Boeing 777 shot down

ubersonic · 21 Jul 2014 at 08:09

scorza said:
Of course it makes sense - take it back to Russia where it can't be examined and confirmed as the system that fired the missile that downed MH017. As long as you don't admit responsibility it seems that there'll always be plenty of gullible idiots who will pretend impartiality while defending Russia.

Why not simply destroy it?

Also I don't believe SAM launchers leave rifling marks on the rockets, so how could it possibly be "confirmed as the system that fired the missile that downed MH017"?

asim18 · 21 Jul 2014 at 08:14

ubersonic said:
Why not simply destroy it?

Exactly. Or at least dismantle it OR take it back in a plain closed-trailered 18-wheeler. Not in some obvious military green tarpaulin covering some obvious missiles on the back of an obviously military truck.

What they "apparently" did is is like walking home with a bloody knife in your hand after a murder.

scorza · 21 Jul 2014 at 08:15

asim18 said:
So the fact that it cant be confirmed as the system that fired the missile means it was the system that fired the missile? I think you're the gullible one.

How on earth did you manage to interpret that from my post?

ubersonic said:
Why not simply destroy it?

Who says it's not going to end up destroyed? Problem is even if it's destroyed there's still evidence unless you're careful, and it's easier to be careful on a Russian military base than it is in a field in Ukraine.

MoRT489 · 21 Jul 2014 at 08:17

OptimaLnrg said:
I was referring to any shrapnel in the bodies.

If I was them (and they had shot it down with the buk as seems likely), I'd remove any buk missile fragments from the bodies, insert fragments from air-to-air missiles used by the ukrainian airforce, then claim conspiracy.

You have a very overactive imagination! Can you even guess how long that would take, how many doctors it would take to do it effectively, not to mention how they would explain all the bodies temporarily going missing and postmortem surgical marks...

Arthur Hucksake said:
If this had happened anywhere else in the World, anywhere.... NATO and team America would be in there in an instant

Dream on NATO is far too weak and indecisive to do that and America has no interest in Ukraine other than using it as a propaganda tool to bash Russia for Obama's approval ratings and the long term goal to make sure it never gets nukes.

Tefal said:
im sure you think this is because all the western media is part of some conspiracy but its more that it is of no interest to the people who buy their articles.

Not a conspiracy but hugely biased against Russia and fail readers lap it up.

asim18 · 21 Jul 2014 at 08:18

scorza said:
How on earth did you manage to interpret that from my post?

So you don't think it was Putin?

Good.

scorza · 21 Jul 2014 at 08:20

asim18 said:
So you don't think it was Putin?

Good.

LOL - that amazing creative interpretation of my post.

asim18 · 21 Jul 2014 at 08:29

scorza said:
LOL - that amazing creative interpretation of my post.

I think you didn't understand what I'm trying to say.

I'm saying why make it so obvious that you're taking it back to russia. I'm not saying it's not a good idea to take it back if they did do it. There are just more covert ways rather than "Oh hey I'm taking the murder weapon home look at me, take pics of me, share em etc.. I've covered it under some cheap tarpaulin but that's just so you know it's a BUK and it's also green so you know it's millitary".

ubersonic · 21 Jul 2014 at 08:41

scorza said:
Who says it's not going to end up destroyed? Problem is even if it's destroyed there's still evidence unless you're careful, and it's easier to be careful on a Russian military base than it is in a field in Ukraine.

Well if they were going to destroy it would it not be much easier to simply have the rebels blow it up? (and a lot more practical/less risky then taking it to Russia) Then claim it was destroyed by Kiev forces (or that it was a Kiev one they destroyed, or whatever). After all the rebels have more than one and just because a couple of missiles are missing doesn't prove it shot down MH17 just that it fired at a plane (and a number of those have been shot down in recent weeks).

scorza · 21 Jul 2014 at 08:42

asim18 said:
I think you didn't understand what I'm trying to say.

I'm saying why make it so obvious that you're taking it back to russia. I'm not saying it's not a good idea to take it back if they did do it. There are just more covert ways rather than "Oh hey I'm taking the murder weapon home look at me, take pics of me, share em etc.. I've covered it under some cheap tarpaulin but you know it's a BUK".

No I understand what you're trying to say and do perfectly.

So let's look at the option of dismantling it - how long does that take in the field? hours? days? I'm guessing that as the Buk is a self-propelled system it's not designed to be easily dismantled. In the days of smart phones it's probably going to look suspicious if hours after MH017 was blown out of the sky, you're filmed dismantling a SAM missile system with the capability to do just that.

scorza · 21 Jul 2014 at 08:46

ubersonic said:
Well if they were going to destroy it would it not be much easier to simply have the rebels blow it up? (and a lot more practical/less risky then taking it to Russia) Then claim it was destroyed by Kiev forces (or that it was a Kiev one they destroyed, or whatever). After all the rebels have more than one and just because a couple of missiles are missing doesn't prove it shot down MH17 just that it fired at a plane (and a number of those have been shot down in recent weeks).

Blow it up with what? Even a big enough explosion is going to leave plenty of debris around that'll identify it as a Buk system, and it'll be in an area controlled by pro-Russian rebels, and it'll be within range of the MH017 flight path. If they were going to frame Ukrainian forces they'd have to drive it to an area controlled by the Ukrainians and then blow it up, which I'm sure you'll appreciate is considerably more risky than taking it back to Russia then denying you ever had it and rely on your gullible idiots to propagate the conspiracy theories.

asim18 · 21 Jul 2014 at 08:53

scorza said:
No I understand what you're trying to say and do perfectly.

So let's look at the option of dismantling it - how long does that take in the field? hours? days? I'm guessing that as the Buk is a self-propelled system it's not designed to be easily dismantled. In the days of smart phones it's probably going to look suspicious if hours after MH017 was blown out of the sky, you're filmed dismantling a SAM missile system with the capability to do just that.

You're not looking at this from a neutral perspective. Yes it looks suspicious if you're dismantling it where it fired from obviously. But taking it back to Russia so blatantly is also suspicious.

ubersonic · 21 Jul 2014 at 08:55

scorza said:
Blow it up with what? Even a big enough explosion is going to leave plenty of debris around that'll identify it as a Buk system, and it'll be in an area controlled by pro-Russian rebels, and it'll be within range of the MH017 flight path. If they were going to frame Ukrainian forces they'd have to drive it to an area controlled by the Ukrainians and then blow it up, which I'm sure you'll appreciate is considerably more risky than taking it back to Russia then denying you ever had it and rely on your gullible idiots to propagate the conspiracy theories.

Who cares if it's identifiable as a Buk though, they have a number of them and any evidence of it being the one that fired the missile would be lost, the would be no way of knowing which one fired, separatist or loyalist. Surely getting rid of the evidence would be much better than driving it all the way to Russia for all to see?

scorza · 21 Jul 2014 at 09:05

asim18 said:
You're not looking at this from a neutral perspective. Yes it looks suspicious if you're dismantling it where it fired from obviously. But taking it back to Russia so blatantly is also suspicious.

ubersonic said:
Who cares if it's identifiable as a Buk though, they have a number of them and any evidence of it being the one that fired the missile would be lost, the would be no way of knowing which one fired, separatist or loyalist. Surely getting rid of the evidence would be much better than driving it all the way to Russia for all to see?

I think the point is that whatever they do is going to be suspicious, because they did it! I don't find it inconceivable that whoever is in charge of the pro-Russian rebels decided that the least worst option was to get the Buk system back to Russia where access to it can be controlled. It's certainly no worse than any of the other options on offer.

Brookert · 21 Jul 2014 at 09:09

If you take one step back further, why is a buk being transported over the border at all, let alone the supposed guilty vehicle. To those saying why transport it on an open trailer, it's too large to fit in a container.

koolpc · 21 Jul 2014 at 09:29

I dont think we will ever know the full true story

ubersonic · 21 Jul 2014 at 09:42

koolpc said:
I dont think we will ever know the full true story

Considering it can take a year or more to complete a proper investigation when a plane comes down due to mechanical failure, I think it's a bit premature to say that.

At the time I'm sure people thought we would never know the full story of Iran Air Flight 655 (Iran plane shot down by US navy), Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (Korean Airliner shot down by USSR, ruled pilot error) or Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870 (Italian plane destroyed by a bomb but originally believed to have been shot down). But in all those cases the truth won out in the end (The last one is a bit dubious as Italy still refuse to believe the investigation's conclusions, as their stupid).

koolpc · 21 Jul 2014 at 09:46

ubersonic said:
Considering it can take a year or more to complete a proper investigation when a plane comes down due to mechanical failure, I think it's a bit premature to say that.

At the time I'm sure people thought we would never know the full story of Iran Air Flight 655 (Iran plane shot down by US navy), Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (Korean Airliner shot down by USSR, ruled pilot error) or Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870 (Italian plane destroyed by a bomb but originally believed to have been shot down). But in all those cases the truth won out in the end (The last one is a bit dubious as Italy still refuse to believe the investigation's conclusions, as their stupid).

We are talking about an incident that happened in a war zone in Ukraine where the Russian are involved! I still say we will probably never know the full story!

The Funktopus · 21 Jul 2014 at 10:00

Regarding the apparent decision to get the BUK system out of Ukraine in the immediate aftermath of the MH17 shoot down ; perhaps the operators of the system and their immediate leadership's decision making process was being influenced by a certain measure of panic, and they simply weren't thinking straight?

People are sat here, now, picking apart decisions with the benefit of hindsight, and without the weight of trying to cope with what must be the truly horrible realisation that your actions may well have just killed nearly 300 innocent people, with the potential to open a veritable Pandora's box of consequences for your own side.

Brookert · 21 Jul 2014 at 10:15

The Funktopus said:
Regarding the apparent decision to get the BUK system out of Ukraine in the immediate aftermath of the MH17 shoot down ; perhaps the operators of the system and their immediate leadership's decision making process was being influenced by a certain measure of panic, and they simply weren't thinking straight?

People are sat here, now, picking apart decisions with the benefit of hindsight, and without the weight of trying to cope with what must be the truly horrible realisation that your actions may well have just killed nearly 300 innocent people, with the potential to open a veritable Pandora's box of consequences for your own side.

I don't think you quite understand my point. The missile system being moved from Ukraine to Russia is evidence in itself that Russia has involvement with these rebels as far as armament is concerned, something of which they deny. Although they could claim it was a Ukrainian buk I suppose, but Russia are still complicit in whatever these rebels are doing.

ubersonic · 21 Jul 2014 at 10:19

Brookert said:
I don't think you quite understand my point. The missile system being moved from Ukraine to Russia is evidence in itself that Russia has involvement with these rebels as far as armament is concerned, something of which they deny. Although they could claim it was a Ukrainian buk I suppose, but Russia are still complicit in whatever these rebels are doing.

So your saying that it being moved is proof that Russia gave it to them, however it could also be one of the Ukrainian ones they captured?