THOUGHT FOR T'DAY ON RESPONSIBILITY

If you are a member of a Nazi junta and you have provoked a civil war in your country, and you are using planes to bomb the anti-Nazi revolutionaries, and you know or strongly suspect that the anti-Nazi revolutionaries have anti-aircraft missiles that can easily strike a civilian passenger jet flying at 33000 feet, do you:
1. leave the airspace open to civilian traffic and hope nothing accidental happens while raking in the much needed transit fees?
2. close the airspace for everyone except your own military to continue bombing civilians, but this at least removes the possibility of a civilian passenger jet being shot down?

But this works both ways.

If you are a nation with a border with that nation in which the aforementioned Nazi junta is bombing civilians, do you:
1. provide the anti-Nazi revolutionaries with anti-aircraft missiles that can easily hit a civilian passenger plane flying at 33000 feet, and not tell the Nazi junta?
2. provide the anti-Nazi revolutionaries with anti-aircraft missiles that cannot hit a civilian passenger plane flying at 33000 feet but can easily strike a military aircraft flying at lower altitudes?
3. not provide the anti-Nazi revolutionaries with any anti-aircraft missiles at all and allow the Nazi junta to blow civilians to pieces without any resistance?

But let's go back to this question again: why is there a war in the first place?

The war occured because a violent neo-Nazi coup was engineered by NATO, who then handpicked the new leader of the junta, who then packed the junta with violent neo-Nazis, which then provoked an anti-Nazi counter-revolution against the Nazi junta, which the Nazi junta decided to put down with extreme prejudice, using Nazi thugs, troops, artillery and aircraft.

So why was there a violent neo-Nazi coup engineered by NATO?

Because Putin:
1. (with help from Ed Miliband) had stopped a war on Syria (which the NATO/Zionist/Gulf powers so desperately wanted after Prince Bandar's false flag of 21st August 2013);
2. had agreed a deal with Ukraine which would have firmly placed Ukraine within Russia's sphere of influence;
3. is the figurehead of a movement called BRICS which is forming to offer an alternative the bloodsucking IMF/Federal Reserve system run by the Anglo-American Establishment which has kept nations underdeveloped for decades while extracting and placing the wealth of those underdeveloped nations into secret Swiss bank accounts.

In other words, Putin was getting too big for his boots, so in the eyes of the NATO/Zionist/Gulf/Anglo-American Establishment had to be brought down.

And a coup in Ukraine would do very nicely, thank you very much!

NATO ignored its own claims that it was formed to eradicate extreme nationalism, and in Ukraine in 2014 supported extreme nationalists, such as Svoboda and Right Sector (who have strong Nazi sympathies), and pissed on the graves of all those soldiers (Russian, British, American, French and other nationalities) who died fighting the Nazis in WW2, as the neo-Nazis shot Kiev police and protestors to provoke a violent revolution and overthrow a legitimately elected government.

The propaganda from both sides regarding MH17 is relentless. Both sides have valid points and evidence, but both sides also have questions to answer.

For example, of Ukraine, what was the Ukraine Air Force doing on 17th July 2014, and what evidence of separatists possessing BUKs did Ukraine have before 17th July 2014?

And of Russia, if separatists were given BUKs, then who took the decision to supply the BUKs, and when were they given?

So the thought for t'day is: if you knew or strongly suspected that someone you are fighting possesses missiles that can easily strike civilian passenger planes flying at 33000 feet, do you shut down the airspace, or hope that nothing accidental happens while raking in the fees?