Shooting down civilian jets, can the US truly have pointed fingers at the Russian separatist in Ukraine?
When it comes to Uncle Sam pointing fingers at who shot down what civilian jet, isn’t it like the pot calling the skillet black? Uncle Sam did the same if not worse. Back in 1988 a good friend was serving on the USS Vincennes. He was an eye witness to the whole incident. He was not part of the crew that actually fired the missile that downed the Iranian air bus with 66 children aboard, but the incident troubled him greatly. He suffered PTSD because of it. He started to feel better about it because of the lie he was told, that the jet was broadcasting a military signature along with a civilian signature and was descending toward the ship. When the ship was decommissioned and scrapped the real truth came out; the Vincennes was not only in Iranian waters where it wasn’t supposed to be, the jet was climbing and was never broadcasting a military signature. The US never admitted guilt or apologized. Uncle Sam was quick to blame the Russian-leaning separatist because he backed the West-friendly government of the Ukraine, maybe to use the incident as an excuse to get in the mix on the side of the Ukrainians, or to better arm them. Lo and behold, IT WAS the Ukrainians all along. Doesn’t that seem very hypocritical, and a rush to judgment, Uncle Sam wants to blast the Russian-leaning separatist for doing something he has done, mistakenly or not? Even if the Russian-leaning separatist had done it, how can they be charge with a war crime when the Captain of the Vincennes wasn’t?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
5 Answers
I imagine there will plenty of others willing to discuss the facts of the case and the problems with your source, so I’m just going to focus on a logical point. Let’s look at this sentence:
“Even if the Russian-leaning separatist had done it, how can they be charge with a war crime when the Captain of the Vincennes wasn’t?”
This is known as the tu quoque fallacy. Just because the US may have done bad things in the past doesn’t mean they cannot be correct when pointing out bad things that others are doing now. The facts are the facts, regardless of who has gotten away with what on other occasions.
This is not to disagree with the claim that it is hypocritical to sanction someone while attempting to avoid sanction for the very same thing. It is only to point out that failing to punish one wrongdoer in no way means we should therefore fail to punish another wrongdoer as well (even if we are in the odd position of the first wrongdoer being the one to punish the second).
There is internet chatter and some photo’s that show round holes in certain parts of the plane that was shot down. This internet chatter suggests that these are consistent with 30mm rounds.
There is also chatter saying there were radar reports of 2 aircraft tailing MH17 just before it went down.
I havent personally looked into it, so I have no idea of its validity.
plus, I don’t have the skills….....
These are the death throws of the global ecconomy.
The end is nigh…...
Bring on bitcoin.
Well….... provided the internet stays intack!.....
Wonder what those kill switches are for???????
There’s never any shortage of conspiracy theories.
The US was wrong to shoot down the Iranian airliner, and George Bush Sr was despicable in his refusal to apologise. The whole incident was horrific, and the consequences are ongoing.
The MH17 disaster was most likely a mistake, but I don’t think it can be doubted that the rebels pulled the trigger. The Ukrainian rebels have a proven capacity and willingness to shoot down aircraft, but they probably do not have sophisticated equipment to differentiate between planes. Note that Malaysian Airlines planes are grey underneath, and so to the untrained eye could easily look like a military transport plane or fuel tanker.
However the important thing to remember is that international affairs are not governed by a code of ethics. Governments aren’t expected to act morally, they are expected to act in the best interests of their citizens. Viewed in this light, the cynical attitude of the US makes perfect sense – even if you, like me, cannot agree with their approach.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
