
Dutch report: Buk missile downed MH17 in Ukraine - jboynyc
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/10/13/a-dutch-report-will-say-what-downed-mh17-it-wont-blame-the-russians/?tid=sm_tw
======
danielvf
Here's the full report, for those who wish to read it.

[http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-
en....](http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf)

------
orf
> In July, Russia vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that
> would have established an international criminal tribunal to investigate the
> MH17 attack.

Nothing to hide, right?

~~~
dogma1138
The US doesn't recognizes the ICC either. Countries do not like to surrender
sovereignty to international bodies, the ICC only works when you have a big
enough military to pluck your indited targets by force.

If push comes to shove I can't see any nation openly surrender any of their
citizens to an international court which is why while the ICC is a great idea
in general it's more or less a sham.

It's easy to prosecute people from the Balkans or Africa when you have the US
or NATO forces doing the dirty work for you, it gets some what harder when you
have to deal with nations that have actual power.

~~~
ptaipale
This was not about ICC, this was to set up a specific tribunal to investigate
this particular crime.

A more relevant comparison might be the Lockerbie trial?

~~~
dogma1138
It was most likely the ICC, the UNSC is the only body that can instruct the
ICC to start a tribunal and that's the role that the ICC plays for in the
whole UN eco-system opening a completely separate international criminal
tribunal to would be a bit odd especially since it won't have any mandates and
I'm not even sure if the UNSC can do that.

P.S. The Lockerbie trial wasn't an international tribunal, or an international
trial it was awkwardly constructed due to the fact that neither the US nor the
UK had a working extradition treaties with Libya and the case was not turned
over to the ICC.

The trial was conducted in the Netherlands yes but under Scottish law and
that's because the dutch did had an extradition treaty with Libya as well as
some weird treaty with presumably either the UK, the commonwealth or even
historically the Kingdom of Scotland which allowed them to establish a
Scottish court on dutch grounds.

------
ajeet_dhaliwal
So pretty much no change from what new organizations were originally saying at
the time. This incident took place one month after my son was born and I
remember having a tough time sleeping that night thinking about all of the
people, particularly young children on the flight.

Before this I did not realize that the airline you choose is so important.
Many airlines including British Airways which I usually use had been avoiding
all of Ukraine airspace for months before this happened, however sadly they
were in the minority.

------
mirap
I'm afraid, it was clear from the beginning. Only Russia told it was not
true....

~~~
anthonybsd
They change their tune so often it's hard to keep track. Have a look:
[http://listverse.com/2015/09/07/10-outrageous-ways-
russian-m...](http://listverse.com/2015/09/07/10-outrageous-ways-russian-
media-covered-the-crash-of-mh17/)

~~~
oselhn
Thats their strategy. They do not need proofs just spread confusion to prevent
sane discussion.

~~~
smcl
Adam Curtis has a great piece about this - Vladislav Surkov and his "nonlinear
warfare" \-
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcy8uLjRHPM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcy8uLjRHPM)

------
tinfoilman
Interesting reaction many are having,

I think its pretty clear on the world stage that Russia had involvement in
this, either it was supplying the weapons or worse case is was Russia's
'Moderate rebels' that did it. Which seem to be how first world powers these
days get what they want without putting their name on it

The fact Russia Vetoed a UN investigation and Putin has stated a few times
when asked that it would be a waste of time to do an investigation sends a
clear and strong message.

The interesting thing to me, is why it has come out now? the US propaganda
machine is in over drive lately. US has spent years funneling 'moderate'
rebels towards Syria, while using ISIS as the poster kids for more draconian
surveillance and not really doing anything about them.

I mean its pretty clear right? US(cia) created the environment that allowed
ISIS to grow and then used them to push forward their international agenda
(removal of Assad (before that Iraq/Afghanistan destabilization ready for a US
friendly government to be installed)) and domestic agenda (removal of rights
for the 'greater' good).

Just this week we have the US stating they are stopping training 'moderate'
rebels (I quote as I do not believe there are ever moderate rebels) but then
proceeds to sell Saudi Arabia missiles that TODAY Saudi Arabia have given to
the 'moderate' Rebels.

We see. Luckily we live in interested times, and the internet has made it so
we can see more of the world stage without local filtering (newspapers/local
new) interesting times indeed.

TL:DR: Russia's moderate rebels most likely shot the plan down, Russia knows
this stalls investigation. Then a bit of a rant of, Why this has come out now

~~~
tremon
It has come out now because the Dutch Safety Board gave itself a year to write
its report. The release date was already announced six weeks ago in Dutch
media: [http://nos.nl/artikel/2054305-eindrapport-mh17-13-oktober-
ge...](http://nos.nl/artikel/2054305-eindrapport-mh17-13-oktober-
gepubliceerd.html)

Neither the US nor ISIS had anything to do with this report or its timing.

------
jinst8gmi
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10380018](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10380018)

------
0xbadf00d
Always interesting reading the same news from different sources - the BBC
story does not seem to mention the Almaz-Antey test firing of a newer model of
the missile to disprove Russian involvement.

Where does the WP lie on the political Spectrum? As a Euro-bloke I don't know.

~~~
techterrier
There's a section of the report which answers the Russian claims.

~~~
cpncrunch
Yes, see here:

[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34511973](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-34511973)

The BBC isn't anywhere on the "political spectrum". If the OP was implying
that the BBC was deliberately not including that info for political reasons,
he/she doesn't really know anything about the BBC.

~~~
gadders
The BBC is generally accepted to have a left-wing bias, but I doubt if that
would have come into play in this particular story.

~~~
tremon
"Left-wing bias" is an accusation devoid of content. It is only practiced by
those who can make no better argument, or are unwilling/unable to entertain a
different viewpoint.

Good journalistic practice prescribes a neutral tone and a willingness to
report on all sides. In general, the right wing is more unwilling to hear
opposing views than the left wing, so good journalistic practice itself is
more left than right.

I'll take self-proclaimed neutral left-wing reporting over the right-wing
equivalent any day, thank you.

~~~
gadders
>> In general, the right wing is more unwilling to hear opposing views than
the left wing, so good journalistic practice itself is more left than right.

That's merely your assertion.

If you look at the BBC's reporting on items such as the refugee crisis, the
EU, Global Warming, the economy, etc it all pretty much lines up with what The
Guardian promotes.

~~~
tremon
Actually, it is more than an assertion. It has a premise, an assertion, and a
deduction, each of which can be supported or refuted. You apparently chose
neither, as if my statement carries less weight than yours, and your
disparaging remark is enough to change my opinion.

Why do you think my post is worth less than yours? Perhaps you are more
unwilling than me to hear opposing views?

~~~
gadders
I'm perfectly happy to hear opposing views. And I don't think your post is
worth less than mine. I just don't agree with it.

------
wsc981
Some problems with the report is that it was written by Dutch and Ukrainian
people, which might not be totally objective. Additionally, large parts of the
report isn't open for everyone to see. I think it's strange to accept a
conclusion without being able to see everything that caused the researches to
come to their conclusion. Finally, when the report was revealed the press
wasn't allowed to ask any questions.

~~~
ceejayoz
> Some problems with the report is that it was written by Dutch and Ukrainian
> people, which might not be totally objective.

Which is why the report includes both "factual information" and "analysis"
sections. Feel free to contest specific points in their analysis you object
to.

> Finally, when the report was revealed the press wasn't allowed to ask any
> questions.

Probably because 99% of the questions they'd ask would be answered by reading
the report. It's not like the reporters can't read it and email their
questions in a few hours later.

