Kiev

[Bijou Bob]

Well here's my guess - not Russians, not Ukrainians, not even a missile.

Well, I've no idea who's responsible, but the 'missile' question's one that bothers me. Let's have a look at this - we're talking about a missile hitting a dot in the sky some 33,000 feet away, that's 10 KM away, that's around 6 and a 1/2 miles away. That's some fecking missile.

Twenty years ago, the US were using the F 14 Tomcat as a ship borne weapons platform. Even then, it had the capability to take on six separate targets 100 km away. The onboard computer probably had less processing power than the phone you're using. One aircraft, even at that height is nothing to weapon systems today

[Bruce Rioja]

Apparently the Russians are "offering", though one commentator suggested they were "insisting" that their crash experts go in to begin the investigation.


"Of course Igor and mind you tell us what you find. Promise to be truthful now won't you ? Cross your heart and hope to die !"

Looks like the rebels might well have already been 'at it'.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07 ... 1405666712" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bruce Rioja]

Twenty years ago, the US were using the F 14 Tomcat as a ship borne weapons platform. Even then, it had the capability to take on six separate targets 100 km away. The onboard computer probably had less processing power than the phone you're using. One aircraft, even at that height is nothing to weapon systems today

Keep in mind Bruce the Russians had systems designed to shoot stuff down a lot higher than that, Gary Powers, U2, 70,000ft and that was in the 60's.
Interestingly the first 2 U2 flights were carried out by RAF personnel so the Yanks could deny any liability if they got caught.

Then the world is a scarier place, and mankind a more despicable bastard than I've ever given either credit for.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Fckin'ell - they don't piss about on the news in Russia. When the Beeb says "some viewers may find the following scenes disturbing" they might benefit from a course on how foreigners edit it...

EDIT: Some TW viewers might find the following footage disturbing, others may well wonder why we are nanny-stated away from such footage in this country.

[Bruce Rioja]

I reached 44 seconds. Good God.

[Prufrock]

Well here's my guess - not Russians, not Ukrainians, not even a missile.

Well, I've no idea who's responsible, but the 'missile' question's one that bothers me. Let's have a look at this - we're talking about a missile hitting a dot in the sky some 33,000 feet away, that's 10 KM away, that's around 6 and a 1/2 miles away. That's some fecking missile.

Keep in mind Bruce the Russians had systems designed to shoot stuff down a lot higher than that, Gary Powers, U2, 70,000ft and that was in the 60's.
Interestingly the first 2 U2 flights were carried out by RAF personnel so the Yanks could deny any liability if they got caught.

Regardless of who fired the missile, this is ultimately a corporate crime. What the HELL were they thinking when they decided to fly passenger jets over a WAR ZONE where all sorts of military aircraft have been recently shot down? What, are they going to say that they had to economize on route choices to stay profitable?? I swear, they would kill us all today for a nickel tomorrow.

Actually they reckon the rebels took this system from the Ukrainians at the start of the unrest.
What is and should be more worrying to us is,
Just what the hell have the Islamist extremists picked up what the Yanks have been loading into the Mid East?

I think the use of the word 'ultimately' is hyperbole in the extreme, but this is a good point I hadn't considered yesterday. What on earth were they thinking?!

[KeyserSoze]

Well here's my guess - not Russians, not Ukrainians, not even a missile.

Well, I've no idea who's responsible, but the 'missile' question's one that bothers me. Let's have a look at this - we're talking about a missile hitting a dot in the sky some 33,000 feet away, that's 10 KM away, that's around 6 and a 1/2 miles away. That's some fecking missile.

Keep in mind Bruce the Russians had systems designed to shoot stuff down a lot higher than that, Gary Powers, U2, 70,000ft and that was in the 60's.
Interestingly the first 2 U2 flights were carried out by RAF personnel so the Yanks could deny any liability if they got caught.

Regardless of who fired the missile, this is ultimately a corporate crime. What the HELL were they thinking when they decided to fly passenger jets over a WAR ZONE where all sorts of military aircraft have been recently shot down? What, are they going to say that they had to economize on route choices to stay profitable?? I swear, they would kill us all today for a nickel tomorrow.

Actually they reckon the rebels took this system from the Ukrainians at the start of the unrest.
What is and should be more worrying to us is,
Just what the hell have the Islamist extremists picked up what the Yanks have been loading into the Mid East?

I think the use of the word 'ultimately' is hyperbole in the extreme, but this is a good point I hadn't considered yesterday. What on earth were they thinking?!

It's a regularly used route with planes flying way above restricted airspace. And they probably thought no one would be f*cking stupid enough to shoot down an international passenger jet. Though I do wonder what precedent there is (in terms of flying over known fighty territory).

All seems to point to some rabble having access to weapons they do not understand.

Audio released by Ukraine of, they say, rebel fighters admitting they shot plane down. Obviousyl the source has its motives, but still https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/24491 ... ked-audio/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Prufrock]

Ah the 'everyone else was doing it' argument. It didn't wash for the owners of the Herald of Free Enterprise and it doesn't wash here. There have been military planes shot down in the area. Regardless of whether they *thought* no-one would be stupid enough to shoot down a passenger plane that's an unconscionable decision to make in order to save money on fuel or whatever else.

[KeyserSoze]

I'm not defending them, I'm just saying that's the argument.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... d=11295734" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bobo the clown]

Ah the 'everyone else was doing it' argument. It didn't wash for the owners of the Herald of Free Enterprise and it doesn't wash here. There have been military planes shot down in the area. Regardless of whether they *thought* no-one would be stupid enough to shoot down a passenger plane that's an unconscionable decision to make in order to save money on fuel or whatever else.

Despite what was happening 33,000 feet below that was open air space and they had an approved flight path. Let's not confuse matters by looking for secondary culprits. The people who did this are solely and completely the ones to blame.

[Prufrock]

I'm not defending them, I'm just saying that's the argument.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... d=11295734" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yup, and I'm saying it's a shit one!

[Prufrock]

Ah the 'everyone else was doing it' argument. It didn't wash for the owners of the Herald of Free Enterprise and it doesn't wash here. There have been military planes shot down in the area. Regardless of whether they *thought* no-one would be stupid enough to shoot down a passenger plane that's an unconscionable decision to make in order to save money on fuel or whatever else.

Despite what was happening 33,000 feet below that was open air space and they had an approved flight path. Let's not confuse matters by looking for secondary culprits. The people who did this are solely and completely the ones to blame.

As I said, I thought the use of 'ultimately' in that quote Hoboh put up was massively OTT. Ultimately responsibility lies with those who shot it down, but that doesn't mean everybody else is guiltless.

I'm sorry, but if you have a plane load of passengers, you don't fly it over a zone where any plane has been shot down. Now it turns out everyone has been doing it. That doesn't absolve Malaysia Airlines of blame anymore than the fact everyone used to set off with the ferry doors open absolved P&O.

[bobo the clown]

Ah the 'everyone else was doing it' argument. It didn't wash for the owners of the Herald of Free Enterprise and it doesn't wash here. There have been military planes shot down in the area. Regardless of whether they *thought* no-one would be stupid enough to shoot down a passenger plane that's an unconscionable decision to make in order to save money on fuel or whatever else.

Despite what was happening 33,000 feet below that was open air space and they had an approved flight path. Let's not confuse matters by looking for secondary culprits. The people who did this are solely and completely the ones to blame.

As I said, I thought the use of 'ultimately' in that quote Hoboh put up was massively OTT. Ultimately responsibility lies with those who shot it down, but that doesn't mean everybody else is guiltless.

I'm sorry, but if you have a plane load of passengers, you don't fly it over a zone where any plane has been shot down. Now it turns out everyone has been doing it. That doesn't absolve Malaysia Airlines of blame anymore than the fact everyone used to set off with the ferry doors open absolved P&O.

Failing to focus the blame on those who ARE to blame and flailing around to find others with more marginal input is the way of madness .... or ambulance chasing.

Every time responsibility is spread their culpability it is watered down.

The people who did this are the ones who supplied, mobilised and fired the missile at an aeroplane using AN APPROVED FLIGHT PATH.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Ah the 'everyone else was doing it' argument. It didn't wash for the owners of the Herald of Free Enterprise and it doesn't wash here. There have been military planes shot down in the area. Regardless of whether they *thought* no-one would be stupid enough to shoot down a passenger plane that's an unconscionable decision to make in order to save money on fuel or whatever else.

Despite what was happening 33,000 feet below that was open air space and they had an approved flight path. Let's not confuse matters by looking for secondary culprits. The people who did this are solely and completely the ones to blame.

As I said, I thought the use of 'ultimately' in that quote Hoboh put up was massively OTT. Ultimately responsibility lies with those who shot it down, but that doesn't mean everybody else is guiltless.

I'm sorry, but if you have a plane load of passengers, you don't fly it over a zone where any plane has been shot down. Now it turns out everyone has been doing it. That doesn't absolve Malaysia Airlines of blame anymore than the fact everyone used to set off with the ferry doors open absolved P&O.

If you were to use that argument there would be virtually no planes flown from west to east and vice versa.
here is a list of countries where planes have been shot down
Japan
North Korea
South korea
Russia
China
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Iran
Libya
Syria
Iraq
Armenia
Georgia
Somalia
Sudan
Serbia
Croatia
Bosnia-Herzegovina
FYR of Macedonia
Dubai
Israel
Lebanon

now try flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpar avoiding that lot

[Prufrock]

That's meaningless verbosity. Watered down culpability? What does that even mean? The reason we're not talking about the people who fired it is because it's indisputable that they carry they heaviest burden of guilt possible. To shoot down a passenger plane full of innocents puts them in a category with the Lockerbie bombers and those behind 9/11. It's a horrendous act and one which cannot be watered down. I really don't think there's a lot else to say there. It's unarguable. Nevertheless, I find it sad if when faced with two concepts, that the people who fired this missile are 100% guilty regardless for their crime; and, that there might also be some blame attached elsewhere for the circumstances that led to the shooters having the opportunity to shoot, that we can't hold them in our heads together at the same time.

It doesn't mean other people can't also be want wanting in their actions. It was still valid, post 9/11, to say 'what the feck were you thinking allowing people on planes with knives?' without taking any blame away from the hijackers. Sure, people don't think these things are going to happen, of course they don't, no-one is saying they expected the plane to be shot down, but it is their job to think they might. If you run a passenger airline, your number 1 responsibility is the safety of your passengers. Thinking that it *probably won't* get shot down does not cut it. They weren't flying over Cyprus when it suddenly turned out there was a nutter with an anti-aircraft gun. They were flying over a war-zone. A war-zone in which there are separatist groups who we know have access to military hardware, and in which we know they've used it to fire missiles into the air targeting aircraft. All of this in the last week.

If you're in charge of the decision over the flight path, and you have the option to save a few quid by flying over that war-zone then you have to be 100% sure there is no risk at all. Not, 'there is no evidence to suggest they might shoot it', but 'we know they wont'. Otherwise, with hundreds of lives at stake, you suck it up and pay the extra money.

[Prufrock]

Ah the 'everyone else was doing it' argument. It didn't wash for the owners of the Herald of Free Enterprise and it doesn't wash here. There have been military planes shot down in the area. Regardless of whether they *thought* no-one would be stupid enough to shoot down a passenger plane that's an unconscionable decision to make in order to save money on fuel or whatever else.

Despite what was happening 33,000 feet below that was open air space and they had an approved flight path. Let's not confuse matters by looking for secondary culprits. The people who did this are solely and completely the ones to blame.

As I said, I thought the use of 'ultimately' in that quote Hoboh put up was massively OTT. Ultimately responsibility lies with those who shot it down, but that doesn't mean everybody else is guiltless.

I'm sorry, but if you have a plane load of passengers, you don't fly it over a zone where any plane has been shot down. Now it turns out everyone has been doing it. That doesn't absolve Malaysia Airlines of blame anymore than the fact everyone used to set off with the ferry doors open absolved P&O.

If you were to use that argument there would be virtually no planes flown from west to east and vice versa.
here is a list of countries where planes have been shot down
Japan
North Korea
South korea
Russia
China
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Iran
Libya
Syria
Iraq
Armenia
Georgia
Somalia
Sudan
Serbia
Croatia
Bosnia-Herzegovina
FYR of Macedonia
Dubai
Israel
Lebanon

now try flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpar avoiding that lot

How many of them have had planes shot down in the last week? Or by people who you know are still out there with with military grade equipment?

[BWFC_Insane]

That's meaningless verbosity. Watered down culpability? What does that even mean? The reason we're not talking about the people who fired it is because it's indisputable that they carry they heaviest burden of guilt possible. To shoot down a passenger plane full of innocents puts them in a category with the Lockerbie bombers and those behind 9/11. It's a horrendous act and one which cannot be watered down.

That doesn't mean other people can't also be want wanting in their actions. It was still valid, post 9/11, to say 'what the feck were you thinking allowing people on planes with knives?' Sure, people don't think these things are going to happen, of course they don't, no-one is saying they expected the plane to be shot down, but it is their job to think they might. If you run a passenger airline, your number 1 responsibility is the safety of your passengers. Thinking that it *probably won't* get shot down does not cut it. They weren't flying over Cyprus when it suddenly turned out there was a nutter with an anti-aircraft gun. They were flying over a war-zone. A war-zone in which there are separatist groups who we know have access to military hardware, and in which we know they've used it to fire missiles into the air targeting aircraft.

If you're in charge of the decision over the flight path, and you have the option to save a few quid by flying over that war-zone then you have to be 100% sure there is no risk at all. Not, 'there is no evidence to suggest they might shoot it', but 'we know they wont'. Otherwise, with hundreds of lives at stake, you suck it up and pay the extra money.

I find it terribly sad if when faced with two concepts, that the people who fired this missile are 100% guilty regardless; and, that there might also be some blame attached elsewhere, that we can't hold them in our heads together at the same time.

Pru, you can't do anything with no risk at all. Not a thing.

I know what you're saying but then I'm sure thousands of planes fly over warzones every day. All of that has some risk attached. As would re-routing flight paths to avoid them.

I don't think there is a right answer.....

[KeyserSoze]

As an aside, who would plan the flight path? Pilot or company/ATC?

[Prufrock]

That's meaningless verbosity. Watered down culpability? What does that even mean? The reason we're not talking about the people who fired it is because it's indisputable that they carry they heaviest burden of guilt possible. To shoot down a passenger plane full of innocents puts them in a category with the Lockerbie bombers and those behind 9/11. It's a horrendous act and one which cannot be watered down.

That doesn't mean other people can't also be want wanting in their actions. It was still valid, post 9/11, to say 'what the feck were you thinking allowing people on planes with knives?' Sure, people don't think these things are going to happen, of course they don't, no-one is saying they expected the plane to be shot down, but it is their job to think they might. If you run a passenger airline, your number 1 responsibility is the safety of your passengers. Thinking that it *probably won't* get shot down does not cut it. They weren't flying over Cyprus when it suddenly turned out there was a nutter with an anti-aircraft gun. They were flying over a war-zone. A war-zone in which there are separatist groups who we know have access to military hardware, and in which we know they've used it to fire missiles into the air targeting aircraft.

If you're in charge of the decision over the flight path, and you have the option to save a few quid by flying over that war-zone then you have to be 100% sure there is no risk at all. Not, 'there is no evidence to suggest they might shoot it', but 'we know they wont'. Otherwise, with hundreds of lives at stake, you suck it up and pay the extra money.

I find it terribly sad if when faced with two concepts, that the people who fired this missile are 100% guilty regardless; and, that there might also be some blame attached elsewhere, that we can't hold them in our heads together at the same time.

Pru, you can't do anything with no risk at all. Not a thing.

I know what you're saying but then I'm sure thousands of planes fly over warzones every day. All of that has some risk attached. As would re-routing flight paths to avoid them.

I don't think there is a right answer.....

We're not talking 'no risk'. Jesus. They shot down a plane on Wednesday night! We're not talking some Somalian pirates with AK47s, they have tanks, and military equipment, and shot down a fighter pilot hours before. The (I think) third one this week!

[bobo the clown]

That's meaningless verbosity. Watered down culpability? What does that even mean?

What it fckg means is that the people who fired the fckg thing are the ones responsible for what happened and hand-wringing, finger pointing complicators are giving them excuses and watering down their responsibility by saying other people are to blame as well.

It was an approved flight path. Do you need me to explain what that even means ?