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

MH17 flight down in Ukraine Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No, I'm just saying, everybody is placing all the blame on Russia and the separatists and none on the "government", as the western media tells them to, rather than actually thinking about the situation from a logical standpoint.
    Seems the only ones not blaming the Russians and their 'rebels' are the Russians themselves...a hell of a lot more media outlets are pointing at the Russians, not just the western ones.

    Why?

    Maybe something to do with the evidence that seems to point to the Russians...hence it is logical to blame them...


    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Where did I say it wasn't. But it is foolish to place all the blame on a single person or organisation when several contributed to an event. Consider it this way, while the separatists almost certainly did do it, the "government" didn't appear to do anything to stop it, especially considering the wider system whereby it is in their interest to stop it (as explained, because if it weren't a civilian aircraft it would have been one of their military aircraft being hit).
    lol wtf is this about?

    It is a ****ing civil war pal, catch yourself on. Your talking as if the Ukrainian government is just happy to have heavily armed rebels roaming the eastern countryside and are doing nothing about it...what in under god do you think all the fighting these past months has been over? A ****ing cocktail party gone wrong? Of course they've been trying to stop them, but clearly it isn't as simple as walking over and taking them out, if it was...don't you think that would have been done a long time ago...the Ukrainians are clearly outgunned.

    If you are going to play that card, then why not blame the EU nations for not supporting Ukraine militarily? Well done...

    Captain ****ing Hindsight ladies and gentlemen!
    Spoiler:
    Show


    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Et Tu, Brute?)
    Seems the only ones not blaming the Russians and their 'rebels' are the Russians themselves...a hell of a lot more media outlets are pointing at the Russians, not just the western ones.

    Why?

    Maybe something to do with the evidence that seems to point to the Russians...hence it is logical to blame them...
    Please point out where I said ALL the blame should be put on the western governments, merely pointing out that the majority in the west seem incapable of looking at the larger picture, in many respects I hope Ukraine is completely wiped off the map just for the "history is written by the victors" crap.




    lol wtf is this about?

    It is a ****ing civil war pal, catch yourself on. Your talking as if the Ukrainian government is just happy to have heavily armed rebels roaming the eastern countryside and are doing nothing about it...what in under god do you think all the fighting these past months has been over? A ****ing cocktail party gone wrong? Of course they've been trying to stop them, but clearly it isn't as simple as walking over and taking them out, if it was...don't you think that would have been done a long time ago...the Ukrainians are clearly outgunned.

    If you are going to play that card, then why not blame the EU nations for not supporting Ukraine militarily? Well done...

    Captain ****ing Hindsight ladies and gentlemen!
    Spoiler:
    Show


    You don't need a civilian airliner taking out to be able to say that the logical thing for the Ukrainian "government" to do is to find and take out the Buk(s).









    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    This is irrelevant and answers none of my questions.
    How so when it points out a fatal flaw in your argument, ie, you're arguing that it is impossible to track because nobody was looking at it when it was stolen

    Whataboutism.
    Fine then, please find for me where in international law it says that it is illegal to attack the weapons of your opposition.




    I'm unsure what point you're attempting to make here, but whatever it is it doesn't work. The weapon originated from the USSR and and the separatists took it from the Ukrainian government, it wasn't given to them. A better analogy would be if I stoke a kitchen knife from Tesco then stabbed someone with it, would Tesco bear no responsibility for enabling the crime?
    A better analogy still would be if I broke into my neighbours house and broke into their gun locker and stole their gun and went on to shoot you. Are they responsible if they don't report the crime?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    There's more ignorance on here than on the daily mail lol... no one here seems to even have a clue that the government in Kiev is a puppet regime for the Americans installed just like in many of the other countries they've instigated war or "regime change" (currently attempting this in Syria too).

    Though the US is not happy with Kiev's grip on Ukraine and are using this event as a false flag. How many times have we seen this happen in the past 50 years, we learn nothing...

    This is the problem with most people who I believe study politics or other humanitarian subjects, pre-programmed to be biased and ignorant.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Please point out where I said ALL the blame should be put on the western governments, merely pointing out that the majority in the west seem incapable of looking at the larger picture, in many respects I hope Ukraine is completely wiped off the map just for the "history is written by the victors" crap.
    Well they pulled the ****ing trigger...thus it is entirely there fault.

    not that hard mate.



    You don't need a civilian airliner taking out to be able to say that the logical thing for the Ukrainian "government" to do is to find and take out the Buk(s).
    Sorry Captain, but you've missed the point. I'll put it into fool proof, short and simple points:

    It is a civil war

    During wars when one side (the rebels) have an advantage (Buks) the opposition will try to remove that advantage.

    However, funnily enough, the rebels won't take to kindly to losing that advantage and thus will usually do all that is necessary to protect that advantage.

    Thus it is not always as simple as...

    Warrior 1 - "oh ****, they have Buks and can take out our aircraft"
    Warrior 2 - "oh sufferin succotash...you're right!"
    Warrior 3- "Not to fear my fellow warriors...we'll just dander deep into rebel held territory and destory them"
    Warrior -1 "Oh golly...thankfully you are here, I'd never have thought of that marvelous idea"
    Warrior - 2 "Well lets get a move on lads, James is having tea ready by 6, and you know how he gets when we aren't on time"
    "My my, you're right, lets gear up now so we are back before 6"
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Et Tu, Brute?)
    Well they pulled the ****ing trigger...thus it is entirely there fault.

    not that hard mate.





    Sorry Captain, but you've missed the point. I'll put it into fool proof, short and simple points:

    It is a civil war

    During wars when one side (the rebels) have an advantage (Buks) the opposition will try to remove that advantage.

    However, funnily enough, the rebels won't take to kindly to losing that advantage and thus will usually do all that is necessary to protect that advantage.

    Thus it is not always as simple as...

    Warrior 1 - "oh ****, they have Buks and can take out our aircraft"
    Warrior 2 - "oh sufferin succotash...you're right!"
    Warrior 3- "Not to fear my fellow warriors...we'll just dander deep into rebel held territory and destory them"
    Warrior -1 "Oh golly...thankfully you are here, I'd never have thought of that marvelous idea"
    Warrior - 2 "Well lets get a move on lads, if we James is having tea ready by 6, and you know how he gets when we aren't on time"
    "My my, you're right, lets gear up now so we are back before 6"
    As stated to Dave, I didn't know we still lived in a day and age where the only way to launch an attack is via the ground, and in the case of the Buk, if it is range of a reasonable target it is close enough fora counter attack.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    How so when it points out a fatal flaw in your argument, ie, you're arguing that it is impossible to track because nobody was looking at it when it was stolen
    I think you're confused. I was pointing out a fatal flaw in your argument, which was your assumption that there was a high resolution surveillance satellite watching this particular airbase when the missile system was taken. I really don't understand how you've come to the conclusion that this is a flaw in my argument. More mental gymnastics I suspect.


    You don't need a civilian airliner taking out to be able to say that the logical thing for the Ukrainian "government" to do is to find and take out the Buk(s).
    It's easy to say that sat behind a computer with absolutely no consideration for what that would actually entail or if it would have even been possible.


    Fine then, please find for me where in international law it says that it is illegal to attack the weapons of your opposition.
    It's not. Its illegal to guess that weapons might be someone and bomb the hell out of that area in an attempt to destroy them. You have to have solid evidence that the weapons are actually there.

    A better analogy still would be if I broke into my neighbours house and broke into their gun locker and stole their gun and went on to shoot you. Are they responsible if they don't report the crime?
    A better analogy would be the same as yours but your neighbours were on holiday in Spain at the time. This is getting a little daft, don't you think?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    As stated to Dave, I didn't know we still lived in a day and age where the only way to launch an attack is via the ground.
    Ok then Captain...what would you have done?

    Not that it matters...it it was possible to take them out...they would have done...but they didn't, thus it isn't possible.

    They likely weren't even aware they had them, otherwise I doubt they;d have been flying a transport plane over their territory the day before the rebels decided to murder a bunch of civilians.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Et Tu, Brute?)
    Ok then Captain...what would you have done?
    As expressed above, try to determine where the weapons went and launch an attack, you do know that Ukraine has an Air Force, and before you say "oh, they will just fire the Buk at yiou" consider this. If you believe they have it at a certain place, send in a recon flight, if they don't fire and you can get a good look you can then either use a Surface to Surface or Air to Surface missile to hit the target. If they target you, well, you know for certain it's there and I should hope that the planes have countermeasures, and all they need is the ability to get about 60Km away without being taken out, at that point the max speed difference between the SU 27 and missile the Buk uses is too small to catch up before you're too far away. But, there is almost certainly a way to find and destroy the targets, and if I were the Ukrainian "government" it would be INCREDIBLY high on the priorities list.

    Not that it matters...it it was possible to take them out...they would have done...but they didn't, thus it isn't possible.
    Not necessarily true, just because something is possible doesn't mean it happens. Unrelated example to demonstrate the point: how many things in mathematics still go without a proof. Is that because it's impossible to prove? In some cases, yes, in all cases, no. Just because something wasn't done doesn't mean it was impossible.

    They likely weren't even aware they had them, otherwise I doubt they;d have been flying a transport plane over their territory the day before the rebels decided to murder a bunch of civilians.
    I should hope they know what hardware they have at which base, and when a base has been taken over. If they know both of the above, should they not be finding out what hardware was procured. If the base isn't overrun and merely broken into, skirmish, run away with hardware, then they KNOW what has been taken.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    As expressed above, try to determine where the weapons went and launch an attack, you do know that Ukraine has an Air Force, and before you say "oh, they will just fire the Buk at yiou" consider this. If you believe they have it at a certain place, send in a recon flight, if they don't fire and you can get a good look you can then either use a Surface to Surface or Air to Surface missile to hit the target. If they target you, well, you know for certain it's there and I should hope that the planes have countermeasures, and all they need is the ability to get about 60Km away without being taken out, at that point the max speed difference between the SU 27 and missile the Buk uses is too small to catch up before you're too far away. But, there is almost certainly a way to find and destroy the targets, and if I were the Ukrainian "government" it would be INCREDIBLY high on the priorities list.


    Not necessarily true, just because something is possible doesn't mean it happens. Unrelated example to demonstrate the point: how many things in mathematics still go without a proof. Is that because it's impossible to prove? In some cases, yes, in all cases, no. Just because something wasn't done doesn't mean it was impossible.


    I should hope they know what hardware they have at which base, and when a base has been taken over. If they know both of the above, should they not be finding out what hardware was procured. If the base isn't overrun and merely broken into, skirmish, run away with hardware, then they KNOW what has been taken.
    Maths is maths...war is war...unrelated and unparalleled...analogy denied.

    Who said it was taken from a Ukrainian base?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    I think you're confused. I was pointing out a fatal flaw in your argument, which was your assumption that there was a high resolution surveillance satellite watching this particular airbase when the missile system was taken. I really don't understand how you've come to the conclusion that this is a flaw in my argument. More mental gymnastics I suspect.
    Your argument goes like this "Nothing was looking at it at the time, so there is no way of working out where they went", but by extension, this is true for ALL tracking, which would mean that trackers are lying, which is clearly not the case.

    It's easy to say that sat behind a computer with absolutely no consideration for what that would actually entail or if it would have even been possible.
    As sat to Et Tu, Brute?, to say it is impossible is almost certainly a lie, if you want to do something you will find a way to do it, especially when it is possible.

    It's not. Its illegal to guess that weapons might be someone and bomb the hell out of that area in an attempt to destroy them. You have to have solid evidence that the weapons are actually there.
    But that's not what you said, and "solid" evidence is subjective and will only come under scrutiny after the event if things go tits up.

    A better analogy would be the same as yours but your neighbours were on holiday in Spain at the time. This is getting a little daft, don't you think?
    I fail to see the necessity for "on holiday in Spain", care to explain?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Et Tu, Brute?)
    Maths is maths...war is war...unrelated and unparalleled...analogy denied.
    If you're going to refuse an analogy showing just how shoddy the logic is, please explain how something not happening makes it impossible. Does this mean because in WWII Hitler failed to take Moscow it was impossible, because it was most certainly possible, he just made fatal flaws earlier in the campaign.

    Who said it was taken from a Ukrainian base?
    I recall a link being posted earlier in the thread, and whether from a base or not, supposing it to be from Ukrainian sources you still have to question how they didn't notice missing hardware.

    What of the rest of the post, or is the best you can come up with?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Your argument goes like this "Nothing was looking at it at the time, so there is no way of working out where they went", but by extension, this is true for ALL tracking, which would mean that trackers are lying, which is clearly not the case.
    So you've gone from assuming that Ukraine had a high resolution tracking satellite (that they probably don't even have) looking directly at this one particular military base at the exact time the separatists attacked to assuming that they have some form of tracking system attacked to the BUK? This argument makes no more sense and is quite clearly another example of your faulty logic and not a flaw in my argument, as my argument is just to point out the flaws in yours.


    As sat to Et Tu, Brute?, to say it is impossible is almost certainly a lie, if you want to do something you will find a way to do it, especially when it is possible.
    So you're still going with the completely baseless assumption that the Ukrainian's had a way of tracking, finding and eliminating the missile system but for some unknown decided not to? You're argument is riddled with holes and makes no sense whatsoever.


    But that's not what you said, and "solid" evidence is subjective and will only come under scrutiny after the event if things go tits up.
    Yes it is, blowing up areas in the hope that there is a weapons system there is a war crime.


    I fail to see the necessity for "on holiday in Spain", care to explain?
    Because there is no evidence or logical reason to believe the Ukrainians could have done much about it once it was taken.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    posted earlier in the thread, and whether from a base or not, supposing it to be from Ukrainian sources you still have to question how they didn't notice missing hardware.
    who says it is from a Ukranian source? And you are saying the government let them shoot the plane down... why? Sure the rebels would get international condemnation if they shot down a civilian flight, but that is a big if. If instead they had actually shot down a troop transport the world wouldn't even have blinked, and it doesn't seem sensible to let allow the rebels to hang on to the rockets on the off chance they commit a war crime.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucaf)
    who says it is from a Ukranian source? And you are saying the government let them shoot the plane down... why? Sure the rebels would get international condemnation if they shot down a civilian flight, but that is a big if. If instead they had actually shot down a troop transport the world wouldn't even have blinked, and it doesn't seem sensible to let allow the rebels to hang on to the rockets on the off chance they commit a war crime.
    That's the whole point of the argument, there is no good reason why the "government" would let the separatists keep hold of it since it would pose a direct threat to their own men. There is no good reason to believe they didn't know they had it and there is no good reason to believe that they had no leads after the two weeks since it was believed to have been taken from some Ukrainian facility.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If you're going to refuse an analogy showing just how shoddy the logic is, please explain how something not happening makes it impossible. Does this mean because in WWII Hitler failed to take Moscow it was impossible, because it was most certainly possible, he just made fatal flaws earlier in the campaign.


    I recall a link being posted earlier in the thread, and whether from a base or not, supposing it to be from Ukrainian sources you still have to question how they didn't notice missing hardware.

    What of the rest of the post, or is the best you can come up with?
    I didn't bother with you're stupid analogy because it was just that...stupid.

    In math, someone can spend a life time trying to solve a problem and not get it, but they tried. In a civil war like this, one force can try to defeat another force and fail.

    Regardless, your point is still as ridiculous now as it was when I first read it. Even if they were aware they had Buks, it wasn't their fault...to blame Ukraine is stupid.

    I suppose it was the British governments fault that the IRA was able to bomb GB? Afterall the government were aware they has the explosives and means to do it, why didn't they stop them? Oh wait...they probably tried :/

    I've been following a few various news agencies on this topic, not once was it suggested the rebels took the Buk from a Ukrainian base...thus that was why I never bothered to argue with your whole post.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    So you've gone from assuming that Ukraine had a high resolution tracking satellite (that they probably don't even have) looking directly at this one particular military base at the exact time the separatists attacked to assuming that they have some form of tracking system attacked to the BUK? This argument makes no more sense and is quite clearly another example of your faulty logic and not a flaw in my argument, as my argument is just to point out the flaws in yours.
    Are you trolling or just that incapable of remembering a point from one post to the next?
    You acknowledge that the Americans are almost certainly assisting the "government", yes?
    You also acknowledge that the Americans do posses orbiting hardware with the necessary capabilities, yes?
    you acknowledge that it is not necessary to observe an event to know it happened, yes?
    If the answer to all three is yes, then I don't see why you're arguing.
    If the answer to the third or second is no...I can't really put it into words.
    If the answer to the first is no, Why?


    So you're still going with the completely baseless assumption that the Ukrainian's had a way of tracking, finding and eliminating the missile system but for some unknown decided not to? You're argument is riddled with holes and makes no sense whatsoever.
    Tracking and finding come under the same thing, and to say that there is no way to do so is foolish, I doubt the separatists are that thorough. Eliminating, if you've found it there are 1001 ways to eliminate it, so there is no issue there.

    Yes it is, blowing up areas in the hope that there is a weapons system there is a war crime.
    What, so you think the only way they could do it is carpet bombing?

    Because there is no evidence or logical reason to believe the Ukrainians could have done much about it once it was taken.
    Is that not the whole point of the debate? That they couldn't have done anything is completely false, as you have already practically said, carpet bombing the entirety of rebel held land would definitely work.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    That's the whole point of the argument, there is no good reason why the "government" would let the separatists keep hold of it since it would pose a direct threat to their own men. There is no good reason to believe they didn't know they had it and there is no good reason to believe that they had no leads after the two weeks since it was believed to have been taken from some Ukrainian facility.
    You are right why didn't they just take back the launcher? In fact, why don't they just defeat the rebels while they are at it! That would be the obvious thing to do right? :rolleyes:

    If they were in the position to easily take back the launcher, they would probably do a bit better fighting them wouldn't they? But I will bite, why do you think they "let" them keep hold of the missiles? They knew the separatists would shoot down a civilian flight rather than their own planes?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Et Tu, Brute?)
    I didn't bother with you're stupid analogy because it was just that...stupid.

    In math, someone can spend a life time trying to solve a problem and not get it, but they tried. In a civil war like this, one force can try to defeat another force and fail.
    That hardly explains how something not happening makes it impossible, again, are you saying that it was impossible for Germany to have captured Moscow simply because in our version of history they failed? In essence, you're arguing that as soon as there is an outcome, that was the only possible outcome, which is obviously false.

    Regardless, your point is still as ridiculous now as it was when I first read it. Even if they were aware they had Buks, it wasn't their fault...to blame Ukraine is stupid.
    Are you one of these people to which the "government" in Ukraine is infallible, and everything is the fault of the Russians/separatists?

    I suppose it was the British governments fault that the IRA was able to bomb GB? Afterall the government were aware they has the explosives and means to do it, why didn't they stop them? Oh wait...they probably tried :/
    I would not place the level of blame for the government at 0, they may have tried, but it is always possible to do more.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Are you trolling or just that incapable of remembering a point from one post to the next?
    You acknowledge that the Americans are almost certainly assisting the "government", yes?
    You also acknowledge that the Americans do posses orbiting hardware with the necessary capabilities, yes?
    you acknowledge that it is not necessary to observe an event to know it happened, yes?
    If the answer to all three is yes, then I don't see why you're arguing.
    If the answer to the third or second is no...I can't really put it into words.
    If the answer to the first is no, Why?
    I'm not trolling, it's just that your argument doesn't make any sense.

    How exactly do you think the U.S. are assisting Ukraine, Satellite surveillance as you mentioned earlier? Even the U.S. don't have the equipment to put blanket satellite surveillance over Ukraine at the resolution required, the chances of this base being randomly monitored by chance is so slim it's not even worth considering.

    And what's this nonsense about observing an event you keep going on about? To track something then yes you either need to observe it directly or indirectly.

    So how exactly were the Ukrainians meant to find the missile system, even assuming assistance from the U.S.? This is something that is absolutely critical to your argument yet you cannot answer this simple question.


    Tracking and finding come under the same thing, and to say that there is no way to do so is foolish, I doubt the separatists are that thorough. Eliminating, if you've found it there are 1001 ways to eliminate it, so there is no issue there.
    Once again, you have failed to give any answers to questions that are vital to your argument.


    What, so you think the only way they could do it is carpet bombing?
    Well you still haven't told me how they are finding the system so we have no idea how accurately they would be able to pin point its location. You're trying to make it sound like the government could just load up google maps and pin point its location but decided not to.


    Is that not the whole point of the debate? That they couldn't have done anything is completely false, as you have already practically said, carpet bombing the entirety of rebel held land would definitely work.
    I'm now convinced you're a troll.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucaf)
    You are right why didn't they just take back the launcher?
    Is everybody on this forum incapable of grasping the concept that we now fight wars on more than just the ground, because every single person to refute the argument has initially ruled out the possibility of an attack via the air to destroy the system.

    In fact, why don't they just defeat the rebels while they are at it! That would be the obvious thing to do right? :rolleyes:

    If they were in the position to easily take back the launcher, they would probably do a bit better fighting them wouldn't they? But I will bite, why do you think they "let" them keep hold of the missiles? They knew the separatists would shoot down a civilian flight rather than their own planes?
    It's not necessarily a case of letting it survive as much as doing insufficient to remove the issue, and what exactly has the Ukrainian "government" done? They have superior manpower and hardware yet seem incapable of getting very far, almost as if they're intentionally not doing a great deal, but that's another matter and I suppose it could also be said of Syria.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.