Digg3r wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:

Digg3r wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:There's audio recording of rebels discussing it with Russia. That's pretty good evidence. The Ukraine plane that was shot down by a Russian fighter... it was in Ukraine airspace. Wouldn't that be an invasion of a sovereign country by a military force. You know, like Russia has been doing all along with Ukraine since the president that was in Putin's pocket was ousted and replaced by one that wanted to join the EU?

And he's just itching to fire a nuke it seems...

As an American you are an expert in the definition of an invasion. Sure the Ukraine's previously elected pro Russian president may have had financial ties with Russia but are you suggesting the current unelected prime minister isn't bank rolled by the EU?

The Ukraine did shell the Russian side of the border last week.The Russians are within their rights to make a pre-emptive strike.

There is no evidence the airliner was shot down by the rebels. Sky news were originally reporting it was shot down by the Ukraine's. The only people that will benefit from this incident will be the Ukraine's. The rebels and their Russian backers would know it would be a public relations nightmare to shot down a civilian airliner.

But does one bank rolled leader changing to a different one justify invasion? Last I checked, it didn't. And last I checked Ukraine shelled Ukraine... not Russia. So Russia isn't justified in doing shit to Ukraine.

Ukraine shells Russia

I don't know who the better politician is but I would presume the democratically elected one would generally represent the people's wishes.

I'd also like orange Dragon to answer what north Korea, north Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq did to justify an American attack or invasion

Interesting, hadn't seen that one. As for elected/not... the elected one was impeached (a fully legal practice) by his parliament... including the members of his own party. that's how bad he was screwing up. the current one is supposed to be temporary while elections are held, but that was interrupted by russia's attacks on the country.

North Korea:
That wasn't a US invasion. It was support for the Southern government in response against a Northern invasion attempt. An invasion supported by Russia in fact.

North Vietnam:
Interestingly, despite a lot of bad press, the opinion on the US before the fighting broke out was that the country needed to have free and fair elections to determine it's future, and that they would probably choose communism, and that the US would respect that choice if done via elections. The US wanted the elections to be supervised by a UN council, but Russia overruled them on it. The resulting election overseen by the local governments was very obviously rigged (on both sides), and triggered a civil war that again has the North invading the South. And again, the US stepped in to offer aid to allies.

Afghanistan:
I presume you mean the current one, and not the one where Russia invaded them in the 80s? I suppose shielding the perpetrator of an attack that kills thousands of civilians sort of qualifies doesn't it? The whole time the Taliban were demanding the US give more evidence that it was him, he was releasing videos bragging about it. It's not hard to see their evidence requests were just attempts at stonewalling.

Iraq:
We all know this was a fuckup. Though I do find it interesting how if the US makes a fuckup, everyone then uses it to justify the aggression of other countries as fine and dandy. Last I checked, me making a mistake didn't make your mistakes not a mistake.

LOL.

I'll give you N. Korea.

Vietnam: the UN was a puppet of the US, witness the Roman Catholic nutter monkey the US wanted to rule the South, and the UN said...nada!

Re: Iraq: we're not suggesting what you did justifies the aggression from other countries. But they are also allowed to have friends and allies, right? Almost nothing justifies aggression. However, it may EXPLAIN it.

Re: Afghanistan: who trained these guys, again?

We're still waiting to find out why they didn't go into Saudi Arabia, since the majority of the 911 conspirators came from there.

Fun!

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malay ... r-mas-says

http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/741248


Before we blame the Russians read these 2 articles. Food for Thought.

Those AIDS Researches were people finding ways to prevent AIDS not cure it. Hmmm...

OrangeDragon wrote: As for elected/not... the elected one was impeached (a fully legal practice) by his parliament... including the members of his own party. that's how bad he was screwing up. the current one is supposed to be temporary while elections are held, but that was interrupted by russia's attacks on the country.

huffington post wrote:According to the Ukrainian constitution, a majority is not enough. Article 11 maintains that a vote on impeachment must pass by two-thirds of the members, and the impeachment itself requires a vote by three-quarters of the members. In this case, the 328 votes were about 10 votes short of three-quarters.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feff ... 64526.html

So it seems the impeachment was NOT LEGALLY conducted.

Yanukovych was legally elected and was illegally removed from office after a bloody Coup D'etat. The turning point of the protests was the bloody assassinations by snipers on February 20th which was blamed on the "Berkut" Ukrainian special forces. Once this theory was questioned and the suspicion began to fall on the anti-government maidan protestors but subsequent investigations have swept under the carpet.

116 people died during the protests - at least half of these died at the hands of snipers - IF they were killed by their own people to ensure a victory for the Maidan Protestors, would these same people stop at blowing up a passenger jet with no known ukrainians on board to ensure that Ukraine will receive protection from EU and a potential end of the issues with separatists?

Only time will tell whether it was Ukrainians, Ethnic Russian Separatists or Russians that shot the plane down, but only one side benefits from this current situation.

The Add Jay wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:Take note that they weren't the only carrier continuing to use it until this happened. None of them thought a ground fight would involve shooting down commercial passenger planes at 30,000 feet.

but a Ukranian jet fighter went down 2 days ago...3 days ago the Ukrainian military shelled into Russian territory and then the countless about of choppers that have gone down the past month or so.

ICAO had not declared the route unsafe nor told airlines not to fly it. Airliners at 33000 feet can reasonably expect to be safe from ground war activities below them. I bet this route isn't the only one over a conflict zone in regular use. Sure you can say ICAO or Malaysian Airlines should have known better or played it safe but where do you draw the line? Are you going to stop them flying over water out of sight of land or over landing-unfriendly terrain just in case?

The Add Jay wrote: So even a 3rd world country can beat America right now. Last week a small black women now holds the rank if full admiral. Insanity.

Assuming your admiral comment is correct what are you particularly upset about? That a woman has been made an admiral, or that a black person has been made an admiral, or that a small person has been made an admiral or some combination of those things? If you're complaining about political correctness and positive discrimination promoting not the best candidate into a job, especially such a powerful/important one then I agree that is crazy. Got any evidence that is the case?

vladimir wrote:LOL.

I'll give you N. Korea.

Vietnam: the UN was a puppet of the US, witness the Roman Catholic nutter monkey the US wanted to rule the South, and the UN said...nada!

Re: Iraq: we're not suggesting what you did justifies the aggression from other countries. But they are also allowed to have friends and allies, right? Almost nothing justifies aggression. However, it may EXPLAIN it.

Re: Afghanistan: who trained these guys, again?

We're still waiting to find out why they didn't go into Saudi Arabia, since the majority of the 911 conspirators came from there.

Fun!

Vietnam: The US didn't want him either, and approved his eventual assassination. Honestly the main reason we seemed to be in Vietnam, despite a lot of the hype over fighting the spread of communism, was because Kennedy and LBJ didn't want us to appear like we were abandoning allies. We were sort of over a barrel with it, having just done the same for Korea we were under an obligation to do it for Vietnam. The whole stop the communists thing didn't really come heavily into play until AFTER we were in as an argument for continuing and increasing our actions there. Again, we were even supporting them having proper elections at a time when we knew those elections would mean a Communist win. Unfortunately the UN (because of the Soviets) didn't follow our advice and as a result the war started.

Iraq: Exactly what country are the Russian allies in the Ukraine situation? The unmarked troops they sent in to justify them stealing land in the first place? A disposed president who also is now disapproving of their actions?

Afghanistan: Some of them were trained by our CIA 40 years ago. If you look at the timeline behind Osama you'll see that it was a reasonable and sensible thing to do at that time and he didn't really turn full nutjob until quite a while later. It's a shame that a once ally turned on the US, but all it really is.

Saudi: They have US, and much of the rest of the world, by the short hairs. No question of that. The main thing they had done was finance OBL. They did it as sort of a bribe... to keep him from doing the same in their country as he'd done elsewhere. They had even tried to warn the US it was coming (information they had due to their role in funding), but were dismissed out of mostly arrogance. The very concept that someone could level a significant attack on US soil prior to 9-11 was thought laughable at best. The mentality was "even if they could, they wouldn't DARE try because of the retaliation they would face." Clearly that was a wrong way to think... and a large part of the heavy hand in our retaliation was to try and return that concept with a massive show of force. As for where the individuals in the actions came from... it doesn't actually matter. Honestly al-Qaeda did a LOT or recruiting from Saudi, Osama having been an active individual there prior to his ejection from the country for being a prick. Doesn't mean the people FROM there were still there. Osama was the target, and we had a pretty solid idea where he was, and that's where we went.

Regarding the Impeachment of Yanukovych: I stand corrected. What they did do, i found upon researching it more instead of just paying attention to journalists' reports [who all call it an impeachment for simplicities sake], was to pass a bill that declared him as abandoning his duties and called for early elections... all of which was perfectly legal under Article 85/7 of their constitution and requires only a simple majority. Is that a loophole? Yes. Did it still work? Yes. Was it still legal and constitutional? Yes. Then is what happened a coop making the current government illegitimate? No.

Lets be clear that amid the protests, what triggered this (including his own party members being the ones who pushed it forward) was the he and many of his MPs had just fucked off and run away. They had abandoned their posts as governing officials, tucked their tails, and ran for the hills. Those who were left to pick up the pieces made this vote and decided they needed a government that was actually present. Their constitution doesn't actually HAVE a clause for what happens if the leader just abandons them, but is still alive and hasn't committed any actual crimes. Impeachment wouldn't fit, as it requires the commision of an actual crime and the trial of that crime.

walkjivefly wrote:

The Add Jay wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:Take note that they weren't the only carrier continuing to use it until this happened. None of them thought a ground fight would involve shooting down commercial passenger planes at 30,000 feet.

but a Ukranian jet fighter went down 2 days ago...3 days ago the Ukrainian military shelled into Russian territory and then the countless about of choppers that have gone down the past month or so.

ICAO had not declared the route unsafe nor told airlines not to fly it. Airliners at 33000 feet can reasonably expect to be safe from ground war activities below them. I bet this route isn't the only one over a conflict zone in regular use. Sure you can say ICAO or Malaysian Airlines should have known better or played it safe but where do you draw the line? Are you going to stop them flying over water out of sight of land or over landing-unfriendly terrain just in case?

The Add Jay wrote: So even a 3rd world country can beat America right now. Last week a small black women now holds the rank if full admiral. Insanity.

Assuming your admiral comment is correct what are you particularly upset about? That a woman has been made an admiral, or that a black person has been made an admiral, or that a small person has been made an admiral or some combination of those things? If you're complaining about political correctness and positive discrimination promoting not the best candidate into a job, especially such a powerful/important one then I agree that is crazy. Got any evidence that is the case?

f you're complaining about political correctness and positive discrimination promoting not the best candidate into a job, especially such a powerful/important one then I agree that is crazy. Got any evidence that is the case?

Thats exactly what I'm talking about. Evidence? well if you understand the politics of eric holder and obama thats all you need you need to know. The amount of examples are endless....we are talking about a community organizer that never had a job in his life. He already kicked countless amount of high ranking generals out of the military. 1 of the most untold stories of Benghazi is his purge of 3 generals...1 of which was the highest ranking african american to ever serve. Massive cover up cause the US is directly responsible for the arab spring.

As

The blame is 100% on the airline....seriously no body else(Unless its a conspiracy false flag). Fucking morons. You would think this company learned their lesson not even 4 months ago.


Who shot it down is a matter of simple detective work. Who gains from this. And their are SO MANY who can gain from this.

But what if it was some young 18 year old wasted on vodka...saw a plane thought his ass was about to get bombed and hit the trigger. Its simply plausible.

Here is another odd fact...how did the media know so fast what type of missile launcher was used? You have any idea the arsenal Russia and Ukraine hold? within hours they knew what brought it down. But still have their fingers up their ass when it comes to MH370.

The Add Jay wrote: Here is another odd fact...how did the media know so fast what type of missile launcher was used? You have any idea the arsenal Russia and Ukraine hold? within hours they knew what brought it down. But still have their fingers up their ass when it comes to MH370.

Actually, of their arsenal only really one model fits with the operating altitude. Though even the media has referred to the buk systems only as speculation, with frequent references to an investigation into confirming what was used.

The Add Jay wrote:The blame is 100% on the airline....seriously no body else(Unless its a conspiracy false flag). Fucking morons. You would think this company learned their lesson not even 4 months ago..

Again, they were far from the only airline using that route. In fact I've found no evidence that prior to this ANY airline had STOPPED using the route.

Planes fly over Iran, Israel, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, etc all of the time, even when they're active conflict zones. And most combatants in a conflict have zero interest in shooting down a commercial plane, and can tell the difference. These guys likely just couldn't tell the difference between a transport plane and a commercial airliner... so shot it down. If there's no no-fly zone, airlines use the routes they've always used. And in the end it's clearly the fault of the guy who pulled the trigger on something like this... there has been no declaration of a no-fly zone by the rebels (though not sure how much weight that would carry) or by Ukraine government. And had it not been declared a no-fly zone as a result of this, I guarantee every other airline that uses that route would have continued to do so despite this incident. I mean, with your logic shouldn't it be Eurocontrol's fault for not rejecting that flight plan when it was filed?

Here's a map of global flight paths... compare that to a map of ongoing conflicts and you may be surprised how much of a sense of security 30,000 feet of altitude gives airlines:


There's a reason most aviation experts are still scratching their heads that this even happened... because despite Hollywood license, it's really really hard to shoot down a passenger plane unless you have an advanced military and are going to sent up jets to do it.