Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
RaohNS said:
Where is the evidence the Russian state and armed forces are conclusively involved?

Sadly when nations start throwing **** nobody comes out smelling of roses.

My view is open to it being more likely rebels shot the plane down. Now we need to ask the questions:
- why?
- who?
- what did they seek to gain from the action?

That is a deeper level of reasoning. Anybody can cast blame but in any trial motive has to be established. Why that plane and not (at a guess) 20 others reachable that day?
Click to expand...

- By mistake
- Poorly trained rebels on a Buk given the by Russians or captured
- Nothing, it was by mistake most likely due to the above
 
Dis86 said:
Jesus are you struggling to read?

I've pointed out there are three options.

Two of Russian incompetence. One of collusion.

Read the thread and you'll see it was earlier supposed that it resembled a Ukrainian military transport jet.
Click to expand...

I have read the thread thanks. There are other variables you are not considering because your narrative is: Russia must be guilty any way possible. So that one plane like multiple others just "happened to be a transport jet". Ok.

scorza said:
Raoh - put the shovel down, there's a good fella. This is where you normally switch your argument to "Russia have been a bit naughty here, but the US are just as bad - if not worse!".
Click to expand...

There's nothing to put down. We have a report that a Russian made BUK is the offending element. Now we need to supplement and find culpability of: Why, who and what was to be gained.

As you mention it I'll repeat it again: The US started the mess in the Ukraine.

KillBoY_UK said:
- By mistake
- Poorly trained rebels on a Buk given the by Russians or captured
- Nothing, it was by mistake most likely due to the above
Click to expand...

- why that particular plane?
- poorly trained yet capable of firing a very advanced piece of kit
- so a rebel drunk on vodka just happened to fall onto the fire switch?

I'm not sold on the culpability of Russia. When conclusive evidence and not just US and EU finger pointing crops up, well then we have a different perspective.
 
Boycey0211 said:
Wasn't that the conclusion last year?

Has RoahNS managed to dig himself into a hole so deep its uncovering stuff discussed a year ago?
Click to expand...

Doubtful boycey. These are the same facts that are as relevant today as they were at the time. Surely you aren't so naive to disregard a cornerstone piece of necessity?
 
Please explain these magical other variables. I'll say again, report shows vehicle came from Russia. Vehicle goes back to Russia.

From. To.

Therefore as I said before they're either not controlling there armed forces, incompetent.

They're not controlling their borders near a war zone, incompetent.

They supplied it, collusion.

Of course there is the other option i didnt mention...Russia supplied it. Russian troops operated it. It was under the instruction of the Russian military hierarchy.
 
Dis86 said:
Please explain these magical other variables. I'll say again, report shows vehicle came from Russia. Vehicle goes back to Russia.

From. To.

Therefore as I said before they're either not controlling there armed forces, incompetent.

They're not controlling their borders near a war zone, incompetent.

They supplied it, collusion.

Of course there is the other option i didnt mention...Russia supplied it. Russian troops operated it. It was under the instruction of the Russian military hierarchy.
Click to expand...

Supplying does not necessitate collusion.

If Russian troops were operating it then yes we have 99% sure complicity.

Lets look at other variables: Ukrainian forces downed the plane. Ukraine also operates this equipment (70+ pieces in fact). Alternative scenarios around "the shooters". It was purely rebels using stolen (from Ukraine) BUK equipment.

SAM site was elsewhere other than "probable/most likely location".
 
RaohNS said:
I have read the thread thanks. There are other variables you are not considering because your narrative is: Russia must be guilty any way possible. So that one plane like multiple others just "happened to be a transport jet". Ok.



There's nothing to put down. We have a report that a Russian made BUK is the offending element. Now we need to supplement and find culpability of: Why, who and what was to be gained.

As you mention it I'll repeat it again: The US started the mess in the Ukraine.



- why that particular plane?
- poorly trained yet capable of firing a very advanced piece of kit
- so a rebel drunk on vodka just happened to fall onto the fire switch?

I'm not sold on the culpability of Russia. When conclusive evidence and not just US and EU finger pointing crops up, well then we have a different perspective.
Click to expand...

You should have watched the Video on the BBC atical on the last page, it would have answred your questions

IE its relatively easy for a operator to tell between a friendly military plane and a enemy one but requires experience and training to be able to tell between a enemy military plane and a civilian craft it seems.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37495067

"How does a BUK missile system work?"
 
RaohNS said:
Doubtful boycey. These are the same facts that are as relevant today as they were at the time. Surely you aren't so naive to disregard a cornerstone piece of necessity?
Click to expand...

What facts are you on about? You've either ignored or discounted the majority of the facts presented by other posters in this thread.

You've also ignored or discounted the findings from a professional team of actual experts on the matter too.

Try as desperately as you want, but your precious mother russia you defend in so many threads is increasingly looking like they have blood on their hands, shock horror.

I don't even know what the last sentence of your post alludes to as it doesn't make any sense.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
Perhaps you could share your analysis with the JIT ? They might have missed that :)
Click to expand...

Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by a missile fired from a launcher brought into Ukraine from Russia and located in a village held by pro-Russian rebels, international prosecutors said on Wednesday.

The findings counter Moscow's suggestion that the passenger plane, en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur in July 2014, was brought down by Ukraine's military rather than the separatists. All 298 people on board, most of them Dutch, were killed.

The conclusions were based on thousands of wiretaps, photographs, witness statements and forensic tests during more than two years of inquiries into an incident which led to a sharp rise in tensions between Russia and the West.

Among the key findings were: the plane was hit by a Russian-made Buk-9M38 missile; the missile was fired from the rebel-held village of Pervomaysk in eastern Ukraine; and the launcher was transported into Ukraine from Russia.

"This Buk trailer came from the territory of the Russian Federation, and after the launch it was returned again to the territory of the Russian Federation," said Wilbert Paulissen, chief investigator with the Dutch national police.

...A civilian investigation by the Dutch Safety Board also concluded last year that MH17 was hit by a Buk missile fired from eastern Ukraine, but Moscow denied that pro-Russian rebels were responsible.
Click to expand...

(Source).
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
I linked to the JIT's own site a few posts earlier. Having studied the evidence they present there I am not convinced they have proved the BUK came from Russia.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sure you know better than a bunch of professional investigators who've spent months on this case. Perhaps you could share your analysis with the JIT? They might have missed that. :)
 
Evangelion said:
Well, I'm sure you know better than a bunch of professional investigators who've spent months on this case. Perhaps you could share your analysis with the JIT? They might have missed that. :)
Click to expand...

I'm sure I don't know better than them :) However, the evidence they published on that website doesn't convince me on the points I mentioned. Maybe they haven't published all their evidence there (the ubiquitous security reasons, perhaps ?). Which evidence convinces you that the BUK unequivocably came from Russia ?
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
Which evidence convinces you that the BUK unequivocably came from Russia ?
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. These sheeple of the BBC and other MSM that evidence exists in their imagination and appears in the report in their imaginary sense.... So must be true.

I don't dismiss the best evidence suggesting a Russian made BUK is what brought the plane down but the who, why and what to gain is not answered. Instead the report highlights no such "evidence" but because they say its true, well... That's good enough.
 
The OFFICIAL THIRD PARTY INDEPENDENT REPORT does.

You just don't like where it points the fingers so you've dismissed it.
 
good grief - have to agree with the majority here.

Personally whether the missile launcher came in the country 1 day or 1 year before doesnt a make much of a difference to me. Some fool manning the Russian weapon shot the plane down probably through incompetence in targetting just about anything with two wings.

Its almost on par with guns in the USA the level of argument in this thread
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom