DeepState
Multi-Strategy, Quant and Fundamental
- Joined
- 30 March 2014
- Posts
- 1,615
- Reactions
- 81
Are you saying....it can't be...surely not....is it the same group that brought down the WTC so many years ago? Starting with C?
Only in the last week the Euro zone had gone cold in supporting US sanctions against Russia.
So i ask a big question, "who really could have been behind this shocking event"?
It's a standard flight corridor. Ukraine had closed it below 32,000ft (FL320) but above it was business as usual. ICAO and IATA both said it was safe at high altitude, but some airlines had opted to avoid the area. Behind the Malaysian flight, there were Singapore and Qatar Airlines flights. All through the war in Afghanistan, the standard routing for Qantas flights enroute to/from Singapore/Bangkok to Europe went straight over Afghanistan.
With the terrible loss of almost 300 people onboard flight MH-17, serious questions are being asked about management's decision to fly over Ukrainian airspace.
Senior aviation commentator Ben Sandilands says the majority Malaysian government-owned company is facing a massive challenge.
BEN SANDILANDS: Well the first thing that they will have to deal with is the fact that they were flying over a warzone and commonsense and modern warfare technology says you don't do that. That comes back to the management of Malaysian Airlines as to why they were there.
This is the sort of event that, since it involves innocent civilians and has provoked widespread outrage, could end up starting a much bigger war if it gets out of hand.
I'm no expert on military history, but I've been told more than once that if you look into the history of wars generally, then some of them did start over relatively trivial incidents far smaller than this one.
I really don't like the overall direction this is heading in. Not at all.
This is the sort of event that, since it involves innocent civilians and has provoked widespread outrage, could end up starting a much bigger war if it gets out of hand.
I'm no expert on military history, but I've been told more than once that if you look into the history of wars generally, then some of them did start over relatively trivial incidents far smaller than this one.
I really don't like the overall direction this is heading in. Not at all.
Nonsense. There will be no war over this. There is no appetite for war in Europe. The infiltration of Islamism is a bigger threat than Russian imperialism, but European countries don't even have the backbone to stand up against this. Vladimir Putin has a free hand to do whatever he likes. He knows that NATO is a cream puff.
Analysis on this point by aviation expert.
ABCTV Special this evening made the same points.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s4049270.htm
DeepState said:Netherlands is actually far away to undertake a military offensive. Projection at distance is actually amazingly difficult. It is not part of NATO and cannot call an Article 5 violation. Netherlands is not going to attack Russian or its agents in Eastern Ukraine.
...The fact is though that this route was considered safe by ICAO. The only warning that had been issued by the FAA and ICAO was to do with multiple countries offering air traffic control services over the same piece of airspace over Crimea.
I think you may misunderstand the role of ICAO in situations such as war zones etc.
A NOTAM had been issued regarding the risks associated with using this airspace.
When did they drop out of NATO?
Nonsense. There will be no war over this. There is no appetite for war in Europe. The infiltration of Islamism is a bigger threat than Russian imperialism, but European countries don't even have the backbone to stand up against this. Vladimir Putin has a free hand to do whatever he likes. He knows that NATO is a cream puff.
There are no facts,, yet.
Did not stop Abbott's conclusion though.
It was an accident, and one that the Russians would have very much not wanted. .
It was no accident. It was done in a deliberate act of terrorism against their own country, they just hit the wrong target. Of course Russia woud have preferred it to have been a Ukraine plane that they destroyed. Russia supplies terrorists with arms but claims no responsibility for how they use them.
It's a bit like giving your kid an air rifle and he shot the neighbour's dog, and you saying "it was an accident...he meant to shoot our dog".
Whatever you want to call their motives, it was accident.
Pull the other leg. It was deliberate. If some terrorist can "accidently" pull the trigger on a Russian BUK missile system, then God help us if Russia ever gives them nuclear warheads for their missile systems.
It is strange how apologists for the perpetrators always claim collateral damage is accidental.
Ahh...off you go sticking a label on anyone who disagrees with you. I was wondering how long that would take.
It's funny how simpletons see the world as black and white.
Obviously you can't justify your argument, so you resort to sticking a label of simpleton on me. All I asked was for you to explain how a guy could accidently pull a trigger on a BUK guided missile system and accidently hit a plane flying above 30000 feet. Obviously you can't, so you resort to playing the man.
Actually you didn't ask. You made a statement and the followed it up by calling me an apologist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?