Dutch Investigators Give Results of MH17 Probe to Families

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Different sanctions, different restrictions.

That's because they are two separate situations...

One is for backing the separatists in Ukraine with weapons, money, and fighters.

The other is because he annexed Crimea.

Don't expect the EU to back up Kiev in fighting a bloody civil war and giving a ratsass about Minsk.

Well that isn't what the EU says...

Germany, France, Italy and the UK paved the way for a rollover decision at the G7 summit last month, with leaders concluding they had little choice because of the patchy implementation of the Minsk accord.

www.ft.com...

Sanctions against the Ukraine for not implementing their part are already up to debate, just saying.

And what sanctions would those be, and who is sanctioning them?

My claims aint inaccurate

Yes they are...

a reply to: PublicOpinion

A clear act of aggression towards a sovereign state via russian military in the Ukraine might (and would) be considered an act of war.

Does Crimea sound familiar as they were part of Ukraine and invaded using Russia's little green men...but if Ukraine were to fight for Crimea Russia has already threatened use of nukes against anyone trying to reclaim Crimea for Ukraine.

That is why nobody has declared any war over Crimea.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: PublicOpinion

A clear act of aggression towards a sovereign state via russian military in the Ukraine might (and would) be considered an act of war.

Does Crimea sound familiar as they were part of Ukraine and invaded using Russia's little green men...but if Ukraine were to fight for Crimea Russia has already threatened use of nukes against anyone trying to reclaim Crimea for Ukraine.

That is why nobody has declared any war over Crimea.

No. That is delusional. No one declared war, is because no one is stupid enough to commit suicide.

a reply to: Velatropa24

What part is delusional? That the little green men were Russian soldiers? Or that Russia has threatened to use nukes if anyone tries to take it back?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

That paywall-hidden FT snippet you cited doesn't oppose my statement at all. Ask the Danes why they think dropping sanctions would be an adequate reaction to start with.
You're free to think Kiev wont see any consequences for their actions, but I wouldn't put my money on that either.

That is why nobody has declared any war over Crimea.

Another perspective would be, that they're too incompetent to deal with their own people in the east and too weak to deal with their rogue warlords in the military.
The Maidan lost the support of it's people, daclaring more wars will only make things worse. And they aint suicidal, at least not all of them.

In the East, 11 percent just appreciate the work of Poroshenko, it's even worse in the South, also in Odessa, where just 7 percent with him are satisfied. That was also a reason to send Saakashvili there at least do away with the corruption of the other oligarchs to Odessa. In the Western and central Ukraine people 22% are somewhat satisfied, 21 per cent in the Northern Ukraine.

Ukrainians have no confidence in their Government

The translation is rather awful, but it should be enough to get the point across.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

No boom!
But shred-mill noise, but all party's involved had to sign to keep the result a secret.

Page 32 in the end conclusion (final report)

This was done with a 30 mm, and from nearby , from an other plane, not from ground-fire.

www.softpanorama.org...

The Dutch government has paid the family's.
The economic sanctions against Russia were in place after a few days.
So Russia was punished anyhow, before anybody could have a good look.
¨A large number projectiles with high velocity, brought MH-17 down¨ is the official statement.
So you still have to choose.
The picture shows 30 mm damage, three types of bullets, like they use in the SU-25.

I am Dutch and will not be silent.
Putin , and Russia have nothing to do with downing of mh-17.

Or it has to be Putin his plane that spoofed the airtraffic control, and told mh-17 to take a more southern route.
And switched the transponder signal.
Putin his plane spoofed to be mh-17 and the other way around.
A piece of cake for Putin his plane.

Putin has outsmarted the west, and we don like that.
He should have let him shot itself, now mh-17 has become the victim.

If you can recognise the 30 mm, you haven seen 30 mm before.

I have more investigations results at home.
Like the collision of the 2 f-16's above Hoogeveen.
(I clearly have connections, but have to protect my sources)
And do not read them diagonally.

a reply to: Velatropa24

Oh my you really need to pay attention there chief...that is what I said.

Nobody has declared war because of the threat of nukes from Russia...nobody will fight when faced with nukes.

a reply to: Wasta

No the picture doesn't show 30mm shell holes...that was debunked by Russia themselves.

In case you have missed it the manufacturer of the BUK has said it was a BUK that brought do wn MH 17...and exactly what plane was it that shot those holes you say are 30mm projectile holes?

Everything you say has been debunked so many times in so many threads...Putin was nowhere near Ukraine when MH17 was shot down that even Russia themselves debunked that.

www.rt.com...

So now you seem to think you have the answers but the questions you may have answers to are well known and debunked...sorry.

Now when you say you know more than your telling and have sources...if you can't get the Putin story right I really doubt you or your sources have a clue what they are saying.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Here you go chief enjoy...

www.consilium.europa.eu...

www.google.com...=e

www.google.com...

Do you want more because that can easily be done?

I see you moved the old goalposts trying to tie in what 11% of Ukrainians think about their government but didn't refute what was said...why?

Also as I asked before who is sanctioning Ukraine over the Minsk deal...because it isn't the EU or anyone, so who is it?

Guess those questions just get ignored...amazing.

a reply to: Wasta

You should take a look into this little series:



A Mig-29 would make more sense than a Su-25 and some witnesses support that narrative.

Stay vigilant!

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Also as I asked before who is sanctioning Ukraine over the Minsk deal...because it isn't the EU or anyone, so who is it?

All I said is, that it's up to debate. Nobody sanctions Ukraine... yet.

Ukraine must uphold its part of a peace deal with Russia by modernizing the country or risk a collapse of support for EU sanctions against Moscow, Denmark's foreign minister said on Friday.

The European Union is pressing Kiev to overcome political feuding and implement reforms to bring Ukraine out of Russia's shadow and into the West, but the resignation of Ukraine's frustrated economy minister has underlined the difficulties.

EU sanctions on Russia at risk without Ukraine reforms: Denmark

Your right. 100% right
A SU-25 is like a A-10 not an interceptor.
Has to be a MIG 29, it has to be, speed altitude etc.
Can't be an SU-25.
A detail but an important one.

Wasn't it established that it was a BUK G-A missile and not an A-A missile?
They both work the same way, but the butterfly shaped bits of steel gave it away, that's also how they dated it, also the dispersion pattern etc. The ground-based missile is much heavier & more deadly.
Or have i missed something?

a reply to: playswithmachines

Yeah it was a BUK. I am surprised people are still trying to push the Russian lie of MH17 being shot down by an aircraft that couldn't reach the altitude required.

They dont work in the same manner all the time. The BUK missile is proximity detonated where as air to air missiles are generally skin kills.

originally posted by: Wasta
Your right. 100% right
A SU-25 is like a A-10 not an interceptor.
Has to be a MIG 29, it has to be, speed altitude etc.
Can't be an SU-25.
A detail but an important one.

So explain why the Russians are not claiming that any Ukrainian aircraft was near to MH17? Why are they only going with a Buk? You seem confused as to the status of the current claims by Russia.

The Russian Ministry of Defense has denied its own statements about the presence of a Ukrainian Armed Forces aircraft near the Boeing 777 at the moment of crash. On September 26, the chief spokesman for the Russian Ministry of Defense, Igor Konashenkov, and the deputy chief designer of the Utes-T air route radar, Viktor Meshcheryakov, provided new information about the plane crash at the briefing. According to Meshcheryakov, no airborne side objects were recorded by radar near the Malaysian airliner. “The only exceptions are two civil aircrafts with numbers 1775 and 4722. The first aircraft appeared near the Boeing 777 long before the plane crashed, and the second aircraft was at a distance of over 30 km from it. There were no side objects near the Malaysian airliner before its destruction,” the deputy chief designer said.

Link

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

Read my other repl... dude, seriously?

I've read it and laughed out loud. They deemed that running it with a camo net over the top of the Buk TELAR was sufficient. In footage after the shoot down the camo net is trailing off the back. Probably in their rush to get it back to the Russian border after it was plainly obvious that they had downed a civilian airliner.

Think about it they weren't planning to shoot down a civilian airliner but a Ukrainian military aircraft. They simply messed up and likely with a separatist crew. You are making the separatists out to be some sort of military elite. What is so hard to believe that they borrowed a Buk from a Russian unit and transported and deployed it as they saw fit? Remember they also obtained Pantsir systems and drove them around openly. Those Pantsirs didn't come from any other source but Russia.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes, the tests showed that it was a proximity detonation.
I still dont see the problem here, the dutch were very thorough.
The dutch demo expert who said on TV that in his opinion, the 2 towers on 9-11 were brought down by a controlled demolition. Well he died in a 'car accident' about a month later.

And those that died on that plane were very real victims, i walk past the empty houses where they used to live.

a reply to: playswithmachines

The ground-based missile is much heavier & more deadly.

Plus they're loud and leave a smoke trail. Not one person around witnessed anything like that, but they saw something resembling a Mig-29 and the presence of a warplane was verified with russian radar data. Either all of them lie or there's something wrong with the BUK story.
Why does this investigation ignore witnesses? The BUK narrative is already written in stone, ask the MSM in case of doubt. Another 9/11 parallel...

a reply to: PublicOpinion

There was no fighter aircraft that brought down MH-17. The Russian lie concerning that has been thoroughly debunked and even Russia abandoned that lie for others.

Russian radar showed no aircraft other than the civilian airliners. The latest lie of them seeing a missile on radar is also a lie since the secondary radars cant detect missiles.

As for credibility of witnesses - does one need to ask why witnesses supporting the Russian version are suspect when other "witnesses" have come forward supporting the other Russian lies on this topic? Like the bs Ukrainian fighter pilot who claimed he was present when they shot it down? Gee where did he go when Russia realized that lie was exposed and held no water?

No those little green men in Crimea arent russian soldiers.. oh wait they are.
The Spanish citizen working for Ukraine ATC system, which also turned out to be a russian lie.

The theory from the west has been the same since the start.
Russia has consistently lied since the start...

and you have the nerve to ask why "russian" witnesses arent taken seriously and are ignored.

wake up and open your eyes... Russia made a mistake providing the buk. a civilian airliner was brought down because of that mistake.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Not one person around witnessed anything like that, but they saw something resembling a Mig-29 and the presence of a warplane was verified with russian radar data.

According to state controlled Russian media.

a reply to: Xcathdra


And that's probably no russophobia either! Utmost objectivity, right? I feel your hate, it's quite obvious to be frank. But those folks are de facto ukrainian, Republic of Donbass or not, sorry to break it for you...
I imagine such differentiations are a tad too much to ask for, given this mindset in the mids of a trench warfare.

The Official and Implausible MH-17 Scenario

You didn't even look into some articles outside the MSM circle-jerk, did you? Yeah. Thought so. Give it a try and be thankful for some differing opinions to discuss, I found a shorter version with a focus on the route for starters.
For your personal information, and to follow your irresistible reasoning for lulz sake, I should mention that Rob Parry is no Russian either. Or an Ukie from the Donbass for that matter...

Glory to ATS, take care!


a reply to: DJW001

Geez. Every YTchannel is russian state controlled, innit? Go for the ball, self-proclaimed Western Media Actor! You've found and paid one witness who says otherwise? No. Yes. Duh!

And on a more personal note:



"...In the name of the holy and the devine, please!"
It's your job, innit? Think of it as quality management. I used to think highly of you Western Media folks. You know... Cold War times.
Now I have to stick to a few peeps like Parry and take the rest with truckloads of salt. Which includes Eastern Media as well btw, I'm not your enemy in that trench. Picture me as annoyed Western Media producer trying to build via ripping the stupid apart if that helps.
Will you HELP me to bite the invisible hand that feeds?