Malaysia Flight MH17 shot down in Ukraine. 298 aboard. 7/17/2014 - #1

[Mrs G Norris]

International AIDS society president speaking on Sky News Australia now.

 

[Amee]

11:03am: Is this the man who shot down the plane?

My colleague Daniel Flitton reports Igor Girkin, who goes by the name Strelkov or "shooter", is the prime suspect.

The former Russian intelligence officer has shot his own troops for insubordination. And he may have just shot down a passenger plane with 298 people on board.

“We did warn you — do not fly in our sky," he reportedly posted to a Russian social media page just hours ago.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/malaysi...sian-border-20140718-3c4nl.html#ixzz37mV9xWVN

 

[gitana1]

Respectfully snipped by me: the problem is that superpowers (normally, hold on a moment) operate under different rules than the rest of the world. For the U.S. to retaliate against an act of terrorism pulls the whole world in on one side or another. That's why the U.S. has been historically slow to anger on acts that had the rest of the world and perhaps much of our own citizenry demanding action. Well, just look at the two Iraqi wars--we reacted (rightly or wrongly) to acts of terrorism on U.S. soil and/or against our sworn allies and the face of the world has been reshaped accordingly. You can agree or disagree with what the U.S. did but there is no question that the actions we took changed the face of history for good or ill. That's why Russia pursuing an agenda to reacquire portions of the Crimea is such a dangerous and reckless act. A small nation acting unilaterally is one thing. A world power acting unilaterally and being territorially aggressive, well...I already said my spiel on world war and won't repeat myself.

I totally agree with you. Which is why I'm so worried here. This is very dangerous. But it didn't happen because our president is a wimp. That is a simplistic and illogical argument. It happened because of complexities that run deep and have historical underpinnings that can be difficult to understand.

 

[Minette]

I couldn't care less about the money/compensation. This is human life we are talking about.

I provided those links to put in context what you were saying about the 'despotic' Russians and their 'legitimacy'.
USA has widespread deprivation and poverty too by the way and thats with no sanctions!
People in greenhouses shouldn't throw stones and all that.

Yours,
resident pacifist.

Well, yes, we have widespread deprivation and poverty here at home, which is why I find it so interesting that people always assume that we should ride to the rescue of any nation/population experiencing poverty and deprivation themselves. And I TOTALLY agree with your point that human life is priceless, and no amount of compensation makes up for the loss of a loved one. Still, to compensate the families is at least a tacit admission of responsibility, as we all in our lawsuit-prone society have seen.

Anyway, I will ask you this question then, given the preciousness of human life: what SHOULD be the response of so-called civilized nations to acts that lead to loss of civilian lives, especially when those civilians were just 'passing by' and were in no way involved in the conflict? Should we just sadly shake our heads and say it couldn't have been avoided? Should we abandon any attempt at justice for the lost lives just because our own hands haven't been historically totally clean? Should the present-day U.S. not attempt to intervene in any present-day cases of human trafficking/slavery because our own national hands aren't historically clean? I really wonder what people think should be done in these cases and would appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I totally agree with you. Which is why I'm so worried here. This is very dangerous. But it didn't happen because our president is a wimp. That is a simplistic and illogical argument. It happened because of complexities that run deep and have historical underpinnings that can be difficult to understand.

Which is exactly why I think we should be more reticent about getting involved at all.

 

[Isabelle]

If only they knew just how idiotic that sounds.

ETA: I omitted the quote of the translated communication where it was said spies were behind dropped.

 

[buffetoflies]

I firmly believe that if there was any Russian involvement then Russia needs to be brought to their knees. Let's see how eager Russians will be to support their bare-chested pinup boy when we impose stringent economic sanctions such as denial of access to credit card or banking services to their citizens?

How about no. Russian citizens (along with citizens of every other country of the world) have no control over what their government does. Punishing them like that would solve nothing.

 

[gitana1]

Gitana, as a young boy my FIL was in the French resistance. He was *adamantly* opposed to the U.S. invading Iraq post 9/11. But these current events have given him pause because the parallels are just too strong.

I know. But I dearly, dearly hope we can stay out of this as much as possible. Let the UN, let other nations do what they must. Sanctions? Ok. But I'm deathly afraid of us getting too involved. Pearl Harbor is what drew us into WWII. The take over Europe and the murder of millions of Jews did not lure us in. Now, we aren't close to any of that so I want to stay out.

 

[newone]

Well, yes, we have widespread deprivation and poverty here at home, which is why I find it so interesting that people always assume that we should ride to the rescue of any nation/population experiencing poverty and deprivation themselves. And I TOTALLY agree with your point that human life is priceless, and no amount of compensation makes up for the loss of a loved one. Still, to compensate the families is at least a tacit admission of responsibility, as we all in our lawsuit-prone society have seen.

Anyway, I will ask you this question then, given the preciousness of human life: what SHOULD be the response of so-called civilized nations to acts that lead to loss of civilian lives, especially when those civilians were just 'passing by' and were in no way involved in the conflict? Should we just sadly shake our heads and say it couldn't have been avoided? Should we abandon any attempt at justice for the lost lives just because our own hands haven't been historically totally clean? Should the present-day U.S. not attempt to intervene in any present-day cases of human trafficking/slavery because our own national hands aren't historically clean? I really wonder what people think should be done in these cases and would appreciate your thoughts.

MOO
.
I personally don't think you should attend every fight you are invited to. MAS is solely responsible for their decision to fly over an unsafe territory. Not victim blaming in the least ((ducking for tomatoes)).

If other airlines were able to think proactively then oh gee.

It is reasonable to do what one can on one's on soil ((using your human trafficking example)) and yell loudly for others to join you in the good fight.

MOO

 

[Minette]

I totally agree with you. Which is why I'm so worried here. This is very dangerous. But it didn't happen because our president is a wimp. That is a simplistic and illogical argument. It happened because of complexities that run deep and have historical underpinnings that can be difficult to understand.

Well, I don't think he's a wimp, his pursuing his executive privilege in the face of opposition from Congress and a good bit of the American population should be proof of that! However, I do think he hasn't wanted to take a hard line with Putin because, well, he's more of a domestic issues President, in my view. And when you become involved in international/war issues that tends to be ALL you can focus on. IMO, of course. Plus, I think Putin is flaunting his power and contempt for other world leaders in a way that hasn't been seen since....well, I will say no more because my name is not Godwin!

 

[gitana1]

Which is exactly why I think we should be more reticent about getting involved at all.

Agreed.

 

[Minette]

I know. But I dearly, dearly hope we can stay out of this as much as possible. Let the UN, let other nations do what they must. Sanctions? Ok. But I'm deathly afraid of us getting too involved. Pearl Harbor is what drew us into WWII. The take over Europe and the murder of millions of Jews did not lure us in. Now, we aren't close to any of that so I want to stay out.

Gitana, no one can blame you for being afraid, it is terrifying! But given the revelations of history: how could we have lived with ourselves as a nation if we had refused to enter WWII and then later found out the full extent of the death camps?? How could we ever again hold up our heads as a nation that proclaims its love of human rights?

Please know that I am not saying we should jump into an armed conflict at this time, but you know, I don't think, I really don't think, we can stand aside forever.

 

[ElleElle]

The FreeScale employees, maybe?
Hmmmm....I wonder if there's a connection to FreeScale and Russia/Ukraine.

As tragic as this is, the thought of "Freescale" came to mind several times today.

 

[mnegri1973]

Im not sure how.



What have we shot down? What commercial flight from another country have we purposefully shot down? Or even Russia?



Agreed. He's as crazy as any of the famous dictators in recent history.



This should not happen. How do the families fell having their loved one's corpses published?



Bingo.



Oh boy. Here we go with the our president is a wimp argument which is why incidents involving other countries and Asian airlines occur. How about Lockerbie? 187 Americans on board. Reagan in office. I guess Reagan was such a wimp that Libya wasn't scared of us, right?

Not purposely, but in 1988 our Navy shot down an Iranian civilian plane. IIRC, the plane was not transmitting the correct signal, and it flew into a combat zone or maybe it was a no fly zone. I wanna say close to 300 people were killed in that incident.

The Russians, or I should say the USSR have shot down civilian planes that crossed over into their airspace in the early 80's. The one I remember best was a Korean plane with 60 Americans on it. USSR fighter jets blew it up. I think there was either a US Senator or US Congressman on that flight. And I think a lot of the Americans were US military personal. That one just sticks out fir me cause I was 10 and thus was the first time I really paid attention to the world outside of my little space I lived in.

~Mel


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Steely Dan]

Granted the criminal act occurred over Ukrainian airspace, however, does the "black box" not belong to Malaysia and Malaysia Airlines? Why is it being analyzed in Moscow? Or did Malaysia request this?

:waitasec:

MOO

The black box belongs to the country that the plane crashes in. Usually the country cooperates with the airline and frequently the FAA is brought in because they are the best crash investigators in the world. Unfortunately, I can't see either of those things happening here.

Respectfully snipped by me: the problem is that superpowers (normally, hold on a moment) operate under different rules than the rest of the world. For the U.S. to retaliate against an act of terrorism pulls the whole world in on one side or another. That's why the U.S. has been historically slow to anger on acts that had the rest of the world and perhaps much of our own citizenry demanding action. Well, just look at the two Iraqi wars--we reacted (rightly or wrongly) to acts of terrorism on U.S. soil and/or against our sworn allies and the face of the world has been reshaped accordingly. You can agree or disagree with what the U.S. did but there is no question that the actions we took changed the face of history for good or ill. That's why Russia pursuing an agenda to reacquire portions of the Crimea is such a dangerous and reckless act. A small nation acting unilaterally is one thing. A world power acting unilaterally and being territorially aggressive, well...I already said my spiel on world war and won't repeat myself.

BBM

Just to be sure. You're not saying the Iraq war was due to 911 are you? Forgive me if I'm reading that wrong.

 

[Herding Cats]

(Gitana, just for clarity's sake, I did say "accidentally" in my post...I'm sure you simply missed that word. I was referring to the Vincennes' accidental shooting down of an Iranian airline...and I recall something about Russia shooting down a Korean jet...both of those were deemed 'accidental', and it is possible that today's catastrophe will end up being an accident, inasmuch as it's a missed target sort of thing.

Best-
Herding Cats)

 

[panthera]

The FreeScale employees, maybe?
Hmmmm....I wonder if there's a connection to FreeScale and Russia/Ukraine.

There may or may not be any connection between these two incidents, however, being the same airline and this deflinitely a criminal act does give me pause. Ironically there was such little information released by Malaysia re: MH370, and now they will be begging for intelligence information upon the loss of MH17.



MOO

 

[inthedark14]

According to Reuters, Air France was one of the first airlines to release a statement about impending changes to their flight paths after Thursday’s incident. “Air France is monitoring the situation in real time and decided to no longer fly over eastern Ukraine after it was informed of this incident,” a spokesman for Air France said.

And they’re not alone.

A spokesperson for Singapore Airlines confirmed that their airline does not use Ukrainian airspace. British Airways says they aren’t using Ukrainian airspace, with the exception of their once-a-day service between Heathrow and Kiev. And Lufthansa Airlines is taking extra precautions given recent events. “Up to now there has been no closure of Ukrainian airspace,” said Lufthansa corporate communications.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/travel/airlines-re-route-flights-after-malaysian-plane-is-shot-92072525482.html

Malaysia Air Flight 17 was not the only flight flying over the Ukraine today. It is really a moot point to slam the airline when it has been confirmed by numerous sources that this was a ground to air missile that took out this plane. Yes other airlines didn't take that route, but many still did.

The person or persons responsible for sending a missile at a commercial air craft flying at 33,000 feet are reprehensible monsters. Whether they had an agenda shooting this plane down or were just completely careless with their "war time efforts" is another moot point. Nearly three hundred people died today because of a choice made by someone on the ground. A choice to shoot at a plane that was flying in an approved commercial air traffic lane. This isn't just an opinion, this is fact and bashing an airline isn't going to make that go away.

After 9/11 many people still fly United and American. I'm not defending MAL I'm just stating that they were not the only ones flying there today when this horrendous thing happened. If it was the BA flight from Heathrow to Kiev would it make a difference?

ALWAYS MOO

 

[ElleElle]

http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1405619680/840/10280840.jpg

 

[Brightbird]

I agree, but part of the 'face' Russia presents to the world is that its government is democratically elected. If sanctions put pressure on the government and the Russian people object, then either the current regime has to respond to the people it represents or take off the mask and admit it is despotic. A democratically elected government has all sorts of legitimacy that a 'regime' doesn't. And depending on the actions taken, it won't immediately plunge the citizens into deprivation and poverty. But in any case, you can't allow a government to be complicit in terrorist acts and face no consequences because the citizens of that country might face consequences, too. I mean, IMO.

P.S. Is your kitty a Russian Blue? I just love his ear set!

I guess my concern is that their response would be to punish their citizens who objected to the government. I would be in favour of sanctions that affect the government and their 'friends' though. No he's not a Russian Blue - just looked like one as a kitten. He's about 5 months old in that photo, and a year later he's grown into those ears and looks like your average grey cat now. But he's still gorgeous to me