The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

MH17 flight down in Ukraine

Scroll to see replies

Original post by DErasmus
The UN Security Council is expected to adopt an Australia-backed resolution demanding pro-Russian separatists grant unrestricted access to the crash site to international experts when it meets at 1900 GMT.


http://news.yahoo.com/rebels-guarantee-safety-crash-monitors-kiev-agrees-truce-064257196.html

Which means it will be followed by the required procedure to exercise force...

That's not what you said, you said that, somehow, the UN were planning to command NATO. Also, given you are criticising the other person for not "reading the news" you're slightly behind in that an hour or two back the Malaysian PM made a statement that they had made an agreement with the leader of the separatists allowing full access to the scene fro international investigators.
Original post by Jammy Duel
That's not what you said, you said that, somehow, the UN were planning to command NATO. Also, given you are criticising the other person for not "reading the news" you're slightly behind in that an hour or two back the Malaysian PM made a statement that they had made an agreement with the leader of the separatists allowing full access to the scene fro international investigators.


... pedantic concern with language

I know that the Malaysian PM has made a statement, if you bothered to look at the article linked the Dutch specialists were already at the scene removing bodies that they were supposingly denied access to. Obama was even out of sync in a speech he gave.
Original post by DErasmus
The UN Security Council is expected to adopt an Australia-backed resolution demanding pro-Russian separatists grant unrestricted access to the crash site to international experts when it meets at 1900 GMT.


http://news.yahoo.com/rebels-guarantee-safety-crash-monitors-kiev-agrees-truce-064257196.html

Which means it will be followed by the required procedure to exercise force... Have you been listening to the Dutch and Australian governments? They want Nato.


Well Russia has a veto on the security council, and as has already been pointed out the UN has no authority over NATO, if a motion was passed to intervene in Ukraine then they would have to assemble a force of UN peacekeepers. Russia may allow a resolution to pass demanding the separatists give unrestricted access but there is 0 chance of them allowing UN troops to go in and exercise force.
Original post by DErasmus
Sure! Deny all the evidence, like the UN meeting to discuss deploying Nato troops to remove the bodies, like the Ukrainian government disrupting the investigation with its 'self-organised' militas (are you actually reading the news?).

I'm not going to reply to you anymore as you don't understand the situation enough, which is why you've completely dismissed my posts and responded with one line 'blah blah who needs evidence' posts everytime.

I am rambling because civilians are being killed, and entire nations being victimised before we have facts, because of idiots like you who fail to exercise basic critical thought.


Yawn. You are rambling with nonsense because you don't know what you are talking about.

No one is looking for a pretext to invade Crimea. Such a suggestion is moronic.
OCSE are reporting today that the wreckage has been tampered with since they last saw it.
Original post by DaveSmith99
OCSE are reporting today that the wreckage has been tampered with since they last saw it.
Images now appearing showing blast and shrapnel damage. One of the images shows a piece of wreckage superimposed onto an image of a complete aircraft illustrating its original location.

The shrapnel damage and entry points can clearly be seen. This is consistent with the missile exploding directly beneath and to the port side of the airframe.

The detonation of the warhead would cause the front homing head and guidance electronics section to shear away from the missile, which would then continue forwards under its own inertia. The larger perforation just beneath the port side cockpit window (captains side) is consistent with the correct size of SA11 forebody impacting the airframe at that point.

Other pieces of wreckage with damage consistent with shrapnel ingress are shown.

Note the perforation holes peel inward towards the cabin and wing space (yellow paint is the inside part of the starboard wing). The spread of shrapnel damage is consistent with that of a fragmentation warhead of the type carried by earlier versions (9M38M1) of the SA11 missile.

This is also consistent with the images of a Buk launcher loaded onto a flatbed and driven towards the Russian border shortly after the incident. The wings of a missile on the launcher can clearly be seen.

This is important because the early versions of the missile have a front to back wing length significantly longer than newer upgrades. The newer missiles incorporate the continuous rod type fragmentation warhead which would cause a very different damage pattern to the ones photographed.

This may also suggest the missile came from older stock possibly captured by the rebels from Ukraine, or that the Russians supplied older expendable kit.

















(edited 9 years ago)
BtGLnAECcAAitJk.jpg31.8KB
MH17-Shrapnel-490x303.png264.5KB
c16e31e5aaf2af4e40491f8598f1ecdc.jpg37.2KB
ukraine_013_737149b.jpg160.2KB
BtJZ75iIIAA6Ry-.jpg101.3KB
158915145__737768b.jpg115.5KB
IMG_4699_crop.jpg477.8KB
10296366.jpg63.7KB
450px-9M38M1_9M317.svg.png8.5KB
I wouldn't trust Putin as far as I could throw him. People are constantly throwing around unlikely (albeit possible) theories, but sometimes the truth is the most obvious possibility. The rebels were trigger happy and had momentum from blasting Ukrainian jets out of the sky, and they wanted more prestige. They did it using Russian weapons and training. Then Russia attempted and are still attempting to cover it up.
Original post by ThatNorthernLad
I wouldn't trust Putin as far as I could throw him. People are constantly throwing around unlikely (albeit possible) theories, but sometimes the truth is the most obvious possibility. The rebels were trigger happy and had momentum from blasting Ukrainian jets out of the sky, and they wanted more prestige. They did it using Russian weapons and training. Then Russia attempted and are still attempting to cover it up.


The rebels used Ukrainian weaponry to do it.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by LightBlueSoldier
The rebels used Ukrainian weaponry to do it.


Posted from TSR Mobile


I can't find any sources that say that, it may be true for all I know. There are so many different angles on the issue. It doesn't explain why Russians were trying to sneak the remaining BUK launchers in Ukraine back over the border into Russia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQRvINebeok&list=UUpwvZwUam-URkxB7g4USKpg
I know RT posted it but its UNEDITED by them and i could have gotten it from the state departments youtube but its like an hour long.
Her responses are interesting, she doesnt really answer anything.
This does shed some light on the US position.
If they have evidence then why don't they post it?
I honestly don't trust the USA or Britain since their lie about WMD in Iraq
(edited 9 years ago)
It was nice to hear the BBC emphasise that the "prime minister" in eastern Ukraine is unelected when talking about him and negotiating access. Suppose that's a lot like the PM in Kiev, except he is sponsored by the West and so the fact that he is unelected is completely irrelevant.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Anonymous263
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQRvINebeok&list=UUpwvZwUam-URkxB7g4USKpg
I know RT posted it but its UNEDITED by them and i could have gotten it from the state departments youtube but its like an hour long.
Her responses are interesting, she doesnt really answer anything.
This does shed some light on the US position.
If they have evidence then why don't they post it?
I honestly don't trust the USA or Britain since their lie about WMD in Iraq


OK. What exactly would you like them to post?

The only point of contention is whether there is an Su-25. I don't think the Russians are even trying to argue that an SA-11 was not fired. They are simply staying silent on the issue.
(edited 9 years ago)
MH17 plane crash: Evidence 'was tampered with'. You have to be either stupid or Russian to not believe the pro-Russian rebels did this.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28439862
Original post by DorianGrayism
OK. What exactly would you like them to post?

The only point of contention is whether there is an Su-25. I don't think the Russians are even trying to argue that an SA-11 was not fired. They are simply staying silent on the issue.


The point is that they are making claims backed up by social media which is not a credible source and doesn't prove anything.
Do you see how silly that sounds? The United States Government, leaders of the free world, have evidence based off of a YouTube video.
If they do have independent sound evidence ,which they claim that they do, then why not share it with the world, what have they got to hide?
The USA has Satellites which they claim were orbiting around that area and they state that they have satellite imagery... why not share it? Russia has shared its satellite imagery with the world.
Original post by Petrue
MH17 plane crash: Evidence 'was tampered with'. You have to be either stupid or Russian to not believe the pro-Russian rebels did this.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28439862


dude the BBC... seriously?
The "Whitehall sources" stated in this article is actually the Kiev government which is not impartial in this conflict.
We honestly don't know anything yet and you are jumping to conclusions and calling people stupid. So far its ONLY speculation.
(edited 9 years ago)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/malaysia-plane-crash_n_5611113.html
Even the US government says that there is no evidence.
Original post by Petrue
MH17 plane crash: Evidence 'was tampered with'. You have to be either stupid or Russian to not believe the pro-Russian rebels did this.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28439862


https://twitter.com/breakingtravel?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2014%2F07%2F22%2Fmalaysia-plane-crash_n_5611113.html&partner=tweetdeck&tw_i=491980215963623424&tw_p=tweetembed

Dutch claim otherswise
Original post by Anonymous263

Read the article before posting hardly relevant links, the BBC article refers to movement of body and debris.
Original post by Anonymous263
The point is that they are making claims backed up by social media which is not a credible source and doesn't prove anything.
Do you see how silly that sounds? The United States Government, leaders of the free world, have evidence based off of a YouTube video.
If they do have independent sound evidence ,which they claim that they do, then why not share it with the world, what have they got to hide?
The USA has Satellites which they claim were orbiting around that area and they state that they have satellite imagery... why not share it? Russia has shared its satellite imagery with the world.


Ok....but the YouTube video was an intercept released by the Ukrainian Government not a random person on Social Media.

I don't know why they don't want to release it. Maybe they don't have it. Maybe they don't think it is important. Maybe they are waiting to gather all of their evidence to release to the investigation. As I said before, even the Russians are not saying that the Rebels did not fire the weapon, so I am not sure what the point of releasing Satellite images would be.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by DorianGrayism
Ok....but the YouTube video was an intercept released by the Ukrainian Government not a random person on Social Media.

I don't know why they don't want to release it. Maybe they don't have it. Maybe they don't think it is important. Maybe they are waiting to gather all of their evidence to release to the investigation. As I said before, even the Russians are not saying that the Rebels did not fire the weapon, so I am not sure what the point of releasing Satellite images would be.


True, but the Ukrainian government isn't exactly a reliable source of information, having so much at stake in this crisis.
Well, Satellite images showing that it was in fact a SAM which shot down the plane and that it came from rebel territory would at least show us that they do have evidence and aren't just talking out of their a** and relying on social media, the flip side is, even if the satellites show that it did come from rebel territory, it would not prove who fired it as they themselves have said today.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/malaysia-plane-crash_n_5611113.html
(edited 9 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you