Sputnik Will Be Broadcast in 30 Languages Next Year

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
That's right.

Because you're not debating, you're masturbating.
This reads like a request to the mods for an infraction.

Certainly it is an ad-hominem attack.

Certainly it is not true.

You have not responded to a single on of my questions because you know that your position is unjustifiable.

I am debating TAJ, you are not. You have strung together a series of smears, innuendos, red herrings and logical fallacies.

You have done this, because what you believe is wrong and you have no rational means of justifying it.
You repeat your narrowly defined statements over and over, up and down, for your own self-gratification.
...and if I hadn't narrowly defined them, you would now be saying that I was generalizing.

What I have done is reiterated the same questions that you have ignored because they demonstrate that your position is utterly unjustified.

I have shown that Putin has all of the characteristics of a fascist (a point that you have not disputed, presumably because you cannot credibly disagree that he is a fascist). I can only surmise that you do not have the courage to admit that you also believe he is a fascist, but you respect or like him anyway.

I have also reiterated these questions because you have not answered a single one of them.

You have repeatedly changed the topic from Putin to the Ukraine, which was never a part of my point. I have reiterated my questions to focus you on what I have actually said.
You surely do not appear interested in learning or widening your perspective.
Not true. I have been interested in what you have said. It is just that none of it is a response to what I have said.
I suspect you may think there is nothing else to know than your own ideas.
This is a common argument from you TAJ, an ad-hominem which involves your speculation as to my motives.

I've not seen you attempt to dispute any of the points I have made.

I have been quite interested by your inside stories, but I have not learned anything from you about any of what I had said.
I noticed on a few occasions when someone disagreed with you that you merely dismissed their views as propaganda.
Wrong. I have pointed to sources as obvious propaganda and criticized the crediblity of sources on occasion, always have given my reasons unless they are obvious from the context, but I have never dismissed someone's view itself as propaganda.
Yet you have no first hand knowledge of the discussion which means you too have only heard what someone else has told you.
This is a common fallacous argument. Young-earth creationsists use a variation of it.

"no one has seen evolution, therefore it does not exist."

In what way do the following facts require first hand knowledge?

1) Putin is a strong charismatic leader
2) Putin controls state media
3) Putin controls many aspects of Russian life
4) Putin persecutes homosexuals
5) Putin is criticizes western liberal values
6) Putin has a strong military focus
7) Putin has a state controlled focus on the economy

8) People who have these characteristics are fascists.

You have not disputed them, with all of your first hand knowledge, so I can only assume that you agree that they are all true.
You have a right to say what you think.

But you have no inherent right to be taken seriously.

And I don't take you seriously because of the foolishness and narrow-mindedness of your statements.

And the worst thing is you can't even see it.
No my dear, the worst thing is that you can make these comments without referring to a single word I have said in order to justify them.

I find it curious that you take them serious enough to be offended, but not quite serious enough to address any of the content.

These is a curious and disappointing flaw TAJ.
Henry Kissinger is a brilliant mind when it comes to Diplomacy; you would know that if you ever read his books.
If I read his own books, they would tell me how great he was?

Please don't tell me you are that naive.
Yet you dismissed his opinion out of hand because you didn't approve of his some of his actions.

Well, where is your Nobel Prize if you know so much more than him?

What war did you negotiate to an end?

And weren't you in a brainwashed space alien cult called Scientology?

What does that make your opinion worth?

No, sorry, to me you're just a ego with a keyboard that is out of touch with reality under discussion.
TAJ, rather than rant, why don't you address what is specifically wring in anything I have said?

I've given you so many opportunities, why don't you try?
This problem is a real thing to me because my loved ones lives hang in the balance.
Putin's actions may well save your families lives. They have taken the lives of others, including those on MH17.
What possible reason would I have for wasting my time stroking your ego?

I'm sure you'll have a comeback for this, like how you understand it all and nobody wants to debate you.
I don't understand everything, and you are incapable of debating me because you are wrong.
I wrote this to let you know that I don't care what you think and also to let others know why.

The Anabaptist Jacques
Very childish TAJ.

This thread started out praising the so called free press called Sputnik.

I have asserted that it is propaganda from the Russians, you have not apparently dissented from this.

I have asserted that Putin is a brutal fascist dictator who has been the only leader in the last 25 years to annex another country by force. You've not disputed this either.

What you have done instead is changed the subject to the faults of the Ukrainian government (which I have not and do not dispute by the way) and made continuous personal attacks.

A word of warning TAJ, people like Putin do not get better. They get worse. If it suits your family to be in bed with him at the moment so be it. It does not change what he is. It does not mean this will end well.
 

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
TAJ is correct in his analysis of the coming undone of the communist block.

This part by Enthetan, again touting propaganda media is way off . . .



Dunno how people anyone can write this stuff and believe it.

Note, Desert Storm, as cited in the piece used by Enthetan, began in August, 1990. The Iron Curtain communist block began "officiallly" coming apart in April, 1989 . . . like a year and a half earlier . . . Poland legalized Solidarity and had its first free election and kicked the commies out. And this after the moves by Gorbie who began the process of internally liberalizing the USSR scene. The Berlin Wall "came down" 4 months after the Polish election kicked out communist control.

Desert Storm had nothing, zilch, nada, to do with "Russian" thinking and nor them trying to match US spending on military buildup as a cause of the Iron curtain coming down and the end of the USSR communist setup.
I think that Enthetan was saying that their war machine had broken down because they had been forced to overspend in that area throughout the cold war.
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
Not at all.

First of all, their military spending did not increase while Reagan was president; not in real or nominal dollars.

Wrong.

Growth from 1985 to 1988, the year they gave up competing, was almost 7% in constant 2000 USD.

Star Wars did not bankrupt the buggers. The collapse of the USSR was a complex, multifactorial process.

However.

Constant pressure from the Reagan military did hasten the process. I was there. I interviewed former and current Soviet Military personnel. I got a feel for what they thought and felt.

There were three military factors that led to the fall of the USSR. First, and foremost, was their expenditures in their proxy wars. Vietnam chewed up nearly 10% of the Soviet Defense budget in the 1960s, and Defense was already at an unsustainable 15 - 20% of their GDP at the time.

This pyrrhic victory weakened the Soviet Union, causing them to double down on existing technologies (nuclear and armor) that had a chance, in their view, of overwhelming NATO in the event of war, and did not require significant new investment or re-allocation of resources. They did not invest in computer and stealth technologies that consumed the Western defense research budget in those years, causing them to slip behind while still maintaining an illusion of superiority through numbers.

When they became embroiled in Afghanistan, they held expenditures in Afghanistan itself to of 3% of their defense budget, and this under-resourcing led to massive casualties. It also destroyed the notion of the invincible Soviet Military that had been maintained since 1945. More than the financial costs, this moral failing undermined the patriotism that was necessary for the Communists to hold on to power in the face of the waining ability of the KGB to control the populace, a trend in place since Krushchev's secret 1956 speech condemning Stalin. The mafia's recruitment of Afghan vets provided much of the social upheaval that convinced Gorbachev to institute reforms, and non-criminal Afghan vets were vocal supporters of his reforms.

I met significant numbers of "Afghans" when I lived there. People listened to them, respected them, and in general, wanted nothing to do with another Soviet military adventure. This was a significant break from the USSR of the 1970s.

The second military factor was the First Gulf War. I was in the Lithuanian SSR at the time. In the months building up to the war, Moscow tried to get hard line on the Baltic secessionists. They were broadcasting Kung Fu movies at us on State TV with the clear message of: "remember Tienanmen - it can happen to you, too". State TV was also talking up the Soviet-madeIraqi defense systems in the run up to January 1991. Then the US obliterated them in a few hours, and suddenly the press was full of "half their gear came from France, the French must have betrayed them". And, funny enough, the general in charge of their Air Defense Artillery branch was fired soon after the war ended. This is a pretty good English language breakdown of the reactions of the Soviet press at the time.

With this came a significant rebellion in the Military. Younger officers no longer trusted Yezhov and the high command. This came to a head in January 1991, just as the ground war in the Gulf started. With the Americans distracted, the Soviet Military moved on Lithuania, the most vociferous of the three Baltic states. Lithuania was home to most of the Soviet paratroops - far enough back not to get hit in a first NATO strike on their client states, but close enough to counter-strike at Western Europe in a hurry. And Yezhov brought in his Spetznaz from Central Asia to take over the mass communications in Vilnius, but the paratroops in Kaunas refused to join in. The day after the attack in Vilnius, I went for a little look-see at the HQ building of the Soviet paratroops. There were three strips of cloth down the entire length of the building - yellow, green and red. Exactly in the middle, perpendicular to those strips, was a black band - a black band across the Lithuanian flag, the universal sign of mourning in those weeks after the attack.

It was at that point I knew the Communists were finished. It took 8 more months, until August of that year, to put Yeltsin in power, but the reach of Soviet power exceeded its grasp based on those military failures on January 13, 1991 in Lithuania. And without the previous cracks in the armor from Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Star Wars, I'm not totally sure that Yezhov would have failed right there.

The third military factor was indeed Star Wars. Their officers knew that the most likely outcome would not be a missile shield, but rather something to blind them by shooting down most of their satellites. And they also knew that they, even with a massive shift in resource allocation in the defense sector, could not match this potentially devastating blow to their nuclear targeting capabilities. Suddenly their alleged ability to overwhelm NATO in a first strike was challenged, and everyone knew it.
Their problems were:

1) rising nationalism

2) Their internal pricing system

WTF and WTFF?

Nationalism did not start to rear its ugly head until after the dark times of roughly 1992 - 1996.

Pricing was the least of their worries. It actually worked well within their closed system, provided there was no corruption. There was enough flexibility in their price systems for food, at least, that if you wanted things, you could get them. The year after that article was written, people had broken their mental blockade that prices should be stable, and small time entrepreneurs were selling groceries all over Moscow in impromptu farmer's markets. I did not have the connections to buy goods in the state stores (you had to know someone who knew when the shipments were coming in, to buy before they ran out), so almost all of my fruit and vegetables were purchased on the open market. And I had to stand in line to get them, even at the prices the private sector was charging in 1989.

Part of the problem was mafia siphoning of goods, part of the problem was mismanagement.

3) The traditional Soviet patronage system which was the successful administrate structure was dismantle, even made illegal and prosecuted, by Gorbachev's reforms.

That Reagan or Bush had anything to do with it is a myth.

The Anabaptist Jacques

The Soviet patronage system was not broken, or made illegal by Gorby. He fired a bunch of incompetents in the industries that made the most exports, but they were replaced by others in the nomenklatura, not by privatization. I had to deal with the nomenklatura the entire time I lived there.

What was broken, was Gorbachev's emphasis on heavy machinery at the expense of consumer goods. His early reforms of the oil industry were actually very successful, and if he'd had the guts to fight established interests and Communist doctrine to start making washing machines (even crappy ones) instead of crappy tractors, the USSR might still be around.

Reagan's role may be overstated, but it's not a myth. The Russian middle ranking officers believed that Star Wars was a black eye for their leadership, and correct or not, perception is reality when it comes to morale. The sudden, precipitous drop in defense spending in 1989 was mostly due to the perception that they could not catch up, and SDI was a big piece of that.
 

Balthasar

Patron Meritorious
--snipped
It was at that point I knew the Communists were finished. It took 8 more months, until August of that year, to put Yeltsin in power, but the reach of Soviet power exceeded its grasp based on those military failures on January 13, 1991 in Lithuania. And without the previous cracks in the armor from Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Star Wars, I'm not totally sure that Yezhov would have failed right there.

--snipped---

Thanks for your valuable information above. Because you were mentioning Yeltsin it got me thinking again.

Yeltsin privatized practically everything including part of Gazprom which, although it changed its name and setup in 1989, always was state owned. This selling off gave rise to Oligarchs who quickly bought up the state distributed vouchers which were given to the Russian citizens to speed up privatization. Later there was outright corruption involved in distributing remaining crown jewels of the former Soviet Union. Yeltsin it certainly seems, didn't know anything about privatization and free market and that's why he took western advice to get the know how. This included US treasury department and IMF which were advising him how to implement this shock therapy.

Wouldn't you agree that a Russian privatization was completely unnecessary in the first place? Free market implementation should have been done by eliminating "communistic" legislation so new markets, products and services would organically grow and replace non productive ones.

Now, because "oneonewasaracecar" slammed Putin as a fascist, I tend to say that Putin has no choice other than to do what he does. Russia is not Switzerland. He has to rule with a iron hand. Putin had to revert to some degree what Yeltsin started, certainly out of pure necessity.
 
Last edited:

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks for your valuable information above. Because you were mentioning Yeltsin it got me thinking again.

Yeltsin privatized practically everything including part of Gazprom which, although it changed its name and setup in 1989, always was state owned. This selling off gave rise to Oligarchs who quickly bought up the state distributed vouchers which were given to the Russian citizens to speed up privatization. Later there was outright corruption involved in distributing remaining crown jewels of the former Soviet Union. Yeltsin it certainly seems, didn't know anything about privatization and free market and that's why he took western advice to get the know how. This included US treasury department and IMF which were advising him how to implement this shock therapy.

Wouldn't you agree that a Russian privatization was completely unnecessary in the first place? Free market implementation should have been done by eliminating "communistic" legislation so new markets, products and services would organically grow and replace non productive ones.

Now, because "oneonewasaracecar" slammed Putin as a fascist, I tend to say that Putin has no choice other than to do what he does. Russia is not Switzerland. He has to rule with a iron hand. Putin had to revert to some degree what Yeltsin started, certainly out of pure necessity.

I don't think privatization was unnecessary. The system let desperately needed vegetables rot in rail cars in the South because no one gave a shit and the engineers of the trains were drunk off their asses. Some sort of capitalistic system where rewards were commensurate with production was needed.

However, I think you're right, in that the goal could have been achieved more gradually, and within the system. The student construction brigade I worked on was paid by the piece, while the permanent crew was on a fixed salary, and we ran rings around them in meeting and exceeding quotas. The problem was that lack of moral confidence in the whole edifice. I don't think Gorby had a choice but to dismantle the old system.

True, this could have been accomplished in a different way, and in a more gradual manner, as with the Chinese. The problem was that the smarter members of the Nomenklatura saw the writing on the wall, and pushed for rapid privatization, because they saw a way forward for rapid advancement. Those old Communists at the top lost power rapidly, but the cynical middle saw a way to climb rapidly by cheating the country. Soviet workers who had no idea how markets worked were given stock in their own factories in return for the depressed wages they'd been paid all their lives. When the hard times hit, they sold their stock for a pittance, and the oligarchs made their fortunes. Note that Putin himself was a mid-level officer, a Lieutenant Colonel, at the time of the fall of the USSR. The rise of that talented, but despotic and greedy, middle layer in the 1990s is exemplified by him.

One major issue, non-economic, is that Russia has never had experience with Democracy. The serfs were only freed in 1868, and even then were tied to the land. Like all slave societies, hard work is not valued as much, because the fruits of that labor go to the Man not to the worker. This leads to petty corruption, theft, and other bad behavior when a strong government is not watching over society, and is at the root of the Russian love for central autocrats who look out for them with respect to the petty abuses of the local officials. It's so ingrained in the culture, I'm not sure how to change things.

I often say, I really like Russians. Russia? Not so much.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
Yeltsin privatized practically everything including part of Gazprom which, although it changed its name and setup in 1989, always was state owned. This selling off gave rise to Oligarchs who quickly bought up the state distributed vouchers which were given to the Russian citizens to speed up privatization. Later there was outright corruption involved in distributing remaining crown jewels of the former Soviet Union. Yeltsin it certainly seems, didn't know anything about privatization and free market and that's why he took western advice to get the know how. This included US treasury department and IMF which were advising him how to implement this shock therapy.

There's a question I wondered about for a while, and maybe you and Udarnik can share your thoughts and opinions. My question is "Who were the Oligarchs, and where did they get the money to buy up the "privatized" Soviet industries?"

My personal suspicion has been that "privatization" was simply the Soviet Nomenklatura (inner Party members) taking bits and pieces of former State industries, and putting the bits into their own private names, leaving the power as it was before. Before, the Nomenklatura (as the Party) owned the Soviet Union as a group and afterwards the Nomenklatura (as individual oligarchs) still owned the assets of Russia. What do you think, since you have more "on the ground" familiarity?
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
There's a question I wondered about for a while, and maybe you and Udarnik can share your thoughts and opinions. My question is "Who were the Oligarchs, and where did they get the money to buy up the "privatized" Soviet industries?"

My personal suspicion has been that "privatization" was simply the Soviet Nomenklatura (inner Party members) taking bits and pieces of former State industries, and putting the bits into their own private names, leaving the power as it was before. Before, the Nomenklatura (as the Party) owned the Soviet Union as a group and afterwards the Nomenklatura (as individual oligarchs) still owned the assets of Russia. What do you think, since you have more "on the ground" familiarity?

The Oligarchs are, by and large, the more talented and vicious members of the mid-level Nomenklatura. Soviet society had ossified into a class system, with even the families of disgraced former Politburo members such as Lavrenty Beria forming a tight-knit de facto aristocracy.

The Party made sure that plum jobs required a Party membership, so there was a lot of frustrated talent in the middle itching to get somewhere in life. When the opportunity presented itself, they discredited the old elites and grabbed the reigns of power. So it's true that the new boss is sorta the same as the old boss, but most of the new guys were not diehard Communists. I have many friends who belonged to the party in the 1980s, but quickly repudiated that in the 1990s. They are the backbone of the Russian bourgeoise and upper classes, today.

There is one more little wrinkle to throw in - a lot of the mid-level guys were already experimenting with capitalism in the 1980s via the only outlet possible - the mafia. A lot of rank-and-file Communists I knew were also mafiosi. Hell, I worked out in a karate studio in Kaunas that was almost 50% mafia. It is really hard to describe the influence and domination of late Soviet society by organized crime to a Westerner. I have only twice in my life interacted with organized criminals in the West (that I know of) but it was a weekly, if not daily occurrence for me in the USSR.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
There is one more little wrinkle to throw in - a lot of the mid-level guys were already experimenting with capitalism in the 1980s via the only outlet possible - the mafia. A lot of rank-and-file Communists I knew were also mafiosi. Hell, I worked out in a karate studio in Kaunas that was almost 50% mafia. It is really hard to describe the influence and domination of late Soviet society by organized crime to a Westerner. I have only twice in my life interacted with organized criminals in the West (that I know of) but it was a weekly, if not daily occurrence for me in the USSR.

That's another thing I'd often wondered about, the origins of the Russian Mafia. I didn't think the old KGB would have tolerated the existence of the Mafia, unless the Mafia was itself an offshoot of the KGB, a way for moonlighting KGB (who already were armed and trained), to get stuff for themselves in a "plausibly deniable" way.

What do you think? Were there connections between the mafia and the Soviet security elements? If not common membership, then mutual back-scratching?

Then again, if the mafia leadership were, to a large extent, made up of Party members, then there would have been a level of protection from Soviet security anyway.
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
That's another thing I'd often wondered about, the origins of the Russian Mafia. I didn't think the old KGB would have tolerated the existence of the Mafia, unless the Mafia was itself an offshoot of the KGB, a way for moonlighting KGB (who already were armed and trained), to get stuff for themselves in a "plausibly deniable" way.

What do you think? Were there connections between the mafia and the Soviet security elements? If not common membership, then mutual back-scratching?

Then again, if the mafia leadership were, to a large extent, made up of Party members, then there would have been a level of protection from Soviet security anyway.

Absolutely there were ties. The Mafia went to places like Yugoslavia to import Western goods on the sly, and KGB officers like to live in luxury as much as the next despot.

The security forces used organized crime since at least the 30s. If you read The Gulag Archipelago, by Solzhenitsyn, you will hear of him complaining about the blat'noi (literally, "fuckers" in Russian) - organized criminals used as stooges and enforcers over the political prisoners in the camps, like the Kapos in the Nazi camps.

There was a joke when I was there: what's the difference between the Sicilian and Russian mafia? The Sicilian mafia wants to take over the government, the Russian mafia IS the government.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
There was a joke when I was there: what's the difference between the Sicilian and Russian mafia? The Sicilian mafia wants to take over the government, the Russian mafia IS the government.

The Soviet government started out as a Mafia-like operation, with the "Communist party" taking power at gunpoint and maintaining its members' power over the people through terror. So it's not surprising that it continued as a Mafia operation.
 

RogerB

Crusader
The Soviet government started out as a Mafia-like operation, with the "Communist party" taking power at gunpoint and maintaining its members' power over the people through terror. So it's not surprising that it continued as a Mafia operation.

Yes, that is a very correct point.

The period from the end of WW1 to the "fall of communism" was a monster aberration of nature for the true Russian people.

R
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Media Blackout as U.S. Sponsors Genocide in Southeastern Ukraine

Global Research (Canadian site)

"Here’s a typical example of what’s being blacked-out:

This is a photo of a Ukrainian soldier guiding a truck-full of prisoners toward a ditch, to which the prisoners are then dragged one-by-one, and thrown in, and shot — then covered over with dirt after all the corpses (and perhaps some living bleeding survivors) are piled in it.

(Of course, any survivors then quickly choke to death, from the dirt):" LINK

=========

Makes you proud to be an American?
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
Media Blackout as U.S. Sponsors Genocide in Southeastern Ukraine

Global Research (Canadian site)

"Here’s a typical example of what’s being blacked-out:

This is a photo of a Ukrainian soldier guiding a truck-full of prisoners toward a ditch, to which the prisoners are then dragged one-by-one, and thrown in, and shot — then covered over with dirt after all the corpses (and perhaps some living bleeding survivors) are piled in it.

(Of course, any survivors then quickly choke to death, from the dirt):" LINK

=========

Makes you proud to be an American?

Looking at the video, which is being taken by one of the participants, some people are dragged to a ditch, and then there are muzzle flashes.

What is the probability of Ukrainian military making videos of themselves committing war crimes, versus the probability of Russians dressing themselves up as Ukrainians to stage a propaganda video?
 

RogerB

Crusader
On the subject of what lies the US creates and spreads in order to defame its target nations or individuals in order to justify US attack upon them . . . of course they also use overseas stooges when the ill-will has to be created internationally . . .

This guy is coming clean on his part in it all . . .

Dr Udo Ulfkotte, journalist and author, on RT

Uploaded on Sep 29, 2014

[video=youtube;yp-Wh77wt1o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp-Wh77wt1o#t=416[/video]

By the way . . . I see this in my wandering about on the web:
Link here . . . under the heading "Justice for the MH17 Victims

Of course, there are plenty of parties interested in concealing the real facts about flight MH17. Symptomatically, on August 8, 2014 the Ukraine, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia signed a non-disclosure agreement on the crash investigation.
Procrastination and delaying of an objective investigation by these sides and international organizations raises doubts whether the concerned parties will make public the findings and true circumstances of the crash of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777.
Are the relatives of those who died in the flight MH17 the only interested people in bringing the real perpetrators of this horrible criminal act to justice? Who will listen to Malaysian PM Dato’ Sri Najib Razak’s call?

Ummm . . . since when has any commercial airline crash or catastrophe killing civilian passengers required "confidentiality" (errr, [STRIKE]suppression of truth[/STRIKE]) Why suddenly the need for a confidential investigation . . . and this following all of the bullshit earlier delays.

We have already had the suppression of available info that should have to date been made public by the Ukraine air traffic control . . . the whole thing is a) on their radar and b) in the voice record of ground to air control . . .

The Russians are stating the plane was shot down by a combat jet . . .

The big bullshit red flag to me on the story that the plane was shot down by a ground based missile is this: a) eye witnesses referring to the fighter jet and b) where are the witnesses to, or pictures of, the "missile's vapor/exhaust trail" that is ALWAYS visible behind such alleged missiles. If a missile had done the job, you would have seen its exhaust trail in the sky on way to the plane!

To me, all the above is beginning to add up to a come together of facts that is going to bring down the bullshit being run by the US on the peoples of the world. And the US will be assigned to the 3rd world when this comes about which, as I see the facts coming together, will not be too much longer.

R
///
 

RogerB

Crusader
Hmm . . . as I look about this morning I see this
LINK . . .

Full story at link . . . to be noted is that this release was dated yesterday November 15, 2014 . . . umm, an embarrassing open of the G20 in Brisbane for Mr Obumma, or wot?? Note this is based on an analysis and report by an MIT graduate . . . America not Russia.

Last seconds of MH17 flight were snapshot by a spy satellite

arton185923-4f000.jpg

According to information obtained from the email of George Bilt, a former MIT alumni and aviation expert for more than 20 years, the Malaysian Boeing 777 flight #MH17 Amsterdam – Kuala-Lumpur, which tragically collapsed on July 17, 2014, was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet chasing it.

The email was sent a few days ago attention to the Russian Union of Engineers which published a preliminary Incident Report on MH17 [1].

“I fully agree with the results of your analysis of the causes of Boeing catastrophe. It was shot down by a fighter jet.”

– wrote the author who presented himself as George Bilt.

The assertion was supported by a space photo made presumably by a US or UK spy satellite at the moment of attack around 13:20 UTC on July 17, 2014. Russian Channel 1 has released satellite images edivencing that Malaysian Boeing MH17 (top of picture) was shot down by a Ukrainian warplane (bottom left).

Russian Channel 1 has released satellite images edivencing that Malaysian Boeing MH17 (top of picture) was shot down by a Ukrainian warplane (bottom left).

The picture, which clearly shows the launch from the left wing fighter exactly the cockpit, was attached to the e-mail. The landscape, weather, aircraft sizes on picture are fully consistent with the circumstances of the accident.

Ivan Andrievsky, the first Vice-President of the Russian Union of Engineers comments:
“Here is a space picture taken from a low orbit. According to the coordinates specified in the picture, we can assume that it was taken by a US or British spy satellite. We conducted a detailed analysis of the image and there was no sign of a fake here.”
<CUT>

///
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Looking at the video, which is being taken by one of the participants, some people are dragged to a ditch, and then there are muzzle flashes.

What is the probability of Ukrainian military making videos of themselves committing war crimes, versus the probability of Russians dressing themselves up as Ukrainians to stage a propaganda video?

Looks like a selfie to me...by a proud Kiev Ukrainian

The problem the majority of relatively normal humans have, is the inability, due to the structure of their minds, to even conceive the Machiavellian motivations, and machinations of the sociopathic personality.

"The most satisfying thing for a sociopath (confidence artist) is to flaunt the ignorance of the deceived in their face."

Arnie Lerma
 

RogerB

Crusader
Originally Posted by Enthetan
Looking at the video, which is being taken by one of the participants, some people are dragged to a ditch, and then there are muzzle flashes.

What is the probability of Ukrainian military making videos of themselves committing war crimes, versus the probability of R
quote_icon.png
ussians dressing themselves up as Ukrainians to stage a propaganda video?
Looks like a selfie to me...by a proud Kiev Ukrainian

The problem the majority of relatively normal humans have, is the inability, due to the structure of their minds, to even conceive the Machiavellian motivations, and machinations of the sociopathic personality.

"The most satisfying thing for a sociopath (confidence artist) is to flaunt the ignorance of the deceived in their face."

Arnie Lerma

Yes, correct . . . WTF with the introduction of this kind of "think" of it being a false flag by the Russians . . . that kind of inventive mind is the kind of bullshit that turned me off working for the UN in the '70's . . . they had too many poseurs pranching about trying to be clever to each other with none having the balls to call the other on the bullshit.

The Russians would be idiotic to try such a stunt in the current climate . . . this is no longer pre-1990! And so would the East-Ukrainians, as they could too easily be exposed and ALL their credibility and validity would be lost.

All of the truths pertaining to actions and claims by the current Ukrainian government and the CIA/US cum NATO operatives show them to be the ones making with the lies and false flag ops . . . .

I saw recently a report by an independent Human Rights Watchdog Group about the Ukraine government forces shelling the east-Ukraine civilian and "rebel" positions with illegal cluster bomb weapons For Christ-Sakes! Umm, what about the proven massacre in Odessa?

For those with any sort of memory, even in the western media, it has been demonstrated that it is the Ukraine government and its western money master powers that have been lying at every turn . . . who cannot recall the Ukraine gov claim of having "destroyed a Russian armored column" back there a couple of months :melodramatic:

It's like, every time they open their mouths they have gotten caught with lies.

One should report facts, not one's own personal invented "think" in efforts to appear clever . . . invented think is what does decent society in. It is why places like NATO and the UN are disfunctional . . . it why the UN's bureaucracy is spread about getting in its own way and being ineffective . . . they chase down invented opinion. Their behind the scenes (not the delegates, but the employed bureaucrats a la in the vein of its civil servant class) run about posing as being clever to each other. I know this because that's who I dealt with in the 007 days.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
On the subject of what lies the US creates and spreads in order to defame its target nations or individuals in order to justify US attack upon them . . . of course they also use overseas stooges when the ill-will has to be created internationally . . .

This guy is coming clean on his part in it all . . .

Dr Udo Ulfkotte, journalist and author, on RT

Uploaded on Sep 29, 2014

[video=youtube;yp-Wh77wt1o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp-Wh77wt1o#t=416[/video]

Yes, this gentleman is telling his story on RT, therefore he is factual and believable

Meanwhile, this woman on RT is just spewing Western propaganda and lies.

[video=youtube;55izx6rbCqg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55izx6rbCqg[/video]

Being the second RT anchor who has spoken out, on air, against Russia's actions

It is correct to think that Western media lies at the behest of certain powers. It is foolish to think that foreign-owned press do not.

"There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an "Independent Press"! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

John Swinton, former chief editorial writer for The New York Times, in a 1883 speech before the New York Press Club
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Well Enthetan, it seems that there's a handful of posters here who get moist when they see Putin. Don't spoil their...ahhhhh...dream. LOL....
 
Top