blutto said:
...so let me understand this...you are "almost certain" this incident is the result of rebel action....the cui bono argument doesn't fit your "almost certainty" so its dismissed as some silly conspiracy theory....and then you buttress your "almost certainty" by saying it was a result of an "accident" because frankly there is no benefit for the rebels to undertake this action....sure, could be, "acts of god" happen ( and insurance companies often rely on them to save money )...so $h!t happens....
I don’t know why this is so hard for you to understand.
We have basically two scenarios:
1) the separatists shot down the plane with a SAM, probably with a little help (or more) from their friends. In this case, it was almost certainly an accident
2) The Ukrainians shot down the plane with an air-to-air missile. In this case, it was probably intentional
The wording of 2), the explanation for why it happened, is not mine. It’s yours, and that of the blogger you linked. You are the ones who are providing this stark choice, between accident and intention. And my point is that most rational people, confronted with this choice, will take 1). Not because the evidence for 1) is irrefutable, not because we believe everything the U.S. is claiming. And not because there is no possibility that the Ukrainians did it, not because we dismiss out of hand the Spanish air controller and all the rest. But simply because if 2) comes with an Obama-ordered-it requirement, it becomes loony. If you’re going to hitch your wagon to that, you’ve made your argument so weak that almost any evidence on the other side is going to look far more plausible.
As Amster pointed out, things have changed a little in the past few decades. If the President of the U.S. were linked to shooting down a commercial aircraft, there would not simply be an uproar. There would not simply be a Congressional investigation of why he exceeded his constitutional powers. He would not simply be impeached faster than you can say Richard Nixon. He would go on trial for war crimes.
I have my criticisms of Obama, but I think he knows that. I also think, call me naïve if you wish, that even if he thought he could get away with doing this, he would never even consider it. I don’t think even the most power-hungry, paranoid man who could possibly get elected to the office would do something like this just to get a relatively small advantage in this war. The stakes simply are not that high. I’m not downplaying the importance of the war to the U.S., but that importance simply does not, yet, rise to the point where even a war criminal type would contemplate shooting down a commercial plane.
Even the latest blogger you cite seems to understand this:
Nor did Kerry mention the fact that the Ukrainian military –who also had BUK missile systems in the area–may have mistakenly taken down the airliner.
Now that is a view I’m willing to consider. And this:
Whether US Intel agencies were involved in the missile attack or not doesn’t change the fact that Washington clearly benefits from the tragedy.
That is a valid point, even if it’s weakened by preceding it with a clause suggesting the author seriously believes the U.S. might have ordered the strike.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram