Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Malaysia Airlines has said there were "probably 154 Dutch people on board," at the time of the crash.
Dutch media are reporting the following distribution of nationalities:
154 Dutch
47 unknown
27 Australian
23 Malaysian
11 Indonesian
6 British
4 German
4 Belgian
3 Filipino
1 Canadian"
No question a former superpower has that technology today. But would Ukraine have it? Doubtful considering their financial situation since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Would pro-Russia Ukranian rebels have access to Russian technology?
Ukraine has rather fancy Russian SAMs and rebels have managed to get hold of some of them. Although they've seince tried to deny it...
Though the guy after him said that if the tail was hit that wouldn't necessarily be the case, so who knows.
Yeah the guy after him was saying there was a possibility that a Buk missile could have blew up in the proximity of the aircraft instead of a direct hit causing structural damage by exploding debris and shrapnel. I think the point the accident investigator was trying to make that everybody speculating a missile bought down the airliner as it was established fact when in his view of the video there is no conclusive evidence or any of the common visual clues present of a missile intercept of the airliner. Those things alone keeps him from joining the bandwagon of the common consensus of missile downing of aircraft everyone is seeming to hold. Could have, should have, would have are not facts or evidence but pure speculation.
No question a former superpower has that technology today. But would Ukraine have it? Doubtful considering their financial situation since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Would pro-Russia Ukranian rebels have access to Russian technology?
At this very early juncture, all roads lead to Russia.
We're not talking about some mystical technology here. The capability to do this has been around for decades. All three involved groups had the capability to shoot down this plane. Only one of them went on Twitter, bragged about it, and then deleted their messages after it turned out that the plane wasn't a Ukrainian cargo plane but a civilian airliner.
I don't believe that this was done intentionally, none of these 3 groups had anything to gain by shooting down an airliner but I do believe that most likely it was the separatists who made a major mistake in assuming they were firing on a Ukrainian plane. In recent days they had issued warnings about staying out of their airspace. A week ago they shot down a Ukrainian cargo plane flying at 20,000+ feet in the area. The capability and the intent is there, especially if you can't differentiate between targets.
It was an amateur hour action at its finest and if it does turn out to have been the separatist's, their movement is basically over. Russia has turned their back on them recently and will end any remaining support if this turns out to be the doing of the separatists. Ukraine has been driving them eastwards and would be able to then starve them out basically.
Quote:
Who hit the Malaysian airplane that was flying so high over Ukraine? All sides agreed that it was brought down by a Buk antiaircraft missile, also known as a SA-17 Grizzly in NATO terminology.
"All three sides of the conflict, Russian, pro-Russian rebels and Ukrainian forces have Buk systems," Moscow-based military expert Alexander Golts told The Daily Beast in an interview. "The Ukrainian army could shoot at the plane thinking it was Russian intelligence flying over their territory, pro-Russian rebels could bring down a plane, as they have done previously several times, including a Ukrainian cargo plane they shot down at over 6,000 meters above the ground."
Golts also noted that according to Interfax reports pro-Russian rebels recently took control of military base 24-02 in Donetsk. "That base had Buk missiles systems; if they saw a plane on radars, they could very well fire at it but of course one needs to know how to operate Buks," Golts added.
I don't believe that this was done intentionally, none of these 3 groups had anything to gain by shooting down an airliner but I do believe that most likely it was the separatists who made a major mistake in assuming they were firing on a Ukrainian plane.
okay, if this is the case they are the stupidest terrorists/separatists/rebels that ever existed. I mean it was a commercial air liner at 32k feet. What did you think it was, a magic dragon?
Were they deliberately starved by the Soviet leadership?
Correct, my mistake. During the cold war the USSR and Russia became somewhat synonymous to American ears and to a large extent still are.
Yes, millions of Russians were deliberately starved, sent to gulags, executed, etc; one thing about the Soviets, they were equal opportunity oppressors regardless of nationality.
The starvations targeted areas that previously rebelled against the Soviets during the civil war. This would be parts of Ukraine, SW Russia in the Kuban area and Don area, mainly targeting the Cossacks, and out towards the Kazakh steppes where the Whites had support until their final defeat.
okay, if this is the case they are the stupidest terrorists/separatists/rebels that ever existed. I mean it was a commercial air liner at 32k feet. What did you think it was, a magic dragon?
A Ukrainian cargo plane, like the one they had shot down a week earlier.
""In the vicinity of Torez, we just downed a plane, an AN-26. It is lying somewhere in the Progress Mine. We have issued warnings not to fly in our airspace. We have video confirming. The bird fell on a waste heap. Residential areas were not hit. Civilians were not injured."
Similarly, there's more information about a second plane we shot down, apparently a Su".
If you're half-wit amateurs that aren't the required 5% more intelligent than any equipment you operate, its entirely possible to confuse an AN-26 for a Boeing 777 when it's 30,000 feet up.
Yeah the guy after him was saying there was a possibility that a Buk missile could have blew up in the proximity of the aircraft instead of a direct hit causing structural damage by exploding debris and shrapnel. I think the point the accident investigator was trying to make that everybody speculating a missile bought down the airliner as it was established fact when in his view of the video there is no conclusive evidence or any of the common visual clues present of a missile intercept of the airliner. Those things alone keeps him from joining the bandwagon of the common consensus of missile downing of aircraft everyone is seeming to hold. Could have, should have, would have are not facts or evidence but pure speculation.
Yes, I agree. When the second guy was asking him about the proximity possibility and the accident investigator wasn't initially getting the scenario that was described, the investigator responded with something like a very terse, "And that matters why?" He just wasn't having it in terms of speculation. Actually refreshing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
