Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Albatross wrote:

... local people there have other things to worry about than researching some unfortunate plane crash (altough they are greatly upset over the death of so many innocents). It is all really unfortunate.

Wait, what? The plane was intentionally shot down. It's unfortunate that they were murdered?

Wait what? The plane was intentionally shot down? Where did you get that information? So far, everything points to the plane being accidently shot down because the seperatists confused it with an Ukrainian AN-26 that was supposed to be in the same area. Such accident is extremely unfortunate indeed.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The seperatists are very wary of international (read: Western) organisations, they suspect those organisations are biased and aiding the Ukrainians and thus don't trust them.

The separatists don't trust the (western) organisations and think they're biased. ..Have you thought about the irony of this - that the (western) organisations might well be upset, because nearly 300 of their citizens have been killed? And that refusing access to the site is the most potent indication of guilt one could ask for?

Have a look at rt.com and have a look at some western sites. On the Western sites, you'll find that many people criticise, or don't trust, their own government. You'll also see the other side's version of events described; you'll also see health warnings attached to, say, the Ukrainian version of events.

How trustworthy do you think russia today is? Have you seen it attempt to describe or even pass on what Western sources have reported?

What about other news sources in russia that describe opposition parties' views, like Fox in the US (anti-Obama) or the Guardian in the UK (anti-Cameron)? Does the presence, or absence, of such news sources support the credibility of russia today and its ilk, do you think?

I am getting tired of having to defend RT. Please attack the message, not the messenger.
As to answer your question, RT is far from being trustworthy. It gets most of its funding from the Russian government, and thus most often says what the government wants it to say. That does not mean it can't be worthwile information however. A conflict always has multiple sides, and it is always good to read up on what both sides think of it.
In Russia, there are plenty of news sources that are independent of the government or support a opposition party. But apart from RT (Putinist), Pravda.ru (Nationalist) and Moscow Times (Pro-Western), none of those are in English, which honestly shouldn't come as a surprise.
As to answer your second question, I don't think the presence of such sources matters that much. They are different viewpoints existing alongside each other. People who believe in one of them are not going to start believing in another just because they read an article with a different opinion. They will just put it away as lies and slander. Of course, the presence of such alternative sources is of paramount importance to a democratic society. All (except fascist) viewpoints should be able to be expressed without (fear of) repression. In all, I think the presence of such alternative sources reinforces the credibility of RT and other government outlets, as it gives the impression that Russia is a democratic society. People might also become upset at differing viewpoints and as result become more resolute in supporting the government. If Putin and the FSB would be able to control the amount and content of 'alternative information' the average Russian receives (and they might be), they will actually be even better able to manipulate the people (or maybe I have just read too much 1984 here ).


And because I just can't seem to state it often enough: RT does not represent my personal opinion.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

... local people there have other things to worry about than researching some unfortunate plane crash (altough they are greatly upset over the death of so many innocents). It is all really unfortunate.

Wait, what? The plane was intentionally shot down. It's unfortunate that they were murdered?

Wait what? The plane was intentionally shot down? Where did you get that information? So far, everything points to the plane being accidently shot down because the seperatists confused it with an Ukrainian AN-26 that was supposed to be in the same area. Such accident is extremely unfortunate indeed.

The terrorists intentionally locked on to and shot down a plane which was broadcasting itself as a commercial airliner. Unless you're suggesting they randomly fired missiles into the sky which just so happened to kill 300 people and rain body parts onto the surrounding area?

It was not an accident, it was an intentional attack. That they're too slowed to make sure they have the right target is no defence. Stupidity is not a defence for murder.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

The terrorists intentionally locked on to and shot down a plane which was broadcasting itself as a commercial airliner. Unless you're suggesting they randomly fired missiles into the sky which just so happened to kill 300 people and rain body parts onto the surrounding area?

It was not an accident, it was an intentional attack. That they're too slowed to make sure they have the right target is no defence. Stupidity is not a defence for murder.

The question remains, partially at least... is whether the guys who fired the missile KNEW it was a commercial aircraft or not.... Do we know whether this particular AA gun system has a screen that shows transponder codes? If it does, did anyone on that system at that moment in time know what they were actually looking at other than "Hey, look! An Airplane!!!"

If you are shooting gak out of the sky without knowing what exactly it is, then you deliberately shot down that particular airplane irregardless of what kind it actually was.

 d-usa wrote:
If you are shooting gak out of the sky without knowing what exactly it is, then you deliberately shot down that particular airplane irregardless of what kind it actually was.

So the USS Vincennes consciously and intentionally shot down an airliner?

They both might have intentionally shot down their airliners, but it's not unheard of for airlines to be mistaken for fighter's If the worlds greatest navy can make that mistake, then surely it could happen to anyone.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you are shooting gak out of the sky without knowing what exactly it is, then you deliberately shot down that particular airplane irregardless of what kind it actually was.

So the USS Vincennes consciously and intentionally shot down an airliner?

The list of feth-ups by the crew of the USS Vincennes is huge, so don't expect me to suddenly do a 180 and change my tune.

They both might have intentionally shot down their airliners, but it's not unheard of for airlines to be mistaken for fighter's If the worlds greatest navy can make that mistake, then surely it could happen to anyone.

It's bad enough when you mistake a plane for a fighter even though all your data is telling you the opposite of what you think you are seeing.

But you cannot even claim that you mistook a plane for something else if you are not even checking what you are shooting at in the first place.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The question remains, partially at least... is whether the guys who fired the missile KNEW it was a commercial aircraft or not.... Do we know whether this particular AA gun system has a screen that shows transponder codes? If it does, did anyone on that system at that moment in time know what they were actually looking at other than "Hey, look! An Airplane!!!"

It's been a long time since I've had to study up on BUKs, but to the best of my knowledge, it's a transponder-aware system.

Whether the separatists would necessarily have known what they were looking at regardless, I dunno. Apparently half the dudes guarding the crash site are drunk all day, so, you know.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The question remains, partially at least... is whether the guys who fired the missile KNEW it was a commercial aircraft or not.... Do we know whether this particular AA gun system has a screen that shows transponder codes? If it does, did anyone on that system at that moment in time know what they were actually looking at other than "Hey, look! An Airplane!!!"

It's been a long time since I've had to study up on BUKs, but to the best of my knowledge, it's a transponder-aware system.

Whether the separatists would necessarily have known what they were looking at regardless, I dunno.

My fancy knowledge (from Wikipedia and news article, so who really knows) is that the full setup (all 3? vehicles) allows fancy tracking, checking transponders, etc. But that apperantly you could fire with just the launch vehicle which has a basic "let's you track and aim but not know what you are actually tracking" setup.

That's just from what the internet taught me, so you would probably know a lot more than me.

That could well explain it, then. I forgot/never knew the launch vehicle could track and guide without the big-ass radar array and C&C trucks. Stands to reason it'd have a gakky little no-frills radar if so.

Can be one vehicle system instead of three. Each vehicle has a lone forward radar From Wiki description its a radar that scans 60 meters off the ground for 15 miles. The higher integration forms a Battery.

Battery = 4-6 SA11's
Three Batteries = 12-18 SA11's
Battalion = 24-54 SA11's

Radar overlap with vehicle system themselves or linked into another high power radar since the freaking missile has 81K range.

Tau Pathfinders Markerlight
Tau Seeker Missile per markerlight
Owning player selects which Seeker Missile fires on target.
Pretty much it in a nutshell

This was one of the articles I read:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-missile-s-lack-of-radar-may-have-led-to-tragic-mistake-1.2712652

I realize it's journalism, so I do take it with a grain of salt.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you are shooting gak out of the sky without knowing what exactly it is, then you deliberately shot down that particular airplane irregardless of what kind it actually was.

So the USS Vincennes consciously and intentionally shot down an airliner?

They both might have intentionally shot down their airliners, but it's not unheard of for airlines to be mistaken for fighter's If the worlds greatest navy can make that mistake, then surely it could happen to anyone.

Why is whataboutism always the first line of defense when people are criticizing Russia? This is a logical fallacy and I wish people would stop doing it.

True but this sounds pretty close what quite a few of us are thinking

"My guess is the system's radar saw a return from a big 'cargo' plane flying at 30,000 feet or so and either automatically fired, or some aggressive, itchy operator fired, not wanting to miss an opportunity. It doesn't seem they chose to seek any additional data before pulling the trigger," Latiff said.

 EmilCrane wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you are shooting gak out of the sky without knowing what exactly it is, then you deliberately shot down that particular airplane irregardless of what kind it actually was.

So the USS Vincennes consciously and intentionally shot down an airliner?

They both might have intentionally shot down their airliners, but it's not unheard of for airlines to be mistaken for fighter's If the worlds greatest navy can make that mistake, then surely it could happen to anyone.

Why is whataboutism always the first line of defense when people are criticizing Russia? This is a logical fallacy and I wish people would stop doing it.

I just found it odd that instead of it possibly being an accident, by D-USA's if you shoot down a plane you must have done it intentionally. I was just pointing out that mistakes like this do happen and if the worlds greatest navy with all of their high technology can make the same mistake, than it's not much of a stretch that others with lesser equipment could also make the same mistake. It's a horrible tragedy, but that doesn't mean they set out to intentionally shoot down a passenger plane.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you are shooting gak out of the sky without knowing what exactly it is, then you deliberately shot down that particular airplane irregardless of what kind it actually was.

So the USS Vincennes consciously and intentionally shot down an airliner?

They both might have intentionally shot down their airliners, but it's not unheard of for airlines to be mistaken for fighter's If the worlds greatest navy can make that mistake, then surely it could happen to anyone.

Why is whataboutism always the first line of defense when people are criticizing Russia? This is a logical fallacy and I wish people would stop doing it.

I just found it odd that instead of it possibly being an accident, by D-USA's if you shoot down a plane you must have done it intentionally. I was just pointing out that mistakes like this do happen and if the worlds greatest navy with all of their high technology can make the same mistake, than it's not much of a stretch that others with lesser equipment could also make the same mistake. It's a horrible tragedy, but that doesn't mean they set out to intentionally shoot down a passenger plane.

If you aim your rocket at something in the sky with no way of knowing what the hell you are aiming at, and you push the button to kill it without knowing what the hell you are going to kill, then you intentionally shot down whatever you were aiming at while now knowing what you were going to kill. .

There is no accident there. That's like saying that if I aim my gun at a group of 25 people and pull the trigger, then I accidentally killed somebody there and it's just a horrible accident because I didn't know who I was going to kill.

 EmilCrane wrote:

Why is whataboutism always the first line of defense when people are criticizing Russia? This is a logical fallacy and I wish people would stop doing it.

Mainly because there is no real defense, so they have to use that.

I don't know how it is with news magazines of other countries, but www.spiegel.de has lately found out that its comments sections for articles concering the Ukraine crisis in general are FLOODED with anti-western/pro-russian posts, which are largely copy-pasted from somewhere. Different accounts writing the same pre-constructed message word by word, four or five times, there seems to be some kind of organization behind it.

Another level of media warfare, it seems.

I've seen that happening in the comments section of some Swedish newspapers as well. It's distasteful at best.

 d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you are shooting gak out of the sky without knowing what exactly it is, then you deliberately shot down that particular airplane irregardless of what kind it actually was.

So the USS Vincennes consciously and intentionally shot down an airliner?

They both might have intentionally shot down their airliners, but it's not unheard of for airlines to be mistaken for fighter's If the worlds greatest navy can make that mistake, then surely it could happen to anyone.

Why is whataboutism always the first line of defense when people are criticizing Russia? This is a logical fallacy and I wish people would stop doing it.

I just found it odd that instead of it possibly being an accident, by D-USA's if you shoot down a plane you must have done it intentionally. I was just pointing out that mistakes like this do happen and if the worlds greatest navy with all of their high technology can make the same mistake, than it's not much of a stretch that others with lesser equipment could also make the same mistake. It's a horrible tragedy, but that doesn't mean they set out to intentionally shoot down a passenger plane.

If you aim your rocket at something in the sky with no way of knowing what the hell you are aiming at, and you push the button to kill it without knowing what the hell you are going to kill, then you intentionally shot down whatever you were aiming at while now knowing what you were going to kill. .

There is no accident there. That's like saying that if I aim my gun at a group of 25 people and pull the trigger, then I accidentally killed somebody there and it's just a horrible accident because I didn't know who I was going to kill.

I get what you're saying and at least you're being consistent about it. I just think there's a difference between Murder 1, and Involuntary Manslaughter.

It's a war, they're trying to kill the bad guys, if you look like a bad guy you're at risk of being shot. It's what they do during wars, they kill each other and sometimes (quite often in palestine) innocent people get killed and they use such a nice nondescript term for it: collateral damage.

But you can't use the excuse of "we didn't know it was a passenger jet" if you didn't even check to see what it was before you shot it.

When you take a blind shot you take full responsibility for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Most tin-foil worthy conspiracy theory I have heard so far:

The CIA stole the airplane involved in Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and have managed to hide it for months before moving it to Amsterdam. Then they loaded the plane up with dead bodies and flew it over Ukraine where they detonated a bomb after the pilot jumped to safety.

 d-usa wrote:
But you can't use the excuse of "we didn't know it was a passenger jet" if you didn't even check to see what it was before you shot it.

When you take a blind shot you take full responsibility for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Most tin-foil worthy conspiracy theory I have heard so far:

The CIA stole the airplane involved in Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and have managed to hide it for months before moving it to Amsterdam. Then they loaded the plane up with dead bodies and flew it over Ukraine where they detonated a bomb after the pilot jumped to safety.

And the CIA agent was actually Putin, a KGB double spy president.

 d-usa wrote:
But you can't use the excuse of "we didn't know it was a passenger jet" if you didn't even check to see what it was before you shot it.

When you take a blind shot you take full responsibility for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Most tin-foil worthy conspiracy theory I have heard so far:

The CIA stole the airplane involved in Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and have managed to hide it for months before moving it to Amsterdam. Then they loaded the plane up with dead bodies and flew it over Ukraine where they detonated a bomb after the pilot jumped to safety.

"It's the same airline guys, it MUST be true!" - "But..wouldn't the CIA re-paint the plane and use another airline because this would be too much of a coincidence?" - "Nah man, that's what everybody would be thinking, so they kept it this way! WAKE UP!"

sirlynchmob wrote:


I just found it odd that instead of it possibly being an accident, by D-USA's if you shoot down a plane you must have done it intentionally. I was just pointing out that mistakes like this do happen and if the worlds greatest navy with all of their high technology can make the same mistake, than it's not much of a stretch that others with lesser equipment could also make the same mistake. It's a horrible tragedy, but that doesn't mean they set out to intentionally shoot down a passenger plane.

They intentionally shot the plane down. Whether they have mistaken it for a military plane or not is another issue, but they did, indeed, shoot it down on purpose.

One thing to keep in mind: those aren't soldiers, they are terrorists / armed combattants. They aren't part of any army under the lead of any state (at least officially).

They are fully reponsible for the plane crash and they are to be held responsible for an single consequence this plane crash has.

Here's praying the artillery that started firing again today gets as many of them as possible.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
From the little bit I have been reading about this it seems like it is a lot easier to track something and shot it than it is to actually try to figure out what it is you are shooting at. Any knowledge if there is any truth in that?

Absolutely true, if everyone's not playing correctly on both sides of the transponder.

A good (read: tragic) example is the F-15 shootdown of two Blackhawks in Iraq in 1994. Two F-15s start out patrolling the no-fly zone. Two MH-60s ferrying around UN inspectors or something enter it. The Blackhawks are squawking correctly on Mode 2, but squawking incorrectly on Mode 1. The F-15s eventually pick them up on radar, read them as Hinds instead of Blackhawks, and interrogate in Mode 1 (which returns a bad squawk) and Mode 4 (which does likewise), never interrogate Mode 2, and go, "Yep, definitely Hinds, AMRAAMs away." Made all the more improbable by the fact that the airspace was being controlled by Air Force AWACS who knew about both flights, were monitoring both, but just didn't put two and two together before the shooting started.

A bit more complex than that, the Blackhawk Pilots weren't operating on the TAOR freq, and after entering mountainous terrian they disappeared off the AWACS scopes, so everyone kind of just forgot about them assuming they had landed and they dropped the tags from their scopes, meaning that when they did pop back up again, squawking the wrong IFF codes and on the wrong frequency nobody thought to put two and two together that they were the Black Hawks known to be in the area.

When I was flying over Europe during the Kosovan conflict, all civil flights had been re-routed along alternative flight paths. Had the same thing happen over the middle east in the early 00's.

There were a lot of SAMs being fired up during that conflict by all sides, so that makes sense.

It's also somewhat a result of existing instabilities in the region that have existed since the breakup of the USSR.

Long long long before that...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

Will you ever stop apologizing for Russia?

Iron_Captain stopping to apologize for Russia? Not before Putin gets the world peace award

To be fair, Putin deserved the Nobel Peace Prize more than Obama did. At least Putin actually managed to stop the US from bombing Syria, destroying the Assad regime and allowing ISIS to take over the entire region. Wouldn't be the first time the US helped terrorists to get to power.

That is an EXCEPTIONALLY twisted way to look at it....

 Seaward wrote:

Canis wrote:
The UN or NATO should (with permission from the Ukrainian Government) enter Ukraine & surround/secure the crash site to permit investigation & full recovery.

I'm sure with a sizeable deployment, the Pro-Russian Rebels & the Russians would have to seriously rethink.
(A fleet in the Black Sea would be very persuasive).

It could end the nonsense that should have been taken care of months ago, and prevent further escalation.

Action is overdue.

Good luck, have fun!

This.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Like over a week ago they supposedly captured a few system when the Sep's over ran a Ukraine base. Now Ukraine is saying none were captured........now we have "video" of a SA11 in plain sight No tarp, no cover, no time frame, no attempt to cover (again) the SA11 on a flat bed. Going down a road apparently heading into Russia. Russia is not that freaking dumb to have the evidence in plain freaking sight.

On the BBC news it said, the missile system was moved back into Russia at 1am, IE in the dark. That film did not to my mind look like nighttime. They can't all be right. I hate feeling that the media is trying to manipulate me. Brings to mind TNG, Worf saying to the klingons
"you must think us stupid to make your lies so transparent."

I find the claim to be similarly transparent, but to be fair, it is possible it moved back into Russia at 1am, and that the video we saw was taken earlier in the day. We didn't actually see the truck crossing the border in that vid afaik, just heading towards the border, they could have taken it to a staging area or something to hide out until nightfall or what have you. Not saying thats what they did, just saying that disjointed evidence doesn't mean bad evidence.

After the US has changed its name to Scheminghypocriticalmurderersia of course.

I can dig it. It's a bit on the long side and a bit hard to pronounce, but it'll do.

Its a fething WAR. The crash site is in Rebel territory. They posses the Black Box and the victims bodies. The morality of blocking the access of International organisations is irrelevant. They have the power here, so they're setting the terms.

The international organizations aren't their enemy, and its not like this is an uncommon occurrence, the Red Cross and other international organizations usually cross the front line to do their work without the need for a 'truce'.

But so are the fascists and nationalists who seized power in Kiev.

Someones bought into a lot of the propaganda nonsense coming out of Moscow, eh? (P.S. - Nationalist doesn't = evil, nor does it mean racist, genocidal, etc. etc. etc.)

I personally like many Russian things like I find the Russian National Anthem one of the (if not THE) greatest in the world, love the Russian Fail- and Car Crash movies on Youtube and even have a Rebel Grot army of Russian based miniatures, but I also see the wrongs they did and still do.

How could you not?

you may notice however that I may be zealously defending the glorious Motherland , but not blindly so

LOL

In general, Putin is about tied with Jesus and God for 'most worshipped deity' in Russia.

I've met a few Russians over the past year or so... this is definitely NOT the impression I got from them...

Wait what? The plane was intentionally shot down? Where did you get that information? So far, everything points to the plane being accidently shot down because the seperatists confused it with an Ukrainian AN-26 that was supposed to be in the same area. Such accident is extremely unfortunate indeed.

Lets not get confused, the plane was intentionally shot down, regardless of whether or not they thought it was a military or civilian aircraft. While it most likely it was not their intent to bring down a civilian aircraft, it WAS their intent to shoot down an aircraft.

So the USS Vincennes consciously and intentionally shot down an airliner?

They both might have intentionally shot down their airliners, but it's not unheard of for airlines to be mistaken for fighter's If the worlds greatest navy can make that mistake, then surely it could happen to anyone.

They intentionally shot down an aircraft which turned out to be an airliner, yes. Whether or not they intended to shoot at an airliner is a different story.



Also, interesting read, regarding what its like to operate a Buk SAM system.

http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/20/inside-buk-telar-images/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and also there is this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/source-malaysia-flight-mh17-was-being-escorted-by-ukrainian-su-27-fighter-jets-2014-7

Possible they launched at an escorting fighter and the missile instead locked the airliner? I find the source dubious, mind you, essentially the equivalent of a journalist who frequented dakka seeing Seaward or Jihadins posts on dakka and contacting them for their analysis of the situation without checking credentials.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Wait what? The plane was intentionally shot down? Where did you get that information? So far, everything points to the plane being accidently shot down because the seperatists confused it with an Ukrainian AN-26 that was supposed to be in the same area. Such accident is extremely unfortunate indeed.

Nice bullcrap you're telling there. So yeah shooting a plane down because you THINK it's a military plane without confirming whatsoever is NOT an accident. It IS an act of terrorism.

It's a case of mistaken identity perhaps, but it's not an accident in that you "accidentally" fired missiles at a plane.

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Wait what? The plane was intentionally shot down? Where did you get that information? So far, everything points to the plane being accidently shot down because the seperatists confused it with an Ukrainian AN-26 that was supposed to be in the same area. Such accident is extremely unfortunate indeed.

Nice bullcrap you're telling there. So yeah shooting a plane down because you THINK it's a military plane without confirming whatsoever is NOT an accident. It IS an act of terrorism.

You're being dishonest. .

Shooting at what you believe to be your enemy is a normal act of War. Not verifying the nature of the target to ensure that it is a hostile target and not a non-combatant/civilian is gross incompetence.

Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians - the aim is to kill civilians. You know, the sort of thing that Hamas does, or ISIS, when they detonate a car bomb on a crowded street full of civilians, or kidnap somebody and behead them over a live stream, or blindly fire rockets at a densely populated area.


By your logic, the US Navy are terrorists too. They've shot down an airliner or two over the years.

In all honesty, no-one should believe they were intending to shoot down a jet of civilians.

They would have zero to gain and much to lose from it.

Think someone who was on the "trigger" got really excited to see the big white blip pop on the green screen in front of him(or her?) and smashed on the button. First time firer

I was going to make a joke about it being premature, but thats more than a little inappropriate given the situation...