MH17 flight down in Ukraine

It would show the position and speed of the aircraft at the time when it was shot down. This would help to refute the RT/Kremlin propaganda that it was the Ukrainian government who shot it down, which is why Russia has illegally sequestered the black box.

It would show the position and speed of the aircraft at the time when it was shot down. This would help to refute the RT/Kremlin propaganda that it was the Ukrainian government who shot it down, which is why Russia has illegally sequestered the black box.

People have already been quite rightly speculating that it was the Russian military. And to be honest the only thing the media has been doing has been wildly speculating about how the separatists did it.

And yes it is a real motive. I think you are vastly overestimating the probability that we ever find out what really happened.

I just think you seem incredibly biased in this. You've been brainwashed by the western media.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Or the SPLA , or the French, , or Zimabwe who have a history of doing it, or Angola, Japan, A bunch of people in western Africa, Israel, Somalia, Tamils, Congo, oh, Israel have a history too, more Soviets, and Japan again, three lots by the soviets now, Pakistan, Bulgaria, the Dutch, China, Germany, Iraq (first successful landing without hydraulics in a modern plane, damn fine flying), Gerogia.

I don't think you understood the argument. It was that it is possible that the Ukrainian "government" accidentally shot it down and not just the separatists. And just because you haven't done it before mean you never will, most of those cases are a first time for the belligerent.

Russia has illegally sequestered the black box.

Russia is a permanent member of the UN, the UN is dealing with this issue therefore it is not illegal for Russia to request the black box. In my opinion.

Well the only people who have been shooting down planes in the area is the separatists, they are the only ones who have a non-tin foil hat conspiracy theory motive, it's looking incredibly likely that they have the weaponry required to shoot it down, so no it's not wild speculation. Instead it's by far the most likely explanation.

I'm not biased, if someone presents a credible motive and credible evidence then I'll consider it, until then there is nothing to consider. You've been brainwashed by Russia Today.



I'm fully aware of that, you've completely missed the point, I was simply pointing out that a case of Ukrainians shooting down a passenger jet years ago means very little. I think your post would be better directed at LightBlieSoldier.

The investigation of a crash in a country is usually lead by the organisation in that country with assistance from other countries as required, so as the crash occurred in Ukraine, to a Malaysian aircraft that originated from the Netherlands, the FDRs going to Russia is an unusual step.

Russia is a permanent member of the UN, the UN is dealing with this issue therefore it is not illegal for Russia to request the black box. In my opinion.
* I've read some articles and there is nothing in them about it being illegal for Russia to have to black box, of course concerns will always be raised but nothing illegal like you said.

Unusual maybe, but not illegal. Firstly Ukraine is basically at war and the FDR's can't stay there. I will say again, this case has been handed to the UN to resolve therefore in this instance it may not be as unusual as many may think also given that Russia is one of the 'founders' of the UN. (24 Oct 1945)

It's an unorthodox move, and given the debated legality of the separatist movement (and the "government" in Ukraine for that matter) any legal issues can kinda be disregarded. However, the investigation is not UN business, it is the business of the local Air Crash Investigation organisation and anybody they are willing to let in. The Dutch can reasonably get involved since it came from the Netherlands, the Malaysians because it was a Malasian carrier, and the Americans insist on getting involved because it was a US plane. The UN have nothing to do with it. There also aren't mean "non-permanent" members of the Un, the security council is a different thing.

I understand your point, in most instances you'd be correct but in this case the UN has called for a global inquiry amid demands for an independent investigation;
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/un-meets-as-world-leaders-call-for-global-inquiry-into-mh17-crash

The UNSC hasn't even discussed this yet, it's the OSCE that are currently doing most of the investigating, along with Malaysian officials.


Whether or not someone is a founder member of the UN is completely irrelevant to their stature within the UN and you are confusing the UN and the UNSC.

Saying that there "needs to be an inquiry" is categorically and very obviously not the same thing as running that inquiry.

Saying that there "needs to be an inquiry" is categorically and very obviously not the same thing as running that inquiry.

Just today yesterday on Sky News I heard the foreign secretary say something along the lines of we are happy to allow the UN to investigate this and that it is investigating it already.
Please find me some evidence if I'm totally wrong but the UN will take over sooner of later.

I can't be bothered with the last 20 pages. Has anyone blamed Israel and the CIA yet?

Ofc.