Ukraine warming up

[Zod]

So, scherzeks, who shot down MH17?

The US or Ukraine - something obvious to anyone who understands unipolar theory?

Russia or separatists - something obvious (and justifiable) to anyone who understands unipolar theory?

[Nikolai Petroff]

scherzkeks said:

Yes, we know this.

Well, you never hear about dark skinned visitors advised to stay indoors on certain dates in Ukraine and I haven't heard about any racially motivated murders there. Plenty in Russia though.

[hidetheelephants]

Octoposse said:

I'd add that it's not obfuscation, just a logical way of refuting the Russia is uniquely dangerouus, an imperial power, yadiya . . . cannot be engaged with, must be confronted, deploy those jets, get those troops forward . . . chain of argument.

In fact Moscow is rational and predictable, and - IMHO - to fall out with a power with whom we have no strategic conflict of interest at such a time of international turmoil and uncertainty is folly of the nth degree.

What's rational about invading a neighbouring state, kidnapping a government official and putting him through a show trial with transparently trumped up charges? The EU pulls some crazy st(OLAF particularly) but they've never come close to rivalling Putin's level of nuttiness.

[Mojocvh]

Zod said:

So, scherzeks, who shot down MH17?

The US or Ukraine - something obvious to anyone who understands unipolar theory?

Russia or separatists - something obvious (and justifiable) to anyone who understands unipolar theory?

I hope your sitting comfortably...

[Esseesse]

Prince Philip said:

Let's face it, this is a US/EU land grab and nothing more.

German land grab. Similar scenario in Ukraine at the beginning of the last century.

[scherzkeks]

Zod said:

So, scherzeks, who shot down MH17?

The US or Ukraine - something obvious to anyone who understands unipolar theory?

Russia or separatists - something obvious (and justifiable) to anyone who understands unipolar theory?

Don't know. Could be either, though only one clearly has any logical motive. The other, of course, has everything to lose.

Perhaps the expert citizen bloggers at Bellingcat will throw some more st at the wall and see if anything sticks. They did have Jen Psaki citing their "social media" evidence at State Dept. pressers after all.

[skyrover]

Could be either?

Explain how please

[Zod]

scherzkeks said:

Zod said:

So, scherzeks, who shot down MH17?

The US or Ukraine - something obvious to anyone who understands unipolar theory?

Russia or separatists - something obvious (and justifiable) to anyone who understands unipolar theory?

Don't know. Could be either, though only one clearly has any logical motive. The other, of course, has everything to lose.

Perhaps the expert citizen bloggers at Bellingcat will throw some more st at the wall and see if anything sticks. They did have Jen Psaki citing their "social media" evidence at State Dept. pressers after all.

Why don't you have the courage of your convictions and say, rather than hint that you think it was the Ukraine government, backed by the Americans?

[scherzkeks]

Zod said:

hy don't you have the courage of your convictions and say, rather than hint that you think it was the Ukraine government, backed by the Americans?

Because that isn't what I think.

Here's something rather amusing related to our exchange earlier.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/12/head-stratf...

What's a hegemon, Zod?

[Zod]

scherzkeks said:

Because that isn't what I think.

Here's something rather amusing related to our exchange earlier.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/12/head-stratf...

What's a hegemon, Zod?

too cowardly to say what you think and, as for that link you do realise started out with 911 "truther" crap, don't you? Are you one off those too?

Edited by Zod on Thursday 27th August 22:09

[Nikolai Petroff]

scherzkeks said:

Don't know. Could be either, though only one clearly has any logical motive. The other, of course, has everything to lose.

Perhaps the expert citizen bloggers at Bellingcat will throw some more st at the wall and see if anything sticks. They did have Jen Psaki citing their "social media" evidence at State Dept. pressers after all.

You do realize that the rebels admitted shooting down the plane. They only began to deny it and take down the gloating messages on social media once they realized it was a civvie plane?

[scherzkeks]

Zod said:

as for that link you do realise started out with 911 "truther" crap, don't you?

Edited by Zod on Thursday 27th August 22:09

Post that part of the article for me. Thanks.

Also, bonus points if you manage to answer the previous questions and walk away with your trousers up.

[skyrover]

scherzkeks said:

Also, bonus points if you manage to answer the previous questions and walk away with your trousers up.

still waiting for you to tell us why you think it could have been the Ukrainians who shot down MH17

[scherzkeks]

Nikolai Petroff said:

You do realize that the rebels admitted shooting down the plane. They only began to deny it and take down the gloating messages on social media once they realized it was a civvie plane?

Well then clearly there is no need for the ongoing investigation.

[Zod]

scherzkeks said:

Zod said:

as for that link you do realise started out with 911 "truther" crap, don't you?

Edited by Zod on Thursday 27th August 22:09

Post that part of the article for me. Thanks.

Also, bonus points if you manage to answer the previous questions and walk away with your trousers up.

Did I say it was in that article? Do you think your "debating" style impresses anyone? You haven't even posed any questions.

Who shot down the plane, by the way?

[Nikolai Petroff]

scherzkeks said:

Well then clearly there is no need for the ongoing investigation.

Well, there is since... ahem... the rebels began to deny it.

Another proof that Russian backed rebels did it and Russia knows it is the amount of clearly fake theories Russia immediately began to throw out. Each contradicting the next one. First it was Ukrainians thinking they were shooting down Putin's plane. Then conspiracy minded idiots among the rebels began to claim there was no plane at all, it was a set up and that the bodies "were not fresh" (their wording), then it was the SU25 including "witnesses" and "turncoats" who "swore under oath" that they saw a SU25 come back without AA missiles or heard the pilot admit he shot it down. Then we had badly doctored "satellite" pics of a SU27 OR a MIG29 firing at the Boeing. Finally the maker of the BUK Almaz-Antei comes out and says it was definitely a BUK but of the Type Ukrainians use. Etc...

[scherzkeks]

Zod said:

Did I say it was in that article?

Yes.

Zod said:

Who shot down the plane, by the way?

I don't know. Why don't you tell us? Be sure to provide proof.

[scherzkeks]

Nikolai Petroff said:

Well, there is since... ahem... the rebels began to deny it.

More soft-serve. You claim they admitted it in an authentic recording. That is your proof.

Yet the investigation continues. Funny that.

[Zod]

scherzkeks said:

Zod said:

Did I say it was in that article?

Yes.

No, the blog started out as a 911 truther blog.

scherzkeks said:

Zod said:

Who shot down the plane, by the way?

I don't know. Why don't you tell us? Be sure to provide proof.

We asked you. You are the one who studied unipolar theory (you know what a theory is, I presume) and who claims to speak with authority on issue in Ukraine.

[scherzkeks]

Zod said:

e asked you. You are the one who studied unipolar theory (you know what a theory is, I presume) and who claims to speak with authority on issue in Ukraine.

In other words, you also don't know who shot it down. And you have no proof of anything.

Thanks.