecutors are talking about prosecuting the PM for corruption, the President's billions have doubled since the coup last year, and the privately owned Right Sector militias have been threatening to turn around and march on Kiev if the Government doesn't do what it's told. Australia's looking good, I recon. Remember, folks, that a democratically elected government was ousted after months and months of street demonstrations led by neo-Nazi thugs funded and encouraged by the Eurozone and the USA. So much for exporting and supporting democracy. When the powers-that-be want a so-called regime change, it will happen, democracy or not. In the case of Ukraine, the rabble of foreign funded, anti-democratic neo-Nazi groups won the day and members of the democratically elected government had to flee. Very little of this was reported in a balanced way by the Down Under media. 3
willedoo Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 Apparently the version of BUK from the fragments in the flight crews bodies indicated is was a very late version and thus "likely" to be actual Russian troops or very recently supplied by Pro-Russian Rebels . I have no idea about these models personally..but that sounds like something worth clinging to and going to war over... Reading the Australian paper today about the report, they say it was a BUK-1 with the old 9M38 missile. The Ukranian military has around seventy BUK-1's left over from the Soviet days. Russia has the BUK-1-2 and BUK-2, and claim they haven't had BUK-1's for a few years now. I was always under the impression that the BUK-1-2 could retro fire the BUK-1 missile, but not the other way around. The terminology has changed from 'Russian missile system' to 'Russian made missile system'. Ukraine doesn't have any missile launchers not made in Russia. The German Intelligence some time back said all their intel pointed to a Ukranian BUK being captured by Donbass rebels and used. I'm not sure on this point, but I always thought the old and new warheads had different pre-formed shrapnel and a different burst pattern. You would think ballistic testing could narrow things down a bit. Problem is, the world experts on these missiles, the corporation that makes them, Almaz Antey, has been offering their expertise for a long time now, and the investigators keep giving them the brush off. They blew up a 747 a few days ago to check their computer modelling, and are still claiming a different fragmentation than the one the Dutch investigators are claiming. 3
bexrbetter Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 Billions of dollars of public funds went missing into the private pockets of govt placeholders and other issues arose before the Maidan protests started. Oh for sure, started about 1990 with Ukraine's independence, at the end of the day, it all started then, besides the corruption and oppression of the people (oh the irony), they were completely incompetent at running Government themselves which is what even bought the Russians back into the fold. Also while the Pro-Russian president and co were elected, it was on a platform of moderation, promising that despite his pro Russian view, he would recognise the mainly pro-euro general Ukrainian feelings and steer a neutral path. Instead he steered the country sharply towards Russia. No "sharply" about it, you have your dates mixed up, those events were almost a year before Pro-Russian Poroshenko was clearly elected on a pro-Russian platform and "will clean up the Ukraine civil unrest", i.e. with Russian Forces assistance. This is a crux in the argument for the Russians are rightfully there, all the bullshit Western financed and trained (fact) protests that killed people yet the Ukraines voted even more strongly pro-Russia later that year (2014). And anyway, that can all be reconsidered at the next democratic election, it's not the USA or Europe's business to start a war over it. It doesn't matter how your Ukraine friends lay it out, Russia were rightfully there, Crimea even voted on it's own annexing, and it was the US and Germany etc that interjected that rightful passage. The Ukraine situation would have been no more than local, and yes violent, ongoing street protests that would have cost a few lives, now we have war killing 10 of thousands with no resolve. But the West will use the downing of one airliner, a sad tragedy to be sure, to try to point fingers and say how bad the Russians are, what *&^% hypocrisy. http://www.state.gov/p/eur/ace/c11609.htm http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/167380.htm http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/193725.htm http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/2013/212989.htm Note the nastiness creeping in in 2014 .. http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/2014/240772.htm Meh, upsetting stuff, enough for me.
DGL Fox Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 Come on guys there was one reason only why Russia annexed Crimea and it had nothing to do with whether the people there were Russian or Ukrainian, Putin doesn't give a toss about how the people are being treated or how they live or any other Russian for that matter with the exception of maybe a member of his party or his daughters and family....the black sea fleet is the only reason it was annexed, he could not let that fall under the power of a government that was being backed by the west....that's it... David 1
Nightmare Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 Well, my opinion: Why did Malaysia Airlines let their aircraft fly through the area knowing that 2 large aircraft were previously shot down with ground launched missiles, not long before MH17 was shot down? Why would any responsible airline authorize their airliners to fly in any active war zone? It would be so easy to just navigate around the area. 2
DrZoos Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 Why do they let them take girls and cigarettes in the cockpit?
PA. Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 Why do they let them take girls and cigarettes in the cockpit? Being a Muslin country taking boys into the cockpit would have the Moral Police after you. As far as the cigarettes go, they like to smoke after sex. :) 2
willedoo Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 No "sharply" about it, you have your dates mixed up, those events were almost a year before Pro-Russian Poroshenko was clearly elected on a pro-Russian platform and "will clean up the Ukraine civil unrest", i.e. with Russian Forces assistance. bexrbetter, I wouldn't call Poroshenko pro Russian, he's in in the presidency now, the one the US referred to as "a useful idiot"; Viktor Yanukovych is the ousted pro Russsian president. Cheers, Willie.
Riley Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 Being a Muslin country taking boys into the cockpit would have the Moral Police after you. As far as the cigarettes go, they like to smoke after sex. :) "Muslin" ??? Am I missing some hidden content here or is this simply a very mis-guided attempt at humour? In any manner of perception, with this un-educated and totally meaningless post PA I feel you've shot yourself in the foot. Just saying...... Riley
Ultralights Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 Well, my opinion: Why did Malaysia Airlines let their aircraft fly through the area knowing that 2 large aircraft were previously shot down with ground launched missiles, not long before MH17 was shot down? Why would any responsible airline authorize their airliners to fly in any active war zone? It would be so easy to just navigate around the area. probably for the same reasons every other airline flew the same route, Singapore, KLM, Air china, Asiana, the list goes on.. If the misslle was fired 5 mins later, it would have been a Singapore Airlines aircraft blow to pieces.. 4
willedoo Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 Back to the investigation - where does it go from here? It would be good to see a fair and balanced investigation into who were the perpertrators, but under what authority or umbrella would it be done, via the UN or unilaterally. We may never know who did it. Almaz Antey, the manufacturers, have done computer modelling based on photographs of the shrapnel damage to the plane and offered this to the investigators. Their data shows the trajectory coming from Government held territory, while the Dutch investigation concluded it originated from rebel held ground. If there's nothing to hide, why not allow Almaz Antey to present their findings so they can be examined. The US last year claimed they had satellite imagery showing where it was fired from and who fired it. They refuse to release it saying it's secret squirrel and would compromise their national security if they did so. Best case scenario would be to have a truly fair and independant inquiry which would look at all evidence and not cherry pick evidence to back up a pre-conceived conclusion, like a lynch gang. The Almaz Antey findings would unlikely be faked if they are prepared to present them to the world. That's not to say they're correct though, and they should be allowed to be up for scritiny. 1 1
willedoo Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 Come on guys there was one reason only why Russia annexed Crimea and it had nothing to do with whether the people there were Russian or Ukrainian, Putin doesn't give a toss about how the people are being treated or how they live or any other Russian for that matter with the exception of maybe a member of his party or his daughters and family....the black sea fleet is the only reason it was annexed, he could not let that fall under the power of a government that was being backed by the west....that's it...David I'd agree that was Putin's motivation. If the Crimean people wanted to remain part of Ukraine, he still would have taken it. He was lucky that the people wanted that as well - it saved him a few internal political problems. His motivation for doing so doesn't change the Crimean people's reason for wanting it. It was a rare win/win situation for Crimea and Russia.
Kiwi303 Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 A Significant fraction of the Crimea are EXTREMEMLY anti-russian. the Crimean Tartars. Treated by the USSR like cattle and diplaced out of their homeland to make room for russian settlers. The Tartars would not have voted for joining Russia, That would be like asking the Palestinians to vote to dissolve Palestine and become Isrelis, and yet Russia reported a 96% vote to join Russia? Then there is the population of Ukrainian speaking ethnic Ukrainians, do you think they would ALL vote to join russia? The referendum was rigged to a fare-thee-well.
eightyknots Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 Best case scenario would be to have a truly fair and independant inquiry which would look at all evidence and not cherry pick evidence to back up a pre-conceived conclusion, like a lynch gang. The Almaz Antey findings would unlikely be faked if they are prepared to present them to the world. That's not to say they're correct though, and they should be allowed to be up for scritiny. And herein lies the problem. Who will conduct such a truly fair and independent enquiry? ...An appointee of the Obama administration? ...someone from the European Union? ...someone from Malaysia? ...someone from Australia? In my opinion, there would be considerable bias before the investigation gets under way. My proposal, far fetched as it may sound, would be appoint a Common Law jurisdiction High Court or Supreme Court judge (perhaps one recently retired) who comes from a nation without any casualties. This would rule out an Australian judge. As far as I can see that would leave someone from Canada or New Zealand both nations who don't seem to jump whenever the USA says "jump". Nor is this from a predominantly Moslem who may lament the fact that Malaysia's national airline is now struggling to get customers and potentially heading for liquidation.
eightyknots Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 "Muslin" ??? Am I missing some hidden content here or is this simply a very mis-guided attempt at humour? In any manner of perception, with this un-educated and totally meaningless post PA I feel you've shot yourself in the foot. Just saying...... Riley Malaysia is a Muslim country through and through. Oh for sure, started about 1990 with Ukraine's independence, at the end of the day, it all started then, besides the corruption and oppression of the people (oh the irony), they were completely incompetent at running Government themselves which is what even bought the Russians back into the fold.No "sharply" about it, you have your dates mixed up, those events were almost a year before Pro-Russian Poroshenko was clearly elected on a pro-Russian platform and "will clean up the Ukraine civil unrest", i.e. with Russian Forces assistance. This is a crux in the argument for the Russians are rightfully there, all the ******** Western financed and trained (fact) protests that killed people yet the Ukraines voted even more strongly pro-Russia later that year (2014). And anyway, that can all be reconsidered at the next democratic election, it's not the USA or Europe's business to start a war over it. It doesn't matter how your Ukraine friends lay it out, Russia were rightfully there, Crimea even voted on it's own annexing, and it was the US and Germany etc that interjected that rightful passage. The Ukraine situation would have been no more than local, and yes violent, ongoing street protests that would have cost a few lives, now we have war killing 10 of thousands with no resolve. But the West will use the downing of one airliner, a sad tragedy to be sure, to try to point fingers and say how bad the Russians are, what *&^% hypocrisy. http://www.state.gov/p/eur/ace/c11609.htm http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/167380.htm http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/193725.htm http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/2013/212989.htm Note the nastiness creeping in in 2014 .. http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/2014/240772.htm Meh, upsetting stuff, enough for me. You've been reading these documents too! I am pretty concerned with the constant bias towards war-mongering and internal interference in other countries by the United States. This includes: • The U.S. government committed to provide equipment and training to Ukraine’s Armed Forces, State Border Guard Service, and National Guard to help Ukraine better monitor and secure its border, operate more safely and effectively, and preserve and enforce its territorial integrity. • This included body armor, vehicles, night and thermal vision devices, heavy engineering equipment, radios, patrol boats, rations, tents, counter-mortar radars, and other related items. • The United States also began to work with Ukraine to improve its capacity to provide for its own defense and set the stage for longer-term defense reform and cooperation. When will the world ever become a more peaceful place? *sigh*
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now