5 ms·

> creating a very serious and very public international incident Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, sent mercenaries to Donbass and Syria, bombed hospitals in

> creating a very serious and very public international incident Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, sent mercenaries to Donbass and Syria, bombed hospitals in Syria, shot down MH-17, killed dozen of journalists domestically... but you've worried that one murder accusation is a 'very serious' incident?

marcoperaza 8y ago
I’m not expressing concern or lack of concern about anything but the uncritical acceptance of the explanation for what’s happened here. All of those things you list, they are very serious. And so is accusing another sovereign of carrying out a murder. Truth doesn’t have a side, and two falsehoods don’t make a truth. For the record, I am concerned about those actions by Russia. I think it’s downright awful what they’ve done to the Ukraine.
- shkkmo 8y ago
  Well, for the record, you sound more like a russian shill account than a skeptic. Given your comment history I doubt you actually are. While I certainly think there are more details we don't know and I'll take any explanation with a grain of salt, parroting the Russian line that this is a "Ukranian PR ruse" doesn't make you a skeptic.
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    Did you even read my comment? Raising it as an obvious possibility worth considering, followed by saying that I have no reason to believe anything in particular about this, is not “parroting” anything. Just how carefully do I have to phrase my statements to not “sound like a Russian shill”? Do I need to separate each substantive sentence with a condmenation of Putin, to prove that I am not guilty of wrongthink?
    - shkkmo 8y ago
      Read your tone for yourself: >How is no one raising the possibility that this was done to frame Russia, and that now they have changed their mind for whatever reason (perhaps fear of the ruse being discovered). Surely that’s worth considering. You start off with a tone of disbelief that this theory that "should be obvious as a possibility" is being overlooked when all the articles I've read quote Russian sources espousing exactly that theory. Then you don't actually provide any reasoning or evidence as to why the official story doesn't hold up, nor do you provide any evidence to support your theory. Your theory itself doesn't make sense to me. Faking someone's death as a PR stunt that will draw media attention and scrutiny is risky. I don't see how the massive risk of credibility loss for Ukraine is worth the relatively small PR hit to Russia. The cost / benefit analysis just doesn't seem worth it. A far more realistic theory was that the attempted hit was real, has some plausible connection to Russia, but the staging of the reporter's death was done with an eye strongly on the extra media attention and PR implications that it would bring to the case rather than solely for investigative purposes.
mh17skeptic 8y ago
> Russia ... shot down MH-17 Are you sure? If so, what convinced you? Disclaimer: I'm not going to lie about my identity. I'm Russian. Most people in my social circle believe "Western" MH-17 propaganda. Some believe Russian MH-17 propaganda. Both groups also believe even more dangerous lies, and that makes me genuinely interested how the propaganda works on the micro-level (convincing individual people).
- gandhium 8y ago
  You've even bothered to create a specific username? Nice. So, mr skeptic, here's dozens of articles about investigation: https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-crash/ https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-crash/ They even had a separate presentation in Russian at the bottom of the page.
  - mh17skeptic 8y ago
    Of course there's dozens of articles there. What makes you think this source is credible? If a passenger aircraft was supposedly shot down with a surface-to-air missile over, for example, Argentina, would you expect an international investigation team to say they checked with Argentinian air defence bases and made sure their launchers don't have traces of a recent launch? Has JIT said anything of this sort?
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      I've tried to summarize here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17191001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17191001
    - gandhium 8y ago
      > What makes you think this source is credible? This is an international investigation team. I think it's credible enough.
      - mh17skeptic 8y ago
        Imagine a similar incident in, say, Syria, investigated by an international team lead by Russians with some involvement of Belarus and Iran. Let's say they publish a report blaming US-supported rebels. Would you lend the same credence to this hypothetical report?

marcoperaza 8y ago

I’m not expressing concern or lack of concern about anything but the uncritical acceptance of the explanation for what’s happened here. All of those things you list, they are very serious. And so is accusing another sovereign of carrying out a murder. Truth doesn’t have a side, and two falsehoods don’t make a truth. For the record, I am concerned about those actions by Russia. I think it’s downright awful what they’ve done to the Ukraine.

shkkmo 8y ago
Well, for the record, you sound more like a russian shill account than a skeptic. Given your comment history I doubt you actually are. While I certainly think there are more details we don't know and I'll take any explanation with a grain of salt, parroting the Russian line that this is a "Ukranian PR ruse" doesn't make you a skeptic.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  Did you even read my comment? Raising it as an obvious possibility worth considering, followed by saying that I have no reason to believe anything in particular about this, is not “parroting” anything. Just how carefully do I have to phrase my statements to not “sound like a Russian shill”? Do I need to separate each substantive sentence with a condmenation of Putin, to prove that I am not guilty of wrongthink?
  - shkkmo 8y ago
    Read your tone for yourself: >How is no one raising the possibility that this was done to frame Russia, and that now they have changed their mind for whatever reason (perhaps fear of the ruse being discovered). Surely that’s worth considering. You start off with a tone of disbelief that this theory that "should be obvious as a possibility" is being overlooked when all the articles I've read quote Russian sources espousing exactly that theory. Then you don't actually provide any reasoning or evidence as to why the official story doesn't hold up, nor do you provide any evidence to support your theory. Your theory itself doesn't make sense to me. Faking someone's death as a PR stunt that will draw media attention and scrutiny is risky. I don't see how the massive risk of credibility loss for Ukraine is worth the relatively small PR hit to Russia. The cost / benefit analysis just doesn't seem worth it. A far more realistic theory was that the attempted hit was real, has some plausible connection to Russia, but the staging of the reporter's death was done with an eye strongly on the extra media attention and PR implications that it would bring to the case rather than solely for investigative purposes.

mh17skeptic 8y ago

> Russia ... shot down MH-17 Are you sure? If so, what convinced you? Disclaimer: I'm not going to lie about my identity. I'm Russian. Most people in my social circle believe "Western" MH-17 propaganda. Some believe Russian MH-17 propaganda. Both groups also believe even more dangerous lies, and that makes me genuinely interested how the propaganda works on the micro-level (convincing individual people).

gandhium 8y ago
You've even bothered to create a specific username? Nice. So, mr skeptic, here's dozens of articles about investigation: https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-crash/ https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-crash/ They even had a separate presentation in Russian at the bottom of the page.
- mh17skeptic 8y ago
  Of course there's dozens of articles there. What makes you think this source is credible? If a passenger aircraft was supposedly shot down with a surface-to-air missile over, for example, Argentina, would you expect an international investigation team to say they checked with Argentinian air defence bases and made sure their launchers don't have traces of a recent launch? Has JIT said anything of this sort?
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    I've tried to summarize here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17191001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17191001
  - gandhium 8y ago
    > What makes you think this source is credible? This is an international investigation team. I think it's credible enough.
    - mh17skeptic 8y ago
      Imagine a similar incident in, say, Syria, investigated by an international team lead by Russians with some involvement of Belarus and Iran. Let's say they publish a report blaming US-supported rebels. Would you lend the same credence to this hypothetical report?