Boeing 777 shot down

Soldato
Joined
26 May 2009
Posts
22,100
So yes, Ukraine probably knew they had low altitude anti-air assets, however the higher altitude attacks only started 2-3 days before MH17 was hit, so if Ukraine knew they had a Buk it was not until later on, not during June like you are claiming.

He's right and wrong, it's true that high altitude shootdowns only started three days before MH-17 was shot down, however Ukraine did know the rebels had Buks back in June, because it was in June that the rebels captured Ukrainian Buks.
 
Permabanned
Joined
20 Nov 2011
Posts
3,816
Location
Cambridge/Chicago
Arek the sexy lady being disingenuous with the facts? I don't believe it :D

The available evidence suggests it was shot down by an Igla, not a Buk missile system:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...loodiest-day-missiles-bring-down-military-jet

Such a system only has a range of a few kilometres, there were also reports of it being shot by machine gun fire, so it was low altitude.

So yes, Ukraine probably knew they had low altitude anti-air assets, however the higher altitude attacks only started 2-3 days before MH17 was hit, so if Ukraine knew they had a Buk it was not until later on, not during June like you are claiming.

/url]

IL-76 shot down over Donetsk 14 June 2014, IL-76 is a transport aircraft that has ceiling of 45 000 feet. It is not said what it was shot with but its hardly a close air support plane.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 May 2009
Posts
22,100
The IL-76 shot down on 14 June 2014 was coming in to land at Lugansk thus making it an easy target for an Igla. The An-26 shot down on 14 July 2014 was cruising at 21,325ft meaning it was either shot down by a Buk or a Russian fighter jet, as Iglas cannot target planes at that altitude.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Jan 2004
Posts
10,185

I'm not sure what your point is? That you never actually stated it was flying at 45,000 feet? Correct, but you pointlessly mentioned it's maximum altitude. By stating it's maximum you are misleading people in to believing it might have been hit at that altitude, rather than posting the evidence that shows it wasn't even close to that altitude, it's disingenuous.

Ukraine did know the rebels had Buks back in June
Source?
 
Soldato
Joined
26 May 2009
Posts
22,100

The rest of the paragraph you partially quoted reads: "because it was in June that the rebels captured Ukrainian Buks.", so there's your answer.

Unless you think the Ukrainian government could have some of their Buks captured by the rebels, complain about it and still be oblivious to it? That's kinda beyond plausible deniability :p
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
20 Nov 2011
Posts
3,816
Location
Cambridge/Chicago

Fighters from the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) overran a Ukrainian army garrison on June 29 and claimed to have captured at least one such weapon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...laysia-Airlines-flight-on-Russian-border.html


DONETSK, June 29, /ITAR-TASS/. Self-defence forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic have taken control over a missile defence army unit equipped with Buk missile defence systems, the press service of the Donetsk People’s Republic told Itar-Tass on Sunday.
So far, no details are available about the number and condition of the missile systems taken over by the self-defence forces. The press service refused to comment.
The Buk missile defence system is a mobile medium-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) system designed to defend field troops and logistics installations against air threats in conditions of heavy electronic countermeasures and intense enemy fire.

http://tass.ru/en/world/738262

Article dated June 29, 2014, 19:30 UTC+3.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Posts
5,606
Location
UK
The rest of the paragraph you partially quoted reads: "because it was in June that the rebels captured Ukrainian Buks.", so there's your answer.

Unless you think the Ukrainian government could have some of their Buks captured by the rebels, complain about it and still be oblivious to it? That's kinda beyond plausible deniability :p

Theres also proof that the russians sent them on a convoy to ukraine, including the one that was seen in the area of the shooting, and then removed it afterwards, but you keep ignoring that.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 May 2009
Posts
22,100
Theres also proof that the russians sent them on a convoy to ukraine, including the one that was seen in the area of the shooting, and then removed it afterwards, but you keep ignoring that.

Firstly, assumptions and conjecture are not "proof", just because Buks were seen moving towards Ukraine during a military exercise doesn't mean they must have crossed into Ukraine. And just because a Buk was pictured in the east with a missing missile doesn't prove it was the one that shot down MH-17, it could just have likely been the one that shot down the AN-26 three days earlier (NB: I'm not saying the rebels didn't shoot it down or that Russia didn't help them cover it up, that's exactly what I think happened, I'm just separating facts from assumptions).

Secondly, i'm not, ignoring it, it's just not relevant to the subject currently being discussed which is if Ukraine knew in advance that flights over the warzone were in danger of being shot down.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Posts
5,606
Location
UK
Firstly, assumptions and conjecture are not "proof", just because Buks were seen moving towards Ukraine during a military exercise doesn't mean they must have crossed into Ukraine. And just because a Buk was pictured in the east with a missing missile doesn't prove it was the one that shot down MH-17, it could just have likely been the one that shot down the AN-26 three days earlier (NB: I'm not saying the rebels didn't shoot it down or that Russia didn't help them cover it up, that's exactly what I think happened, I'm just separating facts from assumptions).

Secondly, i'm not, ignoring it, it's just not relevant to the subject currently being discussed which is if Ukraine knew in advance that flights over the warzone were in danger of being shot down.

Well shall we just stop assuming everything else then? Especially as there was photographic evidence.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 May 2009
Posts
22,100
Well shall we just stop assuming everything else then? Especially as there was photographic evidence.

Theorizing and forming hypotheses is fine as long as you don't interchange them with the facts. I.E we know for a fact that Buks were seen moving towards Ukraine, we don't know if any crossed over. We know for a fact that one was seen moving from Ukraine into Russia and that Russia helped the rebels dispose of it, we don't know if it was the one that brought down MH-17 or the An-26. We know for fact that the rebels captured Buks from Ukraine forces, we don't know what they did with them. We know for fact that Buks were used to shoot down two planes three days apart, we don't know who pushed the buttons (even though it's not hard to guess, but that's a guess).
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Posts
5,606
Location
UK
well the one on a lorry driving from russia towards ukraine must also have had the same serial number painted on it as the one that appeared in ukraine a few days later then.

Massive coincidence ;)

Either way we'll never get the truth as Russia acts like a toddler when questioned on the world stage.

Even with cake on their hands, around their mouth and in their hair, they'll still cry and swear blind they didn't eat the cake.
 
Permabanned
Joined
20 Nov 2011
Posts
3,816
Location
Cambridge/Chicago
Either way we'll never get the truth as Russia acts like a toddler when questioned on the world stage.

Even with cake on their hands, around their mouth and in their hair, they'll still cry and swear blind they didn't eat the cake.

Well at least they dont create a big fat lie, refuse all evidence which suggests otherwise (UN actually visited the "sites of chemical weapons manufacture", and concluded that in those conditions even toilet paper couldn't be made days before invasion) You`d think this would have any influence... nop.

Dont get me wrong, what Russians are doing is not good by any means... But you cant just single them out as the "bad guys" Because from our stance and reputation in last 20 odd years of "Policing the world" we seem like a teacher who lashes out and shames a student who reads too slow... While we (the teacher) cant even read :eek:
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Posts
5,606
Location
UK
Well at least they dont create a big fat lie, refuse all evidence which suggests otherwise (UN actually visited the "sites of chemical weapons manufacture", and concluded that in those conditions even toilet paper couldn't be made days before invasion) You`d think this would have any influence... nop.

Dont get me wrong, what Russians are doing is not good by any means... But you cant just single them out as the "bad guys" Because from our stance and reputation in last 20 odd years of "Policing the world" we seem like a teacher who lashes out and shames a student who reads too slow... While we (the teacher) cant even read :eek:

Your first paragrapgh is just a direct contradiction of yourself, thats exactly what they do in every case.

Secondly, has it not already been recognised and agreed that it was the wrong decision?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...orbyn-apologise-iraq-war-behalf-labour-leader

Oh and the fact that we had an enquiry on it...

"This is an Inquiry by a committee of Privy Counsellors. It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country."

You think Russia is going to have any enquiries ever? Theyre still denying any involvement in ukraine and claiming syrian airstrikes are against ISIS when they are nowhere near.
 
Permabanned
Joined
20 Nov 2011
Posts
3,816
Location
Cambridge/Chicago
You think Russia is going to have any enquiries ever? Theyre still denying any involvement in ukraine and claiming syrian airstrikes are against ISIS when they are nowhere near.

How long did it take for the "inquiry" to happen? a year or less than a month after the event? Cause I dont know if you know, but Syria/Ukraine conflict haven't been around for long

Can you find me anything of the sort from the US? Because lets be realist, UK is small potatoes in the whole Iraq conflict and even if UK stops following around US like a puppy on every action, its hardly going to have influence...
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Jun 2004
Posts
26,684
Location
Deep England
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34538142

Excellent article on the ongoing Russian weirdness over the whole thing here. Very contradictory evidence provided by them

I note that the usual pro-Putin shills have given up trying to blame Ukrainian government troops for shooting down MH-17, they're still trying to pin the overall responsibility on Ukraine for not closing the airspace (which they should have) instead of the people who fired the missile.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 May 2009
Posts
22,100
I note that the usual pro-Putin shills have given up trying to blame Ukrainian government troops for shooting down MH-17

Firstly, not being anti Russian doesn't make people pro-Russian, just unbiased.

Secondly, I don't believe anyone ever tried to blame the Ukrainian forces, just pointed out they were just as likely suspects as the Rebels or Russia based on what was known at the time (which was just that it had probably been shot down by a Buk that was in the area at the time).


they're still trying to pin the overall responsibility on Ukraine for not closing the airspace (which they should have) instead of the people who fired the missile.

Nope, if you actually read the thread and/or the Dutch report you would see that the investigators themselves pinned partial responsibility on Ukraine for not closing the airspace (which they should have) in addition to whomever fired the missile. That is what was being discussed.

Or did you actually read before posting and your're calling the Dutch investigators pro-Putin shills?
 
Back
Top Bottom