Another Malaysia Airlines jet crashed, over Ukraine, likely shot down

Gez said:

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/europes-east/ukraine-submits-evidence-russian-covert-action-303529

Again, I will believe it when the evidence can be verified by several independent parties. I wouldn't call the UN an independent party because they have been in the US gov's back pocket for years. Such evidence can be easily fabricated. That's why it's very important to take everything with a grain of salt. If more people did, they would have seen right through all the so called evidence the US used to claim Saddam had WMD's.

Satyr000 said:

Again, I will believe it when the evidence can be verified by several independent parties. I wouldn't call the UN an independent party because they have been in the US gov's back pocket for years. Such evidence can be easily fabricated. That's why it's very important to take everything with a grain of salt. If more people did, they would have seen right through all the so called evidence the US used to claim Saddam had WMD's.

What the fuck are you babbling about, you moron? Either say what "independent" means in your opinion or get the fuck out.

dew said:

What the fuck are you babbling about, you moron? Either say what "independent" means in your opinion or get the fuck out.

I'll go on a limb here, but I think he meant somebody obviously not affiliated too closely with either side, and who tries to keep a balanced approach policy. Like this jolly good fellow here.

Why the hell was a commercial airliner flying over a war zone where planes are regularly shot down?

AndrewB said:

Why the hell was a commercial airliner flying over a war zone where planes are regularly shot down?

Stop victim blaming.

#YesAllRussians

It requires this kind of tragedy to make people understand how dangerous it is to fly over the conflict zone. You would be surprised how many flights went over that area, even with the recommendation NOT TO stray in there. Oh, and that recommendation has been on for few months already. Some took the hint, some did not care.

What was the flight control situation back there anyway? You would think that the control could give guidance for safer routes.

At least this forum acknowledges that it happened... another forum I frequent to be the sensible one to their conspiracy theories are questioning that the jet really existed.

You can't blame victims though. Instead of wondering what a passenger jet was doing using a regular path for bombers, you should question wWhat were the 'Russian sympathizers' doing with a SAM launcher?

Those that ended the situation are the last to have free will in this situation.

geo said:

Instead of wondering what a passenger jet was doing using a regular path for bombers, you should question wWhat were the 'Russian sympathizers' doing with a SAM launcher?

Shooting down Ukrainian military aircraft. An army shooting down civilian planes is a common fashion. Heck, the Ukrainian military shot down a Russian passenger plane in 2001. The rebels were either unaware or too dumb to decipher passenger jet from military one.

AndrewB said:

Why the hell was a commercial airliner flying over a war zone where planes are regularly shot down?

"Regularly" shot down? As in, everyday? AFAIK that's the first shooting (if it's proven that it's a shooting...) of its kind over that region, though "mysterious" passenger planes shootdowns are not something new.

As to why commercial flights generally don't avoid war zones altogether unless it's very obvious that shootdowns will take place (e.g. officially declared ultimatums, open state of hostilities, very powerfull armed uncontrollable factions, internationally-imposed no-fly zones etc.), enter the concept of Flight paths and air corridors.

It's actually quite impractical to simply "close a problematic flight path down" or "finding alternatives", as it could mean altering air routes at a transcontinental scale. The system just isn't that flexible, and doesn't work like a re-routable network. If you take a line down without planning, you will disrupt almost everything. There's also the problem of fuel economy, crossing different airspaces, having to land in more/different airports etc.

Technician said:

Stop victim blaming.

#YesAllRussians

Idiot. We're not talking about a woman in a tight dress walking through a bad neighborhood. Hundreds of lives were lost.

And as for "victim blaming", how the hell do you figure that it's the passengers' fault that the plane flew into an area where it would almost certainly be attacked?

AndrewB said:

And as for "victim blaming", how the hell do you figure that it's the passengers' fault that the plane flew into an area where it would almost certainly be attacked?

Ask that to the relatives of the victims of the Ustica massacre, or even to those of another strange accident.

Oh and yeah, I'll go on a limb and accuse "heartless stone-cold Capitalism and its maximizing of profits" here:

From the Independent:
No commercial aircraft would fly these exact routes. Airlines’ precise flight plans depend on a wide range of factors including weather, predicted air-traffic bottlenecks and overflying charges. They are obliged to avoid no-fly zones, and many will avoid areas where there is a perception of possible danger.

But the economic imperative is to keep flights as short as possible, to reduce everything from fuel burn to the risk of missed connections.

It remains the case that conflicts on the ground do not necessarily constitute a threat to high-flying passenger jets. Airlines will continue to overfly regions where it is considered that there is no sophisticated weaponry capable of downing an aircraft, but it may be that in the interests of passenger confidence they will divert around areas that could be perceived as presenting danger.

So you might want to study carefully the flight path and the implied geopolitical issues of the next flight you board, and maybe you'll have to make a tradeoff between a longer, more expensive but safer route, vs a cheaper one over "bad neighborhoods".

AndrewB said:

Idiot. We're not talking about a woman in a tight dress walking through a bad neighborhood. Hundreds of lives were lost.

And as for "victim blaming", how the hell do you figure that it's the passengers' fault that the plane flew into an area where it would almost certainly be attacked?

Attack is not uncommon but ridiculously rare in the grand scheme of things. Only two planes were shot down in thirteen years of strife in Iraq, and one of them wasn't even a passenger jet. And it survived.

If we're talking about flying a plane over Iran and Iraq during the Persian wars, maybe, but flying around Syria and Iraq to get to either Israel or Cairo from the North East is retarded considering the chances of actually getting hit by militants at that hight.

You know what, I'm going to retract my previous statement. In fact, two high-altitude military planes have been shot down by rebels in the last month.

Whether the airlines know the dangers is beyond me.

Technician said:

two high-altitude military planes

Antonov An-30
Ilyushin Il-76

Rrrrrright. The IL-76 is close enough to an airliner as far as the service ceiliing is concerned (13000 m vs 8000 m) but considering that those were military planes on a mission they were probably not flying all that high, and at some point they would have to approach and land/takeoff in/from hostile territory, where the service ceiling wouldn't have mattered zilch anyway. Most MANPAD downings occur on aircraft that are approaching for landing or trying to gain altitude after a takeoff.

dew said:

What the fuck are you babbling about, you moron? Either say what "independent" means in your opinion or get the fuck out.

I'm sorry I assumed that the people reading my comment knew what independent meant. I will use smaller words next time. I case you still don't get it. Here are a couple examples of what independent means

Independent as a adjective: not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.

Independent as a noun when referring to politics: a person who votes for candidates, measures, etc., in accordance with his or her own judgment and without regard to the endorsement of, or the positions taken by, any party.

They also need to be authoritative, which rules out just about every internet source one may care to quote. Do you have an organisation in mind which meets that criteria?

Fact is, after the initial finger-pointing and emotionally (and politically) charged "You did it!"/"No, you did it!"/"The Evil Ivans did it!", Putin is slowly but surely gaining consensus from other premiers and their foreign ministers, including Hollande, Tony Abbot (yeah, the Aussie one, after their PM lashed out prematurely) and Mark Rutte (Nederlands), on what policy to follow: let the ICAO and the ICAO alone perform the investigation.

Once again, just like in Syria, Putin will "forcuade" everyone to turn it down a couple of notches and play by the rules and with their cards open, whether they like it or not.

The rest can believe in the supposed "satellite images" (what a joke, this isn't CSI: Miami) and similar "proof" that a missile was launched, even claiming that it has been photographed the very moment of launch and impact (!), as the Great Kulak Poroshenko says.

AndrewB said:

Why the hell was a commercial airliner flying over a war zone where planes are regularly shot down?

Good question, actually. Well, as already mentioned, airline companies don't give much shit until a massive tragedy occurs, there's a cutthroat business to run. Furthermore, today's newspapers circulate a story how the crew actually voiced their concerns over flying over the hot zone, but the Malaysia Airlines execs told them there's nothing to be afraid of and cited ICAO, which deemed the area safe for civil transportation.

It's also important to say that the area is a really important flight path for long distance flights. Today's TV (sorry for lack of links) already informs that the other flight paths, especially the Russian ones, are overloaded and there's increased risk of collisions - so I'd say a lot of the airliners did change routes. Lastly, it was probably hard to imagine that anyone in Europe (= not world hating Islam Terrists) would shoot down a civilian plane that flies so high (too high for military operations), especially since until then no one confirmed that the separatists own a Buk complex.

Maes said:

Antonov An-30
Ilyushin Il-76

They shot down a Su-25 fighter last week, but as you say, it operated at lower altitude as well. Still, it's pretty indicative that the separatists got a Buk (either from Russians or as loot from the Ukrainians), that many shootdowns in that short period of time with weaker weapons would be quite improbable, given the number of shootdowns prior to that.

Satyr000 said:

bullshit

Yeah, you have no fucking clue what your own opinion is, you're too lazy to dig through some information to make up your mind, but you also want to be in the discussion, so you take some fucking ridiculous stance of higher moral grounds where "you'll wait and see" and "won't jump to conclusions" until "an authority clarifies". And I'm telling you, dear nitwit, there is no such independent authority and if there was one, the Russians wouldn't let it anywhere near the crash area. Your "opinion" is a fucking joke on par with neutered resolutions of the UN General Assembly.

dew said:

They shot down a Su-25 fighter last week, but as you say, it operated at lower altitude as well. Still, it's pretty indicative that the separatists got a Buk (either from Russians or as loot from the Ukrainians), that many shootdowns in that short period of time with weaker weapons would be quite improbable, given the number of shootdowns prior to that.

Well, a Honest-to-God, All-American Stinger or an equivalent Soviet-style MANPADS has a combat range of about 4 km, which is more than enough to down attacking aircraft in a tactical setting. The Russians themselves know that all too well from Afghanistan.

Increased downings could be attributed simply to more MANPADS being deployed, and to increased aerial incursions by part of Kiev (which also increase the risk of being shot down, not just of dealing damage).

And unlike MANPADS, a Buk cannot be so easily concealed. If the rebels indeed manage to operate a self-propelled Buk missile launcher and the Kiev authorities haven't been able to locate it, well, sorry for saying it but they deserve to be shot down again and again. This is a war, after all.

dew said:

there is no such independent authority and if there was one, the Russians wouldn't let it anywhere near the crash area.

Uhm....but Putin and some Western leaders are actually pushing for letting the ICAO -and just the ICAO- perform the investigations. Like it or not, Putin once again will force everyone to go by the book and play by the rules -and then it will be easy to see those who stand out.

Technician said:

Shooting down Ukrainian military aircraft. An army shooting down civilian planes is a common fashion. Heck, the Ukrainian military shot down a Russian passenger plane in 2001. The rebels were either unaware or too dumb to decipher passenger jet from military one.

But how did 'rebels' get the equipment? Did they save up and buy it?

Maes said:

And unlike MANPADS, a Buk cannot be so easily concealed. If the rebels indeed manage to operate a self-propelled Buk missile launcher and the Kiev authorities haven't been able to locate it, well, sorry for saying it but they deserve to be shot down again and again. This is a war, after all.

You are not wrong, but needlessly cynical and macho. The Buk is hidden in a densely urban/city area (as seen on the deleted Twitter pics), so it's operating in perfect environment, probably manned by Russia-trained pros. Even if localized, destroying it would probably require a heavy civilian toll. And it's not exactly a war - it's a civil war, so it's carpet bombing your own population we are talking about. Russians are no fools, so they know how to make this bloody and painful for any attackers.

Also MANPADS shootdowns of Su-25s aren't unheard of, but quite rare due to the plane's characteristics. On the other hand, Georgia managed to shoot down three Russian Su-25s in the VERY short span of the flash Russo-Georgian war in 2008... with a Buk complex.

Uhm....but Putin and some Western leaders are actually pushing for letting the ICAO -and just the ICAO- perform the investigations. Like it or not, Putin once again will force everyone to go by the book and play by the rules -and then it will be easy to see those who stand out.

Heh, you have this backwards. This is Russia backing down in the face of furious Netherlands. The country may be no dominant power player, but their moral cause in this matter is so strong that the Dutch PM can throw direct threats into Putin's face and come out on top. Also they're a tax haven for many giant corporations like Volkswagen, a heavy-weight investor in Russia, and they're not dependant on Russian oil, so their potential economical push is much, much stronger than you'd expect from a country of 20mil.

EDIT: Anyways, it's doubtful that the result of the investigation would be accepted as independent, because it's going to implicate the Russians/separatists. :)
EDIT2: And given the ongoing massive offensive by the Ukrainian army and the siege of Donetsk and Luhansk (read: separatists are losing badly at this point), a call for peace of arms would be seen as time-out for restocking the rebels with even better guns, at least by the Ukrainian side. A war, especially a civil war, won't wait a couple of months for a result that's almost moot at this point.

Maes said:

Tony Abbot (yeah, the Aussie one, after their PM lashed out prematurely)

Maybe a little premature, but probably correct. There's little doubt the aircraft was downed by an explosive device and it should only take a handful of chemical residue swabs to determine if a bomb or missile was involved. The fun part will be determining who launched the missile, though given the aircraft was flying West-to-East I'd put my money on the culprit being a trigger-happy separatist.

Putin will "forcuade" everyone to turn it down a couple of notches and play by the rules and with their cards open, whether they like it or not.

Meh - any investigators in Putin's backyard will have to play by his rules, or he'll set the dogs on them.

False flag.

http://rt.com/news/174412-malaysia-plane-russia-ukraine/

DeathevokatioN said:

False flag.

http://rt.com/news/174412-malaysia-plane-russia-ukraine/

Ha I'm literally watching something like that. Everything is a false flag on Alex Jones.

Well, they seem to be on a roll these days.

The company's stocks have plummeted.

I wonder if Malaysia Airlines can still go on by the end of the year.

geo said:

But how did 'rebels' get the equipment? Did they save up and buy it?

Could have been Russia or Crimea or maybe they got lucky finding one in a Ukrainian military base.

TheCupboard said:
Even the US wouldn't intervene in a Mexican civil war for danger of causing unrest and a refugee problem.

The US is indeed intervening and it is causing just those things. What Mexico has suffered in the last decade is not too different from a civil war and is not unrelated to the introduction of NAFTA.

I see no one ever told you about the Monroe doctrine, about dozens of CIA-backed or financed coups, about financing and equipping contras, lobbying foreign politicians, invasions to Central American countries, about profuse financial meddling and impositions through "international" institutions, installing military bases or the invasiveness of the DEA or your "national security".

Not to mention more or less recent interventionism far away from your borders, even at Russia's next door neighbors, the Middle East you have wrecked or in Africa.

DeathevokatioN said:

False flag.

http://rt.com/news/174412-malaysia-plane-russia-ukraine/

I'd heard another report that claimed 2 Ukrainian fighters were involved, which probably says something about the quality of Russian ground radar - unable to differentiate between an Su-25 and an SA-11.

geo said:

But how did 'rebels' get the equipment? Did they save up and buy it?

The version I have been hearing from the media from day one was that it came from an Ukrainian base captured by the rebels a couple of weeks ago.

Belial said:

The version I have been hearing from the media from day one was that it came from an Ukrainian base captured by the rebels a couple of weeks ago.

The version I have been hear from Obama is that Russia gave it to them.