[jqm]

Well, if there hadn't been any apparent false flag operations in recent times that _would be a ridiculous thing to suggest.

As it is, who knows? Sites can be hacked, that we know. And we know some parties have continued interest in stirring up trouble in the region.

Was it a false flag operation? Probably not. But if we see a party trying to take advantage of the situation, or escalate conflict over the situation, it will be a bit more suspicious, and that suggestion may be worth considering.

If it was a military error it was a military error. But if it was indeed parties with economic interests destroying human lives in order to court opinion... well that would be despicable and of the lowest order of criminality.

[cobrausn]

Accusations of false flag this early are just a smokescreen, someone trying to muddy the waters due to political sympathies - until someone takes advantage of the situation, one can't reasonably claim false flag without sounding like a loon. I'm not saying false flag doesn't or can't happen, just that you at least need to have a bit more information come to light before you can take it seriously as an option, and you need to see how those with a lot to gain take advantage of the event.

Hell, saying Ukraine did this as false flag seems especially loony - Russia was drawing down it's forces on the border, down to about 1,000 soldiers (down from over 40,000). Why would they intentionally stir the pot when things were going as they needed them to?