Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Build a Bridge, Get Over It

[United Marxist Nations]

Sure, just as soon as you accept that the entire world is America's sphere of influence because freedom.

you mean Wall Street's sphere of influence, because only market, not state profits from this 'american sphere'.
because how exactly common 'murican citizens profits from like thousand military bases, 'humanitarian' carpet bombings and costly invasions to like dozen countries?

russian sphere of inluence, on the other hand, is just meant locally, to defend their own borders, since Westerners never showed any reason to trust them.
they always allied Russia just to save their own asses, like when Russia kinda destroyed both Napoleon and Hitler. they never showed any respect to Russian Empire or USSR.

It. Was. A. Joke.

[Socialist Czechia]

you mean Wall Street's sphere of influence, because only market, not state profits from this 'american sphere'.
because how exactly common 'murican citizens profits from like thousand military bases, 'humanitarian' carpet bombings and costly invasions to like dozen countries?

russian sphere of inluence, on the other hand, is just meant locally, to defend their own borders, since Westerners never showed any reason to trust them.
they always allied Russia just to save their own asses, like when Russia kinda destroyed both Napoleon and Hitler. they never showed any respect to Russian Empire or USSR.

It. Was. A. Joke.

Sadly, I can't take it as a joke.

because too many people is serious with claim, that our whole human homeworld is 'murican planet.

[Costa Fierro]

Again, when did I blame the people on the plane? I blamed the people who knew of the imminent danger to all air-traffic (i.e. Kyiv and Malaysia Airlines).

You still blamed the airline. That is still victim blaming regardless. Also, I just love how you absolve blame from the rebels onto the Ukrainians. If it was a Russian airline, you wouldn't be victim blaming.

Also, let me dig up an image from much earlier in the thread:


Out of the six airlines in the photo, only two avoid Ukrainian airspace.

[United Marxist Nations]

Again, when did I blame the people on the plane? I blamed the people who knew of the imminent danger to all air-traffic (i.e. Kyiv and Malaysia Airlines).

You still blamed the airline. That is still victim blaming regardless. Also, I just love how you absolve blame from the rebels onto the Ukrainians. If it was a Russian airline, you wouldn't be victim blaming.

Also, let me dig up an image from much earlier in the thread:

Out of the six airlines in the photo, only two avoid Ukrainian airspace.

That two avoid it tends to show that they were aware of the danger.

[Geilinor]

You still blamed the airline. That is still victim blaming regardless. Also, I just love how you absolve blame from the rebels onto the Ukrainians. If it was a Russian airline, you wouldn't be victim blaming.

Also, let me dig up an image from much earlier in the thread:

Out of the six airlines in the photo, only two avoid Ukrainian airspace.

That two avoid it tends to show that they were aware of the danger.

A minority of the planes did avoid Ukrainian airspace, but most did not.

[The balkens]

That two avoid it tends to show that they were aware of the danger.

A minority of the planes did avoid Ukrainian airspace, but most did not.

Its almost as if they didnt think a bunch of Russians would shoot them down.

Huh.....

[Shofercia]

That says "statement". Not "post". If you cannot even grasp that a statement is not a post, then you are worthless to debate with.

Pointless semantics. In this thread, my statements and posts are the same thing.

A statement that is part of a post can be taken out of context. A post cannot, since, you know, it's an entire post. Actually, I'm not even sure if you know that. You've been caught lying, and your best rebuttal is "pointless semantics"? Are you going for the most pathetic post on NSG?

Except I used those two as examples, not comparisons, so it really didn't add jack shit to your argument; it simply pointed out that you had no idea what you were talking about when you brought up Georgia.

You did make a comparison. You compared Georgia at the time of the Rose revolution to Macedonia now and claimed that because in the former the people didn't get pissed off at the US for helping to get rid of the old government that Macedonia would be the same, completely ignoring the fact that the old Georgian government was incredibly unpopular and that the current Maceodnian government is more popular than any other political group in the country. If you can't see why people would react differently to getting rid of one of the least popular leaders versus getting rid of the most popular leaders then you are beyond help.

Actually, no, I didn't. I cited Georgia and Ukraine as examples, not comparisons. I didn't say "like Macedonia, Georgia..." and I'm not responsible for your vivid imagination making random shit up. Nor did I claim that it would be the same. I merely cited it as an example, but since you prefer the words of politicians over historical events that occurred in the past, you, Mr. B, who's already lied about me once, (or rather only been caught once thus far in your short time here,) continue to boldly proceed in the area of making shit up. Where the fuck did I say that Macedonia and Georgia would be the same? Are you here to even debate me, or to run away with your tail tucked between your legs from what I actually say, while trying to put random shit in my mouth. It's fucking disgusting.

And those are? Oh, I know what they are, I'm just curious as to how much more ignorance you'll show regarding Georgia.

I'm pretty sure you already described it - "Part of the reason that the people turned on Shevardnadze and later Saakashvili, was poor economic management". I'm contrasting that with Macedonia which has the lowest unemployment in its independent history and the fastest economic grwoth in the region. Why you would try and draw a line between that and the economic mismanagement of Shevardnadze and Saakashvili I can't fathom.

The question was "how did Saakashvili poorly manage Georgia's economy?" You've successfully dodged that, good job, would you like a cookie?

That assumption doesn't confuse me, so unless you want to average a lie per post, you can stop that bullshit. It's just that, you see, there's this place called Latvia, where the most popular party led by the most popular leader just happens to be in opposition. That means that they're not in power.

That's odd, I could have sworn I was talking about Macedonia and not Latvia. Macedonia being the country where the current government is three and a half times as popular as the leading opposition party, where the prime minister is six times as popular as his rival, rather than Latvia where at the last election the most popular party won only 1.1% more votes thn the next most popular party and only just over half a much as the second and third parties combined. You've really got a thing for making meaningless comparisons between Macedonia and other countries, haven't you?

I'm providing examples to counter your bullshit. You're the one calling them comparisons. Then again, you had no idea about Georgia's divisiveness, you failed to comprehend the difference between a post and a statement, and now you're failing to comprehend the difference between an example and a comparison, yet again. Apparently saying that it's mathematically possible for political parties to form a coalition against one that has a mere plurality of the votes and citing an example is equivalent to a comparison in your book of bullshit.

science

That reminds me of debating Lyttenburgh.

Way to go after a poster who's been banned. Would you also like a cookie?

Everyone except for the Rebels are at fault for the Rebels shooting down a civilian airliner! Up is down, left is right and black is white, in UMN's world!

Apparently russians are never at fault. Always the victim, always the innocent.

Even when they, The rebels, shoot down an airliner.

And your source that said Rebels were of the Russian ethnos, is? Oh yeah, total bullshit.

Is this Russian-Ukraine bullshit still going on or has this passed?

Kiev's still hard at work trying to bankrupt the country to save their Oligarchs some money. Oh yeah, there have also been a few shootouts in Donetsk and Lugansk.

[Shofercia]

And the IMF goes towards partisan hackery: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2 ... -Free-Pass

Until a few days ago, the Greek and Ukrainian debt crises looked like twins: Two sovereigns with immense debts, creditors at their throats, looming deadlines, and deep fiscal and economic problems. One of the biggest guns among the creditors is that toughest of taskmasters, the International Monetary Fund. As of last week Greece and Ukraine look like mirror images. And it’s not a pretty reflection. In the Greek case, I.M.F. negotiators abruptly broke off talks Thursday with the Tsipras government in Athens, accusing it of failing to make a meaningful commitment to meeting the fund’s famously austere conditions for debt relief, notably the targets for budget surpluses.

No succor for the long-suffering Greeks unless Alexis Tsipras, their anti-austerity prime minister, does things our way: This is the fund’s message. With the collapse of last-ditch talks Sunday, Greece now teeters at the edge of a calamitous default and an exit from the European currency union. The next day, Christine Lagarde published an open letter to Ukraine’s creditors. In it, the I.M.F.’s managing director castigated investors holding Ukrainian debt for not offering the Poroshenko government in Kiev the kind of debt relief the fund says Athens must not have. Astonishingly enough, Lagarde committed the fund to ladling out its $17.5 billion bailout even if Kiev defaults on its debt, as Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko now threatens.

“The I.M.F., in general, encourages voluntary pre-emptive agreements in debt restructurings,” Lagarde’s letter said, “but in the event that a negotiated settlement with private creditors is not reached and the country determines that it cannot service its debt, the fund can lend to Ukraine consistent with its Lending-into-Arrears Policy.” The schedules pressing on these two crises are now critical. Of Ukraine’s $70 billion in sovereign debt, $23 billion must be either paid or restructured this month. Greece has payments of $23 billion due this year; this month it owes the I.M.F. $1.8 billion and private lenders $1.7 billion. One seriously doubts Lagarde and her colleagues celebrate this weird coincidence, given the very unflattering light it casts. In 40 years of I.M.F.-watching, I’ve never seen it behave in so nakedly political a fashion. Take this as a tale of two debtors and there’s no shred of virtue in the fund’s part in it.

IMHO, IMF should either bail out both, or bail out neither. Bailing out Ukraine while telling Greece to go and fuck itself reeks of total and utter partisan hackery.

[Mister B]

Pointless semantics. In this thread, my statements and posts are the same thing.

A statement that is part of a post can be taken out of context. A post cannot, since, you know, it's an entire post. Actually, I'm not even sure if you know that. You've been caught lying, and your best rebuttal is "pointless semantics"? Are you going for the most pathetic post on NSG?

And was my original statement from my original post taken out of context? No? Then they are the same thing. And way to completely ignore the rest of my post. Come on, if you only meant "original statement" and not "original post", show me which was my original statement and which was my original post on the subject, why they are different and why they were original.

You did make a comparison. You compared Georgia at the time of the Rose revolution to Macedonia now and claimed that because in the former the people didn't get pissed off at the US for helping to get rid of the old government that Macedonia would be the same, completely ignoring the fact that the old Georgian government was incredibly unpopular and that the current Maceodnian government is more popular than any other political group in the country. If you can't see why people would react differently to getting rid of one of the least popular leaders versus getting rid of the most popular leaders then you are beyond help.

Actually, no, I didn't. I cited Georgia and Ukraine as examples, not comparisons. I didn't say "like Macedonia, Georgia..." and I'm not responsible for your vivid imagination making random shit up. Nor did I claim that it would be the same. I merely cited it as an example, but since you prefer the words of politicians over historical events that occurred in the past, you, Mr. B, who's already lied about me once, (or rather only been caught once thus far in your short time here,) continue to boldly proceed in the area of making shit up. Where the fuck did I say that Macedonia and Georgia would be the same? Are you here to even debate me, or to run away with your tail tucked between your legs from what I actually say, while trying to put random shit in my mouth. It's fucking disgusting.

I pointed out that after the Rose and Orange Revolutions, the people/government didn't turn against the US, so why would Macedonia be the opposite?

That's a comparison.

comparison
kəmˈparɪs(ə)n/
noun
noun: comparison; plural noun: comparisons

1.
a consideration or estimate of the similarities or dissimilarities between two things or people.

You are claiming a similarity between the two, arguing that what ocurred in one example means that the opposite would not occur in the other. Even if you were arguing that they have nothing in common it would still be a comparison.

But hey, if you don't want to compare Georgia to Macedonia that's fine with me. So when I say that in Macedonia the US helping to overthrow the most popular political party and leader against the will of the people will make the people of Macedonia hostile to the US, and you respond to that by saying that in Georgia the people weren't hostile to the US after the US helped unthrow the very unpopular government there - by the way, source for that claim please - but we shouldn't compare this situation with Macedonia, where is exactly is your rebuttal to my statement? What is your unsourced statement an example of?

I'm pretty sure you already described it - "Part of the reason that the people turned on Shevardnadze and later Saakashvili, was poor economic management". I'm contrasting that with Macedonia which has the lowest unemployment in its independent history and the fastest economic grwoth in the region. Why you would try and draw a line between that and the economic mismanagement of Shevardnadze and Saakashvili I can't fathom.

The question was "how did Saakashvili poorly manage Georgia's economy?" You've successfully dodged that, good job, would you like a cookie?

You seem to think I will answer questions unrelated to my argument simply because you ask them. You're wrong.

That's odd, I could have sworn I was talking about Macedonia and not Latvia. Macedonia being the country where the current government is three and a half times as popular as the leading opposition party, where the prime minister is six times as popular as his rival, rather than Latvia where at the last election the most popular party won only 1.1% more votes thn the next most popular party and only just over half a much as the second and third parties combined. You've really got a thing for making meaningless comparisons between Macedonia and other countries, haven't you?

I'm providing examples to counter your bullshit. You're the one calling them comparisons. Then again, you had no idea about Georgia's divisiveness, you failed to comprehend the difference between a post and a statement, and now you're failing to comprehend the difference between an example and a comparison, yet again. Apparently saying that it's mathematically possible for political parties to form a coalition against one that has a mere plurality of the votes and citing an example is equivalent to a comparison in your book of bullshit.

How does it counter my argument if we can't compare the two? My statement is that the most popular party (multiple times more popular than any other party) in Macedonia will win the next election. To "counter" that you point out that in an entirely different country the most popular party (marginally more popular than the second most popular party, half as popular as the ruling coalition) didn't win the election (or rather won but was unable to form a government), but that we shouldn't compare the situaton in Latvia to the situation in Macedonia, which again leaves my wondering why you brought it up if there is to be no comparison.

[Costa Fierro]

That two avoid it tends to show that they were aware of the danger.

It's the airline's decision as to whether or not they fly over a conflict zone. Airlines will fly over conflict zones unless it becomes too dangerous to do so. At that time, Ukraine was not a dangerous war zone and airlines felt it was still safe to fly over.

As I said, blame the rapist, not the victim.

[Bratislavskaya]

That two avoid it tends to show that they were aware of the danger.

It's the airline's decision as to whether or not they fly over a conflict zone. Airlines will fly over conflict zones unless it becomes too dangerous to do so. At that time, Ukraine was not a dangerous war zone and airlines felt it was still safe to fly over.

As I said, blame the rapist, not the victim.

Because they felt it was safe and because it was safe are two massively different things. They had seen a number of aircraft go down, and should have at least considered changing the flight path. If they had been made aware that the rebels had high performance SAMs that were easily capable of taking out their aircraft, I'm sure they would have changed the flight path.

It's more comparable to someone choosing to walk down a dark alleyway late at night, after not being told that there is a dodgey bloke with his dick out standing further down the alley, despite the fact a friend new he was there. But even that is a weak comparison, as the rebels had no intention of shooting down a civilian air liner.

[Costa Fierro]

Because they felt it was safe and because it was safe are two massively different things.

And for all intents and purposes, it was safe. Up until that point, no one knew that the rebels possessed any kind of anti-aircraft weaponry that was capable of downing aircraft at altitudes higher than 5,000 meters. All the aircraft shot down prior to MH-17 were shot down at levels lower than 10,000 meters, out of a combination of the fact that most people assumed 10,000 meters was the limit for the weapons the rebels were thought to possess and the fact that all the aircraft shot down prior to MH-17 were military aircraft that were flying at lower altitudes. The highest altitude any Ukrainian government aircraft was flying at when it was shot down was an AN-26 transport aircraft flying at 6,400 meters (21,000 feet), at least three thousand meters below the minimum height that civilian airliners were allowed to fly at.

They had seen a number of aircraft go down, and should have at least considered changing the flight path. If they had been made aware that the rebels had high performance SAMs that were easily capable of taking out their aircraft, I'm sure they would have changed the flight path.

No one knew the rebels had that kind of military hardware at that time. Even suggesting that the flight crew were aware of the threat and continued anyway is absolutely ridiculous, because flight crews are only advised of any kinds of changes if the airline tells them of any changes to fight paths. Moreover, the Ukrainian government did issue a warning to various European countries about Ukrainian air space safety as well as a total ban on civilian air traffic under 10,000 meters.

It's more comparable to someone choosing to walk down a dark alleyway late at night, after not being told that there is a dodgey bloke with his dick out standing further down the alley, despite the fact a friend new he was there. But even that is a weak comparison, as the rebels had no intention of shooting down a civilian air liner.

Indeed. But the blame still rests on them because they are the ones that shot it down. If someone shoots someone dead, who are you going to blame? The victim or the shooter? Saying "whilst it's tragic, the person shouldn't have been there when he pulled the gun out" is a retarded way of justifying what can be described in legal terms as manslaughter.

Intentional or not, those rebelss that were manning the missile launcher at the time, still need to be held accountable for their actions.

[Cartalucci]

Are people really still claiming that MH17 was shot down by a surface to air missile and not by the Ukrainian air force, despite mountains of evidence showing that machine gun fire from an aircraft was responsible?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Are people really still claiming that MH17 was shot down by a surface to air missile and not by the Ukrainian air force, despite mountains of evidence showing that machine gun fire from an aircraft was responsible?

That 'evidence' is all bullshit as you've been shown a dozen times, an Su-25 did not shoot down the damn plane.

[Cartalucci]

Are people really still claiming that MH17 was shot down by a surface to air missile and not by the Ukrainian air force, despite mountains of evidence showing that machine gun fire from an aircraft was responsible?

That 'evidence' is all bullshit as you've been shown a dozen times, an Su-25 did not shoot down the damn plane.

Iy might have been an Su-25, but then it might not.

Since 2010, NATO has begun using electronic countermeasure pods. They are designed by Raytheon and BAE Systems. When attached to an aircraft, an SU-27, an SU-29 maybe even an F-15, these allow the backscattering – that is when you use radar, and this is what was said the radar identified as two SU-25 aircraft. Well these pods that attach to any plane can make a plane look like an SU-25 when it’s not an SU-25 or a flock of birds or anything else.

http://rt.com/op-edge/240021-mh17-investigation-su25-ukraine/

But the Su-25 is certainly capable.

Commenting on the jet’s ability to maneuver at higher altitudes, the former commander of an aviation division, Major General Sergey Borysyuk, noted that the jet would have had the capability to “maneuver comfortably,” even at such a high altitude.

“I personally flew, and not once, at an altitude of 12,000 meters...,” he said. “My colleagues have risen to an altitude of 14,000 meters. The altitude of 10,500 was officially authorized during operations in Afghanistan. Therefore the plane, even at an altitude of 12,000 meters, has the capability to maneuver comfortably, its aerodynamic characteristics enable it to do so.”

http://rt.com/news/239881-mh17-ukraine-fighter-jet/

[Novus America]

Are people really still claiming that MH17 was shot down by a surface to air missile and not by the Ukrainian air force, despite mountains of evidence showing that machine gun fire from an aircraft was responsible?

Seriously?!

Even RUSSIA admits (now) it was shot down by a Buk Missile although the have being trying to claim it could have been a Ukrainian one. See Russia has changed its cover story, you need to get up to date on the current Russian story. I know it is hard since Russia is always changing its story.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32972406

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150506/1021764384.html

The new Russian story is that a Ukrainian Buk shot it down, even Russia gave up on that story you are linking. Please try again.

[Novus America]

Are people really still claiming that MH17 was shot down by a surface to air missile and not by the Ukrainian air force, despite mountains of evidence showing that machine gun fire from an aircraft was responsible?

That 'evidence' is all bullshit as you've been shown a dozen times, an Su-25 did not shoot down the damn plane.

Again even the Russian government has abandoned that story after it was throughly debunked.

He needs to get up to speed on current Russian propaganda. Like I said I understand it is hard to keep up with the ever changing story.

[Cartalucci]

Are people really still claiming that MH17 was shot down by a surface to air missile and not by the Ukrainian air force, despite mountains of evidence showing that machine gun fire from an aircraft was responsible?

Seriously?!

Even RUSSIA admits (now) it was shot down by a Buk Missile although the have being trying to claim it could have been a Ukrainian one. See Russia has changed its cover story, you need to get up to date on the current Russian story. I know it is hard since Russia is always changing its story.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32972406

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150506/1021764384.html

The new Russian story is that a Ukrainian Buk shot it down, even Russia gave up on that story you are linking. Please try again.

The Russian government said no such thing. The manufacturer of the Buk missile system said:

If a surface-to-air missile system was used [to hit the plane], it could only have been a 9M38M1 missile of the BUK-M1 system

Note that they say if a SAM was used, they are not confirming this as a fact. Also,

If the BUK-M1 missile had indeed been used, it could only have been fired from the area around the village of Zaroschenskoe, the manufacturer said.

Earlier in April, senior eastern Ukrainian rebel commander Eduard Basurin stated that the Donetsk People’s Republic had got hold of some of the Ukrainian army’s maps, which showed the positions of Kiev’s forces in July 2014, the time of the MH17 tragedy. Zaroschenskoe was then controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Basurin said.

http://rt.com/news/264421-buk-missile-manufacturer-investigation/

So if MH-17 was shot down by a SAM, which seems to run counter to the evidence from the crash, then it was a SAM fired by Ukraine and not by anyone else.

[Socialist Czechia]

If separatists indeed shot down the plane, when they tried to destroy that Su-25, then ukrainian pilot consciously or unconsciously used civilian plane as a shield, so it was tragic mistake from both sides you can say, not some planned mass murder commited by 'evil' rebels.

It was warzone after all, and when both malaysian company and ukrainian government didn't care about rebel SAMs, it was still ultimately their fault.
Passanger's blood is mostly on their hands, admit it or not.

[Cartalucci]

If separatists indeed shot down the plane, when they tried to destroy that Su-25, then ukrainian pilot consciously or unconsciously used civilian plane as a shield, so it was tragic mistake from both sides you can say, not some planned mass murder commited by 'evil' rebels.

It was warzone after all, and when both malaysian company and ukrainian government didn't care about rebel SAMs, it was still ultimately their fault.
Passanger's blood is mostly on their hands, admit it or not.

It wasn't a rebel SAM. Did you not read any of the links I posted? The damage indicates that it was caused by 30mm cannon fire and air-to-air missiles. If a SAM was involved at all it has to have come from territory held by Kiev supporting forces.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If separatists indeed shot down the plane, when they tried to destroy that Su-25, then ukrainian pilot consciously or unconsciously used civilian plane as a shield, so it was tragic mistake from both sides you can say, not some planned mass murder commited by 'evil' rebels.

It was warzone after all, and when both malaysian company and ukrainian government didn't care about rebel SAMs, it was still ultimately their fault.
Passanger's blood is mostly on their hands, admit it or not.

It wasn't a rebel SAM. Did you not read any of the links I posted? The damage indicates that it was caused by 30mm cannon fire and air-to-air missiles. If a SAM was involved at all it has to have come from territory held by Kiev supporting forces.

So, uh, how do you explain the videos and pictures showing a Buk fleeing the area after the plane was shot down? Those were all posted in one of the Ukraine threads. And please, no idiotic RT bullshit.

[Novus America]

Seriously?!

Even RUSSIA admits (now) it was shot down by a Buk Missile although the have being trying to claim it could have been a Ukrainian one. See Russia has changed its cover story, you need to get up to date on the current Russian story. I know it is hard since Russia is always changing its story.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32972406

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150506/1021764384.html

The new Russian story is that a Ukrainian Buk shot it down, even Russia gave up on that story you are linking. Please try again.

The Russian government said no such thing. The manufacturer of the Buk missile system said:

If a surface-to-air missile system was used [to hit the plane], it could only have been a 9M38M1 missile of the BUK-M1 system

Note that they say if a SAM was used, they are not confirming this as a fact. Also,

If the BUK-M1 missile had indeed been used, it could only have been fired from the area around the village of Zaroschenskoe, the manufacturer said.

Earlier in April, senior eastern Ukrainian rebel commander Eduard Basurin stated that the Donetsk People’s Republic had got hold of some of the Ukrainian army’s maps, which showed the positions of Kiev’s forces in July 2014, the time of the MH17 tragedy. Zaroschenskoe was then controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Basurin said.

http://rt.com/news/264421-buk-missile-manufacturer-investigation/

So if MH-17 was shot down by a SAM, which seems to run counter to the evidence from the crash, then it was a SAM fired by Ukraine and not by anyone else.

Yes it came from the manufacturer, but has been parroted by the Russian media hence becoming a Russian government story. Your last line is hilarious. Typical Russian propaganda, "if you do not believe my first lie, I have another contradictory lie for you!" Even other pro Russians admit the rebels shot it down.

Do you read anything other than RT?

And have you ever heard of the concepts of cognitive dissonance and doublethink, which you last sentence is a perfect example of? (Which one applies to you depends on whether or not your contradictions cause internal conflict).

[Cartalucci]

It wasn't a rebel SAM. Did you not read any of the links I posted? The damage indicates that it was caused by 30mm cannon fire and air-to-air missiles. If a SAM was involved at all it has to have come from territory held by Kiev supporting forces.

So, uh, how do you explain the videos and pictures showing a Buk fleeing the area after the plane was shot down? Those were all posted in one of the Ukraine threads. And please, no idiotic RT bullshit.

Maybe they realised that NATO was about to use their presence in the region as justification for their war on the Donbass by blaming them for MH17 and sought to withdraw before before this happened, obviously they were too late.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So, uh, how do you explain the videos and pictures showing a Buk fleeing the area after the plane was shot down? Those were all posted in one of the Ukraine threads. And please, no idiotic RT bullshit.

Maybe they realised that NATO was about to use their presence in the region as justification for their war on the Donbass by blaming them for MH17 and sought to withdraw before before this happened, obviously they were too late.

You're backpedaling so much it's great.

[Cartalucci]

The Russian government said no such thing. The manufacturer of the Buk missile system said:



Note that they say if a SAM was used, they are not confirming this as a fact. Also,



http://rt.com/news/264421-buk-missile-manufacturer-investigation/

So if MH-17 was shot down by a SAM, which seems to run counter to the evidence from the crash, then it was a SAM fired by Ukraine and not by anyone else.

Yes it came from the manufacturer, but has been parroted by the Russian media hence becoming a Russian government story. Your last line is hilarious. Typical Russian propaganda, "if you do not believe my first lie, I have another contradictory lie for you!" Even other pro Russians admit the rebels shot it down.

Do you read anything other than RT?

And have you ever heard of the concepts of cognitive dissonance and doublethink, which you last sentence is a perfect example of? (Which one applies to you depends on whether or not your contradictions cause internal conflict).

Some pro-Russians may not have read what I have read and are thus still being mislead by Western proaganda on MH17 and are not aware of the expert testimony from numerous reliable sources showing that it was not destroyed by the freedom fighters of the Donbass.

I read lots of other independent sources free from Western bias.