What do you think would happen if either Kiev or the Separatists/Russia were found culpable without

a doubt. Not enough space in the heading I guess.

Think about it, if one or the other came out and said "After a extensive and thorough investigation we have the sad duty to report, we did it.. It happened because of a"...communication, rogue soldier, etc, name your poison. They out and out said they were at fault, provide compensation, offer profuse apologies (even though it is after the fact).

What do you think would happen?

I put this in the mud pit as I would not bet against this not getting hot. Many have a opinion/conspiracy theory. Some out there, Like the Separatist Commander saying the bodies are days old, to the ATC controller. And people are snagging up the latest thing and run with it.

Would you still see a conspiracy if by implicating themselves does more harm than good. Or does the conspirisist in you say, "No! I don't accept that! There is more here than meets the eye!"

a reply to: TDawgRex


As far as Obama is concerned, he wouldn't do anything except maybe place some more sanctions on them
He would probably let the UN deal with it

As far as the UN goes, not sure

The countries dependent on Russia for resources [gas etc.], well they may not care since they need their supplies
Countries farther away however, will demand crime charges of some kind possibly

Good question tho....


[From this administration, I don't expect much ....*sigh*]

a reply to: [post=18169367]TDawgRex[/post
Dear TDawg, You present a very interesting question. The significance of the heinous act is far greater than we probably realize. The evidence seems to point to the pro-Russian separatists or even Russian advisers. What is very clear is that partisan propaganda from both/all sides is flowing profusely. In my opinion, though, it is quite clear that this was a horrific case of misidentification of the target.

a reply to: snarky412

I'm just wondering, like we all do. Would things quiet down, or get more heated due to other side claiming they were slandered. (Which would be true)

a reply to: TDawgRex

TDawg,

There has been international condemnation of this event in the press, from politicians, on twitter and Facebook and a thousand other forums for the discussion of current affairs. Therefore, in the impossible event that someone were to be able to prove who did it, beyond any doubt, the parties responsible would be receiving a free consultation to ensure that they are well ventilated enough, if you catch my drift.

However, the chances of that information coming to light are so slim that it is worth discounting the possibility out of hand. There are many reasons for this.

First of all, it is necessary to understand that the region from which the munitions were launched, has been occupied by separatist rebels who favour Russia. It is equally important to recognise that in a situation like the one which prevails in the region, such boundaries are meaningless. Groups on both sides of the armed conflict will regularly penetrate enemy territories, in order to gain intelligence, sabotage one another's efforts to expand their share of the territory available, and prepare the way for larger advancements by larger forces.

That means that the notional boundaries between the territory held by any one faction, are not set in stone, but remain fluid. Such is the nature of conflict, especially one like this.

Another thing to keep in mind, is that the crash site has been contaminated, altered, and abused to such an extent, that no matter whether the Russians, their supporters in the Ukraine, the Ukrainian government, OR the international observer teams end up controlling the effort to investigate the matter, not a single one of them will be able to ascertain the physical facts of what happened, with any degree of rigour or certainty. The only folk who will ever know the ins and outs of this event, are the people who fired the weapons system which bought down that aircraft.

The last, and perhaps most relevant factor in all this, is that if any data which DOES exist on this issue fails to meet the requirements of the policy of any nation willing to comment upon it, then that nation will bend the facts to fit their policy, or break the facts entirely so that they can continue to say whatever they wish about the subject, without challenge of any weight being bought to bear upon them. Now, it IS interesting that the Russians are said to have taken the black box already, which means that they will have had a chance to destroy or distort that data beyond use. Who knows, perhaps there are now arcane methods to change the data in a careful way, and perhaps those methods have already been applied to the black box?

Equally, perhaps the Russians got word that someone else was going to tamper with the device, and sought to remove it to safeguard the integrity of the data within? The trouble with something like this, is that where international relations are concerned, the truth is never as important to those who learn it early, as it is to those who seldom hear it at all!

a reply to: TDawgRex

What if it was the West that brought it down ? ATS talks about strange conspiracies and false flags. Perhaps that will be suggested too.

a reply to: TrueBrit

All relevant questions True. I wonder of any of the agencies have gone that that path. You'd do 22 SAS Intel Det section proud! Though I'm sure that many would consider you to be a pain in the ass questioning their theories.

but you still didn't answer the question. (Maybe apply for a job as a White House spokesman? LOL That would be a hoot, though I think that would last ONE briefing. LOL)

originally posted by: crowdedskies
a reply to: TDawgRex

What if it was the West that brought it down ? ATS talks about strange conspiracies and false flags. Perhaps that will be suggested too.

That's another angle, though doubtful, but I'm sure a short search would prove you right.

I'm not saying that this is a false flag. I'm just asking, "What do you think would happen if some one actually took the blame?"

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: snarky412

I'm just wondering, like we all do. Would things quiet down, or get more heated due to other side claiming they were slandered. (Which would be true)

Well, words can get heated but as far as retaliation goes, that's where I'm not sure
Other than from Ukraine, I don't see much of Europe doing much other than scolding/harsh words, maybe stricter sanctions

Everyone pretty much suspects who is at fault [the Separatists] for the most part
Having said that, wonder how pissed Putin was when he found out what happened?? About the guys shooting down a passenger plane and drawing all the attention back on him

He's one tough Leader, unlike Obama, and will come out okay somehow
I don't care for him, but find myself respecting him at times for his strength in the midst of controversy

But as with most Leaders, Obama included, his words leave you with that nasty little taste in your mouth, kinda like morning breath [LOL]
Then you try to rank it on the BS meter................which Obama has broken several times!!!!

a reply to: TDawgRex

I was wondering why my right foot was aching. Must be from all the buttock pain I dish out!

I did answer your question. I said that the party responsible would be receiving a free consultation to ensure that they are well ventilated. Perhaps I should have said, tracked down, captured, and riddled with bullets, then burned.

In all seriousness though, the situation on the ground makes this issue so murky that unless we had access to the same resources as a superpower nation to draw on, we would have great difficulty making any firm judgement about the circumstances.

There was a video doing the rounds on the television, which purported to show a truck with a weapons system similar to the one which preliminary findings suggest bought the plane down, being driven away from the area, and heading off, presumably in the direction of Russia. However, that image must have a source, and before making any snap judgements about that, we have to remember that all manner of tricks and sleight of hand, could be at work here. Do we trust what we see? Do we know where the data is coming from, who originated it? Do we trust our sources?

It is unwise, I think, to be rash or hotheaded in forming assumptions on this matter, because there are more than two players in this game, and I doubt that a single one of those players would hesitate to do something like this if it really benefited them. The pro Russia rebels would do this, so that they can be seen to be leaving their mark, like a big dog in the neighbourhood.

The Ukrainian armed forces would seek to discredit the pro Russian groups, by any means necessary, because they understand that what with Russia offering aid by the back door, they need to win all the hearts and minds in their own territory they can. There are few better ways of doing this, than demonising the rebels as barbarians and cold blooded murderers.

The Russians might do something like this just to keep the pro Russia bloc in their pockets, remind them who is running this shindig. Equally, the west could have pulled the job, to make the Russian government and the rebels alike, look like total bastards.

There are too many players, too many possibilities, and too much drama and emotion floating about for anything meaningful to come from the sort of mad speculative rush that the media seems to be in at the moment, that is for damned sure. I would LOVE to know who it REALLY was, but I would not put it past any single one of the potential suspects.

Probably the same thing as when the US brought down Iran Air Flight 665. Not much of anything. Compensation will be paid to the families. Anger and condemnation will be expressed towards the guilty party. And then a few months down the road all will be forgotten.

a reply to: TrueBrit
a reply to: Xcalibur254

It has happened before where one side takes responsibility.

The US has done it.
Russia has done it.
China has done it.
North Korea has done it.

And every incident has taken place in a contested zone/national boundary. And not even a year later it's forgotten about. Though the story may arise from time to time.

I like the way there is already in the question is a belief that the Russians were invovled. I've just been watching Australian TV where this line is reenforced and reiterated.

'It appears', 'it is suspected," These are just another way of saying Russia did it. The reader need to realise that just because a bit of soviet era military hard ware 'is suspected' of being used there is no 'EVIDENCE' of it being used therefore there is no grounds for saying 'it seems.' 'its suspected.'

Readers need to realise that until the forensic EVIDENCE establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that 'x' did there is no EVIDENCE.

Question; what Evidence is there that a piece of soviet era hard ware WAS USED. How could the western media know this within an hour or two.

Question; Did forensic experts arrive on the scene within an hours or two and confirm that the soviet era hard ware was used.

Question, what EVIDENCE did the western media produce to warrant words like 'it seems, or 'its suspected;

Question, How could it be shot down by mistake when it was too high to be seen and too high to be heard and to high to be certain is was it even there.

Question; both western and Russian forces have the technology to pick up the transponder signal and therefore would know that it a civilian aircraft and leave it alone. Were the Transponders turned off like what happened with one that went missing on route to china????????

To evaluate claims and counter claims the reader might like to use this criteria:

who has the capability to identify an aircraft that high in the sky when it was there as opposed to when it was first visible on radar before getting anywhere near the location it was shot down in?. Do the separatists have the capability.

Who has a interest in this event occurring. What interest has have the Russian separatists have in shooting down such a plane. This event works out very well for the Americans who are backing the bloke who took control of the Ukraine by force. Would Russia want to shoot down this aircraft when they know they will receive very bad press in the west and they know they cannot get their own point of view to the western masses?

Think about these things dear readers.

I think the world needs to act together on this. The United States can't continue to take the lead in world affairs. Every country should be condemning this murderous act and evoke their own sanctions. Governments of the world cannot continue to take sides. When a country or government is involved in a criminal act, the court of public opinion needs to be heard loud and clear.

Unfortunately, the United Nations does not deal out punishments without political sympathy or bias.

a reply to: learnatic

I see someone else understands this premise. How does the news media get its information in an event like this? Is it the government propaganda machine, of the military covering on order of the government. Either way its the same. It reminds me of the photo of the baby milk factory in Iraq that was bombed. The entire building is completely and utterly devastated and what stands out front? A sign in both english and arabic saying baby milk factory. Which government or military placed it there for the media?

The media is like piranha, they feed on any piece of meat and run to the public in an effort to see who can be first, they are fully complicit in being used. Never mind the idea of waiting and doing any serious investigation.

I think an interesting aspect of this is that the weapon in question is very difficult to use. An untrained separatist is unlikely to have been able to bring down a commercial jet flying at that altitude. It's more likely a Russian soldier was there firing the weapon.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
I think the world needs to act together on this. The United States can't continue to take the lead in world affairs. Every country should be condemning this murderous act and evoke their own sanctions. Governments of the world cannot continue to take sides. When a country or government is involved in a criminal act, the court of public opinion needs to be heard loud and clear.

Unfortunately, the United Nations does not deal out punishments without political sympathy or bias.

How can the UN punish Russia, Russia can veto anything.

a reply to: TDawgRex

This isn't unprecedented. The Soviet Union shot down KAL007. The United States shot down an Iranian passanger jet. Libya eventually took responsibility for PanAm103.


In this particular case, it may be different. I could imagine a scenerio where there is a call for peace, and a peace deal that includes changing Ukraine into a federal republic. I can also imagine a scenerio where Russia directly invades eastern Ukraine, where all the heavy industry is located. So, either way, this is likely a tipping point.

originally posted by: learnatic
I like the way there is already in the question is a belief that the Russians were invovled. I've just been watching Australian TV where this line is reenforced and reiterated.

'It appears', 'it is suspected," These are just another way of saying Russia did it. The reader need to realise that just because a bit of soviet era military hard ware 'is suspected' of being used there is no 'EVIDENCE' of it being used therefore there is no grounds for saying 'it seems.' 'its suspected.'

Readers need to realise that until the forensic EVIDENCE establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that 'x' did there is no EVIDENCE.

Question; what Evidence is there that a piece of soviet era hard ware WAS USED. How could the western media know this within an hour or two.

Question; Did forensic experts arrive on the scene within an hours or two and confirm that the soviet era hard ware was used.

Question, what EVIDENCE did the western media produce to warrant words like 'it seems, or 'its suspected;

Question, How could it be shot down by mistake when it was too high to be seen and too high to be heard and to high to be certain is was it even there.

Question; both western and Russian forces have the technology to pick up the transponder signal and therefore would know that it a civilian aircraft and leave it alone. Were the Transponders turned off like what happened with one that went missing on route to china????????

To evaluate claims and counter claims the reader might like to use this criteria:

who has the capability to identify an aircraft that high in the sky when it was there as opposed to when it was first visible on radar before getting anywhere near the location it was shot down in?. Do the separatists have the capability.

Who has a interest in this event occurring. What interest has have the Russian separatists have in shooting down such a plane. This event works out very well for the Americans who are backing the bloke who took control of the Ukraine by force. Would Russia want to shoot down this aircraft when they know they will receive very bad press in the west and they know they cannot get their own point of view to the western masses?

Think about these things dear readers.

Good luck.

Your words are pearls before swine.