To suggest that we, ill adapted to space as we are, ought to go physically into space instead of sending a machine is absurd
Of course, the same argument could be made for, as a previous poster had said... flight. Obviously human beings can't fly no matter how hard they flap their arms, but that's no reason to not get into an aircraft. And nobody disputes that it's equally obvious that space is an extraordinarily harsh environment that no human being could hope to survive in for any more than a brief instant... but if the argument that we shouldn't let the fact that we must use machines to achieve something keep us from doing it, then why the heck should human beings be kept from going into space merely because we can't survive there without sophisticated life support?
It's not embarrassing to apply machines as all.... as you say,
I would like to fly to New York...
I would like to travel into space.
The fact that we are ill adapted to survive in space should be no more of a justification that we shouldn't go there than the fact that we are unable to fly without machines should be a justification to never get into an aircraft.
Really.... did I have to explain this twice?
Why did the plane deviated over 500km from its usual path? Obviously the ATC forced them to so otherwise they wouldn't be that fucking stupid and fly over a known war zone.
MH17 was also requested by Kiev to drop from 35000 ft to 33000 ft right before it got hit.
If, as you say, Kiev had confiscated the ATC record, then how on earth could you, or whoever you heard it from, have known any of that?
But of course... conspiracy theories are so much more interesting than reality, I can't fault people for wanting to believe them.
Why would soldiers waste expensive missiles for some irrelevant passenger plane?
Why, indeed... and part of the reason why I don't think that this was done as any official act by either nation.
Why would be there a plane over a warzone in the first place?
Apparently, before takeoff, the aircraft was explicitly told that the route was safe to fly over.
When you perform a terrorist act you tell that YOU did it in order to intimidate. You don't deny you did it.
I think that would depend on whether or not the uncertainty and the slinging of accusations from all sides better serves their interest than the fear it might generate if they knew who did it. I strongly suspect that the actual perpetrators are sitting back and watching the fireworks right now... hoping it will eventually escalate to the point that they'll be too busy fighting eachother to notice what the group is *really* up to.
And what makes you think that organizations acting independently of the government wouldn't have that kind of money?
The biggest argument against the notion that it was government sanctioned is that Russia wouldn't have anything to gain from shooting down a civilian plane in Ukraine airspace and the Ukraine government doesn't have that kind of hardware in the first place.