More Game-Playing on MH-17?

Exclusive: The West keeps piling the blame for the 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on Russian President Putin although there are many holes in the case and the U.S. government still withholds its evidence, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

A newly posted video showing a glimpse of a Buk missile battery rolling down a highway in eastern Ukraine has sparked a flurry of renewed accusations blaming Russia for the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 killing 298 people. But the “dash-cam video” actually adds little to the MH-17 whodunit mystery because it could also support a narrative blaming the Ukrainian military for the disaster.

The fleeting image of the missile battery and its accompanying vehicles, presumably containing an armed escort, seems to have been taken by a car heading west on H-21 highway in the town of Makiivka, as the convoy passed by heading east, according to the private intelligence firm Stratfor and the “citizen journalism” Web site, Bellingcat.

A screenshot of the buk convoy that supposedly downed flight MH-17 traveling eastward from Donetsk on the morning of July 17, 2016.

A screenshot of a Buk convoy, apparently traveling eastward on highway H-21 in Makiivka, Ukraine, on July 17, 2014, several hours before Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down. (From a YouTube video)

However, even assuming that this Buk battery was the one that fired the missile that destroyed MH-17, its location in the video is to the west of both the site where Almaz-Antey, the Russian Buk manufacturer, calculated the missile was fired, around the village of Zaroshchenskoye (then under Ukrainian government control), and the 320-square-kilometer zone where the Dutch Safety Board speculated the fateful rocket originated (covering an area of mixed government and rebel control).

In other words, the question would be where the battery stopped before firing one of its missiles, assuming that this Buk system was the one that fired the missile. (The map below shows the location of Makiivka in red, Almaz-Antey’s suspected launch site in yellow, and the general vicinity of the Dutch Safety Board’s 320-square-kilometer launch zone in green.)

Another curious aspect of this and the other eight or so Internet images of Buk missiles collected by Bellingcat and supposedly showing a Buk battery rumbling around Ukraine on or about July 17, 2014, is that they are all headed east toward Russia, yet there have been no images of Buks heading west from Russia into Ukraine, a logical necessity if the Russians gave a Buk system to ethnic Russian rebels or dispatched one of their own Buk military units directly into Ukraine, suspicions that Russia and the rebels have denied.

The absence of a westward-traveling Buk battery fits with the assessment from Western intelligence agencies that the several operational Buk systems in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, were under the control of the Ukrainian military, a disclosure contained in a Dutch intelligence report released last October and implicitly confirmed by an earlier U.S. “Government Assessment” that listed weapons systems that Russia had given the rebels but didn’t mention a Buk battery.

The Netherlands’ Military Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) reported that the only anti-aircraft weapons in eastern Ukraine capable of bringing down MH-17 at 33,000 feet on July 17 belonged to the Ukrainian government. MIVD made that assessment in the context of explaining why commercial aircraft continued to fly over the eastern Ukrainian battle zone in summer 2014.

MIVD said that based on “state secret” information, it was known that Ukraine possessed some older but “powerful anti-aircraft systems” capable of downing a plane at that altitude and “a number of these systems were located in the eastern part of the country,” whereas the MIVD said the ethnic Russian rebels had only MANPADS that could not reach the higher altitudes.

Ukrainian Offensive

On July 17, the Ukrainian military also was mounting a strong offensive against rebel positions to the north and thus the front lines were shifting rapidly, making it hard to know exactly where the borders of government and rebel control were. To the south, where the Buk missile was believed fired, the battle lines were lightly manned and hazy – because of the concentration of forces to the north – meaning that an armed Buk convoy could probably move somewhat freely.

A photograph of a Russian BUK missile system that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt published on Twitter in support of a claim about Russia placing BUK missiles in eastern Ukraine, except that the image appears to be an AP photo taken at an air show near Moscow two years ago.

A photograph of a Russian BUK missile system that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt published on Twitter in support of a claim about Russia placing BUK missiles in eastern Ukraine, except that the image appears to be an AP photo taken at an air show near Moscow two years earlier.

Also, because of the offensive, the Ukrainian government feared a full-scale Russian invasion to prevent the annihilation of the rebels, explaining why Kiev was dispatching its Buk systems toward the Russian border, to defend against potential Russian air strikes.

Just a day earlier, a Ukrainian fighter flying along the border was shot down by an air-to-air missile (presumably fired by a Russian warplane), according to last October’s Dutch Safety Board report. So, tensions were high on July 17, 2014, when MH-17, flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, broke apart over eastern Ukraine, believed downed by a surface-to-air missile although there have been other suggestions that the plane might  have been hit by an air-to-air missile.

At the time, Ukraine also was the epicenter of an “information war” that had followed a U.S.-backed coup on Feb. 22, 2014, which ousted democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych and replaced the Russian-friendly leader with a fiercely nationalistic and anti-Russian regime in Kiev. The violent coup, in turn, prompted Crimea to vote 96 percent in a hasty referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. Eastern Ukraine and its large ethnic Russian population also revolted against the new authorities.

The U.S. government and much of the Western media, however, denied there had been a coup in Kiev, hailed the new regime as “legitimate,” and deemed Crimea’s secession a “Russian invasion.” The West also denounced the eastern Ukrainian resistance as “Russian aggression.” So, the propaganda war was almost as hot as the military fighting, a factor that has further distorted the pursuit of truth about the MH-17 tragedy.

Immediately after the MH-17 crash, the U.S. government sought to pin the blame on Russia as part of a propaganda drive to convince the European Union to join in imposing economic sanctions on Russia for its “annexation” of Crimea and its support of eastern Ukrainians resisting the Kiev regime.

However, a source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me that the analysts could find no evidence that the Russians had supplied the rebels with a sophisticated Buk system or that the Russians had introduced a Buk battery under their own command. The source said the initial intelligence suggested that an undisciplined Ukrainian military team was responsible.

Yet, on July 20, 2014, just three days after the tragedy, Secretary of State John Kerry appeared on all Sunday morning talk shows and blamed the Russian-backed rebels and implicitly Moscow. He cited some “social media” comments and – on NBC’s “Meet the Press” – added: “We picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.”

Two days later, on July 22, the Obama administration released a “Government Assessment” that tried to bolster Kerry’s accusations, in part, by listing the various weapons systems that U.S. intelligence believed Russia had provided the rebels, but a Buk battery was not among them. At background briefings for selected mainstream media reporters, U.S. intelligence analysts struggled to back up the administration’s case against Russia.

For instance, the analysts suggested to a Los Angeles Times reporter that Ukrainian government soldiers manning the suspected Buk battery may have switched to the rebel side before firing the missile. The Times wrote: “U.S. intelligence agencies have so far been unable to determine the nationalities or identities of the crew that launched the missile. U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [Buk anti-aircraft missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.”

However, after that July 22 briefing — as U.S. intelligence analysts continued to pore over satellite imagery, telephonic intercepts and other data to refine their understanding of the tragedy — the U.S. government went curiously silent, refusing to make any updates or adjustments to its initial rush to judgment, a silence that has continued ever since.

Staying Silent

Meanwhile, the source who continued receiving briefings from the U.S. intelligence analysts told me that the reason for going quiet was that the more detailed evidence pointed toward a rogue element of the Ukrainian military connected to a hardline Ukrainian oligarch, with the possible motive the shooting down of President Vladimir Putin’s plane returning from a state visit to South America.

In that scenario, a Ukrainian fighter jet in the vicinity (as reported by several eyewitnesses on the ground) was there primarily as a spotter, seeking to identify the target. But Putin’s plane, with similar markings to MH-17, took a more northerly route and landed safely in Moscow.

A side-by-side comparison of the Russian presidential jetliner and the Malaysia Airlines plane.

A side-by-side comparison of the Russian presidential jetliner and the Malaysia Airlines plane.

Though I was unable to determine whether the source’s analysts represented a dissenting or consensus opinion inside the U.S. intelligence community, some of the now public evidence could fit with that narrative, including why the suspected Buk system was pushing eastward as close to or even into “rebel” territory on July 17.

If Putin was the target, the attackers would need to spread immediate confusion about who was responsible to avoid massive retaliation by Moscow. A perfect cover story would be that Putin’s plane was shot down accidentally by his ethnic Russian allies or even his own troops, the ultimate case of being hoisted on his own petard.

Such a risky operation also would prepare disinformation for release after the attack to create more of a smokescreen and to gain control of the narrative, including planting material on the Internet to be disseminated by friendly or credulous media outlets.

The Ukrainian government has denied having a fighter jet in the air at the time of the MH-17 shoot-down and has denied that any of its Buk or other anti-aircraft systems were involved.

Yet, whatever the truth, U.S. intelligence clearly knows a great deal more than it has been willing to share with the public or even with the Dutch-led investigations. Last October, more than a year after the shoot-down, the Dutch Safety Board was unable to say who was responsible and could only approximate the location of the missile firing inside a 320-square-kilometer area, whereas Kerry had claimed three days after the crash that the U.S. government knew the launch point.

Earlier this year, Fred Westerbeke, the chief prosecutor of the Dutch-led Joint Investigative Team [JIT], provided a partial update to the Dutch family members of MH-17 victims, explaining that he hoped to have a more precise fix on the firing site by the second half of 2016, i.e., possibly more than two years after the tragedy.

Westerbeke’s letter acknowledged that the investigators lacked “primary raw radar images” which could have revealed a missile or a military aircraft in the vicinity of MH-17. That apparently was because Ukrainian authorities had shut down their primary radar facilities supposedly for maintenance, leaving only secondary radar which would show commercial aircraft but not military planes or rockets.

Russian officials have said their radar data suggest that a Ukrainian warplane might have fired on MH-17 with an air-to-air missile, a possibility that is difficult to rule out without examining primary radar which has so far not been available. Primary radar data also might have picked up a ground-fired missile, Westerbeke wrote.

“Raw primary radar data could provide information on the rocket trajectory,” Westerbeke wrote. “The JIT does not have that information yet. JIT has questioned a member of the Ukrainian air traffic control and a Ukrainian radar specialist. They explained why no primary radar images were saved in Ukraine.” Westerbeke said investigators are also asking Russia about its data.

Westerbeke added that the JIT had “no video or film of the launch or the trajectory of the rocket.” Nor, he said, do the investigators have satellite photos of the rocket launch.

“The clouds on the part of the day of the downing of MH17 prevented usable pictures of the launch site from being available,” he wrote. “There are pictures from just before and just after July 17th and they are an asset in the investigation.”

Though Westerbeke provided no details, the Russian military released a number of satellite images purporting to show Ukrainian government Buk missile systems north of the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk before the attack, including two batteries that purportedly were shifted 50 kilometers south of Donetsk on July 17, the day of the crash, and then removed by July 18.

Russian Lt. Gen. Andrey Kartopolov called on the Ukrainian government to explain the movements of its Buk systems and why Kiev’s Kupol-M19S18 radars, which coordinate the flight of Buk missiles, showed increased activity leading up to the July 17 shoot-down.

Necessary Secrets?

Part of the reason that the MH-17 mystery has remained unsolved is that the U.S. government  insists that its satellite surveillance, which includes infrared detection of heat sources as well as highly precise photographic imagery, remains a “state secret” that cannot be made public.

Secretary of State John Kerry denounces Russia's RT network as a "propaganda bullhorn" during remarks on April 24, 2014.

Secretary of State John Kerry denounces Russia’s RT network as a “propaganda bullhorn” during remarks on April 24, 2014.

However, in similar past incidents, the U.S. government has declassified sensitive information. For instance, after a Soviet pilot accidentally shot down Korean Airlines Flight 007 over Russian territory in 1983, the Reagan administration revealed the U.S. capability to intercept Soviet ground-to-air military communications in order to make the Soviets look even worse by selectively editing the intercepts to present the destruction of the civilian aircraft as willful.

In that case, too, the U.S. government let its propaganda needs overwhelm any commitment to the truth, as Alvin A. Snyder, who in 1983 was director of the U.S. Information Agency’s television and film division, wrote in his 1995 book, Warriors of Disinformation.

After KAL-007 was shot down, “the Reagan administration’s spin machine began cranking up,” Snyder wrote. “The objective, quite simply, was to heap as much abuse on the Soviet Union as possible. … The American media swallowed the U.S. government line without reservation.”

On Sept. 6, 1983, the Reagan administration went so far as to present a doctored transcript of the intercepts to the United Nations Security Council. “The perception we wanted to convey was that the Soviet Union had cold-bloodedly carried out a barbaric act,” Snyder wrote.

Only a decade later, when Snyder saw the complete transcripts — including the portions that the Reagan administration had excised — would he fully realize how many of the central elements of the U.S. presentation were lies.

Snyder concluded, “The moral of the story is that all governments, including our own, lie when it suits their purposes. The key is to lie first.” [For more details on the KAL-007 deception and the history of U.S. trickery, see Consortiumnews.com’s “A Dodgy Dossier on Syrian War.”]

Quinn Schansman, a dual U.S.-Dutch citizen killed aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Photo from Facebook)

Quinn Schansman, a dual U.S.-Dutch citizen killed aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Photo from Facebook)

In the MH-17 case, the Obama administration let Kerry present the rush to judgment fingering the Russians and the rebels but then kept all the evidence secret even though the U.S. government’s satellite capabilities are well-known. By refusing to declassify any information for the MH-17 investigation, Washington has succeeded in maintaining the widespread impression that Moscow was responsible for the tragedy without having to prove it.

The source who was briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me that the Obama administration considered “coming clean” about the MH-17 case in March, when Thomas Schansman, the Dutch father of the only American victim, was pleading for the U.S. government’s cooperation, but administration officials ultimately decided to keep quiet because to do otherwise would have “reversed the narrative.”

A screen shot of the roadway where the suspected BUK missile battery supposedly passed after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Image from Australian “60 Minutes” program)

A screen shot of the roadway where the suspected BUK missile battery supposedly passed after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Image from Australian “60 Minutes” program)

In the meantime, outfits such as Bellingcat have been free to reinforce the impression of Russian guilt, even as some of those claims have proved false. For instance, Bellingcat directed a news crew from Australia’s “60 Minutes” to a location outside Luhansk (near the Russian border) that the group had identified as the site for the “getaway video” showing a Buk battery with one missile missing.

The “60 Minutes” crew went to the spot and pretended to be at the place shown in the video, but none of the landmarks matched up, which became obvious when screen grabs of the video were placed next to the scene of the Australian crew’s stand-upper. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Fake Evidence Blaming Russia for MH-17.”]

Correspondent Michael Usher of Australia’s “60 Minutes” claims to have found the billboard visible in a video of a BUK missile launcher after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Screen shot from Australia’s “60 Minutes”)

Correspondent Michael Usher of Australia’s “60 Minutes” claims to have found the billboard visible in a video of a BUK missile launcher after the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. (Screen shot from Australia’s “60 Minutes”)

Yet, reflecting the deep-seated mainstream media bias on the MH-17 case, the Australian program reacted angrily to my pointing out the obvious discrepancies. In a follow-up, the show denounced me but could only cite a utility pole in its footage that looked similar to a utility pole in the video.

While it’s true that utility poles tend to look alike, in this case none of the surroundings did, including the placement of the foliage and a house shown in the video that isn’t present in the Australian program’s shot. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “A Reckless Stand-upper on MH-17.”]

But the impact of the nearly two years of one-sided coverage of the MH-17 case in the mainstream Western media has been considerable. In the last few days, a lawyer for the families of Australian victims announced the filing of a lawsuit against Russia and Putin in the European court for human rights seeking compensation of $10 million per passenger. Many of the West’s news articles on the lawsuit assume Russia’s guilt.

In other words, whatever the truth about the MH-17 shoot-down, the tragedy has proven to be worth its weight in propaganda gold against Russia and Putin, even as the U.S. government hides the actual proof that might show exactly who was responsible.

(Research by Assistant Editor Chelsea Gilmour.)

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

image_pdfimage_print

117 comments for “More Game-Playing on MH-17?

  1. santosh prabhu
    May 24, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    Thank god people like you are still left on the planet

    THANK YOU!

  2. Joe Tedesky
    May 24, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    I’m sorry to say this, but more people will believe that the Russians were behind this tragic attack upon flight MH17, and why, because the MSM said so. News like this to the average Western listeners is more background noise, and begs the listeners to research it out, but they won’t. People are overwhelmed to search out the truth. I mean, how can one even begin to search out the truth, when finding it involves satellite imagery, and the like? So, we return to the official narrative, for what that’s worth. The public is at the mercy of the spin doctors.

    I am attaching a link to slavyangrad.org, where you may read some of the alternative stories to the western narrative being thrown at you. Have fun….

    https://slavyangrad.org/?s=Flight+mh17

    • Jonathan
      May 24, 2016 at 1:28 pm

      Thanks for this link

      • Joe Tedesky
        May 24, 2016 at 2:11 pm

        Here’s some interesting reading, from moonofalabama from July of 2014. If you scroll through it there is a lot about the various logistics that were happening at that time. It’s even more interesting that around the 11th of July how the Kiev junta (the new official Ukraine government) was pinned down in the western part of that country. In other words the junta was sandwiched between the eastern Ukraine freedom fighters, and the Russian border. Not a good place to be, that’s for sure. It’s also gives more reason to suspect that the Kiev junta could have fired the fatal missile, that America is blaming on Russia.

        http://www.moonofalabama.org/2014/07/index.html

    • bfearn
      May 24, 2016 at 7:09 pm

      After all the lies from our mainstream media I am surprised that anyone would believe that source of information.

      • Bill Bodden
        May 24, 2016 at 10:06 pm

        As the Great Skeptic noted a long time ago: “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

        Then there is the tradition of Americans continually being lied to from the time they were infants so that many never distinguish fact from fiction, myth from reality.

    • Kiza
      May 25, 2016 at 3:48 am

      There is one key propaganda point repeated endlessly to ensure that the general public accepts Russia as the culprit. I have never heard a news story which does not say that the missile which downed MH17 was Russian-made. If I did not know anything about it then I would ask – how could the Ukrainians have a Russian-made missile. Therefore, the jump from a Soviet made missile to a Russian made one is the key of the propaganda narrative. I have never heard any MSM try to explain that Ukraine has left-over Buk batteries in its arsenal and that Russia has modernized some of the same batteries, although by now fairly obsolete.

      Unlike Mr Parry’s intelligence source, I think that this was neither an undisciplined act, nor an attempt at Putin’s plane. It was a planned act so that “the U.S. government could pin the blame on Russia as part of a propaganda drive to convince the European Union to join in imposing economic sanctions on Russia”. The big problem for the organizers of the coup in Ukraine was that until the shoot-down, the US and EU managed to get sanctions imposed only on individual Russians connected to leadership. To get EU to impose state-on-state sanctions on Russia, which would damage the EU economy as well as the Russian economy, they needed a totally vile act of the Russians.

      Let us not be naive.

        • Kiza
          May 25, 2016 at 10:03 pm

          Yes, I was aware of the difference in the claims between the Dutch and the Russians. I have also written at the time that it is very hard to distinguish which missile had been used, since the missile payload tends to be quite similar.

          Firstly, the point that it was a “Russian-made” missile was made in the Western MSM much before the report came out.

          Secondly, why is the Dutch Government, a NATO member, leading the investigation instead of an international aviation body?

          Thirdly, what was most interesting when the Dutch report came out was that the report did not directly blame the rebels, but Tjibbe Joustra, Chairman of the Dutch Safety Board, a former Dutch security agent and politician did (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tjibbe_Joustra). The Western MSM picked up the latter and made headlines. This is a standard Western propaganda tactic – the Facts Creep.

    • Quartermaster
      June 1, 2016 at 6:31 am

      It is more plausible that Russia did it because they are the only ones that would benefit from such an act. I know of no one that thinks the “rebels” fired the missile as the system that was used requires people trained in its use.

      The major spin doctors on this, and other incidents in Ukraine have been the Russians. The author of the article is either an idiot, or gullible. Hard to tell which.

  3. Mike G
    May 24, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    “On Sept. 6, 1983, the Reagan administration went so far as to present a doctored transcript of the intercepts to the United Nations Security Council. “The perception we wanted to convey was that the Soviet Union had cold-bloodedly carried out a barbaric act,” Snyder wrote.”

    You still peddling this claptrap?

    Not only did Major Osipovich (the Soviet pilot who shot KAL-007 down) know it was a commercial airliner the Soviets shot it down in international waters.

    • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
      May 24, 2016 at 2:02 pm

      It is said above that Snyder confessed that they doctored the transcript. Do you have any evidence for your claim? He admitted it. Do you think I’m an idiot?

      Anyways, I’m surprised that the director of the film and television division for the U.S Intelligence Agency didn’t know. I guess he wasn’t informed because his business was marketing the transcript, not creating it.

    • David Smith
      May 24, 2016 at 2:17 pm

      Mike G, you sure pop up fast with the contard claptrap. If you are saying those evil commies maliciously shot down an innocent civilian airliner, you are wrong. KAL was on a spy mission, monitoring a Soviet ballistic missile test, and flew over a military zone on Sakhalin Island. A 707 type US spy plane with side-look radar and the space shuttle were among the assets spying. There had been numerous previous incursions by KAL airliners on similar missions at the service of the US government. The crime is the US and Korean governments putting civilians at risk with such fun and games. By the way, Richard Nixon was booked in KAL 007 that night, but canceled a mere two hours before departure….any ideas what caused him to change his mind?

      • Ralph Reed
        May 24, 2016 at 7:52 pm

        I was stationed at Offutt AFB shortly after KAL 007 in April, 1984 working for Space Command’s 1000th Satellite Operations Group and was barracked with security police and cryptologic linguists who flew RC-(somethings), sometimes cat and mouse style, near the the site of the shootdown and the scuttlebutt was it was a set up that had a blessed, using the NSC’s version of utilitarian ethics, unintended outcome. Also, after Sy Hersh published on the affair, the consensus was that he had some accurate inside information.

    • Erik G
      May 24, 2016 at 2:31 pm

      But of course they did not know that it was a civilian airlines, only that it was an aircraft of that type deliberately sent over their secret military installations, and therefore almost certainly with military purposes. An airliner would not have refused to identify itself and respond to demands that it divert or land. The flight number “007” confirms that interpretation, and most likely it was equipped for surveillance. Sure, they just accidentally flew hundreds of miles off course unlike any other airliner, and just accidentally went over a secret military installation. You fooled us all, 007. If it was also a civilian flight, that is the responsibility of the surveillance agency.

      What would the US have thought of a USSR airliner sent over top secret US military bases? Exactly what Russia thought. Especially if it refused to identify itself and respond to demands that it divert or land.

    • May 25, 2016 at 7:44 am

      Mike G do u recall the incident at al of KAL007. The Russians along with the North Koreans and Chinese have radar images of a US C-130 spy plane shadowing the KAL007 flight so spare us ur white anglo saxon western propagandist clap trap . The soviets got baited . Unlike the US navy shooting down the Iranian civilian aircraft in 83 over the Persian gulf. Lets assume the wahington consensus narrative is true why dont they release the Radar images that would fully bak their narrative. In law their is a term cui bono . Who benefits from such a narrative . Yesterdays news gets wrapped in todays fish. Their is also a report from a Spaniard who was working at the Kieve international airport who has stated that. Sukoi fighter jets had been ordered to fly towards the disputed area to engage in combat. This never gets mentioned in the western media only by alternative media outlets like consortium RINF 21 Century wire and a whole lot of alternative sites out their . Why do u think that the western sheeple our ceasing to even watch anything coming out of thw MSM.Guardian or any of Murdochs tabloids cuase they dont tell u news they tell u propaganda .BBC The Bombasting bulshit corporation.

  4. FobosDeimos
    May 24, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    I agree on 90% of what Robert Parry says in his column, but…In my view both the US and Russia are guilty of using this terrible massacre as a propaganda tool. Immediately after MH-17 flight was brought down, some pretty credible audio files came up, presumably showing that a battallion of Donbass fighters (the so called “pro-Russian rebels), had mistakenly shot the Boeing 777, believing it was a Ukranian military plane. The audio depicted two officers of the Donbass forces arguing over the radio, with one of them saying that there were many deads and it appeared it was a civilian plane, while the other officer questioning what the h….was the commercial plane doing in that area. Nobody challenged the authenticity of those tapes, but nobody ever spoke about them any more. In the meantime, it became clear that the Donbass forces could very possibly have taken a Buk battery from the Ukranians a few days before the massacre. In my view, Russia must stop avoiding this very serious issue for the sake of its own credibility in today’s world. I just want to know what happened with the audio files that were put in the Internet shortly after the plane was shot. In the meantime, I believe that the most plausible explanation is that the Donbass forces shot the plane down with a Ukranian Buk system by mistake.

    • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
      May 24, 2016 at 1:57 pm

      I would agree. Also, the writers says the two pictures of the roadway where the BUK launcher passed don’t match, but that could simply be because it was shot at a different angle and very far away. I realised this months ago while reading Consortium News. At first they don’t match, but if you look closely and imagine the screenshot of the reporter from the woods, and at a different angle, you can imagine them as matching. Of course, the sign does look smaller than the sign in the screenshot of the reporter in it, but the first tree could be closer than it appears.

      That being said, I always though that the idea that Russia did it was stupid. The Ukrainian rebels are DEFECTORS – of course the would have BUK missiles! There was no reason to suspect Russia. Do you think Russia would want a situation which would result in one side declaring war on the other? The way the media – or at least the CBC in Canada and judging by Consortium News, the U.S media (I can’t remember if the BBC did the same thing) – said Putin might have been responsible is unfair.

      • David Smith
        May 24, 2016 at 4:10 pm

        The Australian TV crew had plenty of time to use multiple views to prove the two photos matched, but they did not, because they could not, and used one angle deceptively, but still can’t make their case. RRT, your “imagination” doesn’t help their case either.

      • Kiza
        May 25, 2016 at 7:11 am

        Both of you guys are taking propaganda as proof, you are just substituting blind trust in MSM with blind trust in the Internet (and Bellingcat), as if Internet is somehow a domain free of propaganda and lies. The most important point to make is that Russia is not “avoiding this very serious issue” as one of you claims. Russia has just vetoed an ad hoc tribunal that the West wanted to organize, which would have been, surprise, surprise based in Hague. This is because Russia knows how those tribunals are operated. Most political tribunals that the West sets up are branded with the Hague brand because this is where the ICC and other recognized international courts are. The tribunals, on the other hand are usually paid by the interested parties and the lawyers working in them know what they need to deliver. In short, the ad hoc tribunals in the Hague are the pinnacle of Western legal crookery, the verdict always known in advance. This is why it placed a veto on the establishment of such a tribunal regarding MH17. Besides there should be a proper international aviation body investigation, instead of a few countries banding together, including the Ukrainian coup Government. The current Dutch investigation is an absolute joke, the Netherlands being a prominent NATO member. Consider just for a moment that this crime was set up US Ziocons and Ukrainian Nazis together, would not the US Deep State apply maximum pressure on the Dutch Government to blame Russia to cover its tracks and to score propaganda wins?

        But, your claim that the rebels must have had Buks is total ignorance. You never say why and how the rebels must have acquired the Buk missiles. You obviously have no idea what a Buk is – it is a system consisting of a command post and one or several missile batteries mounted on trucks. Let me ask you, do you think that you and your friends could operate one such if it fell into your hands and shoot down a passenger jet at 31,000 feet? In short, there is no way the rebels could have used a (captured) Buk without the help of a highly trained crew. Where do factory workers and farmers find such crew?

        Finally, forget about spurious videos on YouTube, I could make you tens of those. Let me state clearly that the only valid proof that the Russians have shot-down MH17 would have been any real proof that the Buk system and its trained crew came from Russia into Donbass. The US would have had satellite images of such transport from Russia into Ukraine and ELINT recordings of crew conversations. None of this has been presented almost two years after the event.

        Conclusion: MH17 was a classical false flag (not difficult to guess who did it and why).

        • Joe Tedesky
          May 25, 2016 at 8:59 pm

          Kiza, you nailed it.

        • AndJusticeForAll
          May 26, 2016 at 2:00 pm

          Kiza your main argument to accuse Ukraine and US in downing MH17 is absence of data available to public that your think would be good enough to prove Russian involvement. Thus its a black flag operation. That conclusion requires enormous analytical thinking and 10 years of training. So, what would happen if we substitute US/Ukraine to Russia?

          • Joe Tedesky
            May 26, 2016 at 11:50 pm

            If there is a lack of data, it isn’t due to Russians not willing to provide such data. The country who is holding back such important data, is the U.S.. Also, if the shoe were on the other foot, you could bet your bottom dollar that by now Russia would be suffering big time, from the hell they would have to pay for by the NATO powers, who would be crying out ‘never forget’ while bombing something, anything belonging to the Russian people. Sorry for my shortness, but I think your algorithm meter needs adjusted, and I should be gentle with you, since you maybe a bot. If you are not a bot, then provide this absent data, which you claim is so very missing from Kiza’s argument. We are all willing to learn.

          • AndJusticeForAll
            May 30, 2016 at 10:14 am

            since I am mud throwing incoherent bot I can do whatever, like put the said above in a slightly easier way to digest. The theory that one party that suppose to make public some data that proves involvement of the other party is responsible, because the data is not public is working both ways. According to this theory US did not make public data that shows Russia did it, thus US/Ukraine did it. But since Russia did not provide similar proof on Ukraine, that makes Russia guilty too. To me this theory is weak and subjective. It excludes the data by itself, its quality and accounts only its mere availability.

    • Erik G
      May 24, 2016 at 2:38 pm

      If the audio was credible and not after-the-fact musings, the Dutch commission would have used it.
      If the previous photos match up, they tell us nothing about the specific BUK system: ownership, prior location, or use in the incident.

    • David Smith
      May 24, 2016 at 2:42 pm

      Fobosdeimos, you say “Russia” twice and Russia is guilty, but you provide no reasons, perhaps you have none. You say Donbass guys stole a BUK, but give no evidence, perhaps you have none. Regarding those audiotapes you believe are a clincher, if there was anything to them, “Bellingscat” would never shut up about those marvelous tapes. And you forgot to mention the “Fakebook” post allegedly posted by the rebels bragging about the shoot down, what the h*** is wrong with you? “Social Media” is a clincher, Elliot Higgins says so. Everybody knows rebels use Fakebook and of course Fakebook can’t be hacked, and of course vodka swilling rebels always use Fakebook to brag after they shoot down civilian aircraft. Makes sense to me!!!!

      • FobosDeimos
        May 24, 2016 at 3:53 pm

        I never said that Russia was guilty of shooting down the plane. I am saying that Russia avoids even considering the possibility that the Donbass fighters (using the stolen Buk system) were responsible for the terrible event, by mistake. The rebels were not bragging about the incident in the audio file. On the contrary, they were clearly distressed about it, but then nobody had the decency of coming forward admitting the terrible mistake. I am simply saying that this is a clear possibility but both the US and Russia have decided to play war games with this tragedy.

        • David Smith
          May 24, 2016 at 4:26 pm

          And FobosDeimos “avoids even considering the possibility” that the Poroshenko Kiev government shot down MH-17, and not by mistake.

    • David Smith
      May 24, 2016 at 3:09 pm

      FobosDeimos, if a stolen Ukrainian BUK was used in the shoot down(stolen by rebels or defectors), it is obvious the Ukrainian government would, at the time of the theft, report it to the world media. Since the theft would be before the shoot down, that would clinch the case that “Donbass rebels did it”. So why no reports by Ukraine of stolen BUKs?

      • FobosDeimos
        May 24, 2016 at 3:55 pm

        No. It is not obvious at all. No military would be happy to come forward and admit that a bunch of improvised soldiers just stole such an important asset.

        • David Smith
          May 24, 2016 at 4:18 pm

          But it would clinch their, and your, case that Donbass rebels did it.

        • Greg
          May 26, 2016 at 12:07 pm

          The operation of a BUK system requires a trained crew. How could your “improvised soldiers” be able to successfully shoot down MH17 which was flying at such a high altitude? Also requires auxiliary radar equipment that direct the missile to its target. Who operated that radar system? Did the radar system just happen to stolen at the same time?

      • AndJusticeForAll
        May 25, 2016 at 7:04 am

        there is no Donbass pro-russian rebels. The battalion Donbass was originally the Ukrainian National Guard. Yes, there was a report from terrorists that they occupied a military base near Donetsk that used to hold Buk systems and they even were showing some fake pictures about this to convince everybody they got it like other tanks or armed vehicles. Ukrainian officials said there were no working systems there, because they moved them to a safe location long before. That was in the Dutch report. Additionally, Strelkov/Girkin or whoever was posting under his name was bragging about shot down on vk.com (russian version of f*book), and also rusvesna re-posted it too. But in half an hour they took it down and since that time they are in denial of possession of Buk. Why would they change the story?

        • Kiza
          May 26, 2016 at 10:49 pm

          The rebels did happily report the shooting down of Ukrainian jets which were bombing military and civilian targets in Donbass. There was a video in which allegedly an Ukrainian jet lobbed two rockets into the civilian city center of Donetsk, which was similar to the regular shelling of apartment blocks killing thousands of civilians. Therefore, the rebels were happy about every shoot-down. My understanding is that what you call “a boast” was a report regarding the Ukrainian transport Antonov which they shot-down a day or two before. Your buddies jumped on this opportunity as a “boast of the shooting-down of a civilian airliner” and started spreading this all over online forums, which then got picked up by the MSM (which treats the Internet as the domain of conspiracy theories, unless it is the regime’s propaganda that are being distributed through it). Therefore, I believe that this was a one of the classical propaganda methods – a slight time displacement.

          But I must admit that I used to wonder why, in the days before the shooting-down of MH-17, every such success of the rebels against the Ukrainian airforce, every shoot-down of a military jet, was front-page news in the Western media. Why would a failure of the Ziocon puppets in Ukraine be front-page news in the West? Could it have been a propaganda preparation of the civilian airliner shoot-down? “Russian Rebels shoot-down a passenger jet” out of the blue is not as easily digestible as after a month of preparation.

    • May 25, 2016 at 7:49 am

      Were trhose audio transcripts ever verified no just more rubbush just like Kerry stating 3 days after the event all these verifiable happenings being piked up on social media , Really now Ignorance is bliss but this has become total stupidity. Social media being used as intellagence analysis.How absurd. Soon u will be telling me That Putin kidnaped Sir Harold Holt in 67. How gullible we in the west have really become.

    • dahoit
      May 25, 2016 at 11:19 am

      You do realize that audio tapes are quite easily corrupted and wo video are useless?
      The most plausible scenario is one of US lying,as we do it ALL the time.

  5. Yonatan
    May 24, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    In historic Google Earth satellite imagery, dated 16 July 2014, a possible Buk launcher was photographed at 47°58’59.20″N 38°27’7.65″E. It was on a small track leading west from the corner of a dog-leg bend in the north-south road east of Zaroshchenske. This is exactly where the Russian military detected signals from one of the Buk systems. It was also towards the north margin of the launch area identified by Almaz Antey.

    In the same satellite image, a combine harvester was working in a field 2.5 km away, south east of the Buk. The combine was near the south east corner of a field at 47°57’56.60″N 38°28’38.07″E.

    Google has recently removed this specific image for this date. Imagery from before and after that date still exists.

    • dahoit
      May 25, 2016 at 11:21 am

      And T72s?are on I-95 right outside the beltway.:)

  6. Erik G
    May 24, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    It is very unlikely that the recently claimed videos are from the time period in question.
    At this point, “new evidence” in such forms from unverified sources is certainly falsified and planted by partisans. There are many ways that such scenes could be generated later, most involving cooperation of the Ukraine government. They have not explained why their primary radar was turned off “for maintenance” with air traffic in the area, nor why the ATC recordings were suddenly lost, etc., etc., an acknowledgement of guilt.

    • May 25, 2016 at 9:00 am

      Further more why was the plane directed to fly over this contested region. Most legal beagels in Europe put the blame on the Kiev junta cause that plan should have taken another flight path not thwe one they were directed to go. Hence u can blame Putin all u want but this shit wont stik it just flies bak to the west andits deceptive narrative. Interllectually and morally bankrupt just like their financial system. %40 trillio0n dollar correction of the New York stock exchange is just aroud the corner and Hitlarry or Trumpster r going to inherit a colossal financial,social and political mess. God help us for nufin is goin to help them.

  7. May 24, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    Just curious as to why the passenger jet was vectored over a war zone? Surely there were safer routes.

    • Dmitri Donskoi
      May 24, 2016 at 3:10 pm

      It was vectored into a war zone because the EU and the US were insistently telling the Big Lie that no civil war was going on. It’s a case where one Big Lie compels them to crush any particle of truth that opposes the Big Lie. Instead, because they told the collateral Big Lie that “Russia had invaded Crimea” they insisted that Crimea was a dangerous war zone and vectored all commercial aircraft away from Crimea and over Donbas.

      In point of fact the US and the EU knew perfectly well the vicious civil war being fought out in Eastern Ukraine involved combatants on both sides doing their best to shoot down the air assets of the other side and their allies. The Western Ukrainians knew the Eastern Ukrainians had no air force but they were hoping to catch a Russian AWACs plane if it strayed over the border, and they were doing their best to shoot down Russian drones monitoring the fight. The Eastern Ukrainians were getting cluster bombed by the Western Ukrainian air force so you can forgive them for trying to shoot down any war plane, as well as shooting down any troop transports bringing more weapons into the fight against the Eastern regions.

      The real crime was sending MH17 into a war zone. Time to arraign the Dutch and EU swine who did that.

      • FobosDeimos
        May 24, 2016 at 4:00 pm

        Well, I agree with you that the US and EU deliberately tried to downplay the seriousness of the situation in East Ukraine, although some European airlines had already decided on their own not to fly over the area. It was a terrible human tragedy. Using such dangerous weapons in a happy-go-lucky way is reprehensible, no matter who does it.

    • Knomore
      May 24, 2016 at 3:26 pm

      That it was a set-up that hoped to entrap Russia and (further) blacken Russia’s reputation in the eyes of Westerners. The US State Department, run by neo Cons, in the case of Ukraine, Victoria Nuland, wife of Robert Kagan, who masterminded the coming into power of a Fascist regime in Ukraine which in turn is part and parcel of the civil war that is now being waged in that country.

      What is upsetting about this continued seepage of “new evidence” is that it contradicts earlier evidence of on-the-spot witnesses to the tragedy that the signature long white tail indicating a Buk missile had been fired was never seen by anyone and this was on a clear day, under very blue skies with maximum visibility.

      This looks like just more camouflage to enable the US to continue to deny its part in this tragedy and shun responsibility for the acts of terror it commits.

    • David Smith
      May 24, 2016 at 3:34 pm

      The normal route for MH-17 is a SSE vector that crosses Sea of Azov, far to the west of Donbass border. On July 17, 2014, Ukrainian air traffic control directed the airliner SE across Donbass airspace. Ukrainians say this was done “because of bad weather”, but there is no weather at 33,000 feet. It should be noted that international conventions prohibit routing civilian flights over ANY warzone.

      • Greg
        May 26, 2016 at 12:15 pm

        Not only was it diverted to fly over a war zone by the Kiev traffic controllers but it was directed to lower its altitude from 33000 to 31000 ft. thereby making it easier to shoot down.

        • AndJusticeForAll
          May 30, 2016 at 9:34 am

          Greg, did you read Dutch Safety Board report? They published communication exchange between Dnepr and Rostov dispatchers and it was Rostov who requested adjustment of course. And it was not something extra-ordinary. There are weather satellite pictures and explanation why.

  8. Dmitri Donskoi
    May 24, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Thanks for the coverage. It is refreshing to see some balance. The key understanding is that the US has detailed radar data that shows every aspect of the shoot down, recorded by multiple sensors on the US AWACS air battle control aircraft that was monitoring airspace over Eastern Ukraine. My sources in Russia tell me they believe the reason the US will not release those tapes is twofold: first, the raw data does not implicate the rebels and second, the US cannot release the raw data because the raw data shows the AWACs was deeply involved in vectoring Western Ukrainian ground attack aircraft to their targets in Eastern Ukraine where they dropped cluster bombs on civilian areas. If they edit the raw data to eliminate their participation in the air battle they lose the authenticity of the live, raw data as it will be clear the raw data was tampered with.

    It is indisputable that the Western Ukrainian tactic of flattening urban areas made it much easier and safer for Western Ukrainian ground forces to make headway into Eastern Ukrainian regions, and the use of ground attack aircraft, artillery barrages and short range missiles played a key role in that. But, as they say, it is very bad optics for a US AWACS control aircraft to be a participant in what many countries (but not either the US or Russia) consider to be a war crime: the use of cluster bombs against civilian population centers.

    My own belief is that it was rebel forces that shot down MH17, believing it to be a Western Ukrainian troop transport. In a hot war environment where both sides believed all aircraft in the battle zone were combatants that’s fair game. The real crime is that the EU designated Crimea, where there was zero fighting, a “war zone” for political reasons but also for purely political reasons refused to designate the skies over Donbas, a very hot air battle zone, a war zone. The criminals are in the EU that vectored a civilian airliner away from safety and into harm’s way in a region where both sides were doing their best to shoot out of the sky anything that moved.

    • David Smith
      May 24, 2016 at 3:53 pm

      Dimitri, no EU nation had control of MH-17 over Ukraine. Ukrainian air traffic control directed MH-17 over Donbass, and Ukraine certainly considered Donbass a warzone, and must follow international convention: no civilian flights routed over a warzone. It is unlikely Donbass military have radar capable of tracking aircraft at 33,000 feet and even the Dutch state Donbass has no air defense able to strike that high. Why would Donbass think a transport type jet flying at 33,000 feet toward the Russian border was Ukrainian troop transport?

      • AndJusticeForAll
        May 24, 2016 at 4:22 pm

        please show us the original source of this:”even the Dutch state Donbass has no air defense able to strike that high”, not the lie from Mr Parry.

        • David Smith
          May 24, 2016 at 4:36 pm

          Show us your “original source” that they did. The Ukrainian Army does have, and did use, such a capability to shoot down MH-17.

        • Niko
          May 25, 2016 at 7:35 pm

          AJFA, are you being silly? The article features a link to the original Dutch report which states exactly what is cited by Mr Parry.

          http://english.ctivd.nl/documents/reports/2015/10/13/index

          Please let us know if you think this site is a fake.

          • AndJusticeForAll
            May 25, 2016 at 9:00 pm

            please, show me exactly where it is said that only Ukraine had capability. then we talk.

    • FobosDeimos
      May 24, 2016 at 4:02 pm

      A very honest and thorough assesstment. Thank you Dmitri.

    • Kiza
      May 25, 2016 at 7:36 am

      Dmitri, nice try to go both ways for “objectivity” and then conclude “the rebels did it” with no justification.

      Also, it is totally untrue that “both sides believed all aircraft in the battle zone are fair game” or “both sides were doing their best to shoot out of the sky anything that moved”. Donbass fighters had no airforce, thus no planes to be shot-down over Ukraine. The reason the Ukrainian Government brought Buks into the conflict zone and even close to the Russian border was to shoot-down any Russian fighter jets, since one of them appears to have shot-down a Ukrainian bomber from the Russian side of the border earlier. These were the only operational Buks in the area and, if MH17 was NOT shot-down by a jet (which is more likely), then one of these Ukrainian batteries shot-it-down.

      There is not a single grain of proof that rebels had a functioning Buk, either Russian or captured one, unless you count spurious YouTube videos as proof, good enough for the rabble but not for a professional journalist such is Mr Parry.

  9. Pablo Diablo
    May 24, 2016 at 3:26 pm

    There is a LOT more to the Korean Airlines KAL007 being off course story. Some implications might apply here.

  10. leie
    May 24, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    the question is why russia is keeping silent

    • Erik G
      May 25, 2016 at 7:04 am

      They have not been silent. They have supplied info concerning the missiles, ownership, radar data, etc. While Ukraine and the US have denied essential data that they certainly have, and even data that they admit having.

      • AndJusticeForAll
        May 25, 2016 at 9:02 pm
        • Erik G
          May 25, 2016 at 9:54 pm

          Not worth the risk on that link: tell me what you think it is.
          It cannot show that Russia supplied nothing.
          It cannot show that the US and Ukraine supplied all info that they have.

          • Kiza
            May 25, 2016 at 11:05 pm

            Again, he is just throwing mud randomly and hoping some of its sticks. There is nothing important on p 14 in item 2.5. The Dutch Safety Board report blamed neither the rebels, nor the Ukrainian Government directly for the shoot-down, it was quite inconclusive. But Tjibbe Joustra, Chairman of the Dutch Safety Board, did blame the rebels in the news conference.

          • AndJusticeForAll
            May 26, 2016 at 10:24 am

            the link specified what data were requested by Safety Board and obtained and from whom right after shooting down MH17. You claim that only Russia supplied the data. That is not true. Ukraine supplied data as well.
            @ Kiza your “analytical well posed opinion” that it was Ukraine responsible for downing MH17 is well understood.

          • Kiza
            May 26, 2016 at 12:48 pm

            Wrong again AJFA, my “analytical well posed opinion” is that the Ukrainians were only the executioners of the act that the US Ziocons organised, the same people who organised the shooting at both the police and the demontrators at Maidan, the same people who distributed US$ salaries to Maidan protesters (and cookies), the same people who appointed the post-coup Ukrainian Government, responsible for everything that happens in the Ukrainian airspace. Clear?

  11. AndJusticeForAll
    May 24, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    another suggestive manipulation of information from Mr Parry. Fourth time he lies about Dutch report and cites his lie as a supportive evidence.

    • David Smith
      May 24, 2016 at 4:50 pm

      AJFA, if you are in possession of the truth, cough it up, don’t keep all of us waiting. The truth is the Ukrainian Army shot down MH-17, after the Ukrainian government diverted the flight over Donbass so the rebels could be falsely blamed.

      • AndJusticeForAll
        May 24, 2016 at 5:11 pm

        that is your incompetent opinion. last time you were convinced it was SU-25, now you generalize to Ukrainian Army. what is next?

      • David Smith
        May 24, 2016 at 6:08 pm

        I have never supported the SU-25 theory, AJFA you are confusing me with someone else, but incoherant arrogant certainty has always been your trademark. The Ukrainian Army used a BUK to shoot down MH-17. Yes, that’s just my opinion, but I’ve delt with a lot of liers in my life, and I can smell the lies all the way from Kiev.

    • Kiza
      May 25, 2016 at 7:43 am

      Enlighten us please – what has Mr Parry lied about the Dutch Report? Or are you just throwing mud randomly and hoping that some of it sticks?

  12. Abe
    May 24, 2016 at 4:23 pm

    Elliot Higgins and Bellingcat deception on MH-17 is the basis of the claim served to the European Court of Human Rights.

    The Kiev-based Ukrainian news agency, UNIAN, interviewed Higgins in the mattehttp://www.unian.info/world/1231308-bellingcat-founder-eliot-higgins-jerry-skinner-the-lawyer-is-going-to-the-echr-with-the-case-against-russian-and-putin-himself-about-mh17-and-russias-involvement-in-ukraine.html

    • Abe
      May 24, 2016 at 4:42 pm

      On his Twitter account, Higgins retweeted the ABC News 24 (Australian 24-hour news channel owned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation) interview with lawyer Jerry Skinner https://twitter.com/ABCNews24/status/734254267809202177

      Skinner’s explanation of how the case was formed makes it clear that every scrap of propaganda was used. Most of the propaganda was supplied by Higgins and Bellingcat.

      • AndJusticeForAll
        May 24, 2016 at 5:12 pm

        Abe, you are talented copypaster.

        • David Smith
          May 24, 2016 at 6:22 pm

          Say something coherant, AJFA, or stay off the thread.

          • Kiza
            May 25, 2016 at 7:47 am

            David, please ignore this character, he is a type of troll called – POLLUTER & DILUTER, posts rubbish to prevent intelligent and well-argumented discussion on a topic.

        • Abe
          May 24, 2016 at 8:56 pm

          Bellingcat fanboy AndJusticeForAll has been trolling the comments section of Consortium News articles on Ukraine and MH-17 for several months, with loud accusations of “lies” and “manipulation” whenever Robert Parry exposes the baseless claims of Eliot Higgins, Australian “60 Minutes”, the Atlantic Council, the New York Times and other propaganda megaphones.

          • AndJusticeForAll
            May 25, 2016 at 7:15 am

            I was explaining why I claim he is lying. I am lazy to copypaste like you over and over again.

  13. Realist
    May 24, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    I see no upside to the Russians shooting down a large slow-moving airliner which cannot easily be mistaken for a Ukrainian fighter jet. I can see how the infantile Ukrainian military might think they could shoot down such a civilian plane and attempt to frame the Russians. I can see how the American government would buy into such a cock-and-bull story, maybe even concoct it for use by their Ukrainian puppets. Still gotta ask after all this time: where is the solid evidence of Russian guilt that you professed to have moments after the incident, John Kerry? Where is any evidence, even flimsy evidence? Apparently, you have no such evidence, nor do you have any shame, sir.

  14. Joe L.
    May 24, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    When it comes to MH-17, I actually believe that Russia had nothing to do with it and surely had nothing to gain by shooting it down. For me, I look to what Mr. Parry has pointed out in the Dutch reports and what the German BND stated in Der Spiegel about the missile being fired from a Ukrainian Military base which would totally disprove Bellingcat and would make the guilty party either the Ukrainian Military or the rebels in the east of the country. Certainly the parties that have benefitted from the propaganda around MH-17 have been NATO, which really did not have a purpose for many years due to the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and the United States which has driven a wedge between Europe/Russia – TTIP anyone? Now who is truly responsible for the downing of MH-17 I don’t think we will ever get a really honest answer especially when Ukraine, a possible guilty party whom the German BND pointed out that images provided by the Ukrainian Government of MH-17 “have been manipulated”, can veto anything from the Dutch report. I also believe that if the US had the smoking gun about Russia shooting down MH-17 then I am sure that they would have declassified whatever they had to in order to prove without a shadow of a doubt that “Putin” was responsible – the simple fact that they haven’t is questionable. Also, whatever happened to that BBC Russian footage from just after MH-17 was shot down? I believe that the BBC removed that footage, did it not? Too many questions…

    • Joe Tedesky
      May 25, 2016 at 12:07 am

      Joe L here is a link to some of what your asking about, regarding to the BBC report.

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/malaysian-airlines-mh17-brought-down-ukrainian-military-aircraft-the-bbc-refutes-its-own-lies/5521968

      I’m like you, on this one. It is hard to understand why Russia would have been motivated to get behind such a dastardly plan such as this one, shooting down a commercial air carrier. Yet, if certain powers were to wish to enforce economic sanctions on Russia, well a tragedy such as what happened to Flight MH17, may give way to gain European support towards imposing such sanctions. Plus, by having John Kerry appear on all of the Sunday morning talk shows, his proclamation would rally all decent caring Americans to his goal, considering all the innocent lives that were loss, as a result of this planes terrible fate. I also agree with you that if this was a slam dunk, as Kerry made it sound, then where is the definitive proof? There is done, or they are not producing it for reasons they can’t explain, because something wasn’t where it should be. It’s anybody guess to what is the cause behind any hiding of evidence, but placing the blame on Russia is a convenient way to gather support to demonize Putin. It’s all about controlling the narrative inside the Western media, and by having the worlds biggest media, well you get my point.

      • Kiza
        May 25, 2016 at 8:01 am

        Joe, I have suggested before that the evidence does not support Kerry’s statements and that the case of Iraq discourages anybody in the intelligence community to doctor it for the political purpose. It is a draw/stalemate between the political and the intelligence establishments, which leaves only the fact-free statements to pliant MSM and the Bellingcat “studies” to make the case. No impartial court on this planet would accept any of such rubbish as evidence let alone proof.

        BTW, did you know that the esteemed expert in online evidence Mr. Eliot Higgins used to be a female lingerie salesman before discovering his current talent? A typical NATO human resources policy in action.

        • Joe Tedesky
          May 25, 2016 at 10:51 am

          I believe you are right, that the intelligence community has become very reluctant to support the cover story with selected evidence since the Iraqi WMD invasion. When Obama drew his red line in the sand concerning Syria, and then there was that sarin gas attack, James Clapper did everything he could to not say he had slam dunk evidence that Assad had ordered it. In the case of our wonderful MSM, they never cease to amaze me with their juvenile comments concerning almost anything political that they report on. All I can say, is it must be nice to be paid so well, that they (the media) will say almost anything to hide behind the coattails of the one percent. At least that’s the way I see them. If we did have objective reporting, we wouldn’t put up with a Elliot Higgins, dishing out his lies. I have a lot of respect for the lingerie industry, but not so much for the propaganda hucksters, who lie to support killers of innocent citizens. The downing of MH17 ranks right up there with 9/11. Hey Kiza have a nice day, and don’t worry be happy. JT

          • Kiza
            May 26, 2016 at 12:46 am

            I have nothing against the female lingerie industry either, but I was trying to highlight the difference between the sales capability and the analytical training necessary for the examination of facts and making valid and substantiated conclusions. I just happen to have been an analyst in my early career and have been trained for it for about 10 years. That a salesman could become a widely-quoted analyst overnight…, well a salesman can become anything really as long as there is someone to buy it (what does this tell us about MSM?).

            This is similar to “Admiral Kirby” becoming a State Department spokesman and dressing down journalists for asking difficult questions as if they were his marines. So utterly ridiculous that it is very funny.

          • Joe Tedesky
            May 26, 2016 at 1:22 am

            Yeah, Higgins made a great big leap going from lingerie salesman to now becoming the internationally renowned investigative reporter, that he also claims to be. Hearing you state how you have been an analyst for a decent amount time, explains your ability to make such good inquiries, as well as your coming to some pretty sound solutions, as well. I don’t mean to embarrass you with praise, but your comments added to the many other commenters who post on this site, has given me a better sense of what is going on in this world. Often, as good as the articles are, which appear on this site, the comment section only makes learning more about our worldly problems that much better. I’ll admit it, that since I don’t work the many hours I once did, I made up my mine, to learn as much as I possibly can, in order to try and understand just what makes this world tick. So, to you and the other commenters on this site, I say, thanks for sharing your concern and knowledge, because it sure helps me out a lot.

          • Kiza
            May 26, 2016 at 11:07 pm

            Thank you very much Joe. I am here for the same reason, to understand and to learn. I do not consume the MSM at all, due to their negative score on information content (they diminish our knowledge and understanding). You and I do not have the same political outlook, but we do respect each other.

            If you do not mind a bit of libertarian and paleo-conservative inclination, which are closer to my outlook, I would highly recommend the zine http://www.unz.com for the good articles and best commentary. For me, the consortiumnews.com and unz.com are the best on the net.

      • Joe L.
        May 25, 2016 at 4:04 pm

        Joe Tedesky… Thank you for your reply. If I read the information in your link properly then the BBC aired a documentary, on May 3, which might have actually pointed the finger at Ukraine as being responsible for the downing of MH-17 (at least that seems to be what Australian news were claiming). That is very interesting and if that is the case then I am really surprised that the BBC aired it because it does not match up with the rhetoric the BBC and the British government have been spewing. I will have to see if I can find that documentary online.

      • Joe L.
        May 25, 2016 at 5:57 pm

        I actually found the BBC Documentary on YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGVbNzlYhUY.

      • Joe L.
        May 25, 2016 at 7:54 pm

        Joe Tedesky… I did watch that documentary, which is obviously skewed, but they did at least show two points of view. I mean I don’t know exactly what happened and I just find more questions than answers. As far as I know there was a lot of fighting in Eastern Ukraine and I believe even the rebels shot down a Ukrainian Military jet along with a Ukrainian jet shelling, I believe, an apartment building killing 10 people – so Ukrainian jets were very active in the area. Yet on the day of the shoot-down of MH-17 there were supposedly no Ukrainian jets in the vicinity and also Ukraine’s radar was down? Some things just aren’t adding up. I also find it quite egregious that Ukraine is not only part of the investigation, even though they are a “possible” party to the shoot-down of MH-17, but that they can “veto” any information found in the report – why would they need that right? Again, if Russia or the rebels are guilty, without a shadow of a doubt, then why hasn’t the US taken the opportunity to “prove” that it was Russians or rebels that shot-down MH-17 and really berate Putin but instead the US Government has pointed to “social media”! Just so many things don’t add up…

        • Joe Tedesky
          May 26, 2016 at 1:43 am

          Often the truth is hiding in plain sight. Although there’s that forest and the trees meme, which wears us out to no end, when trying to at least get a glimpse of the forest through all those trees. Like finding the needle in the haystack, and then you come to find out there are lots of needles in that haystack, so which needle is the right needle we are to find. In any case, it’s good to find concerned citizens like yourself, and the many others who comment here on this site, because then at least I know it’s just not me who’s attempting to get to the bottom of things. My one hope is that my comments help all you other commenters, as much as all your comments have, and still help me learn more of what is going on. Lastly, the downing of Flight MH17 was a false flag, in order to finance NATO, and bring down Russia. How do you like this past couple of years gasoline prices?

          • Joe L.
            May 26, 2016 at 11:59 am

            Joe Tedesky… I agree with you wholeheartedly. It is pretty hard when the majority of people, the mainstream, and our governments are all touting one story meanwhile dismissing another – that is how we got the Iraq War. That is why for me, I want to see what Russia, Iran, Venezuela, China etc. are all saying so that I will not be sold into another awful war which results in the deaths of millions for, ultimately, greed. That is why when I see someone like Bellingcat, especially after the Iraq War, not trying to find out who downed MH-17 but rather trying simply to prove that it was Russia – is disconcerting. If someone like Bellingcat questioned equally, especially starting with his own government given the illegality and immorality of the Iraq War, then I would fully support him but instead his mission is to prove the US and Britain right above anything else. That is why when Mr. Parry pointed out that he was being essentially funded by USAID, along with George Soros, then it all started to make sense and just means that he is a tool of propaganda.

            As for gas prices, they are never low enough and even when the price dropped incredibly low per barrel I do not believe that we were fully getting the discount at the pump. I actually want the world to move in a greener direction and surprisingly I think it is going to be China that is going to lead that charge. As far as I have read China invests, I believe, almost double what the US does into green energy technology. Also, though I think China has no choice but to go green, with such a huge population, and scenes like Beijing. Anyway, it should be interesting but I do believe that what is happening in the Middle East, in Ukraine etc. is largely due to the US losing hegemony over the world with a China that is surpassing it (along with other nations rising such as Russia, India etc.). That is also why I see the TPP, TTIP etc. as a desperate attempt by the US to try to dominate the world – the US is the centre of all of these agreements, the epicentre. I just wish that the US would stop trying to rule the world and instead join with it. I think that it is inevitable that China will be the largest economy in the next decade or two (it already is by Purchasing Power Parity) and I think that if the US could find a way to peacefully work with China, rather then try to control it, then it could be beneficial for both parties and the world in general.

  15. Frank
    May 24, 2016 at 7:04 pm

    ““We picked up the imagery of this launch.”

    I’d guess it shows Kiev’s forces or we would have seen it long ago. Many photos of wreckage I’ve viewed on the Center for Research on Globalization make me wonder if it was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter with a cannon.

    And if you have any real curiosity you have to ask yourself, “who benefits?”. I’m yet to figure out the soldiers of the Donbass or Russia have gained anything from this slaughter?

  16. exiled off mainstreet
    May 24, 2016 at 11:42 pm

    It is obvious that if there was real evidence of Russian or secessionist complicity the yankee authorities would not have withheld their evidence, but loudly have broadcasted it through their massive propaganda apparatus. It is this propaganda apparatus and yankee withholding of evidence they definitely have which has kept this story alive. Parasites like “bellingcat” are beneath contempt as propaganda lackeys.

  17. James O'Neill
    May 25, 2016 at 12:41 am

    Robert, the Westerbeke letter of February 2016 to the Dutch victim’s families is very important. In the course of the letter Westerbeke says, in reference to locating exactly where the missile was fired from, that:

    “The US authorities have data generated by their own security forces, which could potentially provide information on a rocket trajectory. These data have been confidentially shared with the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service (DISS). DISS and OM (The Dutch Public Prosecutor) are now investigating in what form the US state secret information can be used in the criminal investigation and what will be provided in a so-called official report to the Public Prosecution. That official report can be used as evidence by the JIT.”

    This paragraph confirms what has been widely believed; that the US satellite data showed exactly what happened. Talk about cloud cover etc obscuring details is technical nonsense. At least two of the satellites in orbit over Donbass at the time have, inter alia, infra red detections systems that are independent of cloud cover for detecting both launch and trajectory.

    According to Dutch sources, the issue is whether the Americans will allow the data to be used in a criminal prosecution. If that data show a BUK missile being launched by Ukrainian forces (as seems the overwhelming probability) that would destroy the propaganda narrative of the past 21 months. For that reason I would argue that the data are unlikely to be publicly released. Without that data the proceedings just issued in the ECHR are unlikely to succeed, but then, who really thinks that was their purpose?

    • May 25, 2016 at 7:07 am

      I guess you are over-optimistic here. In the original Dutch letter Westerbeke says the US handed over “data” that could “possibly” say something about missile trajectory.

      The key-word here is “mogelijk” (“possibly”, not potentially). Therefore we might conclude “possibly” it might also say nothing. For as the launch has not been detected, the SBIRs fail to show an exact launchsite. If they did, the DSB would have used it. they would have to, according to their assignment.

      Westerbeke is covering up this “possibility” stuff by assuring the next of kin they also have other ways of finding out the launchsite, like “more forensic evidence” (from which I conclude the investigation of soil samples from the Bellingcat designed field have not been able to show confirmation), “images and intercepted phone calls” (of which we have not seen any credible examples yet in their “call for witnesses”) and “calculations done by the NLR” (like in the DSB report based on simulations and matching of damage patterns, which were very unconvincing).

      Therefore its my opinion the US has handed over exactly nothing of importance.

  18. Knomore
    May 25, 2016 at 2:58 am

    Examination of the cockpit, what was left of it, suggested that the plane was shot down at close range by shots fired right at the cockpit where the pilots were seated. Also, the flight path showed that the pilots actually tried to divert the plane away from the incoming shelling. This information was produced in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, no more than a few weeks, maximum one month afterward. Global Research and Michel Chossudovsky have archived much of the best information on this.

    What is most telling is the same propaganda style that was used in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, i.e., (Osama bin Laden did it!) within hours of the plane hitting the ground became “Putin Has Blood on His Hands.” This was the meme that was stated over and over and over again — in newspaper headlines and also in the US Journal of Foreign Affairs issued on or about September 2014.

    There is one another interesting or odd fact about this tragedy: the date: July 17. It was on the same date 18 years earlier, ie., July 17, 1996, that TWA airliner (800?) was shot down off the coast of New Jersey, a tragedy that was never solved but for which many suspicions remain of highest US government involvement.

    • Zachary Smith
      May 25, 2016 at 11:39 pm

      “Examination of the cockpit, what was left of it, suggested that the plane was shot down at close range by shots fired right at the cockpit where the pilots were seated”

      Naturally I have nothing factual to support this idea, but it’s my opinion those holes in the cockpit area aren’t bullet holes. IMO the airplane was destroyed by a missile, and most likely by an advanced air-air missile homing in on the cockpit area whose exploding parts created the round holes.

      • Knomore
        May 26, 2016 at 2:22 am

        I believe the evidence indicated shells that penetrated one side of the cockpit and exited the other so that on side the holes were cratered inward and on the other they were cratered outward. There were actual pictures shown of this damage to the cockpit. It was a Lufthansa pilot who came up with the theory of close shelling based upon the physical evidence. The other evidence that seems to have fallen by the wayside is testimony of on-site witnesses to the actual event who saw one or more smaller planes accompanying the jet just before it fell out of the sky. Again, Michel Chossudovsky has archived a lot of this information.

        • Taavi Teder
          May 30, 2016 at 11:15 pm

          I think they exited through the floor of the cockpit rather than the side. This is one reason we know Bellingcat is wrong about a Snizhne launchsite

  19. Kiza
    May 25, 2016 at 8:15 am

    If the victims of 911 could sue the Iranian Government in a US court for compensation (and win), why could not the Australian victims of MH17 sue Russia in an EU court? There is equal proof of guilt for both defendants and the courts are equally unbiased and apolitical (that is, totally biased and political). I wonder what the EU court verdict will be?

  20. H.L.
    May 25, 2016 at 9:31 am

    The dashcam video recently posted on the internet must have been recorded only few minutes after the so-called “Paris Match” photos have been shot.

    These “Paris Match” photos show a blurred BUK TELAR on a Volvo lowloader and show clear signs of manipulation.

    Several bloggers wrote about this, but their blogposts have been completely ignored by the western mainstream media:

    Barry Hamill’s “The donetsk buk was photoshopped”:
    http://fakemh17photo.blogspot.de/2015/03/the-donetsk-buk-was-photoshopped-w-e.html

    Max van der Werff: “MH17 – Haunt the BUK”
    https://7mei.nl/2015/09/11/mh17-haunt-the-buk/

    Or “MH17 – Paris NO Match” by Sergey Mastepanov:
    http://kremlintroll.nl/?p=543

    While the Volvo lowloader is always clear on both pictures, the BUK is blurred and the shadow of the BUK can not be seen on the road. On one of the pictures you can even see the silhouette of the trees standing behind the BUK through the BUK’s massive radar cabin! Something that can’t be explained with physics, but with photoshop!

    The dashcam video does not show date and time of the recording – which is quite unusual for dashcams – and apparently it has been processed by “CropiPic” software. The BUK itself is blurred – specially on the side where you would expect to read it’s number (usually a three digit code like “123” or “321”).

    You can see the blurred BUK quite well on this slow-motion of the dashcam video which has been created by someone called “Kemet”:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHsAkoWbro8

    So I ask myself: How can this dashcam video be real if the “Paris Match” photos are obviously manipulated?

  21. Joop
    May 25, 2016 at 9:58 am

    Question

    Why Kiew lied about not having SU-25’s in the air, and why Kiew can’t provide their primary radar data?

    I.m sorry the link is in Dutch, but in short it tells us that; “During the MH-17 shootdown there was a airwar going on.”

    http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/07/11/boven-oekraine-vond-tijdens-ramp-mh17-een-luchtoorlog-plaats

    Must we believe the SU-25’s only targeted ground objectives while Kiew denied totaly they had SU-25’s in the air that day? Must we believe Kiew has no primary radar data because Kiew had no jetfighters in the air that day, and because of that their primary radar was shutdown due to maintanance? Or is it, because Kiew had jetfighters in the air that day, they don’t want to handover their primary radar data?

    If Kiew lied about their SU-25’s, they also lied about their primary radar!

  22. Pancho Villa
    May 25, 2016 at 9:59 am

    I don´t know who keeps coming up with these videos but they would be laughable if it was not such a serious question. The idea that the Russians would order the rebels to parade the Buk for miles after shooting an airliner by mistake, rather than destroying or hiding or at least placing a canvas over it, is beyond idiotic.

    The fact that there are hundreds of photographs of buks all over the internet, and many of them indeed with the ultimate Buk concealing technology (read blanket), but Bellincrap analyses always focus on the ones that seem to be Buk parades on main roads tells us all of what we need to know about such materials.

    • Joe Tedesky
      May 25, 2016 at 11:26 am

      Pancho, your description is truly funny. When I read your comment, I immediately pictured a marching band, drum major and all. I also agree with you on the picture evidence roll out. Good post.

      • Pancho Villa
        May 25, 2016 at 5:38 pm

        Thanks, Joe.

        We are supposed to believe that the Russians smuggled such equipment along the heavily surveilled border, managing to evade satellites, agents on the ground and the thousand cameras of the population and the press, that then they probably gave it to a bunch of newly trained volunteers that couldn´t distinguish a civilian airliner from a fighter jet and afterwards, when they messed up, the Russians just took it unconcealed, in broad daylight for an erroneous ride, before taking it back across the same, but now even more heavily surveilled border, without anyone (but bellingcat) noticing. I also have laughs imagining the senior Russian intelligence officer giving the order to do exactly that, or perhaps they just gave a volunteer farmer the responsibility?

        Perhaps if there were drums and a parade it would be more believable, at least there would be a reason for such a display.

        • Joe Tedesky
          May 25, 2016 at 9:17 pm

          Pancho, I like your analysis, and your way of deducing the Bellincrap (your word) disinformation.

  23. Pancho Villa
    May 25, 2016 at 10:09 am

    And by the way, Ukraine´s chief forensic expert in charge of MH17 investigation suffered an assassination attempt:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/suspect-arrested-over-attempted-assassination-of-chief-forensic-expert-in-mh17-probe-a6978681.html

    Only few Western outlets ran the story, even when it was a great opportunity to frame Putin (to be fair UK´s The Sun didn´t miss the chance). Isn´t that silence extremely suspicious?

  24. May 26, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    Another great article by Robert Parry. I hope the lawsuit at the ECHR will force the US (and Russia) to release their info. I don’t understand why the Russians are keeping their data secret, unless it is for the same reasons the US is. So both sides have data that prove their innocence, or the guilt of the other side, or regardless of who did it the data are too “sensitive” to release? I would like to know just why this is. What information would be released that would endanger the “national security” (which is the only presumable excuse) of either nation?

    • May 26, 2016 at 4:56 pm

      I posed this comment at OpEdNews as well and someone replied that I was wrong to say that the Russians were also withholding evidence. I said on re-reading the article I could not find whatever it was that led me to think so.

      It would help if Robert Parry would answer some of these comments.

      • May 26, 2016 at 5:03 pm

        Parry says “Russian officials have said their radar data suggest that a Ukrainian warplane might have fired on MH-17 with an air-to-air missile, a possibility that is difficult to rule out without examining primary radar which has so far not been available.” This seems to imply that the Russians have (also) not made their “primary radar” data available.

  25. Evangelista
    May 26, 2016 at 8:46 pm

    The sudden flurry of legal-firm instigated publicity for MH-17, by an Ozie firm (with an American lawyer leading), in a European ‘Human Rights’ court, with emphasis on civil-damages claim actions, one year and ten months after the cause event suggests American Style Litigation Law going World-Wide. In America such cases, ones with publicity potential and large numbers of potential litigants (who might be reeled in with the standard American Contingency Lawyer Lure of “No Fee Unless You Win!” [the clients who sign up being contracted liable for “costs”, i.e., investigation, filing, preparation, paralegal, secretarial, binding, phone calls etc. etc., which all added up can be a tidy fee]), tend to be brought out of moth-balls, fluffed and aired and whooped and barked as their statutory time limit looms. If no takers, the advertising pays for the whooping, so, for the lawyers it’s any way a win.

    I don’t know how they got the idiots of the Oz ‘Judiciary’ (the woman) and pseudo-adjudicate (the ex scandal-scribe cum ‘coroner’) on board, (except, of course for the obvious reason that they are idiots). Them having felt themselves able to climb on in such a situation, and play pseudo-legal (the State Lawyer) and Lord-Wiggy (the coroner), and, apparently, receiving no reprimands, indicates the Oz Inns in serious need of sweeping out. With this on the top of all the adjudicative jackassarie that has gone before, since the last fictions of reason whisped away from what, since Yalta, has been euphemised “International Law”, one wonders if there is any where at any level in any adjudicative system any judiciary integrity at all anymore.

    The suggestions for cases not only don’t appear to have merit, but appear frivolous and ‘manufactured’, with evidence suppressed for even ‘indictment’, if it can be called that, to suggest a construct of “merit”.

    And then lobbing into the wrong court to begin. Dismissing the business as lawyers grabbing for headlines and media-exposure is so obviously and blatantly a charitable gloss, and such a steaming heap of such charity, I feel almost justified to claim a deduction against my taxes for it.

    As for the MH-17 event, itself, I am still convinced, by the physical evidences, all glossing and gassing aside, that the downing was air-to-air. Except in the gassing and glossing there has been no Buk in any evidence anywhere. The only Buks have been ones passed in social-media and propaganda smoke-and-mirror show. It is interesting to see the persistence of the propaganda introduced Buk (necessary to introduce for the Ukrainian Resistance too provably having no air power). If the MH-17 Buk’s persistence in evidence image, despite its deficit of evidence being greater than that plaguing UFO investigation doesn’t carry the MH-17 Buk into textbooks in the future it will say all that needs be said about humankind’s abilities to create their own realities.

    • Kiza
      May 26, 2016 at 11:38 pm

      You may also be familiar with the following legal case: The United States attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York has opened an investigation into state-sponsored doping by dozens of Russia’s top athletes. Essentially, because the Russians who came to New York and Boston for the marathons used Visa and MC credit-cards to pay for their hotel bills, this gives US attorney’s office jurisdiction over supposed Russian doping. Naturally, this is a pure headline grabbing endeavor, but there is much more to frivolous legal cases than just the MSM headlines, judging by the 911 case against Iran.

      The target of such a case has to have something worth impounding – oil. Since most of the Western country parliaments are made of lawyers, to drum up the business they want to extend jurisdiction of US/EU courts over the whole World. The fine US military become the debt collector from unfriendly countries when they lose such cases in US /EU kangaroo courts. US Navy impounds an Iranian or Russian oil tanker on the open seas (piracy), and everyone gets paid – the judges, the lawyers, “the victims”, the politicians.

      Therefore, cases against Iran re. 911, Russia re. MH17 etc are opening up new earning opportunities for the legal profession after they exhausted all domestic ones. “International law” is the new growth market.

      • Kiza
        May 27, 2016 at 2:01 am

        My apology, I did not mean at all to diminish the people who died on 911 and in MH17, but they are unlikely to be the victims of Iranian and Russian actions, this is why I typed “the victims”. I wish we could have all the information necessary for the victims’ families to get the peace of mind, even if it was Iran and Russia who did it. The US Government could provide it but it wont.

  26. nubwaxer
    May 28, 2016 at 12:09 am

    can we blame it on obama? let’s blame it on obama. thanks obama.

  27. Fred
    June 1, 2016 at 7:45 am

    Ultimately, if the US doesn’t overthrow the elected government in Ukraine the war never happens and we are not talking about MH17.

Comments are closed.