Malaysian airline crash

[dingodan]

nice selective quote, missing the context. i was not applying that reasoning carte blanche, it was related directly to the example in hand. pray tell what motive you think there is for a rebel commander to claim the shooting down of a plane when they have not done so. or are you going to dismiss the claims as having never occurred (despite the evidence)?

or will you post a youtube clip of something vaguely related to the topic.

There is one claim of having shot down a plane in the audio, and that plane in unidentified throughout that portion of the audio.

When the audio moves on to the crash site, which is clearly MH17, the Rebels do appear to be suggesting that they shot down the plane. But nowhere in any of these parts of the recording is a first hand admission, rather they seem to believe that they shot down the plane.

As has been said quite a few times already, Ukraine has no legitimate reason to fire on aircraft, as the Rebels don't have any aircraft. If Rebels see's a plane shot down, their likely assumption would be that it was one of their own that would have done it, at least at first.

Here is a hypothetical. Some drunk Ukrainian solders, angry at the loss of their fellow comrades in recent attacks by Rebels, decide to fire upon a Civilian plane to try to draw NATO into the conflict. I'm not talking about a grand conspiracy, I'm talking about a very misguided, heat of the moment, ill thought out strategy to beat the Rebels. IF that were to happen (and I am not saying it did), you could end up with the exact same audio, through confusion rather than complicity.

The U.S. do have that audio, and they also have said that they have no proof that it was Russia, but by saying that what they managed to avoid saying is that they have no proof that it was the Rebels.

The U.S. also have very high res satellites, this was an area they would have been monitoring heavily given ongoing activity (so they could provide intel to the Ukrainians).

It was daylight too.

I am sure the U.S. will be able to furnish us with images to show either way who was responsible, I guess we will just have to wait for that.

 

[Creaky]

You don't see a difference between military intervention to protect the crash site and military intervention due to the crash?

There is only a difference in the declared purpose - military intervention in either case would mean putting troops on the ground.

 

[martyn20]

There is only a difference in the declared purpose - military intervention in either case would mean putting troops on the ground.

2 totally different things, one means standing guarding are certain area, the other means attacking another force as retaliation for an certain incident. If you can't see that........

 

[beorhthelm]

There is one claim of having shot down a plane in the audio, and that plane in unidentified throughout that portion of the audio.

why do you focus on the audio, when there were numerous postings on forums, twitter and crucially Russian news media with the same story, before the audio came to light. there was a rebel commander directly claiming "another cargo plane" shot down in one source (tweet?), which also gives us the fact that they had been actively firing upon planes in the preceding weeks.

but you're going to go with "drunk Ukrainian soldier" instead

 

[dingodan]

why do you focus on the audio, when there were numerous postings on forums, twitter and crucially Russian news media with the same story, before the audio came to light. there was a rebel commander directly claiming "another cargo plane" shot down in one source (tweet?), which also gives us the fact that they had been actively firing upon planes in the preceding weeks.

but you're going to go with "drunk Ukrainian soldier" instead

What I said about the audio applies to social media too. & Social media is not the most reliable source of information during a propaganda war either.

I didn't say I go with the "drunk Ukrainian soldier", I offered you a hypothetical which could place the audio in a different light. I said I was not saying that's what happened.

And I used the hypothesis of a "drunk Ukrainian soldier" only because the journalist I cited had quoted his source as saying that that's who the U.S. believed it may have been (due to the proximity of cans/bottles).

 

[Leighgull]

There is one claim of having shot down a plane in the audio, and that plane in unidentified throughout that portion of the audio.

When the audio moves on to the crash site, which is clearly MH17, the Rebels do appear to be suggesting that they shot down the plane. But nowhere in any of these parts of the recording is a first hand admission, rather they seem to believe that they shot down the plane.

As has been said quite a few times already, Ukraine has no legitimate reason to fire on aircraft, as the Rebels don't have any aircraft. If Rebels see's a plane shot down, their likely assumption would be that it was one of their own that would have done it, at least at first.

Here is a hypothetical. Some drunk Ukrainian solders, angry at the loss of their fellow comrades in recent attacks by Rebels, decide to fire upon a Civilian plane to try to draw NATO into the conflict. I'm not talking about a grand conspiracy, I'm talking about a very misguided, heat of the moment, ill thought out strategy to beat the Rebels. IF that were to happen (and I am not saying it did), you could end up with the exact same audio, through confusion rather than complicity.

The U.S. do have that audio, and they also have said that they have no proof that it was Russia, but by saying that what they managed to avoid saying is that they have no proof that it was the Rebels.

The U.S. also have very high res satellites, this was an area they would have been monitoring heavily given ongoing activity (so they could provide intel to the Ukrainians).

It was daylight too.

I am sure the U.S. will be able to furnish us with images to show either way who was responsible, I guess we will just have to wait for that.

That scenario is highly unlikely. It is far more likely that rebels armed with soviet anti aircraft missiles fired on what they thought was a government aircraft.

They had already downed 2 military aircraft that week and a helicopter or two before then. The fact MH17 was at 33,000 feet makes it clear this was an attack carried out with large anti aircraft missiles (obviously of Russian origin) and the militias crowing about it makes it highly likely it was them.

 

[Buzzer]

What I said about the audio applies to social media too. & Social media is not the most reliable source of information during a propaganda war either.

I didn't say I go with the "drunk Ukrainian soldier", I offered you a hypothetical which could place the audio in a different light. I said I was not saying that's what happened.

And I used the hypothesis of a "drunk Ukrainian soldier" only because the journalist I cited had quoted his source as saying that that's who the U.S. believed it may have been (due to the proximity of cans/bottles).

You really, really want this to be a Western conspiracy, don't you? All this guff of playing devil's advocate is one big deceit.

 

[dingodan]

That scenario is highly unlikely. It is far more likely that rebels armed with soviet anti aircraft missiles fired on what they thought was a government aircraft.

They had already downed 2 military aircraft that week and a helicopter or two before then. The fact MH17 was at 33,000 feet makes it clear this was an attack carried out with large anti aircraft missiles (obviously of Russian origin) and the militias crowing about it makes it highly likely it was them.

Definitely of Russian origin. All the AA weapons the rebels have, and all of the AA weapons Ukraine has, are Russian made - The origin of the weapon has no probative value here.

I agree with you in terms of what sounds/seems likely and what doesn't. But Likely never proved anything, only facts do.

The fact they shot down another plane, and the fact they celebrated this plane being shot down, isn't evidence that they shot this plane down.

In the court of public opinion, you will win hands down every time. But that says nothing about the quality of the evidence you are relying on, in a court of law that case is actually pretty weak.

What is true is far more important than what seems true. They are not always the same, and during a set of circumstances like this, well I think you'd have to be a fool to just "go with your gut" about this, all things considered.

 

[Buzzer]

What is true is far more important than what seems true..

Not in your eyes. What you want to be true is more important than anything else.

 

[dingodan]

You really, really want this to be a Western conspiracy, don't you? All this guff of playing devil's advocate is one big deceit.

I don't like seeing my fellow countrymen mislead, that's all.

 

[peterward]

Seeing reports on twitter that the 2 Ukrainian jets shot down today may have been hit by missiles fired from INSIDE Russia @PzFeed

yep http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/two-ukrainian-su-25-shot-down-by-missiles-launched-from-russia-357590.html

and not the first time, it is alleged to have happened the day before mh17 on 16th http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/16/russia_is_firing_missiles_at_ukraine_grad_rockets_us_sanctions

 

[martyn20]

Definitely of Russian origin. All the AA weapons the rebels have, and all of the AA weapons Ukraine has, are Russian made - The origin of the weapon has no probative value here.

I agree with you in terms of what sounds/seems likely and what doesn't. But Likely never proved anything, only facts do.

The fact they shot down another plane, and the fact they celebrated this plane being shot down, isn't evidence that they shot this plane down.

In the court of public opinion, you will win hands down every time. But that says nothing about the quality of the evidence you are relying on, in a court of law that case is actually pretty weak.

What is true is far more important than what seems true. They are not always the same, and during a set of circumstances like this, well I think you'd have to be a fool to just "go with your gut" about this, all things considered.

The origin of the weapons is vitally important. They were moved from Russia very recently and are probably back in Russia right now, either used by Ukrainians trained by Russia or by Russians themselves recently arrived in Ukraine.
Seems today they did missed out the middle bit and fired the weapons straight from Russia, saves all that travelling I guess.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Here is a hypothetical. Some drunk Ukrainian solders, angry at the loss of their fellow comrades in recent attacks by Rebels, decide to fire upon a Civilian plane to try to draw NATO into the conflict.

Indeed.

Furthermore, and this is just a theoretical - I'm not saying this DID happen - what if Lionel Blair, angry and upset about the arrest and imprisonment of his 70's television personality chums, on child sex-abuse charges, and fearful of more of his pals getting caught up with, shot down the plane, in order to deflect the attention of the world's media and law-enforcement agencies away from such areas of investigation?

 

[martyn20]

yep http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/two-ukrainian-su-25-shot-down-by-missiles-launched-from-russia-357590.html

and not the first time, it is alleged to have happened the day before mh17 on 16th http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/16/russia_is_firing_missiles_at_ukraine_grad_rockets_us_sanctions

So how can Putin say he and his forces are not involved with what's happening in Ukraine?

 

[Buzzer]

I don't like seeing my fellow countrymen mislead, that's all.

And to that end you persist in trying to pick holes in the overwhelming evidence that points to Russian involvement and you clutch at any straw, giving the benefit of the doubt to the flimsiest of evidence presented by the most dubious of people. You dismiss independent Western press as propaganda yet KGB-controlled media gets quoted again and again. Shame on you, pretending that there's some philanthropic purpose to all this.

 

[dingodan]

Indeed.

Furthermore, and this is just a theoretical - I'm not saying this DID happen - what if Lionel Blair, angry and upset about the arrest and imprisonment of his 70's television personality chums, on child sex-abuse charges, and fearful of more of his pals getting caught up with, shot down the plane, in order to deflect the attention of the world's media and law-enforcement agencies away from such areas of investigation?

Are you saying that my hypothetical & your hypothetical are equally plausable?

 

[peterward]

I don't like seeing my fellow countrymen mislead, that's all.

In the case of MH17 the only ones being misled are those that pedal the "anyone/anything but russia" theories in the face of numerous sources of evidence, seems to be nothing they can offer to a fellow countryman in return except theories, prejudices and comparisons. Not one jot of anything bearing evidence that points to anything other than the obvious conclusion

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Are you saying that my hypothetical & your hypothetical are equally plausable?

We could round them both down to zero, yes.

 

[applecrumble]

Indeed.

Furthermore, and this is just a theoretical - I'm not saying this DID happen - what if Lionel Blair, angry and upset about the arrest and imprisonment of his 70's television personality chums, on child sex-abuse charges, and fearful of more of his pals getting caught up with, shot down the plane, in order to deflect the attention of the world's media and law-enforcement agencies away from such areas of investigation?

Someone always has to bring it back to the pedophiles!

 

[dingodan]

And to that end you persist in trying to pick holes in the overwhelming evidence that points to Russian involvement and you clutch at any straw, giving the benefit of the doubt to the flimsiest of evidence presented by the most dubious of people.

Overwhelming evidence vs flimsiest evidence.

Whats the flimsy evidence I give the benefit of the doubt to? Who are the dubious people?

My main sources have been from renowned investigative journalists, one of whom broke the Iran Contra story.

What's so overwhelming about the evidence that points to Russian involvement. The U.S. has stopped short of saying they have any evidence Russia was involved, where did you get yours?