Printable View
Evidence? Hardly!
That presentation by the Russian Defence Ministry contains a lot of claims and assertions, but not a lot of convincing evidence.
The caption at the bottom towards the end says that their conclusions are based on "stated evidence". That sounds a lot like their conclusions are based on statements by someone, not based on hard evidence.
Oh, you did listen to it then?Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
As opposed to the originally posted article?Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
The eyewitness told the BBC that the crew struck him as Russian soldiers: "Well-disciplined, unlike the rebels, and not wearing the standard Ukrainian camouflage uniform sported by government and rebel troops alike."... "They had pure Russian accents. They say the letter 'g' differently to us," he said...His testimony was confirmed by a second eyewitness, who added that an officer in a military jeep escorting the BUK spoke with a Muscovite accent
Unidentified Ukrainians with at best anecdotal evidence - Damning stuff!
Something to consider:
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
-
A glib invocation of Godwin's Law doesn't seem appropriate when there are actual neo-nazis embedded within Ukrainian military, as finally acknowledged in some MSM:Azov fighters are Ukraine's greatest weapon and may be its greatest threat | World news | theguardian.comQuote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
398 innocent people died. It was a military weapon that killed them. It is a conflict that should not be happening. It is a problem that won't be sorted out in this thread.
Not even in the UN, my guess is that this tragic episode will be covered up as a collateral damage :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by windsock
I assume you feel better now because self analysis is supposed to be beneficial and confession is supposed to be good for the soul. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by akula
I thought at first that your comments might be directed at me, but realised that was most unlikely since I don't have an entrenched view on the topic and don't feel a need to convince anyone of any particular view.
I don't believe that any of my posts actually support any particular view.
I have confined myself to drawing attention to weaknesses in the case of people who clearly do have an entrenched view and are obviously demonstrating confirmation bias.
In case you are wondering why I didn't draw attention to the same thing that you criticised in the BBC report, the answer is simple. I didn't read that BBC report and i still haven't read it apart from the section you quoted.
These issue becomes more and more messy and in some ways even disgusting.
How are the world going to take action and rule war criminals those that have have brought down the plane when now the Ukrainian parliament is to debate a law on amnesty for Ukrainian troops who have committed war crimes in the course of military actions in Eastern Ukraine?
A bill on amnesty for military personnel who committed war crimes during the military crackdown in Eastern Ukraine was introduced in the Rada (the Ukrainian parliament) on Wednesday, its website says. The bill assumes the discharge of legal responsibility and punishment of military staff and “other people” for the actions which “bear the marks of war crime.”
Are war crimes acceptable?
Hello my passionate friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro
I disagree, IMHO, there will be no "cover up".....although obviously the "guilty party" would like that to happen.
I believe irrefutable proof, & evidence, will eventually be provided, so we'll know for sure who did it, but then,.......will "they" be bought to account?
Pickles.
I agree with you, I have expressed my point wrong, what I was meaning is make justice to the work, bring the criminals in this conflict to the international courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pickles2
Not only the one that have committed the crime that have killed all of these innocent people in the plane but also those that have committed war crimes.
Reading about the bill that was in the Ukraine parliament looks like that was not going to be the case. :mad:
No, its wabbit seasonQuote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro