RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Parry writes: "Despite doubts within the U.S. intelligence community, the Obama administration and the mainstream U.S. news media are charging off toward another rush to judgment blaming Ukrainian rebels and the Russian government for the shoot-down of a Malaysia Airlines plane, much as occurred last summer regarding a still-mysterious sarin gas attack in Syria."

Ukrainian State Emergency Service employees search for bodies among the wreckage at the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. (photo: Bulent Kilic/AFP/Getty Images)
Ukrainian State Emergency Service employees search for bodies among the wreckage at the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. (photo: Bulent Kilic/AFP/Getty Images)


Airline Horror Spurs New Rush to Judgment

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

20 July 14

 

espite doubts within the U.S. intelligence community, the Obama administration and the mainstream U.S. news media are charging off toward another rush to judgment blaming Ukrainian rebels and the Russian government for the shoot-down of a Malaysia Airlines plane, much as occurred last summer regarding a still-mysterious sarin gas attack in Syria.

In both cases, rather than let independent investigators sort out the facts, President Barack Obama’s ever-aggressive State Department and the major U.S. media simply accepted that the designated villains of those two crises – Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Ukraine – were the guilty parties. Yet, some U.S. intelligence analysts dissented from both snap conventional wisdoms.

Regarding the shoot-down of the Malaysian jetliner on Thursday, I’m told that some CIA analysts cite U.S. satellite reconnaissance photos suggesting that the anti-aircraft missile that brought down Flight 17 was fired by Ukrainian troops from a government battery, not by ethnic Russian rebels who have been resisting the regime in Kiev since elected President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown on Feb. 22.

According to a source briefed on the tentative findings, the soldiers manning the battery appeared to be wearing Ukrainian uniforms and may have been drinking, since what looked like beer bottles were scattered around the site. But the source added that the information was still incomplete and the analysts did not rule out the possibility of rebel responsibility.

A contrary emphasis has been given to the Washington Post and other mainstream U.S. outlets. On Saturday, the Post reported that “on Friday, U.S. officials said a preliminary intelligence assessment indicated the airliner was blown up by an SA-11 surface-to-air missile fired by the separatists.” But the objectivity of the Obama administration, which has staunchly supported the coup regime, is in question as are the precise reasons for its judgments.

Even before the Feb. 22 coup, senior administration officials, including Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, were openly encouraging protesters seeking the overthrow of Yanukovych. Nuland went so far as to pass out cookies to the demonstrators and discuss with Pyatt who should be appointed once Yanukovych was removed.

After Yanukovych and his officials were forced to flee in the face of mass protests and violent attacks by neo-Nazi militias, the State Department was quick to declare the new government “legitimate” and welcomed Nuland’s favorite, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, as the new prime minister.

As events have unfolded since then, including Crimea’s secession to join Russia and bloody attacks directed at ethnic Russians in Odessa and elsewhere, the Obama administration has consistently taken the side of the Kiev regime and bashed Moscow.

And, since Thursday, when the Malaysian plane was shot down killing 298 people, the Ukrainian government and the Obama administration have pointed the finger of blame at the rebels and the Russian government, albeit without the benefit of a serious investigation that is only now beginning.

One of the administration’s points has been that the Buk anti-aircraft missile system, which was apparently used to shoot down the plane, was “Russian made.” But the point is rather silly since nearly all Ukrainian military weaponry is “Russian made.” Ukraine, after all, was part of the Soviet Union until 1991 and has continued to use mostly Russian military equipment.

It’s also not clear how the U.S. government ascertained that the missile was an SA-11 as opposed to other versions of the Buk missile system.

Slanting the Case

Virtually everything that U.S. officials have said appears designed to tilt suspicions toward the Russians and the rebels – and away from government forces. Referring ominously to the sophistication of the SA-11, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power declared, “We cannot rule out Russian technical assistance.” But that phrasing supposedly means that the administration can’t rule it in either.

Still, in reading between the lines of the mainstream U.S. press accounts, it’s possible to see where some of the gaps are regarding the supposed Russian hand in Thursday’s tragedy. For instance, the Post’s Craig Whitlock reported that Air Force Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, U.S. commander of NATO forces in Europe, said last month that “We have not seen any of the [Russian] air-defense vehicles across the border yet.”

Since these Buk missile systems are large and must be transported on trucks, it would be difficult to conceal their presence from U.S. aerial surveillance which has been concentrating intensely on the Ukraine-Russia border in recent months.

The Post also reported that “Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said defense officials could not point to specific evidence that an SA-11 surface-to-air missile system had been transported from Russia into eastern Ukraine.”

In other words, the mystery is still not solved. It may be that the rebels – facing heavy bombardment from the Ukrainian air force – convinced the Russians to provide more advanced anti-aircraft weapons than the shoulder-fired missiles that the rebels have used to bring down some Ukrainian military planes.

It’s possible, too, that a rebel detachment mistook the civilian airliner for a military plane or even that someone in the Russian military launched the fateful rocket at the plane heading toward Russian airspace.

But both the Russian government and the rebels dispute those scenarios. The rebels say they don’t have missiles that can reach the 33,000-foot altitude of the Malaysian airliner. Besides denying a hand in the tragedy, the Russians claim that the Ukrainian military did have Buk anti-aircraft systems in eastern Ukraine and that the radar of one battery was active on the day of the crash.

The Russian Defense Ministry stated that “The Russian equipment detected throughout July 17 the activity of a Kupol radar, deployed as part of a Buk-M1 battery near Styla [a village some 30 kilometers south of Donetsk],” according to an RT report.

So, the other alternative remains in play, that a Ukrainian military unit – possibly a poorly supervised bunch – fired the missile intentionally or by accident. Why the Ukrainian military would intentionally have aimed at a plane flying eastward toward Russia is hard to comprehend, however.

A Propaganda Replay?

But perhaps the larger point is that both the Obama administration and the U.S. press corps should stop this pattern of rushing to judgments. It’s as if they’re obsessed with waging “information warfare” – i.e., justifying hostilities toward some adversarial nation – rather than responsibly informing the American people.

We saw this phenomenon in 2002-03 as nearly the entire Washington press corps clambered onboard President George W. Bush’s propaganda bandwagon into an aggressive war against Iraq. That pattern almost repeated itself last summer when a similar rush to judgment occurred around a sarin gas attack outside Damascus, Syria, on Aug. 21.

Though the evidence was murky, there was a stampede to assume that the Assad government was behind the attack. While blaming the Syrian army, the U.S. press ignored the possibility that the attack was a provocation committed by radical jihadist rebels who were hoping that U.S. air power could turn the tide of the war in their favor.

Rather than carefully weigh the complex evidence, the State Department and Secretary of State John Kerry tried to spur President Obama into a quick decision to bomb Syrian government targets. Kerry delivered a belligerent speech on Aug. 30 and the administration released what it called a “Government Assessment” supposedly proving the case.

But this four-page white paper contained no verifiable evidence supporting its accusations and it soon became clear that the report had excluded dissents that some U.S. intelligence analysts would have attached to a more formal paper prepared by the intelligence community.

Despite the war hysteria then gripping Official Washington, President Obama rejected war at the last moment and – with the help of Russian President Putin – was able to negotiate a resolution of the crisis in which Assad surrendered Syria’s chemical weapons while still denying a hand in the sarin gas attack.

The mainstream U.S. press, especially the New York Times, and some non-governmental organizations, such as Human Rights Watch, continued pushing the theme of the Syrian government’s guilt. HRW and the Times teamed up for a major story that purported to show the flight paths of two sarin-laden missiles vectoring back to a Syrian military base 9.5 kilometers away.

For a time, this report was treated as the slam-dunk evidence proving the case against Assad, until it turned out that only one of the rockets carried sarin and the maximum range of the one that did have sarin was only about two kilometers.

Despite knowing these weaknesses in the case, President Obama stood by his State Department hawks by reading a speech to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 24 in which he declared: “It’s an insult to human reason and to the legitimacy of this institution to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack.”

In watching Obama’s address, I was struck by how casually he lied. He knew better than almost anyone that some of his senior intelligence analysts were among those doubting the Syrian government’s guilt. Yet, he suggested that anyone who wasn’t onboard the propaganda train was crazy.

Since then, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has revealed other evidence indicating that the sarin attack may indeed have been a rebel provocation meant to push Obama over the “red line” that he had drawn about not tolerating chemical weapons use.

Now, we are seeing a repeat performance in which Obama understands the doubts about the identity of who fired the missile that brought down the Malaysian airliner but is pushing the suspicions in a way designed to whip up animosity toward Russia and President Putin.

Obama may think this is a smart play because he can posture as tough when many of his political enemies portray him as weak. He also buys himself some P.R. protection in case it turns out that the ethnic Russian rebels and/or the Russian military do share the blame for the tragedy. He can claim to have been out front in making the accusations.

But there is a dangerous downside to creating a public hysteria about nuclear-armed Russia. As we have seen already in Ukraine, events can spiral out of control in unpredictable ways.

Assistant Secretary Nuland and other State Department hawks probably thought they were building their careers when they encouraged the Feb. 22 coup – and they may well be right about advancing their status in Official Washington at least. But they also thawed out long-frozen animosities between the “ethnically pure” Ukrainians in the west and the ethnic Russians in the east.

Those tensions – many dating back to World War II and before – have now become searing hatreds with hundreds of dead on both sides. The nasty, little Ukrainian civil war also made Thursday’s horror possible.

But even greater calamities could lie ahead if the State Department’s “anti-diplomats” succeed in reigniting the Cold War. The crash of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 should be a warning about the dangers of international brinkmanship.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+39 # Activista 2014-07-20 13:24
"justifying hostilities toward some adversarial nation – rather than responsibly informing the American people."
we need objective reporting/analy sis like Robert Parry, not totalitarian war propaganda.
What scares me more is folks on forums calling for strong fuhrer. Scared, militarized USA is walking towards nacism/totalita rian system.
 
 
+10 # Inspired Citizen 2014-07-20 16:47
Political theorist Sheldon Wolin believes we already HAVE an "inverted totalitarian" state. We certainly have a corporate state, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to trust the corporate media who should be working toward the truth, no matter what that truth is.

Unfortunately, for us, conflicts and wars get higher ratings for the MSM; so that tends to be the bias they have.

I was going to point to an op-ed New piece suggesting similar points about who fired that missile, but it was also written by Parry. I'm not sure that he is "objective" either since some on the genuine left have a built-in, well-earned distrust for the President and his Administration.
 
 
+9 # Douglas Jack 2014-07-20 21:07
COGNITIVE DISSIDENCE I've been reading Parry for years now & this is the 1st time he is severely critical of Obama, a hero of his, on multiple issues. With corporate MSM keeping us in the dark in conjunction with the Legislative branch, about 20% of the US, Canadian, NATO & Israel populations are gaining most of our news from Alternative social media. We directly affect another 40% so that 60% of the population are out of synch with the narrative of corporate MSM. The 40% remaining who do passively listen only to MSM are brainwashed but skeptical of everything they hear & experience & thus uncreative in their world. Such dumbing down of consciousness makes passive listeners angry.

Parry's switch from being a full Obama supporter to raising serious doubts in this article is a paradigm switch which most of us are going through at various levels & in various forms. In a news blackout this is strange for active news searchers, as we hear no reflection of the world we are discovering from multiple alternative news & listening carefully to our own experiences & contacts. MSM & politicians such as Obama are literally by choice in a news vacuum so as to have no bearing on the real world.

Many of us are aware that the USA in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Ukraine is totally out of touch with its own actions, constantly has its finger pointing outwards in disgust at others. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/5-collaborative-language
 
 
+6 # Inspired Citizen 2014-07-21 04:10
Quoting Douglas Jack:
COGNITIVE DISSIDENCE I've been reading Parry for years now & this is the 1st time he is severely critical of Obama, a hero of his, on multiple issues.


That's problematic too. What's taken so long? In 2011 Obama murdered an American without due process, and in 2012 he repressed the Occupy movement. That's when I stopped rationalizing Obama's corporate agenda.
 
 
+4 # geraldom 2014-07-21 14:49
Quoting Inspired Citizen:
Quoting Douglas Jack:
COGNITIVE DISSIDENCE I've been reading Parry for years now & this is the 1st time he is severely critical of Obama, a hero of his, on multiple issues.


That's problematic too. What's taken so long? In 2011 Obama murdered an American without due process, and in 2012 he repressed the Occupy movement. That's when I stopped rationalizing Obama's corporate agenda.


Inspired Citizen, you are incorrect. Obama didn't just murder one U.S. citizen in 2011 without any due process, Anwar al-Awlaki, he actually murdered a total of four U.S. citizens using U.S. drones, three in Yemen and one in Pakistan. Reference the following URL:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-were-the-4-us-citizens-killed-in-drone-strikes/

In the same drone attack that murdered Anwar al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, another U.S. citizen, was also murdered. Two weeks after murdering Anwar al-Awlaki, Obama then murdered his son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, without any due process. The following is a quote from fmr WH press secretary Robert Gibbs as to why it was okay to murder Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, Anwar al-Awlaki's son:

"He should have had a more responsible father!"

He was murdered for the sins of his father.

Perhaps Obama should find every relative existing today who's related to Adolph Hitler and murder them as well (and I am in no way comparing Anwar al-Awlaki to Hitler).
 
 
+2 # Kootenay Coyote 2014-07-21 07:12
Would that be Cognitive DISSONANCE?
 
 
+3 # Douglas Jack 2014-07-21 11:59
Kootenay, Here's from the Urban Dictionary, "'COGNITIVE DISSIDENT' = A person for whom exposure to cognitive dissonance has resulted in rational conclusions contrary to the 'official' narrative of history and/or culture. If this dissonance becomes great enough, the person will be compelled to start producing new cognitive dissonance, becoming a cognitive dissident. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cognitive%20dissident
An activist who disseminates information aimed at changing peoples opinions regarding an immoral status-quo could be regarded as a cognitive dissident.'"

One can say the 'Cognitive Dissident' is 'one in the know desiring to create healthy change' while 'Cognitive Dissidence' is the 'practice of cultivating knowledge to create healthy change'. We thus distinguish the 'dissident as a person' from 'dissidence as a practice'.

DISSIDENT mid 17th century: from Latin dissidentia, from dissident- ‘sitting apart’

There is a play of meaning across these terms.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2014-07-21 12:50
"...conflicts and wars get higher ratings for the MSM; so that tends to be the bias they have."

There's no doubt that the corporate media outlets compete with one another for ratings so as to increase their profitability.

However, I think the corporate owners of these outlets use the media as PR/propaganda "force multipliers." Their bias is built into them from the start. Their principle purpose is to normalize corporate interests such as militarism and consumerism, while stoking divisionism over "gods, guns and gays" so as to keep the people from thinking and acting collectively.
 
 
+13 # wantrealdemocracy 2014-07-20 19:54
Walking toward nacism/totalita rian system? We have arrived! Both the poison gas story and the Russians shooting down the plane over Ukraine are not true and were intended to get us into yet another war---like six at a time (or is is 8 or 9?) is not enough already to bankrupt our nation? Our dying empire is in the death knell now and is lashing out it hopes that just one more war and we might still win to establish the New World Order of total American control of the world.

False flag events -- these stories are both lies. We are fighting terrorists? Guess again. WE ARE THE WORST TERRORIST NATION ON EARTH...but Isreal is still in the running for that title.

If you get your 'news' on the major media, you are not getting a drop of truth. Sort of like they say---how do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
 
 
+10 # universlman 2014-07-20 13:31
The premise of this article just doesn't make sense.

The plane was flying away from Kiev and INTO rebel controlled air space. The Ukrainian Air Force has no reason to target this non-intrusion. If the Ukrainians really had fired the missile, the rebels would be escorting the inspectors into the crash site - not away.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2014-07-21 13:05
I don't pretend to know who is responsible for this tragic act, or even if it was deliberate or accidental, but Mr. Parry's "premise" does make sense.

1. The Ukrainian regime has moved enormous amounts of military into the "rebel controlled" east. Entire battalions, tanks, cannon and all the support necessary to operate such a war machine have been focused into the region.

2. The Ukrainian regime has been begging the U.S. to get even more involved both financially and militarily ever since the Ukrainian resistance proved more difficult to quash than expected. Obviously, this horrible event is increasing public opinion for the U.S. to get more involved.

3. I just saw a press conference by the head of one of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, (O.S.C.E.) units, who said they have had free access to the crash site and that the Ukrainian resistance fighters have been providing good site security. So, I wonder how accurate are the reports of armed thugs chasing off legitimate investigators.
 
 
+17 # Dorcas Black 2014-07-20 13:41
Mr. Parry has some points, but a U.S. political position despite doubts in the intelligence community is nothing new. On the other hand, it bothers me that the Ukrainian rebels are reportedly restricting access by independent investigators and may be tampering with evidence at the site. That's not the behavior of innocents who have nothing to hide. Right now, the weight of the evidence appears to be against the rebels. The real question isn't how much the U.S. may be to blame for fanning the flames or even if there is a rush to judgement, but what can we do to find the truth?
 
 
+8 # Activista 2014-07-20 17:49
rt.com/news/174204-ukraine-flight-recorders-plane/
The items will be passed to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) which will lead the investigation into the crash of flight MH17...
Why ICAO are sitting in Kiev and are not in Eastern Ukraine?
Kiev does not want ceasefire ...
 
 
+1 # Texas Aggie 2014-07-20 21:38
They're sitting there in Kiev because the separatists are threatening them when they come to eastern Ukraine.
 
 
+34 # Malcolm 2014-07-20 14:20
Who are we supposed to believe? The first casualty in any war is the truth.
 
 
+18 # WestWinds 2014-07-20 14:30
We need to ask ourselves who benefits most from such a savage act as this. The Russians? The Ukrainians? The US?
 
 
+23 # cwbystache 2014-07-20 15:09
I'd say it's the arms dealer(s).
 
 
+9 # oakes721 2014-07-20 15:27
The weapons makers are the first profiteers of wars. Following the business creed to "Create the need" demands that they instigate and provoke hatred, then sell to both sides. Who is the leading military manufacturer in the world today?
.
I recall a character in high school who had a reputation as being a good fighter. His sideline was to instigate fights amongst others, then bet money on them. Although probably expelled or otherwise a drop-out, the appropriately named Dick Cash probably would have been suited for some rank position in the Pentagon.
 
 
+4 # Texas Aggie 2014-07-20 21:35
Your question assumes the act was a deliberate attempt to take out a civilian plane. More likely is that the gunners having already taken out two Ukrainian military planes previously just thought this was another and didn't bother to check.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2014-07-23 23:30
Nobody benefits from this tragedy. I'm inclined to lean towards Texas Aggie's assessment until more convincing evidence appears--if it ever does.
 
 
+2 # cwbystache 2014-07-20 15:08
Keep picking out one thing after another from the bushel and when you get down to the bottom, you find the techno on the line who put together the missile to begin with and who then likely went home to a beer and his family and an evening with feet up, watching a World Cup. I do not see him anywhere in the "rush to judgement", however. The question isn't who fired the missile, it is, who built it.
 
 
+18 # HenryS1 2014-07-20 16:02
This is the best single article I've read on this subject.
 
 
+6 # Activista 2014-07-20 21:36
Agree - excellent analysis and information
 
 
+8 # Rafe Pilgrim 2014-07-20 16:38
Could it be that Obama and his English and Saudi compadres are endeavoring to switch off the Russian oil supply to Germany and other Western nations?
 
 
+2 # ericlipps 2014-07-20 17:18
Quoting Rafe Pilgrim:
Could it be that Obama and his English and Saudi compadres are endeavoring to switch off the Russian oil supply to Germany and other Western nations?

I don't think so. The political risks of such a strategy are much too high. Obama has shown himself as devoted to avoiding such risks, even when taking them offers the chance of significant rewards. Only when he feels he has no choice (as with the Affordable Care Act) has he acted differently.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2014-07-21 13:14
Ms. Clinton has already spoken to the EU, telling them that good U.S. natural gas is ready to replace that dirty Russian gas.

Meanwhile, VP Joe Biden's son and Sec. of State John Kerry's campaign manager have both been appointed to the board of Ukraine's largest private gas company.
 
 
+1 # dsepeczi 2014-07-22 07:21
Quoting Rafe Pilgrim:
Could it be that Obama and his English and Saudi compadres are endeavoring to switch off the Russian oil supply to Germany and other Western nations?


Though nobody but the people making backroom deals know everything there is to know, your suspicions might be further bolstered by a story I read the other day regharding the US lobbying effort in Europe to get the EU to accept gas from the Alberta tar sands, something their current standards would not allow them to do.
 
 
+10 # Curtis1027 2014-07-20 18:59
Parry mentions Kiev's aerial bombardment of the rebels as an aggravating factor that might have sparked a retaliation. Stephen Cohen put a darker slant on it, in Friday's Democracy Now. It is not just rebels. The bombing is indiscriminate, with the same toll on civilians as Israel inflicts on Palestinians in Gaza. With warplanes overhead much of the time it is not hard to see how a defender could get trigger happy. And have we forgotten that the US once shot down an airliner leaving Iran during the war between Iran and Iraq, presumably by accident?
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2014-07-21 13:21
Yes. Despite the corporate media's black out of coverage of the bombing, shelling and shooting of civilians in the east by the Ukrainian coup military, it has gone on daily for months. There is a possibility that the Ukrainian resistance has gotten SAMs capable of hitting a target at 30,000 feet, and if they did, they'd use it.

However, I've seen no definitive evidence for it, and some of the circumstantial evidence has already been disproven.
 
 
+20 # fredboy 2014-07-20 19:12
I recall very little outrage when the U.S. shot down an Iranian jetliner, killing all the civilians on board. Glad we are finally getting a conscience.
 
 
+13 # RMDC 2014-07-20 19:49
Thanks, Robert. this is some sanity amidst the craziness of people like John Kerry who is talking a blue streak of total nonsense.

RT did a nice job of showing how all the video Kerry, Obama and the US regime were feeding to the lapdog media were faked or did not show what the text said they showed.

My guess is this will blow back on the Obama regime in just the way the phony sarin gas in Syria story did. Obama's liars were all over the media talking about "proof" and then it was proved that Obama's mercenary proxy army released the sarin gas. This story will end up like that and it will be totally forgotten in the US.
 
 
+2 # geraldom 2014-07-21 15:30
RMDC, did you see that photograph of the pro-Russian soldier holding a doll in his hands from the crash debris? That photograph was tweeted all over the world to put the anti-Kiev government forces in a bad light.

I don't know if you watch RT news, and I don't know if any other news programs showed this, but while photographs were being taken of this soldier holding up this doll with a caption that he was collecting crash trophies, someone (thank God) was also filming him at the very same time. A high-level Dutch official, after viewing the photo only, vehemently condemned this soldier and the anti-Kiev forces in general for collecting trophies in such a situation.

RT news, showing this as an example of how the U.S. government uses what I call a image-in-time to falsely condemn the anti-Kiev forces as being evil, showed the complete video of what really happened. The separatist soldier was not holding the doll up as a trophy to be taken away, but as a sad moment that a child once owned the doll and is now dead. The soldier carefully put the doll back on the ground and then performed a Christian cross on his chest while shaken his head in mild disgust of what happened.

(Continued)
 
 
+3 # geraldom 2014-07-21 15:31
(Continued)

And, then I continue to hear incessant noise emanating from Obama's mouth, false accusations and lies about inappropriate behavior by the anti-Kiev forces in and around the crash scene. The OSCE claims that the rebel forces are cooperating fully with international agencies around the crash scene while Obama is claiming just the opposite. Reference the following article:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama--pro-russia-separatists-stealing-malaysia-airlines-crash-evidence-155449925.html

Obama also claimed that the rebel forces were removing bodies and evidence from the crash site, oftentimes without the care that we would normally expect. It’s about 30 degrees Celsius and the bodies needed to be moved into refrigerated rail cars to prevent any further deterioration of the bodies, and as of this morning, the train is now on its way to Amsterdam as requested by the Dutch government.

As I have repeated so many times in previous posts, I wish that Putin would tell Obama where to go stick it and to publicly charge Obama and the U.S. government with knowingly and purposely spreading false propaganda.
 
 
+1 # chemtex2611 2014-07-20 19:56
You might want to reserve judgement until you have checked Aviation Week. It appears that the missile is on satellite images
 
 
+3 # Activista 2014-07-20 21:49
Quoting chemtex2611:
You might want to reserve judgement until you have checked Aviation Week. It appears that the missile is on satellite images

The question is who fired the missile and why ... very likely fired by mistake ... Kiev is/was bombing Eastern Ukraine continuously - "At least 250 civilians were killed and over 850 wounded in June and July in the opposition-cont rolled city of Lugansk, which is besieged by the Ukrainian military, the daily report by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission said." this is Lugansk alone
 
 
+3 # Texas Aggie 2014-07-20 21:31
Rachel had an excellent show on just this topic - jumping to conclusions on the basis of information from people with the motive to spin the information. She then showed the facts that were known and provable by physical evidence, and the evidence showed that not only were the dissidents in possession of a missile battery capable of shooting down the airliner (they had previously taken down a Ukrainian troop transport plane and a fighter jet), but the Russians had been training them in its use prior to those actions. This latter had been documented a couple weeks prior to when they shot down the airliner.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2014-07-21 13:28
I watched that show also, and was impressed and optimistic that she began by criticizing some of the poorly-founded claims.

Unfortunately, she then went on to promote more unsubstantiated claims (some of which have now been shown to be bogus). She has been 100% supportive of the Ukrainian coup and has never once done a segment on the deliberate targeting of civilians by the regime.
 
 
+9 # AlWight 2014-07-20 22:09
Kerry is a loose cannon, and should be gagged until he is told what to say. Obama should know that you don't impose sanctions as a part if negotiation. If he knows he has no proof of Putin's guilt, his accusations are dishonest. If he doesn't understand, his judgment is questionable. He and Kerry are bringing back the Cold War, damaging attitudes toward the U.S., and potentially creating serious problems for the world.
 
 
+5 # geraldom 2014-07-21 00:03
You have to understand that the United States government and its puppet proxy army in Europe, NATO, are going for the jugular when it comes to Russia.

The United States wants full and complete control over all of Ukraine, and it will not accept anything less. Petro Poroshenko marches to United States orders.
 
 
+2 # dsepeczi 2014-07-22 07:27
Quoting geraldom:
You have to understand that the United States government and its puppet proxy army in Europe, NATO, are going for the jugular when it comes to Russia.

The United States wants full and complete control over all of Ukraine, and it will not accept anything less. Petro Poroshenko marches to United States orders.


Yes, he does, and thanks to Wiki Leaks, we know that Poroschenko has been working with the US for at least six years. Strange coincidence he got elected as Ukraine's new leader, isn't it ?
 
 
+5 # lewagner 2014-07-21 03:04
Interesting to read that NATO was doing AWACS exercises in the Black Sea ... Geez, I thought NATO was for the North Atlantic, but I suppose they've got business in the Black Sea from time to time, too.
http://libya360.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/mh-17-and-nato-excercise-breeze-2014/
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2014-07-21 13:35
Wow! Great find, lewagner. Thanks.
 
 
+2 # Steve B 2014-07-21 07:42
The entire Ukrainian "shituation" evokes this notion -- what if they gave a war and there were no good guys?
 
 
+1 # mmcmanus 2014-07-21 10:33
. . . which spurs another new rush to judgment against the President by Mr. Parry and all the clowns on fox "news".
 
 
0 # Pancho 2014-07-21 10:34
I thought that the contention that it was rebels who fired the missile was based in part on reported intercepted phone calls by Russian dissidents claiming rebel responsibility for the shoot down, mistaking it for a Ukranian government plane.

No?
 
 
0 # dsepeczi 2014-07-22 07:29
Quoting Pancho:
I thought that the contention that it was rebels who fired the missile was based in part on reported intercepted phone calls by Russian dissidents claiming rebel responsibility for the shoot down, mistaking it for a Ukranian government plane.

No?


There are some stories making those claims that may or may not be true. As someone stated earlier, the first casualty of war is the truth and it's very hard to discern what really happened at this time.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN