Really? Have you looked at what the Russian ‘evidence’ consists of? Russian Wikipedia altered to change the ceiling of a clean Su-25 to try to pretend that it can fly thousands of metres higher than the manufacturer & everyone else has always reckoned, & imagining that it can catch an airliner which is flying faster than its maximum speed clean, while climbing to that mythical maximum altitude, straining its engines to the limit . . . & then shoot it down. Really? That’s serious evidence?

Nope. It’s a joke.

I’ve never in my life dismissed evidence, no matter what they were. Su-25s have been mentioned, but in reality we do not know what type of a plane was flying in the area. Propaganda efforts (no matter how feeble, do not constitute evidence). The fact that there is radar (of whatever quality) evidence that shows more than one echoes in the area is more significant than dubious satellite photos of a mixed timeline.

This is all silver bullet stuff, for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Nobody on either side is suggesting any of these as a possibility.

Of course not, but these however improbable are not impossible. The point of all this (and which I am trying to make) is that having a far from clear picture, with minimum and circumstantial evidence -far less than previous similarish instances- many are jumping the wagon of blaming a particular party directly, which shouts bias to me.

Of course he is responsible. And so is Russia. We are all responsible for the results of our actions, even if unintended. But responsibility is not the same as guilty of a crime.

It is NOT, absolutely not, necessary to prove that your hypothetical rebel knew he was shooting as a commercial airliner to prove he is responsible. You are confusing responsibility with guilt. A negligent person is responsible, but not necessarily guilty.

Yes you got me there, when you are right you are right, I clearly meant to say guilty instead of responsible, my bad and thank you for correcting me.

Let’s replace responsible with guilty then and ponder those two questions which were not answered -in their now correct form.

(just as a reminder, I repeat that I think the plane was downed by the rebels by accident, what motivates me is the double standards I perceive as flowing around here and the eagerness to point the finger as opposed to the past)

Did the aircraft crash accidentally or was it shot down?

The aircraft is almost certainly shot down.

So, question 2. Who was in a position to shoot it down?
Three possibilities: Ukraine, rebels, or Russia. Any of them by SAM, Ukraine & Russia by fighter. Nobody else had weapons in the area which could have done it.

True indeed.

Let us now proceed to consider the evidence that has been offered.
Has anyone shown any evidence that –
1. Ukraine fired a SAM that might have shot down the aircraft?
2. A Ukrainian fighter capable of shooting it down was within range of it?
3. That the rebels fired a SAM that might have shot down the aircraft?
4. A Russian fighter capable of shooting it down was within range of it?
5. Russia fired a SAM that might have shot down the aircraft?

1.No
2.This possibility is not completely ruled out. There is a chance the evidence presented by the Russian side are valid.
3.No
4.No
5.No

For all three SAM options, it is assumed that a SAM fired from territory controlled by a particular force is fired by that force.

Shouldn’t be. A Russian launcher could easily have crossed the border and fired from an outside Russia location. A rebel launcher could have slipped behind enemy lines and launched from a Ukrainian position. Similarly a Ukrainian launcher could have shot from a Rebel position (or if one is paranoid enough from a Russian position).

If, for the sake of argument, the only option for which serious evidence has been presented is 3., then it has to be the rebels.

You accept that serious evidence must be presented. The possession of a BUK by the rebels doesn’t constitute serious evidence. But let’s for a moment and for argument’s sake think the following scenario.

“A guilt ridden rebel confesses to pulling the trigger and downing the plane, moreover, he tells everyone that the BUK launcher was given by Russia to the rebels, he himself drove it across the border.”

We now have two questions to ponder.

1. Is the rebel responsible for the deaths of the passengers? To say that with certainty one must prove he knew it was an airliner and not something else.
2. Is Russia responsible? Why would Russia be? Superpowers have (see previous discussions about Syria, Libya etc) been arming fighters for ever. Why is this different?

Seeing as this thread is well and truly derailed (and no bad thing) I am chipping in here…

Delaying and causing the abatement of any action by the world community had a direct influence on the rise of groups like ISIL in the Syrian rebel ranks. They were not prominent early on, but Russia’s tactics to support the Assad regime against the rebellion, and block UN action that would have allowed help to flow, gave rise to the situation we are faced with today.

Russia warned that helping the rebels would lead to the rise of Islamic extremism in Syria and then made sure that the country’s wounds stayed open long enough to get infected. This was preferable to risking the loss of it’s last major ally in the region.

I am curious, why doesn’t this argument work the other way around too?

Syrian rebels =/ ISIL. ISIL is at war with many of the other Syrian rebels. Syria is not like Ukraine. In Ukraine there are two sides: the Ukrainian government forces vs the pro-Russian rebels, who are assisted by Russia. In Syria, there are at least three sides: the Syrian government, ISIL, & the non-ISIL rebels (themselves divided). The Syrian state has sometimes attacked non-ISIL rebels while they were fighting ISIL, to help ISIL, as success by ISIL gave credibility to Assad’s argument that the rebels as a whole were religious fanatics. There is no analogue of this in Ukraine. Your argument is therefore invalid. One could argue with at least as much validity that giving aid to Assad makes one responsible for ISIL’s crimes.

A clever post, but not entirely accurate, almost the words of a politician.

ISIL rose from the ranks of the rebels (where it was hiding sort of speak). It is not like there where the rebels and then ISIL joined in. Similarly as in Lybia. Even from a practical side, ISIL couldn’t have so many fighters, it showed itself and then recruited more and more, Taliban style.
Pretty much it is following the path of what happened in Afganistan.

So while your post is not wrong, it is not telling the entire truth. Hence the arming and support of rebels, was the arming and support of ISIL, because any self respecting intelligence knew Islamist Extremists existed amongsts the ranks of the rebels in all these countires, Syria, Libya, Afganistan etc.. etc. ..

I believe evidence and facts. Circumstantial or not, the missiles were there, the rebels had them, and the rebels talked about them. Russia supporting the rebels is not at all circumstantial. It is proven through satellite photos, video, and even interviews.

When a video analyst that isn’t paid by the Kremlin reviews the video for authenticity, then I’ll call it into question.

Until then, the most likely scenario for what happened was that the rebels shot down MH17, thinking it was a Ukrainian transport. It isn’t 100%, but the likelihood is much higher than if the Ukrainians did it or if another plane shot it down BECAUSE of the summation of the evidence presented.

And I hope you’ll forgive me for not believing press out of Russia when they call for the “full story.” Seeing as this was the same press that said it was Ukraine shooting down what they believed to be Putin’s plane, a Ukrainian Su-25 shot it down, it was escorted by Su-27s, or some mythical air traffic controller named Carlos said it was diverted on purpose.

and that highlighted bit of your text right there is our difference.

Moreover you have exhibited lack of interest in finding out what people believe in this thread. If you were to go back and read my posts carefully you will see that I did clearly (on more than one posts) state that the most likely scenario is that the separatists shot the plane down by mistake.
Personally my difference with you is that I don’t see Putin ghosts everywhere though.

Because reason alone (and nothing else) dictates that civilians NEVER cross a war zone drawn by two engaging enemies. When they do bad things happen. Always have and always will ..

The burden rests with the people who lightheartedly routed a plane over a war zone. You wanna blame the russians and Putin for giving weapons to the separatists go ahead, knock yourself out. .

You may also though, just for the sake of fairness, want to have a look at the weapons used by the Taliban and the ISIL fighters or the Islamists who killed and beheaded (and stuck their heads on pikes) soldier prisoners in Syria. Not to forget that there were official debates as to whether the west should further equip these …rebels with weapons and supplies.

You wanna be one sided and blind .. be my guest.. who am I to teach you what to think. Thank God what is written in these threads stays here for all to see.

Whatever you say. That’s the evidence presented. If you want to disbelieve it, that’s fine. Hopefully you still believe that we went to the moon and that 9/11 was the work of terrorists.

It is typical for people without arguments to resort to vain efforts of ridicule to support their unfounded claims.

Yes, I do believe NASA went to the moon. Because it is verifiable by outside work sources.
Yes, I do believe 9/11 was the work of terrorists, it is verifiable by outside work and sources.
No, I don’t believe (yet) the evidence presented because it is NOT real evidence, just unfounded claims and nothing more.

WMD were equally presented before the second Iraq war. See how Iraq is doing now and how stronger extremist Islamists are.

Rather than believing blindly what they tell you, open your eyes and exercise your reason a little bit.

Posts like this are why the thread should be done away with.

You know what they say about opinions, but still to offer you the benefit of the doubt, care to elaborate? Please enlighten us!