Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 - Do you beleive the "official cover story"?

Not according to WTF. He said anyone of thousands of pilots could have made that landing. Originally Posted by gnadfly

To bad Captain Scully wasn't piloting this aircraft....he and only he could have landed this plane safely.

gnadfly you still haven't answered wtf we should do about this plane being shot down. Are you and LL advocating war with Russia or maybe advocating telling commercial airliners to stay the fuck away from a war zone?

The Russians can "say that" ...

.... they can say anything, including it was Bush's fault.

What then? It depends on who's responding to them. But the Iranian airliner incident is apples and oranges ... and the Malaysian airliner was at 33,000 feet and there is NO EVIDENCE reported that it vectoring in other than a straight line across Ukraine about very close to being out of Ukranian airspace .... not the case with the Iranian airliner, which was changing courses and was on a heading toward the Vincennes ... there was also evidence that the Vincennes attempted to communicate verbally with the aircraft on various frequencies and transmitted warnings.

BTW: There were indications the airliner was intentionally flown in the manner in which it did to "attract" attention and to appear to be a threat, if it were not going to be used as a weapon itself.... it was a lose-lose for the Vincennes.

Finally, the U.S. admitted involvement and damages were paid. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Frankly, I'm not seeing huge differences between the two situations. Both incidents were horrific accidents that the perpetrator would take back in an instant if they could.

If you read the Vincennes article, the Aegis radar data contradicted what the Navy crew said. The Iranian flight was climbing in altitude, NOT descending, and they were communicating in Mode III for civilian aircraft, not Mode II for military aircraft.

Basically, the US crew tried to lie to cover their ass. The rest is all smoke.

Read my post below in response to JD.

I imagine the US simply refused to admit to the fuck up - despite paying damages - because it was too galling to apologize to those hostage taking scumbags. In that regard I don't blame us. They never apologized for grabbing hostages and actually celebrate it.

But exactly what are you insinuating about the Russians? That they deliberately shot down a civilian Malaysian air liner? Why? What did Malaysia ever do to deserve that?

The Vincennes shoot down was completely different. You had a plane that was squawking a code identifying it as a Iranian fighter jet that suddenly dropped down from a cruising height to a much lower altitude. It began what looked like an attack run before it was verbally warned off by the Vincennes. At a point after a plane could have fired weapons the Vincennes shot it down. The US air craft were first on the scene and videotaped bodies in the water. Naked bodies, naked white bodies of people that looke like they were already dead. The Iranians warned the US forces away from the scene and the US complied. The Iranians NEVER published a list of the dead of a plane that was supposed to be on an international flight. There is a difference. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

More conspiracy theory bullshit. How desperate are you to avoid blame? We fucked up. That's all there is to it.

Read this part of the article CLOSELY. This is the US government's OWN report:

--------------------------------
According to the U.S. government, the Vincennes mistakenly identified the Iranian airliner as an attacking military fighter. The officers misidentified the flight profile being flown by the Airbus A300B2 as being similar to that of an F-14A Tomcat during an attack run; however, the ship's own Aegis Combat System recorded the flight plan of the Iranian airliner as climbing (not descending as in an attack run) at the time of the incident. The commercial flight had originated at Bandar Abbas, which served dual roles as a base for Iranian F-14 operations and as a hub for commercial, civilian flights. According to the same reports, the Vincennes tried unsuccessfully to contact the approaching aircraft, seven times on the military emergency frequency and three times on the civilian emergency frequency, but never on air traffic control frequencies. This civilian aircraft was not equipped to pick up military frequencies and the messages on the civilian emergency channel could have been directed at any aircraft. More confusion arose as the hailed speed was the ground speed, while the pilot's instruments displayed airspeed, which was 50-knot (93 km/h) different.

At 10:24 am, with the civilian jet 11 nautical miles (20 km) away, the Vincennes fired two SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles, both of which hit Flight 655. After the attack, the Vincennes' crew realized that the plane had been a civilian airliner.

This version was finalized in a report by Admiral William Fogarty, entitled Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988. Only parts of this report have been released (part I in 1988 and part II in 1993). The Fogarty report stated, "The data from USS Vincennes tapes, information from USS Sides and reliable intelligence information, corroborate the fact that [Iran Air Flight 655] was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway, squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in altitude from take-off at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down."

When questioned in a 2000 BBC documentary, the U.S. government stated in a written answer that they believed the incident may have been caused by a simultaneous psychological condition amongst the 18 bridge crew of the Vincennes called 'scenario fulfillment', which is said to occur when persons are under pressure. In such a situation, the men will carry out a training scenario, believing it to be reality while ignoring sensory information that contradicts the scenario. In the case of this incident, the scenario was an attack by a lone military aircraft.

The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of human lives and in 1996 paid reparations to settle a suit brought in the International Court of Justice regarding the incident, but the United States never released an apology or acknowledgment of wrongdoing. George H. W. Bush, the vice president of the United States at the time commented on the incident during a presidential campaign function (2 Aug 1988): "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." Bush used the phrase frequently during the 1988 campaign and promised to "never apologize for the United States" months prior to the July 1988 shootdown and as early as January 1988. Half the legal wrangling as well as the settlement occurred under Clinton, who also refused to apologize for the incident."
-------------------------------------------

Now, JD, do really believe that bullshit that the bodies already looked dead?

It was a government operation and it went badly. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? You are supposed to be a conservative and should not be surprised by government incompetence - even by the military.

To bad Captain Scully wasn't piloting this aircraft....he and only he could have landed this plane safely. Originally Posted by WTF

I don't think it would have helped if Gillian Anderson - Agent Scully - had been on the flight.

But it might have helped if Captain Sully had been on the flight.

To bad Captain Scully wasn't piloting this aircraft....he and only he could have landed this plane safely. Originally Posted by WTF

Did you steal this witless joke from Bigkotex after he buttfucked you or after you sucked him off?

gnadfly you still haven't answered wtf we should do about this plane being shot down. Are you and LL advocating war with Russia or maybe advocating telling commercial airliners to stay the fuck away from a war zone? Originally Posted by WTF

"Personally speaking", I shall refrain from drinking stolichnaya vodka. If Putin has another jetliner shot down, I shall refrain from titty fucking strippers for a year.

Other jetliners shot down (from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...tary-shot-down)

On Thursday, Malaysia Airlines lost contact with Flight MH17, and, according to media reports, it crashed in Ukraine's embattled Donetsk region. The flight was carrying 295 passengers and crew and heading from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. An unconfirmed report from Interfax says MH17 was shot down.

Anton Gerashenko, an adviser to Ukraine's minister of the interior, wrote on his Facebook page that the plane was hit by a missile fired from a Buk missile system, according to the AP. But there was no immediate confirmation. A defense official with the Ukrainian separatists denied that the rebels were involved in downing the plane.

Passenger jets have been shot down in the past. Below is a list of five previous episodes.



Siberian Airlines Flight SB 1812
October 4, 2001
78 Dead
Shot down by Ukraine


A Tupolev Tu-154, the type of plane flown on Flight SB 1812 Wikimedia
Siberian Airlines Flight SB 1812, flying from Tel Aviv over the Black Sea, was shot down by a missile, killing all 78 people on board. Yevhen Marchuk, the head of the Ukrainian Security Council, acknowledged that a missile shot down the plane. "The reason for the crash could be an unintentional hit by an S-200 missile during the Ukrainian air defense exercises," he said.



Iran Air Flight 655
July 3, 1988
290 Dead
Shot down by the United States

Iranian protest
Iranians demonstrate against the US at a mass protest for Flight 655 victims. Canadian Press/AP
Iran Air Flight 655, flying over the Persian Gulf and bound for Dubai, was shot down by an American naval warship, killing all 290 people on board. According to Navy officials, the ship, which had been exchanging fire with Iranian vessels, fired missiles at the plane because the crew mistook it for a F-14 fighter jet. The government in Tehran didn't see the shooting as an accident, and the incident caused political ramifications that resonate to this day.



Korean Air Lines Flight 007
September 1, 1983
269 Dead
Shot down by the Soviet Union


Family of a Flight 007 passenger break down as South Korea confirms the crash. Kim Chon-Kil/AP
Headed from New York to Seoul, KAL Flight 007 was shot down by the Soviet Union near Moneron Island. After leaving Anchorage to make the last leg of its journey, the plane drifted slightly off course and edged into Soviet airspace. The Boeing 747 didn’t look too different on radar from the RC-135s that the US government used for surveillance in the area, prompting the Russians to scramble a fighter jet that fired two missiles at Flight 007, killing all 269 passengers and crew members onboard. Afterward, the Soviets claimed that the flight was on a spying mission for the United States. Soviet leader Yuri Andropov called the flight a "sophisticated provocation masterminded by the US special services with the use of a South Korean plane." Lt. Colonel Gennadi Osipovich, the Soviet pilot who fired the missiles that brought down the plane, continued to insist long after the incident that "it was a spy plane." But when the Cold War ended the Russians recanted, with Russian leader Boris Yeltsin turning over flight data and recordings to the president of South Korea.



Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870
June 27, 1980
80 Dead
Shot down by an unidentified warplane


The reassembled Itavia plane displayed at the Museum for the Memory of Ustica. Luca Ghedini/Wikimedia
Itavia Flight 870 was flying from Bologna, Italy, to Palermo, Sicily, when it crashed, killing 80 people on board. In 2013, Italy's highest court "implicitly acknowledged the most widely accepted theory behind the crash: that a missile fired by a warplane" hit the aircraft, the New York Times reported. But Italian officials did not confirm where the warplane came from.



Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114
February 21, 1973
108 Dead
Shot down by Israel

Libyan Arab Airlines Boeing 727
The Libyan Arab Airlines plane that would later be shot down by Israel. Piergiuliano Chesi/Wikimedia
The aircraft was shot down by Israel after instrument failure and bad weather caused the flight to veer off course. The Boeing 727 departed from Tripoli, Libya, and was on its way to Cairo, Eygpt. But after a short stop in Benghazi, it ran into a sandstorm and headed into the Sinai desert, controlled by the Israeli government after the Six Day War. The Israeli Defense Forces, on alert due to regional tensions that would soon cause the Yom Kippur War, sent two Phantom fighter jets after the Libyan flight. When the plane did not follow commands, the Israeli jets fired on the aircraft. It crashed in an emergency landing that killed 108 of the 113 passengers.

Frankly, I'm not seeing huge differences between the two situations.... Originally Posted by ExNYer

As for the specific fact situation with regard to the Ukraine incident it may modify or qualify the damage issues, but in commercial aircraft "crashes" the admission of liability for the "crash" limits damages, which was the case with the Iranian airliner .. and "admission of liability" can and will include a stipulation as to sufficient facts to satisfy the basic liability requirement.

In the Ukrainian incident there is no "individual" or "entity" (government or otherwise) against whom damages may be recovered so it is not "beneficial" for there to be any admission of responsibility, so long as the "responsibility" is not shifted to any individual or entity who or which may answer in damages.... and it is in the best interests of both the Russians and the current administration to lay blame on "outlaw" rebels ....

... in the latter instance ..

... kinda like blaming a movie and arresting the movie maker!

In the first instance, an obligatory phone call and condolences appeases those who wish no "issue" with the Russians. The lives and families of those who perished are "pawns" in the "shuffle."

In the Iranian incident it was expedient to admit responsibility to limit damages. In the Ukranian incident to avoid the "necessity" of a serious and justified response.

Lies are lies, whether they be told to avoid war or justify it.

As for the Russians shooting down the airliner, they could have been acting on the intelligence provided by the rebels, which might explain the expletive laden telephone calls intercepted and now being published in the media. At this point it is speculation, as far as I am concerned, with this proviso ... early reporting from "reliable" senior intelligence sources dismissed a rebel launch with an 11 from Ukranian soil.... but were "verifying" the information.

The dismissal was based on lack of training and ability to accomplish such a task on their own, imaging based on gps location, and imaging based on the "foot print" of the launched missile.

This is the US government's OWN report: Originally Posted by ExNYer

Why is it some tout some U.S. gov reports and not others?

Does it depend on what side of the discussion one is on?

I am not advancing any "conspiracy theory" ... just not "assuming."

There is a difference between those two, also.

Why is it some tout some U.S. gov reports and not others?

Does it depend on what side of the discussion one is on?

I am not advancing any "conspiracy theory" ... just not "assuming."

There is a difference between those two, also. Originally Posted by LexusLover

So what are the "other reports"?

And, how do you NOT give credibility to someone ADMITTING fault?

I can see if the US denied any responsibility and blamed the Iranians for flying the jet in a hostile manner. THEN you might listen to some other reports that refute the US cover story.

But here there is no "cover story" where the US denies responsibility. We admitted we fucked up, expressed regret about the deaths, and paid damages. But we still refused to apologize to the iranian government, probably because we never got an apology over the hostage crisis.

In the Iranian incident it was expedient to admit responsibility to limit damages. In the Ukranian incident to avoid the "necessity" of a serious and justified response.

Lies are lies, whether they be told to avoid war or justify it. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Seriously? War? A serious and justified response?

BY whom and AGAINST whom?

The US doesn't have any skin in this game. The rebels and/or the Russians did not shoot down a Us airliner. The US lost one citizen in an act of recklessness. We aren't going to go to war over that. We didn't go to war over the "Blackhawk Down" incident or the Lockerbie bombing, which killed a LOT more US citizens.

Malayasia? The Netherlands? Which of them is going to make a serious and justified response against Russia?

NO ONE is going to start a war over this. The Ukrainians are already engaged in a civil war and this plane was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got shot down by incompetents - whether Russian Army or Russian backed rebels.

And, how do you NOT give credibility to someone ADMITTING fault? Originally Posted by ExNYer

On a regular basis, probably daily during "business days," in this country people "admit fault" to limit their "damages" (sometimes ... reduced the number of years in prison) ..... as a legal matter in commercial airline crash cases that is the standard .... admit liability and limit damage exposure.

I think I mentioned that before......

".... in commercial aircraft "crashes" the admission of liability for the "crash" limits damages, which was the case with the Iranian airliner .. and "admission of liability" can and will include a stipulation as to sufficient facts to satisfy the basic liability requirement."

Expediency of settling litigation "fast for less money" is a strong motivation.

On a regular basis, probably daily during "business days," in this country people "admit fault" to limit their "damages" (sometimes ... reduced the number of years in prison) ..... as a legal matter in commercial airline crash cases that is the standard .... admit liability and limit damage exposure.

I think I mentioned that before......

".... in commercial aircraft "crashes" the admission of liability for the "crash" limits damages, which was the case with the Iranian airliner .. and "admission of liability" can and will include a stipulation as to sufficient facts to satisfy the basic liability requirement."

Expediency of settling litigation "fast for less money" is a strong motivation. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Pepole going to prison might cop to something they did not do or are not responsible for.

But the US government isn't going to go to prison.

And the Vincennes was under attack by Iranian gunboats. so the US had good grounds for saying it was at least partially Iran's fault.

And I don't think that conventional commercial aviation liability laws - as they apply to AIRLINES - really have any control in an international incident that occurs during a combat situation.

But even if those laws did apply and even if you admit fault (and limit your damages), you can just be SILENT after that.

There is NO NEED to release a report YEARS later that essentially says the US crew membrs lied and the Aegis radar backed up the Iranian version.

So, again, what other reports are there about the Iranian Flight 655 that we need to listen to?

Is there some report that shows the US was NOT at fault - despite its own admission? if so, post a link.

But the US government isn't going to go to prison.

I never said the U.S. would? You made the general statement and I followed with a general answer. People admit liability for a variety of reasons and I stated with regard to the U.S. Government .... limit damage exposure ... Please don't try to change the topic.

Is there some report that shows the US was NOT at fault - despite its own admission? if so, post a link.

Do you really expect me to produce a "link" for something that occurred in 1988? Is their a "link" to prove WHEN AND WHERE you were born? Originally Posted by ExNYer

You were interested, I thought, in waiting for further developments in the earlier Malaysian 777 "crash" .... the reporting was all over the place .... so were the posts ... all I am saying is .... early information pointed to the Russians and away from Ukrainians (either side).

IMO it is in Obaminable's interest not to have a face off with Putin.... besides...

.. he doesn't have the balls for one. So, it's easier to blame the rebels.

Does it come with it's own sophisticated Russian radar/navigation team? Originally Posted by thathottnurse

Nyet. Originally Posted by gnadfly

On June 29, the separatist rebels -- purportedly Ukrainians -- bragged about capturing two BUKs on/from an A-1402 military base in Ukraine. Hence, there are Ukrainian soldiers -- former and present -- who were trained to use this weapon. No Russians are required if competently trained Ukrainians are in the rebel forces.





It appears the rebel separatists only employed one TELAR vehicle w/o the command vehicle and TAR. Perhaps the command vehicle and/or TAR vehicle have an array of systems that would have have better identified the target than the TELAR alone could. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Ya, just my lame attempt at childish sarcasm. I'll stick to being serious. Moving on.

There is NO NEED to release a report YEARS later that essentially says the US crew membrs lied and the Aegis radar backedIs there some report that shows the US was NOT at fault - despite its own admission? if so, post a link. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Save your breath!

If you were to post that 1+1=2 and posted multiple charts and graphs from experts illustrating why it actually equals 2.

Just for the sake of argument, LLIdiot would counter by saying that it actually equals 2.00000001.

Once LLIdiot commits to it in writing, he will go to his grave defending it. His mind will not change.

Facts be damned!

Originally Posted by ExNYer But the US government isn't going to go to prison.

I never said the U.S. would? You made the general statement and I followed with a general answer. People admit liability for a variety of reasons and I stated with regard to the U.S. Government .... limit damage exposure ... Please don't try to change the topic.

I'm not changing the topic. YOU are the one who sojourned into "limiting damages" and strange theories about why the US would admit liability if it wasn't liable. I'm just debunking them.

Is there some report that shows the US was NOT at fault - despite its own admission? if so, post a link.

Do you really expect me to produce a "link" for something that occurred in 1988? Is their a "link" to prove WHEN AND WHERE you were born?

YES I DO expect you to post a link. JFK was assassinated in 1963 and there are countless links to websites offering different explanations to the Warren Report. Time makes no difference to either conspiracy nuts or legitimate historians giving their own opinions.

So post a link.

You were interested, I thought, in waiting for further developments in the earlier Malaysian 777 "crash" .... the reporting was all over the place .... so were the posts ... all I am saying is .... early information pointed to the Russians and away from Ukrainians (either side). Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yes, I was interested in waiting for further developments in the other Malaysian crash. Because that plane was MISSING.

We KNOW where this plane is - albeit in a lot of little pieces. And we know how it came down. A missile.

The only question appears to be how much responsibility the Russian military had - as opposed to the Russian backed rebels - for firing the missile.

And none of that changes what I said about the VISUAL misidentification of an AN-26 not being a plausible explanation for the accident. This was done by radar, not eyeballs.

IMO it is in Obaminable's interest not to have a face off with Putin.... besides... Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why would he have to face off with Putin at all? Why does the US have to have any involvement in this situation at all?

This is a tragedy, but it isn't our business. It should be handled by the Malays, Dutch, Russians and Ukranians.

WHY DO YOU WANT TO GO TO WAR OVER IT?

.. he doesn't have the balls for one. So, it's easier to blame the rebels. Originally Posted by LexusLover

And, finally, we get to the real reason for your nonsensical posts. It's all about Obama, isn't it?

Let me ask you: What Republican has the "balls" to do anything about it. And define what that means. Are you saying you want the GOP or Obama to start a war? To sell arms to the Ukranians? To shoot down a Russian commercial jet full of civilians in retaliation?

Just what the hell do you want - other than to take pot shots at Obama?