Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

gandalf

KahBoom wrote: »

What you've posted doesn't make any sense, as a sentence.

If people want sanctions against Russia - an action that can set in motion a chain of events that can lead to further escalation, maybe even to Cold War levels - they better damn well have solid proof backing it.

Define solid proof please?

KahBoom

gandalf wrote: »

Actually if your read what you linked to you would find that they have said that the group was actually used as a source for news about Strelkov by numerous media outlets from the East and the West and that it was largely accurate.

So far from this debunking the Vkontakte group as a valid source it actually confirms that it was quite a reliable indication of information from the Pro-Russian Terrorists.

The group themselves - who you say are largely accurate - claimed:
"Information about the downing of the plane was taken from a forum where local residents and militia have discussions."

The information for the report they made, was - by their own claim - not from Col. Strelkov.

So which is it, are they accurate, or inaccurate?

KahBoom

gandalf wrote: »

Define solid proof please?

Direct evidence showing who downed the plane, e.g. spy satellite videos/pictures, or other sources of equally solid information (which the US almost certainly has, given they must have loads of reconnaissance trained on Ukraine) - not social media websites which put out unreliable news reports, based on speculative information from the local community.

aloyisious

KahBoom wrote: »

What you've posted doesn't make any sense, as a sentence.

If people want sanctions against Russia - an action that can set in motion a chain of events that can lead to further escalation, maybe even to Cold War levels - they better damn well have solid proof backing it.

On the basis of the above both the US and the EU have got it all wrong in applying existing sanctions and setting up new higher-effect sanctions against the Putin Administration and it's Military/Industrial complex. Plus Vlad got this kick in the teeth from two international courts recently...

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/russia-told-to-pay-yukos-investors-30474373.html

gandalf

KahBoom wrote: »

The group themselves - who you say are largely accurate - claimed:
"Information about the downing of the plane was taken from a forum where local residents and militia have discussions."

The information for the report they made, was - by their own claim - not from Col. Strelkov.

So which is it, are they accurate, or inaccurate?

That statement was put up after they shot down a civilian plane in error thinking they were shooting down a Ukrainian plane.

The site you posted as debunking this said the following about that statement.

The “Strelkov Dispatches” Vkontakte group has now published this convoluted explanation for why they removed the post about the downed plane:

Followed by this.

Meanwhile, ikorpus.ru denounced the original VKontakte post as a “plant” by Ukrainians and denied that separatists had ever seen a Buk — forgetting that by this time, multiple Russian news sites had already mentioned their previous boasts of having them. They fumed that Ukrainian sites “planted” the story of the “Ukrainian plane” in advance before the plane downing. But in fact the story came out about the same time — and they can’t explain why Russian news outlets used it — or the same talking points from various separatist sources.

Thanks that is a really useful addition tool to prove that the Pro-Russian Terrorists WERE behind the murder of 298 civilians and the panicked scramble that occurred after they realised their mistake.

http://www.interpretermag.com/was-col-strelkovs-dispatch-about-a-downed-ukrainian-plane-authentic/

shruikan2553

KahBoom wrote: »

Direct evidence showing who downed the plane, e.g. spy satellite videos/pictures, or other sources of equally solid information (which the US almost certainly has, given they must have loads of reconnaissance trained on Ukraine) - not social media websites which put out unreliable news reports, based on speculative information from the local community.

The quality of the satellites wouldn't be great. Could easily be Ukraine pretending to be Russians as they attempt to assassinate Hitler or whoever it is they were trying to kill.

roryc

KahBoom wrote: »

Instead of wasting peoples time like that

The only people wasting time on this thread are you, and Komrade Egginacup.

He set up his account specifically to troll this thread, asking for a ridiculously high level of proof for the simplest of assumptions, yet making bizarre statements himself while ignoring the HUGE number of posters asking him for proof. I cannot take him seriously until he at least shows proof (to the same level he requires) that the videos are 100% fake. Something he has claimed numerous times.

You on the other hand, just want an argument. A quick look over your brief stint on boards.ie highlights the huge number of arguments you have gotten into already. You open a thread, pick a side, and argue. Pathetic.

KahBoom

roryc wrote: »

The only people wasting time on this thread are you, and Komrade Egginacup.

He set up his account specifically to troll this thread, asking for a ridiculously high level of proof for the simplest of assumptions, yet making bizarre statements himself while ignoring the HUGE number of posters asking him for proof. I cannot take him seriously until he at least shows proof (to the same level he requires) that the videos are 100% fake. Something he has claimed numerous times.

You on the other hand, just want an argument. A quick look over your brief stint on boards.ie highlights the huge number of arguments you have gotten into already. You open a thread, pick a side, and argue. Pathetic.

It took people a page and a half of whining, just to provide one single link, to an unreliable source that doesn't prove anything.

If you really suggest that saying "go back and read 135 pages" constitutes providing proof to back your claims, then you're obviously here to just assist in trying to obstruct any discussion/debate.

Just looking for an argument? You do understand that on Boards, people debate with each other, and when people post unbacked claims, they get called out on that, ya?
If you can't back up your views with reliable evidence, you'll get challenged on it - whining that people are "just looking for an argument" when that happens, is petulant.

I post on Boards mainly to debate topics I'm interested or knowledgeable about, just like loads of other posters, and I never pick a side or debate a point, just for the sake of it - but I do relentlessly call people out when they are posting unbacked nonsense.

gandalf

KahBoom wrote: »

It took people a page and a half of whining, just to provide one single link, to an unreliable source that doesn't prove anything.

If you really suggest that saying "go back and read 135 pages" constitutes providing proof to back your claims, then you're obviously here to just assist in trying to obstruct any discussion/debate.

Just looking for an argument? You do understand that on Boards, people debate with each other, and when people post unbacked claims, they get called out on that, ya?
If you can't back up your views with reliable evidence, you'll get challenged on it - whining that people are "just looking for an argument" when that happens, is petulant.

I post on Boards mainly to debate topics I'm interested or knowledgeable about, just like loads of other posters, and I never pick a side or debate a point, just for the sake of it - but I do relentlessly call people out when they are posting unbacked nonsense.

But it's not un-backed nonsense. Just because you arrive late in the day you expect us to rewind the whole discussion for your benefit. The information is already there, it is searchable, it is linear you can read through it. You strike me as a person who is well capable of reading so I suggest you do.

KahBoom

gandalf wrote: »

But it's not un-backed nonsense. Just because you arrive late in the day you expect us to rewind the whole discussion for your benefit. The information is already there, it is searchable, it is linear you can read through it. You strike me as a person who is well capable of reading so I suggest you do.

A person who wants someone to read 135 pages before they can contribute to a debate, is someone who is trying to monopolize debate and claim authority over it, to try and shut other people out of debate - if you make a claim, back it with proof - and saying "go read 135 pages" is not proof.

It is also unbacked, because the link you finally provided to prove you claim, does not provide reliable evidence - it (if we take the website as credible) is a claim from the local community, not from the rebel military.

gandalf

KahBoom wrote: »

A person who wants someone to read 135 pages before they can contribute to a debate, is someone who is trying to monopolize debate and claim authority over it, to try and shut other people out of debate - if you make a claim, back it with proof - and saying "go read 135 pages" is not proof.

But as we have said we have already provided the proof because you are TOO LAZY to read the thread we shouldn't have to be expected to reguritate the whole content for your benefit.

What next you want us to do a soap opera like re-cap, "Last Week on Apologists for Murder..........."

KahBoom

gandalf wrote: »

But as we have said we have already provided the proof because you are TOO LAZY to read the thread we shouldn't have to be expected to reguritate the whole content for your benefit.

What next you want us to do a soap opera like re-cap, "Last Week on Apologists for Murder..........."

Nobody can reasonably be expected to read 135 pages, if you are too lazy to provide a link instead of saying "go read 135 pages", your argument has no credibility.

You did not even provide proof of anything, because the social media website you claim as proof, has directly said that the source of the information was the local community, not the rebel military.

Your own source debunked your claim of having proof.

Now you are engaging in hysterics as well "apologists for murder" - nobody here even knows who is responsible yet.

gandalf

KahBoom wrote: »

It is also unbacked, because the link you finally provided to prove you claim, does not provide reliable evidence - it (if we take the website as credible) is a claim from the local community, not from the rebel military.

But the Pro-Russian Terrorists claim to represent the community?

KahBoom

gandalf wrote: »

But the Pro-Russian Terrorists claim to represent the community?

So? As far as we know, all the community saw was the plane going down, not who fired upon it.

gandalf

KahBoom wrote: »

So? As far as we know, all the community saw was the plane going down, not who fired upon it.

In the thread there is a video link with english translation where those talking state that the plane was taken down by the Pro-Russian Terrorists.

BTW I DO expect you to be able to scan through the whole 135 page thread before you wade in. Typically I would do that to get a good idea of what it is about instead of wading in ignorantly as you have.

(Btw if you go into your user CP and adjust the "Number of Posts to Show Per Page" setting you can scan through it a lot quicker. See I can give friendly advice as well).

josip

Egginacup wrote: »

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

Whataboutery

josip

KahBoom wrote: »

...nobody here even knows who is responsible yet.

If anyone knows, it's eggy.

KahBoom

Ok, so now that you are moving on, we can completely dismiss the social media website claims as unreliable - I'll accept that as a concession.

gandalf wrote: »

In the thread there is a video link with english translation where those talking state that the plane was taken down by the Pro-Russian Terrorists.

BTW I DO expect you to be able to scan through the whole 135 page thread before you wade in. Typically I would do that to get a good idea of what it is about instead of wading in ignorantly as you have.

You're just proving that you are trying to claim a monopoly on discussion here - you know 135 pages is unreasonable for anyone to wade through, and if you weren't so lazy you would simply provide a link to that video.

If that video was this one:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jul/18/mh17-recording-russian-colonel-rebels-discuss-disaster-video

Then that is from the Ukrainian security services, who are not a reliable source - neither are the US government reliable, as verification of that recording - no notable news organizations can appear to independently verify the authenticity of that recording, which makes it unreliable as evidence.

whatstherush

KahBoom wrote: »

Then that is from the Ukrainian security services, who are not a reliable source - neither are the US government reliable.

KahBoom wrote: »

Direct evidence showing who downed the plane, e.g. spy satellite videos/pictures, or other sources of equally solid information (which the US almost certainly has, given they must have loads of reconnaissance trained on Ukraine) - not social media websites which put out unreliable news reports, based on speculative information from the local community.

So you want "direct" evidence from the US govt, but which you also claim is an unreliable source

KahBoom

whatstherush wrote: »

So you want "direct" evidence from the US govt, but which you also claim is an unreliable source

You deliberately misquoted me, to put my post out of context, so you could put an argument in my mouth that I did not make (I said the US is not reliable for verification of the recording - it needs independent verification). Quote my sentences in full.

whatstherush

KahBoom wrote: »

You deliberately misquoted me, to put my post out of context, so you could put an argument in my mouth that I did not make (I said the US is not reliable for verification of the recording - it needs independent verification). Quote my sentences in full.

I quoted the relevant sections to my point, refute the with the full quotation so.

And why is the US unreliable when its comes to the recording and not when it comes to satellite images/videos?

KahBoom

whatstherush wrote: »

I quoted the relevant sections to my point, refute the with the full quotation so.

And why is the US unreliable when its comes to the recording and not when it comes to satellite images/videos?

I'm not going to respond to an arguments based on quote-mining, that deliberately put my argument out of context. Quote me in full.

I've already shown that your argument is a misrepresentation of what I've said.

whatstherush

KahBoom wrote: »

I'm not going to respond to an arguments based on quote-mining, that deliberately put my argument out of context. Quote me in full.

I've already shown that your argument is a misrepresentation of what I've said.

why is the US unreliable when its comes to the recording and not when it comes to satellite images/videos?

roryc

140 posts, and I would guess that a minimum of 100 of those are argumentative and trolling in nature. And then telling me "you do understand Boards" - I do thanks... I've been posting here long enough. And I guarantee the majority of those posts haven't been as argumentative as yours. You arrive into the thread late and expect everyone to summarise it for you. One of us doesn't understand boards alright...

KahBoom

whatstherush wrote: »

why is the US unreliable when its comes to the recording and not when it comes to satellite images/videos?

The US did not provide the recording, the Ukrainian security services did. The US is not reliable as verification of the recording, it requires independent verification.

loughside

KahBoom wrote: »

The US did not provide the recording, the Ukrainian security services did. The US is not reliable as verification of the recording, it requires independent verification.

LOL!!!

signs of confusion and panic in the kremlin camp !!

KahBoom

roryc wrote: »

140 posts, and I would guess that a minimum of 100 of those are argumentative and trolling in nature. And then telling me "you do understand Boards" - I do thanks... I've been posting here long enough. And I guarantee the majority of those posts haven't been as argumentative as yours. You arrive into the thread late and expect everyone to summarise it for you. One of us doesn't understand boards alright...

And more selective misquoting, to make it look like I said something, I did not. Only responding to this, to note the quote-mining.

whatstherush

KahBoom wrote: »

The US did not provide the recording, the Ukrainian security services did. The US is not reliable as verification of the recording, it requires independent verification.

So just to be clear you trust the US to provide Satellite images/videos but you don't trust them to verify the authentication of the recording. You require independent verification. What may I ask would satisfy independent verification?

KahBoom

whatstherush wrote: »

So just to be clear you trust the US to provide Satellite images/videos but you don't trust them to verify the authentication of the recording. You require independent verification. What may I ask would satisfy independent verification?

That most reputable news organizations, say they are unable to independently verify the recording, suggests that it can't be independently verified - making it useless as evidence.

If the US provide satellite images/videos, they can be subject to independent verification.

whatstherush

KahBoom wrote: »

If the US provide satellite images/videos, they can be subject to independent verification.

Only asking now, but in what way can the US images/videos be independently verified, that the recording can't?