CNN reporting that the black boxes are still in Ukraine, after once reporting they were in Russia.

 

Interesting that Putin says that Ukraine is essentially at fault since it happened over their countryside - I guess that means that he is acknowledging the Donetsk region as part of Ukraine? Ha.

 

My money would still say that this was an error, separatists that either didn't know what they were firing at or some rogue element. I can't imagine any one of the sides being stupid enough to intentionally shoot the plane down.

The Russian separatists are about the equivalent of Bundy militia supporter types that we have here. Russia apparently thought it was a swell idea to let these unaccountable tools to have advanced weapons... reason #644,782 why arming militias is a s***ty idea

Between the recorded phone calls and video images, it's all but proven that Russian supplied them with BUK surface-to-air missle and the crews. IT IS RUSSIA who shot that plane down.

Edited July 19, 201411 yr by Knuckles

Looking at some of the pictures with bodies in it is just heartbreaking.

I'm trying to understand why I and many others view these two types of events so differently.

 

1. A missal is shot at an airplane and innocent people are killed.

2. A missal is shot at a military target in a city and "collateral damage" occurs. In other words innocent people are killed.

 

It seems fair to me to assume that whomever shot at that plane thought they were shooting at a military target making the Malaysian flight "collateral damage". I'm not saying we shouldn't be outraged, sad, and all the emotions we are feeling over this tragedy, but perhaps we should have a bit more outrage at "collateral damage"? How often did we shoot missals in Iraq and other countries knowing their would be "collateral damage"?

 

I saw a map of the routes that different airlines were taking through that region. Some continued to fly over that airspace other avoided it. What possible reasons could you have to fly over the Ukraine? I'm guessing the answer will concern fuel costs.

I'm trying to understand why I and many others view these two types of events so differently.

 

1. A missal is shot at an airplane and innocent people are killed.

2. A missal is shot at a military target in a city and "collateral damage" occurs. In other words innocent people are killed.

 

It seems fair to me to assume that whomever shot at that plane thought they were shooting at a military target making the Malaysian flight "collateral damage". I'm not saying we shouldn't be outraged, sad, and all the emotions we are feeling over this tragedy, but perhaps we should have a bit more outrage at "collateral damage"? How often did we shoot missals in Iraq and other countries knowing their would be "collateral damage"?

 

I saw a map of the routes that different airlines were taking through that region. Some continued to fly over that airspace other avoided it. What possible reasons could you have to fly over the Ukraine? I'm guessing the answer will concern fuel costs.

 

Supposedly they were routing around bad weather

I flipped on the ol' Roku last night, and navigated my way to RT - they seem to have some.....different.... thoughts on what happened. Like why did Ukrainian air traffic controllers tell the plane to fly lower? WHY?

 

Seriously though, it's interesting trying to hear the spin from RT.

I'm trying to understand why I and many others view these two types of events so differently.

 

1. A missal is shot at an airplane and innocent people are killed.

2. A missal is shot at a military target in a city and "collateral damage" occurs. In other words innocent people are killed.

 

It seems fair to me to assume that whomever shot at that plane thought they were shooting at a military target making the Malaysian flight "collateral damage". I'm not saying we shouldn't be outraged, sad, and all the emotions we are feeling over this tragedy, but perhaps we should have a bit more outrage at "collateral damage"? How often did we shoot missals in Iraq and other countries knowing their would be "collateral damage"?

 

I saw a map of the routes that different airlines were taking through that region. Some continued to fly over that airspace other avoided it. What possible reasons could you have to fly over the Ukraine? I'm guessing the answer will concern fuel costs.

 

Because "collateral damage" is OK when it's an American missile? (green, maybe?)

 

People look at collateral damage differently when it occurs to the people whose country is involved in the war. Had this been a local Ukranian passenger jet, people might not be AS outraged. This is more like if an American drone tried to bomb a terrorist location in Iraq, but instead leveled a random city in Saudi Arabia. (That may not be feasible, but you get the point)

 

I'm not saying it's right to look at it that way, but I think that's how people have grown accustomed to looking at war. 49 Ukranian soldiers died when their military transport plane was downed by separatist's missile, but there was much less outrage because they are "part of the war", not that they chose to be.

I'm trying to understand why I and many others view these two types of events so differently.

 

1. A missal is shot at an airplane and innocent people are killed.

2. A missal is shot at a military target in a city and "collateral damage" occurs. In other words innocent people are killed.

 

It seems fair to me to assume that whomever shot at that plane thought they were shooting at a military target making the Malaysian flight "collateral damage". I'm not saying we shouldn't be outraged, sad, and all the emotions we are feeling over this tragedy, but perhaps we should have a bit more outrage at "collateral damage"? How often did we shoot missals in Iraq and other countries knowing their would be "collateral damage"?

 

I saw a map of the routes that different airlines were taking through that region. Some continued to fly over that airspace other avoided it. What possible reasons could you have to fly over the Ukraine? I'm guessing the answer will concern fuel costs.

Of course, the real counter to this airplane downing in how collateral damage is viewed is happening in Gaza right now.

I flipped on the ol' Roku last night, and navigated my way to RT - they seem to have some.....different.... thoughts on what happened. Like why did Ukrainian air traffic controllers tell the plane to fly lower? WHY?

 

Seriously though, it's interesting trying to hear the spin from RT.

rt is literally the Russian governments propaganda channel

 

Of course, the real counter to this airplane downing in how collateral damage is viewed is happening in Gaza right now.

I figured that's what he was alluding to

I was trying to be general because we accept it all over the world. Flipping this around how outraged would we have been if Iraq managed to bomb Great Lakes Naval Air Station and accidentally killed 50 innocent people in North Chicago in the process? It seems that modern war strategies are increasing the killing of innocent civilians.

Looking at some of the pictures with bodies in it is just heartbreaking.

 

The worst one I've seen is the baby in the middle of a plowed field. Nothing around it for hundreds of feet.

I was trying to be general because we accept it all over the world. Flipping this around how outraged would we have been if Iraq managed to bomb Great Lakes Naval Air Station and accidentally killed 50 innocent people in North Chicago in the process? It seems that modern war strategies are increasing the killing of innocent civilians.

Compared to setting off a nuclear weapon in Japan, firebombing a city and killing hundreds of thousands, or releasing poison gas across the front lines?

rt is literally the Russian governments propaganda channel

 

Oh I know.

Compared to setting off a nuclear weapon in Japan, firebombing a city and killing hundreds of thousands, or releasing poison gas across the front lines?

 

Good point.

Of course, the real counter to this airplane downing in how collateral damage is viewed is happening in Gaza right now.

 

Not really. Israel isnt denying that they are doing it.

 

That is why you cant call the attack on the plane "collateral damage". Collateral damage suggests that the party who did it, admits that they did it as part of a military operation.

Edited July 20, 201411 yr by Soxbadger

War is the new slavery. That is all.

Not really. Israel isnt denying that they are doing it.

 

That is why you cant call the attack on the plane "collateral damage". Collateral damage suggests that the party who did it, admits that they did it as part of a military operation.

 

So if you admit that you killed civilians it's collateral damage, what is it if you don't admit it? And does it make a difference? To whom?

Well at least they turned over the black boxes