[ingliz]

MH17 shot down by

Cui bono?

The Kiev puppet regime.

[Rugoz]

You're always so kind Rugoz when someone happens to say something that doesn't fit your own Weltanschauung.

It makes my blood boil when people are too f***ing lazy to look up the bloody facts.

[Beren]

It makes my blood boil when people are too f***ing lazy to look up the bloody facts.

Facts, as well as Germans sticking to them, are stubborn things I know.

[Albert]

Mossad fired it. It was fired form inside Ukrainian territory not from Russia and it wasn't even fired from the bit of Ukraine controlled by the pro Russian free Ukrainian rebels.

It was actually layman. He works for Mossad.

[pikachu]

Cui bono?

The Kiev puppet regime.

Cui bono can be asked only of deliberate actions, it doesn't apply to something that was almost certainly a mistake. In case of mistakes it's actually the opposite, since your mistakes will often benefit your enemies. It happens. I always said that the rebel responsibility is the most likely scenario and everything that emerged since then is just further confirmation.

That said, the airline and the Ukrainian government certainly also share a part of the responsibility.

[GandalfTheGrey]

A son of two of the Australian victims has been doing some interviews in the wake of this report. Very admirable guy. He basically puts most of the blame on the war itself, and emphasises how efforts should be focused on bringing about an end to the war, so this sort of thing won't happen again. He is fairly adamant that it was a mistake, and asks the question what possible motive would the rebels have in deliberately downing a commercial plane. And he is not really interested in bringing the people who pressed the button to justice. Most interestingly, he reserves most of his anger towards the Ukranian government for cynically using the downing as an excuse to escalate the war.

I'm with Igor - compared to Iranian flight 655, it isn't even in the same ball park. Just keep in mind the US's faux outrage towards the Russians over this - while remembering the fact that the crew of the USS Vicence received medals.

[Albert]

It is interesting to note that this investigation report become public when diplomatic situation has deteriorated in Syria between Russia and USA, over Aleppo.

[layman]

when diplomatic situation has deteriorated in Syria between Russia and USA

Doesnt that happen once a week at least?

[Albert]

Perhaps this time around its more serious.

[Typhoon]

The conclusions of this preliminary report mostly present what we already know, a few interesting new details though. Most of the phone taps do not present much information, we do not know what is being moved in each case, only one references Buk directly but its hard to say on the basis of this that a Russian Buk was actually there or was used.

Interestingly the JIT back away from naming the exact model of the missile used, instead using the more general 9M38 designation. Perhaps learning from mistakes in the original investigation and the evidence presented by Almaz Antey. The main attack on Almaz Antey's version is the second wire tap regarding recollections of Ukrainian positions.

The JIT reference a lot more wiretapping, satellite evidence, it will be interesting to hear/see what is eventually released.

It's the only logical conclusion :-

1. The Rebels were not using aircraft, so Ukraine were unlikely to be shooting at aircraft willy nilly.
2. Ukraine is unlikely to have shot it down intentionally because that would be extremely risky, turning the West against them if they were caught.
3. Russia proper is unlikely to have shot it down knowing the impact it would have on their international reputation if they were caught. In fact it could be seen as an act of war. I doubt Russia would do it.
4. The Rebels were shooting down Ukrainian aircraft in the area.

It seems obvious to me the Rebels shot it down. Presumably as they thought it was a Ukrainian aircraft. This is supported by radio chatter captured at the time.

1. Ukraine accused Russia of using an aircraft to shoot down one of its aircraft prior to the MH17 loss, this was the aerial threat Ukraine would have been concerned about and Ukraine did deploy its anti-aircraft batteries into the conflict zone.

2/3. I think MH17 can definitely be viewed as an unintentional outcome of the conflict, irrespective of who shot it down. Civil jets have been shot down by accident before.

4. Yep, though if it was rebels or Russians acting as rebels is another matter.

[QatzelOk]

Oh god Decky

Airplane fuel can't melt steel ? 9/11 inside job ? America knew about Pearl Harbor ?

These are all thoughtcrimes, aren't they.
Decky may be guilty of thoughtcrimes... is that your point?

Cui bono?

The Kiev puppet regime.

We can't call this an accident yet, so it is interesting how true this is. "Bad guys are attacking Euros. Send us more arms and we'll protect them."

[JohnRawls]

These are all thoughtcrimes, aren't they.
Decky may be guilty of thoughtcrimes... is that your point?

Yes, he is guilty of thoughtcrimes! Off to the Gulag.

[Political Interest]

It is doubtful the rebels would have done it on purpose. Very few people want to become mass murderers.

Why did MAS fly over the warzone? I read a news article saying that many Malaysian Airlines cabin crew refused to fly on that route because they knew it was potentially dangerous. After the incident nearly all airlines have redirected their flight paths to avoid the conflict zone.

Why was this not done earlier? There were clearly people among the ranks of Malaysian Airlines who knew about the danger.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

There could be 100% confirmation that the rebels shot down the plane. Drunken inexperienced rebels in way over their heads shot down a plane.

Every day highly experienced well paid experts sit around the offices of western politics making carefully analysed calculated decisions that will inevitably cost the lives of thousands of innocent civilians.

In essence what's the difference between those soldiers shooting down a plane and the UK and America deciding to back Saudi Arabia's blockade of Yemen? Aside from the fact that the death toll in Yemen is far greater and far more lives are at risk.

[GandalfTheGrey]

In essence what's the difference between those soldiers shooting down a plane and the UK and America deciding to back Saudi Arabia's blockade of Yemen? Aside from the fact that the death toll in Yemen is far greater and far more lives are at risk.

Clearly there's a big difference: one is the conscious enabling of the slaughter of thousands of innocents and the destruction of an entire nation, the other is the unintentional downing of a civilian aircraft based on the belief (clearly expressed in the video recording) that only legitimate military aircraft would enter that airspace.

A slightly more valid comparison is the downing of Iranian flight 655 - but with the important difference that it was the attacker who entered the airspace of the country that owned the aircraft when it shot it down - not the other way around.

[edenoz]

This is old news, our media informed us Putin drove the BuK into Ukraine withn hours of the evil deed. RT actually has some good stories , naturally they post items that embarrass US interests. Most media is biased , whose cock do you have in your mouth if its not Putins? Hillarys, Nulands, Breedloves?
Fact is a commercial flight was routed over a civil war zone (A cvil war the USA has been involved in creting just like Wikileaks and Hillarys's emails expose their role in the Syrian and Libyan war.
Ukraine was a weapons manufacturing and storehouse in even post soviet times in preparation for a european theater of war. Ukrainian separatists are being killed en masse by Ukrainian warplanes. They dont have an airforce and are relying on scrounged weapons mostly. Where are the bleeding hearts for Ukraines dead?
Finally you accuse RT of Bias what about western mainstream media look at their abysmal coverage of Hillary's emails, of the USA involvement in fomenting these middle east wars, supplying weapons or the propaganda they are feeding the people. Its time for you to spit or swallow.

[JohnRawls]

All media have bias but not all of the media is biased all the time.

Simple Occams razor: ( Even if all of the research is ignored. )

1) Did the seperatists shoot down planes ? - yes.

2) Did Ukranian military shoot down planes? - no.

3) Who is more likely to have shot down this plane on the territory of the seperatists if Ukranians were not shooting down planes while the seperatists were? - The seperatists.

It is obvious it wasn't intentional. Also this kind of equipment is not something that can be used by regular people. There were specialists from Russia involved in operating it if not the whole thing was brought across the border. There are mistakes during armed conflicts, this is one of them. Nobody wanted to shoot this plane down but it happened. Sadly enough nobody will be punished, like nobody gets punished for bombing hospitals with f-16 or weddings with drones.

[edenoz]

Thats a big jump from someone fired the missile to it was Russian involvement.
Do you really think the Separatists lack personnel that were conscripted or had military training and the ability to use much of the equipment that was produced in Ukrainian military industrial production.
Of course there are many Russian patriots who have individually chosen to support the separatist cause as well many with training as well.
I don't think you can totally discount the possibility that this act is a black op designed to shape public opinion against Russia and its current leadership. The revelations from Wikileaks show rampant criminal activity. Though I tend to lean towards the idea that a unit on the ground acted independently mistaking the flight for a Ukrainian military aircraft.
And again of course who would route a commercial passenger aircraft over a zone where bombing operations are occurring on the civilian populace below and be shocked if it was targeted.

The thing is there is ample evidence that US leadership is attempting to leverage this incident to punish and weaken Russia,s current leadership. What would Putin have had to gain from shooting down this flight?
Who benefits certainly not Russia if they did they made a rod for their own backs similar to the laughable accusation that Assad used chemical weapons or the lies used to invade Iraq. The Russians are not my enemy.