Malaysian airlines aircraft "shot down", SA-11 apparently

[Urwumpe]

I don't see why that has to be the case.

Well, what would you call occupying the same volume of air as an exploding SAM? Even inside a MBT, I would feel a bit nervous about the prospect. :tiphat:

And BTW: If you fear wild weasel aircraft with Anti-Radar missiles, you should NEVER activate a fire control radar for a longer period of time at all. Especially not as ad-hoc search radar. The ancient Kh-25 that the Ukraine still uses is deadly enough, should an aircraft carrying them be close enough (<60 km from high altitude).

And BTW - there had been three civilian aircraft in the air when it happened, not just one. All with proper transponder signals. Using a SAM without proper identification of the target in that situation is even more likely to hit a civilian aircraft, you can even assume that hitting one was an accepted risk.

 

[Marijn]

Sorry for not answering. A cat with a neurologic problem crossed my path which took time to take care of.

On the political front, it has become clear that the conclusions of the official investigation were manipulated, perhaps by a single man, Dick Schoof, who was head of the NCTV at the time and now is the head of the Dutch secret service. Parts of the report were rewritten. They say they only changed the 'tone', being 'too heavy' and 'too negative'. What exactly has been rewritten remains secret.

 

[Urwumpe]

Sorry, for being a dick there but:

On the political front, it has become clear that the conclusions of the official investigation were manipulated, perhaps by a single man, Dick Schoof, who was head of the NCTV at the time and now is the head of the Dutch secret service. Parts of the report were rewritten. They say they only changed the 'tone', being 'too heavy' and 'too negative'. What exactly has been rewritten remains secret.

"On the political front, it has become clear..." to whom?


"They say they" - who are they?



"What exactly has been rewritten remains secret." - So, you have actually no way to tell, if it actually has been rewritten and in which way? What is the matter of saying "I don't know" today?



I really hate weasel words and I would prefer keeping them in the Basement, where this thread would belong then.

 

[Marijn]

In The Netherlands, we have a law called 'WOB', which basicly allows any civilian to ask for the publication of certain government data. Of course, you can't ask to reveal national secrets. But some information can be asked for. It's complicated and I no expert myself. But by enforcing this law, it has been revelead that that conclusions of the offical independent investigation of the loss of flight MH17 were rewritten by the client (Dutch government) after the investigators finished their job. I assume that no further explanation is required about how dodgy this is. Such events are against our laws and I am sure against yours too. But at this level, no such thing as law seems to exist.

to whom

To anybody who wants to know who is responsible for MH17 and to the Dutch House of Representatives in particular, since it's their job it to control the cabinet.

who are they?

The Dutch government, by mouth of the Ministry of Security and Justice, who are supposed to bring justice to those who lost loved ones.

So, you have actually no way to tell

We do know now that the report was changed because of this WOB law. There is no question about that. The cabinet already said that they have 'understanding' for the manipulations by the NCTV.

Here's a link to an article pubished by the state-operated (!) national news agency: https://nos.nl/artikel/2271081-kabinet-heeft-begrip-voor-bemoeienis-schoof-met-mh17-rapport.html
If you can read a bit of Dutch or use Google Translate, you can check that they say so themselves.

Sorry for being unclear about that. But this is no small thing happening at the moment. Governments do fall over such affairs.

 

[Urwumpe]

In The Netherlands, we have a law called 'WOB', which basicly allows any civilian to ask for the publication of certain government data. Of course, you can't ask to reveal national secrets. But some information can be asked for. It's complicated and I no expert myself.

Its called "IFG" or Informationsfreiheitsgesetz in Germany and corresponds largely to the Freedom of Information Act of the USA.



Its not complicated at all actually, there had been court rulings here against the state, if the rules for obtaining information had been too complicated. You just need to know that there is also a price for getting the information.

But by enforcing this law, it has been revelead that that conclusions of the offical independent investigation of the loss of flight MH17 were rewritten by the client (Dutch government) after the investigators finished their job. I assume that no further explanation is required about how dodgy this is. Such events are against our laws and I am sure against yours too. But at this level, no such thing as law seems to exist.

So, the report of the JIT had been published early by invoking this law? Highly doubtful. There is no final report yet, so any editing should not be a matter of concern.

To anybody who wants to know who is responsible for MH17

Sorry, but that is a weasel word again.

The Dutch government, by mouth of the Ministry of Security and Justice, who are supposed to bring justice to those who lost loved ones.

Thats nice, but wrong - the criminal investigation is handled by the Joint investigation team of Australia and Netherlands.

We do know now that the report was changed because of this WOB law. There is no question about that. The cabinet already said that they have 'understanding' for the manipulations by the NCTV.

Who is "we". What I can tell from the news of yesterday (and excuse me, my dutch is not the best, despite speaking the lower saxon dialect of German), is that the conclusions had been edited for being "too negative".


https://www.geenstijl.nl/5146148/duurt-een-jaar-maar-dan-heb-je-ook-wat/



(Would be more fun if it would be named WOB: Word of Blake. Editing official documents would also be more common then.)



Still, I can't really find anything about the nature of the changes in the refered documents. It seems to be requests for changes, not the document itself.

Sorry for being unclear about that. But this is no small thing happening at the moment. Governments do fall over such affairs.

I still doubt it being "no small thing", especially since it is still not clear, who benefited from the changes. Remember as well: The JIT has no mandate to do diplomacy on its own, so the government of both Netherlands and Australia should have the right to interfere. And if the NCTV is involved, it could also be about the question if the act is considered terrorism or not.

 

[Marijn]

So, the report of the JIT had been published early by invoking this law?

It isn't the JIT report. I did write 'official investigation', which was not a clever choice of words. It's a national investigation about the management of the crisis, including the flow of information between government, relatives, society and parliament.

The investigation was ordered by the Ministry of Security and Justice in 2015. Now it has been revealed that the WODC (Scientific Research and Documentation Center) did find it's conclusions 'too negative' and 'too heavy'. The head of the NCTV (National Centre for counterterrorism and safety) did put pressure on the independent investigators on multiple occasions to have them change their report, even doing personal suggestions himself. And they (the 'independent' investigators of the Twente University) did so. The man is now heading the AIVD, the national secret service. The actors in this chain of events aren't members of a local gossip club. I hope that much is clear.

Who is "we".

Anyone who doen't have access to the information of what parts of the research conclusions were changed into what and are sceptical of 'We changed the tone to increase the chance of acceptance of our firm conclusions'.

The only chance they raised is Russia saying: Look at yourselves when matters about integrity are discussed.

You may think this disclosure is insignificant, but certainly it doen't pass the smell test of many people including profesor and retired chairman of the OVV (Research Council for Safety), who says on Twitter that we (the Dutch) perhaps should stop doing independent research alltogether if it is not independent.

But let's sink this to the bottom now.

e: typos and mistakes

 

[Urwumpe]

Anyone who doen't have access to the information of what parts of the research conclusions were changed into what and are sceptical of 'We changed the tone to increase the chance of acceptance of our firm conclusions'.

You mean "concerned citizens?" :dry:


One small final question there: Did it ever occur to you, that you are being manipulated by the same weasel words, that you had to use here and "We don't know, you don't know, but it COULD be that way"-style of FUD?



After all - what the real problem seems to be is knowing that something was changed, but not knowing why and what. That isn't a scandal. The job of the press would now be discovering the why and what before adding any rating to the situation. But as it seems, that kind of boring work doesn't sell clicks and newspapers.

 

[Marijn]

One small final question there: Did it ever occur to you, that you are being manipulated by the same weasel words, that you had to use here and "We don't know, you don't know, but it COULD be that way"-style of FUD?

No. And I don't think that's the case. At least not a special case, because everyone is being manipulated all the time. When discussing matters for which the facts aren't publicly available to verify, I tend to use could, would etc. Otherwise, when using is, does etc. people will immediatley correct you for making statements for which is no proof. Perhaps someone who's better at English would phrase it better. But these are my words.

After all - what the real problem seems to be is knowing that something was changed, but not knowing why and what. That isn't a scandal. The job of the press would now be discovering the why and what before adding any rating to the situation. But as it seems, that kind of boring work doesn't sell clicks and newspapers.

No. You keep missing the point. Not knowing the content is, under normal conditions, not a problem. People cannot know state secrets. Then it would not be a secret anymore. But they should be able to thrust their government instututions and representatives to do the job they promised to do.

The problem is that, five years later, people are still waiting for the thuth while so called independent reports turned out to be not so independent. That's worse than a scadal. That's about the integrity of the important national institutions and human dignity.

Hopefully, the next one who brings this topic up breaks the news that someone has gone to prison.

 

[steph]

I think they get into some sort of hesitation, because probably they have clear evidence that the russians were behind it (wasn't there a report a while back with the positions of the launchers, sightings of them and also radio chatter between russians? ), but they are afraid that Russia will get hostile towards them and call them out as fake news. So they leave it in limbo, which in turn lets the russians blame the Ukrainians for it, so they're basically making Russia's game

Then of course, there might be the the possibility that it was actually the Ukrainians and the western governments are tying to hush it up so they don't give legitimity to the russian claims. Personally, I don't think that's how it went, but there is a remote possibility. Due to all the secrecy, we'll only find out in a few decades. That is, if we're not speaking russian by then

 

[Notebook]

Investigators probing the downing of a Malaysia Airlines jet in eastern Ukraine in 2014 will present new evidence later on Wednesday.
The Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) is expected to name suspects and announce charges for the first time.
Flight MH17 was flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur when it was shot down, killing all 298 on board.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48685584

 

[Urwumpe]

Hardly surprising, Igor Girkin is among the suspects. I doubt we will see him in court, despite him having become a quite verbal Putin critic in the past years. He knows too much.

 

[Notebook]

MH17: Four charged with shooting down plane over Ukraine

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48691488

International arrest warrants out for them now. Doubt if any will go on trial.

N.