my point is, if the sa-11 was actually fired at this aircraft by the rebel forces, it had to be fired from a maximum of ~12 miles from the point the aircraft was hit, well inside territory controlled by the rebels.
so, if it was indeed an sa-11 that brought the aircraft down, it had to be fired from a rebel-held area. if it was, as you suggest, a missile that the government fired, it would have to be a different missile, one with the range to complete the task.
so, if inspectors found parts of a missile that was not an sa-11, the rebels would be cleared of involvement. thatās my point. if, however, inspectors found parts of an sa-11, then the suggestion is that the ukranian military somehow infiltrated the rebel-held city of torez with a large, lightly armored, defenseless, not terribly mobile tracked medium range missile launcher with the intent of shooting down a civilian airliner. youād agree that this is unlikely, no?
none of us know what happened, this is Very Extremely True. it would be easy, though, to prove that the rebels were not involved, and the fact that they are not allowing an attempt suggests the opposite is true.
Yet thatās exactly what youāve been doing far more than anyone else in this thread. You vehemently denounce any hypothesis or observation of fact that runs counter to your resolutely pro-Putin agenda and conspiracy theories. Somehow only you know the truth, while the rest of us are dupes of the Obama-controlled MSM.
So, um, 33% of the responses so far are from Ygret, saying that while they donāt actually know whatās happened yet, it was definitely not Russia or the separatists but almost certainly the US what done it.
The calculus of whether an sa-11 fired from somewhere outside ārebelā controlled territory could hit the plane is not a solid basis Iād argue, given this isnāt a regular war with front lines, etc. On top of that, there are numerous reasons the ārebelsā would have for being wary of western inspectors flooding the area outside of trying to hide evidence. I just donāt think any of this is as cut and dried as youāre suggesting, and Iām just really not buying anything Iām hearing from the MSM right now, from these stories about inspectors being denied access to satellite photos of Russians moving missiles out of Ukraine after the plane went down. It all wreaks of āmarch to warā type propaganda.
Iām actually trying to pose more rational explanations than what weāre being offered by the MSM and US government. Iām not taking any sides here, unlike the lot of you who apparently love getting on your soapbox of self-righteousness to denounce the evils of Putin like a bunch of marionettes.
Once again youāre parroting lines fed to you by the US government and MSM. Putin has little to no interest in making the Ukraine situation worse. He didnāt start it, and he wants it to go away. He did what he needed to do by taking Crimea, which was his strategic port. But contrary to all of his realpolitik goals (to stop sanctions and return to business as usual with Europe), weāre supposed to believe he gave advanced weaponry to a bunch of civilians with no training and let 'em run wild across the countryside. The story is just not convincing.
Iām not saying the eastern Ukrainians didnāt get ahold of a missile truck, in fact they claimed to have done so a few weeks ago from Ukrainian forces. Iām not saying they didnāt shoot down the plane, they very well might have. Its a warzone and shit like that happens. Its horrible, but one wonders why civilian airlines were flying over a warzone in the first place, and why this particular plane was directed to change its course to head directly over the area it crashed rather than maintain its more southerly course.
What Iām saying is there is more to this story than what weāre being fed, just like there has been all through this Ukraine debacle. And Iām not trying to pass judgment or incriminate any parties, just to pose the questions and see where they lead. Is it possible this is a false flag action? Yes. Is it possible the āseparatistsā shot down the plane? Yes. Is it possible Putin armed the āseparatistsā and that led to this? Yes.
But what is most likely considering the incentives and results of this act given the situation in Ukraine? And as I said numerous times so far, the US government narrative just doesnāt make sense. Putin left the Ukraine rebels to hang out to dry months ago. He doesnāt really give a shit about them. Heās a nasty customer and he only plays his advantages. Thereās no profit in backing the ārebelsā. His best move was to sit this out and let the economic realities impose themselves come winter. Ukraine is intimately tied to Russia economically. Even the chocolate baron thatās the new PM (elected by western Ukraine after the coup) sells his products mostly in Russia. Ukraineās industrial output is bought by Russia (no one else wants what they produce). And once winter sets in and Europe and Ukraine need Russiaās natural gas the sanctions will have to end, or at least be greatly weakened. As it was the US was having a hell of a time getting Germany and the EU to agree to harsh sanctions (Germany has vast economic ties to Russia). These are the realities. Putin didnāt need to do anything. Ukraine canāt leave Russiaās orbit no matter how much they wish to because the west is in no position to make up the tens of billions of euros Ukraine generates in sales to Russia every year.
A major part of whatās really going on is that western conglomerates want to get their hands on Ukraineās vast fertile belt. In accepting the IMF loans Ukraine agreed to open up their land to foreign āinvestmentā. The pillaging of Ukraine is about to begin, and its not Russia doing the pillaging. The other major part is the game for control over central Asia, which is really about isolating China. Breszinski laid this all out in his books and speeches and Obamaās government is following the script.
given this isnāt a regular war with front lines, etc
so you would argue that it is, indeed, plausible that the ukrainian military took a lone, undefended, lightly armored, incredibly obvious missile launcher into rebel held territory and kept it there until it was able to deliberately shoot down a civilian jet. also, that there is a vast, international conspiracy to cover up what the ukrainian military has done. itās an interesting take, iāll give you that.
Iām just really not buying anything Iām hearing
OK, Iāve held off and not replied to your driving trollies so far, but right there, thatās where you said too, too much. You clearly have no clue what youāre talking about. You donāt ātake your strategic portā from another country (who happens to own it) just because theyāre in a weakened position, and thatās exactly what Putin is trying to do.
The Crimean Pennisula is a strategic stronghold on the Black Sea, and that was why Russia sought it when all hell broke loose at the time that President President Viktor Yanukovych fled Kiev (in Ukraine). BOTH Ukraine and Crimea were/are independent states - and had been since the fall of the USSR in 1991. At that time - even with Mikhail Gorbachev in residence at his vacation home in Crimea - a referendum was held on independence for Crimea, and it passed by 54%. That 54% was for was lowest count in the area, but it was for a place populated by 60% people of Russian descent. Crimea was too small to go it alone, so they agreed to be tied to Ukraine if they could retain most of their independence. The countries are/were bound by several treaties.
The reason that Crimea was the base of Russiaās Black Sea Fleet at the time Ukranian President fled, is because Ukraine with Crimea signed a treaty with Russia (called the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership) between the countries in 1997, and it gives Russia the right to harbor their ships in Sevastopol (no ownership is implied). Russia had no immediate claim to the Crimean territory prior to the internal conflict, and hasnāt since 1991.
Putin is resting on the backs of the separatists (who want Crimea to no longer be an independent country, but instead, to be returned to Mother Russia). They donāt represent the full population, even though Crimea has a more heavily-Russian population than other areas of Ukraine. Rather, the entire Russian population of Crimea is about 55-60%, and only some of those people are separatists. Many want peace, and want nothing to do with Putin. BTW, the invading Russians now occupying Crimea are claiming they have the right to Crimea because historically Russia has had a lot of control of the territory. So, the locally-living separatists are tying themselves to that history of occupation. Meanwhile, theyāre also ousting native people from the peninsula - the Muslim Tartars. Since Russia annexed the territory they have begun preventing those people from returning to their homeland - where they have an even longer history.
Hey guys, a paid Russian shill came to talk to us - us! Iām so proud Is there a single of Putinās talking points that you havenāt parroted verbatim?
In this country, Ygret, the crime would be negligent homicide/manslaughter. You donāt have anything to gain from shooting a gun out your window either, but if you shoot at a squirrel and you hit a passerby in the head, that wasnāt an accident. It was a crime.
According to international journalist reports (not our government) there was a Buk launcher missing one missile immediately after the incident and there was a retracted Facebook post associated with the rebel leader bragging about defending his airspace. Thatās close enough to proof for most any rational person, independent of what our government says. And since they fired a missile without knowing exactly what they were firing at, that counts as a reckless act which makes it a crime. not an accident.
GregS is right. No one ever covers up being right.
Is there a single of Putinās talking points that you havenāt parroted verbatim?