3 ms·

Why not put responsibility with the group that fired the missile? This is victim blaming.

freehunter 11y ago
Just because you put some blame on the victim does not mean you are victim blaming. Victims are not always 100% responsibility free. Bank tellers are often instructed to comply with the demands of a robber. If the teller instead sets off the alarm, locks the doors, and tries to fight the robber and the teller gets shot, sure, the teller is the victim and the robber should not have shot the teller. But the teller was also taking an unnecessary risk by trying to fight the robbery. If the teller had handed over the money, chances are the robber would have taken it and left without anyone getting hurt. That is not victim blaming, that is stating the facts. People can take steps to minimize their risk of becoming a victim. If they do not take those steps and as a result are injured in some way, it's prudent to explain how they could have avoided the negative outcome. Don't shoot down passenger planes flying over your war. But also, don't fly passenger planes over an active warzone.
trhway 11y ago
>Why not put responsibility with the group that fired the missile? This is victim blaming. the rebels were constantly attacked from the air. They were shooting back using what was available to them - MANPADs and once they captured it in June - BUKs. It is obvious from their celebratory tweets first half-an-hour after shooting down the MH-17 that they were thinking it was one more military transport plane of Ukraine. Ukraine was using air forces for ground attacks. Obviously they should have closed the airspace, especially after their BUK systems were captured by rebels. That Ukraine was using air forces and that their planes were being shot down by SAMs more powerful than MANPADS was well known as well as it was reported in international news sources too (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28299334 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28299334). So airlines shouldn't have been flying there even without Ukraine failing to close the airspace.

Just because you put some blame on the victim does not mean you are victim blaming. Victims are not always 100% responsibility free. Bank tellers are often instructed to comply with the demands of a robber. If the teller instead sets off the alarm, locks the doors, and tries to fight the robber and the teller gets shot, sure, the teller is the victim and the robber should not have shot the teller. But the teller was also taking an unnecessary risk by trying to fight the robbery. If the teller had handed over the money, chances are the robber would have taken it and left without anyone getting hurt. That is not victim blaming, that is stating the facts. People can take steps to minimize their risk of becoming a victim. If they do not take those steps and as a result are injured in some way, it's prudent to explain how they could have avoided the negative outcome. Don't shoot down passenger planes flying over your war. But also, don't fly passenger planes over an active warzone.

trhway 11y ago

>Why not put responsibility with the group that fired the missile? This is victim blaming. the rebels were constantly attacked from the air. They were shooting back using what was available to them - MANPADs and once they captured it in June - BUKs. It is obvious from their celebratory tweets first half-an-hour after shooting down the MH-17 that they were thinking it was one more military transport plane of Ukraine. Ukraine was using air forces for ground attacks. Obviously they should have closed the airspace, especially after their BUK systems were captured by rebels. That Ukraine was using air forces and that their planes were being shot down by SAMs more powerful than MANPADS was well known as well as it was reported in international news sources too (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28299334 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28299334). So airlines shouldn't have been flying there even without Ukraine failing to close the airspace.