anrec80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I never said I knew the situation in Russia better than you, you asserted that. I just look up the information provided by independent NGO's. which you keep rejecting. So basically you reject fact for your personal alternative facts.

I just admire the word “independent” used when applied to “NGO”. Independent from what, whom and how? Dependent from a Russian government? Sure. Indepdndent from Western mainstream political groups? Now, this is a tougher one. Where do they get $$$ for their operation from? Western governments (USAID is an example), sponsors a-la infamous George Soros, and the likes. Will these NGOs get as much funding for their operations if they were distributing statistics that shows Russia favorably? Probably not - right? So this is the real price of the word “independent” for you. And - the words “free” and “freedom” have very similar real value. Somewhat above zero.

haha, and so you can put it right in your head to follow Putin? Just put into question everything that isn't favorable right? With that attitude, no real facts are there so nothing can be said at all. But how do you want to compare countries otherwise? Just on feelings? Just feelings? Which put Putin's Russia on top?

It is easy and very cheap to do these kinds of reasoning and is also a well-known propaganda trick used by trolls and autocratic governments alike. Perhaps you could follow the lead of North Korea when a happiness index list was published and they didn't do as well as the regime liked, they put down their own list: first China, second North Korea, last America.

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

I can talk about health care in Russia, based on my own experience and on the opinion of my friends medical professionals. Good enough for you?

No! Unless you have experience in several, say 10 western European countries and have undergone 1.000 interactions in each country which are the same in each country and then you have found it worse than in Russia. If you didn't do such a study your word says nothing and is worthless, just as is mine on this subject.

That is exactly my point. It is anecdotical evidence at best for Russias health care, you have no experience of the health care system in western countries and yet you say that the Russian healthcare system is better than in several western countries. And now we have it how you think: you base your opinion on exactly nothing. I can provide you with statistics and comparison by experts in the field between different healthcare systems, but you will denounce it if Russia doesn't come on top.

And that is what is going on with our debate: you base your opinion on your feelings and I base it on facts with links to research provided to you. We can't find any common ground because of this. You live in an alternate reality and you are not sensitive for to outside facts which conflict with your own ideas, and that is extremism.

but you will denounce it if Russia doesn't come on top.

But I never said that Russia by the level of medicine ranked first. I said that the level of medicine in Russia is no worse and maybe better than in many Western countries, but I didn't say that Russia takes the first place.

And that is what is going on with our debate: you base your opinion on your feelings and I base it on facts with links to research provided to you. We can't find any common ground because of this. You live in an alternate reality and you are not sensitive for to outside facts which conflict with your own ideas, and that is extremism

And then you have a logic error lies. If the facts that are presented to you are rigged - you will not be able to determine it. In this case, you will be living in an alternate reality where the power of the country is determined by the size of its GDP, for example.

Scorpius wrote:

And then you have a logic error lies. If the facts that are presented to you are rigged - you will not be able to determine it. In this case, you will be living in an alternate reality where the power of the country is determined by the size of its GDP, for example.

And this is the problem that you have. You live in a country where the facts are in fact rigged. And you appear to accept and believe them and do little to think outside the facts you are given or look at them with doubt. No you appear to only look at outside information with doubt.

But don't worry! I don't want or need to convince you of what information is right or wrong. It is not my job or anyone's job actually, it's yours. I just present what I have. You are an independent person that can think for yourself and should be able to review information on your own. That you choose to limit yourself is a problem you get to deal with.

But then I have come to think that you are a compensated poster for pro-Russia info.

Tugg

Scorpius wrote:

But I never said that Russia by the level of medicine ranked first. I said that the level of medicine in Russia is no worse and maybe better than in many Western countries, but I didn't say that Russia takes the first place.

No, you said it is better than several western countries. but even with this weakening of your point, you cannot know by your reasoning of only trusting your own experience or that of your close friends. And that is the point.

Scorpius wrote:

And then you have a logic error lies. If the facts that are presented to you are rigged - you will not be able to determine it. In this case, you will be living in an alternate reality where the power of the country is determined by the size of its GDP, for example.

Well, unfortunately, our world is dictated by economy or money. And yes I am against it, I would like to see other values prevail. But tell me, what is your standard by which you measure the power of a country? Let me do a suggestion, size maybe?

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

notaxonrotax wrote:

By that logic, you can't possibly know better about Western Europe because you don't live there while others in this discussion do.

Oh no wait, you can judge the situations in other countries while foreigners "don't have a clue" about Russia; and therefore they are wrong. Seems like a fair standpoint to start an "open" conversation.

What is your "truth" about MH17?
It was a rhetorical question, don't worry.

By the way, loving the way your Presidential "election" is gearing up....Putin's main rival is not allowed to run.
Well, if Navalny makes too much noise he may may well be poisoned accidentally anyway.....or just plainly shot in the street outside the Kremlin.

No Tax On Rotax

The inhabitants of Western Europe, Russia judge based on their ideas that are imposed on them by the propaganda of the Western media.
You say that the Soviet Union allegedly broke up into separate independent state, and actually part of the USSR was illegal and illegitimate. Therefore, any actions of Russia in former Soviet space are only a restoration of the initial status, and sooner or later, these territories will be United under one state. I can't assume which way it will be done and when, exactly, but the historical logic is that all these territories was a result in part of one state before and the trend towards their unification is preserved. And the collapse of the Soviet Union is an artificial process which was actively supported from the outside by Western countries. Similarly today, Western politicians are actively supported separatist sentiment in the former Russian territories. However, whatever may be said of various politicians, all these areas are United by a shared history, culture and mentality. The actions of Europe and the United States in this case is the introduction of discord in the family of Nations, inciting hatred and promote separatism.
As a result, Western policy, acting purely in their own interests, make Russia and the West's mortal enemies, and the consequences of the current policy of the West will be traced for hundreds of years. And we'll be lucky if in the end it will not end in a war of mutual destruction. Because Russia is able to destroy life on the planet, if she are forced to this.

To your question about MH17 - it was shot down by Ukrainian air defense, most likely on direct orders from the Pentagon, for the sake of creating one more information occasion to shift the blame for the crisis in Ukraine on the bad Russian. NATO forces have a history of sacrificing civilians to further their political and military interests - the United States remains the only country in history to use nuclear weapons, and immediately against civilians. Remember the Iranian Boeing, downed in the eighties Americans.

Аbout Navalny - I hope you are joking when they called him "claims solana Putin", because the sea is a clown, no one is considering it as a serious alternative to Putin. Even his own followers. In addition, according to the laws of Russia has no right to participate in elections, as it has a criminal record. What prevented him to nominate another candidate for President, choosing appropriate under the requirements of the Russian laws a person from your team?

And here you go again if the majority of your countrymen thinks like you, Russia is indeed a direct threat for their neighbors. So not unreasonable to seek the protection of NATO for some countries. You blame the west for everything, and none on Russia, that is problematic to say the least.
And yes, that is the only thing about Russia: its nuclear arsenal and Putin threatened to use it, like in the Crimea. No one else threatened to actually use them in recent years, except the madmen, but only defensive.

MH17: do you have any evidence that Ukraine shot it down on orders of the Pentagon? You think it is for Russia perfectly legal to concur Ukraine, it was part of the USSR and in your twisted view, still is. 90% likely the MH17 was shot down by pro-Russian rebels or the Russian military, no conspiracy theory necessary, just a stupid mistake which has cost the lives of 298 innocent souls. But it will be proven in court what has happened, with or without the Russians which were involved.
Russia and pro-Russian opposition have shot down several airliners so what is your point with bringing up the Irian flight (Iran Air flight 655 (IR655). BTW it was an Airbus A300, not a Boeing, so even this simple fact you have got wrong.

BTW it was an Airbus A300, not a Boeing, so even this simple fact you have got wrong.

I just pointed out a fact known to me - a passenger airliner was shot down by the Americans. I'm not looking for every example of given me detailed help on the Internet, so I used to lead the discussion, drawing on his own memory, and not on Google. In the context of the discussion of the example aircraft model is not important.

do you have any evidence that Ukraine shot it down on orders of the Pentagon?

The problem is that no one so far has not provided evidence that MH17 was shot down by Pro-Russian forces. At that time, as in the area of the fall was concentrated at least 6 complexes BUK, owned by Ukrainian troops. While so far Ukraine has not provided accurate information about location and movement of these complexes at the time of the disaster MH17, did not show immediately after the crash all the pads to inspect for any signs of launch of missiles from them, and so on. At the same time, it is known that the militia were no combat aircraft, with the exception of one SU-25, captured in early 2015. So why such a concentration of air defense systems on that site? Besides, Russia had no motive for the shooting down of a passenger airliner, and the militia too.

Version of shooting down the plane by mistake, in my opinion, is untenable. In fact air defense complex BUK is not restricted to only one launcher, there is also a radar station and command center:

And all this equipment must be serviced by qualified personnel - you can't just put in place the operator of the installation a random person. And trained staff could be confused flying at an altitude of 10 kilometers passenger Boeing 777 with military transport turboprop aircraft An-26.
In addition, the presence of Ukrainian BUK complexes is confirmed by even a recorded television shows Ukrainian media, such as video from 16.07.2015: https://youtu.be/Q3MomxNHnUA
time stamp 4:54 is seen deployed air defense complex BUK.
However, no needs assessment, no proper research these facts in the accident investigation, and the investigative team include representatives of Ukraine - a country that actually needs to be in the list of suspects in the case.

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

But I never said that Russia by the level of medicine ranked first. I said that the level of medicine in Russia is no worse and maybe better than in many Western countries, but I didn't say that Russia takes the first place.

No, you said it is better than several western countries. but even with this weakening of your point, you cannot know by your reasoning of only trusting your own experience or that of your close friends. And that is the point.

Scorpius wrote:

And then you have a logic error lies. If the facts that are presented to you are rigged - you will not be able to determine it. In this case, you will be living in an alternate reality where the power of the country is determined by the size of its GDP, for example.

Well, unfortunately, our world is dictated by economy or money. And yes I am against it, I would like to see other values prevail. But tell me, what is your standard by which you measure the power of a country? Let me do a suggestion, size maybe?

I have already cited the example of the incorrectness of comparison of countries by GDP. Remember? About 1000 operations for appendectomy and their comparative value with Russia and the United States.
After all, if we are to be guided only by figures of the economy, then the United States with a national debt of 20 trillion dollars, I would certainly not began to place bets.
And to consider the economies to be complex, including the ratio of manufactured goods heavy industry, upstream and downstream enterprises. In the end, the base of any economy are still minerals and energy capacity.

Tugger wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

And then you have a logic error lies. If the facts that are presented to you are rigged - you will not be able to determine it. In this case, you will be living in an alternate reality where the power of the country is determined by the size of its GDP, for example.

And this is the problem that you have. You live in a country where the facts are in fact rigged. And you appear to accept and believe them and do little to think outside the facts you are given or look at them with doubt. No you appear to only look at outside information with doubt.

But don't worry! I don't want or need to convince you of what information is right or wrong. It is not my job or anyone's job actually, it's yours. I just present what I have. You are an independent person that can think for yourself and should be able to review information on your own. That you choose to limit yourself is a problem you get to deal with.

But then I have come to think that you are a compensated poster for pro-Russia info.

Tugg

Without going into a lengthy discourse, I will say briefly: you are wrong and persist in their errors.

Scorpius wrote:

Without going into a lengthy discourse, I will say briefly: you are wrong and persist in their errors.

Very good, it's OK. As I said I have no need to convince you.

I asked you earlier but you never answered: What sources, independent or verifiable do you accept so I may provide you with data you may be willing to accept.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Without going into a lengthy discourse, I will say briefly: you are wrong and persist in their errors.

Very good, it's OK. As I said I have no need to convince you.

I asked you earlier but you never answered: What sources, independent or verifiable do you accept so I may provide you with data you may be willing to accept.

Tugg

I replied that any sources I need to study, because I can't without the proper research to determine their veracity. So let us experiment if you want.

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

BTW it was an Airbus A300, not a Boeing, so even this simple fact you have got wrong.

I just pointed out a fact known to me - a passenger airliner was shot down by the Americans. I'm not looking for every example of given me detailed help on the Internet, so I used to lead the discussion, drawing on his own memory, and not on Google. In the context of the discussion of the example aircraft model is not important.

By your own admission, you draw from your own memory, and as is proven memory is the lowest form of evidence. If you can't be trusted with providing the correct facts on the little things, how can we trust you to provide them with the big things?

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

do you have any evidence that Ukraine shot it down on orders of the Pentagon?

The problem is that no one so far has not provided evidence that MH17 was shot down by Pro-Russian forces. At that time, as in the area of the fall was concentrated at least 6 complexes BUK, owned by Ukrainian troops. While so far Ukraine has not provided accurate information about location and movement of these complexes at the time of the disaster MH17, did not show immediately after the crash all the pads to inspect for any signs of launch of missiles from them, and so on. At the same time, it is known that the militia were no combat aircraft, with the exception of one SU-25, captured in early 2015. So why such a concentration of air defense systems on that site? Besides, Russia had no motive for the shooting down of a passenger airliner, and the militia too.

Version of shooting down the plane by mistake, in my opinion, is untenable. In fact air defense complex BUK is not restricted to only one launcher, there is also a radar station and command center:

And all this equipment must be serviced by qualified personnel - you can't just put in place the operator of the installation a random person. And trained staff could be confused flying at an altitude of 10 kilometers passenger Boeing 777 with military transport turboprop aircraft An-26.
In addition, the presence of Ukrainian BUK complexes is confirmed by even a recorded television shows Ukrainian media, such as video from 16.07.2015: https://youtu.be/Q3MomxNHnUA
time stamp 4:54 is seen deployed air defense complex BUK.
However, no needs assessment, no proper research these facts in the accident investigation, and the investigative team include representatives of Ukraine - a country that actually needs to be in the list of suspects in the case.

1. You have no proof that the Pentagon is behind this, so pure speculation and thus bullshit.
2. "The problem is that no one so far has not provided evidence that MH17 was shot down by Pro-Russian forces." correct, but a lot of circumstantial evidence though.
3. "While so far Ukraine has not provided accurate information about location and movement of these complexes at the time of the disaster MH17," how do you know?
4. "So why such a concentration of air defense systems on that site?" Perhaps something to do with Russia annexing part of Ukraine and Russia is actively supporting the pro-Russians rebels and that some Russian aircraft violated Ukraine airspace? I am not a military man, but I think I would put some air defense batteries in the east to prevent Russian airforces to take a peak inside Ukraine, wouldn't you with such a neighbor?
5. "Version of shooting down the plane by mistake, in my opinion, is untenable. In fact air defense complex BUK is not restricted to only one launcher, there is also a radar station and command center:" so the MH17 was shot down by either Russian forces or known by Russian forces on purpose? I would rather believe it was downed by mistake.
6. "And all this equipment must be serviced by qualified personnel - you can't just put in place the operator of the installation a random person. " ok, so it was Russian trained staff or probably Russian regular troops.
7. "However, no needs assessment, no proper research these facts in the accident investigation, and the investigative team include representatives of Ukraine" in the investigation team, Russian representatives were present. if you actually read the stuff produced by the JIT, OM and the investigation board you would know that Russia has been asked - just like everything else - to comment on the findings and their comments are included in the final draft and answered by the investigation team.

Everything points to a Russian supplied BUK and probably only the rocket launcher was present with the onboard radar of the actual missile used. This will give the operator a very limited view. Perhaps Russia will admit their wrongdoings only after years and years, just like with the shooting down of the 747 above Siberia.

Scorpius wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Without going into a lengthy discourse, I will say briefly: you are wrong and persist in their errors.

Very good, it's OK. As I said I have no need to convince you.

I asked you earlier but you never answered: What sources, independent or verifiable do you accept so I may provide you with data you may be willing to accept.

Tugg

I replied that any sources I need to study, because I can't without the proper research to determine their veracity. So let us experiment if you want.

Study this report: https://lif.blob.core.windows.net/lif/d ... f?sfvrsn=2

May I point out to you page number of 7? Russia's healthcare is ranked 101.

Good luck with your studies and I am anxious to find out what is wrong with this report that ranks Russia 95.

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

But I never said that Russia by the level of medicine ranked first. I said that the level of medicine in Russia is no worse and maybe better than in many Western countries, but I didn't say that Russia takes the first place.

No, you said it is better than several western countries. but even with this weakening of your point, you cannot know by your reasoning of only trusting your own experience or that of your close friends. And that is the point.

Scorpius wrote:

And then you have a logic error lies. If the facts that are presented to you are rigged - you will not be able to determine it. In this case, you will be living in an alternate reality where the power of the country is determined by the size of its GDP, for example.

Well, unfortunately, our world is dictated by economy or money. And yes I am against it, I would like to see other values prevail. But tell me, what is your standard by which you measure the power of a country? Let me do a suggestion, size maybe?

I have already cited the example of the incorrectness of comparison of countries by GDP. Remember? About 1000 operations for appendectomy and their comparative value with Russia and the United States.
After all, if we are to be guided only by figures of the economy, then the United States with a national debt of 20 trillion dollars, I would certainly not began to place bets.
And to consider the economies to be complex, including the ratio of manufactured goods heavy industry, upstream and downstream enterprises. In the end, the base of any economy are still minerals and energy capacity.

Sure I remember your GDP explanation, it was a good laugh.

The size of the countries GDP has nothing to do with the debt and if it did there is a positive correlation, more debt more is produced.

Sure the basis is minerals and energy producing possibilities, but in the end, it is about what you do with that. In most minerals and energy producing countries, things aren't all that great and most of them aren't that powerful. Russia does it quite well as a regional power.

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

BTW it was an Airbus A300, not a Boeing, so even this simple fact you have got wrong.

I just pointed out a fact known to me - a passenger airliner was shot down by the Americans. I'm not looking for every example of given me detailed help on the Internet, so I used to lead the discussion, drawing on his own memory, and not on Google. In the context of the discussion of the example aircraft model is not important.

By your own admission, you draw from your own memory, and as is proven memory is the lowest form of evidence. If you can't be trusted with providing the correct facts on the little things, how can we trust you to provide them with the big things?

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

do you have any evidence that Ukraine shot it down on orders of the Pentagon?

The problem is that no one so far has not provided evidence that MH17 was shot down by Pro-Russian forces. At that time, as in the area of the fall was concentrated at least 6 complexes BUK, owned by Ukrainian troops. While so far Ukraine has not provided accurate information about location and movement of these complexes at the time of the disaster MH17, did not show immediately after the crash all the pads to inspect for any signs of launch of missiles from them, and so on. At the same time, it is known that the militia were no combat aircraft, with the exception of one SU-25, captured in early 2015. So why such a concentration of air defense systems on that site? Besides, Russia had no motive for the shooting down of a passenger airliner, and the militia too.

Version of shooting down the plane by mistake, in my opinion, is untenable. In fact air defense complex BUK is not restricted to only one launcher, there is also a radar station and command center:

And all this equipment must be serviced by qualified personnel - you can't just put in place the operator of the installation a random person. And trained staff could be confused flying at an altitude of 10 kilometers passenger Boeing 777 with military transport turboprop aircraft An-26.
In addition, the presence of Ukrainian BUK complexes is confirmed by even a recorded television shows Ukrainian media, such as video from 16.07.2015: https://youtu.be/Q3MomxNHnUA
time stamp 4:54 is seen deployed air defense complex BUK.
However, no needs assessment, no proper research these facts in the accident investigation, and the investigative team include representatives of Ukraine - a country that actually needs to be in the list of suspects in the case.

1. You have no proof that the Pentagon is behind this, so pure speculation and thus bullshit.
2. "The problem is that no one so far has not provided evidence that MH17 was shot down by Pro-Russian forces." correct, but a lot of circumstantial evidence though.
3. "While so far Ukraine has not provided accurate information about location and movement of these complexes at the time of the disaster MH17," how do you know?
4. "So why such a concentration of air defense systems on that site?" Perhaps something to do with Russia annexing part of Ukraine and Russia is actively supporting the pro-Russians rebels and that some Russian aircraft violated Ukraine airspace? I am not a military man, but I think I would put some air defense batteries in the east to prevent Russian airforces to take a peak inside Ukraine, wouldn't you with such a neighbor?
5. "Version of shooting down the plane by mistake, in my opinion, is untenable. In fact air defense complex BUK is not restricted to only one launcher, there is also a radar station and command center:" so the MH17 was shot down by either Russian forces or known by Russian forces on purpose? I would rather believe it was downed by mistake.
6. "And all this equipment must be serviced by qualified personnel - you can't just put in place the operator of the installation a random person. " ok, so it was Russian trained staff or probably Russian regular troops.
7. "However, no needs assessment, no proper research these facts in the accident investigation, and the investigative team include representatives of Ukraine" in the investigation team, Russian representatives were present. if you actually read the stuff produced by the JIT, OM and the investigation board you would know that Russia has been asked - just like everything else - to comment on the findings and their comments are included in the final draft and answered by the investigation team.

Everything points to a Russian supplied BUK and probably only the rocket launcher was present with the onboard radar of the actual missile used. This will give the operator a very limited view. Perhaps Russia will admit their wrongdoings only after years and years, just like with the shooting down of the 747 above Siberia.

3. Ukraine did not provide these data, moreover, the official comments of Ukrainian politicians, Ukraine had no BUK complexes: https://korrespondent.net/ukraine/35234 ... poroshenko
But it is an outright lie, and adviser to the President of Ukraine could not know about the existence of such complexes in the army. Then why did he lie about?

4. But the Russian aircraft did not violate the airspace of Ukraine - but Ukrainian planes have repeatedly violated Russian airspace, what was even the official statements of the Russian Ministry of defence. In addition, the complex BUK is a complex of short-medium range, and it is ridiculous to assume that they have something can be hidden from the actions of the Russian aircraft in case, if any, began. If someone wanted to cover the area in the East of Ukraine military aviation, had to be created a layered air defense system with the use of complexes C-300, C-200, C-125, which is in the part of the Ukrainian troops.

5. Absolutely the wrong conclusion - complexes BUK at full strength were available only from the Ukrainian army. Version about Russia's selling one installation is not tenable - if Russia supplied militia for the defense - it would make sense to put the full version of the complex, together with the crews. There is no logic in supplying only the launcher.

6. This eliminates incorrect version of attack of the passenger liner. That is the one who launched the missile, had the full understanding that target is attacked. And now tell me why the militia or the Russian military to shoot down a passenger plane? What are the advantages it could help them get? What purpose to achieve? Every crime there is always a motive, otherwise, the crime just doesn't happen. Ukraine and Pentagon's such a motive was the death of the passenger plane - a great episode in order to expose the Russian bad. And what is the motive of Russia to commit such an act? It's like that shoot yourself in the foot, so why do the Pro-Russian forces?

Everything points to a Russian supplied BUK

And what indicates this? Fabricated data that is not verifiable, that is not subject to verification? You talked about circumstantial evidence, but the point is that circumstantial evidence can be interpreted as a convenient - they can not deny because it is impossible to confirm their presence. I now can say that circumstantial evidence suggests that you are an agent of Putin - and you won't be able to deny it.

As for the situation with the B747 shot down in 1983, the aircraft has strayed far from the route, having flown in the restricted area, and did not respond to attempts of contact by the fighter aircraft sent to intercept. It was during the cold war, and provocations from the United States, associated with the violation of the airspace of the Soviet Union, occurred regularly. What was the likelihood that the flight carries out a reconnaissance aircraft, the pilot could not at that time is guaranteed to identify the aircraft as civilian, and led warning fire from guns on the course before the plane was shot down by two missiles. That is a tragedy, which led to a chain of random coincidences.

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Very good, it's OK. As I said I have no need to convince you.

I asked you earlier but you never answered: What sources, independent or verifiable do you accept so I may provide you with data you may be willing to accept.

Tugg

I replied that any sources I need to study, because I can't without the proper research to determine their veracity. So let us experiment if you want.

Study this report: https://lif.blob.core.windows.net/lif/d ... f?sfvrsn=2

May I point out to you page number of 7? Russia's healthcare is ranked 101.

Good luck with your studies and I am anxious to find out what is wrong with this report that ranks Russia 95.

The report is nonsense. To begin, I do not see the methodology of calculation of all parameters. The basis for the removal of calculations is GDP per capita (even without translation in purchasing power parity), which in itself is nonsense. What indicators of "level of freedom" and "social capital", what they measured, what criteria, and how - is unknown. In the case where it is impossible to verify the results of the rating calculations, all the so-called "study" turns into a bunch of spoiled paper. Also not known there, as quantitatively different first place from last in this ranking.
That's what I can tell on the results of a cursory viewing of your links.

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I just pointed out a fact known to me - a passenger airliner was shot down by the Americans. I'm not looking for every example of given me detailed help on the Internet, so I used to lead the discussion, drawing on his own memory, and not on Google. In the context of the discussion of the example aircraft model is not important.

By your own admission, you draw from your own memory, and as is proven memory is the lowest form of evidence. If you can't be trusted with providing the correct facts on the little things, how can we trust you to provide them with the big things?

So you agree with this, great.

Scorpius wrote:

3. Ukraine did not provide these data, moreover, the official comments of Ukrainian politicians, Ukraine had no BUK complexes: https://korrespondent.net/ukraine/35234 ... poroshenko
But it is an outright lie, and adviser to the President of Ukraine could not know about the existence of such complexes in the army. Then why did he lie about?

Does it matter if there is no indication that the missile came from Ukraine site? They could have a ziliion BUK's but if none of them shot the MH17 down.

Scorpius wrote:

4. But the Russian aircraft did not violate the airspace of Ukraine - but Ukrainian planes have repeatedly violated Russian airspace, what was even the official statements of the Russian Ministry of defence. In addition, the complex BUK is a complex of short-medium range, and it is ridiculous to assume that they have something can be hidden from the actions of the Russian aircraft in case, if any, began. If someone wanted to cover the area in the East of Ukraine military aviation, had to be created a layered air defense system with the use of complexes C-300, C-200, C-125, which is in the part of the Ukrainian troops.

Russia violates Ukraine airspace on a daily basis, each time they fly into the Crimea. But let put that aside.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-respo ... 00607.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-27/r ... ne/5413632
https://theaviationist.com/2015/06/18/t ... he-border/
https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraines-pm-a ... 01902.html
http://euromaidanpress.com/2017/09/19/r ... ince-2014/

But Russia is repeatedly threatening Ukraine so why not put up some defensive measures.

Scorpius wrote:

5. Absolutely the wrong conclusion - complexes BUK at full strength were available only from the Ukrainian army. Version about Russia's selling one installation is not tenable - if Russia supplied militia for the defense - it would make sense to put the full version of the complex, together with the crews. There is no logic in supplying only the launcher.

Why is it not tenable? I agree that there is no logic, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Scorpius wrote:

6. This eliminates incorrect version of attack of the passenger liner. That is the one who launched the missile, had the full understanding that target is attacked. And now tell me why the militia or the Russian military to shoot down a passenger plane? What are the advantages it could help them get? What purpose to achieve? Every crime there is always a motive, otherwise, the crime just doesn't happen. Ukraine and Pentagon's such a motive was the death of the passenger plane - a great episode in order to expose the Russian bad. And what is the motive of Russia to commit such an act? It's like that shoot yourself in the foot, so why do the Pro-Russian forces?

How do you know he had a full understanding of the target?

Now on a crime, first your assertion that a crime has been committed - besides involuntary homicide -. Is there a deliberate act of shooting down MH17 or was it a mistake? I believe the latter, but non have been proven.
I see no advantage from either side to deliberate shooting down the MH17, when (and note not if), the truth will come out that side (in your assertion Ukraine) will be without any support. Russian military or the militia also have no reason to shoot it down, they do (and did shot down) however have all the motive to shoot down Ukraine military craft lying from west to east, like the MH17, so a mistake could have been made.

With crime there is always a motive, in the fog of war mistakes will happen.

Scorpius wrote:

Everything points to a Russian supplied BUK

And what indicates this? Fabricated data that is not verifiable, that is not subject to verification? You talked about circumstantial evidence, but the point is that circumstantial evidence can be interpreted as a convenient - they can not deny because it is impossible to confirm their presence. I now can say that circumstantial evidence suggests that you are an agent of Putin - and you won't be able to deny it.

Again read the reports published by Dutch officials and you will find all the answers in there, everything that has been proven already and all the myth the Russian officials have been spread has been looked at and disproven. Nobody has been charged yet, so no definite proof has been found on a specific person and his role in shooting down the MH17, but they are closing in, Russia isn't working with them to seek the truth.

We will see when the evidence is presented in court if it will be convincing to a professional judge or not.

Scorpius wrote:

As for the situation with the B747 shot down in 1983, the aircraft has strayed far from the route, having flown in the restricted area, and did not respond to attempts of contact by the fighter aircraft sent to intercept. It was during the cold war, and provocations from the United States, associated with the violation of the airspace of the Soviet Union, occurred regularly. What was the likelihood that the flight carries out a reconnaissance aircraft, the pilot could not at that time is guaranteed to identify the aircraft as civilian, and led warning fire from guns on the course before the plane was shot down by two missiles. That is a tragedy, which led to a chain of random coincidences.

Phh, so you can't be sure, so you just shoot it down, killing a few hundred people in the process. That is your defense of this Russian attack?

Here is a list of all airliners shot down by military: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... _incidents

993 Transair Georgian Airline shootdowns
In September 1993, three airliners belonging to Transair Georgia were shot down by missiles and gunfire in Sukhumi, Abkhazia, Georgia. The first, a Tupolev Tu-134, was shot down on September 21, 1993 by a missile during landing approach. The second plane, a Tupolev Tu-154, was shot down a day later also during approach. A third one was shelled and destroyed on the ground, while passengers were boarding.

Russian backed militia shooting down airliners, what was the motive there?

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

I replied that any sources I need to study, because I can't without the proper research to determine their veracity. So let us experiment if you want.

Study this report: https://lif.blob.core.windows.net/lif/d ... f?sfvrsn=2

May I point out to you page number of 7? Russia's healthcare is ranked 101.

Good luck with your studies and I am anxious to find out what is wrong with this report that ranks Russia 95.

The report is nonsense. To begin, I do not see the methodology of calculation of all parameters. The basis for the removal of calculations is GDP per capita (even without translation in purchasing power parity), which in itself is nonsense. What indicators of "level of freedom" and "social capital", what they measured, what criteria, and how - is unknown. In the case where it is impossible to verify the results of the rating calculations, all the so-called "study" turns into a bunch of spoiled paper. Also not known there, as quantitatively different first place from last in this ranking.
That's what I can tell on the results of a cursory viewing of your links.

What is cursory viewing? Not studying perhaps, not reading? Anyhow, just look at the index: Methodology: page 46

You dismiss this report by the following people:

The Legatum Institute would like to thank Prof. Angus
Deaton, Nobel Laureate, and our Special Advisers to
the Prosperity Index for their helpful advice, critiques,
and suggestions.

Tim Besley, London School of Economics
Daniel Drezner, Tufts University
Carol Graham, Brookings Institution
John Ifcher, Santa Clara University
Edmund Malesky, Duke University
Ann Owen, Hamilton College
In addition, we thank the other attendees of our
Methodology Symposium for their time and feedback:
Aparna Mathur, Ed Al-Hussainy, Judith Kelley, Kevin Hassett,
Ole Hagen Jorgensen, Reuben Abraham, Robert Bradley, and
U. Srinivasa Rangan

So I guess you know better than all these people. You must be a brilliant person in all these fields, I take my hat of to your brilliant mind. (the sarcasm wasn't too much, now was it?)

Dutchy wrote:

Unless you have experience in several, say 10 western European countries and have undergone 1.000 interactions in each country which are the same in each country and then you have found it worse than in Russia. If you didn't do such a study your word says nothing and is worthless, just as is mine on this subject.

In reverse. Do you qualify?

How far did you ever travel beyond the lowlands and "interacted a thousand times" ?

WIederling wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Unless you have experience in several, say 10 western European countries and have undergone 1.000 interactions in each country which are the same in each country and then you have found it worse than in Russia. If you didn't do such a study your word says nothing and is worthless, just as is mine on this subject.

In reverse. Do you qualify?

How far did you ever travel beyond the lowlands and "interacted a thousand times" ?

Stupid question because the answer is already in the quote. That's why I rely on people handling data from all over the world and thus can compare systems, so your are underpinning exactly my point. Thanks for that.

But good to see you actually seem to think about substantiating every fact you present here, that would be a change for you though, but I still have faith you could do it if you wanted to.

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I just pointed out a fact known to me - a passenger airliner was shot down by the Americans. I'm not looking for every example of given me detailed help on the Internet, so I used to lead the discussion, drawing on his own memory, and not on Google. In the context of the discussion of the example aircraft model is not important.

By your own admission, you draw from your own memory, and as is proven memory is the lowest form of evidence. If you can't be trusted with providing the correct facts on the little things, how can we trust you to provide them with the big things?

So you agree with this, great.

Scorpius wrote:

3. Ukraine did not provide these data, moreover, the official comments of Ukrainian politicians, Ukraine had no BUK complexes: https://korrespondent.net/ukraine/35234 ... poroshenko
But it is an outright lie, and adviser to the President of Ukraine could not know about the existence of such complexes in the army. Then why did he lie about?

Does it matter if there is no indication that the missile came from Ukraine site? They could have a ziliion BUK's but if none of them shot the MH17 down.

Scorpius wrote:

4. But the Russian aircraft did not violate the airspace of Ukraine - but Ukrainian planes have repeatedly violated Russian airspace, what was even the official statements of the Russian Ministry of defence. In addition, the complex BUK is a complex of short-medium range, and it is ridiculous to assume that they have something can be hidden from the actions of the Russian aircraft in case, if any, began. If someone wanted to cover the area in the East of Ukraine military aviation, had to be created a layered air defense system with the use of complexes C-300, C-200, C-125, which is in the part of the Ukrainian troops.

Russia violates Ukraine airspace on a daily basis, each time they fly into the Crimea. But let put that aside.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-respo ... 00607.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-27/r ... ne/5413632
https://theaviationist.com/2015/06/18/t ... he-border/
https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraines-pm-a ... 01902.html
http://euromaidanpress.com/2017/09/19/r ... ince-2014/

But Russia is repeatedly threatening Ukraine so why not put up some defensive measures.

Scorpius wrote:

5. Absolutely the wrong conclusion - complexes BUK at full strength were available only from the Ukrainian army. Version about Russia's selling one installation is not tenable - if Russia supplied militia for the defense - it would make sense to put the full version of the complex, together with the crews. There is no logic in supplying only the launcher.

Why is it not tenable? I agree that there is no logic, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Scorpius wrote:

6. This eliminates incorrect version of attack of the passenger liner. That is the one who launched the missile, had the full understanding that target is attacked. And now tell me why the militia or the Russian military to shoot down a passenger plane? What are the advantages it could help them get? What purpose to achieve? Every crime there is always a motive, otherwise, the crime just doesn't happen. Ukraine and Pentagon's such a motive was the death of the passenger plane - a great episode in order to expose the Russian bad. And what is the motive of Russia to commit such an act? It's like that shoot yourself in the foot, so why do the Pro-Russian forces?

How do you know he had a full understanding of the target?

Now on a crime, first your assertion that a crime has been committed - besides involuntary homicide -. Is there a deliberate act of shooting down MH17 or was it a mistake? I believe the latter, but non have been proven.
I see no advantage from either side to deliberate shooting down the MH17, when (and note not if), the truth will come out that side (in your assertion Ukraine) will be without any support. Russian military or the militia also have no reason to shoot it down, they do (and did shot down) however have all the motive to shoot down Ukraine military craft lying from west to east, like the MH17, so a mistake could have been made.

With crime there is always a motive, in the fog of war mistakes will happen.

Scorpius wrote:

Everything points to a Russian supplied BUK

And what indicates this? Fabricated data that is not verifiable, that is not subject to verification? You talked about circumstantial evidence, but the point is that circumstantial evidence can be interpreted as a convenient - they can not deny because it is impossible to confirm their presence. I now can say that circumstantial evidence suggests that you are an agent of Putin - and you won't be able to deny it.

Again read the reports published by Dutch officials and you will find all the answers in there, everything that has been proven already and all the myth the Russian officials have been spread has been looked at and disproven. Nobody has been charged yet, so no definite proof has been found on a specific person and his role in shooting down the MH17, but they are closing in, Russia isn't working with them to seek the truth.

We will see when the evidence is presented in court if it will be convincing to a professional judge or not.

Scorpius wrote:

As for the situation with the B747 shot down in 1983, the aircraft has strayed far from the route, having flown in the restricted area, and did not respond to attempts of contact by the fighter aircraft sent to intercept. It was during the cold war, and provocations from the United States, associated with the violation of the airspace of the Soviet Union, occurred regularly. What was the likelihood that the flight carries out a reconnaissance aircraft, the pilot could not at that time is guaranteed to identify the aircraft as civilian, and led warning fire from guns on the course before the plane was shot down by two missiles. That is a tragedy, which led to a chain of random coincidences.

Phh, so you can't be sure, so you just shoot it down, killing a few hundred people in the process. That is your defense of this Russian attack?

Here is a list of all airliners shot down by military: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... _incidents

993 Transair Georgian Airline shootdowns
In September 1993, three airliners belonging to Transair Georgia were shot down by missiles and gunfire in Sukhumi, Abkhazia, Georgia. The first, a Tupolev Tu-134, was shot down on September 21, 1993 by a missile during landing approach. The second plane, a Tupolev Tu-154, was shot down a day later also during approach. A third one was shelled and destroyed on the ground, while passengers were boarding.

Russian backed militia shooting down airliners, what was the motive there?

So you agree with this, great.

No, you misinterpreted what I didn't give a detailed explanation on this issue. I don't agree with it. In the ordinary course of private discussions is not important, what was the model from downed aircraft, as in this case, no such details are beyond the scope necessary for the discussion of information. Otherwise you will not be accused of incompetence based on the fact that you don't know who was sitting in seat 21B of the downed plane, and that he ate his Breakfast.

Does it matter if there is no indication that the missile came from Ukraine site?

In fact the missile came from the territory of Ukraine. From Russia - the start was made from the territory where there are active hostilities, and the border with Russia was far enough. MH17 was shot down in Ukrainian airspace and crashed on the territory of Ukraine. And the rocket was also fired from the territory of Ukraine. In this respect, is unclear claims to Russia, frankly.

Russia violates Ukraine airspace on a daily basis, each time they fly into the Crimea. But let put that aside.

I have repeatedly said that Crimea is Russian territory, but really let's leave it for now.

But Russia is repeatedly threatening Ukraine so why not put up some defensive measures.

As I said, protection measures had to have a different character. Complexes BUK not enough to cover the area from the air violations. This is even if we do not consider that shooting down a Russian military plane could lead to outright war and the defeat of the Ukrainian army for the time ischislyaetsya a couple of weeks.

Why is it not tenable? I agree that there is no logic, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You realize that rockets do not shoot by themselves, people giving orders, must have certain interests, and that the fact of shooting down the civilian airliner was contrary to any interests of the people who could give such an order from the Russian side? But this disaster played into the hands of the Pentagon, the Ukrainian authorities and Western politicians.
Everything's so simple: shoot down the plane, arrange a tantrum in the media, blame all the Russians - and it is not necessary to explain to the voters why the West has made the outbreak of civil war in Ukraine why Europe is full of refugees from Arab regions, and why Europe needs more military bases amerikanskikh, and why it is necessary to increase spending on weaponry.This is all the fault of Russian!

You, by the way, and remain in thrall to this paradigm of reasoning - you have everywhere to blame Russian.

Again read the reports published by Dutch officials and you will find all the answers in there, everything that has been proven already and all the myth the Russian officials have been spread has been looked at and disproven. Nobody has been charged yet, so no definite proof has been found on a specific person and his role in shooting down the MH17, but they are closing in, Russia isn't working with them to seek the truth.

We will see when the evidence is presented in court if it will be convincing to a professional judge or not.

However, this does not prevent Western media to blame Russia for the Downing of MH17, Western politicians even introduced sanctions against some Russian entities, based on unconfirmed and unproven accusations. It reminds me the situation with the suspension of Russian athletes from the Olympics, some of which were suspended because of their doping samples were clean and had no marks indicating any effects on the sample tubes. Just was told that "most likely these samples had been opened and tampered with, just reveals the left footprints."
To sum up - you believe that the Downing of MH17 was a mistake, but nevertheless continue to accuse Putin that MH17 was shot down? (Lower until my counterarguments that the probability of error in this case is minimal - experienced crew could distinguish passenger jet, flying at an altitude of 10 kilometers, from a turboprop military transport An-26, which can not rise above 7.5 km.)

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Study this report: https://lif.blob.core.windows.net/lif/d ... f?sfvrsn=2

May I point out to you page number of 7? Russia's healthcare is ranked 101.

Good luck with your studies and I am anxious to find out what is wrong with this report that ranks Russia 95.

The report is nonsense. To begin, I do not see the methodology of calculation of all parameters. The basis for the removal of calculations is GDP per capita (even without translation in purchasing power parity), which in itself is nonsense. What indicators of "level of freedom" and "social capital", what they measured, what criteria, and how - is unknown. In the case where it is impossible to verify the results of the rating calculations, all the so-called "study" turns into a bunch of spoiled paper. Also not known there, as quantitatively different first place from last in this ranking.
That's what I can tell on the results of a cursory viewing of your links.

What is cursory viewing? Not studying perhaps, not reading? Anyhow, just look at the index: Methodology: page 46

You dismiss this report by the following people:

The Legatum Institute would like to thank Prof. Angus
Deaton, Nobel Laureate, and our Special Advisers to
the Prosperity Index for their helpful advice, critiques,
and suggestions.

Tim Besley, London School of Economics
Daniel Drezner, Tufts University
Carol Graham, Brookings Institution
John Ifcher, Santa Clara University
Edmund Malesky, Duke University
Ann Owen, Hamilton College
In addition, we thank the other attendees of our
Methodology Symposium for their time and feedback:
Aparna Mathur, Ed Al-Hussainy, Judith Kelley, Kevin Hassett,
Ole Hagen Jorgensen, Reuben Abraham, Robert Bradley, and
U. Srinivasa Rangan

So I guess you know better than all these people. You must be a brilliant person in all these fields, I take my hat of to your brilliant mind. (the sarcasm wasn't too much, now was it?)

These people are just people. In this case, their names won't tell me anything, links to authority in General are not really consistent with the scientific method of cognition. I have no such regalia, but this does not mean that their statements become the ultimate truth and cannot be challenged. I did not translate the entire document word for word and did not spend in his study a few hours - this is what I call "skimming". I caught the main tendencies of the document and the principle of counting the ratings, each of which I can give you my objections.

Again give me a better one, which you will agree with, simply dismissing everything doesn't learn us anything. And personal experience doesn't count.

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

By your own admission, you draw from your own memory, and as is proven memory is the lowest form of evidence. If you can't be trusted with providing the correct facts on the little things, how can we trust you to provide them with the big things?

So you agree with this, great.

Scorpius wrote:

3. Ukraine did not provide these data, moreover, the official comments of Ukrainian politicians, Ukraine had no BUK complexes: https://korrespondent.net/ukraine/35234 ... poroshenko
But it is an outright lie, and adviser to the President of Ukraine could not know about the existence of such complexes in the army. Then why did he lie about?

Does it matter if there is no indication that the missile came from Ukraine site? They could have a ziliion BUK's but if none of them shot the MH17 down.

Scorpius wrote:

4. But the Russian aircraft did not violate the airspace of Ukraine - but Ukrainian planes have repeatedly violated Russian airspace, what was even the official statements of the Russian Ministry of defence. In addition, the complex BUK is a complex of short-medium range, and it is ridiculous to assume that they have something can be hidden from the actions of the Russian aircraft in case, if any, began. If someone wanted to cover the area in the East of Ukraine military aviation, had to be created a layered air defense system with the use of complexes C-300, C-200, C-125, which is in the part of the Ukrainian troops.

Russia violates Ukraine airspace on a daily basis, each time they fly into the Crimea. But let put that aside.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-respo ... 00607.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-27/r ... ne/5413632
https://theaviationist.com/2015/06/18/t ... he-border/
https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraines-pm-a ... 01902.html
http://euromaidanpress.com/2017/09/19/r ... ince-2014/

But Russia is repeatedly threatening Ukraine so why not put up some defensive measures.

Scorpius wrote:

5. Absolutely the wrong conclusion - complexes BUK at full strength were available only from the Ukrainian army. Version about Russia's selling one installation is not tenable - if Russia supplied militia for the defense - it would make sense to put the full version of the complex, together with the crews. There is no logic in supplying only the launcher.

Why is it not tenable? I agree that there is no logic, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Scorpius wrote:

6. This eliminates incorrect version of attack of the passenger liner. That is the one who launched the missile, had the full understanding that target is attacked. And now tell me why the militia or the Russian military to shoot down a passenger plane? What are the advantages it could help them get? What purpose to achieve? Every crime there is always a motive, otherwise, the crime just doesn't happen. Ukraine and Pentagon's such a motive was the death of the passenger plane - a great episode in order to expose the Russian bad. And what is the motive of Russia to commit such an act? It's like that shoot yourself in the foot, so why do the Pro-Russian forces?

How do you know he had a full understanding of the target?

Now on a crime, first your assertion that a crime has been committed - besides involuntary homicide -. Is there a deliberate act of shooting down MH17 or was it a mistake? I believe the latter, but non have been proven.
I see no advantage from either side to deliberate shooting down the MH17, when (and note not if), the truth will come out that side (in your assertion Ukraine) will be without any support. Russian military or the militia also have no reason to shoot it down, they do (and did shot down) however have all the motive to shoot down Ukraine military craft lying from west to east, like the MH17, so a mistake could have been made.

With crime there is always a motive, in the fog of war mistakes will happen.

Scorpius wrote:

And what indicates this? Fabricated data that is not verifiable, that is not subject to verification? You talked about circumstantial evidence, but the point is that circumstantial evidence can be interpreted as a convenient - they can not deny because it is impossible to confirm their presence. I now can say that circumstantial evidence suggests that you are an agent of Putin - and you won't be able to deny it.

Again read the reports published by Dutch officials and you will find all the answers in there, everything that has been proven already and all the myth the Russian officials have been spread has been looked at and disproven. Nobody has been charged yet, so no definite proof has been found on a specific person and his role in shooting down the MH17, but they are closing in, Russia isn't working with them to seek the truth.

We will see when the evidence is presented in court if it will be convincing to a professional judge or not.

Scorpius wrote:

As for the situation with the B747 shot down in 1983, the aircraft has strayed far from the route, having flown in the restricted area, and did not respond to attempts of contact by the fighter aircraft sent to intercept. It was during the cold war, and provocations from the United States, associated with the violation of the airspace of the Soviet Union, occurred regularly. What was the likelihood that the flight carries out a reconnaissance aircraft, the pilot could not at that time is guaranteed to identify the aircraft as civilian, and led warning fire from guns on the course before the plane was shot down by two missiles. That is a tragedy, which led to a chain of random coincidences.

Phh, so you can't be sure, so you just shoot it down, killing a few hundred people in the process. That is your defense of this Russian attack?

Here is a list of all airliners shot down by military: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... _incidents

993 Transair Georgian Airline shootdowns
In September 1993, three airliners belonging to Transair Georgia were shot down by missiles and gunfire in Sukhumi, Abkhazia, Georgia. The first, a Tupolev Tu-134, was shot down on September 21, 1993 by a missile during landing approach. The second plane, a Tupolev Tu-154, was shot down a day later also during approach. A third one was shelled and destroyed on the ground, while passengers were boarding.

Russian backed militia shooting down airliners, what was the motive there?

So you agree with this, great.

No, you misinterpreted what I didn't give a detailed explanation on this issue. I don't agree with it. In the ordinary course of private discussions is not important, what was the model from downed aircraft, as in this case, no such details are beyond the scope necessary for the discussion of information. Otherwise you will not be accused of incompetence based on the fact that you don't know who was sitting in seat 21B of the downed plane, and that he ate his Breakfast.

Does it matter if there is no indication that the missile came from Ukraine site?

In fact the missile came from the territory of Ukraine. From Russia - the start was made from the territory where there are active hostilities, and the border with Russia was far enough. MH17 was shot down in Ukrainian airspace and crashed on the territory of Ukraine. And the rocket was also fired from the territory of Ukraine. In this respect, is unclear claims to Russia, frankly.

Russia violates Ukraine airspace on a daily basis, each time they fly into the Crimea. But let put that aside.

I have repeatedly said that Crimea is Russian territory, but really let's leave it for now.

But Russia is repeatedly threatening Ukraine so why not put up some defensive measures.

As I said, protection measures had to have a different character. Complexes BUK not enough to cover the area from the air violations. This is even if we do not consider that shooting down a Russian military plane could lead to outright war and the defeat of the Ukrainian army for the time ischislyaetsya a couple of weeks.

Why is it not tenable? I agree that there is no logic, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You realize that rockets do not shoot by themselves, people giving orders, must have certain interests, and that the fact of shooting down the civilian airliner was contrary to any interests of the people who could give such an order from the Russian side? But this disaster played into the hands of the Pentagon, the Ukrainian authorities and Western politicians.
Everything's so simple: shoot down the plane, arrange a tantrum in the media, blame all the Russians - and it is not necessary to explain to the voters why the West has made the outbreak of civil war in Ukraine why Europe is full of refugees from Arab regions, and why Europe needs more military bases amerikanskikh, and why it is necessary to increase spending on weaponry.This is all the fault of Russian!

You, by the way, and remain in thrall to this paradigm of reasoning - you have everywhere to blame Russian.

Again read the reports published by Dutch officials and you will find all the answers in there, everything that has been proven already and all the myth the Russian officials have been spread has been looked at and disproven. Nobody has been charged yet, so no definite proof has been found on a specific person and his role in shooting down the MH17, but they are closing in, Russia isn't working with them to seek the truth.

We will see when the evidence is presented in court if it will be convincing to a professional judge or not.

However, this does not prevent Western media to blame Russia for the Downing of MH17, Western politicians even introduced sanctions against some Russian entities, based on unconfirmed and unproven accusations. It reminds me the situation with the suspension of Russian athletes from the Olympics, some of which were suspended because of their doping samples were clean and had no marks indicating any effects on the sample tubes. Just was told that "most likely these samples had been opened and tampered with, just reveals the left footprints."
To sum up - you believe that the Downing of MH17 was a mistake, but nevertheless continue to accuse Putin that MH17 was shot down? (Lower until my counterarguments that the probability of error in this case is minimal - experienced crew could distinguish passenger jet, flying at an altitude of 10 kilometers, from a turboprop military transport An-26, which can not rise above 7.5 km.)

On data you provided: either provide it and make sure it is true or don't provide it, that is the point.

For the MH17, we will see what is proven in court, until then you can have you dilution that Ukraine with the help of the Pentagon did it.

I have decided not to react to these bogus Russia threads anymore, no point in rebottling all these non-sense coming from the Putin groupies/trolls here. It just drains energy and accomplishes nothing.

Have fun guys and have a good 2018!

Dutchy wrote:

I have decided not to react to these bogus Russia threads anymore, no point in rebottling all these non-sense coming from the Putin groupies/trolls here. It just drains energy and accomplishes nothing.

Congratulations Dutchy! It took you only six weeks and 12 pages of discussion to realize you are dealing with a Kremlin troll.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I have decided not to react to these bogus Russia threads anymore, no point in rebottling all these non-sense coming from the Putin groupies/trolls here. It just drains energy and accomplishes nothing.

Congratulations Dutchy! It took you only six weeks and 12 pages of discussion to realize you are dealing with a Kremlin troll.

So how should I call you and those like you then? A liberal troll? A Czech troll?

L410Turbolet wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I have decided not to react to these bogus Russia threads anymore, no point in rebottling all these non-sense coming from the Putin groupies/trolls here. It just drains energy and accomplishes nothing.

Congratulations Dutchy! It took you only six weeks and 12 pages of discussion to realize you are dealing with a Kremlin troll.

Only now I am not a troll. Neither the Kremlin nor any other. A very interesting question: why are you trying so hard to introduce me a Kremlin troll? Only due to the fact that my view differs from yours? Or is it included in your duties?

The international Olympic Committee has refused the invitation to the Olympics justified CAS Russian athletes.


According to the decision of the international community, citizens of Russia can now travel outside the country only in white clothes. Forbidden under pain of arrest to be in possession of the state symbols, saying "I am Russian", to mention their origin and the country to speak Russian. You cannot wear clothes of other colors than white that would not blend in with ordinary society. Maintained in all institutions of Russian can only triple rate, or in special institutions for the Russian marked with special inscriptions.

Among other recommendations, the International Council for Justice and Humanity (MSSCH), it is recommended to answer the question who are you/where "I am" "I am nowhere." In the case of indictments and arrests, was recommended to plead guilty, made any suspicions.

Also MSSCH adopted for the consideration of the question of what would be crimes against the Russians is not considered a crime. As grounds for this decision, intended to introduce the concept of a person of lower level. Lawyers around the world working to solve this problem, because it is unacceptable to equate the rights of Russian animals, animals certainly cannot and should not be subjected to any movement restrictions and identification.

"The idea of compulsory collective responsibility of Russians for any misconduct of their fellow citizens at any period of their history, that is the basis on which our organization is built. And we believe that on this basis, we can achieve the ideals of justice and humanity" — said the head MSSCH, Richard Stoneman.
This text is a joke, but...

Today in Russia day, which is called forgiveness Sunday. Oddly enough, even though it's a Church tradition - keep it, even atheists. In any case, I think it's a good tradition to adopt which is useful for any person.

And today I want to ask all of you for forgiveness. Everyone who's offended. No hard feelings and resentment in your heart, because in their world enough. I, in turn, with all my heart and the heart forgive all who have caused me hurt.

You are forgiven and let's see if you truly mean it and change your tune..... Forgive me to being a sceptic

Dutchy wrote:

You are forgiven and let's see if you truly mean it and change your tune..... Forgive me to being a sceptic

Scorpius made an offer. Not an invitation to jeering.

Dutchy wrote:

You are forgiven and let's see if you truly mean it and change your tune..... Forgive me to being a sceptic

The meaning of this custom of repentance for the wrongs inflicted, even if these grievances could have been caused accidentally. Some cleansing from the bad that you could do to others for the year. Under this ideally works in both sides. However, this may be too unusual for you. I just wanted to acquaint readers with this custom of Russian culture. I forgive you.

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

You are forgiven and let's see if you truly mean it and change your tune..... Forgive me to being a sceptic

The meaning of this custom of repentance for the wrongs inflicted, even if these grievances could have been caused accidentally. Some cleansing from the bad that you could do to others for the year. Under this ideally works in both sides. However, this may be too unusual for you. I just wanted to acquaint readers with this custom of Russian culture. I forgive you.

Kind of nice tradition in Russia. In my world, however, you can ask for forgiveness if you are actually sorry for something and thus we see the change, if not it is meaningless for me, sorry.

Notes in the margins:
Someone, explain already to these idiots to English-speaking journalists that the abbreviated form of a name Vladimir is Vova, not Vlad. Vlad is the short form of the name Vladislav. And when Putin someone tries familiarly to call Vlad - it looks not only that it is ignorant (in Russia the familiar form of the address to the state person is a sign of ignorance), so also stupidly.

Scorpius wrote:

Notes in the margins:
Someone, explain already to these idiots to English-speaking journalists that the abbreviated form of a name Vladimir is Vova, not Vlad. Vlad is the short form of the name Vladislav. And when Putin someone tries familiarly to call Vlad - it looks not only that it is ignorant (in Russia the familiar form of the address to the state person is a sign of ignorance), so also stupidly.

Putin projects an image of being a bear-wrestling shirtless badass for the world to consume. In English Vladimir Is not a name we hear, but we know of "Vlad the impaler" and this is likely where it comes from. A combination of both his brutal image and Vlad, not Vladimir being a name known in our culture.

Scorpius wrote:

Someone, explain already to these idiots to English-speaking journalists that the abbreviated form of a name Vladimir is Vova, not Vlad. Vlad is the short form of the name Vladislav./quote]
Who cares? I would be happy every time they refer to him as Vlad instead of Putler.

Scorpius wrote:

it looks not only that it is ignorant (in Russia the familiar form of the address to the state person is a sign of ignorance), so also stupidly.

Again, you're projecting your own cultural phenomenon (tyrants enjoy demigod status in Russia) onto the rest of the world.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Someone, explain already to these idiots to English-speaking journalists that the abbreviated form of a name Vladimir is Vova, not Vlad. Vlad is the short form of the name Vladislav./quote]
Who cares? I would be happy every time they refer to him as Vlad instead of Putler.

Scorpius wrote:

it looks not only that it is ignorant (in Russia the familiar form of the address to the state person is a sign of ignorance), so also stupidly.

Again, you're projecting your own cultural phenomenon (tyrants enjoy demigod status in Russia) onto the rest of the world.

I'd really like to see an Englishman speak to the Queen, starting with the words, Hey, Vicky, you know, I'm thinking...
Here we are talking about common courtesy, but apparently you never even heard of.

Jouhou wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Notes in the margins:
Someone, explain already to these idiots to English-speaking journalists that the abbreviated form of a name Vladimir is Vova, not Vlad. Vlad is the short form of the name Vladislav. And when Putin someone tries familiarly to call Vlad - it looks not only that it is ignorant (in Russia the familiar form of the address to the state person is a sign of ignorance), so also stupidly.

Putin projects an image of being a bear-wrestling shirtless badass for the world to consume. In English Vladimir Is not a name we hear, but we know of "Vlad the impaler" and this is likely where it comes from. A combination of both his brutal image and Vlad, not Vladimir being a name known in our culture.

This is an indicator of how the Western propaganda machine tries to distort information. The name Vlad has nothing to do with the name Vladimir. And even more so Putin has nothing to do with Vlad III tsepesh. There is clearly a desire to associate Putin with some evil, which is disinformation and propaganda.

Scorpius wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Notes in the margins:
Someone, explain already to these idiots to English-speaking journalists that the abbreviated form of a name Vladimir is Vova, not Vlad. Vlad is the short form of the name Vladislav. And when Putin someone tries familiarly to call Vlad - it looks not only that it is ignorant (in Russia the familiar form of the address to the state person is a sign of ignorance), so also stupidly.

Putin projects an image of being a bear-wrestling shirtless badass for the world to consume. In English Vladimir Is not a name we hear, but we know of "Vlad the impaler" and this is likely where it comes from. A combination of both his brutal image and Vlad, not Vladimir being a name known in our culture.

This is an indicator of how the Western propaganda machine tries to distort information. The name Vlad has nothing to do with the name Vladimir. And even more so Putin has nothing to do with Vlad III tsepesh. There is clearly a desire to associate Putin with some evil, which is disinformation and propaganda.

It's the likes of RT that wants Putin to look strong and fierce, not us. He wants the world to fear him.

Also consider it fortunate we don't say "Vova" which would sound a lot like "vulva" in english. Then we would be associating him with lady parts.

Jouhou wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

Putin projects an image of being a bear-wrestling shirtless badass for the world to consume. In English Vladimir Is not a name we hear, but we know of "Vlad the impaler" and this is likely where it comes from. A combination of both his brutal image and Vlad, not Vladimir being a name known in our culture.

This is an indicator of how the Western propaganda machine tries to distort information. The name Vlad has nothing to do with the name Vladimir. And even more so Putin has nothing to do with Vlad III tsepesh. There is clearly a desire to associate Putin with some evil, which is disinformation and propaganda.

It's the likes of RT that wants Putin to look strong and fierce, not us. He wants the world to fear him.

Also consider it fortunate we don't say "Vova" which would sound a lot like "vulva" in english. Then we would be associating him with lady parts.

Oh, must be a Volvo car manufacturer, somewhere now, crying in distress.

Scorpius wrote:

This is an indicator of how the Western propaganda machine tries to distort information. The name Vlad has nothing to do with the name Vladimir. And even more so Putin has nothing to do with Vlad III tsepesh. There is clearly a desire to associate Putin with some evil, which is disinformation and propaganda.

Remember those dumb playing cards from Iraq invasion times?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most-want ... ying_cards
That and similar stuff consumes quite a bit of effort and money in the US.

WIederling wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

This is an indicator of how the Western propaganda machine tries to distort information. The name Vlad has nothing to do with the name Vladimir. And even more so Putin has nothing to do with Vlad III tsepesh. There is clearly a desire to associate Putin with some evil, which is disinformation and propaganda.

Remember those dumb playing cards from Iraq invasion times?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most-want ... ying_cards
That and similar stuff consumes quite a bit of effort and money in the US.

Actually post cold war only the military kept propaganda departments, which turned out to be a mistake.

That's cute, Vlad.

Dutchy wrote:

That's cute, Vlad.

It's stupid, Dutch

Jouhou wrote:

Actually post cold war only the military kept propaganda departments, which turned out to be a mistake.

3letter orgs, Outsourced, privatized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
one of the crasser activities. Overall there is quite a bit going on in that domain
Targeting the local US media consumers and large campaigns in other nations.

Think about for what you would need software tools to manage multiple personalities on social media and such.
Guess how the color revolutions were controlled.

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

That's cute, Vlad.

It's stupid, Dutch

I wouldn't care less what you call prime minister Rutte. It says something that you do.

Jouhou wrote:

It's the likes of RT that wants Putin to look strong and fierce, not us. He wants the world to fear him.

It’s not that Putin want the world to be afaraid of him. It’s that the leadership in some regions of this world (especially some Western ones) want everyone to be afraid of him and is trying to lead buy example, by pretending at least.

anrec80 wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

It's the likes of RT that wants Putin to look strong and fierce, not us. He wants the world to fear him.

It’s not that Putin want the world to be afaraid of him. It’s that the leadership in some regions of this world (especially some Western ones) want everyone to be afraid of him and is trying to lead buy example, by pretending at least.

Than the leadership fails, I, for one, am not affair of Putin's Russia

It plays to Putin's advantage to be seen as a strong man abroad. He has a whole persona attached to him here, what with the shirtless horseback riding in Siberia and whatnot.

Personally though, I'm a big fan of France's Macron <3 when it comes to world leaders I wish I had.

I personally think it is more to the advantage of Putin to be seen as such in Russia, not abroad. Just to keep his post it is necessary to be seen as such and he has a lot of $$$$$ riding on it.

In the west, this kind of personal glorification is laughed at.

Dutchy wrote:

I personally think it is more to the advantage of Putin to be seen as such in Russia, not abroad. Just to keep his post it is necessary to be seen as such and he has a lot of $$$$$ riding on it.

In the west, this kind of personal glorification is laughed at.

Hmmm. Maybe.

https://youtu.be/xK_Ahtg5CxE

https://youtu.be/LNK430YOiT4

It's sort of turned him into a loveable character.