HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » MH17 Prosecutor Open to T...

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 01:40 AM

 

MH17 Prosecutor Open to Theory Another Plane Shot Down Airliner: Der Spiegel

Source: REUTERS

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch prosecutors investigating the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 believe the aircraft might have been shot down from the air but that a ground-to-air missile attack is more likely, a senior prosecutor said in a German media interview.

The Russian government has always said it has radar imagery proving the fully laden Boeing 777 was shot down by a Ukrainian military aircraft flying in its vicinity, but Western officials have never publicly accepted this scenario.

In an interview published by German newsmagazine Der Spiegel on Monday, prosecutor Fred Westerbeke said the Dutch would ask Moscow to provide the information that had led them to believe a Ukrainian aircraft was nearby.

Read more: http://www.newsweek.com/mh17-prosecutor-open-theory-another-plane-shot-down-airliner-der-spiegel-280073



Malaysia Airlines Update: Flight 17 Prosecutor Open to Idea that Airplane Shot it Down

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 could have been shot down by another aircraft, according to a report, and Dutch prosecutors have said Monday they’re open to the idea.

-clip-

“We are preparing a request to Moscow for information … including the radar data with which the Russians wanted to prove that a Ukrainian military jet was nearby,” Westerbeke added.

He also made reference to the photographs that Russia alleges to posses.

“Unfortunately we are not aware of the specific images in question. The problem is that there are many different satellite images. Some can be found on the Internet, whereas others originate from foreign intelligence services,” he told the magazine.

He added: “We are not certain whether we already have everything or if there are more — information that is possibly even more specific. In any case, what we do have is insufficient for drawing any conclusions. We remain in contact with the United States in order to receive satellite photos.”

more...

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1045491-malaysia-airlines-update-flight-17-prosecutor-open-to-idea-airplane-shot-it-down/

So, the Dutch investigators are waiting for 'satellite photos' from the United States? Just what is the delay in providing those photos one must wonder...

88 replies, 6805 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 88 replies Author Time Post
Reply MH17 Prosecutor Open to Theory Another Plane Shot Down Airliner: Der Spiegel (Original post)
Purveyor Oct 2014 OP
jakeXT Oct 2014 #1
cosmicone Oct 2014 #2
joshcryer Oct 2014 #4
Octafish Oct 2014 #7
brooklynite Oct 2014 #9
Octafish Oct 2014 #13
joshcryer Oct 2014 #10
Octafish Oct 2014 #14
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #11
Octafish Oct 2014 #15
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #17
GGJohn Oct 2014 #38
KingCharlemagne Oct 2014 #22
cosmicone Oct 2014 #32
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #33
joshcryer Oct 2014 #3
ColesCountyDem Oct 2014 #5
ballyhoo Oct 2014 #18
ColesCountyDem Oct 2014 #19
ballyhoo Oct 2014 #24
ColesCountyDem Oct 2014 #25
ballyhoo Oct 2014 #27
ColesCountyDem Oct 2014 #30
ballyhoo Oct 2014 #31
ColesCountyDem Oct 2014 #34
Adrahil Oct 2014 #6
reorg Oct 2014 #35
geek tragedy Oct 2014 #49
geek tragedy Oct 2014 #8
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #12
Tommy_Carcetti Oct 2014 #16
elias49 Oct 2014 #20
happyslug Oct 2014 #21
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #26
ballyhoo Oct 2014 #28
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #29
joshcryer Oct 2014 #42
joshcryer Oct 2014 #43
ballyhoo Oct 2014 #50
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #51
Duckhunter935 Oct 2014 #76
daleo Oct 2014 #86
Blue_Tires Oct 2014 #23
reorg Oct 2014 #36
ballyhoo Oct 2014 #37
elias49 Oct 2014 #39
geek tragedy Oct 2014 #40
reorg Oct 2014 #44
geek tragedy Oct 2014 #47
reorg Oct 2014 #57
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #59
Karmadillo Oct 2014 #63
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #66
Karmadillo Oct 2014 #71
reorg Oct 2014 #64
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #68
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #52
GGJohn Oct 2014 #53
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #55
reorg Oct 2014 #56
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #58
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #60
reorg Oct 2014 #61
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #62
reorg Oct 2014 #65
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #67
reorg Oct 2014 #69
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #70
reorg Oct 2014 #72
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #73
reorg Oct 2014 #74
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #75
reorg Oct 2014 #78
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #79
reorg Oct 2014 #80
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #81
The Magistrate Oct 2014 #54
joshcryer Oct 2014 #41
reorg Oct 2014 #45
joshcryer Oct 2014 #46
reorg Oct 2014 #82
geek tragedy Oct 2014 #48
salib Oct 2014 #77
Nihil Oct 2014 #83
salib Oct 2014 #84
Nihil Oct 2014 #85
ozone_man Oct 2014 #87
Reter Oct 2014 #88

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 02:25 AM

1. National security it's for everything /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 06:12 AM

2. Fat chance the PNACistas in the US government will

 

release evidence of their boys behaving badly.

Perhaps the Dutch investigators would get more cookies....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #2)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 06:44 AM

4. Your implication is disgusting.

That the west would purposefully shoot down a plane is disgusting. Especially since nothing was gained. Absolutely nothing. The nearest conspiracy I can believe is that the rebels were instructed to shoot down a Russian plane, which could have happened had the Buk been in another town with a similar name. Otherwise no one gains. Literally no one but Russia had a stake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #4)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 08:06 AM

7. Operation NORTHWOODS

U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba

By David Ruppe, ABC News, May 1, 2001

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

SNIP...

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

CONTINUED...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

So, while it is disgusting, killing innocent civilians is a disgusting tactic employed by a certain class of covert operator, including the leadership of the US military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #7)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 08:15 AM

9. Well, if we're able to go back 50+ years ago...

Last edited Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)

We might find some Soviet policies that were equally militaristic. But that wouldn't work with your narrative, would it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:12 AM

13. My ''narrative'' is to tell the truth.

Not much of a story there, evidently, for some people.

Did I "invent" NORTHWOODS? Is it a fable? No. It's what the Joint Chiefs wanted to do to get a war with Cuba.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #7)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 08:43 AM

10. There was nothing to be gained.

Literally nothing was gained. If the west did it then they would have, naturally, pounced upon the opportunity, they didn't, therefore it is highly unlikely that the west was involved. It is irrational and hateful to suggest that the west did anything.

It was an accident. If it wasn't an accident then Russia is the most likely state to be implicated. We can find similar events relating to Russian MIHOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:14 AM

14. Who knows? It looks like an intentional act, to me.

So far, the governments of Ukraine, Russia, and the United States have not seen fit to share what they know with the public -- most un-democratic, you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #7)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:01 AM

11. It Is Worth Pointing Out, Sir

That this was proposed, but it was not done.

People cite it as evidence the U.S. has done things like this, and so some speculation that a current event was really done by the United States should be taken as well founded. In fact, it is nothing of the sort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #11)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:24 AM

15. True, Sir. It was not done, thank JFK. But those at the top of the MIC thought it a good idea.

Consider what else they proposed to President Kennedy:



Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?

Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s.

James K. Galbraith and Heather A. Purcell
The American Prospect | September 21, 1994

During the early 1960s the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) introduced the world to the possibility of instant total war. Thirty years later, no nation has yet fired any nuclear missile at a real target. Orthodox history holds that a succession of defensive nuclear doctrines and strategies -- from "massive retaliation" to "mutual assured destruction" -- worked, almost seamlessly, to deter Soviet aggression against the United States and to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

The possibility of U.S. aggression in nuclear conflict is seldom considered. And why should it be? Virtually nothing in the public record suggests that high U.S. authorities ever contemplated a first strike against the Soviet Union, except in response to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, or that they doubted the deterrent power of Soviet nuclear forces. The main documented exception was the Air Force Chief of Staff in the early 1960s, Curtis LeMay, a seemingly idiosyncratic case.

But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R., based on our growing lead in land-based missiles. And top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963.

The document reproduced opposite is published here for the first time. It describes a meeting of the National Security Council on July 20, 1961. At that meeting, the document shows, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the CIA, and others presented plans for a surprise attack. They answered some questions from Kennedy about timing and effects, and promised further information. The meeting recessed under a presidential injunction of secrecy that has not been broken until now.

CONTINUED...

http://prospect.org/article/did-us-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963



Here's the memorandum of the meeting, the sole known surviving copy of which was found by Robert McNamara among LBJ's papers.

Thankfully, President Kennedy said no to that CIA-Pentagon plan, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #15)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:41 AM

17. Again, Sir: The Thought Is Not The Deed

The Beatitudes are an interesting sermon, but to have formed in your mind not just the thought but the intent to do a thing, is not actually the same as having done it.

This plan was never carried out.

Therefore it cannot be said 'this was done before, so it was done now, again'. It was never done, it was only thought of. You could rightly say to someone who says 'they would never think of doing this' that yes, they have thought of it. But you cannot rightly say they have done it again, just like they did it before.

I doubt anyone with much awareness of events in the early stages of the Cold War has ever had any doubts proposals and plans for a first strike against the Soviet Union were put forward. At the time it was proposed, it made a certain cold, purely military sense. My own view is that we were lucky to have had Gen. Eisenhower as President in that period, though he is not much to my taste over-all. I doubt Mr. Stevenson would have been able to hold the military in check, particularly Gen. LeMay, and think it quite likely we would have had a coup, and these plans carried out. Eisenhower had far too great a military prestige to be dismissed as a meddling civilian, and could not have been rolled by the worst of the hawks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #15)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 10:46 PM

38. And the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact had plans for first strike on the US and NATO also.

So what? That's what war planners do, they plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #4)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:13 AM

22. How soon they forget:

 

Iran Air Flight 655 is an Iran Air civilian passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai. On 3 July 1988, the aircraft operating this route was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes. The incident took place in Iranian airspace, over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, and on the flight's usual flight path. The aircraft, an Airbus A300 B2-203, was destroyed by SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles fired from Vincennes.

All 290 on board, including 66 children and 16 crew, died. This event ranks seventh among the deadliest disasters in aviation history, 10th if including the 9/11 attacks, which include ground casualties; the incident retains the highest death toll of any aviation incident in the Persian Gulf. The cruiser Vincennes had entered Iranian territorial waters after one of its helicopters drew warning fire from Iranian speedboats operating within Iranian territorial limits.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Said then-VP (and soon to be Prez) George H.W. Bush at the time: "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

USA! USA! USA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #4)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 12:39 PM

32. You and PNACistas implication is even more disgusting

 

that the rebels somehow purposely shot down the plane because nothing was gained by the rebels either.

But ... let's follow the evidence ... Russia has provided radar and satellite images as proof. Let's see if the PNACistas have the guts to give undoctored images to the Dutch investigators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #32)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 12:47 PM

33. Actually, Sir, That Is Not A Common Charge

The general consensus among those who reject the various 'false flag' concoctions of the Russian government, and the pitiable likes of Zuesse and Parry, is that the secessionists thought they were firing at a Ukrainian military transport, and acting under that mistaken belief proceeded to shoot down an airliner. If the training of the crew was poor, if the system was not complete in its detection and guidance systems, this could amount to criminal negligence, but that is another matter....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 06:42 AM

3. Delusional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 06:49 AM

5. "...Westerbeke said the Dutch would ask Moscow to provide the information...."

One must also wonder what is the reason for Moscow's delay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColesCountyDem (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 10:09 AM

18. How do you connotate "would ask" with some

 

kind of Moscow delay? In this new fascist world why would any government do anything without a formal request?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ballyhoo (Reply #18)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 10:36 AM

19. Just highlighting this bit of disingenuous snark from the OP:

"... So, the Dutch investigators are waiting for 'satellite photos' from the United States? Just what is the delay in providing those photos one must wonder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColesCountyDem (Reply #19)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:35 AM

24. Okay. Sorry, CCD.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ballyhoo (Reply #24)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:38 AM

25. No blood, no foul, ballyhoo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColesCountyDem (Reply #25)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:48 AM

27. The more I read about this thing, the more I think my

 

original thought is right. Neither the Russian separatists or the Ukrianians RA's did it. It was a third Party FF themselves or on behalf of yet another. I'm still waiting for the Dutch report. Those people don't lie, unlike the rest, even at the promise of money or favors. Later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ballyhoo (Reply #27)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 12:31 PM

30. I will also trust the Dutch inspectors' final determination.

The Dutch are scrupulously honest in such matters. That said, I will also draw everyone's attention to the Dutch spokesman's modifier/qualifier "however unlikely" (my words/paraphrasing) said putative evidence is or may be. I admire the inspector's willingness to consider all evidence, while at the same time realizing that not all evidence carries equal weight, in a probative sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColesCountyDem (Reply #30)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 12:39 PM

31. Excellent, CCD. I agree 100 per cent. You sure write well, ace. Well,

 

I'm in another thread arguing about what the Pope said today about God. I have to stop posting for a while I am so pissed off. I'll talk to you later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ballyhoo (Reply #31)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 12:50 PM

34. Thank you, and enjoy! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 07:00 AM

6. The article simply says...

 

... The investigative team will consider all possibilities, as they should. The evidence so far is overwhelmingly that the plane was brought down by a SAM.

But this will give Putin's lapdogs here something to talk about for a bit.

I will say this. If the the evidence actually supports that the plane was brought down by an AAM, then I will support running down those responsible and prosecuting them, whoever they might be.

Putin's little minions here will not support the same on their end, I'm sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 06:42 PM

35. No, that's not what the article says

Mr Westerbeke says nothing about "overwhelming" evidence, as whoever's little minions may have you believe.


Based on what little they have yet collected in terms of evidence, it is his "opinion that a shooting down by a surface to air missile remains the most likely scenario."

According to the short excerpt of the interview that Der Spiegel published in English.

And here is the statement in its orginal context, from the much longer German version of the interview which is mostly about the lack of evidence and Mr Westerbeke's expectation that the investigation may drag on for several years:

Question (my translation): For a while now, Moscow is spreading the version that the airliner was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet. Do you think that is possible?

Westerbeke: Going by the information available, a shooting down by a surface to air missile still remains the most likely scenario in my eyes. But we are not closing our eyes to the possibility that things might have been different.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Moskau verbreitet seit einiger Zeit die Version, das Passagierflugzeug sei durch einen ukrainischen Kampfjet abgeschossen worden. Halten Sie das für möglich?

Westerbeke: Ausgehend von den vorliegenden Informationen ist der Abschuss durch eine Boden-Luft-Rakete in meinen Augen noch immer das wahrscheinlichste Szenario. Aber wir verschließen nicht die Augen vor der Möglichkeit, dass es anders gewesen sein könnte.

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/mh17-ermittler-westerbeke-ueber-den-absturz-in-der-ukraine-a-999193.html


"Moscow", of course, is not "spreading" this version, they simply asked the question what the SU-25 caught on radar in the vicinity of the airliner was doing there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #35)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 08:26 AM

49. Angling for that Fox News or Russian state media gig?

 

"Moscow", of course, is not "spreading" this version, they simply asked the question what the SU-25 caught on radar in the vicinity of the airliner was doing there.


This of course is the classic liar's technique known as the "loaded question."

The question includes an embedded, and here COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED factual claim, i.e. the "SU-25 caught on radar in the vicinity of the airliner."

The only people who have made that claim are the fascist regime in Moscow and its apologist and volunteer propagandists.

So, yes, Moscow IS spreading the claim that there was an SU-25 plane in the vicinity. They are not 'asking' anything.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 08:15 AM

8. Pretty desperate spin.

 

They said they think it was shot down from the ground but hey Pooty Poot if you have evidence otherwise pony up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:09 AM

12. The Newsweek Article, Sir, Engages In Some Distortion

One supposes for sensationalism's sake.

The operative quote is this: "Based on the information available, a shooting-down by a ground-to-air missile is the most likely scenario, but we aren't closing our eyes to the possibility that it could have happened differently," Der Spiegel quoted him ( Westerbeke ) as saying." To say one is 'not closing one's eyes to' a possibility is very far from thinking there is some reason to believe that possibility is even a likely one, let alone accepting it as an alternative explanation. The opening sentence "Dutch prosecutors investigating the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 believe the aircraft might have been shot down from the air but that a ground-to-air missile attack is more likely, a senior prosecutor said in a German media interview" is not backed up by the actual quote, and distorts the actual quote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:32 AM

16. In other words, Russia needs to put up or shut up regarding its theory of events.

The same could be said for Bob Parry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #16)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 10:51 AM

20. Yes indeed. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:03 AM

21. This is beginning to look like the Rebels locked on one plane, but the missile hit another.

 

You must understand how such missiles work. The missile is launched once radar has located a target and transferred that target to the missile. Once the missile is "Locked on" it is fired and the missile own guidance system makes adjustments so it hits its target.

The problem is such "locked on" are not always 100% perfect and it is possible for a missile to lose its target and then regain it. In Combat this increases the ability of the Missile to stay on target, but it also permits the missile to lock onto something else.

In heat seeking missiles, flares were one way to cause the missile to lose its "Lock on" and to lock on to something other then the target. In radar guided missiles similar techniques are possible, for example during WWII and afterward it was common for planes to release hundreds of strands of Aluminum cut to the same wave length as the radar signal to block and confuse the radar guided missile.

As I wrote above, modern missiles have ways to work around such attempts to block their homing device, but sometime such systems work to well. i.e. The Anti Aircraft missile was fired at an Ukrainian War Plane, but as the missile homed in, its radar caught the signal bounced off the passenger plane and dismissed the war plane was a diversion device. Once the internal radar had dismissed the actual target as a diversion device, the missile then homed in on the larger passenger plane as its target.

Thus the Russians may have a radar signal from its own radar showing a missile from the Ukrainian War Plane to the Passenger plane, but the actual Missile was NOT fired by the Ukrainian War plane, but was the AA missile dismissing the war plane as a diversion device and re-aiming itself onto the passenger plane.

Thus both sides may be telling the truth, but the truth as they want it to be. The Russians saying their Radar showing the Missile coming from the area of the Ukrainian Warplane and heading for the Passenger Plane, and the Ukrainians saying they fired no missile.

If the above occurred, why was the Ukrainian Warplanes that close to the Passenger plane? Where they trying to sneak into the Eastern Ukraine hoping that the larger radar target of the passenger plane would cover up they flying on the same route and time? That seems to be the best explanation for any Ukrainian Plane being near the passenger plane.

The above would also explain why it has taken so long to get the data from the Ukraine and Russia, both are looking at the same data to see what the data actually shows, i.e. The Ukraine wants to show the good safe distance between the Warplanes and the Passenger jet, the Russians wants to see if the Radar shows them as one group of plane or separate planes (and to get data from the Missile launcher to see what it actually locked on as viewed by the operators of that missile as opposed to what the Radar data bank shows what the Missile locked on). We are thus talking about highly sophisticated radar system that Russia and the Ukraine may NOT want anyone to know about including HOW they operate.

Russia has also been working on come computer driven sound systems, as a passive AA system, since the 1980s. Such a system is less capable then Radar against conventional targets, but has two huge advantages. First, such systems are "passive" they are NOT sending out radar signals to bounce back to it. Such Radar Signals indicate where the Radar is located and has been a way to located and destroy such Radars since WWII. Special missiles that follow such signals back to their source has been used since at least Vietnam. Sound being passive can NOT be detected by simply waiting for the radar to pick you up. Such a system could locate a plane and then fire shells or missiles at the target as the actual launcher moves to another launch point (i.e. by the time the launch point is determined using Anti-Missile radar the launcher has moved on). A YF-119 is believed to have been downed by such a system during the fighting in Serbia in the late 1990s.

The downing of the YF-119 in Serbia shows the other advantage of the sound system, radar cloaking devices do not work against them for they are NOT using Radar but instead are relying on sound, including sound detectors from various sources which may be miles away from the actual AA weapon. Such a system would be a good compliment to a radar base system. With modern computers and communications systems a doable system.

I mention the Sound Based system to show the Russians may have good reasons to DELAY sending out the Data. Such Data can show not only how their Radar Works but also how it is used in conjunction with other systems. Before such data is released the agency that controls the AA system will have to see what can be derived from the release of the data. That takes time and a little debate as the agency has to determine what NATO already knows of the Radar system and how much NATO can learn of the Russian Radar system by the release of the Radar data. Once that is determined the Data will be released. The same with the Ukraine, while using Russian Radar systems, how the Ukraine operates their system is something the Russians may not know and the Ukrainian do NOT want the Russians to know. Again an internal debate on what to release.

Remember we are talking of Radar that are interconnected with the Radar Defense system of both nations, that by itself will work to delay any release of the Radar data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #21)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:43 AM

26. A Couple Of Small Points, Sir

The aluminum strips ( 'chaff' or 'tinsel' ) were employed most usually to blank the radar control of night fighters. No radar guided missiles are known to have been employed in the Second World War. There was a radar system of control being developed for the 'Wasserfall' missile to enable its use at night, but no confirmed use of the device in action. Another thing the 'chaff' was used on occassion for was to give false signals to a radar system; a group of aircraft, if precisely flown and operated, could give a passable imitation of a convoy or fleet in motion by this means.

Sound detection devices date back a long time, and were used not only for tracking aeroplanes but also locating artillery batteries. The time lag is a problem, given the speeds of modern combat aircraft. One of the points of vulnerability for 'stealth' aircraft is the release of munitions, as the bombs have not been 'stealthy' themselves, and their appearance reveals a location to radar. Knowing where to look gives a greater chance of detecting the tiny signature of the aircraft. Even without this, it would be possible to fire an old fashioned 'box' barrage of anti-aircraft ordnance around the location of the machine when it released bombs, with a fair chance of success if the pattern were dense enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #21)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:57 AM

28. More succinctly, are you suggesting that the rebel SAM

 

accidentally hit MH17 as it was under fire by a Ukrainian AAM, which was the actual target of the rebel SAM?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ballyhoo (Reply #28)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 12:05 PM

29. No, Sir, That Is Not What He Suggests

He is suggesting the secessionists fired a missile at a Ukrainian machine, but that, having neared the Ukrainian machine, it took that for a decoy, and locked onto the airliner, altering course, and so providing a sort of track from near such a proposed Ukrainian plane toward the airliner. If such a thing had occurred, one could provide only a portion of the record, and claim one had evidence a missile went from the one to the other. It is an interesting speculation, but has an awful lot of moving parts, and not much to rest on, either.

The fact is, there is not much real doubt that what happened is the secessionists took the airliner for a Ukrainian military transport, fired at it, and hit it. An error, though there could be some element of negligence of sufficient degree to elevate it to a crime, depending on level of training of the operators and completeness and maintenance of the system they operated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ballyhoo (Reply #28)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 01:36 AM

42. It is more likely they thought it was an Il-76.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #21)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 01:44 AM

43. Buk isn't like that.

You can play with a simulator here: https://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

It's a radar lock. It does not attract to heat signatures. It will not acquire until it's well on its way and then it will not "relock" to something else. Once you fire it, it's going to the original radar lock.

The timing window is less than 5 minutes if I recall correctly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #43)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 09:39 AM

50. And when it hits its blows the entire plane apart--not

 

make discernible machine gun holes on the outside of the plane. Something other than a BUK brought down MH17. The Dutch prosecutor purposely let the possibility get out because that is their best guess right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ballyhoo (Reply #50)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 10:13 AM

51. Not True, Sir --- Not That That Is New For You, Of Course

The missile does not by any means invariably 'blow the entire plane apart'. It does not destroy by blast wave, but by fragmentation, delivering a large quantity of pieces of fairly uniform size at high velocity. There is some sophisticated design necessary to get this effect in useful form, and no one would bother with the effort if blast itself would serve the turn. What fragmentation will do is necessarily variable, and depends on many contingent factors, the most important of which would be relative positions of warhead and target and target structure. For the aircraft to break up, the fragments would have to damage essential structural elements sufficiently to make them unable to withstand the stresses of flight. This is much less likely than is damage which renders the aircraft unable to continue flying, or which puts the crew out of action: in both these situations, the airplane will break up before it hits the ground, because in falling it will encounter stresses it was not constructed to withstand, and if damaged by a fragmentation blast, it will be even weaker than standard.

The fragments produced by detonation of a war-head of the sort used by the missile in question do, in fact, punch nice discrete holes in the skin of an aircraft. This is what pieces of hard metal moving at high velocities do to things, particularly to thin sheets of softer metal.

The Dutch prosecutor did not do what you claim. What he did was answer a reporter's question, and he did it quite dismissively. Here, again, is what he actually said:

"Based on the information available, a shooting-down by a ground-to-air missile is the most likely scenario, but we aren't closing our eyes to the possibility that it could have happened differently," Der Spiegel quoted him ( Westerbeke ) as saying."

This is simply the normal response of a man in charge of an on-going investigation saying what it is his job to say, that he is keeping an open mind in public, and will say nothing definite until his work is complete. and his report rendered and charges preferred.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ballyhoo (Reply #50)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 08:23 PM

76. and you are completely wrong on that account

 

It is a proximity warhead like the BUK is used to increase the effectiveness with aircraft targets. Thousands of pellet sized fragments are exploded in the path of the target to make a very large area the kill zone. Does not work as well for missiles so Patriot and THAAD missiles have switched to hit to kill kinetic vehicles. Original Patriot and HAWK missiles used the same proximity type of warhead. The missiles also have and rear antenna that follows the missile guidance radar beam to the target after missile lock. Normally three separate radars are used. Acquisition, Tracking and missile guidance. All have to be properly adjusted aligned and the system receivers tuned for the system to work at all. these all can be on the same vehicle, I have worked on the SA-6 and SA-8 and SA-11 (simulator) systems.

That is with 30 years of ADA experience under my belt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #21)

Fri Oct 31, 2014, 10:23 AM

86. I have considered this as a possibility as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:17 AM

23. But the aircraft was attacked from the front?

Which no fighter pilot would ever do...The penetration holes from explosive fragments entered on the left side of the cockpit, kind of underneath...

Then there is also the question of why the Ukrainians would be attacking *ANY* aircraft since they had complete air superiority in the region...

And to answer your question at the bottom, the U.S. is almost certainly waiting for Russia to show theirs first...But even you already know that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 06:55 PM

36. I don't think they will ever release the satellite photos

because they most likely prove that no ground to air missile system was used by the self defense forces in Eastern Ukraine.

According to a German military expert, Oberst a. D. Bernd Biedermann, who has personal experience with and authored a book about the missile system in question, the probability that a BUK missile launcher was used to shoot down MH17 is practically nil. If hit by a "Fla" missile, an airliner would have gone up in flames in mid-air, he avers, which MH17 obviously did not. He also mentions a few other clues why it seems much more likely that an air to air missile was the cause of the crash.



http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/940136.reibungshitze-haette-alles-entflammt.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #36)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 10:31 PM

37. Well, it would have been nice to get an English playback

 

of that video. I've had other people suggest the same thing to me, some saying "if a BUK hit it wouldn't there be a bigger hole..." Maybe some kind of game is being played. I don't know if the West will release anything, but I imagine Vlad Putin will if it's exculpatory. The machine gun bullets on the front did it for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #36)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:03 PM

39. Maybe The Magistrate can untangle this bit..?? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #36)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 01:23 AM

40. Funny how every other missile expert disagrees with this character.

 

His theories are about as credible as the 'scientists' who reject evolution and global warming.

Shrapnel from missiles do not instantly combust upon impact. They certainly would not have caused the whole plans to vaporize or fireball.

P .S. This clown's qualifications are service in East Germany's military.

No one outside of the Kremlin Loyalty Squad buys the bullshit you are peddling. Maybe your friends at the Saker will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #40)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 03:13 AM

44. You probably haven't read the report

by Ivan A. Andrievskii, First Vice-President of the All-Russian Public Organization Russian Union of Engineers, Chairman of the Board of Engineering Company “2К”.

... The warhead detonation causes an aerial shockwave, which results in a high-speed fragment distribution. The fragments are capable of breaking an airplane fuselage, but taking into account the dimensions of a Boeing 777 (63.7m length, with a large wingspan of over 60 m), they still cannot destroy the airplane, causing its fragmentation into several smaller parts, as is the case with aircraft that are 7-10 times smaller in size. When hitting a Boeing 777 such fragments may cause disruptions of fuel flow and lead to the leakage of fuel over the fuselage and wings and its subsequent ignition leading to a fire. ...

http://therebel.org/en/voltaire-net/799717-analysis-of-the-reasons-for-the-crash-of-flight-mh17-by-ivan-a-andrievskii

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #44)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 08:20 AM

47. You just contradicted yourself in your selection of nutjob theorists, Comrade.

 

Your first bogus expert claimed that the plane COULD NOT have been hit by a fragmentation missile because the plane would have gone up in flames.

Now you're quoting some other random guy affiliated with the Russian government and its more fascist elements , published at a website run by clinically insane conspiracy theorists, saying that the missile could not have destroyed the plane and only cites ignition as a possibility but also says the plane could have been disabled, but who dishonestly cites the failure of pilots to give a distress call as a reason to discount a SAM attack, when in fact the missile hit the cockpit, which would OBVIOUSLY have prevented a distress call.

Putin loyalists who claim MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian plane are no more credible than the people who claim the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane on 9/11/01.

Do you really believe the fascist propaganda you're peddling here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #47)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 11:53 AM

57. The US government should really put an end to this

endless speculation by these nutjobs and release the satellite picture they claim to have. But I suspect they won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #57)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 12:14 PM

59. There Is Nothing To Put An End To, Sir

The kind of swill the Kremlin feeds the fever swamps is not even pretended to be true by its professional authors: its purpose is only to bolster the faithful and confuse the issue for the uninformed and unintelligent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #59)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 12:35 PM

63. Really? Seems like releasing the evidence held in secret by the USA might

go some distance towards helping us understand what actually happened. One might wonder if the evidence remains secret because it might help us to wrong sort of understanding, but who knows? Otherwise, we're just left with internet speculation and the kind of swill the USA feeds the fever swamps (which is often pretended to be true by its professional authors).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karmadillo (Reply #63)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 12:41 PM

66. Not Going To Argue With You, Sir

I will only say that I have no doubt at all that all claims of agency other than a surface to air missile are false, and that that missile was fired by secessionists who thought they were firing at a Ukrainian military transport. This is based on thorough examination of all publicly available information, and some knowledge of the implements involved. It is more than enough for anyone who is not deliberately trying to obscure and shift blame off shoulders uncomfortable under it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #66)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 03:46 PM

71. Not that your opinion isn't valued, but it seems the suppressed hard evidence

subjected to expert scrutiny would lead to a much more valuable conclusion. One can only wonder why the USA is so hesitant to release what it has. And while many yearn for that Cold War binary certainty of either you're with us or you're with the enemy, I think it's fair to say those of us seeking facts before conclusions are not "deliberately trying to obscure and shift blame off shoulders uncomfortable under it." More a case of attempting to put blame where it belongs rather than where we wish it to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #59)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 12:37 PM

64. Well, the victims' lawyer and the prosecutor above seem to think otherwise

They would certainly welcome the release of the ominous satellite pictures the US government claims to have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #64)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 12:52 PM

68. Already Dealt With, Sir....

"Say something once, why say it again."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #44)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 10:21 AM

52. You Just Cannot Stop Yourself From Linking To Anti-Semitic Hate Sites, Sir, Can You

Have you ever paused to wonder why it is that you can hardly find material supporting your views outside the fever-swamps of racist hate and bigotry?


http://therebel.org/en/editorial/786812-jews-are-so-clever-not

Jews, not Americans, are the most stupid people on Earth

In the past, I always thought Americans are the most stupid people on the planet and I know for a fact that a lot of people feel the same. Obviously there is plenty of evidence available to support that sentiment, for example the re-election of President Obama. I don't hold it against the American people though. They have been systematically and deliberately dumbed down for the past 100 years to make it easier for the ‘elite’ to transform what once was the world’s most innovative and dynamic country into a Kosher Nostra run prison farm.

A good example is the explanation Jew-lovers often give for the overrepresentation of Jews in all areas of the American and British establishment. It’s usually something like Jews are just more intelligent than everyone else. The exact opposite is true. Many statistics related to that matter prove that Jews have a lower IQ than White people (see http://therebel.org/en/books/jewry/716385-are-jews-intelligent) but the Jew media successfully have made everyone believe otherwise.

More proof is the fact that the Jews keep making the same mistakes over and over again and expect a different result. They keep behaving like parasites towards their host nations until they had enough and get rid of them. 200 expulsions in the past 2000 years, one every 10 years, clearly demonstrate that. Last time it happened, it took the military might of the world’s three most powerful countries to rescue the Jews. (see Eustace Mullins' The Biological Jew)

Next time around, the Jews won’t get off the hook that easily. Us ‘dumb Goyims’ might be a bit slow at figuring out what a deadly parasites the Jews are, because we are just too nice to suspect that anyone could be as nasty as the Jews, but once we do figure it out, we are prepared to take the necessary steps. And – different from the Jews - we do learn from our past mistakes. We know by now that Adolf Hitler was way too nice to the Jews. Next time, there won’t be any negotiations and no prisoners. We will solve the problem once and for all.

( the link embedded in this, by the way, is a real treat and a half )

( and of course, citing the late un-lamented Eustace Mullins --- look him up, but not after you have eaten )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #44)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 10:28 AM

53. Why are you linking to a bigoted hate site?

You think this furthers your cause? You expect anyone will take you seriously by linking to these sites?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #53)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 11:33 AM

55. He Not Only Does It Repeatedly, Sir, He Defends Them....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025546464#post40

From the link above you can follow his vigorous defense of 'vineyard of the saker', where this can be found:

"I am fully aware of the role which Jews played in the horrors of the 20th century, I am aware that they declared war on Russia first, and on Germany after that (both times the order came from organized American Jewry and Jewish banks), I loathe both Rabbinical Judaism and Zionism because both are based on self-worship and racism. I don't need lectures on all the bad things Jews have done or are still doing. Believe me, I have read more anti-Jewish books than most people here (if only because I read them all not only English, but also in Russian which has at least 10 times as many anti-Jewish books as there are in English).

I will go as far as saying that Rabbinical Judaism is, in my sincerely held conclusion, Satanic at its core and at least as evil as Wahabi Islam."

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/05/ukrainian-news-two-phone-call-leaks.html

( scroll down to the blue text )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #53)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 11:50 AM

56. It is? URL showed up first when looking for the article in English

Last edited Wed Oct 29, 2014, 04:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Voltairenet is apparently the original place:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article185484.html

I don't think the article contains anything bigoted, but thank you for the information about the site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #56)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 12:11 PM

58. Face It, Sir: Bigots And Loons All The Way Down

http://www.voltairenet.org/article183486.html

Blackstone and Jacob Rothschild, beneficiaries of Malaysia Airlines flight disappearance ?
by Alfredo Jalife-Rahme
The international search for missing flight MH 370 showed that Washington was able to track the aircraft well beyond what it has admitted so far and that it waited a week before revealing what it knew. The search also showed that China lacks the refuelling ports to deploy its navy over such a large area. But beyond the news item and the respective strategic capabilities that it brought to light, this enigmatic disappearance has made at least some people happy: Blackstone and Jacob Rothschild.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article167733.html

Wikileaks: a big dangerous US Government Con Job
by F. William Engdahl
The story on the surface makes for a script for a new Oliver Stone Hollywood thriller. However, a closer look at the details of what has so far been carefully leaked by the most ultra-establishment of international media such as the New York Times reveals a clear agenda. That agenda coincidentally serves to buttress that of US geopolitics around the world from Iran to North Korea. The Wikileaks is a big and dangerous US intelligence Con Job which will likely be used to police the Internet.



Again, you really have to ask yourself: why is every source where you find your views in citeable form a nest of bigots and loons? Just maybe, it has something to do with the quality of your ideas and thought....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #56)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 12:17 PM

60. And It Is Always Humorous, Sir, When People Claim The Hate Site 'Just Popped At The Top' Of A Search

And that they had no idea what its content was....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #60)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 12:28 PM

61. As trustful and friendly as ever

no surprise here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #61)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 12:34 PM

62. Why Does It Never Take Me More Than Seconds To Find The Hate On These Sites, Sir?

One click was all it took on the 'rebel', and three only on the other.

There is no reason whatever to suppose you do not know perfectly well what you are linking to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #62)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 12:39 PM

65. Because you are looking for it?

Instead of commenting on the cited materials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #65)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 12:47 PM

67. Do I Expect You To Link To Hate Sites, Sir? Yes

Though it remains a cold fact that sites hosting material supporting the 'false flag' claims of the Kremlin in this matter generally do features racist and bigoted content, laced strongly with outright lunacy: it is not just you particularly, in other words, but the general run of people who purport to believe this swill. By now the thing has got well over into 'walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, spotted in a flock of ducks' territory....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #67)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 01:17 PM

69. RT is "racist and bigoted"?

I also didn't see anything racist or bigoted in the articles you found at Voltaire.net, but that may be because I don't have the time to read them carefully, or check the site out for more than a few minutes.

We already discussed briefly that your claims of racism and bigotry about that one other site we don't mention here are spurious, too, since the site owner has explicitly distanced himself from anonymous troll posts with bigoted and racist comments. (Feel free to cite your standard quotes from there out of context once again, for the thousandth time, though).

As to what I personally believe to be the case regarding the MH17 accident, I have decided to keep an open mind, that's all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #69)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 01:39 PM

70. I Remember Your Full-Throated Defense Of Anti-Semitic Bigotry, Sir

Last edited Wed Oct 29, 2014, 06:12 PM - Edit history (1)

I fact I have linked to it nearby.

I find it touching you think this amounts to 'distancing himself from anonymous troll posts with racist and bigoted comments:


"I am fully aware of the role which Jews played in the horrors of the 20th century, I am aware that they declared war on Russia first, and on Germany after that (both times the order came from organized American Jewry and Jewish banks), I loathe both Rabbinical Judaism and Zionism because both are based on self-worship and racism. I don't need lectures on all the bad things Jews have done or are still doing. Believe me, I have read more anti-Jewish books than most people here (if only because I read them all not only English, but also in Russian which has at least 10 times as many anti-Jewish books as there are in English).

I will go as far as saying that Rabbinical Judaism is, in my sincerely held conclusion, Satanic at its core and at least as evil as Wahabi Islam."

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/05/ukrainian-news-two-phone-call-leaks.html

( scroll down to the blue text )

Certainly there is no way you could mistake that for the product of a mind drenched in anti-semitic hate and bigotry....



"Russia Today' is an official mouth-piece, producing much of the material the hate sites you link to host. In terms of lunacy it frequently qualifies, when the subject is Russian aggression abroad and Russian fascism at home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #70)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 04:58 PM

72. RT is just RT

formerly "Russia Today". It is an online and TV news channel, not to be confused with the only English language newspaper "The Moscow Times".

I am not aware of an entity going by the name of "Russia Times", you probably just made it up just like some of your more adventurous claims about what I allegedly have defended here.

It is true that the Western press almost in unison declared not only the self-defense forces in eastern Ukraine but "Putin" the guilty party in the event that led the European countries to reverse their stance towards sanctions against Russia. If somebody had doubts and were seeking more information, they had to turn to less biased sources as our media conglomerates and assorted established newspapers unfortunately are.

RT - other than for instance RFE - is open about their mission. They are not a mouthpiece, necessarily, but they do publish "official" Russian as well as independent views without having to fear repercussions if they cross the line set by the opinion leaders in the US and Europe. I am not surprised about their increasing popularity and reach.

Independent blogs, if competently maintained, are another useful source for independent information. Sometimes, for instance, they publish articles and interviews found in Russia and translate them into English.

Apparently you have a problem with one particular post on such a blog in which you seem to take great interest, since you have cited and linked it profusely here. Surely you'll be able to communicate your concerns to the blogger in question directly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #72)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 06:30 PM

73. Indeed, Sir, Russia Today Is Quite Open About Being a Propaganda Outlet For The Russian Government

They make no particular claim to hide it, but that does not alter the fact that they are an official mouthpiece. Your claim that people find a 'less biased source' in Russia Today is laughable, for it is a completely biased source, simply biased in a direction you, for who knows what reason or other, seem to prefer.

As for the other, you have cited as authoritative sources on several occasions blogs maintained by raving anti-semites. You have defended this as proper practice, and have even attempted to defend one proprietor as not really an anti-semite at all, despite his having written this:

"I am fully aware of the role which Jews played in the horrors of the 20th century, I am aware that they declared war on Russia first, and on Germany after that (both times the order came from organized American Jewry and Jewish banks), I loathe both Rabbinical Judaism and Zionism because both are based on self-worship and racism. I don't need lectures on all the bad things Jews have done or are still doing. Believe me, I have read more anti-Jewish books than most people here (if only because I read them all not only English, but also in Russian which has at least 10 times as many anti-Jewish books as there are in English).

I will go as far as saying that Rabbinical Judaism is, in my sincerely held conclusion, Satanic at its core and at least as evil as Wahabi Islam."

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/05/ukrainian-news-two-phone-call-leaks.html

( scroll down to the blue text )

You tied that can to your own tail, Sir; no one else did it, or can do anything about it. I have no interest what all in the bigot you consider a sound source, and defend: your citing him and defending him, however, does interest me. And interests me even more since you have this morning linked to a blog maintained by a man who has written this:

"Next time around, the Jews won’t get off the hook that easily. Us ‘dumb Goyims’ might be a bit slow at figuring out what a deadly parasites the Jews are, because we are just too nice to suspect that anyone could be as nasty as the Jews, but once we do figure it out, we are prepared to take the necessary steps. And – different from the Jews - we do learn from our past mistakes. We know by now that Adolf Hitler was way too nice to the Jews. Next time, there won’t be any negotiations and no prisoners. We will solve the problem once and for all."

http://therebel.org/en/editorial/786812-jews-are-so-clever-not

Your sources, Sir, people whose views you find congenial with your own, apparently, on many matters of current events.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #73)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 07:34 PM

74. Do you know what a "source" is?

Reading your previous rant I have my doubts.

The source of an article or report is its origin, its author.

The source of the report by the Russian Union of Engineers is the group of Russian engineers that authored the report. The source of the report is not some website that republishes its English translation.

So, I have cited "as authoritative" (? your interpretation, apparently, not my claim) a report by Russian engineers. Deal with this, if you can, and quit making up unrelated nonsense which only exists in your own mind gone astray.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #74)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 08:04 PM

75. Your Links, Sir, No One Else's

Last edited Thu Oct 30, 2014, 01:47 AM - Edit history (1)

I understand you not wanting to own up to linking to anti-semitic hate sites as a fairly regular thing, but it is something you do in fact do. Most people posting here manage not to, yet you seem to find it very difficult. You claim not to know what is on the sites, but I have no particular reason to believe that is so. You claimed, for instance, that the 'rebel' hate site, whose proprietor openly calls for extermination of Jews today, came up in first place when you searched for that article. I have just now run a search for the article by title and author, on a machine which has never had the 'rebel' site link clicked, and that site does not come up on either the first or the second page of results. Browsers customize, and if a hate site pops up in the pole position, that says something about your browsing habits, about the places you go.

And it does raise the odd question, which is that your view of events is so widely shared by racist bigots and conspiracist loons, and so one is entitled to wonder why there is such a great degree of overlap. Certain views, styles of thought, habits of mind, often occur together, like a constellation of symptoms; where certain ones are found, one can safely expect to encounter certain others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #75)

Thu Oct 30, 2014, 12:48 AM

78. Did you miss your true calling

or are you continuing habits acquired during a long, professional career?

Whatever the case may be, your fruitless exercises only distract from the topic at hand.

Yesterday I watched a video interview with Peter Haisenko, a former Lufthansa pilot who had his own ideas about the crash, published them on his blog and was cited elsewhere, on the sometimes useful, if dangerous conspiracy site "Global Research" for instance.

Shocking Analysis of the ‘Shooting Down’ of Malaysian MH17

I went to his blog and found an article about the report of the Russian engineers:

Der „Verband der Ingenieure Russlands“ bestätigt die „Haisenko-Analyse“ zu MH 017-Absturz in allen wesentlichen Punkten (in German)

This article has the report attached as a Word document, but only in German. Since I found it interesting, I made some attempts to search for an English version, having nothing but the name of the author in German transcription and that it was the Russian Union of Engineers. After a while I found a link, where I only checked whether it was the report in question, and the URL, which contained next to the word "rebel" the name "voltairenet" (which I thought the site belonged to and may be borderline, but still okay to link IMO).

Der Spiegel had claimed that "Moscow" was "spreading the version" that a Ukrainian fighter plane may have shot down MH17. To date I had not seen that they did, except for conclusions one could draw from the radar data the Russians presented in a press conference immediately after the incident. Perhaps Der Spiegel was referring to the report of the engineers, which indeed suggests again that this version is likely to be true? In this case, Spiegel reporters must be reading such dangerous literature, but, like you, be trying hard to avoid its discussion and further spreading of theories that are not in accordance with what US officials have said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #78)

Thu Oct 30, 2014, 01:34 AM

79. The Topic At Hand, Sir, Is That The View Of This You Present Is a Favorite Of Racists And Loons

That the view you present of this is one favored by racists and loons is not rebutted by pointing to someone else who holds that view. Having been an airline pilot is no warrant of sanity or sense, any more than having been a military officer or a psychiatrist. People who have been active in all sorts of professions, even competent in them, hold views of the world, of politics, of how things work in general, of race, which range from the merely bizarre to the downright disturbing. In fact, as is so often the case with conspiracist nonesense, only a very limited suite of commentators are presented, and they are cited again and again and again. Which only emphasizes the degree to which they are outliers among people who claim, or actually have, expertise on the subject.

Everything you say here on this matter is simple repetition of Russian propaganda, and what is amusing about your comments, apart from the frequency with which you have resort to racists and loons as a buttress for these views, is that while you engage in regurgitation of Russian propaganda you claim to have superior discernment over people who you accuse of being duped by U.S. propaganda. It is touching, your belief that one government can be counted on for truth while everything another government says is lies. It is abundantly clear you bring no critical thought to assessment of events, that you do not consider plausibility and coherence of accounts, match them against a fund of knowledge and political awareness, and attempt some reasonably objective assessment of what is most likely an accurate account. You start with a conclusion, namely that the United States is wrong, and swallow whole anything that seems to support, or to proceed from, that view. It does not matter what the source is, who is peddling it: it can be a government agency, a man who considers Jews the principle of evil in the modern world, it could be a man who is convinced he has found the tomb of the Virgin Mary in the British Isles --- it makes no difference to you, just as long as they feed your own preconception. And never once do you question the company you put yourself in, never once does it occur to you to ask 'How is it that I agree with so many racist bigots and delusional loons and government press flacks?'

And I will point out further that you have changed your story about the 'rebel' link. Your initial statement in No. 56 above was " URL showed up first when looking for the article in English". Now you try a revised tale of long search, after it was made clear the message conveyed about your browsing habits by your original artless admission that it came up first when searching for the article. It is common understanding that when that sort of dodging starts up, truth is being fudged, and in choosing between versions, the one which puts the teller in the worst light is to be preferred, since it is not often someone lies in order to put themselves in a worse light.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #79)

Thu Oct 30, 2014, 02:04 AM

80. the topic at hand is to be found in the OP

where a Dutch prosecutor is cited as saying they will not close their eyes on scenarios other than those put forward by spokespersons of the US government.

I cited a former German military officer who is an expert on Russian missile systems and taught their use to soldiers in the former GDR. He may know a little something about how these missiles work, and why you would call him a loon escapes me.

In addition, I cited the report of a group of Russian engineers organized in the non-governmental organization "Russian Union of Engineers". Why you would label them out of hand as lunatics is also a mystery to me, perhaps you can elaborate on your thinking in case you ever heard of them before?

As to whether I trust these sources to the extent that I adopt their views as the one and only truth - sorry to disappoint you, but that is not the case. I simply mention them to point out that what you, among others, have adopted as gospel, namely the version of events spread by the US government, may be disputable and not a very solid basis for ongoing political actions such as the sanctions against Russia. The new cold war may be in the interest of certain factions in the US, but it can only lead to instability in Europe and possibly much worse: in my opinion, and in the opinion of many other Europeans, including groups with significant political weight. Ignore this at your own peril.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #80)

Thu Oct 30, 2014, 02:33 AM

81. The Topic, Sir, Is That The View You Present Of This Is One Widely Shared By Racists And Loons

In fact, there is not any room for argument about this; it is abundantly clear.

You cite two people whose statements are not very impressive at all, whatever their credentials might be. These two are cited over and over again, passed from blog to blog through the twilight world of conspiracist loons and racists, and by the very width of their circulation in this electronic netherworld reveal the degree to which they are outliers in the fields they are commenting within.

You cite a propaganda piece produced by a front organization in Moscow which simply repeats every claim the Russian government has made in the matter. It is no more convincing after this sad attempt at laundering.

Your pretense of 'open-mindedness' is noted, but it is a tired old wheeze which does not conceal the fact of your credulity. The fact is, you give every evidence of believing these fairy-tales, and if you do not believe them, but peddle them anyway, it only puts you in a worse light.

Your closing confirms my comments above, that you simply start with the view the United States is wrong, and proceed from there. What threatens instability in Europe is that Russia refuses to leave go of a former colony, which it wishes to hold in dependent status, in part in hopes it can be recaptured into satellite orbit. It would better suit financial powers in the West, possibly, to incorporate Ukraine into the E.U. sphere, perhaps as a labor pool, including skilled labor at lower wages. Viewed on the largest scale, it is a fight between two imperialisms over who will get the benefit of exploiting the place and its people. It is by no means a fight between a demon and an angel. The conduct of Russia, which has been to invade Ukraine, first in the Crimea, and then to create an armed secessionist movement based on Russian special forces operatives, and to back these by further invasion, cannot be taken lightly. I am utterly unmoved by bleats of 'CIA coup' and 'Nazis in Kiev', not because I think the U.S. has never arranged coups nor because I think Kiev's armed forces do not include a number of people I would consider best euthanized as a public health measure. I am utterly unmoved by them because they are quite beside the point. The thing of greatest importance here is the use of military force in Europe by one sovereign state to seize territory from another sovereign state. This is a matter of serious importance; it is deeply destabilizing and threatens the peaceful order that has held more or less in Europe since the final spasms of WWII. Russia is, in fact, acting exactly as the fascist powers did in the thirties, and from a similar calculation: Russian leadership is certain the West will not oppose them with military force, and that the only check on what they can do is their own ambition and appetite, because they are virile and strong and the West is decadent and weak. The idea that 'NATO threatens Russia', or even that 'the U.S. wants war with Russia', though staples of Russian propaganda, and bread and butter for a certain strain of leftists, does not connect to the reality of the situation at any point. The Russian analysis that the West will not fight is quite sound. The Russian calculation it can stand the strain of interruptions and re-orderings of trade and finance better than Europe may be true as well, but it is far from certain that is so. If Russia's leadership does not come to see a serious cost from its aggression in Ukraine, there will be a next bite somewhere. It is the Russian ambition to restore empire that has forced this on Europe and the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #40)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 11:27 AM

54. There Are, Indeed, Sir, Some Very Odd Things About This 'Expert's' Claims

Last edited Wed Oct 29, 2014, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)

You have pointed to one of them, his notions of combustibility. His claim is that the fragments are moving so fast that the heat of friction created as they pass through flammable material will ignite them. This is not true. There are some things that can do something similar; pyrophoric metals for instance, such as depleted uranium, will burn at relatively low temperatures, and can, in striking something hard, generate enough heat that the projectile itself will ignite, and there are modern things called 'reactive materials' coming to be incorporated in munitions, which will ignite or even explode after being fragmented by a dispersing charge. Neither of these things are present in the warhead of the missile under discussion. Ordinary fragmentation projectiles do not ignite materials simply by passing through them; they cannot make enough of the material hot enough for long enough. If a fragmentation blast sets an airplane on fire, it is because volatiles were spilled out of containment, and vapors ignited; fuel, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, all are candidates. Sparking from damage to electrical conduits or working pumps and such is the most likely source of ignition; in the old days the motor and its exhaust system would have been prime candidates, too, but I do not know if jet engine exhausts could ignite a vapor plume from a ruptured fuel tank were the two to mingle.

His claim the fragments would be closing on the target at a speed of twenty to thirty times the speed of sound does not ring true ( Thirty times the speed of sound, by the way, verges on escape velocity ). The detonation of the charge would produce gas expanding initially at a rate in this range, but something on the order of a third of its power would be expended breaking the case, more would be expended in giving impetus to the fragments, and all the while, the rate of expansion would be falling off rapidly. And so would the rate at which the fragments were moving. Pieces with a weight of ten grams would slow appreciably in moving twenty meters. Even allowing for the missile's speed ( about three times the speed of sound ), and for a head-on approach, even his minimum twenty times the speed of sound seems dubious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #36)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 01:26 AM

41. There were dozens of ground eye-witnesses.

The missile attack has been well documented. This is just to so doubt like how climate change deniers do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #41)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 03:29 AM

45. LOL

the apparent lack of eyewitnesses who saw a missile being launched seems to be the most conspicuous fact here.

One witness, who gave his name only as Vladimir, said: "I was working in the field on my tractor when I heard the sound of a plane and then a bang and shots. Then I saw the plane hit the ground and break in two. There was thick black smoke."

A separatist rebel from nearby Krasnyi Luch who gave his name only as Sergei said: "From my balcony I saw a plane begin to descend from a great height and then heard two explosions."

He denied the rebels had shot the plane down.

"This could happen only if it was a fighter jet or a surface-to-air missile (that shot it down)," he told Reuters, saying the rebels did not have weapons capable of shooting shoot down a plane at such a height.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/malaysia-airlines-ukraine-crash-eyewitnesses-3876728

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #45)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 05:32 AM

46. Ukraine witnesses saw Buk system near MH17 crash site, says report

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/ukraine-witnesses-saw-buk-system-near-mh17-crash-site/1/373695.html

Local Ukraine Residents Say They Saw Rebels With Missiles Suspected Of Taking Down Malaysia Plane

http://www.businessinsider.com/donetsk-resident-speaks-about-malaysia-airlines-crash-2014-7#ixzz3HWaqYFCy

MH17 Update: New Witness Identified; Owner of the Truck that Carried the BUK Missile that Shot Down Malaysian Airlines Provides Evidence

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/561937/20140806/mh17-truck-owner-buk-missile-malaysia-airlines.htm#.VFCzsRZ3Mc0

Eyewitnesses Say Russian Crews Operated BUK Missile Launcher Inside Ukraine When Malaysia Airlines MH17 was Shot Down

ttp://www.chinatopix.com/articles/9221/20140908/eyewitnesses-say-russian-crews-operated-buk-missile-launcher-inside-ukraine-when-malaysia-airlines-mh17-was-shot-down.htm#ixzz3HWbBmepH

Ukrainians report sightings of missile launcher on day of MH17 crash

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/ukraine-sightings-missile-launcher-mh17

I am bored, now. The doubt and fear and questions are being sowed, just like climate change deniers do or creationists do to make people question what actually is going on. Nothing more. Not to provide facts, but to muddle facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #46)

Thu Oct 30, 2014, 04:48 AM

82. Nobody saw the missile being launched? Very strange.

Watch this:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #45)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 08:21 AM

48. quoting a rebel to 'prove' your claim that the rebels could not have done it.

 

Team Putin is cheeky, gotta give them that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 10:33 PM

77. Why are we still fighting the Cold War!?!?

And why is it only Russia that have commie bad guys in this new (same ol same ol) playbook?

Anyone that challenges the NeoCon narrative is "comrade", "delusional", somehow associated with "Putin" ( I use quotes the because it isnpresentednas a characters not a person).

Why Are we still fighting the Cold War?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salib (Reply #77)

Thu Oct 30, 2014, 09:13 AM

83. Because it is profitable ...

 

... for the "decision makers" (and their supporters & owners).

Let's face it, without a "big bad guy" to hate (preferably in some distant land),
people might start to look at the problems closer at home ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nihil (Reply #83)

Thu Oct 30, 2014, 01:16 PM

84. Unfortunately true. Though, my question was more directed at DU

And all the "comrade"/evil Putin/etc. references.

Why are "we" (here at DU) still fighting the Cold War?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salib (Reply #84)

Fri Oct 31, 2014, 09:42 AM

85. Ah, misread your intent ...

 

> Why are "we" (here at DU) still fighting the Cold War?

The answer to this is largely down to the fallacy that the "Underground" part of
the name has any merit.

There are huge numbers of people here - including a large number of "untouchables"
adopted as "pillars of the community" - who are simply in lock-step with the authoritarian
1% who are running the country (and most of the world really) and who thus adopt the
same petty tribal arguments as their chosen leaders.

(Just wait until primary season starts for the next wave of "dissenters" to be
put against the wall and shot "for the greater good of the party".)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salib (Reply #84)

Fri Oct 31, 2014, 09:44 PM

87. Democrats as well as Republicans

are part of the military industrial complex, in equal measures, though different styles. The Republicans have their Libertarian component, which is anti-war/anti-wall street bailouts, and the Democrats have their peaceniks (not Hillary supporters, nor Obama supporters). They may not like it, but they'd be libertarians with a small l, as opposed to Authoritarians (with big or little a), sorry, but they're only two categories in that dimension. Either you're an a(A)uthoritarian or a l(L)ibertarian.

We are a mixed bag here, democrats, Democrats, libertarians, Libertarians, Authoritarians (Bush/Clinton), Socialists, socialists (Bernie Sanders), anarchists, and everything a bit left of a moving bar, e.g., once a Republican was Rockefeller, who was more liberal than Democrat Obama. It is less about parties and labels, and more about capitalism and the military industrial complex. Even Eisenhower warned us of it, when he was stepping down from office.

So, why a cold war at DU? There is a split here, half Authoritarian, half libertarian. The Authoritarians hate anything that Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader has to say, and the libertarians hate anything that the Clintons have to say, outside of a narrow feminist or social agenda. She is a war hawk, a cold warrior and she has many supporters here.

We could fix everything to do with Russia if we wanted to. This present tension is all about NATO's push to surround Russia (though they promised they wouldn't), capitalism's push toward global domination and profits. All imho of course.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Fri Oct 31, 2014, 10:26 PM

88. I'm more interested in what happened to MH370

 

They seem to have forgotten about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread