Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

Egginacup

pablo128 wrote: »

They are Americans looking for info on a Malaysian plane, shot down in Ukraine, possibly by Russians or Russian backed separatists, and they are asking the American government for this info?
What info would the Americans have exactly, that would be sufficient to apportion blame definitively?

I would imagine that since the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, the one who wrote a false dossier regarding chemical attacks on civilians in Syria and has now stated that he has irrefutable proof as to the perpetrators of the killing of 298 civilians in a passenger airliner, then I would think that the Americans have some kind of interest in the discussion.
If the US Secretary of State is claiming he has all the proof and all the answers then I would hope that American Intelligence officials might ask him for his proof. Proof and evidence that is two weeks under wraps and not a shred of it brought to light.

These are intelligence people and they want to know what this guy knows. Moreover, they want to see the evidence he claims to have.

Now I would love to see that too. But I'm just a civilian. Members of the American intelligence community also want to see it. This proof that has you all convinced that a bunch of pro-Russian drunks took down a passenger jet.

deco nate

And yet again, that poster ignores posts and just picks a
Post that they think they can get away with.

Egginacup

deco nate wrote: »

6 posts above your own, have a look.
And report me all you want,
Do you really not remember posting it? Do you really not know how to look at the posts you made, oh by the way I know what you are trying to do.

You are trying to trick me into going on a rant and get me banned.

We all know what you are!
Edit:were are the links to you're claims that the video was fake, the phone call was fake, that the Ukraine MAY have shot down the plane?
How many times do you have to be asked for this info? How many times are you Gonna avoid posting links????

I will not go trawling back to find posts where you accused me of condoning corpse-robbing.
I shouldn't have to do that. You, on the contrary, who have accused me of this unsavoury and reckless allegation should either provide proof of your accusations or apologise.

deco nate

Egginacup wrote: »

I will not go trawling back to find posts where you accused me of condoning corpse-robbing.
I shouldn't have to do that. You, on the contrary, who have accused me of this unsavoury and reckless allegation should either provide proof of your accusations or apologise.

Go away

darkpagandeath

Egginacup wrote: »

I have already pointed this out.

Kiev has shown as evidence conversations and videos proven to be fakes and mock-ups.

We can move on to Russian verifiable intelligence thereafter.

Were conversations and videos released by Kiev, purporting to implicate the Novorussian militia fake, and found to be fake, and if so why were these falsifications released?

I'll answer any question after this one has been satisfactorily addressed.

Why did Kiev make things up?
Why would they do such a thing?

I haven't seen any fake videos from Novorussians so why did Kiev release a couple and why weren't they vetted before going online?

This is not a RT network who has verified this ?

You are the only one making up facts.

deco nate

Egginacup wrote: »

Do you know if the story is TRUE?
If so what's the big deal? Makeup from a bag....well whoopie.
Not like she went sound with a pliers

Here you go egg, your own post. Seen as you have ignored it so many times at this stage, and also never replied to anyone that has pointed it out to you in the past.


So are you gonna reply to this or, skip over it like you have always done? Huh??

Egginacup

deco nate wrote: »

And yet again I will ask you, we're are the links for your info, or are you gonna skip over this post too?

What I will do is ask the same question that I have asked time and again.

Where is the proof implicating Novorussians or Russians in this crime?

I have been waiting for two weeks now. The drums have been beating against Russia. The people on this forum have called people "scum of the Earth". They have called them terrorists or terrorist apologists and sympathisers.

But still not a shred of evidence to back up their claims.
My friends in Amsterdam and Utrecht are clenching their teeth but having spoken to them they don't have the same "let's bomb Russians" that so many here have. And why? Because they don't know who did this, most on this forum and indeed on this thread seem to have proof but just can't seem to show it.

It was Russia and anyone who argues then may they be damned.

The Dutch are unsure and unconvinced as are the Malaysians and it was their plane after all. The American Intelligence community are demanding that those (within their own circle) deliver the proof that they have .. or state they have...proving Novorussian or indeed Moscow involvement.
And yet everyone points fingers in all the oddest directions. And avoids simple questions.

Where is ANY proof that Novorussian militia were responsible?

darkpagandeath

Well I'm out seems this thread has 0 moderation.

roryc

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Well I'm out seems this thread has 0 moderation.

Yep, an absolute shambles. The guy is replying to the same posts twice, forgetting earlier posts he has made etc. So on top of setting up the account to troll this thread alone, it's highly likely there's more than one person on the account. Constantly harping on about how the 'videos have been proven fake' yet I have counted 24 posts so far asking for ANY LINK to this claim (which he appears to be the only person on the planet making).

I've already got a warning on this thread for responding to him, so its clear the mods were looking at this thread at one stage... unfortunately its clearly not being monitored anymore! I'm out until he gets banned, there's no 'debate' here. 10% of the posts are from one poster that is either connected to the Kremlin, or is a deluded pro-Russian Irishman with a penchant for CT's.

I also asked them a question days ago and they just ignored it. If I can make a suggestion.....

Ask a question, just one or two sentences then leave it at that. Adding anything else just gives the opportunity to sideline the question completely.

SeanW

Given the evidence of the Russian government paying people to write Kremlin propaganda on message boards, I think it's safe to assume what's going on with Egginacup.

As for proof:

1. We know that the plane went down in territory administered by the separatists, having been destroyed at high altitude at or near their installations.
2. We know that the only people shooting down aircraft of any kind in the area were the same separatists.
3. We know that the scene of the accident was not preserved in any proper way.

What more evidence do we need? (Except for Egginacups IP address which if not hidden behind a TOR or Proxy would almost certainly lead back to Moscow.

gandalf

SeanW wrote: »

Given the evidence of the Russian government paying people to write Kremlin propaganda on message boards, I think it's safe to assume what's going on with Egginacup.

As for proof:

1. We know that the plane went down in territory administered by the separatists, having been destroyed at high altitude at or near their installations.
2. We know that the only people shooting down aircraft of any kind in the area were the same separatists.
3. We know that the scene of the accident was not preserved in any proper way.

What more evidence do we need? (Except for Egginacups IP address which if not hidden behind a TOR or Proxy would almost certainly lead back to Moscow.

Ah but your not taking into account.

• That the Ukraine deliberately shot the plane down to make the separatists look bad.
  
• It was an attempt to assassinate Putin. (that's a good one)
  
• It was actually flight MH370 somehow clandestinely moved from its hiding place in Asia to Schipol Airport to replace MH17.
  
• The Ukrainian ATC deliberately diverted the plane into danger to make the separatists "look bad"

Hmmmm Egg did I miss any of the other conspiracy theories that have been put forward as alternative narratives to the probable truth of this disaster and murder of 298 innocent civilians by a pack of "Walter Mittys" facilitated by the Bare Chested Gay Basher of old Moscow town?

KahBoom

pablo128 wrote: »

Ah will you and your buddies give over. There's an avalanche of reports out there. Are you honestly dismissing them all? Every report critical of the Russians, you are just going to brush them all off?

Show me a single one that provides definitive proof.

KahBoom

SeanW wrote: »

Given the evidence of the Russian government paying people to write Kremlin propaganda on message boards, I think it's safe to assume what's going on with Egginacup.

As for proof:

1. We know that the plane went down in territory administered by the separatists, having been destroyed at high altitude at or near their installations.
2. We know that the only people shooting down aircraft of any kind in the area were the same separatists.
3. We know that the scene of the accident was not preserved in any proper way.

What more evidence do we need? (Except for Egginacups IP address which if not hidden behind a TOR or Proxy would almost certainly lead back to Moscow.

Uh, none of that is evidence - does anyone here actually know what 'evidence' is?

Evidence, is a video, pictures, etc. etc., perhaps from a spy satellite (which you can guarantee there are loads trained on Ukraine), properly identifying where the missile came from, and ownership of the vehicle that launched the missile - hard evidence, that you can show to the public, and which can stand expert scrutiny that it is not a fabrication, and which directly verifies who launched the missile.

If your argument is as weak as "well the separatists were shooting missiles in the area, it must be them!" then that's not evidence - that's making a massive leap in assumptions - it is an assumption, not evidence.

Allowing an extremely weak assumption like that - minus any actual evidence - to escalate tensions between the whole of EU/US and Russia, is insane and reckless, and can lead towards later escalation and conflict.

SeanW

Actually, the rebels weren't just shooting missiles, they were the only ones shooting down aircraft in that area, at that time.

Of course, it could have been a false flag by some horrible evil Western gov't to surreptitiously bring a BUK missile system (which no one had except the USSR and successors) into the rebel held area, shoot down the plane without any rebels noticing. All for no real reason save to make Russia look bad or something, especially since Russia hasn't actually declared war on the Ukraine.

But there's no evidence of that, and given the lack of same, I am reminded of the old adage, "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably not a sheep"

KahBoom

SeanW wrote: »

Actually, the rebels weren't just shooting missiles, they were the only ones shooting down aircraft in that area, at that time.

Of course, it could have been a false flag by some horrible evil Western gov't to surreptitiously bring a BUK missile system (which no one had except the USSR and successors) into the rebel held area, shoot down the plane without any rebels noticing. All for no real reason save to make Russia look bad or something, especially since Russia hasn't actually declared war on the Ukraine.

But there's no evidence of that, and given the lack of same, I am reminded of the old adage, "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably not a sheep"

You have no idea of the concept of:
1: Assumption vs Evidence: You are making an assumption.
2: The burden of proof: It is up to the people claiming Russia are responsible, to prove it, not for others to disprove it.

roryc

The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.

SeanW

KahBoom wrote: »

You have no idea of the concept of:
1: Assumption vs Evidence: You are making an assumption.

Actually the evidence leads to only one conclusion. It's the "Russia uber alles" crowd that's just making up stuff about Kyiv.

2: The burden of proof: It is up to the people claiming Russia are responsible, to prove it, not for others to disprove it.

The proof shows that the separatists are responsible. Not the Russian state. Unless you are admitting that Russia is behind the whole thing?

gandalf

Occam's razor.

KahBoom

roryc wrote: »

The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.

gandalf wrote: »

Occam's razor.

This is pathetic reasoning, trying to elevate assumption to the level of credibility, as proof. If you want to ratchet up tensions with Russia - a very serious act that can lead to escalations down the path towards war in the long run - you need hard evidence.

KahBoom

SeanW wrote: »

Actually the evidence leads to only one conclusion. It's the "Russia uber alles" crowd that's just making up stuff about Kyiv.
The proof shows that the separatists are responsible. Not the Russian state. Unless you are admitting that Russia is behind the whole thing?

Except you have no evidence, only assumptions.

KahBoom

You can keep repeating "if it looks like a duck" etc. endlessly all day, and I will keep repeatedly demanding evidence, and pointing out how your 'evidence' thus far, is merely based upon assumption - this can go along that pattern all day if you like.

comongethappy

KahBoom wrote: »

You can keep repeating "if it looks like a duck" etc. endlessly all day, and I will keep repeatedly demanding evidence, and pointing out how your 'evidence' thus far, is merely based upon assumption - this can go along that pattern all day if you like.

True.

Example: when the rebel leadership say not once, but twice that they shot down MH-17, its easy to make the the assumption that they did.

When everyone knows double admission counts for nothing.

KahBoom

comongethappy wrote: »

True.

Example: when the rebel leadership say not once, but twice that they shot down MH-17, its easy to make the the assumption that they did.

When everyone knows double admission counts for nothing.

Care to back that up with anything? Pretty much all such claims are heavily in dispute, with fabricated reports being churned out by both sides.

Egginacup

pablo128 wrote: »

There you go.

I still don't see how this constitutes "condoning" corpse robbing. Perhaps my choice of words was overly "casual" but the "whoopie" wasn't aimed at the alleged crime but rather the report.

gandalf

KahBoom wrote: »

This is pathetic reasoning, trying to elevate assumption to the level of credibility, as proof. If you want to ratchet up tensions with Russia - a very serious act that can lead to escalations down the path towards war in the long run - you need hard evidence.

How is using all the evidence at hand as a tool to formulate what happened pathetic.

• The only group shooting down planes in Eastern Ukraine are the Pro-Russian Terrorists supported by Moscow.
  
• A few days before the murder of 298 innocent civilians a Ukrainian military AN-26 was shot down from a height of 21,000 feet and claimed by the Pro-Russian Terrorists.
  
• The day the plane was shot down one of the Pro-Russian Terrorist leaders claimed responsibility for the crime and then hastily and clumsily deleted the evidence when they realised that a terrible mistake had taken place.
  
• The Pro-Russian Terrorists had a Buk system prior to the shooting down and it was ferreted back to Russia after the event. That has been confirmed by several sources including a leader of one of the Pro-Russian Terrorist factions. That source also confirmed that the two Buk systems captured from the Ukrainians by the Pro-Russian Terrorists were not operational. The operational one was supplied by the Russians.

This is not leading down the path of war. It is leading down the path of further sanctions and isolation for Russia. The only war taking place right now is the proxy war by Russia using mercenaries against a neighbouring sovereign state. They have it in their power to stop this undermining of a neighbouring state.

KahBoom

gandalf wrote: »

How is using all the evidence at hand as a tool to formulate what happened pathetic.

• The only group shooting down planes in Eastern Ukraine are the Pro-Russian Terrorists supported by Moscow.
• A few days before the murder of 298 innocent civilians a Ukrainian military AN-26 was shot down from a height of 21,000 feet and claimed by the Pro-Russian Terrorists.
• The day the plane was shot down one of the Pro-Russian Terrorist leaders claimed responsibility for the crime and then hastily and clumsily deleted the evidence when they realised that a terrible mistake had taken place.
• The Pro-Russian Terrorists had a Buk system prior to the shooting down and it was ferreted back to Russia after the event. That has been confirmed by several sources including a leader of one of the Pro-Russian Terrorist factions. That source also confirmed that the two Buk systems captured from the Ukrainians by the Pro-Russian Terrorists were not operational. The operational one was supplied by the Russians.

This is not leading down the path of war. It is leading down the path of further sanctions and isolation for Russia. The only war taking place right now is the proxy war by Russia using mercenaries against a neighbouring sovereign state. They have it in their power to stop this undermining of a neighbouring state.

You don't have evidence, you have assumptions. Show me some evidence - not stuff that has later shown to be fabricated, actual hard/undeniable evidence - actually link me to your evidence, go on.

comongethappy

KahBoom wrote: »

You don't have evidence, you have assumptions. Show me some evidence - not stuff that has later shown to be fabricated, actual hard/undeniable evidence - actually link me to your evidence, go on.

That has been done already.... Ad nauseum.

http://www.logicalsignals.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Hear-No-Evil-See-No-Evil-Speak-No-Evil.jpg

Denial isn't just a river in Africa.

whatstherush

KahBoom wrote: »

You don't have evidence, you have assumptions. Show me some evidence - not stuff that has later shown to be fabricated, actual hard/undeniable evidence - actually link me to your evidence, go on.

Yourself and eggy keep saying this, What has shown to been fabricated?

Egginacup

roryc wrote: »

The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.

The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.
The most likely scenario is almost always the reality.

Would you apply that axiom to Assad gassing his own people?