Germany says rebels used Ukranian missile to down MH17 passenger plane
Source: The Age
Germany's intelligence service believes Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by pro-Russian rebels using a missile taken from a Ukraine military base, a German newspaper has reported.
The finding contradicts previous claims – including by Prime Minister Tony Abbott and US Secretary of State John Kerry – that the missile was supplied by Russia.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/prorussian-rebels-using-seized-ukrainian-missile-downed-mh17-passenger-plane-says-germany-20141020-118i9u.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)
newfie11
(8,159 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)soon the real identity of the shooters will be revealed.
Probably all a CIA measure to not release all the bad news at once.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I mean, you're a bit of a caricature. I gotta think you're kidding.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)but ... caricature I am not. Releasing bad news piecemeal and through unrelated parties is a tried and true method of the CIA.
Where and why did the German intelligence (which is not involved in the investigation) suddenly have an epiphany that the launcher was Ukrainian? Intelligent people ask such questions. Everyone should try it. 
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Russians always the victim. I shake my head in disbelief at your positions. I really do. But by all means, keep having fun.
I am interested in how you think the CIA managed to launch a Buk missile from deep within rebel territory. But no doubt, you have some fanciful tale about how that's all a lie too.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)black box that can take control of a BUK missile launcher anywhere in the world and launch an AA missile.
Thanks Obama!!!!!
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)You create a straw-man and beat him up for no good reason.
CIA is trying to cover up for Ukrainian Right Sektor/Svoboda government that it installed -- doh.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)Seriously --- "Ukrainian militia" when the report says Pro-Russian separatists. http://rt.com/news/197316-germany-blames-militia-crash/
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Coming to a TV/Newspaper/website near you, the other half of the bad news, "not only was the missile launcher Ukrainian, it was fired by Ukrainian soldiers."
karynnj
(59,498 posts)Note that even RT does not try to argue that -- rather they seem to distance Russia from the "Ukranian rebels" . Note that you can be both Ukranian and pro-Russian.
The fact is that given that the pro - Russian rebels had no planes and that the plane came from the WEST, it is impossible to create a reason that the Ukrainian military would have struck -- and struck from a place controlled by the rebels.
I suspect that Russia may even move to condemn some elements of the pro-Russian militia. Note that this report does not differ from any statement from any GOVERNMENT in the west. There was speculation (not fact) that Russian soldiers went to the rebel area and were involved with this. Even that is NOT precluded by this study. The ONLY thing they say is that the rebels captured the missile from a Ukrainian base they overran -- and did not receive it from Russia. But, these guys are still their guys -- though it would not surprise me if the Russians distance themselves from them to lessen their own liability.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)
Throd
(7,208 posts)karynnj
(59,498 posts)Evidence pointed to the seperatists --- and they are whom the report blames. That matters more than how they got the weapon.
If anything, if true -- or accepted as true, it makes diplomatic moves easier for Obama/Kerry. They can improve relations without having to explain why Russia should not be held accountable. Russia has an easy out to condemn the people they previously supported - who need their support. Cynically, this could be the best of all possibilities from the POV of people who want Obama/Kerry to succeed.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)But we are supposed to believe ProRussian rebels and not ProWestern rebels shot it off??? Sounds like an actual false flag this time.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)As is the fact that one of the pro-Russian rebel leaders posted a picture of a missile launcher in the vicinity of the lanch and shoot-down (a picture that was later scrubbed).
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Pretty clear, as it always has been, that the pro-Moscow crowd shot it down.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 19, 2014, 09:35 PM - Edit history (1)
And not only is it their business to spread lies but no one trusts them regarding internal US affairs now either. Are you living in a bubble? Fascist, Neo-Nazi, Pro-Western Rebels do exist!!!! They are the ones who stormed the original government buildings in Kiev. They are REBELS!!! It's so funny how one mans freedom fighter is another's terrorist. This crap reminds me of the Contras vs Sandinistas. We support scum as long as they serve our interests and the rest is all propaganda. It's time to wake up and evolve to where we see ALL wars as just petty, evil fights over resources and money. Most everyone in positions of high power across the world are corrupt on all sides. Maybe not Sweden.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Again.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)And I know all to well the Neo-Nazi influences in Eastern Europe and that Bush and Reagan courted them for years just like they learned from the Nazi sponsored torturers In Chile and Argentina. I have however read pro-NSA propaganda In many of your posts advocating spying on the American People so your comment is hardly surprising.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)The article states that the missile was taken from a base located in the Ukraine, but it does not go in to any detail about how that missile got to that base to begin with.
It sure as hell didn't grow legs and walk to Ukraine from Russia all by itself!
Furthermore, that does NOT contradict what Secretary of State John Kerry said about that missile.
In addition, the most important part of that article states:
Mr Schindler said his agency's "unambiguous findings" were that the missile was fired by "pro-Russian separatists".
He said Ukrainian recordings had been manipulated, but he also dismissed as false Russian claims that the missile was fired by Ukrainian soldiers, or that a Ukrainian fighter jet had been flying close to MH17.
Which means that Putin lied when he said that Ukrainian soldiers fired that missile a week after they shot that plane down!
I noticed that Schindler also did not say anything about how the pro-Russian separatists were trained to fire that missile.
In fact, Schindler doesn't even say whether or not Russian soldiers were present when that missile was fired!
Which means that if Russian soldiers were present, they provided the training and the siting of that airplane.
Which means that Putin is a war criminal, because Schindler went on to say that this is a war crime!
Which is freakin' obvious!!
Also from that article --
Though the German report found that the missile used to shoot down MH17 was not supplied by Russia, there is strong evidence that Russia has supplied weapons and other support to the separatists.
A spokesman for the German Federal Prosecutor's Office told Spiegel that an investigation has been opened into unknown perpetrators because of the possibility that the crash had been a war crime.
"Russia has supplied weapons and other support to the separatists."
Like how to shoot that airplane down!!!
Which is a war crime!!
John Kerry doesn't lie.
I've met John Kerry, and he doesn't lie.
He doesn't have to.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)so of course they had Russian weaponry.
They were also allies of Russia up until the time of the coup.
Reports at the time mentioned that the Ukraine government had quite a few BUK launchers.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts). . . that it was a Russian missile!
A Russian missile launcher uses Russian missiles.
That much is a no-brainer.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)Nuance counts.
For example, ISIS are using American weapons. Does that mean they are using them on behalf of America?
karynnj
(59,498 posts)If this intelligence is correct and it was a Ukrainian owned missile, shot from an area controlled by the pro Russian rebels, it is likely that pro Russian rebels are using Ukrainian weapons - and they are, of course, not using them for the benefit of Ukraine. Like ISIS, they captured them.
You might consider whose story keep changing and who in parallel to saying it was not them have raised reasons they might have done it - ie a Ukrainian plane was flying with it at a different altitude and it was the Ukrainian plane they attempted to shoot - or the even stranger story that it was not a missile at all - the Ukrainian jet shot the plane down.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)but it hasn't been definitively proven yet, nor have your later points been disproved.
People like to quote Occam's Razor in these types of discussions. However, there is a flaw in Occam's Razor that is rarely mentioned, which is that it works best when you have all of the facts.
Time and time again during the Bush era, we saw the facts withheld or misrepresented and I fear we're entering a similar era.
For that reason, I prefer to wait for the facts before ruling anything out.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 20, 2014, 12:11 PM - Edit history (1)
better than all other intelligence reports.
I agree with you on Occam's Razor, but that was not what I was referencing. For lack of any name, I would call it parents' wisdom. I don't know if you have children or not, but when mine were younger (they are now adults), whenever they changed stories or posited two or more conflicting reasons at the same time, they were less believable than when they had one straight forward response.
Here, they simultaneously pushed the ideas of a more defensible reason to shoot a plane (they were aiming at a Ukrainian jet and hit the higher flying passenger plane), and an alternative cause of the plane being downed (the jet shooting it down) -- while simultaneously denying that they shot down a plane. They also blamed Ukraine for not having asked that international travel avoid that area and the west for creating the situation that "forced" them to rebel. (They ignore that RUSSIA had pushed the Pro Russian President to renege on his campaign promise to work for the EU agreement. )
As to Occam's razor, we do have everything that RT and other siimilar sources claimed. You never have 100% of the facts. However, given what we do have, I suspect that one of the most likely possibilities is that the pro Russia rebels did obtain a BUK missile system and that they had at least one rebel who had worked with them either in the Soviet days or even since as part of the Ukrainian military. At that point, less powerful systems were shooting down Ukrainian jets and helicopters a few times a week. It could be that they did think the plane was a Ukrainian jet when they shot at it. Shooting Ukrainian jets was exactly what their purpose was then.
Under this scenario, no faction - not Ukraine, not Russia, not the rebels - INTENTIONALLY targeted a passenger plane killing hundreds of innocent people. Looking at all the rebels' explanations, there is not one word to suggest that they would have considered intentionally shooting down a plane as acceptable. Instead, you hear lots of effort to argue that even if they did hit the plane , the fault went to others for putting the plane where it was and causing them to think it was a Ukrainian jet.
( In fact, one of the most bizarre charges was that Ukraine purposely had the jet flying below the plane. Now consider the jet was both slower and flew lower. This hypothesizes that Ukraine constructed a model that would depend on the rebels missing the closer plane and hitting the higher plane that came in at a fast speed from the West. The amount of math needed (from data that had to be real time - even to create the situation (ignoring the rebel reaction) is pretty mind boggling. Add in that it is still far more likely that the rebels hit the closer, slower jet, this seems to be a pretty unlikely plan.)
The Magistrate
(95,243 posts)And agree with the 'parent's wisdom' line. I would point it is also a truism of interrogation.
"To be a policeman is to be lied to for a living."
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)according to RT. They say it wasn't one of their BUKS (not even a stolen one).
It seems like both sides are changing their stories.
Just like WMDs etc. the truth will come out eventually.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)What is fair to say is that on that point - the German report disagrees with the Ukrainian government.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)but no wreckage of such an An-26 was ever found:
A missile hit the An-26, it fell on the ground and caught blaze, they said.
On July 14, militiamen of the self-proclaimed Luhansk People’s Republic downed another An-26 of the Ukrainian Air Force.
http://en.itar-tass.com/world/741164
Occam's Razor suggests the eyewitnesses saw a largish plane shot down by the militia, and the militia thought, and said, it was the same kind that had been shot down 3 days earlier, at a lower altitude with smaller missiles.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)I realize the horror of having to take responsibility for shooting a passenger plane, but it would have been the honorable thing to do. Given the magnitude of the pain this caused, it would at least have not added to the pain by trying to create a mystery.
The Magistrate
(95,243 posts)Most inconvenient for 'Team Putin' types, since it is a Russian source. There was for a while an attempt made to claim two planes actually had been downed that day, but it collapsed quickly. 'False Flag' then became the order of the day, and has remained so down to the present for that crew....
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)damn that feels good...
Xolodno
(6,384 posts)...When it happened, many of the very posters in this thread stated..."it was Russia and their troops!!!"...more or less....and the statement "it was the Ukrainian Rebels with a captured missile"...was heavily derided, demonized, ignored, etc. Now when a report says that it was the Ukrainian Rebels with a captured missile (authenticating Russia's claim)....then they act like it was they were saying the whole time....damn.
Bottom line, Ukrainian Rebels thought the plane was adversarial (and who can blame them, they don't have air power), and shot it down. The area should not have been cleared for commercial air traffic...it was as fucking war zone...but corporate interests won...and planes continued to fly over despite the obvious danger. And had the passengers knew they were flying over a war zone...damn well bet they would chose another flight. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist....but the more I read on this...the more I find myself siding with the *whackos*.
Cheese an Rice.....I'm still smacking my head over the people in this thread saying "IT WAS RUSSIAN TROOPS WHO SHOT THE PLANE DOWN"...and then pissing on everyone who stated it was more likely Ukrainian Rebels with a captured missile. And when it comes out that it was Ukrainian Rebels...then act like that's what they were saying the whole time.....but its still Russia's fault because of Putin. Jebus....and then attack everyone more or less said "told you so".
I used to like DU...I have a low post count....but been more a lurker. Now, I'm thinking....either brains are missing....or some here are just plants...I'm still in shock when one poster refused to believe that the CIA would be involved with the overthrow of a nation of a democratically leader....my wife would probably need blood pressure medicine if she saw that....her family had to leave Persia (Iran).
Don't ask me how much of a nightmare it was to get her a passport.
The Magistrate
(95,243 posts)The initial view of most who oppose Putin's aggression in Ukraine was that a missile had been fired by secessionists. There was some development from this to the idea that some Russian trainers or supervision may have been involved, and belief grew that the missile may have been one supplied by Russia. But from that quarter, derision of the claim secessionists fired the missile was absent.
The Russian claim was not that secessionists fired the missile. Rather, the Russian claim was that Ukrainian troops loyal to Kiev had fired the missile, so as to be able to blacken the name of the secessionists and Russia their patron by getting them blamed for the outrage. This elaborated quickly into a variety of claims ranging from statements Ukrainian air controllers had vectored the plane into place so it could be shot down and blame placed on the secessionists, to claims Ukrainian fighter jets had shot the airliner down with some combination of missile and cannon fire, always with the motive being given as doing this to get the secessionists and Russia blamed for the deed.
Xolodno
(6,384 posts)...this is hard.....
Before I even became a registered member I had much respect for you, enjoyed your posts, thought of you very "wity", someone who had his head grounded to reality.....I've since then changed my view.
Sure..there were some nut jobs here saying it was a "false flag operation" and you will never find a post of me agreeing to that. But I have always agreed to the notion that it was Ukrainian Rebel troops who pulled the trigger.....even if under the training of Russia......and you have made no mention, that a Russian fired the missile was false... On the other hand...I don't believe the USA is an "angel"....knowledge and observation prevents me from doing so.
Yes, I do believe the USA got involved with Ukrainian politics and interfered (how can I not? being involved directly and indirectly of US "intentions"...fyi..I didn't list all of the US governments sins)....and nor do I believe it is that hard to do (Jack Abramoff was able to do so on a minimal budget...and Vladmir Lenin managed to usurp democracy...and here in the USA...Money = Politics)
Russia is a threat.....but not in traditional sense of military....Russia and other BRIC nations are a threat in the form of economics...denial is at your own peril...Capitalism has won.....good luck. The Cold War is over......and all the BRIC nations are taking advantage of this. The USA has lost at its own game...meanwhile...fruit loops of the "R" description continue to rig the game at everyone else's expense.
Ukraine could have been a bridge between east and west....instead, some one or group in the CIA thought they could take the nation and make it become a client state....much like Rumsfeld thought making Iraq a client state would be a good thing.....(and this is my own speculation.....I think the CIA learned from the Bay of Pigs....in that, giving a choice to a President is not in their interest...but giving a sitting President no choice but to act to their whims...was easier)
Ukraine is not going to become a member of NATO, it is just as likely that Mexico would become a member of the Warsaw Pact.
You are not taking the long view of this...hell....I wouldn't be surprised years from now that it is revealed that certain EU nations ignored the sanctions. Wash over me at will...you have the respect and support of the majority of DU...but I have never cared about "mob rule"......................So,........say what you will. It matters not to me at this point.
The Magistrate
(95,243 posts)Which is that your statement of what was said in discussing this question was not accurate.
I said nothing about what you may or may not have said on the subject. But in regard to 'false flag' charges, they are not simply the product of a few 'nut jobs': this charge is the official position of the Russian government, and the majority of posts on this subject here by persons who support the Russian effort at dominating and dismembering Ukraine press the 'false flag' line.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)That relationship did not preclude Ukraine having ties to both sides. In fact concurrent to the very beginning of the Ukraine crisis, this is what Secretary Kerry called for in Moldova where Russia had "punished" them for ties with the west by banning their wine from Russia.
These comments actually sound like what you were recommending for Ukraine becoming a bridge between east and west.
" “We have been very clear with the Russians that we don't see any need to see the decision of Moldova and Georgia to initial agreements with the EU as a zero-sum game, and that we think that kind of play is self-defeating,” the official said.
“If Russia's neighbors become richer and more prosperous as a result of having visa liberalization to the European Union and increased trade, they are more able to buy more things from Russia as well, and they are more stable on Russia's periphery.”
http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-kerry-visits-western-leaning-moldova-to-show-support/1803456.html
In fact, it was RUSSIA's push that led to the pro Russian President of Ukraine to step back from an agreement that he had been for when he ran for President. You could argue that Russia did not want Ukraine to be a "bridge", but rather a buffer state that was 100% aligned with them.
One question for you would be if Ukraine signing an agreement with the EU -- not NATO - that reduced trade barriers with Europe was making Ukraine the bridge that you support --- or a step too far -- clearly the position of Russia.
(Side question - Do you agree that Russia acted vindictively in the case of Moldova? )
Xolodno
(6,384 posts).....I wasn't Mis-Stating Facts. Only pointing out the BS. Much like the press stated that Russia was on NATO's doorstep...as if Russia didn't have a right to a military.............or even have a border in Europe...but you knew that, right? Shit, you responded to the post in opposition....but that doesn't count, right?.....Just like so many others stated Russia was going to invade Estonia within the week................yeah..were all still waiting for that to happen.............*NOT*
Sorry...but I used to admire you......
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)And that is what you misstated. Here's what Russia said:
Ukrainian Buk battery radar was operational when Malaysian plane downed - Moscow
10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash
MH17 Brought Down by Air-to-Air Missile, Finished Off by 30-mm Cannon, Experts Allege
They blamed the Kiev government forces.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)about the dangers of sending aircraft into that airspace.
It appears that some airlines considered the airspace to be dangerous and avoided it, whilst others didn't. We need to know what information (or lack of information in some cases) they based their decisions on.
The Magistrate
(95,243 posts)The people who pulled the trigger are responsible. No one else.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)If the Ukrainian government or ATC had intelligence which suggested the area was unsafe, then they had a duty of care to communicate that to all of the airlines.
The Magistrate
(95,243 posts)The idea that, say, if someone runs an red light, and is struck by someone driving a car with faulty brakes, both have contributed to the accident: the bulk of the fault lies with driver who ran the light, but there might have been no accident at all even so if the other driver had maintained the brakes right. A passenger in one vehicle injured might receive three quarters of the medical costs from the first, and one quarter from the second. But it would not affect criminal liability of the driver who ran the red light.
The share of responsibility you are trying to raise is far more tenuous. It is more closely analogous to saying that if, say, a route to a destination suggested by some GPS navigation service passes through a dangerous neighborhood, and a passenger in the car is hit by a bullet from a shoot-out between sets of locals, the navigation service is 'really' the party responsible for the injury. I would not expect such a suit to get far in court, and again, even if it did and prevailed, it would not affect in the slightest the criminal liability of the person who pulled the trigger.
The operators of the missile launcher almost certainly meet standards of criminal negligence, and possibly even of depraved indifference. Criminal responsibility extends no further than the operators, and their command structure.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)at one point during the hostilities there in the summer and also why some of the German victims' families are suing Malaysia Airlines.
The Magistrate
(95,243 posts)In the case of flights to Israel, irregulars had landed rocket artillery rounds in the vicinity of the airport, and declared they were aiming at it. Nothing analogous had occurred in the instance of the routing over southeastern Ukraine.
Regarding suit for damages, people sue the party which is accessible and has pockets. There is no entity with legal standing or likely ability to pay associated with the people who fired the missile; something might be got, if only in an out of court settlement without any admission of liability, from a government owned airline. And even if a court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs against the airline, it would not affect the criminal responsibility of the people who fired the missile. Nor is suing the airline any endorsement of your apparent view that Kiev is responsible owing to having given the airliner the course; you would have to show someone suing a government agency in Kiev to have a parallel to that claim.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)where several airlines avoided the rebel held territory.
What intelligence did the airlines have? What intelligence did the Ukrainian government have about the BUK launcher(s) and other anti-aircraft activity in the vicinity? What intelligence did the Ukrainian ATC have?
Until these questions answered then the question of negligence can not be answered.
If Malaysia airlines is proven to have had intelligence that suggested the rebel held areas were unsafe for aircraft (as other airlines concluded) then they can be found guilty of negligence.
The Magistrate
(95,243 posts)Civil liability and criminal liability are separate things.
Even if one were to concede negligence in setting or taking the route, this would not serve as a defense against the charge the people firing the missile were criminally negligent in doing so; they still failed to identify their target properly before firing. It would not even serve as a mitigating factor in setting sentence.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)against those who could have prevented the tragedy, if they were aware that the airspace was insecure, but still flew through it or directed air traffic through it, for commercial for other reasons.
The Magistrate
(95,243 posts)That being that the men who fired the missile bear the responsibility for destruction of the airliner.
There is not really any serious argument that the men who fired the missile were not secessionists in opposition to the Kiev government in Ukraine, members of a militant body fostered and aided by Russia.
Or are you now going to descend to the usual 'false flag' swill peddled by the dedicated denizens of 'Team Putin' here and elsewhere?
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)but all of the facts aren't in yet.
More facts may change our understanding of events just as they did re. WMD in Iraq, the Jessica Lynch story, the Pat Tillman story, Abu Ghraib, 'enhanced interrogations' etc. etc.
The Magistrate
(95,243 posts)That would seem the 'executive summary' of your reply....
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)Or the CIA Torture Report?
Or the Iraq Inquiry report?
Probably not, because they haven't been released.
But we know they contain information that was denied or not even acknowledged previously.
So let's wait and see, when all the facts are released.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)Very few, if any, believed it was the regular Russian military who shot the plane down. The only question was where they got the missile. There were many who believed they may have obtained it from the Russian military. Others believed--as this reports seems to follow--the missile was captured from the Ukrainian military. The only thing that can likely be discounted is that it was the Ukrainian military who shot the plane down, since there was very little incentive or motive to shoot at planes they know their adversary did not possess. (And no, the Robert Parry "shooting at Putin's plane" theory does not make any sense whatsoever.)
With your whole argument regarding the CIA being "involved with the overthrow of a democratically elected leader", I challenge you to put forward any such evidence of a theory, or alternately, shut up.
