Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 98 posts

Re: MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'

#31

Post by ivan_gammel »

readhn wrote: post #12

If there is solid evidence and especially if there are multiple witnesses then this should be taken to court! Im not sure who the defendant should be on the Russian side, the ministry of defense?

It depends. One possible way is to request FSB to investigate based on presented evidence (illegal supplies of military equipment are their scope of responsibility and we do know that these supplies were not authorized in accordance to Russian laws). If they will not start investigation, then report to the Office of Russian Prosecutor's General. If prosecutors reject the case, go to local court and then up to the Supreme Court. If no success there, go to the European Court of Human Rights and sue Russian Federation. If Russia loses in ECHR, Ministry of Finances will be responsible for paying damages. If (very unlikely, but possible) FSB agrees to investigate and finds the responsible people, likely, it will also find that they were on duty when supplies of equipment took place and, thus, Ministry of Finances of Russian Federation will be responsible for paying damages.

Re: MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'

#32

Post by chokolad »

tptacek wrote: post #5
romanovcode wrote: post #3

I just don't understand how can pilot be so reckless to fly over known warzone? Hey I'm not saying it's their own fault, but please stop telling me that it's "safe" because it's not. It was a known warzone. Todays example: Virgin Atlantic, Air France and Emirates will no longer allow its planes to fly over Iraq due to concerns about the dangers posed by Islamic militants.

Hundreds of other planes did too, because no authority tracked by airlines reported the area as an active conflict zone --- moreover, among the world's conflict zones, there aren't many in which an airliner flying at altitude would be at risked. The unique situation here is that Russia had deployed extremely sophisticated surface-to-air batteries.

> The unique situation here is that Russia had deployed extremely sophisticated surface-to-air batteries.

Single launcher. Full battery has 4 launchers and a significantly more sophisticated radar. Arguably that radar would have helped to sort between Ukrainian observation plane and civilian Boeing.

Re: MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'

#33

Post by emp_zealoth »

readhn wrote: post #28
chrischen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even more sanctions

Sanctions are a dirty western political trick just so the politicians here can say "we did something". Sanctions are useless! Do you know who they affect? Regular people ONLY. Who have no say in politics anymore over there (elections are rigged). Facts: 1. Top Russian government officials transferred their assets to Europe / USA over the years. They have their families and kids living abroad and going to European/Ame…

The point is to ruin Russia to the point they become North Korea and cannot afford the upkeep for it's military. Regular people? Boo-fucking-hoo. Maybe if they get off their asses and stop the Putin's insanity...but who are we kidding? People there dream of good old soviet imperium

Re: MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'

#34

Post by vetinari »

readhn wrote: post #28
chrischen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even more sanctions

Sanctions are a dirty western political trick just so the politicians here can say "we did something". Sanctions are useless! Do you know who they affect? Regular people ONLY. Who have no say in politics anymore over there (elections are rigged). Facts: 1. Top Russian government officials transferred their assets to Europe / USA over the years. They have their families and kids living abroad and going to European/Ame…

It's not that simple.

You want to arrest all assets of powerful Russians offshore? I hope you are ready to face pissed off Shell or Mitsubishi CEOs, after their assets in Russia are arrested too.

In addition, you would be playing how Russian government want you: they told their oligarchs last year, that the time to repatriate everything is now (2015). You would be awarding those who listened to that advice and penalize those who didn't. What could possibly go wrong? ;)

Re: MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'

#35

Post by acz »

mikeash wrote: post #19
romanovcode wrote: post #3

I just don't understand how can pilot be so reckless to fly over known warzone? Hey I'm not saying it's their own fault, but please stop telling me that it's "safe" because it's not. It was a known warzone. Todays example: Virgin Atlantic, Air France and Emirates will no longer allow its planes to fly over Iraq due to concerns about the dangers posed by Islamic militants.

And a bunch of other airlines are not diverting from Iraq because they disagree about the danger. At the time of the MH17 shootdown, some airlines were already diverting around eastern Ukraine, and many others were not. A reasonable assessment of the danger was made, and they decided that it was safe enough to continue flying there. That assessment turned out to be wrong, but that doesn't mean the it was "reckless."

What was the weather situation over this region on that day?

Re: MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'

#36

Post by haberman »

jkot wrote: post #9

> was fired from to a field in territory controlled by Russian-backed rebels. > "...that came from the Russian Federation," chief Dutch police investigator Wilbert Paulissen said I think the wording 'territory of the Russian Federation' is not best choice. Report says it was fired from Ukraine, 10 km from border. It implies that donbas is already part of russia.

They are saying that the missile originated from Russia, not that it was fired from Russia.

The investigation concludes that the missile was transported from Russia to the rebel-controlled territory, where it was then fired.

Re: MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'

#37

Post by kobeya »

mikeash wrote: post #17
chvid wrote: post #13

The new bit I suppose is this: "They also narrowed down the area it was fired from to a field in territory controlled by Russian-backed rebels." Little doubt has there been that the weapon used was made in Russia.

Also that the missile was transported from Russia shortly before the shootdown, and the launcher and remaining missiles were transported back to Russia. They mean "came from" in a more specific manner than just that it was made there.

That was from social media images that are not news. It was reported on at the time. I'm not sure what's new here other than a two years too late rubber stamp of eyewitness reports.

Re: MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'

#38

Post by eternalban »

okket wrote: post #8
romanovcode wrote: post #3

I just don't understand how can pilot be so reckless to fly over known warzone? Hey I'm not saying it's their own fault, but please stop telling me that it's "safe" because it's not. It was a known warzone. Todays example: Virgin Atlantic, Air France and Emirates will no longer allow its planes to fly over Iraq due to concerns about the dangers posed by Islamic militants.

You need state sponsored military equipment to shoot down a 10km high flying airplane. You can't do this with your homebuilt rocket launcher. Up to this incident nobody was thinking that a state could be reckless enough to target civilian planes. Or lend their military equipment to people reckless enough. This has changed since then.

old news:

Iran Air was shot down by US Navy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Post reply on HN