Dutch Investigation: Russia directly responsible for airliner shoot-down

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vrDrew, Oct 5, 2016.

  1. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #1
    A Dutch-led team of investigators has released a report that present conclusive evidence that Russia was behind the air-to-ground missile that brought down a Malaysian airliner over Ukraine, killed all 298 people aboard. From the New York Times

    That's Vladimir Putin. The same guy who Donald Trump keeps praising as a "strong leader."

    It's high time Republicans stopped pussyfooting around and faced the facts that Putin's Russia is a menace. One that needs to be recognized for what it is. A failed one-state kleptocracy. One that's been waging a dangerous and dirty undeclared war against Ukraine, against half the member states of the EU, and against the United States for at least the last four or five years.
     
  2. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #2
    You're pushing as hard for war with Russia as Hillary, Kaine, and Kerry are.
     
  3. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #3
    Hey, let's stop posting ********. I know the international arms establishment is trying to gin up another cold war, but the assertions in this report don't add up.

    The Official and Implausible MH-17 Scenario

    Troubling Gaps in the New MH-17 Report

    MH17 and the JIT: A flawed investigation - Independent Australia

    Rumour Mongering Surrounds MH17 Investigation as NATO War ...

    MH17 crash report is set for release, but it is unlikely to offer closure ...

    Why the Secrecy on the Mh17 Investigation - Counterpunch

    It's high time we recognized that US foreign policy (along with it's allies) is not afraid to again use purposely doctored/omitted evidence to make a case for war. Just like the disproven claims of Assad being responsible for the gas attacks (which the US STILL is asserting) we'll lie to build up an enemy. This is propaganda. Nothing more.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 5, 2016 ---
    THANK YOU.
     
  4. vrDrew thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #4
    Explain for me this little factoid:

    Putin is the guy who shoots down civilian airliners. Putin is the guy who invades neighboring countries. Putin is the guy who has political opponents murdered and disappeared.

    And Putin is the guy who is paying for an army of Trolls to spread lies and disinformation in Western social media. As we keep seeing.

     
  5. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #5
    Leave it be. Enough war already. Russia is on the other side of the planet. Can we please just focus on keeping America safe? We have jihadi trying to kill us and illegal immigrants killing the economy ( I know that the illegals aren't the only thing killing the economy). Lets focus on American issues and not policing the world. Stop pushing for war abroad, we are at war here and we don't even know it.
     
  6. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #6
    So what do you want to do about it?

    We already have sanctions against them, we're already putting troops on a rotational basis in eastern Europe. Short of starting a war what is the western world going to do?
     
  7. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #7
    You sound like Bush describing Saddam. Hillary will try to take care of Putin if she gets elected. Whoohoo more war.
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #8
    Exactly. It's the same exact run up to war we did in Iraq. Down to the altered and omitted carefully cherry picked intelligence reports.
     
  9. Scepticalscribe, Oct 5, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2016

    Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #9
    Actually, while the Dutch investigation has made clear that the weapon in question - the missile - undoubtedly initially came from Russia, - in that it was supplied by Russia - I think it a leap of the imagination to say that Russian soldiers themselves were involved in firing it.

    Rather, I believe it far more likely that it was the local militia 'proxies' (weekend soldiers high on testosterone, alcohol, and machismo, guys who were out of control, inadequately supervised, and lacking oversight, or having to be accountable to legitimate chains of command) - the 'proxies' - the separatists - in the east, who were armed by Russia, who were responsible for firing that weapon.

    Nor do I believe for one minute that the firing of this weapon was deliberately ordered by Moscow. Instead, I think that they failed to control their proxies, and tried to cover up what happened.

    Meanwhile, elements in the Russian media have reported that the weapon was fired by the Ukrainians with a view to discrediting Russia. Obviously, this is equally ludicrous, but there are many in Russia who have genuinely believed this version of events.

    Candidly, I think it far too easy to fall back into clutching the intellectual comfort blanket of 'Cold War' attitudes, and, as a European, I have to say that I would no more trust a media source from the US - whom I do not believe to be capable of objectivity on this subject - than I would some of the more lurid stuff that emerges from Russia.
     
  10. hulugu, Oct 5, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2016

    hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #10
    Arguably, if Russia shipped the missile to Ukrainian separatists, they are in part responsible for the destruction of MH17, maybe not directly, but they should face some recrimination.

    Does this make the case for a new cold war? No.

    I've noticed that whenever we talk about Russian intransigence there's a reflexive call to ignore it because we don't want war. Which strikes me as the worst kind of appeasement. We should call the Russians on the shipment of weapons to Ukraine. And, we'll have to deal with Russia's response, which will include questions about our actions in Yemen—a response we deserve.
     
  11. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #11
    The Dutch just purchased a fleet of U.S. F-35s. Sound like a good time to use them against Russia. Or Ukraine. Or whomever. In any event, until the Russians down an American airliner, I don't give a ****.
     
  12. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #12
    Boy under that logic (which I don't disagree with) the USA has a **** ton of recrimination it needs to answer to....
     
  13. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #13
    Yep.
     
  14. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #14
    what? I have been working for FREE all this time? I needs me a Russian check :D
    --- Post Merged, Oct 5, 2016 ---
    like we should for arming rebels all over the M-E? :D
     
  15. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #15
    The bad news, they pay in rubles.
     
  16. ericgtr12 macrumors 6502a

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #16
    The strong Republican leader Republicans love so much strikes again.
     
  17. vrDrew thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #17
    In the next couple of weeks, my mother (a US citizen) will be flying from the UK to India. Normally that flight would take her over eastern Ukraine. However, since the Malaysia Air shootdown, virtually every airline has changed its flight path to avoid any possibility of overflying areas controlled by Russian-backed separatists forces. You might not care - but Putin's recklessness and violence are already taking its toll on millions of totally innocent people.

    Whether it was actually Russian troops that fired the missile that downed the airliner is all-but immaterial. The Russians had no business supplying weapons such as that to separatist forces. I'm quite sure that if the Canadian or Mexican Governments supplied ground-to-air missiles to anti-Government protestors in Idaho or Arizona, missiles that were used to shoot down civilian airliners overflying the US, we would view that as not just an international outrage, but an act of war. (The fact that such an idea sounds so preposterous ought to give you some notion of how dangerous Putin has become.)

    We don't want to go to war with Russia. We don't want to return to the days of the Cold War either. But let everyone understand very clearly - it wasn't Barack Obama; George W. Bush; or Hillary Clinton that pissed in the soup here. The US Government made every reasonable effort to build a healthy dialog and partnership with Putin's Russia.

    But the reality is that beset by corruption on a massive scale, Putin's Russia has failed to grow and diversify its economy. (Despite having excellent computer programmers, for instance, there are virtually no Russian companies that are competitive in the tech sector.) Instead, Russia relied on oil and gas exports to fund the bulk of its economy. And when energy prices collapsed, Putin felt the way to shore up support was by embarking upon efforts to take back Ukraine and other former Soviet territories.

    By the time the Russians (or their proxies) do actually bring down a US airliner, it will be too late. Just as it will be too late for the US to take action when Russian troops roll into Kharkiv or Donetsk. Because at that point we really have only two terrible choices: Accept humiliation or go to war.

    At this point, under President Obama (and hopefully Hillary Clinton's) leadership, we have considerably better ones. We can stand together with the international community, with our military and economic partners in Europe and around the world - and stand firm against Putin's adventurism and criminality. Right now US-led sanctions are biting deep into Russia. The cost of these sanctions is also being borne by EU dairy farmers and energy consumers. The least we can do support those allies is by standing firm in our commitment to international law.

    And the less said about Donald Trump's revolting rationalizations, the better.
     
  18. impulse462 Suspended

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #18
    lol you think aaronvan cares about international globalist flight patterns?
     
  19. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #19
    I'm sorry your mom is suffering bitterly at the hands of the despot Putin. However, it's only prudent that airlines would forgo flying over active combat areas even if it adds a couple hours to the trip, no?

    Selective outrage. Obama is supplying TOW and Stinger missiles to separatist forces in Syria and elsewhere.

    Actually, there is a vast swath of neocons and liberal interventionists in both parties who are striving for a new Cold War with Russia.

    You're mad if you believe the United States will go to war with Russia over Kharkov or Donetsk. Or even Tallinn or Vilnius. Well, with Hillary in the White House, maybe not.
     
  20. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #20
    Good luck getting countries like Germany, Italy, Poland to stand up to Russia while they're dependent on Gazprom.
     
  21. Scepticalscribe, Oct 5, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2016

    Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #21
    It is not often I find myself in disagreement with you, @vrDrew, but I think the tone of your posts on Russia are........excessive, somewhat hyperbolic, - borderline hysterical, and I write that with regret - and not entirely objective.

    Moreover, I think I need to inform you that Russia is not a failed state, rather, it is exceedingly functional.

    Nor do I believe them - your posts - to be an entirely accurate account of what is taking place there.

    And yes, I do think that there is an important distinction to be drawn between proxies, - such as the Ukrainian separatists - and actual Russian troops. I don't for one minute believe that this distinction is 'immaterial', and I don't for one minute believe that Russia ordered that plane to be shot down.

    On Ukraine, I know people who are on the front line, working with the OSCE mission, monitoring the exceedingly fragile ceasefire agreement which is being broken by both sides regularly; colleagues of mine - people with whom I have worked in other countries - report that they have been fired on by both sides.

    Ukraine is not blameless in this mess, having produced - consistently - some of the worst examples of governance in the entire post Soviet space since the 1990s, which is saying something, and I am including the dreadful government of Mr Yushenko in that group, as well.

    We in the west are far too forgiving of the excesses, incompetence, and corruption of those who we support, - such as Mr Poroshenko, and earlier, the dysfunctional government of Mr Yushenko and Ms Timoshenko.

    Moreover, the EU failed to keep control of the Maiden demonstrators having negotiated the agreement which allowed for the departure of Mr Yanukovich in 2014, which means that they will no longer be seen as a credible, and impartial, actor by the Russians.

    It is too easy to characterise the Russians as despotic thugs - and it is convenient, comfortable, and intellectually lazy, too.

    Instead, we need to be aware of what Ukraine means to the Russian sense of self, and their sense of identity. What that means is that Russia will be far more intransigent about Ukraine than they will be about anywhere else in the post Soviet space.
     
  22. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #22
    The difference is I can almost guarantee that if one of our terrorist groups shoots down a civilian airliner that group will no longer be funded while Russia continues their support.

    We are dumb to be doing it in the first place but we at least have more oversight than Russia does. And right now we have diplomatic options, if we ignore Russia like Trump wants eventually a war will be the only option.
     
  23. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #23
    I would suggest that Russia--with major military bases in Syria and whose relationship with the Syrian government goes back to the days of the USSR--has much more oversight over their weapons transfers than the United States has over ours. Especially since our weapons deals are done by the CIA via proxies like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.
     
  24. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #24
    Well which side's proxy shot down a civilian airliner? I notice you are deflecting away from that and trying to go back to syria instead of Ukraine
     
  25. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #25
    I notice that you continue to fund the US Navy even though it shot down a civilian airliner.
     

Share This Page