MH17 Ukraine disaster: Dutch report blames missile

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And we know that the separatists stole a lot of equipment from the bases they took over. Why wouldn't they have Ukrainian army jeeps?

Ask yourself what's more likely: The Ukrainian military was allowed to move a big ticket item like a BUK through rebel held territory with no issue or the rebels had requisitioned a jeep from one of the bases they took over.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Why would they need to hide it. They were moving through allied territory. On top of that displaying such a powerful piece of equipment would galvanize their allies.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And we know that the separatists stole a lot of equipment from the bases they took over. Why wouldn't they have Ukrainian army jeeps?

Ask yourself what's more likely: The Ukrainian military was allowed to move a big ticket item like a BUK through rebel held territory with no issue or the rebels had requisitioned a jeep from one of the bases they took over.

And ask yourself the question, was that particular video actually shot on the 17th of July ?

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And we know that the separatists stole a lot of equipment from the bases they took over. Why wouldn't they have Ukrainian army jeeps?

Ask yourself what's more likely: The Ukrainian military was allowed to move a big ticket item like a BUK through rebel held territory with no issue or the rebels had requisitioned a jeep from one of the bases they took over.

And ask yourself the question, was that particular video actually shot on the 17th of July ?

And you need to ask yourself: "What was all that BS about fighter jets?" Even Russia admits it was a BUK now; they just want to frame Ukraine.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And we know that the separatists stole a lot of equipment from the bases they took over. Why wouldn't they have Ukrainian army jeeps?

Ask yourself what's more likely: The Ukrainian military was allowed to move a big ticket item like a BUK through rebel held territory with no issue or the rebels had requisitioned a jeep from one of the bases they took over.

And ask yourself the question, was that particular video actually shot on the 17th of July ?

And you need to ask yourself: "What was all that BS about fighter jets?" Even Russia admits it was a BUK now; they just want to frame Ukraine.

Well, there are actual local witnesses who say they have seen one fighter jet for sure and also still right after the crash (about 20 of them), while the criminal investigation team yesterday said they had problems finding witnesses of a BUK launch on the 17th of July, hence they could not give a more precise launch location.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: yuppa
I knew th epro russians would be on this thread saying Its a biased report. Thats what is argued all the time in legal issues. If th eother side don tlike th etruth of a objective party then they should not had agreed in th efirst place. I bet you i f it said something else Russia would be heralding th e decision.

You are not a pro russian so you support this report.

What is the difference here???

You dont question facts at all, you support the accusation against Russia. Who only provided the missile systems to Ukraine.

The dutch have it right. I support the SEPERATIST who TWEETED about it afterwards shot down th eaircraft by MISTAKE so why not just own up to giving them a weapon and russia be done with it?
And to Ultimatebelgian i seem to remeber you saying you would agree with the dutch report after it was done in a older post if i remember correctly.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And we know that the separatists stole a lot of equipment from the bases they took over. Why wouldn't they have Ukrainian army jeeps?

Ask yourself what's more likely: The Ukrainian military was allowed to move a big ticket item like a BUK through rebel held territory with no issue or the rebels had requisitioned a jeep from one of the bases they took over.

And ask yourself the question, was that particular video actually shot on the 17th of July ?

And you need to ask yourself: "What was all that BS about fighter jets?" Even Russia admits it was a BUK now; they just want to frame Ukraine.

Well, there are actual local witnesses who say they have seen one fighter jet for sure and also still right after the crash (about 20 of them)

Even though the Russian radar capture showed only civilian planes? And despite the overcast conditions? Given that the BUK would travel very quickly and leave a thin blue trail it is not surprising no-one seemed to notice it. It was also too small and fast to be picked up by radar.

a reply to: yuppa

The attempts by some people to rationalize away Russia's lies is pathetic. They just need to admit that Russia has been playing an inept shell game with the truth.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And we know that the separatists stole a lot of equipment from the bases they took over. Why wouldn't they have Ukrainian army jeeps?

Ask yourself what's more likely: The Ukrainian military was allowed to move a big ticket item like a BUK through rebel held territory with no issue or the rebels had requisitioned a jeep from one of the bases they took over.

And ask yourself the question, was that particular video actually shot on the 17th of July ?

And you need to ask yourself: "What was all that BS about fighter jets?" Even Russia admits it was a BUK now; they just want to frame Ukraine.

Well, there are actual local witnesses who say they have seen one fighter jet for sure and also still right after the crash (about 20 of them)

Even though the Russian radar capture showed only civilian planes? And despite the overcast conditions? Given that the BUK would travel very quickly and leave a thin blue trail it is not surprising no-one seemed to notice it. It was also too small and fast to be picked up by radar.

I didn't know Eastern Ukrainians locals have radar vision ?

originally posted by: DJW001

The attempts by some people to rationalize away Russia's lies is pathetic.

##SNIPPED##

Anyway. On the basis that the pro Russians were shooting down Ukrainian aircraft, it seems plausible that this is just someone taking a pot shot and not realising the consequences. The other circumstantial evidence point to this too.

The question is whether Russia supplied the BUK missiles, which seems plausible especially as they (the Russians) are refusing to participate in an independent criminal tribunal where this fact will be uncovered.

If the above is true then the pro Russian separatists are responsible in the sense the pressed the button, but Russia gave the means. That would be an ugly truth.

a reply to: paraphi

If the above is true then the pro Russian separatists are responsible in the sense the pressed the button, but Russia gave the means. That would be an ugly truth.

Would it? They didn't supply it to shoot down passenger planes. Nothing will come out of this in any tribunal. Even if Putin himself pushed the button they can't prove that anyone intended to shoot down a civilian aircraft that was flying over an active warzone.

One of the main conclusions of the report is that the Ukraine should have closed their airspace weeks prior to the MH17 incident.

If somebody had actual evidence of a grave breach, I am pretty sure they would have used it.

That kind of evidence would open the door to getting the other guy's permanent membership, to the Security Council, revoked. Which would be quite the coveted feather to brandish about.

So, if either side had that kind of evidence (Rebels did it/Russia covering it up vs Ukraine did it/US covering it up), we wouldn't be seeing the pissing contest in Syria.

Whomever had the evidence would just tell the other guy to fly a kite or evidence is released.

Ergo, all anybody has is supposition and circumstantial.

Most likely, we' ll never know the (official) truth, as in who murdered JFK, who took down the twin towers etc.
It's all mere speculation, however like in old Roman times, ask yourself this:
Qui bono? (or who benefits?)
Why was the plane flying there in the first place?
This has a political scheme written all over it.
In the end, what does it matter, what does the report matter?
It only matters to the victims and the family/people affected by the disaster.
Everyday since the MH17 crash, people have been killed or slaughtered, be it in Jemen or Palestina or any other country, which is isn't reported at all, let alone being considered for criminal trial.
Don't get swept in by the media in the west v/s east hate mongering, it only benefits the war machine.

originally posted by: peck420
If somebody had actual evidence of a grave breach, I am pretty sure they would have used it.

That kind of evidence would open the door to getting the other guy's permanent membership, to the Security Council, revoked. Which would be quite the coveted feather to brandish about.

So, if either side had that kind of evidence (Rebels did it/Russia covering it up vs Ukraine did it/US covering it up), we wouldn't be seeing the pissing contest in Syria.

Whomever had the evidence would just tell the other guy to fly a kite or evidence is released.

Ergo, all anybody has is supposition and circumstantial.

It was released did you not see the Dutch report? I noticed people trying to make excuses for Russia by saying things like you did. Try to hide the facts by claiming ambiguity and claiming the US should present evidence. This investigation was not the United States investigation and it is not there position to prove anything. This is why Russian media used this they know it. This isn't some propaganda war between east and west this was a criminal investigation conducted by the Dutch safety board. They determined the cause of the crash and now criminal and civil proceedings will occur based on the Dutch decisions.

If you disagree with the Dutch findings feel free to point out what is wrong and we can discuss. But to dismiss it by belittling it and making claims it's just propaganda shows little compassion for those who died. Now the reason Ukraine didn't restrict air space the answer is simple money. They are in desperate need if funds and now have lost all the fees for transit flights they were greedy. However not preventing a terrorist act means they could be sued in civil court. But criminal proceedings there wouldn't be enough evidence since they didn't shoot down the craft or supply the means to do so. In criminal proceedings we would need to know Ukraine knew the Russians had sent the buk there if that can be proved then Ukraine would be held responsible along with the rebels and Russia. Russias only hope is to show they didn't supply the Buk and somehow the rebels just managed to get one.

a reply to: dragonridr
The Dutch report only claims that it was a BUK missile. A missile system that is in the hands of all 3 parties involved.

The claims, in this thread, are that the US has absolute evidence that Russia not only supplied the system that fired the missile, but is also covering it up.

If they have that 'absolute proof' they would not be sitting on it as it would be all that is required to remove Russia from the Security Council, as well as revoke their permanent and veto statuses.

Also, if they have that absolute proof, they have done far more to belittle the deceased, and their families, than I ever could, by sitting on it for political gain. So, you might as well address your entire post to them.

Paul Craig Roberts On The MH-17 Report: "Only An Idiot Would Believe It"

The only conclusion that the report reaches is one that we already knew: if a Buk missile brought down the airliner, it was a Russian-made missile. The Dutch report does not say who fired it.

Source

Russell Bentley ('Texas') also did an investigation...

Link

The families/friends of the victims must have had a rude awakening on how the World actually works trying to find out what has happened to their loved ones.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And Roberts is surprised the report didn't point the finger at anyone? Well at least he's finally dropped any kind of mask of impartiality. The crash investigators have no authority to level blame at anyone. Their job was to discover the how not the who. That's why there is a separate criminal investigation. This had been known for months if not since the investigations began.

a reply to: peck420

I'll agree in the fact the US would have nothing to gain showing Russians involvement in the downing of the plane. And very well may be hiding information from the Dutch government.If Russian involvement is proven then this requires the Obama administration to take a much stronger stance against Russia. This would involve troop deployments and further escalation of tensions between the two. The Obama administration wants to be able to stay out of this and treat it as a European problem. But ultimately its the Dutch government and their prosecutors that will investigate the criminal charges now that the cause had been shown and it will be them that push this cause.

Next step is the prosecutors report due in December there they will make formal chargers and will see what accusations the prosecutors will make.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The investigation was lead by the Dutch former head of the counter terrorism service. According to Snowden The Dutch secret service does exactly what the CIA wants, just as other secret services like Belgium and Germany. The Ukrainian SBU is also controlled by the CIA nowadays.

The investigation was supposedly handed over to The Netherlands, but was actually done by both the Ukraine and The Netherlands together (the impression has only be been made The Netherlands has done it alone).

So what we have witnessed was nothing more as an US lead investigation...and who in their right mind trusts the outcome of such an investigation ?

Only idiots !

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Xcalibur254

The investigation was lead by the Dutch former head of the counter terrorism service. According to Snowden The Dutch secret service does exactly what the CIA wants, just as other secret services like Belgium and Germany. The Ukrainian SBU is also controlled by the CIA nowadays.

The investigation was supposedly handed over to The Netherlands, but was actually done by both the Ukraine and The Netherlands together (the impression has only be been made The Netherlands has done it alone).

So what we have witnessed was nothing more as an US lead investigation...and who in their right mind trusts the outcome of such an investigation ?

Only idiots !

You have no clue what your talking about the investigation was headed by the Dutch National Prosecutors' Office. Now about your other incorrect facts I'm assuming you got off a Russian blog. According to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the country in which an aviation incident occurs is responsible for the investigation, but that country may delegate the investigation to another state, as Ukraine has delegated the leadership of both investigations to the Netherlands. Or in other words Ukraine purposefully took themselves out of the investigation.

As far as Snowden nice attempt to give crest be to your claim but sorry snow den knows nothing about MH17 and his opinions are irrelevant. And just so you know the lead investigator is Fred Westerbeke never been involved in any counter terrorism. RT bent the truth as usual and who they referring to is the chairman of the board for the Dutch safety board. His name is Tjibbe Joustra he has not been involved since the 5 member board sets policies and procedures and doesn't handle work loads or assignments he is not an investigator. You should really vet your sources.