Plane down. 295 passengers dead. Neocons squeal with delight.

Ukraine rebel commander acknowledges fighters had BUK missile

I figured it would only be a matter of time before some pro-Russian Ukrainian with a conscience would like to start getting things off their chest.
I read that. It made me wonder what the relationship of the Vostok Battalion is to the rest of the rebels. And by the way, I notice that you, like the press, always say pro-Russian before rebels. I just find that little verbal flourish interesting. I take it that you don't.
I thought you had the feeling at one time that they weren't so much pro-Russian as anti-Kiev. But that was weeks ago I guess.
 
Russian propaganda? It's very tame compared to ours. In fact it smacks of the classic weak defence of people who believe the facts will bare them out.

"Earlier in the day, Sky News reported citing UK intelligence sources that militia planned to sabotage the investigation into Malaysian plane disaster by scattering parts of other planes at the crash site and removing victims' remains."

Oh dear. That sounds like the kind of whacky conspiracy theory that would be good for a giggle on Fox. I had to see if there was any truth to that accusation. Looking at the sky news story we can see:

"Rebels planned to sabotage the investigation into Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 by scattering parts of other planes at the crash site, according to Sky sources."


Oh those nutty rebels - they're so crazy... but... I guess that sky news actually did say that. I have to confess I was actually surprised by that because I found that jab at sky to be the least credible part of the story but it's the easiest to confirm.
 
This is quite interestin - upload date is a month before MH17


General gist is that rebels worry that they are being provoked to shoot down civilian plane. It would be disaster but Kiev attack planes hide in the wake of civilian aircraft then drop bombs so that it is too risky to try to shoot them down. That sounds a bit - human shield, doesn't it. Wondering if YouTube is helping Putin or if Russians have way to spoof YouTube upload dates.

Well, war isn't ever a clean business, is it. So, not withstanding an earlier link purportedly from an Iranian expert, perhaps shadowing civilian planes into dangerous airspace isn't the norm. Question remains, why sent over Donetsk, why asked to drop altitude from 35k to 33k feet at that time. Won't know until Kiev releases air traffic control tapes. Seems to be taking much longer for Kiev that it took for Malaysia after MH370.
 
Damn this is as boring as hell. The Russians obviously have no idea how to do propaganda. They didn't call anyone names or throw slurs, just really long boring talk about satellite photos and radar tracks. Excitement level: comatose.
 
Effective propaganda is aimed at the emotions, not the intellect.

And this thread provides depressing evidence of just how effective it can be.
 
I read that. It made me wonder what the relationship of the Vostok Battalion is to the rest of the rebels. And by the way, I notice that you, like the press, always say pro-Russian before rebels. I just find that little verbal flourish interesting. I take it that you don't.
I thought you had the feeling at one time that they weren't so much pro-Russian as anti-Kiev. But that was weeks ago I guess.
They are anti-Kiev, but pro-Russian is more appropriate. The reason for that is that they are not fighting against Kiev just for independence, in which case they would be separatists. Instead they are fighting to join Russia and form Novorossiya. But not only that, most of the pro-Russian rebels are ethnic Russians or actual Russian nationals, some of which, particularly the leadership, are active and former Russian military. So simply calling them anti-Kiev misses out all sorts of important facts you'd rather hide. We should probably just call them Russians without the "pro" prefix and the "rebels" postfix as it would give a clearer picture as to who is fighting who.
 
interesting you post that, I was about to post this:
America’s Flight 17


It is important to remember that the US also shot down a passenger plane and denied any wrong doing. Similar circumstances and the US, under Reagan, took a similar approach to handling it (although they did eventually admit their mistake and pay compensation). And as this article suggests, both Reagan and Putin were wrong to do as they did.

Putin and whoever fired that missile should be held accountable, just as Reagan and the crewmen of the Vincennes should have been, even if they weren’t. But holding them accountable, meting out proper punishment, doesn’t mean tagging them as terrorists or war criminals. First, there’s a distinction between ghastly mistakes of war and monstrous acts of terrorism. Second, the West’s main interest in Ukraine is—or should be—to help facilitate a peaceful, prosperous Ukraine. The secessionist fever, which Putin whipped up, sowed the climate—crossed the zones of war and normal life—that made something like the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 tragedy possible. It may be a good moment now to change the climate. But that requires realism on all sides, not indulgent theatrics or the forgetting of history.

But it seems Putin isn't interested in that, and with the help of his useful idiots such as yourself, tragedies like this are likely to happen again in Ukraine. Not with passenger airlines perhaps but we can definitely count on more civilians being killed.
 
Oh. Chechens. Interesting.
Isn't it? Haven't I been saying there are Russian nationals in Ukraine? Chechnya is of course Russia now and the Vostok Battalion answers directly to the Russian Defense ministry's intelligence unit, the GRU. Chechens have been in Ukraine for months now and there have been reported cases where they use their unique knives in murdering people and cutting off their heads. They're well known for being nasty. I felt sorry for Russian troops caught alive in Chechnya, I can only imagine the horrors inflicted in Ukraine.
 
And this thread provides depressing evidence of just how effective it can be.
In this thread, or that other thread with people allegedly killed by sniper fire? Watching someone die is rather emotional wouldn't you say? Now what was that about propaganda....
 
So simply calling them anti-Kiev misses out all sorts of important facts you'd rather hide. We should probably just call them Russians without the "pro" prefix and the "rebels" postfix as it would give a clearer picture as to who is fighting who.

If that's a chunk of land inhabited by Russians then what Kiev is doing is ... what exactly? Annexation? Or expulsion? If you have a population there who doesn't want to be part of your country do you drive them out and take the land to give it to people who do want to be part of your country? I'm not sure where the moral right comes from. If Scotland votes for independence would the UK be justified in taking Scotland back militarily because the place is full of Scots?

They are basically Russian so they don't want to be part of Ukraine under this regime or they are just different Ukrainians who don't want to be under this regime. I don't see the importance of the distinction, certainly I don't see that one interpretation or the other makes it right to try to kill them for not wanting to be governed by Kiev.
 
interesting you post that, I was about to post this:
America’s Flight 17

... It is important to remember that the US also shot down a passenger plane and denied any wrong doing.
The article says that Russia lied to cover up its culpability. Still a bit early to tell, don't you think. No, of course not. But then you should explain what lies did they tell and how do we know they were lies? We all more or less agree that the shoot down was an accident. How much can we disagree that the persecution of the war in the east is completely at the discretion of Kiev (though they must feel pressure from their western backers) and is an unnecessary aggression. There is no law of nature that says the eastern part of Ukraine cannot run semi or largely autonomously from Kiev.

The connection to Putin, if any, is tenuous and the US is very cagily refusing to bring forward any evidence - except youtube and twitter, of course, but none of their vast intelligence because ... probably because they don't have any - coz if it's a slam dunk, then dunk it. Else it's a bluff.

In the case of the Vincennses it was immediately known widely who shot down the plane and it was a highly militarily capable nation, not some bunch of rebels. It happened in a busy place with lots of interested parties watching. But the part that really world attention is that the airliner that got shot down was from a nation that the US had a beef with, Iran. That fueled the "Payback Theory". Was that fair or not? I don't know, but I can see how a lot of people might think that.

With MH17 there is no real possibility of such a motive. Russia/Malaysian relations have been pretty good, even better than US/Malaysian relations, so Russia and the rebels have no good motive to deliberately target the aircraft. So then the culpability question comes down to who is more at fault - the guys who maybe aren't up to muster on their equipment but are defending themselves from regular air assault (i.e. they have a right to defend themselves in the territory they live in) or the regime responsible for the safety of airplanes in its airspace who directs airplanes into dangerous airspace.

But it seems Putin isn't interested in that, and with the help of his useful idiots such as yourself, tragedies like this are likely to happen again in Ukraine. Not with passenger airlines perhaps but we can definitely count on more civilians being killed.
Civilians ARE being killed Mike, by the Ukrainian army. When you shell people's houses then sometimes the people die. The guys in the east are not attacking the guys in the west., the guys in the west are driving over to the east and attacking them. If the guys in the west just stayed home then nobody would be dying. If the attackers stopped attacking the defenders wouldn't need to defend.[/QUOTE]
 
In this thread, or that other thread with people allegedly killed by sniper fire? Watching someone die is rather emotional wouldn't you say? Now what was that about propaganda....
Watching someone being killed is emotional. That's what makes it hooky. But it is also evidentiary. A crime is committed, the footage documents the crime, and I admit to posting it because it is demonstrative of a small part of an ongoing atrocity. However, at no time will you hear "Bibi is killing this man" or "Jews are killing this man". It presents a tableaux of an actual event (though people are willing to invest a lot of energy into arguing that the footage "is a fake as a NASA moon-landing").

I think you understand the great difference between that video and the American leadership and steno team making emotionally charged accusations at whole populations of people on flimsy grounds. The Eastern Ukrainians looted the crash site (it appears that they were able to, for the most part, secure the site even though they remained under attack).
That they were drunkards and desecrated the dead was the thrust of one Kerry diatribe. That's not so far very away from steal your children to use their blood in their rituals, or maybe calling them dirty nun-raping Huns. That's sort of mud slinging and base accusation is the sort of thing I'm talking about as content free emotive verbiage characteristic of some of the nastiest propaganda. It's similar to the stuff that's thrown at the Palestinians claiming that they love having their kids blown up so they can photograph them - implying that Israel's weapons are being sucked into Palestine by some magnetic force and Israel is powerless to stop them, rather than the truth which is that Israel is eagerly supplying them with more child splattering weaponry than the photographers and hospitals can comfortably deal with.
Also there has been the continuous linkage to Putin by name repeated cynically to give the impression that Putin was actually pressing the button or giving the order to take down a civilian plane in a manner very similar to the way 911 and Saddam were linked. Innuendo and repetition. That's what they do when they lack evidence, because otherwise they would produce evidence.
Did Russia supply weaponry? Perhaps, but then again, the Ukrainian army left quite a bit behind for the rebels too. Does the US really want to open the door to the legal theory that whoever supplied the weapons is responsible for how they are used? No, I think that would make them very uncomfortable.
 
The Russians have produced their spy photos of Ukrainian Buk batteries in and around the area at the time of the downing of MH17 and asked "why are they here? The rebels have no air force". The Ukrainians have not responded with anything even though I'd accept that it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that they were to deter Russian aircraft from coming to the defence of the rebels. Instead the US pretended they didn't have any and Kiev didn't contradict them.

It seems that the Americans have pictures of the same thing. Robert Parry is not a Russian, but he is a thorn in the side of the gang that run the US. He quotes the LA Times
“U.S. intelligence agencies have so far been unable to determine the nationalities or identities of the crew that launched the missile. U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [anti-aircraft missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.”

That statement about a possible “defector” might explain why some analysts thought they saw soldiers in Ukrainian army uniforms tending to the missile battery in eastern Ukraine. But there is another obvious explanation that the U.S. intelligence community seems unwilling to accept

Whatever happened it is far more useful to the US to pin it on Putin and use that as a bludgeon to get reluctant EU countries to back sanctions which are not in their best interest.
 
Ukrainian government votes to get rid of the Communist party (because banning parties is what democracy is all about) and then falls apart - because it's not a real government at all. It's signed a crappy deal that has hurt the people, the country really isn't united on the issue of East Ukraine and families are protesting conscription and see no point in letting the government take their children to go fight other people's children.
 
If that's a chunk of land inhabited by Russians then what Kiev is doing is ... what exactly? Annexation? Or expulsion? If you have a population there who doesn't want to be part of your country do you drive them out and take the land to give it to people who do want to be part of your country? I'm not sure where the moral right comes from. If Scotland votes for independence would the UK be justified in taking Scotland back militarily because the place is full of Scots?
Or Quebec even. But that's not really the case unless you believe what Russian propaganda are saying. Like I've already said in this thread, Donbass is not Crimea. The fighting is done by pro-Russians but you can't claim that all of Eastern Ukraine is ethnically Russian, and in fact just less then half is. And of those who are ethnic Russian, it's hard to say how many of them would prefer to join Russia. I've also posted that polls taken well before this crisis that showed that the desire to join Russia was very low in Eastern Ukraine. In Quebec for instance we've had polls and elections and referendums and the separatists keep losing. Now, what if say France decided to arm a bunch of the separatist minority and they took over a bunch of Government of Canada buildings and stormed some military bases and some French special forces and mercenaries popped in out of nowhere and started causing all sorts of murder and mayhem? Would you suddenly conclude that all of Quebec is French speaking and all of Quebec wants to join France? Of coarse not because that would be silly. So why do you do that with Eastern Ukraine?

To me it seems pretty simple. If the ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine can't stand to live in Eastern Ukraine they can move to Crimea or Russia. This is quite a reasonable expectation since they aren't likely to convince the ethnic Ukrainians and other minorities (who combined make a majority) to do so and why should they be forced to change nationalities or move away?
 
And this thread provides depressing evidence of just how effective it can be.
Here's some very effective propaganda: Russia’s top 20 lies about Ukraine

Just a quick example:
f4fb739272fcb1ab9b48e8240aac6ecd.jpg

On the left, a Russian press report about what's going on in Slavyansk, but in reality the photo was taken in Saudi Arabia. Many more examples of that. Now you have a better idea why Russians support the nonsense in Ukraine, they've been fed lie after lie and Fluffy would like to feed us some more as well.

Btw, I'm not saying that Russia is the only one here conducting a propaganda campaign and I'd be all for being objective about propaganda from either side. There's plenty of BS from the Ukrainian side as well, but have you noticed that I refrain from posting that? I felt no reason to post Ukrainian propaganda about how they'd like us to believe it was Russian soldiers in Russia who fired that missile because it's clearly propaganda and I find it adds no value to the discussion. But Fluffy seems to love posting obvious BS here and I feel that I have to challenge that. That's why I consider fluffy a liar and I personally have no use for liars. I can't be friends with liars.

Btw, I love how the Russian propagandists use photos of Russian brutality to make false accusations against Ukrainians. Check out this one:
5c2683eeec84f1ae6c69437d4dd0022c.jpg

Yep, a photo of Russians driving over Chechens makes for a great propaganda campaign against Ukrainians. Gotta love irony.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top