Ultrathread I: Thread of the Year - 2014

[Dragon2010]

Why do these countries even exist still. Just bomb them all and be done with it. Gotta bomb something.

Reminds me of the simpsons:

http://i.imgur.com/CG5YP.png

 

[thorson1987]

Meh, putting a giant dome over the area will be better

 

[Misanthrope]

At this point in time, yes - it is funny. But once more information comes to surface who knows. Hence why the flight data is important. Will tell them what they need to know to see "what if any" went wrong with the flights.

As I said above to drew;
- Apparently only 1,000ft above no-fly zone (Out of reach, still)
- Didn't reply to communications (No idea if true)
- Was advised by airline board to avoid the area, regardless (Yet, they flew through "apparently)

Ultimately, even if they did do something wrong in this, the blame should still fall on those who shot down a civilian airliner. I somehow doubt the separatists on the ground were trying to communicate with them.

300 dead. Meh. 27 were Australians. Quick, plaster them headlines!

I think you'll find headlines were well and truly plastered before Australian numbers were known. It appeared on all major Australian news around the same time it made it to CNN, BBC etc.

When I went to sleep at 2am Chinese time (4am Aussie), they did not know the passenger manifest. There was already a shit tonne of coverage.

 

[Red Bear]

300 dead. Meh. 27 were Australians. Quick, plaster them headlines!

reminds me of an old, i think, d-generation skit that had 'deathometer' with the death tolls going up and it had 5 on here for a family getting wiped out in a car accident. "And flooding in Bangladesh has wiped out 500 people" and the deathometer goes up to 7. "Now remember these are our racially adjusted death tolls."

Campbell Newman going on about how we've lost x amount of Queenslanders is annoying though, cant imagine any other state separating themselves from the rest of the country. Just a horrible event.


As for Israel Palestine, I can just never see an ending to that conflict. Because Hamas are bad, they really are, the way they have kids near target, that sees kids killed when israeli rockets come in, that stirs up further anger and keeps the cycle of violence going is very bad.

But then Israel are just as bad, and are backed by the west, and thus dont give a shit because they know that regardless of their actions they are never truely held to account. And they just control the lives of an enormous group of people, surrounding the Gaza Strip and keeping he people of the west bank essentially stateless. When you control people so stringently it's no wonder that there is anger, tension and fighting. And even in the latest round of violence I think one Israeli is confirmed dead whilst some 250 Palestinians have died. And yet you have people of the public here (story was in the paper earlier this week, head of diversity council or something but also Jewish) writing about the horror of the situation because israelis have to go to shelters and their kids arent able to go to summer camp.

It just blows my mind that a group of people persecuted so badly, living in an area created for them because their population was systemically controlled and exterminated, could go on to treat another group of people so poorly. It's not surprising just taking a quick glance at history but it's really bad and you can't ever see a solution that either side will accept, both are far too power hungry to give an inch anymore I think

 

[Joker's Wild]

Tipping point for WWIII, do you think?

We wont see another World War again imo. The information age and military technology has gotten to a point where not much can happen without everyone knowing about it

 

[Drew-Sta]

A lot of histrionic 'Oh no! World War 3!' rambling on Facebook.

Why on earth would the US (or any nation) start a war with a nuclear armed Russia over what was likely rebels shooting down a commercial airliner from Malaysia carrying civilians?

It's an awful tragedy, but we won't be seeing shots fired over it.

* Napoleon sends forces to crush the Haitian revolution. Leaving his troops there too long, the War of the Third Coalition begin (and continue to the War of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Coalitions).
* The raiding attacks of the Apache's ended up in the Apache war, which saw mobilisation of the American army to exterminate the Apache's.
* October 1856, the Chinese authorities take hold of the Arrow, which led eventually to the Second Opium war a few years later.
* Post the Napoleon era, the rise of German nationalism saw conflict over the administration of Schleswig-Holstein by Prussia and Austria. The convening of the Holstein diet saw Prussia declare that the Gastein Convention had thereby been nullified and invaded Holstein. It set a chain of events leading to the Austro-Prussian war.
* In 1873, a small French force commanded by Lieutenant de Vaisseau Francis Garnier, exceeding his instructions, intervened militarily in northern Vietnam. This eventually led to the Sino-French war.
* The Boer War started through conflict about the lucrative Witwatersrand gold mines. The failed Jameson Raid led directly to the conflict.
* The Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand visited the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, and was killed, leading directly to WWI.
* The League of Nations sanctions post WWI on Germany and Austria lead directly to the climate that allow the events of WWII to happen.

So in short, and to answer you question, it isn't as simple as 'Why would the US start a war with Russia?' and more a question of will this event be allowed to spiral out of control to the stage where a war between large nations is encounted?

 

[Drew-Sta]

We wont see another World War again imo. The information age and military technology has gotten to a point where not much can happen without everyone knowing about it

With all due respect, I find that to fly in the face of everything history has taught us and naive to human nature.

 

[Misanthrope]

* Napoleon sends forces to crush the Haitian revolution. Leaving his troops there too long, the War of the Third Coalition begin (and continue to the War of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Coalitions).
* The raiding attacks of the Apache's ended up in the Apache war, which saw mobilisation of the American army to exterminate the Apache's.
* October 1856, the Chinese authorities take hold of the Arrow, which led eventually to the Second Opium war a few years later.
* Post the Napoleon era, the rise of German nationalism saw conflict over the administration of Schleswig-Holstein by Prussia and Austria. The convening of the Holstein diet saw Prussia declare that the Gastein Convention had thereby been nullified and invaded Holstein. It set a chain of events leading to the Austro-Prussian war.
* In 1873, a small French force commanded by Lieutenant de Vaisseau Francis Garnier, exceeding his instructions, intervened militarily in northern Vietnam. This eventually led to the Sino-French war.
* The Boer War started through conflict about the lucrative Witwatersrand gold mines. The failed Jameson Raid led directly to the conflict.
* The Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand visited the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, and was killed, leading directly to WWI.
* The League of Nations sanctions post WWI on Germany and Austria lead directly to the climate that allow the events of WWII to happen.

So in short, and to answer you question, it isn't as simple as 'Why would the US start a war with Russia?' and more a question of will this event be allowed to spiral out of control to the stage where a war between large nations is encounted?

Yet not one of those examples is remotely close to a civilian airliner owned by Malaysia being shot down.

Literally every one of those either directly involves military aggression or political aggression. Unless somebody comes out and says "This was us attacking Malaysia", it's not enough to trigger a war.

If it had been a US airline, maybe I could see it being turned into an international incident. As it is, it will almost certainly go down as a tragic mistake that will most likely be blamed on a fringe group so that neither Russia or the Ukraine have to take direct responsibility.

You're also over-simplifying every one of those conflicts by trying to list a single trigger. No conflict starts on the back of one simple misunderstanding or action. There were mitigating factors and existing tensions in both World War I and World War II that you overlook by just saying 'Assassination' or 'Angry Germans'.

While there's certainly no love lost between the US and Russia right now, if they could survive Cold War incidents, they can survive this.

With all due respect, I find that to fly in the face of everything history has taught us and naive to human nature.

It's all well and good to acknowledge history and our habit of repeating it, but that doesn't make his point naive.

When so many nations have nuclear arsenals, going to war becomes a much chancier prospect than it was when it was simply about manpower or air superiority.

Mutually assured destruction, although insane, is a rather effective deterrent to starting wars.

 

[Bazal]

At this point in time, yes - it is funny. But once more information comes to surface who knows. Hence why the flight data is important. Will tell them what they need to know to see "what if any" went wrong with the flights.

As I said above to drew;
- Apparently only 1,000ft above no-fly zone (Out of reach, still)
- Didn't reply to communications (No idea if true)
- Was advised by airline board to avoid the area, regardless (Yet, they flew through "apparently)

Nope. They were advised by the international aviation board the route was safe. The same board has stated they were not in a restricted zone. If it was one of the Delta flights that flew the same route an hour earlier no one would mention the colours they flew under.

 

[Misanthrope]

Nope. They were advised by the international aviation board the route was safe. The same board has stated they were not in a restricted zone. If it was one of the Delta flights that flew the same route an hour earlier no one would mention the colours they flew under.

Although it'd be a much bigger international incident...

 

[Dragon2010]

Nope. They were advised by the international aviation board the route was safe. The same board has stated they were not in a restricted zone. If it was one of the Delta flights that flew the same route an hour earlier no one would mention the colours they flew under.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just putting across the points I read. As I said, the flight data will all but prove what they already know.

 

[afinalsin666]

Wait, just found out this isn't the same plane as last time. Thought they found it.

 

[Misanthrope]

Wait, just found out this isn't the same plane as last time. Thought they found it.

:lol: That would have been huge news, and rather odd given it was flying to Beijing from KL.

 

[Drew-Sta]

Yet not one of those examples is remotely close to a civilian airliner owned by Malaysia being shot down.

That doesn't make it irrelevant. I'm suggesting it plays a part in setting the climate and precursors to other events that happen. What happens after, which is triggered by the event, is what generally acts as the momentum.

Literally every one of those either directly involves military aggression or political aggression. Unless somebody comes out and says "This was us attacking Malaysia", it's not enough to trigger a war.

Neither was Jamesons Raid an attempt to attack South Africa. Or the Archduke being killed an attack on Austria as much as a it was a class warfare thing.

The point is an event takes place that leads to agenda's and actions behind the curtain. How they play out will determine whether we go to war or not.

And actually, there is aggression and unrest in the Ukraine right now, so you can't say there isn't military / political aggression going on.

You're also over-simplifying every one of those conflicts by trying to list a single trigger. No conflict starts on the back of one simple misunderstanding or action. There were mitigating factors and existing tensions in both World War I and World War II that you overlook by just saying 'Assassination' or 'Angry Germans'.

Of course no single point was the only trigger. That's not what I'm trying to say. I'm identifying there is always one that leads as a catalyst and the snowball effect begins. It is whether that snowball is stopped or not is the issue.

Why did the assassination of an Archduke start a war, or a group of French troops hanging around lead to conflict? Because agenda's are played out as a consequence.

The current tension in the Ukraine is the underlying current of issue - this is simply an overt example of that spilling over. Will the international community step in? Depends. If they do, will it escalate? Again, depends.

But how people respond to this will dictate whether it snowballs out of control.

While there's certainly no love lost between the US and Russia right now, if they could survive Cold War incidents, they can survive this.

We were a whisker away from nuclear war with the Cuban crisis, not to mention numerous other examples. Don't rely on good statesmanship; hope for it, to be sure, but there is no guarantee countries will negotiate their way out of this. Some countries will inevitably have a go of it at times, and not much will stop them.

It's all well and good to acknowledge history and our habit of repeating it, but that doesn't make his point naive.

When so many nations have nuclear arsenals, going to war becomes a much chancier prospect than it was when it was simply about manpower or air superiority.

Mutually assured destruction, although insane, is a rather effective deterrent to starting wars.

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

 

[Misanthrope]

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

In fiction, perhaps :lol:

 

[Drew-Sta]

In fiction, perhaps :lol:

Sadly, not always

 

[Bazal]

Honestly the idea of US/Russian war over this is completely hysterical

 

[Misanthrope]

Jason Biggs (of American Pie/Orange is the New Black fame) has been torn apart on Twitter for making the joke:

Does anybody want to buy my Malaysian Airlines frequent flier miles?

Can I just say that people who get their panties in a wad over jokes can f**k off? Seriously, if you don't like the joke, don't laugh at it. Life is too short to waste it all on wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Some people joke to deal with grief or sadness, and some people need their sadness or shock disrupted by a little levity.

Don't make your process more important than anybody else's ability to cope.

 

[Apey]

People getting butthurt over jokes like that (and that one is ridiculously mild anyway?) never gets old. The trick is to tell them worse ones. People love being offended for other people.

 

[Misanthrope]

People getting butthurt over jokes like that (and that one is ridiculously mild anyway?) never gets old. The trick is to tell them worse ones. People love being offended for other people.

You not what's funny about your family dying on #MH17?

It wasn't my family!