Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

Piliger

roryc wrote: »

It's all well and good waiting for hard evidence but this will likely take a while, possibly months. Leave it to the UN lawyers to deal with that.

It's monumentally naive to think that there will ever be court of law evidence. It's a war zone held by the Russians. It's not going to happen. And it won't matter. The world knows what happens and will try to deal with it. Putin will be a pariah and go down in history as a proto-Hitler or maybe more depending on his next plan.

Egginacup

roryc wrote: »

Have they? Please link me to where they have been exposed, I haven't seen this on any of the major news sites.



Again, please link to a reputable site where this has been proven to be staged footage.



Exposed by who? When? You are the only person I have seen make this claim. An anonymous poster with an obvious pro Russian/Putin bias that denies one side of the argument due to not having facts, but then appears to push the agenda on the other side without any evidence. We clearly have a lack of evidence to date, but the way Russia has acted so far stinks of guilt.



Again, please link to where this has they have been proven to have had a plane in the proximity.

If you want to avoid being called a troll and a Putinbot then you'll need to back up your own arguments with 'verified facts' - the same things that you have asked for from the other side of the debate.



100% agree. Unfortunately both myself and the vast majority of posters on this forum will disagree on which side this statement refers to...

Please link to a reputable site?

Thanks but no thanks. I'm not going to link to some site that isn't the NYT only for you to determine that it's not reputable. Washington Post, NYT, caught printing blatant lies time and again but still you hold them up as the truth while looking down your nose at every other source. Real truth tellers don't get to have their views printed in these establishment rags. Only gasbags like Tom Friedman who spends his days fawning over the Pentagon like a starry-eyed schoolgirl.
Real truth tellers like Robert Parry, Chris Hedges, Seymour Hersh, etc have to rely on blogs and other outlets to print them.
These other outlets are then attacked by corporate owned news outlets so people who can't think for themselves have their minds made up for them.

Thoie

Egginacup wrote: »

Please link to a reputable site?
... Tom Friedman ... Robert Parry, Chris Hedges, Seymour Hersh, etc

Who the hell are all these people? American journalists?

What about RTÉ, BBC, Al Jazeera etc?

gandalf

Thoie wrote: »

Who the hell are all these people? American journalists?

What about RTÉ, BBC, Al Jazeera etc?

They are not on the "authorised" list

who_me

Interesting article here.

It suggests that holes in the fuselage and scorch marks may indicate a missile detonated in front of the aircraft. In which case (speculation mine) it's possible the flight crew may have seen something and something may have been said on the voice recorder. Against that, SAMs travel at very high velocity and would be approaching from underneath, which makes it far less likely.

roryc

Egginacup wrote: »

Now,

NBC has already admitted that they have no idea who committed this crime.
NBC also has John Kerry on their Sunday show stating he had proof of who committed this crime and not a single question was asked of him to reveal his knowledge.

That was last Sunday.

Since Saturday the Ukrainians have been exposed twice in lying to the world with regard to this entire episode.

The Ukrainians lied when they stated that BUK missile systems were being moved back to Russia. The staged footage was recorded in Ukrainian Territory.

They also lied when they denied having any military aircraft in the vicinity when they had one in the proximity of MH17.

The latter will be more difficult to wish away.


Now these lies are exposed. They are in the open and they are clear. The facts and evidence of these lies are plain.

But what we have here is blatant lies on one side, coupled with lack of proof, emotions, losing of tempers, name-calling, a history of fabrications ...rinse, repeat.
On the other side we have the mentality of "what are the facts?"

I'll quote this post of yours again for anyone that missed it. Let's pretend for a second you didn't create your account last week for the pure reason to troll the site and/or push a baseless pro Russia/Putin agenda...

I've been following this story on numerous news sites since it happened, and to date I haven't seen a single site where the Ukrainians 'lies have been exposed to the world' - was this done through one of these unknown bloggers you mentioned?

So far I've only seen one person who has been exposed as a liar. You. You ask again and again for evidence to prove what the entire world knows, then when asked to back up your ridiculous claims you refuse, quoting some random bloggers. Are there no mods on this forum! Incredible you haven't been banned yet. The logical answer would be to say you are a Putin bot... I would be very worried if you actually believed the rubbish you've been spouting. Take the tinfoil hat off or head to the CT Forum, they'll love you overt there

Egginacup

roryc wrote: »

They show images released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. People can be blinkered because of American statements in the past (WMD etc) but this has been in situations when they have been backed into a corner and there was massive pressure to come up with reasons to invade Afghanistan/Iraq. I don't recall a time when the Americans have made a number of statements like what is based in that article, without having any major pressure to do so. 'US Officials' have categorically stated that they believe the Russians are behind this. They have little to gain by making so many specific allegations:

"Senior U.S. intelligence officials cited sensors that traced the path of the missile, shrapnel markings on the downed aircraft"

"The officials also for the first time identified a sprawling Russian military installation near the city of Rostov as the main conduit of Russian support to separatists in Ukraine, describing it as a hub of training and weapons that has expanded dramatically over the past month."

"Analysts at the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies are continuing to examine information about the crash, but the officials said the intelligence assembled in the five days since the attack points overwhelmingly to Russian-backed separatists in territory they control in eastern Ukraine."

"The senior intelligence officials said they have ruled out the possibility that Ukrainian forces were responsible for the attack."

"The U.S. officials said they have confirmed the authenticity of some of those recordings, including one in which the self-proclaimed defense minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Igor Strelkov, claimed responsibility for shooting down a military transport plane at the time the Malaysian aircraft was struck. Analysis comparing that audio clip to other confirmed recordings of Strelkov’s voice “confirmed these were authentic conversations,” one of the officials said."

Assuming the Washington Post hasn't simply made these statements up, they are pretty clear as to who 'US Officials' believe is behind this, and what evidence they have. People aren't actively looking at America for these statements, yet they have been forthcoming. Russia on the other hand has barely said a word. Does it need to come straight from Obama's mouth before its 'verified'? Who honestly believes Russian had nothing to do with this?

As someone mentioned before, 99/100 the most obvious scenario is the correct one. Russian backed separatists or Russian mercenaries shot down the plane by accident.

This Washington Post article is just a new echo of the same baseless suppositions that have been kicked around since the plane hit the ground. There is nothing there.
Look at the mealy-mouthed language designed to raise suspicion and fear without actually making any direct accusations:

"describing it as a hub of training and weapons that has expanded dramatically over the past month."

Meaning what exactly? Precisely nothing. But this kind of ominous pseudo-speak works every time on the gullible, the weak and the faint-hearted.

Again it's just another dismal collage of innuendo and baseless allegations. All it's doing is colouring the discussion (like Kerry is doing) by repeating a lie again and again and again until people actually thinks it's true without any evidence whatsoever.

Unnamed officials?.....that's WaPO code for "nobody wants their name attached to this farce"

All we are getting once again is "we have proof so-and-so did it and so-and-so didn't do it"

Sorry but that's not good enough. No names. Nobody putting their hand up and saying "I Joe Smith have hard proof", no explanation of anything other than again "we now have proof".

How can you possibly maybe have some doubts about something but when the same story is repeated or louder then suddenly that's good enough for you?

If I'm a shill for not swallowing bricks or not being convinced by this kind of nonsense then I'll wear that badge with pride.
But I'll hazard that if you stood to lose more than an argument like say take a serious hit to the wallet or your health you'd be less inclined to just go along with this narrative.

loughside

for those desperate for `links` more damning evidence - here we have it straight from the horses mouth

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/23/us-ukraine-crisis-commander-exclusive-idUSKBN0FS1V920140723?utm_source=twitter

"I am an interested party. I am a ‘terrorist’, a ‘separatist’, a volunteer ... In any event, I am required to promote the side I represent, even if I might think otherwise, say otherwise or have an alternative view. This causes real discomfort to my soul."

smurfjed

If I'm a shill for not swallowing bricks or not being convinced by this kind of nonsense then I'll wear that badge with pride.

Actually i think that it has more to do with the fact that since you joined, you have posted 73 messages, 70 of them on this thread!

I did ask you if you were willing to accept that the aircraft was destroyed by an external force?

Egginacup

roryc wrote: »

I'll quote this post of yours again for anyone that missed it. Let's pretend for a second you didn't create your account last week for the pure reason to troll the site and/or push a baseless pro Russia/Putin agenda...

I've been following this story on numerous news sites since it happened, and to date I haven't seen a single site where the Ukrainians 'lies have been exposed to the world' - was this done through one of these unknown bloggers you mentioned?

So far I've only seen one person who has been exposed as a liar. You. You ask again and again for evidence to prove what the entire world knows, then when asked to back up your ridiculous claims you refuse, quoting some random bloggers. Are there no mods on this forum! Incredible you haven't been banned yet. The logical answer would be to say you are a Putin bot... I would be very worried if you actually believed the rubbish you've been spouting. Take the tinfoil hat off or head to the CT Forum, they'll love you overt there

You don't get to ban people. But I'm guessing you would just if they disagreed with you.
As for evidence to prove what the world knows?

What exactly does the world know? And where is the evidence? Repeating it doesn't make it true.
All I have been asking for is proof, evidence. And I have stated that the youtube video of the conversation between a supposed separatist and a Russian (claiming responsibility) has turned out to be a fake. It was quickly taken down but the amateurs who put it up don't realise that it can be got from cache. I've also stated that the tower to plane conversation has been confiscated. None of this a lie.

No evidence linking ANYBODY has been shown.
Tower comms has been not been released.
Satellite data has not been released.
Conversation recording has been exposed as fake.

That's it, that's all I've stated. You can't deny it and you can't seem to handle the fact that it's a very simple list of truths so you throw a tantrum. You talk about bans and tinfoil hats and all that other stuff that someone who can't explain himself resorts to when met with logic that they don't like.

Nearly a week has gone by and there isn't a scrap of evidence pointing to anyone. And evidence that could clear it up has been witheld. These are the facts and you don't like them because you've decided to take the easy way out by blaming someone you don't like. Not because of facts but just because of your own ill-guided hunches. And anyone who doesn't go along with your guessing game or doesn't cave into badgering, browbeating belongs in a mental institution as far as you're concerned.

Calling for people to be silenced because they don't agree with you is bizarrely a trait you smear Putin for yet it is one that you actively live by on here.

Maybe you have more in common with the dictator than you think.

pablo128

Have you read the link in post 1483?

Paco Rodriguez

Since when has it been that if something is written in a familiar news agency that it counts as proof?

Or second hand audio recordings....have anyone hear heard the audio? Because someone saying they have proof isn't proof to me.

smurfjed

Just for you Paco...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/07/19/what-more-smoking-guns-are-needed-for-mh17-the-worlds-first-sam-terrorism/

Egginacup

smurfjed wrote: »

Actually i think that it has more to do with the fact that since you joined, you have posted 73 messages, 70 of them on this thread!

I did ask you if you were willing to accept that the aircraft was destroyed by an external force?

I don't know. Planes crash for a reason be that external force such as ground to air or air to air missiles, cannons, etc., bomb on board or mechanical failure.
All sides are adamant that a ground based missile brought the plane down so I guess I'll kind of have to go along with that for now.

But if you are going to try and paint me into a corner stating that I don't have evidence that it was downed by an external force yet believe it was, BUT don't have evidence the Russians or Novorussians are to blame and DON'T believe that then I must be some kind of trolling hyprocrite....sorry but that's not going to work.

I could say I would like to see evidence that it was brought down by a missile (which I would) but that would just bring a chorus from the empty-vessel contingent on here howling "See, he doesn't believe it was a missile. He thinks aliens brought it down! CT thataway, nutjob!".

So while I can't say definitely that it was brought down by an external since I don't have proof I can't say it wasn't either. I'm just going to have to go along with the probability that it was. Pointing the finger at who is responsible is something else entirely.

If I see a body in the street with a knife stuck it it's chest I can safely assume the cause of death was stabbing. But I'm not going to go along with a braying mob who want the victim's brother held responsible purely because they were estranged or some other crappy hunch. I'd also like to see a coroner's report to determine the exact cause of death. It could have be made to look like a stabbing....it could even have been a suicide by poisoning made to look like a murder for life insurance purposes. So forgive me for liking such quaint notions as evidence, proof, etc and not being one prone to jumping to baseless conclusions. I guess I've always had a curious mind.

As for the majority of my posts being on this thread, well I just recently joined and this issue interests me more than most of the others banging on about the heat in Dublin, etc. I know it's hot here, I don't need to discuss it.

loughside

pablo128 wrote: »

Have you read the link in post 1483?

Tricky one...I think he`s referring that one back to his `handlers` for now..

smurfjed

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/7/23/1406139779584/6032cd85-077e-4a03-85c5-6c4da0fa6f36-460x276.jpeg

Would you consider these puncture marks?

Autonomous Cowherd

loughside wrote: »

Tricky one...I think he`s referring that one back to his `handlers` for now..

This whole freaking handlers things is so asinine. Someone on the Internet doesn't agree with you, is eloquent and defends themselves, stays the course, accepts persistent insults on the chin, posits rational theories in the absence of definitive proof, and all you can bang on with like some one note banjo is that they are somehow employed by the Kremlin to derail a fricking thread on boards dot ie. Oy Vey! How high up the list of anti-Russian conspiracies/threats do you think this thread really rates that someone would have fricking handlers to direct them with their posts on it? Cop the heck on would ya. Just accept that the majority consensus is not necessarily always the truth. It MAY indeed be the truth in the end, time will tell, but in the meantime, back up your own theory, accept possible alternatives as being allowed to exist, and live and let live.

''The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." ~ F Scott Fitzgerald

Elmer Blooker

loughside wrote: »

Tricky one...I think he`s referring that one back to his `handlers` for now..

keep it up Egg! At least your posts aren't just one line insults/put downs like so many from the usual suspects around here.

Egginacup

smurfjed wrote: »

Would you consider these puncture marks?

They certainly look like puncture marks. What are you getting at?

roryc

Egginacup wrote: »

Conversation recording has been exposed as fake.

I'll make it easy for you. Back up this point of yours. As I've said three times now the only place, anywhere, I've seen this claim is your posts. You ask for evidence for other points but don't back up any of your ridiculous claims with any of your own.

Bizarrely the telephone conversations are the single one thing that have conclusively stated to be true, even another poster didn't deny that. Unless you need to test them yourself to conclude they are true, at some point you need to accept what you are told. Scroll back in the thread to see this. Hard not to assume you are a troll when you try to claim the exact opposite of this, and refuse to back up the claim.

That, coupled with the fact that you created the account purely to post in this thread is what makes you a troll. No one has backed you into a corner, you did this all by yourself. As for putting my wallet on the line, I already said I think that the likelihood of this not being perpetrated by the rebels is about 20\1. Will happily accept a bet with you (minimum €50). Should be easy enough to write up terms and find an escrow. This isn't a dick swinging contest, but hopefully it will highlight the how pointless it is to entertain conspiracy theorists who refuse to accept that the most likely scenario is almost always the correct one. A small number of posters have derailed the entire thread.

loughside

hmmmm.... seems like a lot of winding in of necks from our rusky komrads

maybe they`re counting their roubles ?? !!

Egginacup

roryc wrote: »

I'll make it easy for you. Back up this point of yours. As I've said three times now the only place, anywhere, I've seen this claim is your posts. You ask for evidence for other points but don't back up any of your ridiculous claims with any of your own.

Bizarrely the telephone conversations are the single one thing that have conclusively stated to be true, even another poster didn't deny that. Unless you need to test them yourself to conclude they are true, at some point you need to accept what you are told. Scroll back in the thread to see this. Hard not to assume you are a troll when you try to claim the exact opposite of this, and refuse to back up the claim.

That, coupled with the fact that you created the account purely to post in this thread is what makes you a troll. No one has backed you into a corner, you did this all by yourself. As for putting my wallet on the line, I already said I think that the likelihood of this not being perpetrated by the rebels is about 20\1. Will happily accept a bet with you (minimum €50). Should be easy enough to write up terms and find an escrow. This isn't a dick swinging contest, but hopefully it will highlight the how pointless it is to entertain conspiracy theorists who refuse to accept that the most likely scenario is almost always the correct one. A small number of posters have derailed the entire thread.

I already stated that the YouTube video posted and quickly taken down was actually made BEFORE the plane came down. Now you can very easily research that for yourself but you're not going to find it on any news sites that specialize in the popular narrative. As for the conversation that you are referring to that has been deemed authentic, tell me what I'm looking for and I'll make my mind up. Is it the one with that individual Strelkov ?

What were the criteria for this conversation being authenticated and who has given their name and m.o. to establish its authenticity?

gandalf

Christ the amount of tinfoil being wasted on this thread, there will be a shortage at Christmas

kneemos

May have been covered but if the plane exploded in the air and
people were thrown out what was the explosion on the ground?or if it didn't explode in the air how were people thrown from the aircraft?

loughside

Egginacup wrote: »

As for the conversation that you are referring to that has been deemed authentic, tell me what I'm looking for and I'll make my mind up.

Aye right..... you`re some saft man, as they say these parts,

get yer 50 coupons over and stop wriggling

lol

mbur

It didn't explode in mid air, it disintegrated.
NY times have a good article to explain why.

Egginacup

gandalf wrote: »

Christ the amount of tinfoil being wasted on this thread, there will be a shortage at Christmas

I suppose if there weren't so many to crucify those with their own opinions, then we'd have a Christmas but no Easter.

gandalf

Egginacup wrote: »

I suppose if there weren't so many to crucify those with their own opinions, then we'd have a Christmas but no Easter.

Or those expressing the "on message" opinion either

loughside

Paco Rodriguez wrote: »

Since when has it been that if something is written in a familiar news agency that it counts as proof?

does Reuters count?

Ukraine rebel commander acknowledges fighters had BUK missile

By Anton Zverev
DONETSK Ukraine

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/23/us-ukraine-crisis-commander-exclusive-idUSKBN0FS1V920140723?utm_source=twitter


also an interesting piece here by investigative journalists, a clever bit of detective work http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/citizen-journalists-mh17-spies/#:eyJzIjoiZiIsImkiOiJfZTlvdzkzczhnZmRvamNnbSJ9

mickmackey1

Egginacup wrote: »

I suppose if there weren't so many to crucify those with their own opinions, then we'd have a Christmas but no Easter.

And that my friends is what we call a knockout punch ... Obamatons left sprawling on the canvas :D