MH17 flight down in Ukraine

Russia's line since the war in east Ukraine started basically is "it's Ukraine fault the armed separatist's started fighting to join Russia, It's Ukraine fault it continues, it's Ukraine fault they have weapons, it's Ukraine fault the plane was shot down as they should of surrendered their weapons to the separatist's".

But as someone mentioned earlier in the thread.... it's a slightly different outlook when it comes to their own current uprising in Russia isn't it?

You probably have no idea what garbage you're saying. If you have, I feel pity for you.

Crikey. There will not be a war with Russia - why put millions more peoples lives on the line?

Whoever fired the missile will lose a lot of friends and any moral high ground they may have held, but at this stage, we can only speculate. There are far too many questions with no answers and the fog of war only serves to compound the problem.

Do not forget, both the west and the ex-soviet bloc are masters of cold war politics and through all of that, war has been avoided for the last 70+ years and it certainly is not about to start in Ukraine on the doorstep with Russia.

This will end with either stiffer sanctions against Russia and an emboldened/belligerent Russia stepping up support for the rebels. But no war between Russia and the west.

Fullofsurprises can you actually answer a question i ask you instead of just dodging it and stating that CNN and BBC are objective. What you are doing is biased and doesn't lead to a healthy debate.

I agree, BBC and CNN are by no means entirely objective, but then what media source in the world is? I think the point is that even if they are biased in this situation, they're still not going to be anywhere near as biased at RT.

Russia's line since the war is simply incorrect, it's not one we in the West should buy.

And that's the key point. Russia were keen to allow Crimea self-determination, but when we talk about Chechnya, Dagestan and Karelia they want nothing to do with the principle. It's double standards at the highest level.

Freedom's worth the fight.

Losing moral high ground and friends just isn't enough when 300 lives have been lost, we in the West should want revenge for the tragedy that has occurred.

We in the West will decide how events will play out, we are the hegemon.

Why?

Russia's line since the war is simply incorrect, it's not one we in the West should buy.

And that's the key point. Russia were keen to allow Crimea self-determination, but when we talk about Chechnya, Dagestan and Karelia they want nothing to do with the principle. It's double standards at the highest level.



I'm a fantastic Political debater. Probably top 10 on this forum. And clearly you think so as well, as you've chosen to respond to my post with insults rather than an alternative viewpoint. So try again.



Freedom's worth the fight. I said this when the crisis kicked off. We learned during WW2 that appeasement is never an option. NATO should absolutely honour our commitments if Russia invades any NATO nation.

Losing moral high ground and friends just isn't enough when 300 lives have been lost, we in the West should want revenge for the tragedy that has occurred. I'd like to see NATO airstrikes on the rebels, regardless of whether Russia agree or not. Remember, Russia's opinion is irrelevant and they have a veto on the UN Security council so can stop anything. We in the West will decide how events will play out, we are the hegemon.

Malaysians are stupid to fly over a war zone

Plenty of people have already said this, but Malaysian airlines certainly weren't the only airline to fly over the region, and the flight path had been cleared as safe by the relevant authorities. Add this to the fact that airlines routinely fly over warzones (Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine etc.) and that this kind of thing is extremely rare and it becomes very unfair to point the finger at the airline.

No.

Just because 5 people walk into a fire, doesn't make me want to do the same.

As a normal thinking person I would say - i could get burnt and so i would avoid it.

Malaysians = responsible for this, too negligent , not sensible enough

So, so angry. Usually I take anything the Westboro Baptist Church says with a pinch of salt and ignore it, but what they've done here is completely below the belt, regarding what they've said about the crash
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-god-hates-fags-westboro-baptist-church-calls-crash-act-of-god-9616088.html

No.

Just because 5 people walk into a fire, doesn't make me want to do the same.

As a normal thinking person I would say - i could get burnt and so i would avoid it.

Malaysians = responsible for this, too negligent , not sensible enough

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-28364306 - take a look at some of the other airlines that are flying over the region. I'd imagine you'd be applying the same blame to them as well?

And comparing it a fire doesn't make sense. Again, planes fly over warzones all the time, MH17 was at a "safe" height and the route had been approved by the authorities.

But suppose you were assured it were safe, say it was a "fake" fire, or a very small one that should pose no risk you would still do it. Everything you ever do has an element of risk, doesn't stop you living.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-28364306 - take a look at some of the other airlines that are flying over the region. I'd imagine you'd be applying the same blame to them as well?

And comparing it a fire doesn't make sense. Again, planes fly over warzones all the time, MH17 was at a "safe" height and the route had been approved by the authorities.

x

It's a simple matter of risk assessment. The separatists have no air support, therefore the "government" has nothing to shoot at; weapons that can reach 33000ft are fairly limited and if the separatists aren't believed to have any, then they have nothing to shoot with. So if one side has nothing to shoot at and the other has nothing to shoot with then the total number of missiles that should be at 33000ft comes to a grand total of 0, and the additional threat to commercial flights will be tending towards zero. So, if the airline is to blame for an incident that shouldn't have happened based upon a sound risk assessment that was independently performed and came out at negligible risk, then surely the airline is also to blame if a plane is taken out in a storm. Are you saying that all planes should have to change course to avoid a storm because there is a marginally higher risk of an incident? Do you thus not go outside in a storm because there is a tiny chance you will be struck by lightning? For that matter, do you not go outside at all because there is a marginally higher risk of being murdered by leaving the house compared to if you had stayed at home?

Malays made a major F up, they are responsible, face it , get over it.