snake Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 They couldn't authenticate every video. They could authenticate many though. That's what the first quote is about. Kerry is stating the same conclusion as the rest of the US officials. Correct. I was just taking issue with his using the video as evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I'm not sure what the relevance of no one knowing the separatists were operating SA-11s is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Snake, Horza,So, Russian advisers were training seperatists in the use of vehicle borne SAMs... because... they make great backscratchers? No, they were training them to shoot down Ukrainian aircraft. Snake seems to think it's a big deal that the US apparently didn't know the rebels possessed their own vehicle borne SAMs, I'm not sure why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Yay! You got your fucking facts straight! You're welcome for the fucking education.lol. Learn to read properly before you post an article that doesn't back up what you're saying. Snake, Horza,So, Russian advisers were training seperatists in the use of vehicle borne SAMs... because... they make great backscratchers?To use I would suppose. That's not evidence that they had any. Smarten up man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 No, they were training them to shoot down Ukrainian aircraft. Snake seems to think it's a big deal that the US apparently didn't know the rebels possessed their own vehicle borne SAMs, I'm not sure why. Discussing why flights were not redirected from that area. I figured it was because they all thought flights were safe because no one knew the rebels were in possession of missiles that could actually hit a target at that altitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 lol. Learn to read properly before you post an article that doesn't back up what you're saying. Do you acknowledge the NATO briefing took place? Because that seemed to be a fact you couldn't fucking get straight. You originally said no one knew the separatists had the capability to shoot down airliners. Existence of NATO briefing directly contradicts this. Now you've shifted to goalposts based on US officials saying no one knew the separatists had SA-11s. I honestly don't know what the fuck you are having such a problem with. Your original statement, that no one knew the separatists could shoot down an airliner, was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 lol. Learn to read properly before you post an article that doesn't back up what you're saying. To use I would suppose. That's not evidence that they had any. Smarten up man. It is evidence they were being trained in their use. It's not a big step from that to the DNR borrowing one or two. For the amount of condescencion you're deploying here you don't seem to be backing it up with much in the way of alternative hypotheses. Discussing why flights were not redirected from that area. I figured it was because they all thought flights were safe because no one knew the rebels were in possession of missiles that could actually hit a target at that altitude. Probably because it's a major flight route and there wasn't evidence they were in rebel possession. It doesn't look like quite such a wise decision in hindsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Snake,It's not direct evidence they were in possession of the SA-11's but it is strong circumstantial evidence that the Russians planned to put them in possession of SA-11's.Then, the passenger plane was blown out of the sky. Put two and two together man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 It is evidence they were being trained in their use. It's not a big step from that to the DNR borrowing one or two. For the amount of condescencion you're deploying here you don't seem to be backing it up with much in the way of alternative hypotheses. The report basically seems to say that: 1) The Russians were supplying the rebels with training on vehicle-based AA systems 2) The Russians were supplying the rebels with tons of equipment 3) They had no direct evidence that any of that equipment was vehicle-based AA systems In hindsight, 1 and 2 suggest that 3 was a bad assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davos OnionKing Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 DOK,What name calling?Truther, Conspiracy Theorist, Simple-minded (insert derogatory name here). Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were the one doing it. Just in general it's come up a few times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 It is evidence they were being trained in their use. It's not a big step from that to the DNR borrowing one or two. For the amount of condescencion you're deploying here you don't seem to be backing it up with much in the way of alternative hypotheses.Why should I?? No one knew they had them until the plane was shot down. That has been stated. Snake,It's not direct evidence they were in possession of the SA-11's but it is strong circumstantial evidence that the Russians planned to put them in possession of SA-11's.Then, the passenger plane was blown out of the sky. Put two and two together man.Jesus H Fucking Christ. It's like talking to 5 year olds. Now they know. They didn't before. Is it that hard for you to understand that???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Jesus H Fucking Christ. It's like talking to 5 year olds. Now they know. They didn't before. Is it that hard for you to understand that???? Yeah, you're the misunderstood one here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Why should I?? No one knew they had them until the plane was shot down. That has been stated. Maybe I remember the last few pages of this edifying discussion differently, but I distinctly recall someone with your handle calling people in this thread 'dupish' for blindling believing the US account that the missile was probably fired by DNR fighters operating a SA-11. I've yet to hear as to what the problem with that hypothesis is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Add the conversations the Ukrainian security folk tapped, and it does seem to add up. There appear to be enough evidence to implicate that this recording was doctored. Truther, Conspiracy Theorist, Simple-minded (insert derogatory name here). Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were the one doing it. Just in general it's come up a few times. 'Truther' was referring to the credibility of the site you were linking to, as for why anyone would think labelling theories that the plane carried dead bodies from the missing MAL plane as 'conspiracy theory' would be wrong is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 There appear to be enough evidence to implicate that this recording was doctored. That's interesting. Do you have a link? Kind of a stupid thing to do if Kiev did it. Stupid in that doctoring always seems to be detectable. I'm more intrigued by the idea that Ukrainian fighter jets may have tried to fly near commercial jets, thinking no one could be stupid enough to try to send a missile in the circumstance and risk blowing up a commercial plane. Stupidity has no bounds when men are trying to kill each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davos OnionKing Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Going back to an article that I posted earlier: http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ "...the Kiev regime actually has a terrible record of telling the truth or pursuing serious investigations of human rights crimes. Still left open are questions about the identity of snipers who on Feb. 20 fired on both police and protesters at the Maidan, touching off the violent escalation that led to Yanukovych’s ouster. Also, the Kiev regime has failed to ascertain the facts about the death-by-fire of scores of ethnic Russians in the Trade Union Building in Odessa on May 2. [see Consortiumnews.com’s “Burning Ukraine’s Protesters Alive.”] The Kiev regime also duped the New York Times (and apparently the U.S. State Department) when it disseminated photos that supposedly showed Russian military personnel inside Russia and then later inside Ukraine. After the State Department endorsed the “evidence,” the Times led its newspaper with this story on April 21, but it turned out that one of the key photos supposedly shot in Russia was actually taken in Ukraine, destroying the premise of the story. [see Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Retracts Ukraine Photo Scoop.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Truther, Conspiracy Theorist, Simple-minded (insert derogatory name here). Well, that would be based on putting forth multiple sources that fit that category no? You can link whatever you want but be prepared to get called out on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I'm more intrigued by the idea that Ukrainian fighter jets may have tried to fly near commercial jets, thinking no one could be stupid enough to try to send a missile in the circumstance and risk blowing up a commercial plane. Stupidity has no bounds when men are trying to kill each other. There are problems with the figher jet story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davos OnionKing Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Well, that would be based on putting forth multiple sources that fit that category no? You can link whatever you want but be prepared to get called out on it. I've quoted many different sources, are you saying they are all bunk? Or just zerohedge? Am I only allowed sources that come from the US? Maybe I should get them all approved by you first since you are the ever present moderator of what's true on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 There appear to be enough evidence to implicate that this recording was doctored. There is? The articles I read said the opposite. Got a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.