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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    Malays made a major F up, they are responsible, face it , get over it.
    Do you need showing back to your bridge that makes you immune to risk?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Do you need showing back to your bridge that makes you immune to risk?
    What ?
    Offline

    1
    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.
    51 other planes I think were travelling through that area on the same day I heard.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DErasmus)
    Great. Now ill have to check the flight path of every flight I book.
    Or people could just stop being overly paranoid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Or people could just stop being overly paranoid.
    Overly paranoid? Ye k that could have been me so I guess I am paranoid.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DErasmus)
    Overly paranoid? Ye k that could have been me so I guess I am paranoid.
    Every time a plane crashes it could have been you.
    Every time somebody gets murdered it could have been you.
    Every time somebody gets struck by lightning it could have been you.
    Every time [insert bad thing happening] it could have been you.
    And, as was highlighted earlier in the thread, this is not at all a new thing, this sort of incident happens every few years.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Peter Molyneux's latest video covers this
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lumens)
    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?
    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.

    (Original post by Anonymous263)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    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.
    1. They are terrorists because the Kiev government calls them terrorists and the western media and Washington simply quotes what the Kiev authorities say, the terrorism occurs on both sides of this civil war.
    2. First of, why would Russia invade a NATO country? You said it yourself, both sides have a stockpile of Nukes and would risk losing too much in a conflict with each other.
    3.How is NATO and the USA good? There is no such thing as good or evil, the world isn't black and white, its not that simple.
    Over the past 14 years, the USA has only brought misery and destruction to the world so that the oil companies and the military industrial complex ( Who have immense lobbying powers and therefore basically run Washington and dictate its policies) can profit.
    Was Iraq a success?
    Was Afghanistan?
    how about Libya?
    And now Ukraine.
    The USA spends $700 billion on defence spending, that's larger than the next 15 countries combined. Who are they arming them self to the teeth against? who do they need to protect?
    The people in the USA suffer themselves because of this,that money could have been put to better use like building hospitals and schools, and The USA's economy is failing with a $17 trillion debt.

    The USA isn't good, its corrupt, you need to stop thinking about war between Russia and seeing Russia as an enemy, if the two countries actually worked together and respected each others interests then there wouldn't be a Ukraine crisis in the first place.
    Unfortunately that doesn't suit the people who profit from war and oil and our governments have stopped answering to us, the people, so this isn't going to get resolved any time soon
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllahAckbar)
    Peter Molyneux's latest video covers this
    Stefan. Peter makes games.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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/1...s-buk-launcher
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shawn_o1)
    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
    2 students as well...who knows, maybe one of them or both once used this site at a time...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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 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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Petrue)
    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/1...s-buk-launcher
    It isn't at all surprising that America is making those claims.


    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    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)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)


    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?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    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.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.