Ukraine Watch...

[Little John]

I cannot give up. I agree we with live in 1984 on steroids, but I have my own memories and knowledge of the physical world from pre WWW (if not totally pre internet ) days. The world we see is not entirely virtual, I know a lot about aircraft, and war, and even have family in the security service. I have even signed the official secrets act, for what it's worth.

This whole episode smells of cock-up. None of us can prove anything sitting at our cosy screens. The reality is in the middle of a war zone.

Disagree with my judgement, but I am certain I have more background knowledge than you on this incident.

When this first happened, Ralph, I was equally prepared to learn that it was (a) a cock up and not a conspiracy and that (b) it could just as easily be the rebels as the Kiev forces.

However, in the intervening week, the outright lies being peddled by our governments and MSM and the refusal to release crucial data logs from the air traffic control or to release satellite imagery plus a complete silence by our governments and MSM in response to the critical question linked earlier in this thread by me all lead me to conclude that the Yanks are, at the every least, attempting to escalate the situation in Ukraine for reasons that have got F--k all to do with this incident and, at worst, are deliberately hiding evidence of a Ukrainian black ops. Or, worse still, are implicated in it themselves.

[raspberry-blower]

Ralph, for someone who is usually an erudite poster on this forum, I am having difficulty in understanding your train of thought on this topic.

It is absolutely Russian standard practice to directly lie and often invert the truth in events like these. Generally I find the West are more nuanced in spreading disinformation.

This is where the problem lies.
Where is the evidence that backs up your assertion or is this your own prejudice getting in the way?
If the Russians were disseminating lies about Flight MH-17, why have they been quiet on this issue until they were fairly certain of their facts whereas the Ukrainians have been mouthing off on a daily basis with an ever changing storyline?
More importantly: Who benefits from all this?
Your assertion may have held sway during Soviet Union era but that's well in the past.

Chose your side but there is no point moaning about one side more than the other.

Yes, there is a point about moaning about the "side" we are nominally on. The MSM, including the British Bullshit Corporation, are complicit on spinning false narrative that is being used as a justification for war crimes.
They need to be held to account for their actions and words.


It is amazing how quickly the falsehoods are exposed when someone who is well versed in matters is interviewed: watch [url=ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D_CnW4GXIc] Mark Sleboda take apart a clueless BBC hack [/url]

if you want to find out what actually happened, find out both side's versions of events then work backwards. It is what is being omitted that is where the truth lies (such as the Ukrainian Air Force bombing missions less than 30 km from the crash site and a full frontal Ukrainian offensive against Donetsk.

We really are living in the nightmare bastard offspring of Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984

[3rdRock]

It is amazing how quickly the falsehoods are exposed when someone who is well versed in matters is interviewed: watch [url=ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D_CnW4GXIc] Mark Sleboda take apart a clueless BBC hack [/url]

Your link doesn't work (or has been censored).

[emordnilap]

It is amazing how quickly the falsehoods are exposed when someone who is well versed in matters is interviewed: watch [url=ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D_CnW4GXIc] Mark Sleboda take apart a clueless BBC hack [/url]

Your link doesn't work (or has been censored).

There's an 'h' missing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D_CnW4GXIc

[PS_RalphW]

The way I view this type of event, is to first of all list the possible theories as to what happened. Then I think how each of the actors would react in each scenario if I had their mind set. All very Sherlock Holmes. Of course I know that all evidence I get from the internet/main media is indirect and a lot of lies will be introduced as required and evidence deleted where possible etc etc. However, having worked for the Civil Aviation Authority for 4 years I know that the world isn't yet entirely run by BB - he puts his nose in as much as possible but he isn't all controlling.

Hence - having quickly narrowed it down to two possibilities, Rebel cock-up or Ukrainian black op, I monitor news as it comes in (I tend to hear a lot from World Service in the middle of the night and grade each item by who the original source is (checked online) hence I haven't even bothered mentioning the 'video evidence' reported by the Daily Mail ) . As the news comes in, the most compelling and clearly the most questionable is the voice recording where 'rebels' claim to have shot down a military transport and then clearly went into panic mode when they realised what they had done. This was released quickly after the event, suggesting that the rebels are not using encrypted radio transmission or it was a fake prepared in advance.

This evidence seems to be crucial. However, I cannot prove it one way or the other. I no more bother reading rt.com than I read fox news. I grade each side's sources by the probability of their being censored by the government on the other side.

In the following two days, I saw how the rebels responded on the ground as presented by multiple personal reports by individual journalists on the ground, and how they were totally disorganised and aggressive and how their behaviour changed over the days, but kept aviation investigators away, even though I knew from my aviation knowledge that to do so was counter productive to their case, as there is no way the physical evidence on site will tell who fired the missile. It had a proximity fuse, so even the part of the plane that was hit will not tell you which direction it was fired from.

I agree I know little about the regime in Kiev, and I was surprised at the extent of their military failure in the east of the country, clearly the media are on lock-down over the political fall-out of that one. My view on Russia is that it is firmly under the control of Putin, who is formidable, but his success through the ranks of the ex KGB show he is ruthless and also extremely adept at controlling information, at least as well as the Western powers. He knows he holds a lot of trump cards and he is playing poker when sitting at the bridge table. He would not have allowed the rebels to commission a BUK system if he had any inkling of their stupidity, not his style.

So the options are pure cock-up, or some degree of black op. I do not think that Kiev could have mounted this without a lot of US input, either to fire a missile or trick the rebels into firing by mistake. If it was fully planned in advance, the military would not have confiscated the traffic controllers' tapes two days after the event - there would have been no tapes to start with.

That the Kiev military was behaving in less than full Geneva Convention standard would surprise nobody, in a world where the West backs Israel to the hilt.

I really think both superpowers were blindsided by this one, both went onto autopilot blame the enemy mode. That tells us nothing. No state in Europe would have allowed this to happen, all too dependent on Russian energy and money. Would the US , even the CIA risk the global economy with a cold war stand-off ? There is enough problems in Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc.

The US is now officially rolling back on Putin's input to this, saying it was a rebel mistake. That smells to me as them telling the truth in spite of themselves.


Enough for now.

[PS_RalphW]

Let's see now, Chernobyl,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Ai ... light_1812

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kursk_submarine_disaster

The list is a long one, dating back deep into the soviet era. The mind set has been re-enforced under Putin, dissident media is shut down, imprisoned or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya

I have read a lot of soviet era dissident literature. Life was a mixture of terror and farce, mixed with the mundane. When the Soviet Union collapsed the capitalists moved in like bandits, and when Putin gained control he used the popular backlash to re-instate the old system, but with crony capitalism on top, a lot like the Chinese.

From the times of the terror the official response for anything going wrong is blame someone else.

Putin is a powerful man, who sees himself as champion of the Russian people, and he is expansionist to the extent of reclaiming control by any means necessary wherever a significant Russian minority population is living.

We know haw controlled our own media is, why would theirs be any better?

[raspberry-blower]

It is amazing how quickly the falsehoods are exposed when someone who is well versed in matters is interviewed: watch [url=ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D_CnW4GXIc] Mark Sleboda take apart a clueless BBC hack [/url]

Your link doesn't work (or has been censored).

There's an 'h' missing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D_CnW4GXIc

Oops!

Thanks for the new link Emo

[Little John]

It is amazing how quickly the falsehoods are exposed when someone who is well versed in matters is interviewed: watch [url=ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D_CnW4GXIc] Mark Sleboda take apart a clueless BBC hack [/url]

Your link doesn't work (or has been censored).

There's an 'h' missing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D_CnW4GXIc

A biased, propagandising, lying, bullshit excuse for journalism. The BBC has no credibility at all now. None. It really does feel like we are approaching some kind of endgame. The gloves now seem to be off with regards to the level of blatant lies being peddled in our MSM. It all strikes me as pretty desperate and it makes me wonder what's coming up. There's a lot more to this than a breakaway Eastern European republic and a downed Malaysian airliner.

[3rdRock]

Your link doesn't work (or has been censored).

There's an 'h' missing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D_CnW4GXIc

Oops!

Thanks for the new link Emo

No worries! Thanks for the update Emordnilap.

[biffvernon]

Rebels shoot down two SU 25 ground attack aircraft. (BBC).

Proves nothing except that there is a war going on, and the rebels are well armed.

And that somebody is calling somebody else a rebel for being loyal to the previous democratically elected government. (Even if that government was crackers.)

[PS_RalphW]

They are rebelling against the current defacto government of what used to be ukriane. That makes them rebels, which is a neutral term. What we are seeing is a redrawing of national boundaries in an area where they have been redrawn many, many times before.

[biffvernon]

Ah, national boundaries, always a source of contention.

[biffvernon]

There was a worth listening to interview with Dr. Jim Swire, he of Lockerbie plane crash, on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme about ten to eight this morning, in which he explained, in his polite way, how politicians and governments should, but don't, tell the truth.

[Little John]

Another thing I've noticed in recent years with BBC reporting. Whenever they have gone into overdrive with unadulterated biased bullshit, in very short order thereafter, they put out several stories that "investigate" government structures of one sort or another and "uncover" some "misdemenaour", thus providing them with the convenient cover of "neutrality" when it comes to any accusations of supporting the government line. These investigations are also nearly always historical and so have no immediate relevance. Note the sudden flurry of stories in the last couple of days about historical misdemeanours at the Met. When it comes to a shackled, obedient and corrupted press, things are far worse even than they appear.

We are being played from start to finish.

[PS_RalphW]

Steve, I think you overestimate the central control of news reporting and editorship at the BBC. It is a big place and employs large numbers of contractors, whose reporting is not entirely vetted in advance.

True, it has become much more overtly the puppet of government in the last 10 years, especially the central news teams and flagship comment programmes. Their policy of climate change 'neutrality' has been shameful, and blatant propaganda from right wing think tanks almost always goes unchallenged. All too often you hear 'The Government plans...' whenever a controversial policy is being tested against popular rebellion, the BBC is being used as a free opinion poll to see what they can get away with.

The top headline on news reports are often clearly nothing more than 'Report This verbatum' orders from no 10.

However, a lot of information does fall through the cracks still.