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

[Cartalucci]

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.

What about the fact that a pilot has already admitted shooting down MH17?

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/12/23/ukraine-pilot-reveals-kiev-plane-shot-down-mh-17-full-transcript/

[West Aurelia]

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.

Or maybe the Buk shot down MH17.

[Cartalucci]

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.

Or maybe the Buk shot down MH17.

That doesn't explain why a Ukrainian air force pilot claimed to have shot it down.

[West Aurelia]

Or maybe the Buk shot down MH17.

That doesn't explain why a Ukrainian air force pilot claimed to have shot it down.

I'm gonna need a more reliable source than the one you gave. I Googled "ukrainian pilot admits shooting down mh17" and not a single reliable source came up.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You're backpedaling so much it's great.

What about the fact that a pilot has already admitted shooting down MH17?

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/12/23/ukraine-pilot-reveals-kiev-plane-shot-down-mh-17-full-transcript/

Given I can't find anything about that from any credible source, I'm gonna call bullshit.

[West Aurelia]

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

And yet you cite RT.

[Bratislavskaya]

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.

This is the point, that has been made by a number of people: Kiev was aware that the Rebels had BUKs. There were multiple claims from the Rebels that they had control of them, and there was at least one reporter who also claimed to see a Rebel BUK in the area, and the Rebels said they had used a BUK to shoot down two other aircraft. Kiev was aware that they had BUKs.

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.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't, but they should be held as accountable as every other nation that has done the same thing: They should pay the victims families, and it should be left at that. Did members of the US Navy appear at an international tribunal after they shot down an Iranian Civilian aircraft? Did Ukrainian Troops after they shot down a Russian Civilian Aircraft? Did Soviet Troops after they shot down a Korean Civilian Aircraft? No.

It's not that it's a fully justified incident, and the rebels were within their right to do it. It is a mistake something that often happens in warzones, with multiple factors contributing to it from both sides. The fact is that it is being used as a propaganda tool to paint the rebels as the source of all evil, when it was a mistake that wasn't even entirely their fault.

[Novus America]

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.

Or maybe the Buk shot down MH17.

Yeah, even the Russian government media admits that now. I am not sure if he is aware how he is convincing no one, even the Russia supporters and completely discrediting himself by throwing up a wall of links to contradictory and not in the least bit credible sources.

Ah the wonders of doublethink.

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."

George Orwell, 1984.

[Novus America]

What about the fact that a pilot has already admitted shooting down MH17?

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/12/23/ukraine-pilot-reveals-kiev-plane-shot-down-mh-17-full-transcript/

Given I can't find anything about that from any credible source, I'm gonna call bullshit.

Note his source actually does not even say what he claims, it claims that a pilot on the ground saw a plane come back without its missiles (totally condradicting his gun fire claim). So by posting that story he is admitting the gun fire claim to be false...

Oh and that story cites Pravda as the original source, and is not in the least bit credible.

Even the other pro Russians admit the rebels shot it down with a Buk.

I mean if you are going to lie, at least tell consistent lies.

[Assorted Sucrose-Based Lifeforms]

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?

"mountains of evidence"
Riiight. The fact that the people actually investigating the crash have said that the damage is consistent with a sizeable AA missile is surely a western conspiracy, right?
Even if they weren't, tge Su-25 story hardly holds up- https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and- ... -straight/

[Novus America]

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.

This is the point, that has been made by a number of people: Kiev was aware that the Rebels had BUKs. There were multiple claims from the Rebels that they had control of them, and there was at least one reporter who also claimed to see a Rebel BUK in the area, and the Rebels said they had used a BUK to shoot down two other aircraft. Kiev was aware that they had BUKs.

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.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't, but they should be held as accountable as every other nation that has done the same thing: They should pay the victims families, and it should be left at that. Did members of the US Navy appear at an international tribunal after they shot down an Iranian Civilian aircraft? Did Ukrainian Troops after they shot down a Russian Civilian Aircraft? Did Soviet Troops after they shot down a Korean Civilian Aircraft? No.

It's not that it's a fully justified incident, and the rebels were within their right to do it. It is a mistake something that often happens in warzones, with multiple factors contributing to it from both sides. The fact is that it is being used as a propaganda tool to paint the rebels as the source of all evil, when it was a mistake that wasn't even entirely their fault.

I have to agree with you, but with one caveat. The Russian media needs to say this and stop with the contradictory lies. And while some rebels have admitted it, not all have. Target indentification is hard, I get that. And these things happen.

So why all the lies? When the U.S. shot down that Iranian plane we admitted we really screwed up.

(Although the Soviets did also run lies about the Korean one).

But just admit it. Come clean. The irony is Russia and the rebels have made this worse by not coming clean. Had they said from the beginning, "hey we really screwed up, this is like the Iran air thing" it would have looked much better.

[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?

"mountains of evidence"
Riiight. The fact that the people actually investigating the crash have said that the damage is consistent with a sizeable AA missile is surely a western conspiracy, right?
Even if they weren't, tge Su-25 story hardly holds up- https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and- ... -straight/

Again even the Russian media (now) says it was a Buk. But they still are trying to say it was a Ukrainian Buk.

[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.

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.

Point is, that in both possible cases, rebel forces can't possibly be blamed. It doesn't matter whose rocket did it. It's mostly ukrainian fault for not locking air space and also malaysian company's fault for not choosing safer route.

If during Spanish Civil War foreign civilian plane flew nearby bombardment and other side's flaks would destroy it in attempt to destroy enemy bombers, whose fault would it be?

[Costa Fierro]

This is the point, that has been made by a number of people: Kiev was aware that the Rebels had BUKs. There were multiple claims from the Rebels that they had control of them, and there was at least one reporter who also claimed to see a Rebel BUK in the area, and the Rebels said they had used a BUK to shoot down two other aircraft. Kiev was aware that they had BUKs.

During the time before the accident happened, no one knew they had BUK's. On the day it was shot down, one journalist saw one in the area where MH-17 went down but at no point did anyone actually believe that the rebels had anything capable of shooting down a civilian airliner.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't, but they should be held as accountable as every other nation that has done the same thing: They should pay the victims families, and it should be left at that. Did members of the US Navy appear at an international tribunal after they shot down an Iranian Civilian aircraft? Did Ukrainian Troops after they shot down a Russian Civilian Aircraft? Did Soviet Troops after they shot down a Korean Civilian Aircraft? No.

Because no one actually bothered pressuring them to do so. The USSR claimed the Korean airlines shootdown was an attempt by the Americans to spy on the Soviet Union using civilian aircraft, the Ukrainians flat out deny any involvement with a shootdown of a Russian airliner and the Americans did actually come to an agreement with the Iranian government about compensation and an actual official apology for Iran Air Flight 655.

The fact is that it is being used as a propaganda tool to paint the rebels as the source of all evil, when it was a mistake that wasn't even entirely their fault.

It's not being used as a tool for propaganda to paint the rebels as a source of all evil. Any and all use for propaganda has been done by the Russians who have repeatedly presented "alternate theories", all of which have been debunked.

And yes, it was the rebel's fault. They were the ones that shot it down. They were the ones that couldn't properly identify what they were shooting at. Ergo, responsibility falls on them.

Point is, that in both possible cases, rebel forces can't possibly be blamed. It doesn't matter whose rocket did it. It's mostly ukrainian fault for not locking air space and also malaysian company's fault for not choosing safer route.

That is an absolute load of bullshit right there.

[The balkens]

if its not on RT, its western propaganda.

[Bratislavskaya]

This is the point, that has been made by a number of people: Kiev was aware that the Rebels had BUKs. There were multiple claims from the Rebels that they had control of them, and there was at least one reporter who also claimed to see a Rebel BUK in the area, and the Rebels said they had used a BUK to shoot down two other aircraft. Kiev was aware that they had BUKs.

During the time before the accident happened, no one knew they had BUK's. On the day it was shot down, one journalist saw one in the area where MH-17 went down but at no point did anyone actually believe that the rebels had anything capable of shooting down a civilian airliner.

The Rebels said they had BUKs, and there were a number of aircraft shoot downs and a journalists report to support that fact. Before the incident. Kiev should have made it a no fly zone.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't, but they should be held as accountable as every other nation that has done the same thing: They should pay the victims families, and it should be left at that. Did members of the US Navy appear at an international tribunal after they shot down an Iranian Civilian aircraft? Did Ukrainian Troops after they shot down a Russian Civilian Aircraft? Did Soviet Troops after they shot down a Korean Civilian Aircraft? No.

Because no one actually bothered pressuring them to do so. The USSR claimed the Korean airlines shootdown was an attempt by the Americans to spy on the Soviet Union using civilian aircraft, the Ukrainians flat out deny any involvement with a shootdown of a Russian airliner and the Americans did actually come to an agreement with the Iranian government about compensation and an actual official apology for Iran Air Flight 655.

The Ukrainians eventually admitted they were at fault, and compensated most of the families. Bush said "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are", and the commanders of the ship that fired the Missile were awarded Medals, despite their actions.

The fact is that it is being used as a propaganda tool to paint the rebels as the source of all evil, when it was a mistake that wasn't even entirely their fault.

It's not being used as a tool for propaganda to paint the rebels as a source of all evil. Any and all use for propaganda has been done by the Russians who have repeatedly presented "alternate theories", all of which have been debunked.

No, it is being used as propaganda against the rebels. The fact that it keeps getting bought up here, usually when not relating to "Alternative theories" is evidence enough.

And yes, it was the rebel's fault. They were the ones that shot it down. They were the ones that couldn't properly identify what they were shooting at. Ergo, responsibility falls on them.

Responsibility falls on all who were at fault, and thus should also rest on Kiev, as they could well have prevented the incident from occurring in the first place. The rebels are not the only single group at fault. The people who said that plane should go through, despite the risks which were apparent to those in Kiev, have blood on their hands too.

if its not on RT, its western propaganda.

If its not on Fox News, its Russian propaganda.

[The balkens]

>Implying im dumb enough to watch fox.

Top fucking kek.

[Bratislavskaya]

>Implying im dumb enough to watch fox.

Top fucking kek.

>Implying I'm dumb enough to watch RT.

Top fucking kek.

[Novus America]

During the time before the accident happened, no one knew they had BUK's. On the day it was shot down, one journalist saw one in the area where MH-17 went down but at no point did anyone actually believe that the rebels had anything capable of shooting down a civilian airliner.

The Rebels said they had BUKs, and there were a number of aircraft shoot downs and a journalists report to support that fact. Before the incident. Kiev should have made it a no fly zone.

Because no one actually bothered pressuring them to do so. The USSR claimed the Korean airlines shootdown was an attempt by the Americans to spy on the Soviet Union using civilian aircraft, the Ukrainians flat out deny any involvement with a shootdown of a Russian airliner and the Americans did actually come to an agreement with the Iranian government about compensation and an actual official apology for Iran Air Flight 655.

The Ukrainians eventually admitted they were at fault, and compensated most of the families. Bush said "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are", and the commanders of the ship that fired the Missile were awarded Medals, despite their actions.

It's not being used as a tool for propaganda to paint the rebels as a source of all evil. Any and all use for propaganda has been done by the Russians who have repeatedly presented "alternate theories", all of which have been debunked.

No, it is being used as propaganda against the rebels. The fact that it keeps getting bought up here, usually when not relating to "Alternative theories" is evidence enough.

And yes, it was the rebel's fault. They were the ones that shot it down. They were the ones that couldn't properly identify what they were shooting at. Ergo, responsibility falls on them.

Responsibility falls on all who were at fault, and thus should also rest on Kiev, as they could well have prevented the incident from occurring in the first place. The rebels are not the only single group at fault. The people who said that plane should go through, despite the risks which were apparent to those in Kiev, have blood on their hands too.

if its not on RT, its western propaganda.

If its not on Fox News, its Russian propaganda.

While the U.S. never apologized for the Iran Air shoot down we admitted we shot the missile and that we made a mistake. And we paid the families.

http://warontherocks.com/2014/07/reagan ... n-air-655/

And we released documentation explaining exactly what happened, it is still used by the U.S. Military as a case study, they teach it in NROTC as a study on combat stress and confimation bias.

While we never apologized we never denied or lied. We took responsibility for the act from the very beginning, you can take responsibility and admit a mistake without apologizing. Which is what we did.

So stop dodging the question, why did the Russian government lie about it? You cannot deny that RT spread disinformation about it, the whole Ukraine SU-25 thing for example.

Yes it is being used against Russia, but this is a media crisis of Russia's own creation. If Russia just told the truth rather than attempting inept propaganda it would be better for Russia.

Your yourself said Russia and the rebels should do so, and I agree, and yes they can do what the U.S. did and just acknowledge a mistake and pay without actually apologizing.

So why has this not been done?

[Bratislavskaya]

So stop dodging the question, why did the Russian government lie about it? You cannot deny that RT spread disinformation about it, the whole Ukraine SU-25 thing for example.

Why the hell should I know? I guess to try and counter the fact that everyone was blaming the Russians directly at the time:I remember the Sun or something running the headline "Putin the Terrorist" on the front page, before anyone actually knew what happened, and even though the Russians had no control over the actions of the rebels.

So why has this not been done?

Well as I said don't ask me why the won't acknowledge it, but I can say that the Rebels are hardly in a position to pay people at current.

[Novus America]

So stop dodging the question, why did the Russian government lie about it? You cannot deny that RT spread disinformation about it, the whole Ukraine SU-25 thing for example.

Why the hell should I know? I guess to try and counter the fact that everyone was blaming the Russians directly at the time:I remember the Sun or something running the headline "Putin the Terrorist" on the front page, before anyone actually knew what happened, and even though the Russians had no control over the actions of the rebels.

So why has this not been done?

Well as I said don't ask me why the won't acknowledge it, but I can say that the Rebels are hardly in a position to pay people at current.

Fair enough, but the Sun is a privately owned tabloid. Responding to tabloid journalism with lies is stupid. You just justify the tabloid. And do you not see the irony that by trying to make Russia and the rebels look better they actually made both look worse?

This is how you do it.
http://warontherocks.com/2014/07/reagan ... n-air-655/

(It should also be noted how much control Russia has over the rebels is very much in dispute.)

[Mister B]

The Rebels said they had BUKs, and there were a number of aircraft shoot downs and a journalists report to support that fact. Before the incident. Kiev should have made it a no fly zone.

The Ukrainians eventually admitted they were at fault, and compensated most of the families. Bush said "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are", and the commanders of the ship that fired the Missile were awarded Medals, despite their actions.No, it is being used as propaganda against the rebels. The fact that it keeps getting bought up here, usually when not relating to "Alternative theories" is evidence enough. Responsibility falls on all who were at fault, and thus should also rest on Kiev, as they could well have prevented the incident from occurring in the first place. The rebels are not the only single group at fault. The people who said that plane should go through, despite the risks which were apparent to those in Kiev, have blood on their hands too.

If its not on Fox News, its Russian propaganda.

While the U.S. never apologized for the Iran Air shoot down we admitted we shot the missile and that we made a mistake. And we paid the families.

http://warontherocks.com/2014/07/reagan ... n-air-655/

And we released documentation explaining exactly what happened, it is still used by the U.S. Military as a case study, they teach it in NROTC as a study on combat stress and confimation bias.

While we never apologized we never denied or lied. We took responsibility for the act from the very beginning, you can take responsibility and admit a mistake without apologizing. Which is what we did.

So stop dodging the question, why did the Russian government lie about it? You cannot deny that RT spread disinformation about it, the whole Ukraine SU-25 thing for example.

Yes it is being used against Russia, but this is a media crisis of Russia's own creation. If Russia just told the truth rather than attempting inept propaganda it would be better for Russia.

Your yourself said Russia and the rebels should do so, and I agree, and yes they can do what the U.S. did and just acknowledge a mistake and pay without actually apologizing.

So why has this not been done?

According to Levada Centre, 80% of Russians believe that the Ukrainian military shot down MH17, while only 3% believe it was the rebels. This sort is statistics would indicate why the lie was made and is still maintained albeit under different terms.

[Novus America]

While the U.S. never apologized for the Iran Air shoot down we admitted we shot the missile and that we made a mistake. And we paid the families.

http://warontherocks.com/2014/07/reagan ... n-air-655/

And we released documentation explaining exactly what happened, it is still used by the U.S. Military as a case study, they teach it in NROTC as a study on combat stress and confimation bias.

While we never apologized we never denied or lied. We took responsibility for the act from the very beginning, you can take responsibility and admit a mistake without apologizing. Which is what we did.

So stop dodging the question, why did the Russian government lie about it? You cannot deny that RT spread disinformation about it, the whole Ukraine SU-25 thing for example.

Yes it is being used against Russia, but this is a media crisis of Russia's own creation. If Russia just told the truth rather than attempting inept propaganda it would be better for Russia.

Your yourself said Russia and the rebels should do so, and I agree, and yes they can do what the U.S. did and just acknowledge a mistake and pay without actually apologizing.

So why has this not been done?

According to Levada Centre, 80% of Russians believe that the Ukrainian military shot down MH17, while only 3% believe it was the rebels. This sort is statistics would indicate why the lie was made and is still maintained albeit under different terms.

The current lie is that a Ukranian Buk shot it down. Apparently the Russian public is too brainwashed to see how all the previous lies (it was a SU-25 cannon! A Mig-29's missile!) contradict the current lie. Classic doublethink.

[Mister B]

According to Levada Centre, 80% of Russians believe that the Ukrainian military shot down MH17, while only 3% believe it was the rebels. This sort is statistics would indicate why the lie was made and is still maintained albeit under different terms.

The current lie is that a Ukranian Buk shot it down. Apparently the Russian public is too brainwashed to see how all the previous lies (it was a SU-25 cannon! A Mig-29's missile!) contradict the current lie. Classic doublethink.

It also allows the ironic attribution of a crime committed by Russia's allies (or, if the preliminary investigation into the incident is to be believed, most likely the Russian authorities themselves) onto Russia's enemies.

"Look at what Ukraine have done! They killed all those people and now they want to blame their opponents for it! Can you see what an awful thing that would be to do? Just remember: this is an awful thing our enemies do, not something your government/its allies would do!"