Russia vetoes UN resolution on MH17 tribunal

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

t's shady, and highly suspicious, and evidence of wrongdoing.

It's a logical reaction to being set up.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So you don't care about evidence or truth. You "know" what happened without the need for any of that. Big surprise.

Right, you are the ones convinced of Russia's involvement yet cannot offer one shred of direct evidence.

originally posted by: DProgram
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

t's shady, and highly suspicious, and evidence of wrongdoing.

It's a logical reaction to being set up.

They claim they have no access to anything. What implicates Russia being set up?

a reply to: DProgram

And this is your proof they shot it down? And you really think they would edit that page without realising it would trace back to the Kremlin? Cool story bro. Seems like a setup to me. Anyways, doesn't prove a thing.

I see your a bit new to ATS, so do some reading in the other threads in this forum and all this has been discussed.

Does it mean that they couldn't have used on of theirs to shoot down MH17?

Okay then explain how the Ukrainians got this BUK system into separatists territory, shot down a plane well into this territory, and got it back out without anyone noticing this missile system doing this?

If you can explain this you may have something, but that has yet to be shown by anyone who believes Russia is an innocent party in this tragedy.

Care to give it a go?

Nothing you said even remotely proves that Russia was involved in shooting it down.

Again, if this is your case against Russia, then that is pathetically laughable.

SO that would be a no you can't refute what was said, so you say it is laughable...imagine that.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

. What implicates Russia being set up?

The blame that was placed on them from day one? All the baseless propaganda? All the shills on internet fora playing dumb when it suits them?

originally posted by: DProgram
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So you don't care about evidence or truth. You "know" what happened without the need for any of that. Big surprise.

Right, you are the ones convinced of Russia's involvement yet cannot offer one shred of direct evidence.

You mean like the tweets directly after the attack implicating Russia?

a reply to: DProgram

Right, you are the ones convinced of Russia's involvement yet cannot offer one shred of direct evidence.

And yet you can't refute the evidence shown...can you?

Others have thought they could but failed miserably...care to take your shot at it?

originally posted by: DProgram
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

. What implicates Russia being set up?

The blame that was placed on them from day one? All the baseless propaganda? All the shills on internet fora playing dumb when it suits them?

30 minutes after the attack a Russian military intelligence officer working for the rebels made a post about shooting down a plane, and as soon as they realized it was civilian, the post was deleted. It's still there in the archive though so the guy admitted he posted it, but said it was an error.

a reply to: DProgram

The blame that was placed on them from day one? All the baseless propaganda? All the shills on internet fora playing dumb when it suits them?

Nice to see you back.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Okay then explain how the Ukrainians got this BUK system into separatists territory, shot down a plane well into this territory, and got it back out without anyone noticing this missile system doing this?

Who says the BUK was in rebel territory?

Who said noone noticed, or who says that it should it have been noticed?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Do you recognise yourself in that?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

What evidence shown?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Are twitter posts proof? I think there also were twitter posts indicating a conspiracy.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Here let me add a bit to that...

DONETSK Ukraine (Reuters) - A powerful Ukrainian rebel leader has confirmed that pro-Russian separatists had anti-aircraft missiles of the type Washington says were used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17.

In an interview with Reuters, Alexander Khodakovsky, commander of the Vostok Battalion, acknowledged for the first time since the airliner was brought down in eastern Ukraine on Thursday that the rebels did possess the BUK missile system.

He also indicated that the BUK may have originated in Russia and could have been sent back to remove proof of its presence.

Before the Malaysian plane was shot down, rebels had boasted of obtaining the BUK missiles, which can shoot down airliners at cruising height. But since the disaster the separatists' main group, the self-proclaimed People’s Republic of Donetsk, has repeatedly denied ever having possessed such weapons.

Khodakovsky blamed the Kiev authorities for provoking what may have been the missile strike that destroyed the doomed airliner, saying Kiev had deliberately launched air strikes in the area, knowing the missiles were in place.

And then this...

"They knew that this BUK existed; that the BUK was heading for Snezhnoye," he said, referring to a village 10 km (six miles) west of the crash site. "They knew that it would be deployed there, and provoked the use of this BUK by starting an air strike on a target they didn’t need, that their planes hadn’t touched for a week."

www.businessinsider.com...

a reply to: DProgram

Who says the BUK was in rebel territory?

Your not serious are you?

The plane was shot down from the front as it was heading East over separatists territory...where else would the BUK be?

So unless this missile has magical powers that it can be shot from behind, take over the jet from behind do a 180 and destroy the plane from the front, where else could it come from?

And the post above this shows it was in rebel territory.

Also you haven't addressed the little thing about why Ukraine would use a BUK missile when the separatists have no planes that were being used, and Ukraine had some shot down just before this incident.

And the rebels admit to having them and the will to use them.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Yes? I didn't claim that they were not in posession of BUK's. They obviously were shooting down planes in the weeks before with them.

"The question is this: Ukraine received timely evidence that the volunteers have this technology, through the fault of Russia. It not only did nothing to protect security, but provoked the use of this type of weapon against a plane that was flying with peaceful civilians," he said. Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

If this is true then they were setup by the Ukraine, and the blame can be placed on them and those parties that thought it was a good idea to have airliners fly over a warzone. Still not Russia's fault.

Also you haven't addressed the little thing about why Ukraine would use a BUK missile when the separatists have no planes that were being used, and Ukraine had some shot down just before this incident.

I did adress it. I said it was meaningless argument. They could have deployed one just to shoot an airliner since they knew the rebels would be blamed because they had already been shooting down planes with BUKs.

So unless this missile has magical powers that it can be shot from behind, take over the jet from behind do a 180 and destroy the plane from the front, where else could it come from?

There were parts outside the rebel territory from which a BUk could have been fired and still approach the plane from the front.

a reply to: DProgram

If this is true then they were setup by the Ukraine, and the blame can be placed on them and those parties that thought it was a good idea to have airliners fly over a warzone. Still not Russia's fault.

And that is proof that Ukraine did this?

You do know that Ukraine would have been using the full battery for this system which would tell them it was a civilian airliner, which means they are trained in what to look for.

Again what reason would Ukraine have their BUK systems in use when they aren't dealing with threats from the air while the separatists did?

And you seem to miss the fact that you need training to fire one...minimal for what they were doing but you need some, so where did it come from?

Ukraine wasn't training them...who did, well let's see who is helping the separatists?

And this is telling in itself...

He added: "I am an interested party. I am a ‘terrorist’, a ‘separatist’, a volunteer ... In any event, I am required to promote the side I represent, even if I might think otherwise, say otherwise or have an alternative view. This causes real discomfort to my soul."

www.businessinsider.com...

But what evidence have you shown to prove Russia wasn't involved...absolutely none.

a reply to: DProgram

I did adress it. I said it was meaningless argument.

That's not addressing it, that is deflecting away from it.

They could have deployed one just to shoot an airliner since they knew the rebels would be blamed because they had already been shooting down planes with BUKs.

And yet you offer nothing into how it got well into the separatists held area and got out without being noticed, because it would have been noticed and confronted with Ukrainian soldiers in it, or are you saying they could freely move this around enemy territory without being seen?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

And that is proof that Ukraine did this?

Perhaps, it was your source. Are only the parts that suit you, proof?

Again what reason would Ukraine have their BUK systems in use when they aren't dealing with threats from the air while the separatists did?

Again indeed.....I am not going to explain a third time.

But what evidence have you shown to prove Russia wasn't involved...absolutely none.

You have to prove that they were involved. That was the claim I responded too.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

That's not addressing it, that is deflecting away from it.

No your argument is BS. does the Ukraine have BUKS? Yes. So they could have used it to shoot down an airliner. Wether or not the rebels posed a threat in the air, or not, is irrelevant to that point.

And yet you offer nothing into how it got well into the separatists held area and got out without being noticed, because it would have been noticed and confronted with Ukrainian soldiers in it, or are you saying they could freely move this around enemy territory without being seen?

Like I said, they could still shoot it from the front without ever entering the rebel territory.