Dear Robert,

That's why one should use a variety of sources,
not only the main stream media to make informed
choices and decisions.

Dear Foxy,
I NEVER use the MSM.

Dear Robert,

I must admit that I do - especially, "The Age,
"Sydney Morning Herald," and a few others as well.
I largely tend to avoid Mr Murdoch's papers -
where I find the News is Limited. ;-)

Of course Russia is to blame.
Anyone stupid enough to hand a weapon like that over to a mob of
untrained rebels, or supplied the operators has to carry all the blame.

Arjay the holes are schapnel. That is how they work the missile does not
hit the aircraft it explodes on a proximate fuse and the shrapnel is
sent to shred the aircraft, and passengers.

It is unbelieval how many lefties want to excuse the Russians.
I have news for them, communism died some time ago, most are now greens.

Bazz, you do know that Ukraine having been part of USSR, inherited Soviet weapons?
This includes BUK ground to air missiles.
There is a very good analysis of where the missile COULD have been launched from and brought down MH 17, causing the debris field where it is to be found.
This proves that it could only have been launched from Ukraine and NOT the rebel help part of Ukraine.
It is politically expedient to blame Russia and by inference Putin but taking into account the past record of the CIA, it is more likely to have been instigated by the US.
As it is, the US has dug a hole for itself and the Europeans as well as Australia who slavishly follow the US in everything.
I suggest you read the link below CAREFULLY and bring yourself up to speed on the real world and not the make believe of Abbott.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/61qa99yt6v3dq64/MH17Analysis+Parts+1+and+2.pdf

Well Robert, I read the article. It has all the appearence of being
very thorough etc.
However where did the author get all the performance data on the BUK
missile system ?
I would have thought that would be very tightly held info.
Also the radar range of 30km sounds suss to me.

There was this phrase in the text;
Engaging a fleeing aircraft is known as target pursuit and it does not
result in an optimum firing solution.

I will be interested to see the official report re the damage and position of damage.
The little I saw indicated damage was under the pilots window.
Perhaps that indicated a hit from close ahead or alongside.
Anyway we can all speculate, but the article sounded a bit politically driven.