MH17 flight down in Ukraine

Do you need showing back to your bridge that makes you immune to risk?

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.

Flying over what is perceived as 'dodgy areas' is actually quite common.



Note the number of flights traversing areas like Ukraine, Syria, North Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Great. Now ill have to check the flight path of every flight I book.

Or people could just stop being overly paranoid.

Overly paranoid? Ye k that could have been me so I guess I am paranoid.

Maybe it sounds incorrect for you, but it can't be "simply incorrect" in general, until you prove it with objective arguments and facts. I don't support Russian politics but their line can't be named as "incorrect".

Of course it is. But double standards in politics are everywhere: in UK, in US, in EU - all around the world. So it's kinda odd to blame only Russia for them.

Really well said! I like it. But you don't appreciate Ukrainian rebels' will for the freedom, do you?

What about Iran Air Flight 655 incident? Don't you want revenge for that too? 290 lives have been lost there and USA didn't even apologize.

Why?

Wow, way to blow your own trumpet. "Top 10 on this forum".
Revenge against Russia? Both sides have Nukes, any revenge you are thinking of would result in the annihilation of the planet, and for what? because some idiot had itchy fingers and shot down a plane?
"We in the West will decide how events will play out, we are the hegemon". I'm not sure whether you are a troll or not but by some of the things that you have posted i feel like you are.

Well, I stand with the USA in disputes against Russia, and I view it as unfair that Putin is suggesting Ukraine is to blame. It's pro-Russian rebels most probably, which, if Ukraine came down on with full force, Russia would respond.

The rebels are not freedom fighters, they are terrorists, that's why they shoot down planes. There are reports that they boasted about their capabilities to do so before hand.

The saddest part of conflicts between two countries is inevitably the loss of human life, we see that with the stories of the victims on our screens today.



There's a culture on this forum isn't there, that whenever one delivers something of a different opinion, they get labelled a troll. That is, you have to fit with the left-wing anti-USA, anti-Israel platform, or else you're a troll. It's ridiculous. If you want to respond, then critique my views. Don't just give me this nonsense.

My views on foreign policy are pro-USA, pro-Israel, politics viewed through a Realist lens, and an acceptance of hegemonic stability theory, with the US or NATO as the hegemon and an assumption that it's good for the world.

I respect Russia's sovereignty and that of Mr Putin but it doesn't extend across their own borders. Some students are saying we should avoid war at all costs. No we shouldn't. The moment Russia invades a NATO country we should respond. It would never come to Nuclear War, both sides have too much to lose.

Peter Molyneux's latest video covers this

What everybody who is sucked in by western media is failing to consider is this:
How exactly did the separatists get a Buk in the first place from the Ukrainian government other than through negligence?
Surely, if you have a military installation falling, the logical thing to do is move out any heavy ordinance, or destroy it, especially AA. I'm sure a Buk is cheaper to replace than several aircraft and all the men on board said aircraft.

Who'd have thought it, just two years ago Ukraine was hosting a football event, now it's the scene of lots of infighting. Oh, and a plane being shot down. Seriously, is this thread no longer about the plane? (Edit: Ok it is still, last I checked this thread there was arguing between two users about a different subject) I do offer my condolences to those who lost their relatives on the flight, two of which are apparently Newcastle United fans

What everybody who is sucked in by western media is failing to consider is this:
How exactly did the separatists get a Buk in the first place from the Ukrainian government other than through negligence?
Surely, if you have a military installation falling, the logical thing to do is move out any heavy ordinance, or destroy it, especially AA. I'm sure a Buk is cheaper to replace than several aircraft and all the men on board said aircraft.

It wouldn't have been hard for the separatists to focus their forces onto military bases and to break into those bases through a series of short, fast and powerful attacks (Blitzkrieg without the armour). They probably just overwhelmed a military airport so quickly that the defending forces didn't have time to destroy the heavy ordinance. But, no one actually knows how/where they got the launcher from because the Ukrainian government hasn't released a statement on it being stolen. The US is still intent on blaming Russia for providing the separatists with the weapon: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118741/ukraine-rebels-allegedly-downed-malaysian-airlines-buk-launcher

It was reported in Russian media and by the separatists themselves on social media that they captured a BUK from a Ukranian base about two weeks ago.

And [to both of you], surely, after it was captured, would it not be high on your priorities list to find out where it is and destroy it? Given they would likely have AT LEAST four missiles, so could take down at least 4 aircraft, and an IL 76 could easily set them back $30m. They lose 4 of them and that's over $100m just for the aircraft, then you're also likely looking at a couple of hundred men and large amounts of other hardware. The cost to try to get that Buk out of action would be less than the potential costs of letting them keep it. And, as it turns out, it most likely resulted in the deaths of 300 civilians (not even going to bother considering the cost to the airline, because that's slightly morbid and irrelevant as far as expense to Ukraine goes)

How do we know that this wasn't high up on the list of priorities?

We don't, but you would expect that with several weeks and probably under the table help from America there'd be some progress.

Just so we're clear, are you trying to suggest that everything is a fabrication and the separatists never had the missile system because if they had taken one then the Ukranian army would have surely taken it back before they could use it?