Ron Paul sides with Putin. Says Ukraine and the US are responsible...

[cobber]

Blame the passengers?
You're driving down the Dan Ryan and one of your kids gets hit in a gang crossfire. You chose the route so you're responsible? Or your kid for being a passenger?

Not the triggerman?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I fail to see what the contention is. There was no moral support of Putin whatsoever. He was simply commenting on the information we are being provided with (and not being provided with). I saw nothing false or misleading. He is absolutely right that we are being inundated with propaganda on all sides. Wars have been started on lies in our own lifetimes; we should never take for granted the validity of any official "facts."

Read the text for yourself, and please tell me what the beef is. Specifically.

What the Media Won't Report About Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17






Secondly, it is dishonest as all hell to say that any skepticism here is the same as "siding with Putin" or being "against America." This is inflammatory rhetoric used purposely to demonize. Its the same crap that comes from those (mostly the same people) who imply that disagreement on a topic is tantamount to siding with terrorists.

If you disagree with Ron Paul you must be pro-Obama, by that logic.

One wonders why it is that if you show the least bit of skepticism regarding the official narrative, you somehow automatically become antisocial and presumed to support the most nonsensical explanation the most unstable person to speak on the matter has put forth. Much like saying that if you don't support ObamaCare, then you necessarily are a site supporter on Stormfront because if you don't support Obama, you are obviously racist.

 

[jbombelli]

Blame the passengers?
You're driving down the Dan Ryan and one of your kids gets hit in a gang crossfire. You chose the route so you're responsible? Or your kid for being a passenger?

Not the triggerman?

Did you know ahead of time that the gang members were shooting at each other at that particular location, and then choose to go there anyway?

While it may not be your fault, you sure don't look very smart.

 

[rambone]

Ron Paul didn't blame the airplane so the point is moot.

 

[88GT]

Does it matter who is at fault?
The only ones to blame is the airline company and the passengers themselves.
The entire world knows that part of the world is at war. A region at war means no laws, no civilized rule of law, etc.
You can NOT expect to have a picnic in the middle of a battlefield and not get hurt.

The airline looked at the risk vs cost and determined it was an acceptable risk. OK fine this particular flight did not pan out for them. So in this case the risk won vs the cost.

Each passenger that bought a ticket with this company also is to blame. They can ask/look up how the flight path is going to occur and if it will put them in danger. They choose this airline vs another for whatever reason. Again they made a risk vs cost decision and this time the risk won.

yeah, it kind of does matter. Aggressors need to be dealt with.

No passenger is to blame in the least. Aggression is never the fault of the innocent.

 

[IndyDave1776]

yeah, it kind of does matter. Aggressors need to be dealt with.

No passenger is to blame in the least. Aggression is never the fault of the innocent.

I believe his point, with which I agree, is that travelling through the middle of a combat zone expecting to be immune to the ordnance being used in the general area is like walking outside when it is raining expecting rain not to fall on you because you didn't opt in to participate.

 

[88GT]

I believe his point, with which I agree, is that travelling through the middle of a combat zone expecting to be immune to the ordnance being used in the general area is like walking outside when it is raining expecting rain not to fall on you because you didn't opt in to participate.

I understood his point, but it doesn't change my position. Blame is assignable only to the party(ies) responsible for making "it" happen. It was foolish and illogical for one to think that flying through a combat zone was without risk. There is responsibility for accepting that risk. I have no problem putting that squarely on the pilots/airline/whoever it was that made the decision. But the act is assignable only to those who perpetrated it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I understood his point, but it doesn't change my position. Blame is assignable only to the party(ies) responsible for making "it" happen. It was foolish and illogical for one to think that flying through a combat zone was without risk. There is responsibility for accepting that risk. I have no problem putting that squarely on the pilots/airline/whoever it was that made the decision. But not the act is assignable only to those who perpetrated it.

Fair enough.

 

[ModernGunner]

Does it matter who is at fault?

"What difference, at this point, does it make!?!?"

Sounds 'vaguely' familiar...

Yes. It matters.

 

[jedi]

I believe his point, with which I agree, is that travelling through the middle of a combat zone expecting to be immune to the ordnance being used in the general area is like walking outside when it is raining expecting rain not to fall on you because you didn't opt in to participate.

THIS!!!

 

[Redhorse]

Does it matter who is at fault?
The only ones to blame is the airline company and the passengers themselves.
The entire world knows that part of the world is at war. A region at war means no laws, no civilized rule of law, etc.
You can NOT expect to have a picnic in the middle of a battlefield and not get hurt.

The airline looked at the risk vs cost and determined it was an acceptable risk. OK fine this particular flight did not pan out for them. So in this case the risk won vs the cost.

Each passenger that bought a ticket with this company also is to blame. They can ask/look up how the flight path is going to occur and if it will put them in danger. They choose this airline vs another for whatever reason. Again they made a risk vs cost decision and this time the risk won.

​At this point what difference does it make?

 

[csnoski]

I saw on tonight's news that they have changed the path of this flight. It now flies across northern Syria! They said there is no restricted air space there.

 

[HoughMade]

Are we so simple that we can't understand that there can be multiple "but-for" causes for this event?

- If the airline didn't fly there, the plane would not have been shot down.
- If the "separatists" hadn't fired the rocket, the plane would not have been shot down.
- If Russia did not supply weapons to the "separatists" capable of hitting aircraft at this height, the plane would not have been shot down...and on and on.

This does not mean all parties are equally morally culpable. The airline may have made a dumb decision, but a dumb decision is not an evil one. There may be unrest in the area, but could they expect combatants to either target them or shoot at them without verifying the target? When you supply weapons and when you fire weapons either knowingly to kill these people, completely unrelated to the conflict, or without consideration for the risk, that, in my view, is more evil and more morally culpable.

So, maybe the airline has 10% of the fault, the Russians 40% and the "separatists" 50%. The 10% of the airline's fault does not make the shooters less evil.

 

[steveh_131]

I read Ron Paul's column, not sure what all the fuss is about.

Can someone point out which part of it was not factual? It all looked pretty accurate to me.

 

[cobber]

Did you know ahead of time that the gang members were shooting at each other at that particular location, and then choose to go there anyway?

While it may not be your fault, you sure don't look very smart.

How many commercial airliners have traveled over the area? How many aircraft flying at 33,000 feet had been shot down prior to this?

Did the passengers really have any idea what route their plane would fly?

As to the Dan Ryan analogy, you're traversing the South Side of Chicago. There are shootings on the South Side daily. As to any particular location, you have no idea whether it's more or less dangerous.

 

[KG1]

I read Ron Paul's column, not sure what all the fuss is about.

Can someone point out which part of it was not factual? It all looked pretty accurate to me.

They'res no fuss. It doesn't really matter. It was Malaysian airlines and the passengers fault.

 

[poptab]

I read Ron Paul's column, not sure what all the fuss is about.

Can someone point out which part of it was not factual? It all looked pretty accurate to me.

Buzz kill...

This is a ***** and moan about those annoying self righteous libertarian duches thread.

 

[88GT]

How many commercial airliners have traveled over the area? How many aircraft flying at 33,000 feet had been shot down prior to this?

Did the passengers really have any idea what route their plane would fly?

As to the Dan Ryan analogy, you're traversing the South Side of Chicago. There are shootings on the South Side daily. As to any particular location, you have no idea whether it's more or less dangerous.

And asking "Hey, by the way, could you tell me the flight plan" is probably going to get a nice long interview with some government agents.

 

[steveh_131]

Buzz kill...

This is a ***** and moan about those annoying self righteous libertarian duches thread.

Oh, I see.

 

[KG1]

Ron Paul is accusing others of trying to pin this incident on Russian backed and armed separatists while he lays the case out that it could more likely be Ukrainian/meddling US backed to make Putin look bad and turn the tables in their favor. A stance that is pretty much in line with Putin's

He says he might very well be all wrong about that and it could be the former.

The question is if he does turn out to be wrong about it and it was Russian backed and armed separatists that downed the flight will he acknowledge it?