How We Know Russia Shot Down MH17

a reply to: Xcathdra

Here you go...

Link

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: intrptr

It doesn't take a long time to investigate a crime to come to the truth, it takes a long time to investigate a crime when trying to cover it up.

As a matter of fact investigations and forensic processing can result in lengthy delays in investigations. What people see on tv shows like CSI, and how short of time it takes to get results, is no where near to how real life works.

Exactly how many criminal investigations have you been involved in where people were dead?

It certainly didn't take them very long to identify OBL on 911.

Secondly it becomes even more complex considering its a criminal investigation and western jurisprudence requires beyond a reasonable doubt to bring charges. Factor in foreign countries and it continues to add layers of complexity. Its one of the main reasons the UN tribunal position was being brought up.

Like the trial for Osama?

@ other posters about my op -
I stated people would need to make up0 their own minds about the source and the claims made in them. For some reason you guys intentionally ignored that point and once again make accusations against me that you cant support.

Ok fair enough, than if you genuinely want people to make up their own minds how about offering a counter-argument in your threads? Or also add another bullet point advising that your OP's carry a one sided view.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Lost with this one.

Russia demands an international investigation as to who and how MH17 met its end. Good on you, Russia.

When such an independent UN Tribunal is proposed Russia says "no". Why?

Surely Russia is getting what it originally wanted. Or is it that Russia has something to hide and does not have "the evidence" that the Russian mainstream (controlled) media has been pumping out? Is it that Russia's view of an international investigation was one where Russia dictated the terms?

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Lost with this one.

Russia demands an international investigation as to who and how MH17 met its end. Good on you, Russia.

When such an independent UN Tribunal is proposed Russia says "no". Why?

Surely Russia is getting what it originally wanted. Or is it that Russia has something to hide and does not have "the evidence" that the Russian mainstream (controlled) media has been pumping out? Is it that Russia's view of an international investigation was one where Russia dictated the terms?

Funny, it was just over a decade ago an American Administration was accusing the UN of irrelevancy and being pressured by Germany and France.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Jog on mate, we all know the SU-25 can reach over 10,000 ft - even if it means the pilot wears an oxygen mask.

I made sure I checked that fact for myself- you can trust what the military industrial complex feeds you - I will not.

And I wonder why Russia doesn't trust the UN? When the NATO countries attacking her hold more combined sway with the UN?

And no the info to date is murky because one side is lying out of their arse - and I think we know who has set the precedent for that the last 13 and a half years.

You my friend really are naive.

Obviously the majority of ATS agrees that the Russian didn't do it - that would explain the 10+ pages of debate but only 11 flags even though this has been on the front page for how long?

a reply to: Soapusmaximus

Obviously the majority of ATS agrees that the Russian didn't do it - that would explain the 10+ pages of debate but only 11 flags even though this has been on the front page for how long?

Obviously, you have no data to back that claim up. There is a thread that claims that Australia and New Zealand have moved that has been running for years and is hundreds of pages long. In your opinion, does that mean the majority of ATS members think that Australia and New Zealand have moved? If so, how does that reflect on your "Russia didn't do it" theory?

a reply to: Soapusmaximus

As well as wanting to castrate Russia - NATO and the IMF posse want Ukraine as it's very valuable farming land and we are running out of decent food crops space .

Not to mention Zbigniew Brzezinski being Obama's mentor - and he wants the US to take on Russia and China - where the real power is.

Funny this all kicks of when people who have been pushing for this for years are holding the influence - convenient that plane getting shot down, wouldn't you say?

a reply to: Rosinitiate

Can you explain what Bin Laden has to do with MH17 and the Dutch investigation?

I don't need to offer a counter point as there are people on that side of the fence who can do it better than I could. Besides actually investigating and learning might be a good thing for some.

a reply to: Soapusmaximus

Everything that has occurred is a direct result of Russian actions.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Lost with this one.

Russia demands an international investigation as to who and how MH17 met its end. Good on you, Russia.

When such an independent UN Tribunal is proposed Russia says "no". Why?

Surely Russia is getting what it originally wanted. Or is it that Russia has something to hide and does not have "the evidence" that the Russian mainstream (controlled) media has been pumping out? Is it that Russia's view of an international investigation was one where Russia dictated the terms?

Russia still wants a real international investigation, so including parties not allied (or controlled) by the US.

Russia is convinced they have the evidence to counter they had anything to do with it, and that's why they have been calling for an international investigation. The West on the other hand is not convinced so they call for an UN tribunal so they can make a political show of it.

A MH17 UN tribunal is not an investigation, but merely another political show in which Russia can be made to look like the culprit.

a reply to: Soapusmaximus

As well as wanting to castrate Russia - NATO and the IMF posse want Ukraine as it's very valuable farming land and we are running out of decent food crops space .

So your theory is that the United States and its allies invaded Ukraine because they're hungry? Are you aware that North America is the largest exporter of agricultural products on Earth? Did you know that Russia was Ukraine's largest trading partner, and that the bulk of that was agriculture? If anyone needs to invade Ukraine because they're hungry, it's Russia.

Thank you for reminding me of the agriculture angle. I had assumed that Russia's aggression was simply the pursuit of its centuries old strategy of "defense in depth." Perhaps this really is a resource war, with food being as important as the offshore gas fields that Russia has seized....

a reply to: DJW001

Uhm, wasn't it clear after Poroshenko declared himself officially there was a coup, and Obama also has admitted to have brokered a deal it back then it wasn't Russia who was behind it all ?

Ukraine’s President Poroshenko Admits Overthrow Of Yanukovych Was A Coup

Still...



...I see.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Uhm, wasn't it clear after Poroshenko declared himself officially there was a coup, and Obama also has admitted to have brokered a deal it back then it wasn't Russia who was behind it all ?

Where does Poroshenko admit there was a coup, outside of the usual Russian propaganda channels? Here is what he said:

Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko has sent to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine a query concerning the constitutionality of the law of Ukraine on depriving Viktor Yanukovych of the title of the president of Ukraine, the court's press service reported.

"Since the law, whose constitutionality is challenged, does not have a regulative nature, having passed it, the Verkhovna Rada acted contrary to the norms of the Constitution of Ukraine, which means that this contradicts Part 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution, which obliges the parliament to act within the powers and in the manner provided by the Constitution of Ukraine. In this connection, I request recognizing the law of Ukraine on depriving Viktor Yanukovych of the title of the president of Ukraine dated February 4, 2015, as such which does not meet the Constitution of Ukraine, that is unconstitutional," the president's query reads.

en.interfax.com.ua...

This sounds like he is trying to prevent the events of 2014 from setting a precedent, and calling on the Courts and Rada (parliament) to establish unambiguous laws surrounding contested offices.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Oh, give it a rest. An International Tribunal will be just that - international. If you are representing the reason why Russia won't participate then this is crass pettiness. If Russia has evidence, then it needs to be submitted for scrutiny and review.

Children react like this when their bluff is called! Why is Russia so afraid of an independent (and open) International Tribunal?

a reply to: paraphi

If Russia has evidence, then it needs to be submitted for scrutiny and review.

If Russia submits it now, it will be propagandised by The West as usual...if however they wait for the "official" report to come out and present it after that, propagandising has hardly any effect anymore.

As I lost most of my countrymen and woman and children within this horrific tragedy,I first blame the the ones that decided it was OK to fly over a war zone. . The second I blame the ones who shot down the Malaysian passenger plane MH17 ..

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
If Russia submits it now, it will be propagandised by The West as usual...if however they wait for the "official" report to come out and present it after that, propagandising has hardly any effect anymore

The propaganda is quite heavy from the Russian side. Russia should stick to the facts rather than spinning excuses.

It's silly politics to withhold vital evidence of a crime, so Russia should support the International Tribunal if they have evidence. Nothing like an independent and transparent Tribunal to flush out the facts.

a reply to: paraphi

An independent investigation is much better to flush the truth out, an investigation in which Russia also could take part.

A UN tribunal is the worst thing that can happen because it will obscure things because of the political farce it's going to be...politics and truth are not two things which go together very well.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The UN is only a "political farce" when people make it so. A Tribunal with a good terms of reference will be able to be thorough and competent. Tribunals also have a legal complexion, so are independent and open.

The UN has a good record Tribunals.

They may be over-long, but that should not inhibit or constrain Russia's part in the process, nor the ability of Russian to openly - and transparently - tell their story and show the evidence that they are blameless.

Still cannot see why Russia is objecting to a Tribunal unless they fear the outcome. They should be welcoming one as it is their opportunity to present their evidence.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The UN is only a "political farce" when people make it so. A Tribunal with a good terms of reference will be able to be thorough and competent. Tribunals also have a legal complexion, so are independent and open.

The UN has a good record Tribunals.

They may be over-long, but that should not inhibit or constrain Russia's part in the process, nor the ability of Russian to openly - and transparently - tell their story and show the evidence that they are blameless.

Still cannot see why Russia is objecting to a Tribunal unless they fear the outcome. They should be welcoming one as it is their opportunity to present their evidence.

Right. So the tribunal against Israel for genocide in Gaza means what? Here the WSJ says it's a fraud with the lead investigator on the Palestinian payroll. So as always, it's relevant when it suits the right people. They're like the wests whipping boy and at the same time the holy grail of diplomacy. Puke. A farce is right! At least the WSJ got something right.

www.wsj.com...