Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?

[skyrover]

Yes it's no secret... was just replying to someone's question

[skwdenyer]

As regards the distastefulness (as it were) or otherwise of reporting, showing bodies, highlighting personal effects, etc., I, for one, am hugely pleased it has happened.

The Crimean War is credited with turning the public against war, precisely because it was the first to be photographed. What had previously been a noble and heroic endeavour was revealed as the horrible, horrific thing it is. The news reports from, and photographs of, the Crimean War brought down a government.

Since then, regimes around the world have tried hard to shield the public from images of war. Even "embedded" reporters have their footage and reports vetted before transmission.

War has stopped being horrific in the eyes of many, even if it has yet to regain the lustre of heroism.

The coverage of MH17 has been a - horrific, certainly - breath of fresh air. Here is the dividend of war, bared on TV for all to see. This is what a ground-to-air missile does, close-up; this is what the aftermath of destruction looks like. Oh that we could see the same images of Gaza on our nightly news.

My maternal Grandfather fought in Burma during WWII. He fought hand-to-hand against Japanese soldiers, he prevailed when so many didn't, and he came home with a Japanese officer's sword, still showing the blood of those who had not been so fortunate. He didn't pilot a drone or dispatch cruise missiles.

I believe that the press should report more death, more bodies, more blood, more carnage. People should know what war is, what it does, and how far it should be opposed. We should have UN forces on the ground in Eastern Ukraine right now, in my opinion, protecting the crime scene and stamping-out resistance. But we should never shield the public from the truth.

[D4MJT]

greygoose said:

I am not sure it is entirely serious.

Oh I'm aware it's a spoof article, and that the internet is full of dark humour, just it isn't at all funny, even in a dark sense. Poor IMO.

[JensenA]

skwdenyer said:

As regards the distastefulness (as it were) or otherwise of reporting, showing bodies, highlighting personal effects, etc., I, for one, am hugely pleased it has happened.

The Crimean War is credited with turning the public against war, precisely because it was the first to be photographed. What had previously been a noble and heroic endeavour was revealed as the horrible, horrific thing it is. The news reports from, and photographs of, the Crimean War brought down a government.

Since then, regimes around the world have tried hard to shield the public from images of war. Even "embedded" reporters have their footage and reports vetted before transmission.

War has stopped being horrific in the eyes of many, even if it has yet to regain the lustre of heroism.

The coverage of MH17 has been a - horrific, certainly - breath of fresh air. Here is the dividend of war, bared on TV for all to see. This is what a ground-to-air missile does, close-up; this is what the aftermath of destruction looks like. Oh that we could see the same images of Gaza on our nightly news.

My maternal Grandfather fought in Burma during WWII. He fought hand-to-hand against Japanese soldiers, he prevailed when so many didn't, and he came home with a Japanese officer's sword, still showing the blood of those who had not been so fortunate. He didn't pilot a drone or dispatch cruise missiles.

I believe that the press should report more death, more bodies, more blood, more carnage. People should know what war is, what it does, and how far it should be opposed. We should have UN forces on the ground in Eastern Ukraine right now, in my opinion, protecting the crime scene and stamping-out resistance. But we should never shield the public from the truth.

Good post.

[lamboman100]

EskimoArapaho said:

CNN tweeting claimed launch location inside rebel-held Ukraine: https://twitter.com/barbarastarrcnn/status/4915591...

If correct, interesting satellite photo.

Broadly, on face value, seems to chime with the photo of the shrapnelled plane wreckage apparently found on the ground.

[Octoposse]

skwdenyer said:

I believe that the press should report more death, more bodies, more blood, more carnage. People should know what war is, what it does, and how far it should be opposed.

Absolutely - I've seen two wars close up (one bigger than the current conflict in Ukraine. one about that size), and they are horrific. Not just the death and maiming, the smell, its the grief and guilt of parents (sometimes grandparents or elder siblings) desparate to protect their children and give them a sense of security and normality. The scale of the consequences of the cataclisms in Syria and Gaza are unimaginable.

But that's why I am so livid with 'our' governments - the conflict in Ukraine was uneccesary, Russia has wanted a negotiated settlement for months, but we didn't - it would have looked like a victory for Putin, and would have been a cheap one at that. So we reassured and emboldened the government in Kiev to persue the military option, Russia has fed in just enough resources to make a military solution impossible and a plane load of people have died in a way that no one saw coming. But British and other governments certainly knew that people would die (but expendible ones like Ukrainian servicemen, and families eating supper together in homes in the East), a 'price worth paying' to deny Putin his political victory.

[joema]

Willy Nilly said:

joema said:

Does make me wonder how much of the plane was destroyed in the initial explosion then how much fell to earth as one piece with people probably alive. Pretty scary thought. Nasty

We saw the explosion on the ground which I presume was the fuel going up.

It looks like the damaged piece is from the cockpit, so we might surmise that is blew the cockpit to pieces and the rest of it would have flown on for a bit. I'll wager it was the plane hitting the ground that killed most of the passengers. I have done a little reading about the Lockerbie disaster/bombing and some of the victims were still alive when people found them. Horrendous.

There was a documentary on C4 where they crashed an old airliner into the desert to record what happens in a crash. It came in shallow from a relatively low altitude and sort of bounced along on the ground, but the cockpit sort of fell off. When it had stopped the engine were still running.

Yeah i remember that. we may never know what happened once hit as lots of stuff has been moved so maybe not possible to map wreckage to see where things fell.

Also less bodies on the train than claimed which isn't surprising.

[lamboman100]

Octoposse said:

skwdenyer said:

I believe that the press should report more death, more bodies, more blood, more carnage. People should know what war is, what it does, and how far it should be opposed.

Absolutely - I've seen two wars close up (one bigger than the current conflict in Ukraine. one about that size), and they are horrific. Not just the death and maiming, the smell, its the grief and guilt of parents (sometimes grandparents or elder siblings) desparate to protect their children and give them a sense of security and normality. The scale of the consequences of the cataclisms in Syria and Gaza are unimaginable.

But that's why I am so livid with 'our' governments - the conflict in Ukraine was uneccesary, Russia has wanted a negotiated settlement for months, but we didn't - it would have looked like a victory for Putin, and would have been a cheap one at that. So we reassured and emboldened the government in Kiev to persue the military option, Russia has fed in just enough resources to make a military solution impossible and a plane load of people have died in a way that no one saw coming. But British and other governments certainly knew that people would die (but expendible ones like Ukrainian servicemen, and families eating supper together in homes in the East), a 'price worth paying' to deny Putin his political victory.

Violence begets violence. There should be fewer grizzly photos on TV, 'papers and other media.

Fact is, worldwide battle deaths have plunged by roughly ~90% in the past ~40 years. Despite media hype, war is thankfully becoming much less common.

[jeff m2]

The amount of western propaganda is staggering.
The showing of dead bodies on news sites is intended to shock and make people angry.
Appears to have worked.

This has almost become an intentional act. ( I doubt whoever pressed the button intended to bring down a civil airliner)

In war st happens, civilians get killed by the thousands and everyone accepts it.
In Iraq British soldiers got killed by US inadvertent action.

Soldiers on the ground be they Ukrainian rebels or Russian it doesn't matter, they were being bombed by Ukrainian planes.
When this happens the first action is to call for support.

To route an airliner over this area is madness. Over a ground war, ok , but where there is aerial action really stupid.

I know there are ex service people on this board, most probably read all the "hate posts" and decided it wasn't worth the agro.

Anyone here like to have bombs dropped on them, tell me you wouldn't radio in for support.

[Steffan]

JensenA said:

skwdenyer said:

As regards the distastefulness (as it were) or otherwise of reporting, showing bodies, highlighting personal effects, etc., I, for one, am hugely pleased it has happened.

The Crimean War is credited with turning the public against war, precisely because it was the first to be photographed. What had previously been a noble and heroic endeavour was revealed as the horrible, horrific thing it is. The news reports from, and photographs of, the Crimean War brought down a government.

Since then, regimes around the world have tried hard to shield the public from images of war. Even "embedded" reporters have their footage and reports vetted before transmission.

War has stopped being horrific in the eyes of many, even if it has yet to regain the lustre of heroism.

The coverage of MH17 has been a - horrific, certainly - breath of fresh air. Here is the dividend of war, bared on TV for all to see. This is what a ground-to-air missile does, close-up; this is what the aftermath of destruction looks like. Oh that we could see the same images of Gaza on our nightly news.

My maternal Grandfather fought in Burma during WWII. He fought hand-to-hand against Japanese soldiers, he prevailed when so many didn't, and he came home with a Japanese officer's sword, still showing the blood of those who had not been so fortunate. He didn't pilot a drone or dispatch cruise missiles.

I believe that the press should report more death, more bodies, more blood, more carnage. People should know what war is, what it does, and how far it should be opposed. We should have UN forces on the ground in Eastern Ukraine right now, in my opinion, protecting the crime scene and stamping-out resistance. But we should never shield the public from the truth.

Good post.

Indeed it is. Analysing the problem assists our understanding of the problem itself and this is an excellent and thought provoking post. The real nub of the difficulty such acts cause is how do we achieve the solution that this knowledge requires from us and that is something which none of our politicians have ever had any idea how to resolve. The complexity of actually managing the problems of localised violence in rival countries and power blocks and preventing it spilling into warfare and into a conflict involving huge numbers of individuals is a very difficult matter.

For all the faults that there are in the current system there has been no major war for nearly 70 years which is a major achievement. There have been serious troubles in various countries but we have managed to avoid the catastrophic disaster that another world war might well entail. I do not regard this as a success but the generation of the grandfather mentioned in the post, to whom we all owe our very freedom, succeeded with the huge and telling support of the Commonwealth and the USA combined, in defeating the might of the Third Reich and Japan. From that initial peace a less violent world has arisen.

Since then thankfully wars have been relatively controlled. I hate the idea of war and I loathe the enormous waste of life and horrors where such terrible acts can be perpetrated by mankind against mankind. But finding a way to prevent conflict in other countries with the imperfect political systems there are in the world seems a very difficult task to me. One which is as yet unresolved despite the United Nations being established for nearly 70 years. We can hope for change but not very much else.

[XJ Flyer]

Octoposse said:

skwdenyer said:

People should know what war is, what it does, and how far it should be opposed.

Absolutely - I've seen two wars close up (one bigger than the current conflict in Ukraine. one about that size), and they are horrific. Not just the death and maiming, the smell, its the grief and guilt of parents (sometimes grandparents or elder siblings) desparate to protect their children and give them a sense of security and normality. The scale of the consequences of the cataclisms in Syria and Gaza are unimaginable.

But that's why I am so livid with 'our' governments - the conflict in Ukraine was uneccesary, Russia has wanted a negotiated settlement for months, but we didn't - it would have looked like a victory for Putin, and would have been a cheap one at that. So we reassured and emboldened the government in Kiev to persue the military option, Russia has fed in just enough resources to make a military solution impossible and a plane load of people have died in a way that no one saw coming. But British and other governments certainly knew that people would die (but expendible ones like Ukrainian servicemen, and families eating supper together in homes in the East), a 'price worth paying' to deny Putin his political victory.

+1.

War is bad enough when there's no other option as in WW2 but it's unforgivable when it's all about power struggles over former Soviet turf that can be avoided and should be of no interest to us.Meanwhile Cameron seems to have ratcheted up the stakes with a typically stupid statement saying that 'if the ( military ) challenge came' with Russia over Ukraine Britain would take it on.It's bad enough that Britain sooner or later might probably get that chance.But their will/can be no winner in such a war and it definitely shouldn't be over this stupid type of dispute or any other type of eastward expansion of the EU and NATO.

[hidetheelephants]

Willy Nilly said:

joema said:

Does make me wonder how much of the plane was destroyed in the initial explosion then how much fell to earth as one piece with people probably alive. Pretty scary thought. Nasty

We saw the explosion on the ground which I presume was the fuel going up.

It looks like the damaged piece is from the cockpit, so we might surmise that is blew the cockpit to pieces and the rest of it would have flown on for a bit. I'll wager it was the plane hitting the ground that killed most of the passengers. I have done a little reading about the Lockerbie disaster/bombing and some of the victims were still alive when people found them. Horrendous.

There was a documentary on C4 where they crashed an old airliner into the desert to record what happens in a crash. It came in shallow from a relatively low altitude and sort of bounced along on the ground, but the cockpit sort of fell off. When it had stopped the engine were still running.

If the missile did detonate ahead of it as the section of the nosecone implies the aerodynamic forces plus the stresses of pressurisation probably caused rapid disintegration; the experiments carried out on models of Comets in the 1950s demonstrated violent destruction just from a small structural failure with the fuselage unpeeling like a banana, the massive impact and structural damage from a missile hit is likely to have destroyed it very quickly.

[0a]

Mister V said:

0a said:

Vipers said:

boxst said:

One of the more wacky theories .. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/malaysia-airlines-mh17-r...

(whole airport and goodness knows how many people would have to be in on something like that. Stupid)

That was in the tabloids a couple of days ago, just nuts.

I'm surprised they didn't go all the way and claim that it was a cover up to allow MH370 to reappear...

That's a plot from the second series of Sherlock.

Someone been watching too much TV.

Guardian Article said:

One theory, put forward by James Henry Fetzer of Veterans Today in an interview on Iran’s Press TV, is that Benjamin Netanyahu was behind the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 in March. That plane was then hidden, possibly in Diego Garcia. When the Israeli bombardment of Gaza began, the plane was given new identification numbers and then flown over Ukraine, to be shot down by Ukrainian forces, backed by Nato, which backs Israel, which controls the world and is attempting to undermine Russia, the “last bastion” of the white race against the neocons and Zionists, as former BNP leader Nick Griffin called it in his recent resignation statement.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/22/mh17-five-bizarre-conspiracy-theories-zionist-plots-illuminati-russian-tv

[Vaud]

Running on the BBC and Guardian now:

US intelligence supports theory of rebel 'mistake'

A press conference was held this afternoon by the US office of the director of national intelligence (ODNI), at which select reporters were briefed on US intelligence with regard to MH17, the SA-11 missile system suspected, and rebels’ and Russians’ alleged participation.

Details are expected soon, but a report from the AP has come out saying that “senior US intelligence officials say they have no evidence of direct Russian government involvement” in the downing of MH17.

They say the passenger jet was likely felled by an SA-11 surface-to-air missile fired by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine and that Russia “created the conditions” for the downing by arming the separatists.

They said they didn’t know if any Russians were present at the missile launch, and they wouldn’t say that the missile crew was trained in Russia.

The briefing underlined the theory espoused by most of a senior official at the briefing, and by most analysts since plane first crashed: rebels “most likely shot down the plane by mistake”.

[Stelvio1]

Whether 'by mistake' or not they shot it down.

Appeasement already well oiled and underway by France and Germany - love the way their individual economic needs outweigh the EU partnership. United we fall

[Pistom]

JensenA said:

skwdenyer said:

As regards the distastefulness (as it were) or otherwise of reporting, showing bodies, highlighting personal effects, etc., I, for one, am hugely pleased it has happened.

The Crimean War is credited with turning the public against war, precisely because it was the first to be photographed. What had previously been a noble and heroic endeavour was revealed as the horrible, horrific thing it is. The news reports from, and photographs of, the Crimean War brought down a government.

Since then, regimes around the world have tried hard to shield the public from images of war. Even "embedded" reporters have their footage and reports vetted before transmission.

War has stopped being horrific in the eyes of many, even if it has yet to regain the lustre of heroism.

The coverage of MH17 has been a - horrific, certainly - breath of fresh air. Here is the dividend of war, bared on TV for all to see. This is what a ground-to-air missile does, close-up; this is what the aftermath of destruction looks like. Oh that we could see the same images of Gaza on our nightly news.

My maternal Grandfather fought in Burma during WWII. He fought hand-to-hand against Japanese soldiers, he prevailed when so many didn't, and he came home with a Japanese officer's sword, still showing the blood of those who had not been so fortunate. He didn't pilot a drone or dispatch cruise missiles.

I believe that the press should report more death, more bodies, more blood, more carnage. People should know what war is, what it does, and how far it should be opposed. We should have UN forces on the ground in Eastern Ukraine right now, in my opinion, protecting the crime scene and stamping-out resistance. But we should never shield the public from the truth.

Good post.

+1 although I would rather the reporter wouldn't have opened the bag.

[Pistom]

jeff m2 said:

The amount of western propaganda is staggering.
The showing of dead bodies on news sites is intended to shock and make people angry.
Appears to have worked.

This has almost become an intentional act. ( I doubt whoever pressed the button intended to bring down a civil airliner)

In war st happens, civilians get killed by the thousands and everyone accepts it.
In Iraq British soldiers got killed by US inadvertent action.

Soldiers on the ground be they Ukrainian rebels or Russian it doesn't matter, they were being bombed by Ukrainian planes.
When this happens the first action is to call for support.

To route an airliner over this area is madness. Over a ground war, ok , but where there is aerial action really stupid.

I know there are ex service people on this board, most probably read all the "hate posts" and decided it wasn't worth the agro.

Anyone here like to have bombs dropped on them, tell me you wouldn't radio in for support.

Hi Jeff, I'm sure that we are exposed to lots of propaganda, it is a tool that those in power use but I'm not convinced that on this occasion it is so blatant. Some have resisted posting as it isn't worth the agro.

It is very easy to make judgement with hindsight. History will see this as an unfortunate incident. Avoidable but most accidents are with all the knowledge after the event.

[Beati Dogu]

It's like giving your neighbour's 6 year old son a shotgun to play with and being surprised when he blows the postman's head off.

You might not have meant him to kill said postie as he came innocently down their path, but I'm sure the police and you're neighbour would take a dim view of this little 'accident'.

[XJ Flyer]

Stelvio1 said:

Whether 'by mistake' or not they shot it down.

Appeasement already well oiled and underway by France and Germany - love the way their individual economic needs outweigh the EU partnership. United we fall

Maybe it's that unlike us Germany and to a lesser extent France both know what the 'results' of a policy of aggression in regards to Russia can lead to.The fact is the settlement reached with Russia at the end of WW2 at Yalta and Potsdam,regarding where western Europe's interests end and Russian ones start,showed the difference between appeasement and diplomacy based on objective thinking.Being that Churchill was no appeaser.

Russia has given more than enough ground in that regard since those agreements.It's now time for the west to start giving some in return.

None of which is the same thing as appeasement in saying that Russia isn't and won't always will be a hostile neighbour that we need to be on our guard against.In which case it's the strategic mutually assured destruction option that's the answer to that and which has kept the peace between Russia and 'the West' through the post war decades.Not the pointless and de stabilising idea of the eastward expansion of the EU and NATO.

[XJ Flyer]

Beati Dogu said:

It's like giving your neighbour's 6 year old son a shotgun to play with and being surprised when he blows the postman's head off.

You might not have meant him to kill said postie as he came innocently down their path, but I'm sure the police and you're neighbour would take a dim view of this little 'accident'.

It's more case of what is effectively a serious localised war,involving military aircraft and serious modern anti aircraft weaponry.Between clearly indentifiable 'sides' in a clearly identifiable geographic region with all the implications of that.Which someone has then decided to over fly with civil aircraft with foreseeable inevitable results in the form of mistaken identity.

The resulting propaganda related to that being more a reflection of which 'side' in that 'war' certain governments happen to be on than anything else.