Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?
Discussion
LittleEnus said:
Sorry, that's wrong. It was posted over a month ago on live leak:http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e2a_1402088579
LittleEnus said:
My error Vaud- actually I take comfort from that.
The scattering is not consistent with a mid air explosion though- if it had disintegrated, it would be a larger debris field I would imagine>?
No probs, it's hard to spot given the fact to noise ratio right now.The scattering is not consistent with a mid air explosion though- if it had disintegrated, it would be a larger debris field I would imagine>?
Some said the debris field was about 9 miles long in total (Radio 4 if I recall) - that might indicate an initial partial breakup and then the majority in one place - like Lockerbie?
vonuber said:
XJ Flyer said:
It's all about the point of view of the Russians.
No it really isn't. It's all about what the ukrainian people want, which was generally (before russia started getting a bit 1939) about getting rid of the corrupt government and moving towards closer ties with the West.You can bet your bottom dollar that the estonians for example don't regret one bit joining the eu and nato. It's probably the only thing that has stopped Russia from re-invading them.
What we seem to have now is a generation that's been raised in isolation from what real war means because we have a professional army and that's never lived under the reality of the cold war.In which the slightest wrong decision could be the world as we know it's last.In this case it's the false sense of security provided by the end of the latter which is the problem.That problem being a naive public looking for trouble and who might just find it if they don't have the sense to know when to back off.
KareemK said:
Has anyone seen today's Daily Mail article putting some of the 'guilt' of this onto Germany, France and Italy?
Unbelievable.
It is getting increasingly difficult to read the "articles" on the mail. The comments are equally impossible to comprehend. And of course the headline never matches the actual detail.Unbelievable.
Rocksteadyeddie said:
There's no chance of Ukraine being a part of Nato. The US don't want a war with Russia over a bit of the world that means nothing to one, and a lot to the other.
If that's true it would be the long overdue change in US defence policy that's needed.That together with getting back to a strategy based on deterrents against Russian westward expansion.Not one of containment based on NATO eastward expansion.]
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.
In Latin America the press doesn't hold back from showing horrific aftermath pictures of say road traffic accidents and drug gang assassinations. Has road traffic safety improved? No. Are drug gang members still cutting each others heads off? Yes. 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.
PoleDriver said:
jack01825 said:
BBC news is now saying that 2 ukrainian fighter have been shot down on the russian borders by sepratists
Linky?Edited by PoleDriver on Wednesday 23 July 13:25
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine-abroad/reu...
Two Su-25s.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/23/mh17-...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/23/mh17-...
graun/AFP said:
"Two Sukhoi Ukrainian fighter jets have been shot down. The fate of the pilots is not known," spokesman Oleksiy Dmytrashkivsky said, adding the planes were brought down some 25 kilometres (16 miles) from the crash site of MH17.
But a second military spokesman said the jets had been downed at a different location by rockets fired by insurgents. The two pilots managed to parachute out, he said.
"Today in the south of the Lugansk region close to the village of Dmytrivka, pro-Russian fighters shot two Su-25 jets from a missile system," spokesman Vladislav Seleznev said.
"The pilots took evasive action ... but the planes were hit," he said.
But a second military spokesman said the jets had been downed at a different location by rockets fired by insurgents. The two pilots managed to parachute out, he said.
"Today in the south of the Lugansk region close to the village of Dmytrivka, pro-Russian fighters shot two Su-25 jets from a missile system," spokesman Vladislav Seleznev said.
"The pilots took evasive action ... but the planes were hit," he said.
Edited by trashbat on Wednesday 23 July 13:54
trashbat said:
Two Su-35s.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/23/mh17-...
You say SU-35s (which are fighters)http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/23/mh17-...
graun/AFP said:
"Two Sukhoi Ukrainian fighter jets have been shot down. The fate of the pilots is not known," spokesman Oleksiy Dmytrashkivsky said, adding the planes were brought down some 25 kilometres (16 miles) from the crash site of MH17.
But a second military spokesman said the jets had been downed at a different location by rockets fired by insurgents. The two pilots managed to parachute out, he said.
"Today in the south of the Lugansk region close to the village of Dmytrivka, pro-Russian fighters shot two Su-25 jets from a missile system," spokesman Vladislav Seleznev said.
"The pilots took evasive action ... but the planes were hit," he said.
But a second military spokesman said the jets had been downed at a different location by rockets fired by insurgents. The two pilots managed to parachute out, he said.
"Today in the south of the Lugansk region close to the village of Dmytrivka, pro-Russian fighters shot two Su-25 jets from a missile system," spokesman Vladislav Seleznev said.
"The pilots took evasive action ... but the planes were hit," he said.
The article seems to be saying SU-25s (which are not fighters - but bombers)
If they really are SU-25s, then the likelihood is that they were at relatively low level (under 10,000 feet) and vulnerable to shoulder mounted missiles.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff