Malaysian Airlines flight carrying 295 people has been shot down in Ukraine

[Puupi]

They can use any weapons which don't 'accidentally' kill civilians and destroy their houses.

They can use any weapons which are not banned by UN. Nobody cares what you think about it.

[Shalcker]

It's not the governments fault there is a war going on.

It is in fact government fault that there is war going on. They were offered to talk on possible conditions multiple times, instead of talking they chosen to use army.

[Megraam]

They can use any weapons which are not banned by UN. Nobody cares what you think about it.

Do you justify slaughter of civilians by Ukranian army as long as weapons they use for it aren't banned for UN?

[Shalcker]

They can use any weapons which are not banned by UN. Nobody cares what you think about it.

"Up to and including banned by UN" you wanted to say i guess?

Ukrainians using white phosphorous bombs claims were never debunked after all other then pointing to one video out of many available and saying "this one was shot elsewhere!" while ignoring all others...

[Puupi]

It is in fact government fault that there is war going on. They were offered to talk on possible conditions multiple times, instead of talking they chosen to use army.

No, terrorists are in no position to negotiate with government. They should all just be shot, which they eventually will be.

Do you justify slaughter of civilians by Ukranian army as long as weapons they use for it aren't banned for UN?

They are not 'slaughtering civilians'. Collateral damage is unfortunate, but it happens when the enemy forces hide behind civilians.

- - - Updated - - -

"Up to and including banned by UN" you wanted to say i guess?

Ukrainians using white phosphorous bombs claims were never debunked after all other then pointing to one video out of many available and saying "this one was shot elsewhere!" while ignoring all others...

Okay, first, prove they were phosphorous bombs. Second, prove those were shot by the Ukrainian army.

[Bakis]

"Up to and including banned by UN" you wanted to say i guess?

Ukrainians using white phosphorous bombs claims were never debunked after all other then pointing to one video out of many available and saying "this one was shot elsewhere!" while ignoring all others...

Just cos weapons can be used doesnt mean they can be used in violation of international law ie civilian cost yadayaya.
Now to the vidoes of phosphorous munition, I've seen two. Both showed a possible round hitting the ground.
A quick google search suprisingly enough all comes down to RT sources and not even RT claims it, they ask for an inquiry.
In short:

Okay, first, prove they were phosphorous bombs. Second, prove those were shot by the Ukrainian army.

[Ausr]

Do you justify slaughter of civilians by Ukranian army as long as weapons they use for it aren't banned for UN?

People die in wars. No need to keep posting about it.

[Megraam]

They are not 'slaughtering civilians'. Collateral damage is unfortunate, but it happens when the enemy forces hide behind civilians.

Unfortunately, they are. Not much slaughtering, let me correct myself, they just are destroying their property. And this not a collateral damage, there were no rebels in this village at all. And rebels don't hide behind civilians of course.

[Puupi]

Unfortunately, they are. Not much slaughtering, let me correct myself, they just are destroying their property. And this not a collateral damage, there were no rebels in this village at all. And rebels don't hide behind civilians of course.

Prove it that there were no rebels.

Are you saying there are no rebels in Luhansk or Donetsk either? Because those cities are full of civilians.

[Deleted]

It's not the governments fault there is a war going on. Is that bad what happened to your friend? Sure. But to think your'e going to have no collateral damage in a war is madness. If you can show they're purposely targetting civilians that's one thing but apart from that, welcome to the warzone. Can the government end it? Of course they can but they have 2 options - push and win (which is what they chose) or decide to let the rebels get away with their bullshit. They made their choice and frankly I don't blame them.

IF shooting down MH17 was an accident, then it was in fact also collateral damage. I want you to say this with a straight face.

[Bakis]

IF shooting down MH17 was an accident, then it was in fact also collateral damage. I want you to say this with a straight face.

It is a bit different though. Civilian planes carry transponders which even a single BUK are able to trace and I hope that tells you something.

[Puupi]

IF shooting down MH17 was an accident, then it was in fact also collateral damage. I want you to say this with a straight face.

Were there any Ukrainians on board of that plane?

[Megraam]

Prove it that there were no rebels.

Are you saying there are no rebels in Luhansk or Donetsk either? Because those cities are full of civilians.

This is exactly why I was able to use this example as an argument: the village is rather small, about 10 km from Donetsk. This rocket wasn't even aimed at the village (this is the proof no rebels were there), they just 'happen' to hit it accidentally because of inaccurateness of the weapon itself and really low skill of people who use it.

It is a bit different though. Civilian planes carry transponders which even a single BUK are able to trace and I hope that tells you something.

Are you implying Ukranian army shot it on purpose?

[Puupi]

This is exactly why I was able to use this example as an argument: the village is rather small, about 10 km from Donetsk. This rocket wasn't even aimed at the village (this is the proof no rebels were there), they just 'happen' to hit it accidentally because of inaccurateness of the weapon itself and really low skill of people who use it.

So now it's an accident, but 5 minutes ago they were 'slaughtering' civilians. So which one is it?

[Deleted]

Were there any Ukrainians on board of that plane?

Or an Ukrainian jet flying nearby? Or "shit our guys are drunk" training went wrong? Or Russians on board of that plane? Or Russian presidential plane flying nearby?
Most people agree that this plane was NOT an intended target.
Go talk to their families and say that "sorry, but things like this happen in war, it's called collateral damage".

And if it was an intended target... let's not even start talking about it.

[MerinPally]

It is in fact government fault that there is war going on. They were offered to talk on possible conditions multiple times, instead of talking they chosen to use army.

Absolutely 100% incorrect. The rebels are in no position to negotiate anything, what they are doing is illegal. What happened in Crimea started most of this fighting so if you see that as the trigger then the Russian illegal annexation caused the start of the fighting. Ukrainian government not submitting to the rebels does not make it their fault, they have 2 options - beat the rebels into submission or let them win. They chose the first option. Say that you don't think the annexation of crimea caused it well lets go back then and see the long rooted problems in the region - they all began when Crimea went to Ukraine. The Belavezha Accord said that Crimea and Sevastopol are a part of Ukraine, and this came at the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Go back even further to when Khruschev gifted it to Ukraine, if you had such a problem with it then it's Khruschevs fault. My point is that it doesn't matter how far back you go, the whole reason for the rebellion is russian/soviet actions. Now I don't necessarily blame the Russians for some of it but to argue that the Ukraine government defending its territory from an illegal group is the reason for conflict, is absolute bullshit.

[Puupi]

Or an Ukrainian jet flying nearby? Or "shit our guys are drunk" training went wrong? Or Russians on board of that plane? Or Russian presidential plane flying nearby?
Most people agree that this plane was NOT an intended target.
Go talk to their families and say that "sorry, but things like this happen in war, it's called collateral damage".

And if it was an intended target... let's not even start talking about it.

No, most people agree that they didn't shoot down a civilian airplane on purpose. But they shot down this exact plane on purpose. They just didn't know it was civilian.

[Megraam]

So now it's an accident, but 5 minutes ago they were 'slaughtering' civilians. So which one is it?

C'mon, this was 5 minutes ago as well.

Unfortunately, they are. Not much slaughtering, let me correct myself, they just are destroying their property.

And their fault is of using such a weapon which easily can do something like this. I don't imply they bombed civilian village on purpose, I accuse them of making it a possibility.

[Puupi]

And their fault is of using such a weapon which easily can do something like this. I don't imply they bombed civilian village on purpose, I accuse them of making it a possibility.

The rebels caused this possibility. Without them there would be no shooting at all.

[Megraam]

Absolutely 100% incorrect. The rebels are in no position to negotiate anything, what they are doing is illegal. What happened in Crimea started most of this fighting so if you see that as the trigger then the Russian illegal annexation caused the start of the fighting. Ukrainian government not submitting to the rebels does not make it their fault, they have 2 options - beat the rebels into submission or let them win. They chose the first option. Say that you don't think the annexation of crimea caused it well lets go back then and see the long rooted problems in the region - they all began when Crimea went to Ukraine. The Belavezha Accord said that Crimea and Sevastopol are a part of Ukraine, and this came at the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Go back even further to when Khruschev gifted it to Ukraine, if you had such a problem with it then it's Khruschevs fault. My point is that it doesn't matter how far back you go, the whole reason for the rebellion is russian/soviet actions. Now I don't necessarily blame the Russians for some of it but to argue that the Ukraine government defending its territory from an illegal group is the reason for conflict, is absolute bullshit.

Was the armed revolution which overthrown the legal ukranian government legal? One of leaders of them is wanted by Interpol, you know. Same story here, just Interpol isn't involved.

The rebels caused this possibility. Without them there would be no shooting at all.

Where 'there'? In country? Well without maidan revolution and illegal Yanukovich's so-called impeachment when an armed crowd stormed his residence and government buildings there will be no rebels. Guys who taken power by force and now are called Ukranian government caused this possibility.