How We Know Russia Shot Down MH17

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Then why is Russia introducing a UN resolution to make the UN responsible for the investigation?

Is the UN only credible when it supports Russian goals / lies?


Russia's UN draft on MH17 crash doesn't call for tribunal

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Russia on Monday introduced a U.N. resolution demanding that those responsible for shooting down a Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine last year be brought to justice — but eliminating the international tribunal that the five countries investigating the crash are seeking to prosecute the perpetrators.

Russia said earlier this month it opposed a draft submitted by Malaysia on behalf of the five countries that would establish an international court.

The five countries — Malaysia, Ukraine, Netherlands, Australia and Belgium — reiterated in a joint statement Monday that a year after the Security Council demanded accountability for those responsible for the crash it's time to establish a tribunal.

The rival Russian draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, expresses concern that the investigation isn't ensuring "due transparency in its organization and work methods, which may have a negative impact on its outcome."

Ukraine and the West suspect Flight MH17, traveling from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, was destroyed by a surface-to-air missile fired by Russian soldiers or Russia-backed separatist rebels, on July 17, 2014 killing all 298 people on board.

Moscow denies that and Russian officials and state media have alleged the plane was shot down by a Ukrainian missile or warplane.

The Russian draft states that "the establishment of the true causes of this aerial incident is critical for bringing those responsible to justice" and suggests that the International Civil Aviation Organization "could play a more active and appropriate role in this investigation."

The Security Council met behind closed doors Monday afternoon so Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin could go through the text.

"We had a good conversation," Churkin said afterward. "We'll continue discussing if the Security Council can continue playing a useful role in this whole matter."

Asked why the draft didn't include a tribunal, he replied, "because it's not what we're talking about in the draft."

The resolution circulated by the five countries investigating the crash was drafted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which can be enforced militarily.

It states that the downing of the plane "and its implications for the safety of civil aviation, constitute a threat to international peace and security." It would authorize an international tribunal to bring those responsible to justice and includes a statute establishing an International Criminal Tribunal for Flight MH17 in an annex to the resolution.

The five countries noted in Monday's statement that all other U.N. tribunals and courts were established prior to the completion of investigations, and this "would ensure that the tribunal was as depoliticized as possible."

The other Irony is how Russia wants greater transparency yet tries to close these meetings to the public any chance they can get.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

That was the document about Ukraine participating in the investigation.

This is the MH17 non-disclosure agreement document

www.liveleak.com...

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

That was the document about Ukraine participating in the investigation.

MH17 non-disclosure agreement document

Which has nothing to do with evidence being suppressed by nations involved. It prevents those nations from speaking to the media and disclosing investigative material that can affect any criminal proceedings.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

The above video claims that the particular model of BUK missile supposed to have shot down MH-17 (by the Russians), is no longer in service with the Russian military - only by the Ukrainian military.

However there are numerous extant videos of Russian military using exactly this particular missile type through 2014 and into 2015:



This link on Russian forces TV shows missiles being loaded - tvzvezda.ru...

Here's another:


And here is Putin watching various weapons, including a BUK, in 2014:



the thing about all of these is that the particular missiles shown all have long fins - identifying them as 9M38M1 missiles (see the comparison line drawins on the right) - the type of missile supposedly "no longer used" by the Russian Federations.....and all of these videos come from 2014 and 2015.

ooops!! :O

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes it has, because it requires consensuses of all parties so if one party veto's something it won't be used.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes it has, because it requires consensuses of all parties so if one party veto's something it won't be used.

Again you are wrong. It deals with releasing information to the media. We have been over this numerous times now so im not sure why you keep trying to push a lie as the truth.

The agreement does not prevent evidence from being included / excluded by vote. It deals solely with speaking to the media about details of the investigation. Why? Because you and Putin have no clue how western jurisprudence works.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Its ok.. Russia is once again back to pushing the SU25 shooting it down again.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

That was the document about Ukraine participating in the investigation.

Yes - which you posted in response to me asking what agreement allows a veto on any accident investigation information.

This is the MH17 non-disclosure agreement document

www.liveleak.com...

so why didn't you post that then??

Possibly because you know that it is a non-disclosure and consensus agreement for the CRIMINAL investigation - not the safety/accident investigation?

And of course non-disclosure is

1/ normal in criminal investigations;,
2/ the CIA and/or USA is not a party to it.

so......again.....where is the agreement you say gives anyone a veto on the accident investigation report? (because that is specifically what I was talking and asking about)

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Putin controls his media much more closely than "the west" supposedly does - nothing coming out from any official Russian approval can possibly be anything except a Russian whitewash.

I'd say they are on par actually.
The US would never, ever allow its media to put something on the TV that implicates the West in any crimes.

EVER!

Just like Russia.

Pretending one is worse than the other is pretty naive.

Except of course the USA does "allow" such things - eg Abu Ghrab, Gitmo, many reports of civilians being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.......all eth way back My Lai at least within my own memory.

So not "just like Russia" at all.

What are you on about? they are still trying to keep hidden the Abu Grahab stuff
Abu Ghrab was going to blow wide open regardless, so they suppressed the bad stuff and released the very soft-core stuff, didn't they!

At issue is the publication of as many as 2,100 photographs of detainee abuse, although the government continues not to confirm the precise number. Said to be even more disturbing than the infamous Abu Ghraib photographs that sparked a global furor in 2004, the imagery is the subject of a transparency lawsuit that both the Bush and Obama administrations, backed by the US Congress, have strenuously resisted.

Exposure of civilians being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan happened when locals put up movies of the strikes or wiki leaks released the footage/evidence, didn't it? Do you choose which facts to remember?

A huge cache of secret US military files today provides a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and NATO commanders fear neighboring Pakistan and Iran are fueling the insurgency.

My Lai? what the hell are you on about. Nixon tried to cover that up with threats and involvement in the investigation and the initial reports of ''20 or so people'' was a complete whitewash.

your assumption that the US doesn't cover up / hide / ignore massacres and tragedies it performs is pretty concerning.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
[

What are you on about? they are still trying to keep hidden the Abu Grahab stuff
Abu Ghrab was going to blow wide open regardless, so they suppressed the bad stuff and released the very soft-core stuff, didn't they!

Was it really? Did they really?

And none-the-less it got published at a time when it was very detrimental to US image and plicy.

At issue is the publication of as many as 2,100 photographs of detainee abuse, although the government continues not to confirm the precise number. Said to be even more disturbing than the infamous Abu Ghraib photographs that sparked a global furor in 2004, the imagery is the subject of a transparency lawsuit that both the Bush and Obama administrations, backed by the US Congress, have strenuously resisted.

Exposure of civilians being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan happened when locals put up movies of the strikes or wiki leaks released the footage/evidence, didn't it? Do you choose which facts to remember?

Nope - I remember that it gets published, and the administration has to go to court if it wants to try to prevent it.

As opposed to not getting published, and no need to go to court in Russia.

My Lai? what the hell are you on about. Nixon tried to cover that up with threats and involvement in the investigation and the initial reports of ''20 or so people'' was a complete whitewash.

And failed.

your assumption that the US doesn't cover up / hide / ignore massacres and tragedies it performs is pretty concerning.

I have no such assumption - why do you assume I do? :p

I have evidence that such cover-ups are often not successful because of the multitude ways in which news can "get out" in het west.

as opposed to Russia - where the only thing that usually "gets out" is that another journalist or opponent of the regime is dead.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

your answers are fantasy, so excuse me if i don't waste my time replying per every sentence like you have.

I will say though:

Nope - I remember that it gets published, and the administration has to go to court if it wants to try to prevent it.

Typical American response. How you chose to remember America's atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't mean the world hasn't forgotten the truth. The idea that the US government willingly reports on its own crimes in Iraq/Afghan is a joke. You cant even admit that the whole lead up to the war was a fraud yet.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Wikileaks released classified documents showing wmds were located in Iraq.

Are you unable to respond to his answers because you cant refute them? Secondly what does any of it have to do with Russia and MH17?

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

They could still have them lying around and use them for training purposes...you don't need to use the newest and most accurate ones for training.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

CIA/US is not pulling the strings in the Ukraine ?

Thanks for outing yourself so quickly.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

I am happy to be outed as someone who loks at ALL the evidence, and makes up his own mind.

after all it was the Russian federation that pumped $3 billion into it in the months before Yanukovich fled the country, not the US. And it is Russian "volunteers" who are fighting there in large numbers not US ones, and Russian equipment that the donbas rebels are using.

And if you bother to examine content of the videos you will see that they are active Russian units using het missiles - for example google translates from the Russian army TV article:

Group saboteurs attacked an army convoy in Buryatia during exercise Motorised Brigade at the site "Telemba."

The exercise involved about 2 thousand servicemen and 300 pieces of weapons, including anti-aircraft missile battalions "Buck" and "Wasp".

Saboteurs managed to repulse the attack, but the enemy also conditioned his way to the camp and tried to destroy the launchers. Anti-aircraft gunners appeared ready, they reloaded their weapons and gave battle.

Enemy aircraft and cruise missiles simulated complex system of targets established in 2015.

To adjust artillery fire and aerial reconnaissance drone involved "force".

You don't train like this using obsolete equipment - you train as you intend to fight.

the Putin one says that he is overseeing tests to ensure Russia is ready to fight - with missiles that they don't have??

the other 2 videos are both shot at Telemba - I dont' know the dates of the exercises they were on, but here is an article on an exercise there in April 2014:

"Mikoyan MiG-31 interceptor fighters, Sukhoi Su-24 frontline bombers and the operating teams of the S-300PS air-defense missile systems will repel an attack by an airborne enemy during the joint exercise at the Mukhor-Kondui and Telemba training sites in Buryatia,"
- asia.rbth.com...)

And another article on an air defence exerciseheld there January-February

Air defense forces will use S-300, S-400 and Buk systems to practice repelling airstrikes and shoot down fighter aircraft in over 50 drills and training exercises.

funny that they deny having ANY of these older style missiles in service - eg quoted from missile manufacturer:

MOSCOW – The Russian maker of the Buk air defense missile system says it has concluded that Malaysian Airlines flight 17 was downed by an older version of the missile, which isn't in service with the Russian military but is in Ukrainian arsenals.

(from Fox News

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

After all it was the Russian federation that pumped $3 billion into it in the months before Yanukovich fled the country, not the US. And it is Russian "volunteers" who are fighting there in large numbers not US ones, and Russian equipment that the donbas rebels are using.

...and who needs to pump in the money now (hint, it isn't the one who didn't took the bait) ?

The Russian "volunteers" wanted to just say "hello" to the US paid "volunteers"...and we all know how that ended, we ended up twice with nothing more as bunch of crying.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

"The West" can afford the cost of a war with Russia - especially one waged by Ukrainians - suer it is expensive - but NATO has over 6 times Russias population, and even with only a couple of states meeting the 2% GDP defence spending target ...Russia's GDP has shrunk to be alsmost the same size as Spain.

Russia cannot win any "real" war - it has to try to keep things as they are now - ie Europe reluctant to invest any substantial money into Ukraine's defence. If it can keep things at this level it might well find that everyone lse gets a bit bored with it all.

But if Russians keep coming home in wooden boxes and people start finding out about it that might change things.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

"The West" can afford the cost of a war with Russia - especially one waged by Ukrainians - suer it is expensive - but NATO has over 6 times Russias population, and even with only a couple of states meeting the 2% GDP defence spending target ...Russia's GDP has shrunk to be alsmost the same size as Spain.

Russia cannot win any "real" war - it has to try to keep things as they are now - ie Europe reluctant to invest any substantial money into Ukraine's defence. If it can keep things at this level it might well find that everyone lse gets a bit bored with it all.

But if Russians keep coming home in wooden boxes and people start finding out about it that might change things.

It already is Russian soldiers are deserting rather than fighting in Ukraine this is becoming a serious problem for the Russian military. They already have army also just refusing to fight. Things are only going to get worse as Ukraine fields. A better trained military. Like Russia they depended on conscripts. No one can learn to truly be good at the job in a year. Though now that Ukraine is setting up a permanent army like Western countries you should start seeing a big difference in the fighting as Russian losses increase.

Currently if they fight both sides lose about the same. Easy to explain they both fight the same way. But when it gets to the point Ukraine losses 20 and Russia 200 that will be a game changer.

a reply to: yuppa

The pilot was shot at first with 30mm cannons , you can see this in the wreck pictures.

Some will believe one thing others will believe another thing.

[Snip]

a reply to: Soapusmaximus

The pilot was shot at first with 30mm cannons , you can see this in the wreck pictures.

No, what you see is a hole in the fuselage; saying it was from a 30mm cannon is conjecture, not fact.