MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'
1–10 of 98 posts
Re: MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'
#2Wasn't this concluded 2 years ago?
Re: MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'
#3I 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.
Re: MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'
#4Wasn't this concluded 2 years ago?
The article mentions that they knew the missile itself was a Russian one but not from where on the ground it was fired. The article says that the investigation team now concluded that the missile was also fired from a location that was controlled by Russian rebels (at that point).
Re: MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'
#5I 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.
Re: MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'
#6I 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.
Are you for real? There's war zones all over the world, usually that doesn't mean shooting down a passenger flight 10km high, for which you need specialized equipment, not just a random shoulder carry rocket. Until the incident, airspace at civilian cruising altitudes was free and open in Ukraine. Hint: space is 3d, lower levels were closed in various places.
Re: MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'
#7It is me or title looks very ambiguous? It sounds that missile was launched from Russian grounds. What a scary way to begin a morning.
Re: MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'
#8I 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.
Re: MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'
#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.
Re: MH17 missile 'brought in from Russia'
#10It is me or title looks very ambiguous? It sounds that missile was launched from Russian grounds. What a scary way to begin a morning.
Yeah. Title is technically correct but to make it so ambiguous it has to be intentional.