Boeing 777 shot down
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
It's deeply worrying. I imagine the vast majority of the population accepts media drivel without ever challenging it. I don't mean standing up like the Scot in Question Time the other week, but just asking themselves what might or might not seem rational.
I sometimes wonder if our leaders and the media think further ahead to potential consequences in terms of world stability. They really are whipping up a hatred for Russia.
Listening to DCs threats to impose greater sanctions on Russia and attempting to get the rest of Europe onboard is slightly embarrassing and bordering on cringeworthy.
Personally I'd prefer to hear less of the words 'likely' or 'possibly' when so called intelligence is quoted to bear weight on anti-Russia arguments.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 31
Black box will be in fine condition, its stored in the tail which there is a picture of it online and the tail looks like the most survived peice
Couldn't agree more. And it is deeply worrying, yes. Regardless of Russia's faults, we have our own, and people like DC are acting so high and mighty. It sounds like the prelude to war, or the mentality of a bully (that will then be startled when someone hits them back).
I always like when the Russians use the term "our American (or European) PARTNERS", in response to all sorts of ultimatums and general "talking down to them" carried out by American and European leaders. As it's a subtle reminder that all nations should be treated as equals, and they (US/EU) are acting like the masters of the universe.
Sadly in this world do we rarely get to deal with certainties. You look at events holistically an inclusively and then make a judgement based on the identified risks. If you wait for certainty, you've missed your opportunity.
yea and this seems a bit of a coincidence
Just jumping on the anti russian band wagon in a bid to stop all of the talk about paedo parliment and DRIP, this plane coming down must seem like a god sent to the conservatives after the ukip beating they took
Last edited:
Erm... No...
I am saying the US needs to actually provide this evidence they say they have, especially when a reasonable amount appears to be based on social media. Russia are pumping out propaganda, true, but the US is pumping out political rhetoric without any evidence to back it up. I don't believe Russian news but I also take with a significant amount of scepticism US and Ukrainian government press releases. Actual evidence is king.
Edit: Let's get this clear, the evidence available points towards the rebels shooting it down by mistake. I don't however adhere to the retoric that is coming out of the US at the moment, it's all political.
Last edited:
Doesn't that mean that Russia should treat former Soviet states like Ukraine and Georgia as equals and not talk down to them, or invade them?
It is you who doesn't think ahead. Did you ever consider how many people had to die in the 20th century to achieve peace in Europe, probably for the first time in history? Would it have been so bad for Ukraine to get close to the EU and at some point join the other rest of the free, democratic countries in it? According to Putin, yes, so he takes a part of the country and plants a rebellion in the another part.
Instead of worrying about ending this seemingly never ending financial crysis or the slaughter in Palestine the leaders have to worry about Russia annexing parts of Europe and its drunktards taking down civilian planes. Hatred is a normal responce, the Russian leaders are threatening decades of hard work with their obsolete, dangerous views.
Agreed, with the note that political rhetoric shouldn't be surprising, the US never forgets what its interests are.
Last edited:
Obama, Chicago on October 2, 2002: "I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars." He also spoke of the "undetermined length... undetermined cost, undetermined consequences" which even a successful war would bring.
Don't confuse that monkey Bush with Obama. He didn't invade Iraq, he didn't invade Syria or anyone else for that matter.
And there in lies my problem. The US (and UK government, and several of the usual suspects on this forum) are jumping on this as a point scoring exercise and don't appear to care what the evidence actually says. Jump in quick and jump in hard, bugger actually looking at the evidence, come to a reasonable conclusion and try to come to an agreement with all parties.
It happened most notably with the Iraq war as mentioned (and close on a million died, with the repercussions still becoming known now), it happened with the beginning of this problem (the protests and quick election backed by the west that caused much of the dissent in the first place) and it sounds like it is ramping up again with this. Truth and the little people matter diddly squat, as seen by the complete lack of any proper investigation or arrests on behalf of the 100 Iranians killed by the US blowing airliners out of the sky (and the Ukraine for that matter), as long as the interests of the US are served.
The fact that the US isn't signed up to the ICC just helps show their true colours.
Russia are just as bad, don't get me wrong. That doesn't mean we should lower ourselves to that level.
Last edited:
Undetermined consequences like Libya being much worse now than before we got involved?
Not sure Iraq and Libya are in the same league. However I do understand what you are saying.
Libya would be the same now regardless of who got involved.
Northern Africa / Middle East want their moment in the sun. Let them have it. West needs to stay clear. However countries having certain interests always complicate matters, I just view the Northern Africa / Middle East as a lost cause.
Back on topic and this whole Russian / Ukraine thing is a total different story. Russia needs to be put on a leash, or knocked back to the stone ages.
Undetermined consequences like Libya being much worse now than before we got involved?
Is it? While Lybia isn't in great shape at the moment, there is no war, no factions going to neighbouring countries to start caliphates, no cities/ancient sites getting wiped out. The no. of casualties in Lybia since 2011 is in the thousands, the no. of casualties in Syria is in the hundreds of thousands.
Had NATO not intervened, estimations such as this one would have probably come true:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/libya-conf...es-questions-about-what-truly-happened-237895
I dont see how not doing anything in Syria is a plus. I dont think there was ever any question of putting boots on the ground, but reducing Assads war machine to smouldering ruins would have punished the use of WMDs, given the moderate rebels a much needed boost, knocked back the groups that now make up ISIS, shown that the west was willing to intervene in a war that didnt involve oil and saved tens of thousands of civilians from Assads indiscriminate murder. Not a plus in my book.
No, without us winning the war for the rebels they would have been wiped out by government forces. Things would never have got as bad as they did and today it would be as it was before the uprising.
The is war, without Gadaffi Libya descended into tribal warfare, just a month or so ago the "official" government we put in place were threatening to blow up an oil tanker because it had docked at a port in a part of the country controlled by a rival tribal faction.
And the reason no cities are under threat of being wiped out (not that any were before, that was just media spin) is because after deposing Gadaffi and taking over the rebels then quietly dealt with those who had remained loyal, an entire village was turned into a ghost town and Gadaffi's Amazonian guard were all executed (well, unless you consider being raped and beaten for days until you die to be murder).