ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

[RoboCod]

To clarify further, the part you're referencing is this bit (I assume as it's the only part related to the topic):

​

The reason there is no source cited and it says "is likely to have" is because the author wishes to make it clear it's merely his opinion. Short of the US declassifying it's intel there's no way we can know if any of this is correct, but it's irrelevant as it doesn't actually support your claim anyway. It says the missile was Russian made not that it was fired by Russia (which is technically incorrect too as the author is using Russian made as a drop in replacement for Soviet made, and that's not how it works).

So while your conspiracy of Russia shooting it down is quite enticing, as you have nothing to support it but your gut I will opt to stick with the known facts/official story. That it was Ukraine pro-Russian rebels who shot it down and that Russia helped them make the evidence disappear.

Sorry, you're wrong

 

[StriderX]

If he's wrong, then why would Russia shoot down a civilian aircraft over a warzone they want keep under as much suspicion as possible?

 

[Sankari]

we killed Saddam's successors?

We killed his immediate successors. Potential successors (also in his family line) were helpfully murdered by Saddam himself. Here they all are, in no particular order

* Ezzat Ibrahim al-Douri
* Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti
* Uday Hussein
* Qusay Hussein
* Hussein Kamel al-Majid
* Saddam Kamel al-Majid

I'm sure there were more.

 

[RoboCod]

If he's wrong, then why would Russia shoot down a civilian aircraft over a warzone they want keep under as much suspicion as possible?

Exactly, why?

Why do men in power do anything that they do? More so, why do dictators in particular? And why do they cling on like they do? Power and greed, like any other is why. That and ego.

You seem to be applying rationale and "good guy" status to Russia, when on the other hand you think it's preposterous that people should do the same with regards the US.

 

[ubersonic]

Sorry, you're wrong

So basically, your line of argument is: "The facts/official story are wrong, I'm party to super secret intelligence that not even the crash investigators were allowed to see so I know the truth, and nobody can prove me wrong because you're not allowed to see my super secret intelligence"?

Well, okay then lol.

 

[Rroff]

Surprised by the Russian claims for shooting down the missiles:

• Pantsir-S1: 25 missiles fired, 23 hits scored.
• Buk-M2: 29 missiles fired, 24 hits scored.
• Kub: 21 missiles fired, 11 hits scored.
• Strela-10: 5 missiles fired, 3 hits scored.
• Osa: 11 missiles fired, 5 hits scored.
• S-125: 13 missiles fired, 5 hits scored.
• S-200: 8 missiles fired, 0 hits scored.

Granted the S-200 is optimal against medium altitude bomber like targets but it is fairly capable of engaging at long range, medium speed, targets even at lower altitudes though might have struggled with the size of the targets - maybe they didn't have the radar/data integration needed. I thought the newer US and so on cruise missiles were supposed to have better resilience against stuff like the Buk (Tomahawks for instance were designed to fly into heavily defended airspace with good resilience against ~70-80s generation defences).

 

[StriderX]

Exactly, why?



You seem to be applying rationale and "good guy" status to Russia, when on the other hand you think it's preposterous that people should do the same with regards the US.

Good guy? no.

Rational actor? Attempting to see that. Shooting down a bunch of Dutch civilians for little reason doesn't sound rational at all.

 

[dowie]

If he's wrong, then why would Russia shoot down a civilian aircraft over a warzone they want keep under as much suspicion as possible?

quite possibly human error, they'll still want to cover it up

 

[StriderX]

quite possibly human error, they'll still want to cover it up

Well yeah, by the "rebels" as it were. If the Mercs in Syria are anything to go by, they dont seem to be very smart.

Covering it up doesn't scream to me that Putin did it on purpose, he just didn't want anymore problems from it than it had already caused, that's rational in my view.

 

[dowie]

Well yeah, by the "rebels" as it were. If the Mercs in Syria are anything to go by, they dont seem to be very smart.

But in this case "rebels" = Russian soldiers using Russian equipment who are there unofficially... unless you want to continue with the rather less probable idea of one of the rag tag bunch of locally recruited militia groups just happening to be a trained artillery soldier specialising in air defence.

 

[Rroff]

But in this case "rebels" = Russian soldiers using Russian equipment who are there unofficially... unless you want to continue with the rather less probable idea of one of the rag tag bunch of locally recruited militia groups just happening to be a trained artillery soldier specialising in air defence.

That is probably a bit generalising - people have a vast range of skills and experiences.

 

[IronWarrior]

But in this case "rebels" = Russian soldiers using Russian equipment who are there unofficially... unless you want to continue with the rather less probable idea of one of the rag tag bunch of locally recruited militia groups just happening to be a trained artillery soldier specialising in air defence.

Everything over there is Russian equipment.

Also, Ukraine had military conscription all the way up too 2013, one year before Flight 17 shot down, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the male population are trained in military equipment, that could include the BUK M1 system if they did their service in an air-defence unit.

So it's possible that someone from the Ukraine side could had shot it down by mistake thinking it was a Russian plane.

Not saying that I believe that, just saying it's possible.

Whatever happened, it just proves that you shouldn't fly over war-zones that a lot of airliners still do, height isn't protection.

 

[Dis86]

Everything over there is Russian equipment.

Also, Ukraine had military conscription all the way up too 2013, one year before Flight 17 shot down, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the male population are trained in military equipment, including the BUK AA platform.

So it's possible that someone from the Ukraine side could had shot it down by mistake thinking it was a Russian plane.

Not saying that I believe that, just saying it's possible.

You're missing 3 salient points though. The Ukrainian military didn't have any BUK systems. The missile was fired from territory that was held the Russian supporting side. The plane was flying from the southwest.

 

[IronWarrior]

You're missing 3 salient points though. The Ukrainian military didn't have any BUK systems. The missile was fired from territory that was held the Russian supporting side. The plane was flying from the southwest.

They got 60 still in service.

http://uprom.info/en/news/vpk/ukrayina-modernizuye-zenitni-ustanovki-zrk-buk-m1/

 

[Minusorange]

You're missing 3 salient points though. The Ukrainian military didn't have any BUK systems. The missile was fired from territory that was held the Russian supporting side. The plane was flying from the southwest.

So what the hell is that photographed in Kiev in 2008 ?

 

[dowie]

That is probably a bit generalising - people have a vast range of skills and experiences.

Not sure what your point is? Doesn't change the statement. Yes it is general, I've pointed out the most probable scenario, yes people have a range of skills, in this case we're talking about a particular specialist skill.

 

[dowie]

Everything over there is Russian equipment.

Also, Ukraine had military conscription all the way up too 2013, one year before Flight 17 shot down, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the male population are trained in military equipment, including the BUK AA platform.

So it's possible that someone from the Ukraine side could had shot it down by mistake thinking it was a Russian plane.

Not saying that I believe that, just saying it's possible.

Whatever happened, it just proves that you shouldn't fly over war-zones that a lot of airliners still do, height isn't protection.

That's even less likely, my comment was on the likelihojd of it being local rebels with captured equipment vs unofficial Russian soldiers using equipment they brought with them.

 

[Minusorange]

That's even less likely, my comment was on the likelihojd of it being local rebels with captured equipment vs unofficial Russian soldiers using equipment they brought with them.

To be fair they could have captured one and been untrained idiots messing around with it and fired accidentally at MH17 ?

But the basics of operating even advanced surface-to-air weapons are relatively easy to learn — they need to be so that operators can use them even in the heat of battle — and instructions are available online. Training manuals featuring intuitive, detailed guidance on using such weapons are on the Web. The manuals include instructions on how to do most tasks, including turning the systems on, activating the radar antenna, understanding radar data and firing the missile.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...-buk-missile-look-online/#v=onepage&q&f=false

It wouldn't be the first time people have used the internet to learn how to build/use something and it gone horribly wrong due to inexperience

 

[RoboCod]

IN THIS THREAD....the male population of a country are trained to use complex SAM systems and can successfully shoot down an air liner with one. First shot too! Some ninja nationwide training there.

 

[RoboCod]

But in this case "rebels" = Russian soldiers using Russian equipment who are there unofficially... unless you want to continue with the rather less probable idea of one of the rag tag bunch of locally recruited militia groups just happening to be a trained artillery soldier specialising in air defence.

You got it.