Nobody expects the Icelandic Inquisition, because it doesn't exist!

Just to spite.

Why is Russia against an independent international investigation on the MH17 shooting?

Cui bono? (Who benefits?) Russia, of course..

I think you mix veto on tribunal, which US tried to do with unfinished investigation and said investigation.
For reference, what kind of tribunal would've happened you can google about tribunal over Slobodan Milosevic.
Cui bono? (Who benefits?) US. It wants to make a fool of UN (evil russians block errything, we shouldn't care about what UN says too). Remember when US invaded countries without UN approval? Many countries remember.



Nothing Russia did was targeted at "independent" international investigation
"completed" yesterday by Netherlands

Hm, two years of bombing by US did nothing to piss off ISIL
Two weeks of bombing by Russia - jihaaad http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/13/us-mideast-crisis-islamicstate-idUSKCN0S72DH20151013

koolaid. can i have my 1 billion ringgit now?

Does it really matter who shot down the plane?

Scenario 1: anti-government rebels shot down civilian aircraft thinking it was an enemy aircraft.
Scenario 2: pro-government military shot down civilian aircraft thinking it was an enemy aircraft.

Either way, a civilian aircraft got caught up in a warzone and whoever shot it down did so assuming it was a danger. It's horrible for the people killed, but that's war. The people who should be held accountable are not the ones that shot it down, it should be the ones that allowed air traffic over a warzone in the first place.

it was shot down over pro-russia grounds. both sides allowed it in ukraine. international carriers allowed it.

so russia is slightly more guilty than everyone else involved.

How exactly? The airspace is over the Ukraine, it's their responsibility to regulate their airspace and it's the responsibility of the airline management to avoid potentially dangerous territory. Russia has as little fault as any of the neighbouring countries. Only if Russia was intentionally blocking any other air route and forcing planes to fly over Russia would you have a point. And what does it matter if the rebels are pro-Russian, anyone can do anything in the same of someone else. Does that mean if a nutjob blows up a building in the name of Zimbabwe then Zimbabwe is responsible for it?

Yes, because the rebels couldn't have realistically operated a BUK without Russian involvement. I don't know if you have read the news, but Russia has kept claiming it has no part in Ukraine.

This is why Russians are so scared of this, and why they have been claiming things like that it was shot down by an Ukrainian fighter jet and so on. Now their last straw is trying to claim that the Dutch investigators are lying and while it might be a BUK after all, it must be an older model that Russia isn't using anymore.

Ask US, it's their fault.
It does. "Hey, someone destroyed airliner, let's put sanctions on Russia". Why not on Ukraine, which allowed fly zone?
My country loses billions because of actions we can't be related to.
Nobody asked rioting republics about permissions, it's still Ukrainian zone of responsibility.

Biggest problem:
We are talking about 27 confirmed with satellite photos Ukrainian buks http://i.imgur.com/OItx9oQ.jpg being near zone where supposed launch happened.
Disposition:
Ukraine has aviation AND anti-air missiles
Rebels - no aviation, only confirmed handheld AA weapon. "Buk was given by Russia" is a photoshop; "captured Buk" was dismissed by Ukrainian ministry of defence.

Why they were here? They did "military training".
In warzone, close to "elite putin invasion force" which doesn't use airstrikes.
That's like an invitation for them to do fast attack and capture AA missiles, right?
Why would ANYONE do training near front, with weapon useless against opponent, but if captured capable of providing enormous boost to them.

Have you seen this report?
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
Pages 11 and onward are the most interesting

In 1962 USA was capable of producing drone jets for false flags operations.
Which are the best ones?
Boeing produces surveillance jets for US army, best scouts are the ones you don't mind losing - I don't doubt that it can be remotely controlled.
It's easy because all pilot commands are going through computer first, there is no direct mechanical control. Pilot's input can be substituted with outer input.
Small list of catastrophes where Boeings unexplainable change their routes with disastrous results:
KAL 902
Kal 007
MH370
N334AA
N612UA
And MH17

You are probably just acting stupid, but the sanctions are because Russia has in practice invaded another country.

It must be damn shameful to be a Russian these days.

You are probably just acting stupid...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus
Turkey invaded Greece, seceded part of it, still didn't return it. No sanctions.
Only difference with Crimea? Turkey is a Nato member, Russia isn't.
Oh, and US wanted to build Nato base in Crimea.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2bb691b61c59be3a68180bd8c614a0cb
Says Finn.
For 300 years leached Russian resources, betrayed us in first world war, joined Hitler in second.

It's great, to be honest. Great to be Russian these days.
New history is made by Russia. Small countries, like Finland, envy us.
Some of them were part of USSR in the past, some - part of Russian Empire (before it fell due to revolution sponsored by Germany in 1917).

timppu, do you know that Vladimir Lenin freed your country? It is the same Vladimir Lenin, whose monuments are destroyed all over Ukraine by nazis.

Get a grip man. If "Russia" has invaded a country and I guess you mean Crimea it was an invasion with no casualties. Look at the the track record of the "United States" in invading other countries. And then think again...

I think pointing fingers does nothing, generalizing does nothing but one thing, play into the hands of the people who want to see blood and money in their pockets and who do not care if 10000, 20000, 100000 or 1 million people die as long as the money flows.

What we see in the moment are proxy wars and the sad truth is that a lot of people die, lose everything who want nothing else than to live a decent live. And Russia is still on the defensive side and you can be lucky that Putin did not let himself be provoked by the several slaps he got in his face by the west in the last years.

If you are looking for an aggressor, you might take a look at the NATO expansion over the last 20 years. And considering that the NATO is hierarchical body under command of the US military, founded as a counterweight against the USSR, one might ask why it still exists. You might take a further look into the changes in the goals of the NATO as well. For example ensuring the flow of resources in the right direction and war is a legit option to ensure that.

You think the States have no one in the Ukraine? No advisors, no shipments of weapons, no private contractors like Academia?

Furthermore the report proves nothing. It is a conclusion based on the evidence found, it may be right, it may be wrong. We still do not know who shot the plane down. What we have are guesses.

The Putin troll factories are working overtime it seems. Hopefully the people there are being compensated for overtime work.

Anything to fend off the invading Russian aggressors, and evade what happened to e.g. Estonia. Fortunately Estonians were able to gain freedom decades later (when USSR collapsed), no wonder they hurried to NATO.