Who is responsible for the malaysian flight being shot down

a reply to: defcon5

The flight was diverted to avoid a thunderstorm. Unless they revoked that statement I consider that proof. www.businessinsider.com...

It doesn't matter what altitude the liner was at. Ukraine was aware that the rebels had gained the BUK system

a reply to: defcon5

oh yes we have supplied weapons to those we shouldn't have.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22899289

deadlinelive.info...

freebeacon.com...

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2966130/posts

a reply to: generik

the real fault in all of this is the person(s), who made the decision to overfly a war zone, especially when you keep in mind it is a war zone that aircraft are being shot down in. if that plane had not been in that area, it would not have been shot down. this is the one fact that caused it. it doesn't even matter which side actually shot it down, if it wasn't there to be a target, it would not have happened.

And how about the other planes that have flown that same flight path many times before this one?

This is not a new route for these planes and as it has been shown there was not a no fly zone at that altitude because the height of the other planes shot down was far lower than this plane so they didn't think this was a problem.

And most countries fighting a war do not target international flights full of civilians, but in this case I (and this is just my opinion) don't think it was done intentionally but it was done because they misidentified the plane because they (separatists) do not have the expertise to run this type of weapons.

And that is why this happened.

a reply to: fixitwcw
Please go back and read what I actually wrote.
Then show me where the US has EVER given this type of equipment:

To any rebels, cartels, etc...
They only sell that type of military gear to recognized allied governments, and there are very steep restrictions on it. For one thing, we only supply them with limited replacement parts, so that the supply can be shut off at a moments notice. We also provide the tech support on that equipment, so that if its used irresponsibly we simply remove our personnel and they cannot fix, maintain, or sometimes even operate that equipment.

a reply to: Zandril
Go read the article I posted above.
Yes it does matter. No aircraft had EVER been hit flying at that level by that type of equipment, so they assumed it was safe. Either way though, its THEIR AIRSPACE... What right does anyone have to try and control it?

a reply to: defcon5

its THEIR AIRSPACE... What right does anyone have to try and control it?

That seems to be something that alot of people are forgetting...It's Ukranian airspace not Russian separatists airspace.

Russian separatists have no say as to who can fly over Ukraine.

Given that TWA flight 800 was allegedly shot down by the US Navy exactly 18 years ago, I'd say someone involved in rituals...

a reply to: NuclearPaul
Topic for another thread, but I looked into that and the theory that the Navy did it doesn't hold much water. There is a good show about it on Netflix, if you have it. It looks a lot more like it was about terrorists, and the trial of a terrorist that the FBI was prosecuting at the time that it happened.

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: fixitwcw
my hunch is that the ukraine gave the nod, simply because they need outside intervention to quell the uprising.

Here is an article I just posted in another thread:
Height of Ukraine No Fly Zone Faces Scrutiny
Yeah, okay, they call it a “no fly zone” in the title, but its a flight restriction.

The Ukrainians based this on the belief that they only had to worry about “manpads” with an altitude of 15K feet, but the Russians had given them equipment that reached up to 40K feet. The 40K foot AA has to be radar guided, which means it can pick up the transponder, and if the operators were qualified on the equipment, should have known that this was a civilian aircraft. They shot anyway, either because they were unqualified to operate this level of equipment, or because they weren't going to trust the IFF was correct and were recklessly shooting at everything.

Either way this is WAY bad for Russia. They had no right to arm them with this type of equipment.

originally posted by: fixitwcw
an international "false flag" so to speak. i do not believe that russia gave the nod to do this because they are not stupid, they knew everyone would point the finger at them....

I think that the Russians were too busy trying to shut down their airspace to give a thought to what would happen if something went wrong. Russia doesn't control the Ukraine's Airspace Restrictions, and the Ukrainian Aviation Authority obviously didn't know the Russians gave them equipment that could hit a target at that altitude.

Here's the key though.
Did the Ukrainian Aviation Authority make a mistake in allowing traffic through at that altitude?
Yeah, they did.
BUT, that was a mistake made on imperfect knowledge.
Did the Russians make a mistake in giving that equipment to untrained separatists?
Yeah they did...
BUT, that mistake was criminal negligence in supplying high level AA equipment to essentially terrorist for use in another countries airspace. In other words, they should have known better than this, but were more concerned with “blockading” air traffic, than thinking of what might happen if the Ukrainians didn't think to put high enough restrictions on their airspace.

originally posted by: fixitwcw
we have supplied many more weapons, to many more half-cocked, half-rocked, banana republics and resistance movements, than russia, or the soviet union for that matter in it's entire existence.....

we have never supplied this level of equipment to any rebels factions, only to recognized governments.

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: Zandril
Go read the article I posted above.
Yes it does matter. No aircraft had EVER been hit flying at that level by that type of equipment, so they assumed it was safe.

just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't happen. and what you said "so they assumed it was safe", shows the biggest problem of all. they assumed, well they may have thought it was all right, but hindsight has proven their assumption was wrong. that is the problem of assuming anything, you could be right, you could be wrong. i wonder how many times in wars throughout history a wrong assumption has cost lives, be it bad intelligence or estimates of what the opposing force had or was capable of. the Ardennes forest and the battle of the bulge comes to mind. or the US's assumption that the Russians could not shoot down the U-2 because they lacked the capability to hit something that high, until of course they were proven wrong when the Russians did indeed shoot one down.

Either way though, its THEIR AIRSPACE... What right does anyone have to try and control it?

that is a bit questionable considering that this is a civil war. but what about their responsibility to safeguard people traveling in airspace they theoretically control? that should be the primary concern of both civil aviation authorities through air traffic control, and pilots of civilian airliners in regards to their passengers. in short they have the responsibility to put passenger/aircraft safety ahead of all else. they should be erring on the side of caution, and act in the safest manor possible. that doesn't mean. "gee we think they can't hit something over a certain height, so if you fly higher you should be all right". that means that you take the safest measures and close down the airspace at all levels, just to be on the safe side.

even IF they were doing something like avoiding a storm, they could have chosen a different path than the one they took, preferably one that did not overfly any active war zone, where aircraft are being shot down. i for one hope both the airline and the pro-western government get nailed heavily in lawsuits for their GROSS INCOMPETENCE, and NEGLIGENCE in regards to flying over this war zone. both failed to do all that was needed to ensure the safety of those passengers, and sent the aircraft into harms way.

a reply to: cosmonova
RT is a Russian propaganda site, and is NOT a credible source in this situation.

originally posted by: generik
just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't happen. and what you said "so they assumed it was safe", shows the biggest problem of all.

Everything in aviation is based on assumptions made from past experiences, its the nature of the business.

originally posted by: generik
that is a bit questionable considering that this is a civil war.

Not at all.
Just because there is contention about who the elected leader is does not mean that the sovereignty of their airspace also comes under question. Russian had no right to support them attempting to blockade it.

So for example, lets just say that tomorrow it comes out that Obama is a kenyan ( ), and was never eligible for office. Just because he is not the valid president doesn't mean that there is no law in effect, that things don't operate as per business as usual, that all the prisoners are allowed out of jail, and that the FAA doesn't have control of our airspace.

This is akin to rights involving ships and nautical law, a local dispute does not change how those laws work, or make them invalid.

Russia didn't shoot down MH370.

Someone did.

That same someone would benefit from shooting down MH17 and making it look like Russia was responsible.

It's no coincidence that the plane that crashed in the Ukraine is the same airline as MH370.

Will it take a THIRD Malaysia Airline crash to prove this point?

a reply to: defcon5

RT is a Russian propaganda site, and is NOT a credible source in this situation.

That doesn't matter to some RT is the bastion of truth depending on who you ask.

I think the airline itself should be grounded; 2 incidents' in how many weeks?

How good are they at retrieving what remains of any of the corpses?

Personally, I can't imagine myself following orders to pilot a boatload of souls into...

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: bjarneorn

BTW...Notice that Russia suddenly packed up its missile launchers on flatbeds, and got them out of the country in a damn big hurry after this. Yeah, that's because this was their fault, 100%, and they damn well know it.

And you know this how ? ..... you were there and saw it happening or you sucked up the 3 second video snippet put out by msm that anyone could have made up and meant nothing.

Although there needs to be more evidence, I think Ukraine did it. When you hear all American news medias agreeing and running with wild theories and making baseless accusations then it's safe to say that they have a reason to try and protect Ukraine. Why is the US so willing to put Armageddon on the table for Ukraine? Joe Bidens son now works in Ukraine, not to mention, many, many "specialists" from America. Does this sound right to anyone? Hopefully, Russia can prove that this was a false flag and that will give them the authority to steam-roll Ukraine.

If it was an accident or intentional by separatists then that will need to be addressed too. Many lives were lost and their families deserve to know who done it and why.

a reply to: loveguy

I think the airline itself should be grounded; 2 incidents' in how many weeks?

You can't blame Malaysian Air for this, as they were just flying over where other flights have flown before them.

originally posted by: supamoto

So was it Ukraine air traffic control who directed the flight path & are the Ukrainians backed by the US?
I'm just asking.

That's what I'm asking too ... I just came from China a few days ago, it might have been my flight diverted over that area and been shot down.

To me, the crime is to use this tragedy for some political propaganda ... I don't care whose in control in Ukraine. Nationalists, or Russians ... the stink is the same to me. But what I do care about, is that a commercial plane was allowed to fly over an area, we all know to be in turmoil and in a state of civil war. Where the warring parties have declared "no fly zone".

And what is being done? using the victims, as war propaganda to further some political agenda. That certainly sounds to me, as somebody "wanted" it to happen. And the fact, that the plane is allowed to stray off course, to fly over the northern part of this zone ... instead of flying south of it and skipping it entirely. And not just for a few nautical miles, but all the way from Poland and all the time it is flying over Ukraine. Ukrainian flight control should, better than anybody else, know of the danger that flight was in ... and yet, allowed it to carry on ... right into the belly of the beast.

That kinda sounds like determined, to me.

originally posted by: Fylgje
Although there needs to be more evidence, I think Ukraine did it.

I think this is a classic comment.

"I don't have enough evidence to be sure of anything, but I'm prepared to say at this point the Ukraine is responsible."

You kids play amongst yourselves, I'm going out.