3 ms·

"and probably that someone was drunk" It's a strange assumption. I doubt drunk people ever get to be around Buk launchers (even in separatists' camps) You sho

"and probably that someone was drunk" It's a strange assumption. I doubt drunk people ever get to be around Buk launchers (even in separatists' camps) You should keep in mind that rebels shot down military plane allegedly carrying 40 Ukrainian soldiers (and crew) - month before MH17. This was a serious military transport plane Il-76, not some light planer. They shot other aircraft too. One could imagine that shooting at planes has become norm rather than unexpected at the area.

kilotaras 11y ago
IL-76 was shot a lot lower and not from BUK missile. Until MH-17 there was no reason to believe separatists had any high altitude anti-aircraft weapons.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  I'm not talking about how it was shot. I'm talking about whether it could be a rational decision (possibly fueled by incomplete knowledge) instead of "being drunk". It could. They shot other planes before.
ronmacgill 11y ago
The E. Ukr rebels were using shoulder-fired missiles and were firing at planes close to the ground. Quite a different kettle of fish than buk missiles which requires a lot more technical coordination
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  Once you've got determination to shoot down planes with people inside, getting a bigger gun doesn't seem impossible.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Especially since you're getting good at shooting down low-altitude flights you can expect the enemy to fly higher, at which point getting a weapon with greater range seems prudent.
Alupis 11y ago
> You should keep in mind that rebels shot down military plane allegedly carrying 40 Ukrainian soldiers (and crew) - month before MH17. This was a serious military transport plane Il-76, not some light planer. They shot other aircraft too. One could imagine that shooting at planes has become norm rather than unexpected at the area. Yet Malaysian airlines still thought it a good idea to ignore the rebel-declared no-fly-zone and continue flying through airspace known to have active AA activity. Honestly, I think we're not blaming the airline nearly enough here.

kilotaras 11y ago

IL-76 was shot a lot lower and not from BUK missile. Until MH-17 there was no reason to believe separatists had any high altitude anti-aircraft weapons.

guard-of-terra 11y ago
I'm not talking about how it was shot. I'm talking about whether it could be a rational decision (possibly fueled by incomplete knowledge) instead of "being drunk". It could. They shot other planes before.

ronmacgill 11y ago

The E. Ukr rebels were using shoulder-fired missiles and were firing at planes close to the ground. Quite a different kettle of fish than buk missiles which requires a lot more technical coordination

guard-of-terra 11y ago
Once you've got determination to shoot down planes with people inside, getting a bigger gun doesn't seem impossible.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Especially since you're getting good at shooting down low-altitude flights you can expect the enemy to fly higher, at which point getting a weapon with greater range seems prudent.

Alupis 11y ago

> You should keep in mind that rebels shot down military plane allegedly carrying 40 Ukrainian soldiers (and crew) - month before MH17. This was a serious military transport plane Il-76, not some light planer. They shot other aircraft too. One could imagine that shooting at planes has become norm rather than unexpected at the area. Yet Malaysian airlines still thought it a good idea to ignore the rebel-declared no-fly-zone and continue flying through airspace known to have active AA activity. Honestly, I think we're not blaming the airline nearly enough here.