MALAYSIAN AIRLINER 'SHOT DOWN' OVER UKRAINE

I am just hoping no-one thinks it's a bright idea to take the grieving relatives there for a photo-op, LL, no-one seems to know what they're doing or who is in charge.

And if anyone thinks it couldn't happen here, it's worth remembering what happened at the BEA Staines crash in 1972. ATC didn't notice they'd lost a plane, and the alarm was raised by three kids walking their dog who saw it come down right in front of them. The Great British Public then piled in to rubberneck and ghoul and generally cause chaos.

People in the Netherlands are very somber today. Have spoken to two this morning.

Heard something interesting too. Was told that it was cheaper to fly over the area than go around it........

There are an awful lot of questions needing to be asked of a great many people, Lily. Including Kiev ATC.

Yes, Bonny. There are. We can now see why they had to get BS 'answers' to the blame questions in so fast.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-18/ukraines-security-service-has-confiscated-air-traffic-control-recordings-malaysian-j

Oh.

bb1 wrote:http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-18/ukraines-security-service-has-confiscated-air-traffic-control-recordings-malaysian-j

Oh.

I'll raise you one.

They're bound to make copies of something so important, probably put them somewhere really, really secure like the IRS server.......nothing to worry about.

Thank goodness for that then.   

The principal cause of this tragedy was, I believe, financial.

Though there was no outright ban from aviation regulators with regard to flying over this area it was clearly known that there were possible dangers and many airlines including British Airways are known to have been routing all their aircraft around the area. Other companies chose not to pay the extra £4000 for extra fuel per flight necessary to divert planes around the area. These companies included Aeroflot (86 flights in recent days), Singapore Airlines (75), Ukraine International (62), Lufthansa (56) and Malaysian Airlines (48).

Had the aviation authorities banned the use of this airspace or had the airline companies decided for themselves (as some did) that the risk simply was not worth £4000 per flight then the tragedy would not have happened.

As for who supplied the missile and launcher, who shot the plane down and why, I suspect we may never know any more than we know what happened on 11/9/2001. We have official versions and other versions of the stories but as to whether either are wholly truthful, I am not sure I could honestly say.

And whether there was any other reason beyond an error by separatists (who may have mistaken the MAS flight for the kind of military aircraft they have recently been targetting), such as some other nation (Ukraine, China or USA perhaps) deliberately causing this tragedy to undermine Putin or to cause havoc in the region, who will ever really know? I doubt that I will.

But I am sure that if there had been no civilian flights over this war zone then the passengers and crew would have arrived safely at their destinations. And the only reason there were such flights was financial.

As for who supplied the missile and launcher, who shot the plane down and why, I suspect we may never know any more than we know what happened on 11/9/2001. We have official versions and other versions of the stories but as to whether either are wholly truthful, I am not sure I could honestly say.


I am tending to agree, Greenink. I get annoyed by '9/ll Truthers', they really don't help, but we haven't heard the full story, IMO. There was sufficient information in assorted intelligence files to demonstrate that something was going to happen involving airliners and skyscrapers, but supposedly no-one put it together. Likewise, there was strange trading in airlines in the days before 9/11...and why wasn't Saudi Arabia invaded, as that's where most of the hijackers came from?

As to this - let us not forget, this is the same airline whose other 777 is still AWOL because they wouldn't pay extra for the full tracking service.

As to who did it, IMO, there are only three possibilies.

1. The rebels got hold of a Buk from somewhere; that somewhere is unlikely to be Russia, as Putin hasn't been supplying them with anything really heavy-duty. The military planes they've been bringing down were all flying at a much lower altitude.

So, they got hold of a Buk system Ukraine left lying around and fired it and hit the airliner by mistake. Unlikely, but not impossible.

2. Ukraine did it by accident. Very possible, as they've been bombing and shelling indiscriminately, including Russian territory, and they do have about 60 of these.

3. Ukraine did it deliberately, to blacken Russia and give the US an excuse to....well, behave as it has been for the last 48 hours.

Horrible though that is, the strangeness emanating from Kiev as 'proof' of Russki evil involving fake conversations and fake videos does give it some weight.

Thing is, there is NO way the US and Russia haven't been watching that area 24/7, and I am pretty sure they KNOW who did it. Us peasants may never know the real story, however.

I remember something from my conversations this morning, relatives were being give 5,000 (euros IIRC) to bury each of the deceased.  That is all they are getting........ for now.  

I am sure we all remember how the missing 777 was handled by the airline, Lily. Very badly.

They certainly did, Bonny. There is nothing they can do to make up for the 4000 GBP they didn't want to pay to keep the plane from there.

Have often flown over the Ukraine, Iraq and occasionally Afghanistan but would not go over the Ukraine at any time soon.

Am stunned that all that saved the passengers from life was 4000 GBP.   

I'm not, Lily, nothing surprises me any more. Look at the stupidity that caused the Challenger disaster years ago....

There are a few good pieces here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/western-media-deception-new-information-and-questions-about-malaysian-flight-mh-17/5392095

if you want to read something about the downed airliner that's heavy on facts and figures, and light on hot air, propaganda and outright falsehoods.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/malaysian-plane-crash-lies-and-sinister-political-agenda-by-the-west/5391913

The Russian Defense Ministry has said that when a Malaysian Airlines plane was apparently shot down over Ukraine, a Ukrainian Buk anti-aircraft missile battery was operational in the region. The ministry said that the battery was deployed at a site from which it could have fired a missile at the airliner. The Defense Ministry also added that the Ukrainian military has several batteries of Buk surface-to-air missile systems with at least 27 launchers, capable of bringing down high-flying jets, in the Donetsk region where the Malaysian passenger plane crashed. Furthermore, hours after the crash of the Boeing 777 was reported, Kiev published what it called intercepted communications between militia officers and their Russian handler to apparently discuss the take-down of a civilian aircraft by the militia. However, as was noted in this video, the alleged intercepted conversation was created before the plane crashed, suggesting that not only is the conversation fake, but whoever created it was aware about the impending disaster.

For some reason, the Sunday papers are all screaming headlines, with no mention of that little detail....that might require their readers to actually THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

  

Quite. Greenink's right, I doubt if we will ever know the whole truth about this.

I know, Bonny. Muddying the waters seems to be all we can expect these days.   

lily wrote:I know, Bonny.   Muddying the waters seems to be all we can expect these days.   

Muddying the waters has been a major aim since the mid 19th Century. The Crimean War was the first really fought in the age of modern communications; the first during which photography and telegraphy were widely available. The thrust of the media message then was the supremacy of Western European Christian values over the heathens of the rest of the world. Whatever did not fit that message very rarely made the mainstream media.

Since then ever government has used the media to control what is known by the people rather than allowing it to report freely as some people believe.

Those following the story should take into account the two separate strands. The political and the economic. Both clearly overlap but the economic largely reflects the values of the companies involved and the political, the governments.

The estimate of £4000 takes into account the cost of extra fuel, staff time and reduced number of flights the planes can make per day. It is appalling in my view that such costs are more important than the lives of innocent people. But the airline bosses make the decisions not me. MAS flew almost fifty flights over Ukraine in the week leading up to the tragedy. So a saving to them of £200,000.

Other airlines did not baulk at the cost however, including BA, all US airlines, Air France and Quantas. An interesting one is Lufthansa whose primary airline flights were diverted but those of subsidiaries of Lufthansa were not.

Had the plane not been in the area there would have been no tragedy. That is one fact we can all agree on and those responsible will have to explain why it was there and admit the financial imperative was their priority.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698579/Two-cabin-crew-refused-fly-doomed-plane-war-zone-safety-fears-Senior-pilots-cabin-crew-flagged-concerns-flight-path-weeks-tragedy.html

The political and military aspects of the event will never be satisfactorily explained. No-one will come out of this looking good, the Ukrainians, the Rebels or the Russians.

However Fallon did have a good point on TV this morning when he stated that the one person who could have effected a proper exclusion zone round the site to ensure a proper international investigation was Putin who could either have persuaded the Rebels to cede the ground or have ensured they did so by force. The fact that he didn't even speak on the issue yesterday, let alone make that move does not bode well or look good.

I'm not necessarily reading anything into Russian silence, Greenink, they've kept quiet before and left the west to get into a frenzy until solid facts emerge. The 'gas attack' was a prime example. Of course Russian troops could have secured the crime scene - but can you imagine what would then have been said about that? Rocks and hard places....The old Soviet Union wouldn't have thought twice about marching in and cordoning it off. Mind you, the Soviet Union wouldn't have hesitated to go into eastern Ukraine in the first place, rather than have this running sore on its border

The Crimean War was the first really fought in the age of modern communications; the first during which photography and telegraphy were widely available. The thrust of the media message then was the supremacy of Western European Christian values over the heathens of the rest of the world. Whatever did not fit that message very rarely made the mainstream media.

Yes, and there is a great irony about that....

I would argue that one of the things which helped end the Vietnam war was public disgust when photos started emerging of the barbaric manner in which it was being conducted; screaming children covered in napalm didn't quite fit the meme of the US as the good guys.

bb1 wrote:I'm not necessarily reading anything into Russian silence, Greenink, they've kept quiet before and left the west to get into a frenzy until solid facts emerge. The 'gas attack' was a prime example. Of course Russian troops could have secured the crime scene - but can you imagine what would then have been said about that? Rocks and hard places....The old Soviet Union wouldn't have thought twice about marching in and cordoning it off. Mind you, the Soviet Union wouldn't have hesitated to go into eastern Ukraine in the first place, rather than have this running sore on its border

The Crimean War was the first really fought in the age of modern communications; the first during which photography and telegraphy were widely available. The thrust of the media message then was the supremacy of Western European Christian values over the heathens of the rest of the world. Whatever did not fit that message very rarely made the mainstream media.

Yes, and  there is a great irony about that....

I would argue that one of the things which helped end the Vietnam war was public disgust when photos started emerging of the barbaric manner in which it was being conducted; screaming children covered in napalm didn't quite fit the meme of the US as the good guys.

It is not the Russian silence which is damming. It is the lack of action on their part. They could have ensured a proper investigation but have allowed that area to remain in chaos and have permitted the destruction of a potential crime scene. We have the images to prove that inaction on their part. They didn't have to march in. All they needed to do was inform the rebels they would no longer be supported were they to refuse to cooperate.

As for Vietnam. I agree the free media had a major role in affecting the mood of the US and the world over the war and in its ending. Since then certain groups have been doing their dammdest to ensure that never happens again. Laws have changed to ensure it.

And if Russia told the rebels what to do, how long would it take for Washington and Kiev to be boasting about 'proof' that the uprising was being run by Moscow? Ignoring the fact that it was being done for humanitarian reasons? There is no 'good' course of action for the Kremlin in this, besides staying hands-off.

I suspect the West deliberately over-estimates the influence Moscow has on the rebels, most of whom don't actually want to be be part of Russia. If Russia was indeed controlling them, then Kiev wouldn't be doing repeats of Guernica on a daily basis.

You don't see too many photos of that in the western media; it wouldn't do for Mail readers to faced with reality over their cornflakes.

http://www.infowars.com/111136/

DEAR FELLOW AMERICAN: DO YOU REMEMBER IRAQ? SYRIA? ANYTHING?
How Can Americans Fall for Pro-War Propaganda So Soon After Learning of the Deceptions In Selling the Iraq and Syria Wars?

by WASHINGTON'S BLOG | JULY 20, 2014
Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Email this to someonePrint this page
Dear fellow American:

Do you remember that our government lied us into a war in Iraq?

Do you remember that that didn’t turn out very well?

Do you remember that the U.S. government came really close to lying us into a war in Syria?

Or that the mainstream media played a big part in both wars … and apologized for their horrible coverage?

So why do you now believe – without any investigation or evidence – the American government and media now saying that Putin is guilty for the shootdown of the Malaysian plane?

The mainstream media – and large gatekeeper “alternative” media – are ALWAYS pro-war.

While the Soviet Union was an awful place – where dissenters were routinely murdered, imprisoned, or sent on 1-way trips to the insane asylum – American politicians and press have exaggerated the dangers coming from the Soviet Union and Russia for decades.

Do you remember that wars are often started by government lies about the enemy … and that blowing up things and falsely blaming it on the enemy is the oldest trick in the book?

Do you remember … anything?

------------------------

And that sums up my sentiments on this matter precisely.

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/19/airline-horror-spurs-new-rush-to-judgment/

Another good piece, on the folly of whipping up hysteria first and fact-finding later.