Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crashes in Ukraine

[lovetravellingoz]

There is a strange argument in this thread that MH are at fault.

Terrorists can get on a plane at ANY airport in the world. By Melb-Travellers logic no airline should fly ever.

Mechanical parts can fail in catastrophic, unexpected and unannounced ways. By Melb-Travellers logic no airline should fly ever.

Pilots have been known to commit suicide on commercial flights that they are responsible for. By Melb-Travellers logic no airline should fly ever.



My eldest daughter flew to Europe recently on Malayasian, and will be flying back in August. I am 100% at ease with this.

 

[artemis]

War is a terrible thing. It is where mass murder is expected, desired. If someone feels some God-given right to make up ¨rules¨ for everyone else on this planet, surely the first one on warfare would be a total ban on war!!!

Actually war does have some benefits.

Just ask Halliburton.


And mass murder is not necessarily expected or desired. It's about achieving one's aims with the use of deadly force.

But in all seriousness, there is a economic effect as well as a technologic boon from warfare. As unpalatable as that all may sound, it's true.

And the rules are there to try and mitigate the collateral damage. It's not fun, but it is reality.

And fwiw, we're all now discussing Russia/Ukraine. Warlike actions have some ?positive outcomes - even if it's just raising awareness of a simmering conflict in a part of the world we'll never visit.

 

[juddles]

1) RULES of ENGAGEMENT

.... keyboard warrior.......Bravo Two Zero .....

Legroom, I suggest there is a generation gap between us and I have learnt in the past that engaging in arguments with such differences is pointless. But I did get a smile out of your quoting Bravo Two Zero.
I am not a ¨keyboard warrior¨. I live and work in a war zone. I was once a soldier. But now I just try to make the world a better place. One day you will learn that ¨rules¨ are only useful to the people that agree with and obey them. In war your ¨RoE¨(?) usually mean nothing. It is just how it is. Sorry.

 

[boomy]

Your comment admits there is such thing as 'rules' in war (which is the point of my post).

Prior to any war, Australia or other nation states always have rules of engagement specifically for that war and in addition to universal rules like the Geneva Convention.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1958997/rules-of-engagement-ROE

It is a separate issue when the combatants ignore / breach the said rules.

By saying sarcastically that there are no rules in war, I'm afraid that is not correct.

If you read my post carefully I said "the rules will ALWAYS be broken".
I had the misfortune of participating in a few conflicts before I arrived to Australia and I can tell you fist hand that once you are in a war zone, all the rules that were written by freeloading politicians in air coned boardrooms are forgotten and you do whatever it takes to survive and win the battle, especially when you fight terrorists who have no morals and couldn't care less about your western humanitarian rules.
If you think that a war is only between soldiers who only use the Geneva Conventions agreed weapons and never target innocent civilians then you are extremely naive and in urgent need of a reality check!

 

[legroom]

See my post earlier referring to real soldiers in real-life scenarios (Bravo Two Zero & Red Wing & My Lai court martial) which were positive proofs of morals & rules - not free-for-all "naivety" as you implied as the norms.

If you read my post carefully I said "the rules will ALWAYS be broken".
I had the misfortune of participating in a few conflicts before I arrived to Australia and I can tell you fist hand that once you are in a war zone, all the rules that were written by freeloading politicians in air coned boardrooms are forgotten and you do whatever it takes to survive and win the battle, especially when you fight terrorists who have no morals and couldn't care less about your western humanitarian rules.
If you think that a war is only between soldiers who only use the Geneva Conventions agreed weapons and never target innocent civilians then you are extremely naive and in urgent need of a reality check!

 

[burmans]

If you read my post carefully I said "the rules will ALWAYS be broken".
I had the misfortune of participating in a few conflicts before I arrived to Australia and I can tell you fist hand that once you are in a war zone, all the rules that were written by freeloading politicians in air coned boardrooms are forgotten and you do whatever it takes to survive and win the battle, especially when you fight terrorists who have no morals and couldn't care less about your western humanitarian rules.
If you think that a war is only between soldiers who only use the Geneva Conventions agreed weapons and never target innocent civilians then you are extremely naive and in urgent need of a reality check!

You did say this but thats not all you said in your post which did question as to whether wars have rules. They clearly do, the question is whether they are followed and then whether they are enforced. I am unsure where you are trying to go with your argument beyond heaping opprobrium on legroom.

You're comment that rules are always broken is almost certainly true but equally meaningless, MOST laws are broken by some people, it doesn't mean we stop having laws.

The question here would be as to how this would be enforced given Russia has a veto in the UN Security Council.

 

[geordieladinoz]

Singapore Airlines appear to have been taking some heat for a Twitter comment today.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/24504465/singapore-airlines-apologises-for-insensitive-mh17-post/

Wonder how long it is until we see Qantas in the media for their website headline?

I really do not believe either Singapore or Qantas are trying to be disrespectful in any way. Surely the media has more to do than dredge this sort of stuff up?

 

[boomy]

You did say this but thats not all you said in your post which did question as to whether wars have rules. They clearly do, the question is whether they are followed and then whether they are enforced. I am unsure where you are trying to go with your argument beyond heaping opprobrium on legroom.

You're comment that rules are always broken is almost certainly true but equally meaningless, MOST laws are broken by some people, it doesn't mean we stop having laws.

The question here would be as to how this would be enforced given Russia has a veto in the UN Security Council.

You can write as many rules as you want but you can't be so naive to think others will play according to them, or more to the point, terrorists obeying the rules some politicians agreed on in Geneva.
Regarding Russia, as I said before only combined economic pressure by the US and Europe can make them stop arming the rebels. Off course easier said then done. The US is playing it's part (more or less) but Europe is too soft in it's approach due to the strong economic ties most countries there have with Russia. Let's hope that one positive will come out of this terrible tragedy and the Europeans will step up their pressure.

 

[markis10]

Singapore Airlines appear to have been taking some heat for a Twitter comment today.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/24504465/singapore-airlines-apologises-for-insensitive-mh17-post/

Wonder how long it is until we see Qantas in the media for their website headline?

I really do not believe either Singapore or Qantas are trying to be disrespectful in any way. Surely the media has more to do than dredge this sort of stuff up?

I am not sure QF are in the same boat as SQ, as they did not have aircraft in the same airspace unlike SQ, which had a plane not far from MH17 at the time.

 

[Ansett]

GUYS

With all respect I would suggest that this is not the place to be arguing this given the title of the tread. If you ant to discuss the rules of Engagement then PLEASE open a new thread and leave this thread to remain on Topic.

THANK YOU

 

[burmans]

You can write as many rules as you want but you can't be so naive to think others will play according to them, or more to the point, terrorists obeying the rules some politicians agreed on in Geneva.

No I'm not naive enough to think everyone will play by them, as I said its how you enforce rules that matters, our own internal laws would be somewhat irrelevant if we did not have a police force.

I also agree that the UN has been somewhat ineffective in the past in enforcing such rules, however unlike some (which group you seem to be in) I'm not in favour of therefore just giving up on this as ungovernable, but rather in favour of fixing it and having an international organisation that is effective.

Your comments are of course quite illuminating in that you confirm what many of us believe, i.e. that soldiers will act in their own interest rather than under the rules. This is of course the reason people are a bit suspicious of people like Scott Morrison with his claims that the navy would never do anything wrong, trust us. Personally while I am as cncical of politicians as the next man I think the expectation that soldiers will play by the rules is a bit wider than just politicians. While naive it might be, there has been considerable shock by for example Americans at what was done in their name recently.

 

[mannej]

Singapore Airlines appear to have been taking some heat for a Twitter comment today.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/24504465/singapore-airlines-apologises-for-insensitive-mh17-post/

Wonder how long it is until we see Qantas in the media for their website headline?

I really do not believe either Singapore or Qantas are trying to be disrespectful in any way. Surely the media has more to do than dredge this sort of stuff up?

It's an ironic comment considering how close It was to the MH flight. Like it has been posted earlier we could easily be talking about SQ or AI here.

 

[JessicaTam]

GUYS

With all respect I would suggest that this is not the place to be arguing this given the title of the tread. If you ant to discuss the rules of Engagement then PLEASE open a new thread and leave this thread to remain on Topic.

THANK YOU

I will second that.

 

[boomy]

No I'm not naive enough to think everyone will play by them, as I said its how you enforce rules that matters, our own internal laws would be somewhat irrelevant if we did not have a police force.

I also agree that the UN has been somewhat ineffective in the past in enforcing such rules, however unlike some (which group you seem to be in) I'm not in favour of therefore just giving up on this as ungovernable, but rather in favour of fixing it and having an international organisation that is effective.

Your comments are of course quite illuminating in that you confirm what many of us believe, i.e. that soldiers will act in their own interest rather than under the rules. This is of course the reason people are a bit suspicious of people like Scott Morrison with his claims that the navy would never do anything wrong, trust us. Personally while I am as cncical of politicians as the next man I think the expectation that soldiers will play by the rules is a bit wider than just politicians. While naive it might be, there has been considerable shock by for example Americans at what was done in their name recently.

In the past wars used to be more simple: nation vs. nation, soldier vs. soldier, tank vs. tank etc. Nowadays you have countries fighting against terrorists and you also have nations such as Iran and Russia who sponsor all kinds of lawless groups who end up killing innocent civilians like the in the case of MH17.
I suspect it will be very hard for any international court to put the blame directly on Russia.

 

[burmans]

In the past wars used to be more simple: nation vs. nation, soldier vs. soldier, tank vs. tank etc. Nowadays you have countries fighting against terrorists and you also have nations such as Iran and Russia who sponsor all kinds of lawless groups who end up killing innocent civilians like the in the case of MH17.
I suspect it will be very hard for any international court to put the blame directly on Russia.

Agree its hard, doesnt mean its something we should not try.

With respect to those trying to close the discussion down, afraid I disagree. Given the title of the thread I think its totally appropriate that some of us might want to discuss how/why this occurred and what might be done to stop this happening and/or bring those who did it to justice.

 

[Ansett]

What I was trying to close down was the argument between you two about rules of engagement that is NOT appropriate for this thread. !!!!!!!!! Please stay on Topic.

 

[ozkid]

I agree with the ¨unintended consequence¨bit. I do not agree with the ¨buffoons¨bit - just what do you actually know about the people involved there and the conflict?

I think they are buffoons.

Circumstantial evidence:
- the separatists do not have an airforce. The only group of people who therefore want SAMs are the rebels.
- the rebels have posted on social media showing off their new toys
- the rebels and even their leaders have been more than happy to state it was they who shot down military tactical and transport aircraft leading up to July 18
- when MH17 went down, they were happy to claim that it was they who brought a military transport down
- when they realised it was civilian, radio intercepts (without using any codewords!) pointed out their dismay
- when they wanted to move the missile launchers back into Russia - missing a missile - they didn't even bother covering it up with a tarp. In broad daylight, through a town? Amateurs!

To be verified:
- US needs to show evidence that they tracked the missile launch, and the appropriate radar emissions, from ground to impact with MH17. To dispute rumour that it was a air to air missile from a jet fighter.
- those photos of the launcher, the smoke trail, the convoy apparently leaving the region the next day - verify with time stamp and GPS locations, to prove it wasn't staged. US may have technical assets that potentially can pinpoint that exact convoy leaving Ukraine back into Russia - proof they are trying to hide the incriminating evidence
- verify that the phone conversation between the russian intelligence officer and the rebels took place; gives motive that it was a horrible cluster-F

Buffoon-ery post-crash:
- rebels acting unprofessionally, impolite, and intoxicated when the investigation team first tried to enter the crash area. Diplomatic speak for anarchy
- when it became clear it was a civilian plane, they clumsily deleted all the posts/tweets/photos of trumph and high altitude SAM capability - if you were innocent, wouldn't you claim through those channels that it wasn't us? Instead, this misguided attempt to erase history only leads to more incriminating evidence of covering up your mistakes
- not stopping the looting or desecration of the bodies. Using their credit cards. Repugnant. I wonder if Interpol can track the mobile phone signals/ID of the passengers' phones: I am sure they will be turned on and used
- sending a bot to change wikipedia entries to put blame on the other side
- if you are trying to save your image and protect your version of events, I can't think of how else not to do it.

In some ways, this is gang violence writ large. A group of militia-civilians given guns and missiles by a nation-state to run a proxy war. Not much signs of professional discipline. Showing off their big guns, looking to make a big mark by taking down planes using a brand new toy. A drive by shooting if you will, by thugs - MH17 happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, truly a slaughter of the innocents

 

[burmans]

What I was trying to close down was the argument between you two about rules of engagement that is NOT appropriate for this thread. !!!!!!!!! Please stay on Topic.

And as I said. I think enforcement of the rules IS on topic.

Edit: actually I think you'll find it was boomy and legroom discussing ROE, I'm more interested in the general principle of not shooting down a civilian jet liner and how to bring these people to justice.

 

[boomy]

Agree its hard, doesnt mean its something we should not try.

There was the case of IR655 which was accidentally shot down in 1988 by the US. Although they didn't accept responsibility they were eventually forced to pay compensations. That case was relatively easy to settle because the missile was shot from an American warship operated by American soldiers.
In the case of MH17 you can probably say for sure the missile launcher was Russian made but you also need to prove it was operated by Russian soldiers or by people who got direct orders from Moscow.
Intercepted phone calls, satellite footage, a defected general who can show some hard evidence, one can only hope...

 

[JessicaTam]

I learnt this morning that a family of five from Eynesbury were amongst those killed. It is only a small town and I know of at least two workmates who live there. Too close.

coughs.