8 ms·

Dutch report: Buk missile downed MH17 in Ukraine

56 points by jboynyc 11y ago

mirap 11y ago
I'm afraid, it was clear from the beginning. Only Russia told it was not true....
- anthonybsd 11y ago
  They change their tune so often it's hard to keep track. Have a look: http://listverse.com/2015/09/07/10-outrageous-ways-russian-media-covered-the-crash-of-mh17/ http://listverse.com/2015/09/07/10-outrageous-ways-russian-m...
  - oselhn 11y ago
    Thats their strategy. They do not need proofs just spread confusion to prevent sane discussion.
    - techterrier 11y ago
      FUD 101
    - smcl 11y ago
      Adam Curtis has a great piece about this - Vladislav Surkov and his "nonlinear warfare" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcy8uLjRHPM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcy8uLjRHPM
  - jinst8gmi 11y ago
    It gets even crazier - check out the RT coverage from 2014 claiming it was the result of the Ukranians trying to shoot down Putin's plane and hitting the wrong jet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN5rPdxugHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN5rPdxugHY It sounds like something that you'd read in the Onion except they seem to be passing it off as actual news.
    - anthonybsd 11y ago
      #8 from the link above :)
danielvf 11y ago
Here's the full report, for those who wish to read it. http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en....
0xbadf00d 11y ago
Always interesting reading the same news from different sources - the BBC story does not seem to mention the Almaz-Antey test firing of a newer model of the missile to disprove Russian involvement. Where does the WP lie on the political Spectrum? As a Euro-bloke I don't know.
- tremon 11y ago
  The AA version of events is extensively debunked here (last paragraph): http://listverse.com/2015/09/07/10-outrageous-ways-russian-media-covered-the-crash-of-mh17/ http://listverse.com/2015/09/07/10-outrageous-ways-russian-m... In short, AA asserted that the BUK missile was fired from Ukrainian-controlled Zaroschchenske. However, locals have reportedly never seen a BUK there, and Zaroschchenske was under rebel control at that time. Their report also contained manipulated footage from the Russian MoD.
- techterrier 11y ago
  There's a section of the report which answers the Russian claims.
  - cpncrunch 11y ago
    Yes, see here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34511973 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34511973 The BBC isn't anywhere on the "political spectrum". If the OP was implying that the BBC was deliberately not including that info for political reasons, he/she doesn't really know anything about the BBC.
    - dogma1138 11y ago
      The BBC have had several incidents which included internal investigations regarding reporting bias, and it pretty much managed to squash them all including a government report about BBC reporting bias on middle eastern issues. There isn't an unbiased new source, even the wire has its own biases, but claiming that the BBC doesn't drive a political agenda is dishonest.
orf 11y ago
> In July, Russia vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that would have established an international criminal tribunal to investigate the MH17 attack. Nothing to hide, right?
- dogma1138 11y ago
  The US doesn't recognizes the ICC either. Countries do not like to surrender sovereignty to international bodies, the ICC only works when you have a big enough military to pluck your indited targets by force. If push comes to shove I can't see any nation openly surrender any of their citizens to an international court which is why while the ICC is a great idea in general it's more or less a sham. It's easy to prosecute people from the Balkans or Africa when you have the US or NATO forces doing the dirty work for you, it gets some what harder when you have to deal with nations that have actual power.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    This was not about ICC, this was to set up a specific tribunal to investigate this particular crime. A more relevant comparison might be the Lockerbie trial?
    - dogma1138 11y ago
      It was most likely the ICC, the UNSC is the only body that can instruct the ICC to start a tribunal and that's the role that the ICC plays for in the whole UN eco-system opening a completely separate international criminal tribunal to would be a bit odd especially since it won't have any mandates and I'm not even sure if the UNSC can do that. P.S. The Lockerbie trial wasn't an international tribunal, or an international trial it was awkwardly constructed due to the fact that neither the US nor the UK had a working extradition treaties with Libya and the case was not turned over to the ICC. The trial was conducted in the Netherlands yes but under Scottish law and that's because the dutch did had an extradition treaty with Libya as well as some weird treaty with presumably either the UK, the commonwealth or even historically the Kingdom of Scotland which allowed them to establish a Scottish court on dutch grounds.
wsc981 11y ago
Some problems with the report is that it was written by Dutch and Ukrainian people, which might not be totally objective. Additionally, large parts of the report isn't open for everyone to see. I think it's strange to accept a conclusion without being able to see everything that caused the researches to come to their conclusion. Finally, when the report was revealed the press wasn't allowed to ask any questions.
- KaiserPro 11y ago
  I suspect the reason why they wernt allowed to ask questions is because the report only lays out a time line of of events. Not the political reasons or motivations behind those events. Plus if we are going to be honest, the report is more than detailed enough.
- tremon 11y ago
  The full report is http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.... Which parts are missing according to you?
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  > Some problems with the report is that it was written by Dutch and Ukrainian people, which might not be totally objective. Which is why the report includes both "factual information" and "analysis" sections. Feel free to contest specific points in their analysis you object to. > Finally, when the report was revealed the press wasn't allowed to ask any questions. Probably because 99% of the questions they'd ask would be answered by reading the report. It's not like the reporters can't read it and email their questions in a few hours later.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  Well, the world wanted a tribunal at the UN but Russia veto'd it. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/29/us-ukraine-crisis-mh17-un-idUSKCN0Q32GS20150729 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/29/us-ukraine-crisis-... Its clear that Russia sees guilt here and anything it can do to confuse people and make people think like you (see! Its all biased, wake up sheeple!) is part of their disinformation strategy. Sadly, this stuff works.
ajeet_dhaliwal 11y ago
So pretty much no change from what new organizations were originally saying at the time. This incident took place one month after my son was born and I remember having a tough time sleeping that night thinking about all of the people, particularly young children on the flight. Before this I did not realize that the airline you choose is so important. Many airlines including British Airways which I usually use had been avoiding all of Ukraine airspace for months before this happened, however sadly they were in the minority.
jinst8gmi 11y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10380018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10380018
tinfoilman 11y ago
Interesting reaction many are having, I think its pretty clear on the world stage that Russia had involvement in this, either it was supplying the weapons or worse case is was Russia's 'Moderate rebels' that did it. Which seem to be how first world powers these days get what they want without putting their name on it The fact Russia Vetoed a UN investigation and Putin has stated a few times when asked that it would be a waste of time to do an investigation sends a clear and strong message. The interesting thing to me, is why it has come out now? the US propaganda machine is in over drive lately. US has spent years funneling 'moderate' rebels towards Syria, while using ISIS as the poster kids for more draconian surveillance and not really doing anything about them. I mean its pretty clear right? US(cia) created the environment that allowed ISIS to grow and then used them to push forward their international agenda (removal of Assad (before that Iraq/Afghanistan destabilization ready for a US friendly government to be installed)) and domestic agenda (removal of rights for the 'greater' good). Just this week we have the US stating they are stopping training 'moderate' rebels (I quote as I do not believe there are ever moderate rebels) but then proceeds to sell Saudi Arabia missiles that TODAY Saudi Arabia have given to the 'moderate' Rebels. We see. Luckily we live in interested times, and the internet has made it so we can see more of the world stage without local filtering (newspapers/local new) interesting times indeed. TL:DR: Russia's moderate rebels most likely shot the plan down, Russia knows this stalls investigation. Then a bit of a rant of, Why this has come out now
- tremon 11y ago
  It has come out now because the Dutch Safety Board gave itself a year to write its report. The release date was already announced six weeks ago in Dutch media: http://nos.nl/artikel/2054305-eindrapport-mh17-13-oktober-gepubliceerd.html http://nos.nl/artikel/2054305-eindrapport-mh17-13-oktober-ge... Neither the US nor ISIS had anything to do with this report or its timing.

56 points by jboynyc 11y ago

mirap 11y ago

I'm afraid, it was clear from the beginning. Only Russia told it was not true....

anthonybsd 11y ago
They change their tune so often it's hard to keep track. Have a look: http://listverse.com/2015/09/07/10-outrageous-ways-russian-media-covered-the-crash-of-mh17/ http://listverse.com/2015/09/07/10-outrageous-ways-russian-m...
- oselhn 11y ago
  Thats their strategy. They do not need proofs just spread confusion to prevent sane discussion.
  - techterrier 11y ago
    FUD 101
  - smcl 11y ago
    Adam Curtis has a great piece about this - Vladislav Surkov and his "nonlinear warfare" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcy8uLjRHPM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcy8uLjRHPM
- jinst8gmi 11y ago
  It gets even crazier - check out the RT coverage from 2014 claiming it was the result of the Ukranians trying to shoot down Putin's plane and hitting the wrong jet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN5rPdxugHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN5rPdxugHY It sounds like something that you'd read in the Onion except they seem to be passing it off as actual news.
  - anthonybsd 11y ago
    #8 from the link above :)

danielvf 11y ago

Here's the full report, for those who wish to read it. http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en....

0xbadf00d 11y ago

Always interesting reading the same news from different sources - the BBC story does not seem to mention the Almaz-Antey test firing of a newer model of the missile to disprove Russian involvement. Where does the WP lie on the political Spectrum? As a Euro-bloke I don't know.

tremon 11y ago
The AA version of events is extensively debunked here (last paragraph): http://listverse.com/2015/09/07/10-outrageous-ways-russian-media-covered-the-crash-of-mh17/ http://listverse.com/2015/09/07/10-outrageous-ways-russian-m... In short, AA asserted that the BUK missile was fired from Ukrainian-controlled Zaroschchenske. However, locals have reportedly never seen a BUK there, and Zaroschchenske was under rebel control at that time. Their report also contained manipulated footage from the Russian MoD.
techterrier 11y ago
There's a section of the report which answers the Russian claims.
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  Yes, see here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34511973 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34511973 The BBC isn't anywhere on the "political spectrum". If the OP was implying that the BBC was deliberately not including that info for political reasons, he/she doesn't really know anything about the BBC.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    The BBC have had several incidents which included internal investigations regarding reporting bias, and it pretty much managed to squash them all including a government report about BBC reporting bias on middle eastern issues. There isn't an unbiased new source, even the wire has its own biases, but claiming that the BBC doesn't drive a political agenda is dishonest.

orf 11y ago

> In July, Russia vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that would have established an international criminal tribunal to investigate the MH17 attack. Nothing to hide, right?

dogma1138 11y ago
The US doesn't recognizes the ICC either. Countries do not like to surrender sovereignty to international bodies, the ICC only works when you have a big enough military to pluck your indited targets by force. If push comes to shove I can't see any nation openly surrender any of their citizens to an international court which is why while the ICC is a great idea in general it's more or less a sham. It's easy to prosecute people from the Balkans or Africa when you have the US or NATO forces doing the dirty work for you, it gets some what harder when you have to deal with nations that have actual power.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ptaipale 11y ago
  This was not about ICC, this was to set up a specific tribunal to investigate this particular crime. A more relevant comparison might be the Lockerbie trial?
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    It was most likely the ICC, the UNSC is the only body that can instruct the ICC to start a tribunal and that's the role that the ICC plays for in the whole UN eco-system opening a completely separate international criminal tribunal to would be a bit odd especially since it won't have any mandates and I'm not even sure if the UNSC can do that. P.S. The Lockerbie trial wasn't an international tribunal, or an international trial it was awkwardly constructed due to the fact that neither the US nor the UK had a working extradition treaties with Libya and the case was not turned over to the ICC. The trial was conducted in the Netherlands yes but under Scottish law and that's because the dutch did had an extradition treaty with Libya as well as some weird treaty with presumably either the UK, the commonwealth or even historically the Kingdom of Scotland which allowed them to establish a Scottish court on dutch grounds.

wsc981 11y ago

Some problems with the report is that it was written by Dutch and Ukrainian people, which might not be totally objective. Additionally, large parts of the report isn't open for everyone to see. I think it's strange to accept a conclusion without being able to see everything that caused the researches to come to their conclusion. Finally, when the report was revealed the press wasn't allowed to ask any questions.

KaiserPro 11y ago
I suspect the reason why they wernt allowed to ask questions is because the report only lays out a time line of of events. Not the political reasons or motivations behind those events. Plus if we are going to be honest, the report is more than detailed enough.
tremon 11y ago
The full report is http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.... Which parts are missing according to you?
ceejayoz 11y ago
> Some problems with the report is that it was written by Dutch and Ukrainian people, which might not be totally objective. Which is why the report includes both "factual information" and "analysis" sections. Feel free to contest specific points in their analysis you object to. > Finally, when the report was revealed the press wasn't allowed to ask any questions. Probably because 99% of the questions they'd ask would be answered by reading the report. It's not like the reporters can't read it and email their questions in a few hours later.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Well, the world wanted a tribunal at the UN but Russia veto'd it. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/29/us-ukraine-crisis-mh17-un-idUSKCN0Q32GS20150729 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/29/us-ukraine-crisis-... Its clear that Russia sees guilt here and anything it can do to confuse people and make people think like you (see! Its all biased, wake up sheeple!) is part of their disinformation strategy. Sadly, this stuff works.

ajeet_dhaliwal 11y ago

So pretty much no change from what new organizations were originally saying at the time. This incident took place one month after my son was born and I remember having a tough time sleeping that night thinking about all of the people, particularly young children on the flight. Before this I did not realize that the airline you choose is so important. Many airlines including British Airways which I usually use had been avoiding all of Ukraine airspace for months before this happened, however sadly they were in the minority.

jinst8gmi 11y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10380018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10380018

tinfoilman 11y ago

Interesting reaction many are having, I think its pretty clear on the world stage that Russia had involvement in this, either it was supplying the weapons or worse case is was Russia's 'Moderate rebels' that did it. Which seem to be how first world powers these days get what they want without putting their name on it The fact Russia Vetoed a UN investigation and Putin has stated a few times when asked that it would be a waste of time to do an investigation sends a clear and strong message. The interesting thing to me, is why it has come out now? the US propaganda machine is in over drive lately. US has spent years funneling 'moderate' rebels towards Syria, while using ISIS as the poster kids for more draconian surveillance and not really doing anything about them. I mean its pretty clear right? US(cia) created the environment that allowed ISIS to grow and then used them to push forward their international agenda (removal of Assad (before that Iraq/Afghanistan destabilization ready for a US friendly government to be installed)) and domestic agenda (removal of rights for the 'greater' good). Just this week we have the US stating they are stopping training 'moderate' rebels (I quote as I do not believe there are ever moderate rebels) but then proceeds to sell Saudi Arabia missiles that TODAY Saudi Arabia have given to the 'moderate' Rebels. We see. Luckily we live in interested times, and the internet has made it so we can see more of the world stage without local filtering (newspapers/local new) interesting times indeed. TL:DR: Russia's moderate rebels most likely shot the plan down, Russia knows this stalls investigation. Then a bit of a rant of, Why this has come out now

tremon 11y ago
It has come out now because the Dutch Safety Board gave itself a year to write its report. The release date was already announced six weeks ago in Dutch media: http://nos.nl/artikel/2054305-eindrapport-mh17-13-oktober-gepubliceerd.html http://nos.nl/artikel/2054305-eindrapport-mh17-13-oktober-ge... Neither the US nor ISIS had anything to do with this report or its timing.