Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous263)
    what do you think? could it be possible?
    RT have changed their position on this during the day, they started running it but hit such a ****-storm of cynicism and rebuttal in social media that they realised it wouldn't wash.

    It's interesting though that the Kremlin fed this line out, seems like a pre-arranged cover story almost.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    RT have changed their position on this during the day, they started running it but hit such a ****-storm of cynicism and rebuttal in social media that they realised it wouldn't wash.

    It's interesting though that the Kremlin fed this line out, seems like a pre-arranged cover story almost.
    We all get your position on this, no need to continuously repeat it, thanks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Every media outlet will be biased towards a certain twist on the event.

    There is no such thing as objective media.


    The worst part of the whole incident is that as much as I would like to think it won't, the investigation will be riddled with lies, corruption and exclusion of information. Justice for the victims of the dead will have to wait a while. RIP.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    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?
    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.

    (Original post by Lumens)
    You probably have no idea what garbage you're saying. If you have, I feel pity for you.
    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.

    (Original post by uberteknik)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous263)
    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 as RT.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olie)
    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.
    Surely, the best solution is to watch CNN, BBC, RT, and a load of other sources and develop your own opinion from that. The biases are obvious enough as soon as they show a map of the region, if they had no bias surely the should somehow show Crimea as a contested region, I should think they would Kosovo, rather than still part of Ukraine, or Russia.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    Russia's line since the war is simply incorrect, it's not one we in the West should buy.
    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".

    (Original post by Eboracum)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by Eboracum)
    Freedom's worth the fight.
    Really well said! I like it. But you don't appreciate Ukrainian rebels' will for the freedom, do you?

    (Original post by Eboracum)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by Eboracum)
    We in the West will decide how events will play out, we are the hegemon.
    Why?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lumens)
    Why?
    I think the more pressing question is "how?"
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Malaysians are stupid to fly over a war zone
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JuliusDS92)
    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
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    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
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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/wo...d-9616088.html
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gagaslilmonsteruk)
    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/wo...d-9616088.html
    Don't give them any attention, they have nothing useful to add, all they bring is hate.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    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-maga...nitor-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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JuliusDS92)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-maga...nitor-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.
    I was shocked to hear that planes were flying over the region but if every airline was doing it they obviously thought it was safe. No blame can be attached to Malaysian Air here.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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.
    Noooo.

    Everyone and his dog knows there's a war going on in Ukraine.

    Anyone who voluntarily flies over there is asking for it, the Malays made a very ignorant decision
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JuliusDS92)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-maga...nitor-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.

    Sure why not, but the problem for you is that MH17 is the only one so far to be shot down.

    Well apparently it wasn't high enough !

    LOL

    MAS are dumb
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    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?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.