Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

rockbeast

Rhys Essien wrote: »

They didnt come across any border.The rebels are from Eastern Ukraine.

Get with the programme. The ringleaders are from a little furthe east.

Anyway, it may be too soon for this but I'd say Putin feels a bit like this right now:o

srsly78

Civilian airlines flew over Iraq and Afghanistan all the time when the war was on. It was considered safe because the "bad guys" had no airforce or long range air defense missiles. Was thought to be the same in Ukraine.

B.A._Baracus

Sorry for asking a stupid question, but just trying to read all the reports on this one.

But why shoot down the plane tho? be it the russians ... the pro-russian rebels or whom ever. What does it serve?

srsly78

Because some nooby saw a blip on radar screen and got a bit overexcited with their new toy. Russia will not be happy with their overenthusiastic minion.

rockbeast

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Sorry for asking a stupid question, but just trying to read all the reports on this one.

But why shoot down the plane tho? be it the russians ... the pro-russian rebels or whom ever. What does it serve?

It has turned out a bit like this I'd say...

EoghanIRL

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Sorry for asking a stupid question, but just trying to read all the reports on this one.

But why shoot down the plane tho? be it the russians ... the pro-russian rebels or whom ever. What does it serve?

I think you need to consider whether the civilian flight was the intended target of the missile.

bitemeluis

bitemeluis wrote: »

I'm not reading through 46 pages - give it to me straight, who did it?

The reverse-vampires.

B.A._Baracus

EoghanIRL wrote: »

I think you need to consider whether the civilian flight was the intended target of the missile.

But then that means there would have to of been another plane up there .... Whos?

rockbeast

Deleted User wrote: »

The reverse-vampires.

Nah, Kristin Shepard

Rhys Essien

The British papers are all headlining tomorrow putting all the blame on Putin when its now widespread that the rebels siezed the Buk missile battery/batteries on June 29 from the Ukrainians.If a pro Russian and ex-Ukrainian army operator had fired the missile,then this would leave Putin with 'nothing' to do with it.

They would want to be taking a few steps back.

srsly78

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

But then that means there would have to of been another plane up there .... Whos?

They shot down a Ukrainian plane only a day or two previously.

InTheTrees

Airspace below 32,000 feet was closed. Airspace above was open. The malaysian plane as at 33,000ft.

The missiles have radar. They're capable of determining altitude. One can ask why the malaysian plane was flying on that route but also why the fcuk did some drunken underpaid russian (it had to be) idiot pull the trigger and shot the plane down?

Any moron who is capable of firing a Surface To Air Missile capable of reaching up to 40,000 feet should at least understand that a plane at 33,000 feet traveling at a constant speed and direction is likely to be a civilian plane from somewhere else entirely because the airspace was Open at that height.

EoghanIRL

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

But then that means there would have to of been another plane up there .... Whos?

The initial tweet from the separatists claimed that they downed a cargo plane . The tweet was quickly deleted when they found out that it was civilian.
Perhaps this different flight was the target .

http://news.yahoo.com/rebel-suggests-insurgents-shot-down-malaysia-plane-mistake-174750060.html

EoghanIRL

InTheTrees wrote: »

Airspace below 32,000 feet was closed. Airspace above was open. The malaysian plane as at 33,000ft.

The missiles have radar. They're capable of determining altitude. One can ask why the malaysian plane was flying on that route but also why the fcuk did some drunken underpaid russian (it had to be) idiot pull the trigger and shot the plane down?

Any moron who is capable of firing a Surface To Air Missile capable of reaching up to 40,000 feet should at least understand that a plane at 33,000 feet traveling at a constant speed and defection is likely to be a civilian plane from somewhere else entirely because the airspace was Open at that height.

Did other flights not take the same flight path earlier that day ?

comongethappy

Rhys Essien wrote: »

this would leave Putin with 'nothing' to do with it.

Of course Putin wouldn't have given such a barbaric order.

However in the greater scheme of things, this conflict begins & ends with the Russian perma-president.

InTheTrees

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Did other flights not take the same flight path earlier that day ?

I believe so. I'm sure its just horrible bad luck that it as a Malaysian plane that they shot at.

The reason they took that route was, well primarily because it was still "open" at that altitude and secondly because of money. Going around adds time, burns more fuel, etc etc.

P_1

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Did other flights not take the same flight path earlier that day ?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=742558305783595&set=a.116008071771958.7699.111607872211978&type=1&theater

I count at least 4 in the general area as MH17 at the time it went down.

rockbeast

The whole thing is a clusterf*ck.

New cold war - substitute Ukraine for Afghanistan.

Innocents get killed and Putin and Obama sleep comfortably at night:mad:

Amirani

whitelight wrote: »

If other counties deemed it a large enough threat that their planes took a different route why wouldn't all of
them. Are we breaking this down to cost vs risk vs lives?? I though zero risk would be the aim.would you have knowing flew over a confict area?? I bloody wouldn't have.

The intended flight path also included a pass over Afghanistan. I've flown over Iraq in the recent past, it's pretty hard to avoid it if you're going anywhere in the gulf.

Thousands of commercial flights fly over "conflict zones" every day. In some cases, aviation authorities will step in and order re-routing if they're deemed to dangerous. This wasn't the case in Eastern Ukraine. It was thought that flights above 33k ft would be safe. Unfortunately this wasn't the case.

I would've known I was flying over Ukraine, as would many on board - it's the logical geographical route to take. Bear in mind there's not many alternatives. If you avoid Ukraine to the West, you're going to be flying in and around Syria and Israel/Palestine, you'd also be disrupting one of the busiest air corridors on the planet. Flying north and east around Ukraine extends the length of the journey considerably. This just isn't a practical solution for tens or hundreds of flights per day to take.

Blame here should lie squarely at the terrorists involved (whichever side they represent) and the Government that's supporting them. Given hindsight, you can be sure that Malaysia Airlines would be willing to route west over the Pacific if they could avoid this second major disaster. This wasn't a money-saving option from them, it was a tragic accident that is also going to have catastrophic effects on their future as an airline.

rockbeast

Diego Simeone wrote: »

The intended flight path also included a pass over Afghanistan. I've flown over Iraq in the recent past, it's pretty hard to avoid it if you're going anywhere in the gulf.

Thousands of commercial flights fly over "conflict zones" every day. In some cases, aviation authorities will step in and order re-routing if they're deemed to dangerous. This wasn't the case in Eastern Ukraine. It was thought that flights above 33k ft would be safe. Unfortunately this wasn't the case.

I would've known I was flying over Ukraine, as would many on board - it's the logical geographical route to take. Bear in mind there's not many alternatives. If you avoid Ukraine to the West, you're going to be flying in and around Syria and Israel/Palestine, you'd also be disrupting one of the busiest air corridors on the planet. Flying north and east around Ukraine extends the length of the journey considerably. This just isn't a practical solution for tens or hundreds of flights per day to take.

Blame here should lie squarely at the terrorists involved (whichever side they represent) and the Government that's supporting them. Given hindsight, you can be sure that Malaysia Airlines would be willing to route west over the Pacific if they could avoid this second major disaster. This wasn't a money-saving option from them, it was a tragic accident that is also going to have catastrophic effects on their future as an airline.

Good post but it always makes me cringe when this phrase is used so freely. Let history decide who the terrorists were, if indeed there were any...

Amirani

rockbeast wrote: »

Good post but it always makes me cringe when this phrase is used so freely. Let history decide who the terrorists were, if indeed there were any...

The use (and overuse) of the word irks me too in certain situations. I wasn't using it in any political context there, I just struggled for an other obvious label. Most people thing it was pro-Russian separatists (I do too) but that hasn't been proven. My intention was the more traditional meaning of "creating and using terror to achieve some end-goal".

rockbeast

Diego Simeone wrote: »

The use (and overuse) of the word irks me too in certain situations. I wasn't using it in any political context there, I just struggled for an other obvious label. Most people thing it was pro-Russian separatists (I do too) but that hasn't been proven. My intention was the more traditional meaning of "creating and using terror to achieve some end-goal".

I do too - pro-Russian Separatists, I'm 90% sure.

BUT I don't see how blowing up a Malaysian passanger jet (accidently, perhaps?) constitutes an act of "terrorism".

Terrorism, in its neo-classical form is a method of psychological, moreso than physical, attack . More "creating" rather than "using" as per your last line.

Thoie

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Blame here should lie squarely at the terrorists involved (whichever side they represent) and the Government that's supporting them.

rockbeast wrote: »

Good post but it always makes me cringe when this phrase is used so freely. Let history decide who the terrorists were, if indeed there were any...

Diego Simeone wrote: »

The use (and overuse) of the word irks me too in certain situations.

rockbeast wrote: »

BUT I don't see how blowing up a Malaysian passanger jet (accidently, perhaps?) constitutes an act of "terrorism".

Maybe "culprits" would work best for now?

rockbeast

Thoie wrote: »

Maybe "culprits" would work best for now?

I was hoping for a kiss and make up but that'll do:)

We may have to send you in as a peacemaker yet!

Rhys Essien

As 66% of the dead are Dutch nationals,im suprised that no Dutch Airforce transport planes have arrived in Ukraine yet,to bring bodies back etc.

rockbeast

Rhys Essien wrote: »

As 66% of the dead are Dutch nationals,im suprised that no Dutch Airforce transport planes have arrived in Ukraine yet,to bring bodies back etc.

What do they have - c130s?

Where are they gonna safely and securely land them?

Rhys Essien

rockbeast wrote: »

What do they have - c130s?

Where are they gonna safely and securely land them?

4 x Hercules C-130
3 x C-17

There is now a ceasefire in place so there should be no worries.Leaving their nationals lying dead in the heat is fairly sad.

rockbeast

Rhys Essien wrote: »

4 x Hercules
3 x C-17

There is now a ceasefire in place so there should be no worries.Leaving their nationals lying dead in the heat is fairly sad.

That's the what taken care of ...now where?

And if they do fly in (are allowed to fly in) that will prove it was an accident which will not suit the narative of events currently being pedaled...

seamus

Rhys Essien wrote: »

There is now a ceasefire in place so there should be no worries.Leaving their nationals lying dead in the heat is fairly sad.

It seems pretty clear that he separatists aren't playing ball and are blocking the OSCE from accessing the crash site while they ensure any evidence of their fnck up is collected, even firing warning shots as the investigators leave.

The arrival of foreign military troops to barge their way in would not go down well.

rockbeast

seamus wrote: »

The arrival of foreign military troops to barge their way in would not go down well.

Good point. There's no way they're stick those planes in the air unaccompanied by fighter jets.