Malaysian plane crash

Seems some retired US intelligence agency analysts who are now members of an association called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or VIPS for short,  have slammed Obama and the White House for using flimsy and unsubstantiated evidence in making accusations that Putin and/or Russian backed rebels are responsible for the shootdown of MH17.  They say in a public memo to President Obama that looking at the situation from their positions as former career intelligence analysts it appears the White House and State Department (with US mainstream media eagerly in tow) appear to be engaging in nothing more than a propaganda campaign to demean Russia and Putin in world opinion, and if it continues the administration's and US Government's credibility will continue to erode.

Snip from Memo to President Obama from VIPS:

Executive Summary

U.S.–Russian intensions are building in a precarious way over Ukraine, and we are far from certain that your advisers fully appreciate the danger of escalation. The New York Times and other media outlets are treating sensitive issues in dispute as flat-fact, taking their cue from U.S. government sources.

Twelve days after the shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, your administration still has issued no coordinated intelligence assessment summarizing what evidence exists to determine who was responsible – much less to convincingly support repeated claims that the plane was downed by a Russian-supplied missile in the hands of Ukrainian separatists.

Your administration has not provided any satellite imagery showing that the separatists had such weaponry, and there are several other “dogs that have not barked.” Washington’s credibility, and your own, will continue to erode, should you be unwilling – or unable – to present more tangible evidence behind administration claims. In what follows, we put this in the perspective of former intelligence professionals with a cumulative total of 260 years in various parts of U.S. intelligence:

Source: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/obama-release-ukraine-evidence.html

The completely "over the top" propaganda campaign to demonize Putin and Russia within hours of theMH17  crash, and before any solid evidence was in as to its cause, which was lead off by the White House with the eager buy-in and co-operation of the mainstream media  was enough to send me a strong signal that there was a US lead, orchestrated psy-war operation going on behind the scenes here.

Everyone should watch the first couple episodes of the BBC series "Century of the Self".  These episodes explain how Edward Bernays, a nephew of psycho-analyst Sigmund Freud, using insights gained from his famous uncle's research, wrote the book, so to speak, on manipulating public opinion through advertising or propaganda campaigns.  He found if you understood peopples subconscious or suppressed fears and emotions it was quite easy to manipulate individuals and crowds into doing what you want without them becoming clued in to the fact that they were being manipulated, whether by corporations or governments.  The "Century of the Self" series of videos are available on the internet.  It is said that Hitler's own propaganda maestro, Joseph Goebbels, was a big fan of Bernays.

Washington’s MH17 End Game: Targetting Moscow as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, Deployment of Shadow NATO Forces in Ukraine

by Tom Sullivan on Wed, 2014-07-30 05:49

The “Terrorist” Label and Shadow NATO

Almost immediately after it happened, the MH17 catastrophe was seized upon by Western political opportunists as valuable capital for their geostrategic game. As was mentioned in the first paragraph, pro-Western media outlets immediately laid the blame squarely at Putin’s feet, and this wasn’t coincidental. The objective in doing so has been to generate enough anti-Russian sentiment in Europe so as to justify mutually disadvantageous sanctions (more so for the socially and politically fractured EU, many of whose members are still in recession, than for the economically resolute Russia). The EU, and especially Germany, will only “shoot itself in the kneecaps” as either an emotional or forced response, as to do so under any normal circumstances would be absolutely unreasonable.

Thus, the “terrorist” label entered the discourse. Petro Poroshenko serving as the US insider even in the presidential position.

SNIP

Concluding Thoughts

The US has plainly demonstrated that it is salivating for a Cold War redux with Russia, and once more, Europe is caught in the middle. It is completely contrary to any of its interests for it to participate in this needless and aggressive geopolitical struggle, but as the EU seems wont to do nowadays, it may easily get sucked into it out of misguided ideological and political reasons dictated by the US. In fact, it may have little choice: the US could unilaterally declare Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism and then force the EU, whose largest export market is the US and with whom it is negotiating the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (which European political elite naively believe will benefit them), into acquiescing to its military occupier’s demands. This wouldn’t “isolate” Russia, which has already made a strong push into the non-Western world since April, as much as it would isolate the EU, but ironically, this may even work in Washington’s favor by crippling its friendly economic rival and keeping it under its thumb for at least another decade.

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/tom-sullivan/washington-s-mh17-end...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/30/mh17-vast-majority-russians...

The forensics team has reached the crash site:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28581722

Snip at me all you want but please stop pretending your a neutral observer here. I'm sorry this one isn't so easy to blame on the USA and NATO Slumberjack, it's ovious it really gets to you.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Snip at me all you want but please stop pretending your a neutral observer here. I'm sorry this one isn't so easy to blame on the USA and NATO Slumberjack, it's ovious it really gets to you.

No, generally speaking I'm not a neutral observer when it comes politics.  I hope I've made that clear by now.  But this is the Malaysian Plane Crash thread, and I find it's a little premature to assign devilry here with the kind of self-assurance you've been promoting.

Slumberjack wrote:

No, generally speaking I'm not a neutral observer when it comes politics.  I hope I've made that clear by now.  But this is the Malaysian Plane Crash thread, and I find it's a little premature to assign devilry here with the kind of self-assurance you've been promoting.

...and that's what really irks you here isn't it?

Like you said this is the Malaysian Plane Crash thread so naturally we would take all the photographic evidence and information, articles and stuff being posted all over the internet to make our own assessments of what happened if we choose to. If you think it's too early to do that that's fine, it's your opinion. Just don't hold everyone to your standards. I've seen enough to say what I've said here in this thread. (There I go with that self promoting confidence again) B-/ 

Again: I HAVE NOT said the RUSSIANS launched the missle (or were there for that matter).  I'm thinking Pro-Russian rebel crew did it without Russian supervision at the launch site. They thought they were shooting at a high flying Ukrainian military transport aircraft.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Snip at me all you want but please stop pretending your a neutral observer here. I'm sorry this one isn't so easy to blame on the USA and NATO Slumberjack, it's ovious it really gets to you.

 

this one isn't easy to blame on anyone. 

4x parties (2x giants, 2x proxies) had access, in the area, to the weapon we all agree?  _could have easily done the hit.

there are other posibilites, and lots of potential reasons and/or motivations, and for sure it's good to check them out with an open mind; but technically speaking either side could have done it with the buk.  so that's a good place to start.

i will say that i find bec's munitions and damage anylysis more convincing than the translated german airline pilot with all the exclaimation points.

ScramJet wrote:

German airline pilot analyzes pics of the MH17 wreckage and concludes most likely cause of the MH17 crash was due to cannon fire from a SU25 fighter, not a ground to air missile.

 

Shocking Analysis of the ‘Shooting Down’ of Malaysian MH17

By Peter Haisenko

SNIP

I recommend to click on the little picture to the right. You can download this photo as a PDF in good resolution. This is necessary, because that will allow you understand what I am describing here. The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likeley that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that at these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent – outwardly! Furthermore, minor cuts can be seen, all bent outward, which indicate that shrapnel had forcefull exited through the outer skin from the inside of the cockpit. The open rivets are are also bent outward.

In sifting through the available images one thing stands out: All wreckage of the sections behind the cockpit are largely intact, except for the fact that only fragments of the aircraft remained . Only the cockpit part shows these peculiar marks of destruction. This leaves the examiner with an important clue. This aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central portion. The destruction is limited to the cockpit area. Now you have to factor in that this part is constructed of specially reinforced material. This is on account of the nose of any aircraft having to withstand the impact of a large bird at high speeds. You can see in the photo, that in this area significantly stronger aluminum alloys were being installed than in the remainder of the outer skin of the fuselage. One remembers the crash of Pan Am over Lockerbie. It was a large segment of the cockpit that due to the special architecture survived the crash in one piece. In the case of flight MH 017 it becomes abundantly clear that there also an explosion took place inside the aircraft.

Tank destroying mix of amunititon

So what could have happened? Russia recently published radar recordings, that confirm at least one Ukrainian SU 25 in close proximity to MH 017. This corresponds with the statement of the now missing Spanish controller ‘Carlos’ that has seen two Ukrainian fighter aircraft in the immediate vicinity of MH 017. If we now consider the armament of a typical SU 25 we learn this: It is equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302 / AO-17A, equipped with: a 250 round magazine of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells (dum-dum), arranged in alternating order. The cockpit of the MH 017 has evidently been fired at from both sides: the entry and exit holes are found on the same fragment of it’s cockpit segment!

Now just consider what happens when a series of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells hit the cockpit. These are after all designed to destroy a modern tank. The anti-tank incendiary shells partially traversed the cockpit and exited on the other side in a slightly deformed shape. (Aviation forensic experts could possibly find them on the ground presumably controlled by the Kiev Ukrainian military; the translator). After all, their impact is designed to penetrate the solid armor of a tank. Also, the splinter-explosive shells will, due to their numerous impacts too cause massive explosions inside the cockpit, since they are designed to do this. Given the rapid firing sequence of the GSh-302 cannon, it will cause a rapid succession of explosions within the cockpit area in a very short time. Remeber each of these is sufficient to destroy a tank.

http://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2014/s...

 

 

The airliner has been reported as flying above 30,000 feet at the time. According to Wikipedia, the SU-25 has a service ceiling clean of 7,000 metres/22,965 feet. It's extremely odd that the Ukrainians would not have used an aircraft capable of reaching the target's height with a speed reserve (SU-25 max 606 mph, not much margin over a jetliner cruise of 550-580 mph). They have the SU-24, SU-27 and SU-29 all with adequate capabilities, and the SU-24 and SU-29 have been reported operating in the area recently (the Ukrainians have apparently been having trouble maintaining aircraft serviceability).

An SU-25 with a little zoom climb might have been able to open fire from say 5,000 feet below the target, giving a deflection shot of something between 5,000 ft/1,500 metres at 90 degrees, and 10,000 ft/3,000 metres at 30 degrees. This doesn't look to me like a sound tactical proposition. Even if hits could be obtained, I don't see them being confined to one area of the target. I also don't see a zoom climb to a deflection shot from in front which would probably have started from inside or close to Russian territory, not at all safe.

Wikipedia reports the SU-25's antitank ammunition as being depleted uranium shot, which is what one would expect with a description of "incendiary anti-tank ammunition." One would expect traces of radioactivity and roundish or oval holes slightly above 30 mm.

The explosive shells I would expect to be contact fused for effectiveness against "soft" targets. Photos I have seen of holes made by 20mm shells from aircraft cannon in WWII were about 10 inches in diameter in aircraft skin. Say 15 to 20 inches in diameter for modern 30mm shells, although the cockpit front would likely be made of fairly thick metal against bird impact. The photos I have seen of pieces of wreckage from this aircraft with holes were of relatively long narrow holes of the kind one might expect from standard anti-aircraft missile expanding-rod warheads, such as we are told the BUK missiles are equipped with, and other small holes which might be made by random small pieces of warhead.

The 30mm projectiles would be armour-piercing *or* explosive but not both.

The remark about "dum-dum" projectiles is very strange. "Dum-dum" is used in speaking of expanding rifle bullets (non-explosive) used from the 1870's and especially those produced by the arsenal at Dum-Dum in India from the 1890s. They have nothing to do with modern aircraft armament.

I don't see what the Ukrainians would have to gain from such an operation. Exacerbating western-Russian tensions is not in their interest. What they need to do is convince the Russians that their vital interests are not at stake, and wind the situation down.

On the whole this claimed report from a "German airline pilot" looks to me like low-quality disinformation.

Regarding the reporting in general, I note that claims have been made that the bodies from the airliner hade been dead for a long time. This sounds to me like an exceptionally bold and mendacious lie, which would have to be the work of the rebels or the Russians. I almost pity Vladimir Putin for the low quality of the "human material" (to use a term from Lenin) with which he evidently has to work. I suppose it's justice of a sort.

Probably a lot of inter-relations in the border regions, similar to what you might expect elsewhere.  That might be a motivation in and of itself for infiltration here and there.  Then again, if the infiltrators are on the Kremlin's payroll, there would have to be an awful lot of that going on in order to amount to the five billion dollar initial funding that the representatives of the US State Department have admitted to providing the regime change effort in Kiev.

He has allocated all the money invested by America in the last decade to organize "democracy" in the Ukraine as going towards regime change. Of course regime change was not the objective of all that money. It was to build support for the idea of the Ukraine as part of Europe's sphere and military alliance not of Russia's. It was only when that strategy couldn't get more than half the people to buy the snake oil and the President saw the fine print of what he was supposed to impose on his people that regime change became an objective.  Serendipitously when the objective changed there were many right wing groups already armed and trained and ready to take to the streets alongside real people wanting real democratic change.

.double post

kropotkin1951 wrote:

He has allocated all the money invested by America in the last decade to organize "democracy" in the Ukraine as going towards regime change. Of course regime change was not the objective of all that money. It was to build support for the idea of the Ukraine as part of Europe's sphere and military alliance not of Russia's. It was only when that strategy couldn't get more than half the people to buy the snake oil and the President saw the fine print of what he was supposed to impose on his people that regime change became an objective.  Serendipitously when the objective changed there were many right wing groups already armed and trained and ready to take to the streets alongside real people wanting real democratic change.

I'm sorry, can you give me some references so I know what you are talking about? What do you mean "couldn't get half the people", and Yanukovich said himself he was pressured by Moscow.

Decade?Try 22 years. Twenty two years which started with some  very serious regime change, and both Russia and Ukraine have gone through a number of changes since then.

And he? He who? Are you talking about a person who has presumably been running this long game for the past quarter century, or is it some nameless, shapeless capitalist puppet master? WHoever it is, I bet it didn't have nearly as much influence as Mr. Putin and his predecessor Mr. Yeltsin had on Ukraine/Russia relations in turnign off the gas taps  every time they wanted to make a point .

...or more recently, by banning imports. If Putin wants to lure Ukraine away from closer trade ties with Europe, someone should tell him he can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

'Wrong Time, Altered Images': Moscow Slams Kiev's MH17 Satellite Data

http://rt.com/news/177296-ukraine-mh17-satellite-images/

"Satellite images Kiev published as 'proof' it didn't deploy anti-aircraft batteries around the MH17 crash site, carry altered time-stamps and are from days after the MH17 tragedy, the Russian Defense Ministry has revealed..."

Dutch Investigators to RT: 'We Had No Possibility to Visit the MH17 Crash Site

http://rt.com/news/177420-dutch-investigators-mh17-crash/

"Dutch experts who have taken the leading role in the MH17 plane crash investigation are not able to reach the crash site in eastern Ukraine, a spokesperson of the Dutch Safety Board told RT..."

Moral Failure of Western Governments  -  by Paul Craig Roberts

http://presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/30/373328/moral-failure-of-western-gove...

"Reading the Western media, watching Western TV and listening to Western radio, one is left with the propaganda that 'the Palestinians are to blame for the Israeli attack on Gaza,' just as one is left with the propaganda that 'the Malaysian airliner deaths are Russia's fault.'

There is no evidence, but propaganda does not require evidence. Just repetition..."

Of course you are right. The USA and NATO are forces for good in the world and all the people they have killed are merely unfortunate mistakes.  The Ukranian people themselves crowd sourced all the funds to arm their own home grown militias to overthrow the corrupt goeverment.  It was lucky for them that it was only the President that was corrupt and none of the parliamentarians. 

None of the US  spy agencies spent any money in the Ukraine over the last decade, not a fucking penny.  I am sure of it yes sirree  2 + 2 = 4.5

Quote:

The document shows that the agencies’ budget request for the year ending Sept. 30 was $52.6 billion, a small decrease from the 2011 peak of $54.6 billion, which came after a decade of rapid spending growth. Of that, the biggest share was taken by the C.I.A., which carries out traditional human spying and intelligence analysis but also now conducts drone strikes against terrorism suspects in Pakistan and Yemen.

The C.I.A. asked for $14.7 billion, significantly outpacing the two big technological spy agencies, the eavesdropping N.S.A., which sought $10.8 billion, and the National Reconnaissance Office, which operates surveillance satellites and sought $10.3 billion. While the document reflects the money requested for the 2013 fiscal year and not what was actually received, the record of past expenditures suggests that real spending this year is probably very close to the amount requested.

The 16 American spy agencies employ about 107,000 people, including some 21,800 working on contract, the document shows. The number does not include tens of thousands of contractors who work in support of the intelligence agencies, in some cases outnumbering actual employees, said Jeffrey T. Richelson, a prolific author on intelligence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/leaked-document-outlines-u...

eastnoireast wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Remember you said this:

"overall, the "who benefits" test tilts hard toward team "a", but again, it could be rebel fuck-up."

You are still missing the fact that a "who benefits" test is not neutral. It presumes intent.

A who benefits test does not tilt in any direction if there was no intent.

That it could be a rebel fuck-up (or one by another party) means that a "who benefits" test has no application at all. But you raise it as potentially suggesting direction of blame and then claim neutrality. To me that looks like a logical flaw. And the argument of who benefits looks like a bias.

Perhaps that too is nonintentional but it exists all the same.

 

"who benefits" is simply that - "who benefits".   it does not presume intent.  but it can ( sometimes ) point to the intent, and the intent-er.

yeah, benefits could be gained from unplanned accidents or events for sure; although unplanned events can also be nudged.

especially with larger/world events i "personally" find it a very useful gauge. 

 

or, ... it could be a RFU (rebel fuck up), in which case the "who benefits" test would not be pointing towards the perpetrators. 

'cause i don't see how this could benefit the rebels or russia.

This is not difficult. But it is important. And it is not just about you. This works on all sides of the argument: the presumptions you make about the order and interpretation of evidence and argument should be neutral. I am pushing this because this is the kind of critical thinking required to interpret the limited evidence available and to remove bias from the interpretation.

Your argument is not neutral.

A “who benefits” assessment is relevant ONLY if there is some presumption of intent. It can only tilt a conclusion ONLY to the degree that you consider intent to be relevant. Without any presumption of intent, the issue of benefit is completely irrelevant.

Consider this-- in the case of accident would you look to “who benefits” to identify who is responsible? Why would you? “Who benefits” is entirely and exclusively a motive-based argument. (In the case of a death it is not asked if the death is accidental but if the death is murder then it is the starting point for all other theories.)

You have stated that if intent is the presumption then it would be fault of the Ukraine government. So applying the “who benefits” test must favour a presumption that the Ukraine government is more likely to be responsible. This is entirely separate from any other facts as it is a biased premise.

If you presume accident, we have already established that the presumption of responsibility would more likely shift to the rebels as there is a presumption that they are at least to some degree more likely to make a mistake with fewer resources, perhaps less expert handling of equipment.

Certainly these are not absolute.

So if you want an unbiased analysis you would need to reject arguments founded on either the presence or absence of intent. Once you do that you have a more neutral basis where there are plausible arguments on both sides. More investigation is needed and conclusions are less clear. Since we are discussing blame for a huge tragedy, why not keep the basis for the analysis neutral and see where the facts take us?

Please consider this exercise from a critical thinking point of view. We discuss many things on this site with open speculation. It is worth having a go at how that speculation is constructed and how to make a search for truth as unbiased as possible. These issues I am raising are directly related to the question as it is the example but they apply to many other speculations here. This is why I think it is important to consider this sort of logic.

I am not disagreeing with whichever side you may be on (if any). In fact I am open to discussions of accident or intent and whatever that means. I simply am asking that you acknowledge that a “who benefits” argument is loaded to presume intent and that is as you have explained yourself would then be loaded to presume the Ukrainian government is at fault. (They may be but it is biased logic to use your argument to make that conclusion.)

I wish you no ill-will. These are important intellectual considerations when speculating.

SJ, I figure Ukraine has a lot of soldiers from many nations visiting thier family and friends. I am sure there are likely lots of Americans with family there also.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

eastnoireast wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Remember you said this:

"overall, the "who benefits" test tilts hard toward team "a", but again, it could be rebel fuck-up."

You are still missing the fact that a "who benefits" test is not neutral. It presumes intent.

A who benefits test does not tilt in any direction if there was no intent.

That it could be a rebel fuck-up (or one by another party) means that a "who benefits" test has no application at all. But you raise it as potentially suggesting direction of blame and then claim neutrality. To me that looks like a logical flaw. And the argument of who benefits looks like a bias.

Perhaps that too is nonintentional but it exists all the same.

 

"who benefits" is simply that - "who benefits".   it does not presume intent.  but it can ( sometimes ) point to the intent, and the intent-er.

yeah, benefits could be gained from unplanned accidents or events for sure; although unplanned events can also be nudged.

especially with larger/world events i "personally" find it a very useful gauge. 

 

or, ... it could be a RFU (rebel fuck up), in which case the "who benefits" test would not be pointing towards the perpetrators. 

'cause i don't see how this could benefit the rebels or russia.

This is not difficult. But it is important. And it is not just about you. This works on all sides of the argument: the presumptions you make about the order and interpretation of evidence and argument should be neutral. I am pushing this because this is the kind of critical thinking required to interpret the limited evidence available and to remove bias from the interpretation.

Your argument is not neutral.

A “who benefits” assessment is relevant ONLY if there is some presumption of intent. It can only tilt a conclusion ONLY to the degree that you consider intent to be relevant. Without any presumption of intent, the issue of benefit is completely irrelevant.

"who benefits" is not about conclusions - ie it couldn't (or shouldn't) be used in a court of law to actually convict someone - but it is a useful investigative/anylisis tool.   we all filter the search one way or the other.  that's ok, one has to.  the trick is to also keep an open mind.

i mean, how many countries/rich people could actually rustle up a crew (what, 6 people? 10?) that could decently operate the buk- a "legacy system" i believe -  pay off whomever on the ground, on either side, given the "fluidity" of ukraine right now -done.  probably in the hundreds.  but we're not investigating france or bill gates, are we.

maybe we should, i don't know, but the point is you start somewhere.  your keys could be anywhere, but check your jacket pockets first.  it's not conclusive till you actually find the keys.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Consider this-- in the case of accident would you look to “who benefits” to identify who is responsible? Why would you? “Who benefits” is entirely and exclusively a motive-based argument. (In the case of a death it is not asked if the death is accidental but if the death is murder then it is the starting point for all other theories.)

You have stated that if intent is the presumption then it would be fault of the Ukraine government.

that's why i keep saying "or, it could be a RFU".

i don't recall stating "intent is the presumption".  

u.s. benefits more than ukraine gov directly (world stage).

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So applying the “who benefits” test must favour a presumption that the Ukraine government is more likely to be responsible. This is entirely separate from any other facts as it is a biased premise.

If you presume accident, we have already established that the presumption of responsibility would more likely shift to the rebels as there is a presumption that they are at least to some degree more likely to make a mistake with fewer resources, perhaps less expert handling of equipment.

and, the "rebels and friends" would probably be the only side actively using their buk's, in the "normal" course of the carnage.  ukraine gov buks would be standing by for russian intrusion.  or special instructions.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Certainly these are not absolute.

So if you want an unbiased analysis you would need to reject arguments founded on either the presence or absence of intent. Once you do that you have a more neutral basis where there are plausible arguments on both sides. More investigation is needed and conclusions are less clear. Since we are discussing blame for a huge tragedy, why not keep the basis for the analysis neutral and see where the facts take us?

Please consider this exercise from a critical thinking point of view. We discuss many things on this site with open speculation. It is worth having a go at how that speculation is constructed and how to make a search for truth as unbiased as possible. These issues I am raising are directly related to the question as it is the example but they apply to many other speculations here. This is why I think it is important to consider this sort of logic.

I am not disagreeing with whichever side you may be on (if any). In fact I am open to discussions of accident or intent and whatever that means. I simply am asking that you acknowledge that a “who benefits” argument is loaded to presume intent and that is as you have explained yourself would then be loaded to presume the Ukrainian government is at fault. (They may be but it is biased logic to use your argument to make that conclusion.)

I wish you no ill-will. These are important intellectual considerations when speculating.

the "who benefits" test, in my understanding and use of the phrase, is not in itself biased, loaded, or presuming of intent.  in it's pure form, it is simply an inventory of who benefits from situation x.  period.

what is done with that; how one interprets, promotes, and bases actions, beliefs or thread posting on - that's when the biases can enter. 

it is totally important to consider this stuff.  thank you for for the brain cell stretching.

-

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Yes and he even brought his vehical along with him while he was on leave.

Nothing works better for picking up girls better at the local tavern than driving around in your own air defence platform. 

I thought the Russians said there was only a single SU-25 trailing the MH17. Now there are two Su-25s? 

Quote:

"This is no more than a theory for now. However, a guided missile launched by a Buk missile system leaves behind a specific smoke trail as it flies, like a comet. In daylight this trail can be clearly seen within a radius of 20-25 kilometers from the missile system. It cannot remain unnoticed. There are no eyewitnesses to confirm there was any. No one reported a launch."

Not so fast general... 

Did you look at the data from the site I linked to? What makes you think its fake?

Anyways check out my post #1638 in the Ukraine thread. It has some interesting information that pertains to this thread as well. 

*Babble mods consider the following site offensive and require a warning when posting from it or linking to it. Please see Mod comment here before viewing vineyard saker url:

http://rabble.ca/comment/1451919#comment-1451919

Just the Baseless Hypothesis of an Uninformed Amateur, Nothing More

"So what follows are just the musings of an uninformed amateur. What I will try to do here is present a possible scenario which takes into account the basic facts established so far. I submit it only as a basis for discussion..."

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.ca/2014/08/just-the-baseless-hypothesis-of...