You are here

A message of support to the Russian president

Dear Russian friends,

I am dismayed by the pretences and actions of the Australian government in relation to the shooting down of MH17 by Ukraine, as well as dumbfounded by the complete failure of any media organisation or public commentator to question or contradict this mendacity.

I have been trying to support the statements and actions of Russia and its various ministers by writing to the ABC as well as the Department of Foreign Affairs, since the start of the Syrian ‘campaign’. It must be said I have had little or no success, even in getting a response.

Last year I had the great fortune to accompany Mother Agnes Mariam on a visit to Malcolm Fraser, former PM. I can assure you that he at least is very well aware of just how criminal and dangerous the leaderships of NATO countries and Australia have become; as someone with ‘inside knowledge’, as well as experience in Serbia in the ‘90s he suffers no illusions about US intentions and global dominance, or Australia’s submission to it. Yet remarkably he is a lone voice.
With today’s news about the Dutch investigators’ preliminary report being quickly passed over, the situation has become intolerable. Remarkably this report actually supported evidence for Russian observations and elsewhere that MH17 was shot down by a hail of bullets from a Ukrainian fighter jet – ‘a large number of high-energy objects’. No other conclusion is possible from the available physical evidence – photos of the cockpit damage. But so corrupt and stupified are our media organisations that they allow the lies of the leaders to go unchallenged.

I write to you just to show that there is a least one person in Australia who has no doubt about both Russia’s innocence and the Novorussians’ innocence of this terrorist act; there is little more I can do, beyond writing to my local newspaper ( national papers will not publish this viewpoint), but I nevertheless would like to offer my support in any way that you would consider useful. I believe that there must be processes by which such issues can be pursued with government, even though at all levels people do not accept the case we must make.

Lastly I should just note a comment in an article today in the Sydney morning herald. Talking of the MH17 report it quoted a Pravda editorial:

“Russia is unlikely to accept the report if it suggests they were involved in shooting down the plane.

A recent editorial in Pravda said

"Most likely the story of the downed plane will be hidden away carefully … it is clear that neither the [separatist] militia nor Russia were involved in the terrible disaster.

"The only question is whether Ukraine incidentally shot down the Boeing or it was a carefully planned but ineptly executed act of provocation."

The established narrative in Russian state-controlled media is that the plane was shot at by Ukrainian forces, either by a jet fighter or ground-based missile.”

This clearly articulates my own viewpoint – that the only thing we DON’T know is the degree of assistance from Western agencies to Kiev in committing this act – one which so favoured the plans of NATO and US aggressors who put the Kiev ‘government’ in place.

I hope that you will pass this message to the appropriate people.

kind regards,

David Macilwain,

Sandy Creek, Victoria, Australia 3695

AttachmentSize
Image icon letter-tiny.jpg3.61 KB

Comments

The USA sinks lower and lower.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/08/how_to_solve_the_putin_problem.html

"Former" CIA agent talks of the possibility of killing Putin.

Sept. 12, 2014

IT seems we have painted ourselves into a very dangerous corner.

No longer can we claim Russia bears responsibility for the downing of flight MH17, regardless of any evidence from investigators.

On Tuesday, the Dutch government released its preliminary findings, which were that MH17 was struck by a “large number of high energy objects”.

With pre-knowledge of the findings, our government was emphatic in stating the report drew no conclusions on who was responsible, while simultaneously restating Australia’s allegations that a surface to air missile fired by “Russian-backed separatists” caused the crash.

This goes against commonsense — and what real evidence we have from Russian intelligence that those “high energy objects” were likely bullets fired by a Ukrainian fighter plane directly at MH17’s cockpit.

So what are we to make of this framing of Russia, and our government’s enthusiasm to join in NATO’s campaign against it?

Why do they desire to provoke Russia into a dangerous war by threatening its legitimate interests?

And how else can we explain this fabrication of a narrative that Russia is the threat?

— DAVID MACILWAIN,

Sandy Creek

Your premise is that the piercing of the aircraft looks like "bullets".

Aren't you a bit out of your depth to claim you know how to interpret a photograph of aircraft debris? Below is a description (off Google) that any would-be missile expert can access. It explains that missiles don't necessarily hit aircraft like torpedos. Some actually explode before they reach the target. So are you telling us that you can differentiate between a bullet and shrapnel?

You might be right; but you might also be completely wrong.

Here is an extract from a description of how a ground to air missile works:
Intercept (target destruction):
The missile IR (Infra-Red) "seeker" determines when the target is at the optimum distance for maximum explosive effect, whereupon it sends a signal to the warhead to detonate. The explosive scatters serrated iron fragments or other destroying material in all directions. Some of these fragments are expected to impair target functioning. When that occurs, the target is a "kill".

Hi Michael,

Thank you for your comment. Since I know that David is really busy this week, I will have a go at explaining by saying that I think he is referring to well-known evidence that Russia has presented, but which NATO has ignored, based on an initial analysis by Peter Haisenko of a piece of wreckage at the East Ukraine crash site which was initially public on you-tube until removed shortly after (but screen shots were saved by several people). I don't see how he is going out of his depth in that. We can all refer to it and the Australian Government should too. The point of the letter is that our government (and NATO and its allies) is showing complete irresponsibility in blaming Russia; it has no evidence at all. The NATO-siding news sources have gone to ridiculous lengths to demonize the East Ukrainians, even pretending that they looted the site, which they almost certainly did not. (Note that articles already on this site mention this evidence as well.)

Below is an article with links to relevant info, plus pictures. If it doesn't display correctly here, you can find it here: href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/evidence-is-now-conclusive-two-ukrainian-government-fighter-jets-shot-down-malaysian-airlines-mh17-it-was-not-a-buk-surface-to-air-missile/5394814">"Evidence Is Now Conclusive: Two Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Shot Down Malaysian Airlines MH17. It was Not a ‘Buk’ Surface to Air Missile" (by Eric Zuesse.)

Evidence Is Now Conclusive: Two Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Shot Down Malaysian Airlines MH17. It was Not a ‘Buk’ Surface to Air Missile

We’ll go considerably farther than has yet been revealed by the professional intelligence community, to provide the actual evidence that conclusively shows that (and how) the Ukrainian Government shot down the Malaysian airliner, MH-17, on July 17th.

The latest report from the intelligence community was headlined on August 3rd by Robert Parry, “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts,” and he revealed there that,

“Contrary to the Obama administration’s public claims blaming eastern Ukrainian rebels and Russia for the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, some U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame, according to a source briefed on these findings. This judgment — at odds with what President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have expressed publicly — is based largely on the absence of U.S. government evidence that Russia supplied the rebels with a Buk anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian jetliner flying at 33,000 feet, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.”

It’s actually based on lots more than that; it’s based not on an absence of evidence, but on positive proof that the Ukrainian Government shot the plane down, and even proving how it was done. You will see this proof, right here, laid out in detail, for the first time.

The reader-comments to my July 31st article, “First Examination of Malaysian MH-17 Cockpit Photo Shows Ukraine Government Shot that Plane Down,” provided links and leads to independent additional confirmatory evidence backing up that account, of retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko’s reconstruction of this event, to such an extent that, after exploring the matter further, I now feel confident enough to say that the evidence on this matter is, indeed, “conclusive,” that Haisenko is right.

Here is all of that evidence, which collectively convinces me that Haisenko’s conclusion there, is, indeed, the only one that can even possibly explain this wreckage:

“There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machine-gun fire, very very strong machine-gun fire.”

This remarkable statement comes not from Haisenko, but from one of the first OSCE investigators who arrived at the scene of the disaster.

Go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ze9BNGDyk4 and you will see it.

That youtube snippet in an interview with Michael Bociurkiw, comes from a man who is

“a Ukrainian-Canadian monitor with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), [who] has seen up close … the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. Bociurkiw and one other colleague were the first international monitors to reach the wreckage after the jet was shot down over a rebel-held region of eastern Ukraine July 17.”

That description of him is from the lead-in to the full interview with him, at the 29 July 2014 CBC news article, “Malaysia Airlines MH17: Michael Bociurkiw talks about being first at the crash site.” The far briefer youtube clip shows only what’s presented on 6:10-6:24 of this CBC interview with Bociurkiw. The CBC reporter in the video precedes the interview by announcing, “The wreckage was still smoldering when a small team from the OSCE got there.” So: he had to have been there really fast. “No other officials arrived for days,” she said.

So: one of the two first international monitors on-site saw conclusive evidence that the Malaysian plane had been hit by “very very strong machine-gun fire,” not by ground-based missile-fire.

Peter Haisenko’s reconstruction of the downing of that airliner, was here being essentially confirmed on-site by one of the two first OSCE international monitors to arrive on-site, while the wreckage was still smoldering. That’s as close to virgin, untouched evidence and testimony as we’ll ever get. Unlike a black-box interpretation-analysis long afterward by the Russian Government, or by the British Government, or by the Ukrainian Government, each of which governments has a horse in this race, this testimony from Bociurkiw is raw, independent, and comes from one of the two earliest witnesses to the physical evidence. That’s powerfully authoritative testimony, and it happens to confirm pilot Peter Haisenko’s theory of what happened. Bociurkiw arrived there fast because he negotiated with the locals for the rest of the OSCE team, who were organizing to come later: Bociurkiw speaks the local languages there — Ukrainian and Russian.

Furthermore, this is hardly testimony from someone who is supportive of the anti-Government rebels. Earlier, there had been this, http://pressimus.com/Interpreter_Mag/press/3492, which transcribed the BBC’s interview with Bociurkiw on July 22nd. He said then: “We’re observing that major pieces, and I’m looking at the tail fin as I said, and then there’s also the rear cone section of the aircraft, they do look different than when we first saw them, … two days ago.” So, he had arrived on-scene July 20th at the latest. (Neither the BBC nor the CBC, both of which interviewed him, were sufficiently professional to have reported the specific date at which Bociurkiw had actually arrived on-scene, but, from this, it couldn’t have been after July 20th. The downing had occurred July 17th. If some of the debris was still “smoldering” as the CBC journalist said, then maybe he had arrived there even earlier.)

The youtube snippet of Bociurkiw came to me via a reader-comment to my article, from Bill Johnson, after which I web-searched the youtube clip for its source and arrived then at the 29 July 2014 CBC news article and its accompanying video.

Further, there’s this crucial 21 July photo-reconstruction of that cockpit-fragment positioned into place on the aircraft as it had originally been in that intact-airliner:  https://twitter.com/EzraBraam. (Sometimes that doesn’t work, so here’s another screen of it from someone who copied it.) Looking at that photo-reconstruction, one can easily tell that the SU-25 or other fighter-jet that was firing into the cockpit from the pilot’s left side didn’t just riddle the area surrounding the pilot with bullets, but that it then targeted-in specifically onto the pilot himself, producing at his location a huge gaping hole in the side of the plane precisely at the place where the pilot was seated. Furthermore, this gaping hole was produced by shooting into the plane, precisely at the pilot, from below and to the pilot’s left, which is where that fighter-jet was located — not from above the airliner, and not from beside it, and also not from below it.

In other words: this was precise and closely-targeted firing against the pilot himself, not a blast directed broadly against, and aiming to hit, the plane anywhere, to bring it down.

Haisenko explained how this penetration of the plane, though it was targeted specifically at the pilot, caused immediately a breaking-apart of the entire aircraft.

Other readers have responded to my news-report about Haisenko’s article, by saying that shrapnel from a Buk missile could similarly have caused those holes into the side of the cockpit. However, that objection ignores another key feature of Haisenko’s analysis. Haisenko said there: “You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likeley that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that … these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent — outwardly!”

What this means is that in order to have some of those holes frayed inwardly and the other holes frayed outwardly, there had to have been a second fighter-jet firing into the cockpit from the airliner’s right-hand side.

That’s critically important, because no ground-based missile (or shrapnel therefrom) hitting the airliner could possibly have produced firing into the cockpit from both  sides of the plane. It had to have been a hail of bullets from both sides, that brought the plane down, in that circumstance. This is Haisenko’s main discovery, by his pointing that out. You can’t have projectiles going in both directions — into the left-hand-side fuselage panel from both its left and right sides — unless they are coming at the panel from different directions. Nobody before Haisenko had noticed that the projectiles had ripped through that panel from both its left side and its right side. This is what rules out any  ground-fired missile.

Peter Haisenko posted an extremely high-resolution image from that photo which he used, and it shows unequivocally that some of the bullet-holes were inbound while others of them were outbound: Here it is, viewed very close-up.

Although the fighter jets that were said to have been escorting the Malaysian plane into the war-zone were alleged to be SU-25 planes, a different type might have been used. SU-25s are designed to be flown up to 23,000 feet without an oxygen-mask, but can go much higher if the pilot does wear that mask, which was probably the case here. Of course, an airliner itself is fully pressurized. That pressurization inside the airliner is, moreover, a key part of Haisenko’s reconstruction of this airliner’s downing. Basically, Haisenko reconstructs the airliner’s breaking apart as soon as that hail of bullets opened and released the plane’s pressurization.

The specific photo of that cockpit-fragment, which Haisenko had downloaded immediately after the disaster, was removed from the Internet, but other photos of this fragment were posted elsewhere, such as at the British publication (which, like the rest of the Western “news” media is slanted pro-Obama, anti-Putin), on July 21st, headlining their anti-Putin missile-theory bias, “MH17 crash: FT photo shows signs of damage from missile strike.” Their “reporters” opened with their blatant anti-Russian prejudice:

“The first apparent hard evidence that Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was brought down by a surface-to-air missile is emerging from the crash site in eastern Ukraine, after experts confirmed on Monday there were signs of shrapnel damage to the aircraft.”

Although they didn’t say in their opener that the “surface-to-air missile” was from the rebels, they made clear their pro-Ukrainian-Government anti-Russian bias by saying, “Over the weekend, western intelligence agencies pointed to mounting evidence that backs Ukraine’s claim that the aircraft with 298 people on board was shot down by mistake by pro-Russian separatists and Russian military personnel with an SA-11 missile launched from a Buk-M1 SAM battery.” Their stenographers (or as they would say “reporters”) stenographed (“reported”) that, “Douglas Barrie of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the photographic evidence ‘was consistent with the kind of damage you would expect to see from the detonation of a high explosive fragmentation warhead of the type commonly used in a SAM system’.” No analyst from the pro-Putin camp  was interviewed by their “reporters.” For example, Russia’s Interfax News Service headlined on July 29th, the same day as the FT’s  article, “Boeing’s downing by Buk missile system unlikely — military expert,” and they stenographed their  “expert,” as follows:

Chief of the Russian Land Forces’ tactical air defense troops Maj. Gen. Mikhail Krush said he doubts that the Malaysian passenger liner was brought down by a Buk surface-to-air missile system. “No one observed a Buk engaging targets in that region on that day, which provides 95 percent proof that Buk systems were not used in this concrete case,” the general said in an interview with the Voyenno-Promyshlenny Kuryer military weekly to be published on Wednesday [July 30th]. ”This is no more than a theory for now. However, a guided missile launched by a Buk missile system leaves behind a specific smoke trail as it flies, like a comet. In daylight this trail can be clearly seen within a radius of 20-25 kilometers from the missile system. It cannot remain unnoticed. There are no eyewitnesses to confirm there was any. No one reported a launch. This is one thing,” he said. “Second. The holes left by the strike elements on the Boeing’s outer skin indicate that the warhead blew up from below and sideways. A Buk missile strikes the target from above,” he said. “The damage done to the plane suggests that a different missile was used. Our guidance method is a zoom, when the missile strikes the target from above covering it with a thick cloud of fragments” the general said. “I cannot state categorically, guided by this data, but I can suggest, using my experience, that it was not a Buk missile that hit the Boeing,” the expert said.

General Krush’s statement can fit with Haisenko’s and with Bociurkiw’s, but not with FT’s  or the rest of the “reporters” (just consider them as rank propagandists) in the West.

U.S. President Barack Obama has been saying all along that Russia – against which he is actually systematically building toward war – and not Ukraine (which he’s using as his chief vehicle to do that), is to blame for this airliner-downing. Previously, he had said that the snipers who in February had killed many people at the Maidan demonstrations against the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych came from Yanukovych’s State Security Service and not from the far-right political parties that were trying to bring Yanukovych down and that Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland selected to run the new Ukrainian government. But that too was an Obama lie. He lies a lot, and it’s just about the only type of statement he ever makes about Russia, and about Ukraine: lies.

If someone wants to verify how rabidly the U.S. Government lies, and has lied since at least the time of George W. Bush’s Presidency, just look at this video, by starting at 16:00 on it and going to 42:00 on it, and you will be shocked. (It pertains to lies by Bush that are still being covered up by Obama.) And when you further consider the many obvious questions it points out, which U.S. “news” media refused to ask and still refuse to ask about the matter, you’ll recognize that we are being lied to systematically and with utter contempt of the public, and with no respect for the public’s right to know the truth, even regarding massive history like that. It’s really brutal.

Ignorant “reporters” sometimes slip-up and include, in their stenography, facts that actually support the opposite side’s narrative of events and that discredit their own story-line. Such has been the case, for example, in the Financial Times  piece, which included the statement that, “Anti-aircraft missiles are not designed to score a direct hit as they are targeted to destroy fast, agile fighter jets. Instead, they are designed to explode within about 20m of their target, sending out a cloud of red hot metal to increase the chances of inflicting as much damage as possible.”

But rather than merely “a cloud of red hot metal,” what actually brought down this plane was what Haisenko has said brought it down: magazines-full of carefully targeted rapid-fire machine-gun bullets pouring forth from below the plane, at both its left and right.

This was a Ukrainian Government job. It was close-in. (No missile fired from the distance more than 30,000 feet down to the ground could have been that precise to target the pilot rather than the far larger target of the plane’s entire body.) It came from the Government that Obama installed there in February and that’s now carrying out an ethnic-cleansing campaign against the residents in Ukraine’s southeast, the places where Yanukovych’s voters live (to the extent that they still can and do live).Compare that picture with the following one, which I take from a propaganda-site for the U.S. regime, and so which is intended instead to support the Administration’s line on this, certainly not Haisenko’s explanation of how the airliner was downed, though it actually supports Haisenko’s case:

As you can see there, a plane that’s hit by a ground-fired missile, instead of by bullets fired from an attack-plane only a few yards away, has the damage spread rather widely over its body, not concentrated into a tiny area, such as to where the plane’s pilot is seated. Certainly, the contrast between that photo and this one is enormous.

Furthermore, note also that the shrapnel damage to that plane comes from above it, which is where missiles usually hit a plane from, releasing their shrapnel from above, down onto the plane. By contrast, the hail of bullets to the Malaysian plane’s pilot came from below the plane, aiming upward at the cockpit, from both sides of the cockpit.

 

As regards whether there were actually two fighter jets firing into the Malaysian airliner or only one, a proponent of the single-jet hypothesis, Bill Johnson, posted as a reader-comment to my article on August 4th, a series of extreme close-ups of the side-panel, in which he inferred that the explanation of the apparent left-side (pilot-side) bullets was probably the shape of the bullets. I then asked him why he declined to accept the possible existence of two jets. He said,

“from what I could find Russian military radar detected only one Ukrainian fighter jet, not two. I have looked and looked for any type of radar confirmation of a second fighter jet and can not find it.”

However, the most virginal, earliest, online evidence concerning the matter was on July 17th, within moments of the downing, headlined in the subsequent English translation, “Spanish Air Controller @ Kiev Borispol Airport: Ukraine Military Shot Down Boeing #MH17,” and it included, “@spainbuca’s TWITTER FEED,” which included his observation, only minutes after the downing, “2 jet fighters flew very close” to the plane. Furthermore, immediately before that, he had tweeted, “The B777 plane flew escorted by Ukraine jet fighter until 2 minutes before disappearing from the radar.” So, perhaps the second jet appeared distinct to him only immediately prior to the downing.

The accompanying news-report, also on July 17th, said:

“This Kiev air traffic controller is a citizen of Spain and was working in the Ukraine. He was taken off duty as a civil air-traffic controller along with other foreigners immediately after a Malaysia Airlines passenger aircraft was shot down over the Eastern Ukraine killing 295 passengers and crew on board. The air traffic controller suggested in a private evaluation and basing it on military sources in Kiev, that the Ukrainian military was behind this shoot down. Radar records were immediately confiscated after it became clear a passenger jet was shot down.” If this is true, then the radar-records upon the basis of which those tweets had been sent were “confiscated.”

The best evidence is consistent that those bullet-holes came from two directions not from one. What is virtually certain, however, is that at least one jet fighter was close up and shot down the Malaysian plane. The rest of the tweets from @spainbucca, there, described the immediate hostility of the Kiev authorities toward him on the occasion, and his speculations as to who was behind it all.

And the European Union has been playing along with this hoax. (If you still have any further doubts that it’s a hoax, just click onto that link and look.) And the mass of suckers in the West believe that hoax: it’s succeeding to stir a fever for war, instead of a fever to get rid of our own leaders who are lying us into a war that will benefit only the West’s aristocrats, while it inflicts massive physical and economic harms against everyone else – as if it were the invasion of Iraq except multiplied in this case a thousand-fold, especially with nuclear weapons possibly at the end of it.

If we had a free press, the news media would be ceaselessly asking President Obama why he doesn’t demand accountability against the Ukrainian Government for their massacre perpetrated on May 2nd inside the Trade Unions Building in Odessa, where that newly Obama-installed regime’s peaceful opponents were systematically trapped and then burned alive, which the Obama-installed Ukrainian Government has refused to investigate (much less to prosecute). Basically: Obama had sponsored the massacre. So, our “news” media ignore it, even though it started this civil war on Russia’s doorstep, and thereby re-started the Cold War, as Obama had intended that massacre (his  massacre, and his  subsequent ethnic cleansing) to do. (Similarly, the “news” media, though all of them receive my articles by email, virtually all refuse to publish them, because I won’t let them control what I find and report.)

And while Obama leads this Republican policy, and Vice President Dick Cheney’s top foreign-policy advisor Victoria Nuland actually runs it for Obama, congressional Democrats are just silent about it, and do not introduce impeachment of this fake “Democratic” hyper-George W. Bush neo-conservative President, who’s a “Democrat” in rhetoric only – and though Obama’s policy in this key matter threatens the entire world.

A reader-comment to an earlier version of this news report and analysis objected to my identifying Obama as a Republican-in-”Democratic”-sheep’s clothing, and said:

“They may be rethug policies in origin but they are decidedly BI-PARTISAN to anyone who wants to admit FACTS. The democratic party you all think still exists is DEAD and only exists in your brain (the part that doesn’t accept reality).”

However, U.S. Senate bill 2277, which invites Obama to provide direct U.S. military support to the Obama-installed Ukrainian regime, has 26 sponsors, and all of them are Republican U.S. Senators. Democratic Senators, by contrast, are just silent on Obama’s turn toward nazism (or racist — in this case anti-ethnic-Russian racist –  fascism); the Senate’s Democrats aren’t seeking for it to be stepped up.

This is a Republican policy, which congressional Democrats are simply afraid to oppose. Any realistic person knows that however far right Obama turns, the overt  Republican Party will turn even farther to the right, because they have to be to his right in order for them to be able to win Republican primaries and retain their own  Party’s nomination. Just because Obama’s game of moving the American political center as far to the right as he can move it is succeeding, doesn’t mean that the Democratic Party itself should end. It instead means that progressives need to take the Democratic Party over, just like conservatives took the Republican Party over with Reagan. There is no other hope.

If a Democrat in the U.S. House will simply introduce an impeachment resolution against Barack Obama, then the right-wing takeover of the Democratic Party might finally end, and the world might yet be saved, because the Democratic Party itself could then reject Obama as being a fake “Democrat,” a Democrat-in-rhetoric-only. It could transform American politics — and American politics needs such a transformation, which would move the Democratic Party back to progressivism, more like the FDR Democratic Party was, so that Republican politicians would no longer need to be so fascist as they now have become (and as they now need to be  in order to be able to win their own  Party’s nomination). If Democrats fail to renounce the conservatism of Obama and of the Clintons, then the Party will end, and needs to be replaced, just like the Republican Party replaced the Whig Party immediately before the Civil War. Nazism has become today’s slavery-type issue – it’s beyond the pale, and Obama’s installation and endorsement of it in Ukraine is like James Buchanan’s endorsement of slavery was during the 1850s: either the Democratic Party will become the progressive party, or else the Democratic Party is over.

But that’s just my own theory of how Obama’s frauds might yet be able to be overcome and defeated, if they still can be; it’s not part of my presentation of the explanation of what brought down the Malaysian airliner, which has been an open case since July 17th, and which is now a closed case. This is past history, not future.

The present news story is being circulated free of charge or copyright to all “news” media in the English-speaking world, in the perhaps vain hope that the cover-ups of our leaders’ constant lies will cease soon enough to avoid a World War III, even though communism is long since gone from Russia and so the ideological excuse wouldn’t make any sense here.

This insanity is actually all about aristocratic conquest, like World War I was. It’s not for the benefit of the public anywhere. Silence about it (by “Democrats,” and the “news” media) is a scandal, which needs to stop. The real Democratic Party (the Party of FDR, who loathed and despised nazis — and even mere fascists — yet today Obama installs nazis into Power in Ukraine) must be restored, and a real news media needs to become established in America. Even Republicans need it, because the very idea of “victory” in a nuclear war is a vicious fantasy. It is a dangerous lie, though there are some people who find it a very profitable one. And time might be short — let’s hope not already too  short.

After all, Obama’s hoax of having won from Europe the stepped-up economic sanctions against Russia after the government that Obama had installed in Ukraine downed the Malaysian plane and successfully blamed it on “Russian aggression,” is very encouraging to him. And European leaders know that Obama’s entire operation is a very bloody fraud (read the phone-transcript there — it’s a stunner). So, they certainly won’t save the world from it. It’s up to us.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

I agree that my statement that ‘no other conclusion is possible from the physical evidence’ is a little over the top, and provocative to those who are unconvinced of the separatists’ innocence of this criminal act. As this includes practically everyone who follows Western media sources, and these are the people I was addressing, it was unwise language.
However, and it is a big however, the case being made for the separatists’ guilt, and use of a BUK missile to shoot down MH17 dominates much analysis on the web, which in a circular fashion quotes and references the same range of sources. Even amongst people who do not believe this story at face value, and accept the dubious nature of the Kiev regime, there are people still arguing that this damage is from missile shrapnel. I have been involved in several discussions on blogs on this, and been accused of ‘knowing nothing about missiles’ already, so have gathered my case together a little.

The essence of the ‘Western case’ is this – if MH17 was brought down by a missile then it was obviously fired by separatists with Russian help – because that is what ‘everybody says’ – including all Western leaders, media and NGOs. In fact they started saying it very soon after the crash before having any information. The argument that it was downed with a missile is not that it could have been a Ukrainian army missile, despite the fact that it has BUK missile launchers, and had them in the region, and has the necessary radar equipment and intelligence to coordinate such a strike. However the OSCE does not say it was brought down by a missile – ‘there was no evidence to suggest it’, and the Dutch report doesn’t say so either. All they said was that MH17 was hit by a ‘large number of high energy objects’.

The case for the separatists, backed or not by Russia, bringing down MH17 is very thin. They had every reason not to do such a provocative thing, and lacked the necessary coordination and intelligence. Even had they been responsible, it would clearly have been a tragic accident. But the thinness of the case against them is only matched by the thinness of the ‘evidence’ used by the West in accusing them of the crime; none of it has stood up to scrutiny. Not only is this the case, but had the accusation actually been true the US in particular could and surely would have provided the unarguable evidence from its satellite - over the region conveniently – that Russia has demanded but the US has failed to provide. In addition, as Eric Zuesse points out, a BUK leaves an obvious vapour trail visible for miles around; it is impossible that no witnesses or even photos of this were found. The important thing to note then is that those people claiming a missile was responsible have a
to jump to this conclusion.

So much for the Western ‘case’. My argument, based on the consequent assumption that Ukraine was 99% likely responsible ( and personal belief that it WAS responsible) is that it doesn’t then make a lot of difference whether a BUK missile was responsible or machine gun fire from a fighter jet was – the culprit is what we need to focus on. It could be argued that claiming it was a missile is in any case no argument – it was more likely a surface to air missile fired by Ukraine, or an air to air missile fired by a Ukrainian jet, than one fired by the separatists.

With all this in mind, I don’t have any for claiming that the damage observed in the photos of the cockpit ( or lack of damage to other parts of the plane, also noted by the OSCE) was caused by machine gun fire, other than that is what seems most plausible – as Bociurkiw also noted – ‘it looks like’ heavy machine gun fire.

And of course I don’t have any credentials, other than a scientific background and general knowledge of what metal looks like and behaves like. I do have the support of many people who DO have such credentials though.

So looking at what I can see in the photos which are preserved for the moment here:

http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/List_of_MH17_airframe_parts

I can see many perfectly round holes, of about 30 mm diameter, all around the cockpit area. These are mostly in the inner skin, with the outer skin apparently torn and pushed away. Some of the holes appear to be in fairly evenly spaced rows, beyond what could be expected from a random shrapnel pattern. While Zuess talks about two fighter jets – and so did Carlos at the ATC in Kiev – Peter Haisenko suggested that the alternate exploding rounds in the SU25 cannons could have caused this strange damage. No doubt there are many many real experts who could tell you exactly why this is....I hope this will satisfy your objections to my statements, as well as perhaps push you a little further towards considering what criminal act may have been committed by the Ukrainian government and it supporters, for which Russia must now pay the consequences.

Check out the 4Corners message board commenting on their program on MH17. Seems the Australian public are not as stupid as some of us fear.

Author silentmh17 ®
Date/Time 15 Sep 2014 3:14:54pm
Subject MH17 Reporting
So the report has been and gone, and we are none the wiser. I am however curious to see if the ABC and 4 Corners program, will respond to allegations of either bias, or incompetence when commenting on matters Russia/Ukraine and MH17. Where is that 'holding our politicians to account' gone? where has true investigative Journalism disappeared too? embarrassed

print

Author alexe
Date/Time 15 Sep 2014 10:53:58am
Subject MH17and the USA parallel
In 1988 the US cruiser Vincennes shot down Iranair 655 on a normal passenger flight killing 290 people. The US then lied about the circumstances until the facts were proven. It took eight years of fighting for the victims to get very reluctant compensation. The US never made a formal apology, promoted the captain and gave him a award.

The subject has not been mentioned in Australia that I have noticed though it has been raised in America.

Mr Putin must be very tactful in not mentioning the subject.

print

Author TruthIsBest
Date/Time 10 Sep 2014 7:11:59pm
Subject Give us our eight cents' worth
I admire the work of Kerry O’Brien and Stephen Long and I am a lifelong supporter of Our ABC.

Which made the Four Corners program on Ukraine all the more disappointing.

The rot set in with Kerry’s intro. He said that it was “widely accepted” that MH17 had been downed by Russian backed separatists. The message conveyed was that while we can’t prove it, we (and presumably many others) “accept” that the Russians were responsible.

No convincing basis for this alleged “wide acceptance” has yet been provided. But it is a very safe line for the ABC to run. Must have been music to Peta Credlin's ears.

The program devoted little critical attention to the causes of the conflict. There is a wealth of publicly available analysis that the program’s researchers could have drawn on had they wished to do so. Instead, it focused on the human interest aspect. Again, a very safe choice.

The Government has strapped itself to the more bellicose elements of the US foreign policy establishment. As Julie Bishop has pointed out, our Loyal Opposition has strapped itself to the Government on this issue for its own political reasons.

Our ABC please give us our eight cents a day’s worth. Ask the hard questions. You might just reduce the risk that our politicians will mindlessly march us into catastrophe.

print

Author GiveMeTheFactsPlease ®
Date/Time 10 Sep 2014 10:06:05am
Subject Lazy one-sided reporting
I too agree with the points made below, and more generally about the ongoing anti-Russian bias in ABC's reporting of MH17 and lack of background given to the geopolitics in Ukraine, particularly the role of NATO, and the West's machinations behind the coup.

The evidence is not in about who or what downed the plane, so why does the ABC join the anti-Putin braying that was begun SO SOON after the event, particularly by Abbott.

Four Corners is the opportunity to address these shortcomings and questions. Kerry O'Brien - I'm a fan - but your opening statement, 'It is already widely accepted that the plane was brought down by a surface to air rocket, fired by the Ukraine separatists', had me gobsmacked.

The evidence is highly contested - you could at least have made that point.

print

Author OskarW ®
Date/Time 10 Sep 2014 2:28:53am
Subject MH17 Poor Story did America write it for you
I have been waiting or more to the point hoping for an open minded story regarding the downing of the MH17.

I was very disappointed that 4 corners did not cover this event with equality.

Since the start I have seen American propaganda with incitement of war against Russia using the MH17 as a vehicle to campaign the western world to sanction Russia with no real facts that an ground to air missile was ever used.

When I saw the four corners promo I was hoping that the research may show the truth about what the Ukraine military are doing to their own people.

Instead all I saw was a one sided story that leans towards an anti Russian theme with no real facts what is really going on in Ukraine.

Now that we have the preliminary fact that it was not a ground to air missile.

I feel that America is the bully country that seems to be able to bomb any country in the world so long as they can get other western countries to follow their agenda.

Next time four corners decide to cover a story regarding the MH17 please provide facts and from both sides, not just what America is telling you what to say

print

Author Truth
Date/Time 09 Sep 2014 11:59:03pm
Subject Inadequate investigation
I must agree with the comments that have been made so far regarding the episode on MH17. This was really just propaganda. The difference between propaganda and journalism is that the journalist seeks truth. The journalist weighs the different perspective offered and tries to reach a conclusion or, if this is impossible, to present the full story. I feel that this was not done regarding MH17 but I am, sadly, unsurprised. Coverage of the Ukraine and MH17 has been totally unacceptable and, it would appear, power has taken over the search for truth. What was missing from this episode was that the role of the U.S. in instigating unrest in the Ukraine, the circumstances under which the democratically elected leader of Ukraine was removed. Yes, Russia may be playing a part but there were other actors. In regards to the downed plane we just don't have the evidence to support the claims made. Indeed, that the Ukraine not only did everything they could to stop access to the site, if the full story is known, but that they then attacked this site was not, as the story claimed just strategic, but down right suspicious. Because of people like Stephen Long, often deployed for propaganda purposes, we will probably never know the truth.

print

Author Dave88
Date/Time 09 Sep 2014 11:44:30pm
Subject MH-17
Looks like the viewers are in advance of the crack investigative team at 4-corners!

Is it any wonder then why so many of us have given up on the mainstream media when it comes to the search for truth and meaning in our world, truths that are hidden deep within the matrix of financial and political events.

Perhaps 4-corners could start their education with any of the following articles..

http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=mh-17

Or perhaps these..

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=010732926337524982427%3Ava4-o-6opiq&ie=UTF-8&siteurl=www.google.com%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D010732926337524982427%3Ava4-o-6opiq&q=mh-17&sa=Search&siteurl=www.informationclearinghouse.info%2F&ref=&ss=3392j3080832j5#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=mh-17&gsc.page=1

Then, too, we have been swamped by the ABC with stories upon the two beheadings by ISIS while quietly Saudi Arabia beheads far more but of course, how could I have forgotten, they are part of the western petro-dollar complex so shhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-executes-19-during-half-of-august-in-disturbing-surge-of-beheadings-9686063.html

When the truth tellers are corrupted maybe they should just settle back and spend their time running old ‘Bananas in Pyjamas’ shows.

If you cannot do any good, at least do no harm!

print

Author JC
Date/Time 09 Sep 2014 10:26:54pm
Subject Western media response to Ukrainian crisis
The Western Media reporting of the situation in the Ukraine (and it's consequences, i.e. MH17) has been nothing short of disgraceful. Western media outlets have been wilfully ignorant of the Russian viewpoint and the direct actions of the USA and NATO in bringing about this situation. I see even the ABC can't seem to get it right, or can't be bothered getting it right.

The Western media have squarely and wrongly placed the blame entirely at the feet of Putin, viciously labelling him "Hitlerian" and a dictator.

The "free" media's position is that Crimea was annexed as part of Putin's desire to re-establish the Soviet Union, and that he will agitate other former soviet satellites. This asinine viewpoint misses entirely the real reason Ukraine is in turmoil and it has everything to do with NATO's expansion (backed by the USA) to Russia's borders, which has culminated in trying to expand into Russia's most important and strategic buffer zone, i.e. the Ukraine. All this so the USA can strengthen it's global hegemony. NATO has been steadily expanding East since the Clinton administration.

Russia's leaders have always opposed NATO enlargement to it's doorstep. Putin has made this point over and over again. The USA's agents have been agitating in the Ukraine for some time. They do this by pro Western individuals and organisations.

Let's get one this clear, the overthrow of Yanukovych was a "coup." It was not democracy at work. He was a democratically majority elected leader. Putin responded the way any leader of a strong nation would when their strategic interests are threatened, he took Crimea which is host to the Russian fleet and militarily once of it's most important staging sites. Russian incursion into Georgia previously should have sounded enough warning to the US and it's obedient lap dogs (the rest of NATO) that Ukrainian or Georgian acceptance into NATO could not and would not be tolerated by Russia.

Russia will wreck Ukraine economically and militarily and make sure it turns into a failed state before they would let it joint NATO and become a "Western" territory on their doorstep. This isn't that difficult to understand. Would the USA tolerate a Russian military base or presence on it's doorstep? We already know the answer to that. The USA doesn't tolerate any "enemy" potential or imagined have any sort of influence in the North West hemisphere, let alone on it's doorstep. Would the USA tolerate a Russian military alliance with Mexico? It's amazing to me that the Western media can't see just how deep seated their delusion and hypocrisy really is.

Putin is rattled. The USA is expanding around Russia using NATO as a proxy. They want a missile shield to "counter Iran" which is laughable as Iran isn't even close to the bomb, let alone the type of intercontinental ballistic missiles needed to reach the USA. The shield is squ

print

Author OK
Date/Time 09 Sep 2014 8:01:46pm
Subject Russia didn't do it!
On 17 july 2014, the same day that Malaysian airlines flight MH17 crashed over Ukraine, the state of Israel attacked Palestine. A timely distraction indeed.

The Israelis would have several motives to shoot down MH17. They may want to punish Malaysia for having set up the Kuala Lampur War Crimes Commission, which found the state of Israel guilty of genocide of the Palestinian people in November 2013. Secondly, they may also want to punish Holland for the fact that the largest pension fund in The Netherlands decided earlier this year to withdraw all its investments from Israel’s five largest banks because they have branches in the West Bank and are involved in financing the construction of illegal Jewish settlements on occupied territory.

Why have neither of these facts been widely reported in mainstream media – including the ABC?

print

Author Strop
Date/Time 09 Sep 2014 3:05:12pm
Subject MH17
As Former Congressman Ron Paul said: "They (the main stream media, including abc) will not report that the crisis in Ukraine started late last year, when EU and US-supported protesters plotted the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych,” Paul said. “Without US-sponsored ‘regime change,’ it is unlikely that hundreds would have been killed in the unrest that followed. Nor would the Malaysian Airlines crash have happened.”

print

Author Han Barkmeyer
Date/Time 09 Sep 2014 2:10:49pm
Subject MH17
Four Corners, “Investigative journalism at its best”?

You have to be kidding! There is absolutely no difference between ABC Catalyst program on Fluoride last year and Four Corners on MH17 this week. Catalyst was unashamedly pro-fluoride and Four Corners unashamedly anti-Russian, anti-Putin. Shame on the ABC. It should be telling the truth.

There is no difference anymore between the Murdoch dominated mainstream media and the ABC. The sooner the ABC gets privatised the better as I am no longer willing to pay for the propaganda mouthpiece of the Australian government, be it Labor or Liberal.

Where is the evidence that MH17 was shot down by the Separatists using a BUK ground to air missile? Why not use the Russian radar records showing that a Ukrainian fighter plane was tailing MH17 moments before it was shot down?
Peter Hasienko, a Lufthansa pilot with 30 years experience, showed pictures on the internet of part of MH17's cockpit riddled with holes, consistent with 30mm anti-tank shells, the armament of a Ukrainian SU25 fighter plane.

The Kiev government continued fighting the war because it did not want the MH17 crash site to be inspected by the Australian, Dutch and Malaysian authorities in case incriminating evidence was found implicating it.

There was also not one word in the entire Four Corners' program about the 5 billion dollars the US spent on destabilising Ukraine. Not one word of Victoria Nuland’s intercepted phone call with the US ambassador to Ukraine and her remark: “Fu*k the EU.” Not one word that Victoria Nuland, US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, wanted Yatsenyuk as Ukraine's Prime Minister.

Not one word about the Reagan-Gorbachev agreement that "NATO would not move one inch to the east".

It is the US wanting a war with Russia with the EU as unwilling partners.

print

Author ChristopherBrooks ®
Date/Time 09 Sep 2014 10:52:20am
Subject MH17 Trial by Media
The ABC continues the trial by media of the MH17 tragedy but excludes all evidence presented by Russia and others that challenge the assumption that Russia or the Separatists were responsible.

Considering an agreement to control release of information from the investigation is in effect the public are really left in the dark.

Why is the ABC participating in this coverup?

Where are the ATC audio records and an investigation into the claim made in Russia's formal information release that a military jet was approaching MH17 minutes before the aircraft fell from the sky?

The BUK story wins for repetition and multi flavor for the consumption of all attitudes but the factual evidence does not support that method.

There is no credible BUK plume reported and witnesses report the military jets in the sky at the shoot down moment.

The mystery BUK "floating" about on a transport for photo opportunities and incriminating witness statements does not add up on examination but it does reveal the sophistication of the crime.

A BUK system launch requires highly trained operators and extensive radar assistance from special units that were not evident.

The BUK story has all the prints of a very clever mass distraction that provides several layers of cover.

The real criminal is elsewhere out of view of all the speculations and theories, safe that the conflicts and blame against each other will keep them invisible and beyond scrutiny.

This level of sophistication gives wise observers a hint as to just who should be in the dock under question.

print

Author S Morgan
Date/Time 09 Sep 2014 12:37:23am
Subject MH17 blame bias
I just watched the MH17 episode and was disappointed with the level of investigative journalism done (not much at all). I am also displeased with the one sided anti-Russian view on the incident, not just on this program but in the mainstream media.
In relation to the incident I have some questions that I believe have been largely ignored:
Why did the airline choose that route.
Why did Ukrainian airspace controllers mark the airspace above 32000 feet as safe when I have heard (unconfirmed) that they knew the separatists had the capabilities to strike targets above this altitude.
Were the weapons used supplied by Russia or were they from Ukraine from the USSR period.
If the weapons were supplied by Russia why is it their fault as to what happens with them, I am thinking of the US with Osama Bin Laden (double standards).
Did outside influences have a hand in destabilising the previous Ukrainian government, thus setting off the series of events that resulted in the MH17 shooting.
There are many others sides to this issue that should be explored, gas, resources, Ukrainian debt to Russia, EU push for Ukraine to turn its back on Russia.
For the record I am not pro-Russian, anti-American or pro-conspiracy theories, I am pro truth, pro transparency, pro why and there are 2 sides to every story.

print

Author silentmh17 ®
Date/Time 08 Sep 2014 10:04:05pm
Subject MH17 Apportioning Blame
Kerry's Opening..

'It is already widely accepted that the plane was brought down by a surface to air rocket, fired by the Ukraine separatists'.

You spent less than 1 min describing a BUK missile, and repeating claims and presenting as fact.
Isnt it better to wait till the final report is released rather than repeating, useless yet harmful rhetoric?

Why no mention of Russias Evidence presented to the International community, but barely raised a mention?

Why not seek eye witnesses, that gave interviews moments after the crash?

'Putin tries to shift the blame to kiev.'
If you pay and listen to Putin's media conference in its entirety, you will note, that he did he did not discount the possibility that it as the separatists. That it was important not to discount all possibilities. He calls for ceasefire and investigation. He also makes a very strong statement,that if there was peace, if the Ukraine army ceased bombing their own people, that the odds of this disaster, would have been nil.

Why has the west been silent for so long on the humanitarian disaster? No mention of the majority of refugees escaping into Russia.

You mention oil and gas, But no mention of the broader geopolitics? No mention of NATO's ILLEGAL activities inciting regime change thru violence.

print

Author TheBThing
Date/Time 08 Sep 2014 7:24:01pm
Subject MH17 - Caught in the Crossfire (No Proof)
There's no proof of the plane being shot down other than a single ground explosion filmed kilometres away.

Where's the Black Box recordings? It's been so long and still no release of the in cockpit voice recording!

What was the implications of the jet and carrier so called tailing MH17? Were they the cause of the plane being dropped?

Everything points to a cover-up to support NATO's advancement into the region.

Further, Malaysia confirms 'unusual' fragments were in pilot's body at post mortem.

However, even though the New Straits Times published the 'cockpit side jet fighter bullet holes info', the Malaysian Defence Minister immediately made a public statement that according to 'an expert' it was the Russkies who dunnit, negating the bullet holes evidence.

Looks like the CIA have him by the short and curlies.

I could not find where the Malaysian Defence Minister Hishammuddin Tun Hussein claimed anywhere in any recent article that 'an expert' claimed that the Russians had shot down MH17. I could not find it in the most recent article I could find. That article is MH17: Three more Malaysians yet to be accounted for - Hishammuddin of 18 Sep 2014 at 22:04 MYT. All the other articles about Hishammuddin Tun Hussein and MH17 seemed to indicate that he blamed Ukraine for the crime and was trying to hold the Ukraine government to account for the destruction of MH17.

That is not to say for certain that he has not made that false allegation against Russia. If he did, that is cause for concern.

Could you try to locate the article and provide a link?

The bullet graze on top of the Port wing, towards the pilots location was caused by.. a bird/lightning/BUK strike??