Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

Options
1…130131133135136…148

Comments

  • Options
    #3962
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    I'm not doubting it! It was obviously a mistake....I'm just pointing out that RT might have a different view, just as the Western Media have.

    See your post above regarding you not doubting it ?

    And then we have Oleg Strochevoy, deputy head of Rosaviatsiya, the national civil aviation regulator, so that is Russia

    And then of course Ukraine

    http://mfa.gov.ua/en/news-feeds/foreign-offices-news/26028-pres-reliz-pozicija-ukrajini-shhodo-tragediji-povjazanoji-z-litakom-malajzijsykih-avialinij-mn17

    Plus my examples of RT posting it was a BUK
    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    So I have helpfully eliminated your non-facts and focussed on three sources which may or may not provide proof.

    Soo we have 7 different sources stating it was a BUK ...

    You are eliminating things alright but I'm afraid its not my non facts ...


  • Options
    #3963
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    weisses wrote: »
    Maybe reading some material before posting ill informed replies will help you next time

    The link to the Dutch report is in this thread and can be found online... Same goes for the bellingcat report. You do know how to use google right ??

    And the Alma's antey is widely covered by your favourite news outlet.( they had a nice presentation prepared .. Nice video )

    Off you go now and do some reading up and maybe then we can have a serious discussion

    I take it from that rather limp response that none of these reports contain anything approaching proof? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #3964
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    weisses wrote: »


    Soo we have 7 different sources stating it was a BUK ...

    You are eliminating things alright but I'm afraid its not my non facts ...

    Again...people stating things is not proof. Has anyone provided evidence that would stand up in a court confirming that a BUK shot the plane down?

    A simple yes or no will do...you can cut out the insults and "lectures"; just a yes or a no - with a link to the source.

    The longer you waffle and fail to do so the more it seems that you don't, in fact, have any proof.

    And I asked for a link to the "proof"; not suggestions that I google anything - it is you, not me, who is making the claim that the cause is proven.


  • Options
    #3965
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    Again...people stating things is not proof. Has anyone provided evidence that would stand up in a court confirming that a BUK shot the plane down?

    A simple yes or no will do...you can cut out the insults and "lectures"; just a yes or a no - with a link to the source.

    Yes ... Well if one is not willing to listen to reason one needs to be lectured
    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    The longer you waffle and fail to do so the more it seems that you don't, in fact, have any proof.

    Why do I need to have proof ? its out there ..The dutch report ..The bellingcat report, the almaz antey findings

    I am not here to spoon-feed you information of which you have no doubt is the correct one
    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    And I asked for a link to the "proof"; not suggestions that I google anything - it is you, not me, who is making the claim that the cause is proven.

    Again The links are here on this thread posted on the 13th of October and 4 th of January.. and widely available via google ... again if you want to be spoon fed then stick with RT as a source ... otherwise your question regarding proof is already supplied on thread ...I suggest you read it

    Maybe focus a bit less on the western MSM and stick to the facts ... Don't try to Muddy the water for a change

    RT states the BUK theory is not proven ... 7 sources and 3 reports state otherwise


  • Options
    #3966
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    weisses wrote: »
    Yes ... Well if one is not willing to listen to reason one needs to be lectured



    Why do I need to have proof ? its out there ..The dutch report ..The bellingcat report, the almaz antey findings

    I am not here to spoon-feed you information of which you have no doubt is the correct one



    Again The links are here on this thread posted on the 13th of October and 4 th of January.. and widely available via google ... again if you want to be spoon fed then stick with RT as a source ... otherwise your question regarding proof is already supplied on thread ...I suggest you read it

    Maybe focus a bit less on the western MSM and stick to the facts ... Don't try to Muddy the water for a change

    RT states the BUK theory is not proven ... 7 sources and 3 reports state otherwise

    A very long-winded NO!

    You have no proof or links to any proof...that's all I asked for :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3967
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    A very long-winded NO!

    You have no proof or links to any proof...that's all I asked for :rolleyes:

    As you are so concerned about proof

    What evidence made you decide you have no doubt it was a BUK ? and didn't for a moment think it crashed for any other reason?

    I mean it must have been more then a hunch, considering your alleged obsession with proof

    Or maybe you don't care about proof ? Which looks more obvious going to your contributions so far, why do you need to be so obtuse if you are really interested in facts

    Like I said earlier .. Stick with RT if you want to be spoon fed, All the info is on thread, I provided the posting dates, which should be more then enough for anyone genuinely interested in the topic.


  • Options
    #3968
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    I'm not Russian. not paid and not a troll.

    I asked for proof and after 4 pages of evasive waffling weisses finally conceded there isn't any.


  • Options
    #3969
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    I'm not Russian. not paid and not a troll.

    I asked for proof and after 4 pages of evasive waffling weisses finally conceded there isn't any.

    A reply to my last post would be nice

    Well I agree with you not being paid

    You where actively discussing the then upcoming report with your usual helpful comments as
    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    You are obviously not getting the message - I regard the investigation as irrelevant, of little or no interest and of little or no use.

    More interesting was this one
    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    OK. I am assuming based on everything I heard from both sides (perhaps incorrectly) that it was shot down by a BUK and don't for a moment think it crashed for any other reason.

    It is possible that a Ukrainian aircraft shot it down as a "black op" or because they thought Putin was on board - but I am applying Occam's razor here because the rebels initially claimed they'd shot down a Ukrainian warplane.

    That being so I don't waste my time thinking about it. ;)

    So you knew the report was coming and i doubt you missed it when the link was posted and discussed on october the 13th in post 3809

    And now you are here stamping with your feet demanding other posters spoon feeding you information you know is on thread

    Like i said earlier ... You where caught with your pants down claiming RT as being accurate and because of that you are posting 4 pages of nonsensical distractions in an attempt to deflect from the main issue.


  • Options
    #3970
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    weisses wrote: »
    A reply to my last post would be nice....

    As would some of your fantasy "proof" :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #3971
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,984 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Anyone can choose to accept or dismiss proof based on their own personal standards, hell you couldn't prove to me the world is round because I could just dismiss it all

    What matters is the evidence and counter-evidence

    The current evidence points to a BUK

    In comparison the evidence that the airliner was e.g. shot down by a Ukrainian jet is far less substantial, weaker

    Comparing the two, or other alternate theories, demonstrates that the case the airliner was shot down by a BUK is not only stronger, but overwhelmingly so

    Requiring (or obsessing over) absolute proof for one specific theory whilst entertaining other theories with far less or no evidence is not a good sign


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3972
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Requiring (or obsessing over) absolute proof for one specific theory whilst entertaining other theories with far less or no evidence is not a good sign

    I prefer to call it keeping an open mind. Which is a very good thing for a rationalist such as I.....;)


  • Options
    #3973
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    As would some of your fantasy "proof" :rolleyes:

    I gave you the exact post the report is in ..What more do you want ?

    And you yourself mentioned the almaz antey so you obviously are able to find that one ( hint ... its also mentioned in the alleged accurate RT article) which you must know because you labelled accurate yourself

    So please educate yourself on the matter

    But maybe its to much to ask from you

    Specially with nonsensical replies as the one below
    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    You are obviously not getting the message - I regard the investigation as irrelevant, of little or no interest and of little or no use.

    That being so I don't waste my time thinking about it. ;)

    And yet you have no problem wasting everyone time being obtuse for 4 pages


  • Options
    #3974
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9v3vpvcvv0U/Tl_jJBFuLRI/AAAAAAAAHi8/76hyVut0UFg/s1600/tin-foil-hat.jpg


  • Options
    #3975
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    weisses wrote: »
    And yet you have no problem wasting everyone time being obtuse for 4 pages

    Not obtuse, I was providing an education - it's a service I render.

    I stand by the comment you quote - but I'm really getting bored with this now so unless you produce some proof to delegitimize RT's use of the word "alleged" (which is where you started this exchange) then I won't be responding further....unless, of course, I feel like it :)

    My most relevant quote on this thread was in response to those asking when the relatives of MH17 would see some "justice".

    I pointed out that there was about the same prospect of them ever doing so as the people on the Iranian flight 655 shot down over the gulf by the USS Vincennes in 1988.

    That remains the definitive statement here on the issue :cool:


  • Options
    #3976
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,984 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    I prefer to call it keeping an open mind. Which is a very good thing for a rationalist such as I.....;)

    Attacking one theory which is based on strong evidence, and groundlessly dismissing that evidence

    Then entertaining far weaker theories with far less evidence without subjecting them to the same scrutiny

    That's not an open mind

    That's essentially interpreting information not based on veracity or truth, but whether it corresponds with a particular personal world view, belief or narrative

    Which will be obvious to anyone reading this thread


  • Options
    #3977
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Attacking one theory which is based on strong evidence, and groundlessly dismissing that evidence

    Then entertaining far weaker theories with far less evidence without subjecting them to the same scrutiny

    That's not an open mind

    That's essentially interpreting information not based on veracity or truth, but whether it corresponds with a particular personal world view, belief or narrative

    Which will be obvious to anyone reading this thread

    Another person who appears to have difficulty distinguishing fact from opinion.....


  • Options
    #3978
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    I stand by the comment you quote - but I'm really getting bored with this now so unless you produce some proof to delegitimize RT's use of the word "alleged" (which is where you started this exchange) then I won't be responding further....unless, of course, I feel like it :)

    You asked for a link to the proof I provided that ..with the exact postnumber

    The link you describe as being accurate also refers to the proof provided by the BUK manufacturer

    Another Link to proof was posted on the 4 th of January (bellingcat)

    I know you are bored so maybe start reading all the links proving it was a BUK missile instead of stating an article saying alleged as being accurate (on this front you could probably use some education instead of offering it)

    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    My most relevant quote on this thread was in response to those asking when the relatives of MH17 would see some "justice".

    Ohh yeah your disturbing obsession with western MSM
    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    I pointed out that there was about the same prospect of them ever doing so as the people on the Iranian flight 655 shot down over the gulf by the USS Vincennes in 1988.

    Ohh yeah remember that .... You learned the meaning of whataboutery on that one

    Maybe its better not to respond indeed ... your only muddying the water with nonsensical troll like replies.

    MH 17 was shot down with a BUK Missile ...Not allegedly .. (as all the evidence is showing)

    The RT link which YOU describe as being accurate are referencing on the same page to the Almaz antey report who states
    Almaz-Antey maintains that in fact a 9N314 warhead was responsible

    From the same according to you accurate RT article
    On October 13 the Almaz-Antey defense company presented the results of two full-scale experiments aimed at recreating the MH17 crash. The company concluded the missile that downed the flight was an old BUK model fired from a Ukrainian government controlled area, contesting the preliminary theory by Dutch investigators.

    Soooo is the Almaz antey investigation possibly flawed ? according to you they are because you believe the RT article is accurate when they say alleged


  • Options
    #3979
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    Your sounding even more confused than usual...wouldn't have thought that possible :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #3980
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    Your sounding even more confused than usual...wouldn't have thought that possible :rolleyes:

    Lets take this step by step because you seem easily confused

    Do you find the Almaz antey investigation (referenced to in the RT article) accurate? when they state:
    On October 13 the Almaz-Antey defense company presented the results of two full-scale experiments aimed at recreating the MH17 crash. The company concluded the missile that downed the flight was an old BUK model fired from a Ukrainian government controlled area, contesting the preliminary theory by Dutch investigators

    A simple yes or No will do


  • Options
    #3981
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    weisses wrote: »
    Lets take this step by step because you seem easily confused

    Do you find the Almaz antey investigation (referenced to in the RT article) accurate? when they state:



    A simple yes or No will do

    Like yourself when I asked you - dunno....so how can I say "yes" or "no" :cool:

    You are the one claiming to "know".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3982
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwji9uixtILLAhVRA44KHaYCDx0QFggbMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIran_Air_Flight_655&usg=AFQjCNH5w32v4jWYRdNGiqpShFfPFOofWw&sig2=t7VLaOVsK2cY8_GWYlVMhw

    https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiojo-etYLLAhWDBo4KHWjCCCYQFggnMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKorean_Air_Lines_Flight_007&usg=AFQjCNHem3VDl2_HKJ2F2Lzly0otU4E_Ng&sig2=AueiSzhBBXqOu0fuFylhog

    One thing about the MH17 or the MH370 the families will never have closure for the next 10/20 years.


  • Options
    #3983
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Busted Flat. wrote: »

    One thing about the MH17 or the MH370 the families will never have closure for the next 10/20 years.

    Times have changed .

    We'll leave MH370 to the cconspiracy theorists.

    We know what happened MH17 no mystery involved just have to wait a few weeks and see who's getting the offical blame then again
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #3984
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    Busted Flat. wrote: »
    https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwji9uixtILLAhVRA44KHaYCDx0QFggbMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIran_Air_Flight_655&usg=AFQjCNH5w32v4jWYRdNGiqpShFfPFOofWw&sig2=t7VLaOVsK2cY8_GWYlVMhw

    https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiojo-etYLLAhWDBo4KHWjCCCYQFggnMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKorean_Air_Lines_Flight_007&usg=AFQjCNHem3VDl2_HKJ2F2Lzly0otU4E_Ng&sig2=AueiSzhBBXqOu0fuFylhog

    One thing about the MH17 or the MH370 the families will never have closure for the next 10/20 years.

    Surprised you forgot about these ones...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Arab_Airlines_Flight_114

    Geopolitical reality check: the MH17 families have exactly the same prospect of getting justice/"closure" - none.


  • Options
    #3985
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    Like yourself when I asked you - dunno....so how can I say "yes" or "no" :cool:

    You are the one claiming to "know".

    Uhhh you claim that an article is accurate without reading it .. The Almaz antey findings where referenced in that article

    I claim nothing .. I point out the facts as stated in the various investigations....

    So maybe next time read something before having an opinion on it


  • Options
    #3986
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    Surprised you forgot about these ones...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Arab_Airlines_Flight_114

    Geopolitical reality check: the MH17 families have exactly the same prospect of getting justice/"closure" - none.

    At least they found out Russia is behind it despite all the efforts from the Kremlin to disrupt the investigation ....


  • Options
    #3987
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    weisses wrote: »
    At least they found out Russia is behind it despite all the efforts from the Kremlin to disrupt the investigation ....

    Nonsense.


  • Options
    #3988
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Schadenfreudia wrote: »
    Nonsense.


    Nope ... I think the bellingcat report is pretty accurate

    They did actual research ... Which of course you don't want anything to do with.

    But I do value your opinions, It's offers some nice entertainment to an otherwise serious subject


  • Options
    #3989
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Interesting news but hardly unexpected from russia and MH17 in December
    Putin has passed a new law absolving russia and himself of any culpability in the downing of MH17 .

    "on December 15th, Putin signed a new law allowing the Constitutional Court in Moscow to overrule the decisions of international courts where they contradict the principle of supremacy of the Russian constitution.

    The law was drafted in response to a decision by the Constitutional Court last July that rulings of the ECHR do not automatically apply in Russia. Instead, they must be individually approved and must not contradict Russian law.

    In the West, however, international lawyers say the new legislation means essentially that Moscow now has the right under Russian law to ignore rulings from Strasbourg if it finds them unpalatable."


    Safe to say the Buk missles were sent to Ukraine by the Russian government illegally and a russian buk shot down MH17 in Ukraine
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #3990
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Gatling wrote: »
    Interesting news but hardly unexpected from russia and MH17 in December
    Putin has passed a new law absolving russia and himself of any culpability in the downing of MH17 .

    "on December 15th, Putin signed a new law allowing the Constitutional Court in Moscow to overrule the decisions of international courts where they contradict the principle of supremacy of the Russian constitution.

    The law was drafted in response to a decision by the Constitutional Court last July that rulings of the ECHR do not automatically apply in Russia. Instead, they must be individually approved and must not contradict Russian law.

    In the West, however, international lawyers say the new legislation means essentially that Moscow now has the right under Russian law to ignore rulings from Strasbourg if it finds them unpalatable."


    Safe to say the Buk missles were sent to Ukraine by the Russian government illegally and a russian buk shot down MH17 in Ukraine

    Ohh that is no surprise at all ... Every piece of evidence so far points out to that scenario ....

    Sad thing however is that Russia is not the only super power who thinks it can do whatever it wants bypassing international law

    Situation in Russia is however that the highest courts there are discussing the unwanted gay relationship between a tiger and a goat


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3991
    Schadenfreudia
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Schadenfreudia


    weisses wrote: »
    Ohh that is no surprise at all ... Every piece of evidence so far points out to that scenario ....

    Sad thing however is that Russia is not the only super power who thinks it can do whatever it wants bypassing international law

    Situation in Russia is however that the highest courts there are discussing the unwanted gay relationship between a tiger and a goat


    To repeat the most salient point made on this thread:

    "The relatives of MH17 victims have exactly the same chance of "justice" in relation to the downing of MH17 as the relatives of the Iranian Flight 655 have - none"

    Must be nearly a year ago since I first pointed out this fact to those less fluent in geopolitics; but as my mission here is to educate I will persist. :cool:


Advertisement