Western propaganda

kvs wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

kvs wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

kvs wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

kvs wrote:

Rodinazombie wrote:^^^

Its a great point and one usually overlooked in the 'they did it' arguments. Personally i think the  rebels did it accidentally,  but my focus is more on the people who were sending the planes over a warzone that was responsible for so many aircraft losses in the time building up to that. If they wish to put the rebels on trial for an accident, then surely the people in kiev are arguably just as culpable for letting it overfly the zone?

Its a tricky one, and unless they can prove that the rebels did it completely on purpose, with the intention of shooting down an airliner full of civilians, then they should be looking at all people who had a part to play in this tragic accident.

I dont think they will get as far as fingering the rebels for it though, as they seem set on blaming russia and putin personally.

The fact that the Kiev regime seized the ATC tapes and made them secret (if not destroying them) says it all to me.   What have they
to hide?   The ATC tapes would be proving their case but they suppress this evidence.  

I do not find the theory that the rebels did it credible.   All of the previous shootdowns were due to MANPADs.   Somehow magically
they started using Buks.   BS.  If they had a Buk system that they could use they could have been shooting down regime SU-25s
much more easily.   But they chose to shoot down a civilian airliner just outside of the range of the 9M38 missile instead.   Epic
propaganda nonsense.

Actually there were OSA's and Strelas in thatre since at least end of June, early July. There were a couple of videos after the carnage at Donetsk Aiport in May showing "Separ" assets to prevent Crocodiles from roaming free that were initially treated as propaganda by Ukraine.  Then Black July happened. Over 50% of the aircraft losses from the Ukropistanis were lost in July. That was the first Voentorg shot in the Arm.

But the point is that all of the aircraft that were shot down including the An transports were below 5 km.   The rebels had no
means of shooting down aircraft at 10 km.  

I don't contest the point here, just making sure there's proper context. There were OSA's and Strela's. We didn't saw no BUK until the Paris Match photos.

OSA's engagement ceiling is 5 km.  The Strela's ceiling is 3.5 km.    No way these systems could have hit MH17.

The rebels had a single non-functional Buk system which the Ukr army left behind at the air force base they abandoned.   There
are even pictures of the system.   Because it was not functional the Kiev regime accused Russia of supplying the rebels with
functional Buk systems and produced a phony video to prove it (they claimed it was going through a border town but in
fact it was filmed in the regime controlled part of Lugansk City).   Naturally NATO passes this BS claim off as the truth and
the blame is on Putin for shooting down MH17.  The question none of the NATO media drones and the consumers of their
excrement asks is why would Russia supply the rebels with Buks when the Ukrainian airforce was not using Tu-23 type high
altitude aircraft for attacks.   The regime forces used Su-25s to bomb and strafe the rebels and the rebels succeeded in
shooting them down without Buk systems.

It was the Kiev regime that was worried about Russian air force attacks and the deployment of Buk systems then make sense.
And it was only the Kiev regime that was operating Buks in the Donbas.

Once again, I don't factually dispute a point I didn't make. You said there were only Manpads used to down Ukrop aircraft. I corrected that, the rest isn't important to this point.

Do you actually know how many OSA and Strela systems the rebels had and when they got them.   I was following the
thread at MP net actively and also the Russian web pages tracking the action and the use of these systems was not
particularly apparent.   My distinct impression was that the rebels were using MANPADs as the main weapon by far
so any attempt to make it look like they were actively using OSA and Strela systems is a distortion of the truth.

kvs wrote:

9M38 missile fragments would never produce a linear damage pattern of regularly spaced 30 mm holes such as seen in the above
cockpit outer panel.    Nobody can deny physics and claim it is a random chance event.    The scatter of the non-spherical, tightly
packed missile shrapnel produces a cloud of it upon detonation.   It would fill up every square foot section of fuselage it impacts
with holes.   Even if the density is low due to distance it would never produce a 1D impact pattern.    It would also be
impossible for the spacing of the shrapnel holes to be uniform since there are collisions between the warhead packed shrapnel
pieces during detonation.   They are scattered like shotgun round pellets.   Has anyone ever seen shotgun pellets produce such
1D uniformly spaced impact patterns.   No!  

higurashihougi wrote:PapaDragon has posted it in Ukrainian thread but I believe it should make an apperance here, too.

http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150904/1026606433/economist-usa-russia-ukraine-criticism.html

London-based weekly news magazine The Economist is outraged over a recent policy document from South Africa's ruling African National Congress party, labeling the party of anti-Apartheid hero Nelson Mandela "clueless and immoral."

ANC's article, in PDF: http://www.anc.org.za/docs/umrabulo/2015/ngc_disc_docsy.pdf

The Economist article: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21663226-country-symbolises-human-rights-and-freedom-turning-its-back-both-clueless-and

higurashihougi wrote:

kvs wrote:"The Economist" is a monetarist (really neocon) piece of propaganda excrement.  During the 1980s it was a rabid supporter of the
Contras in Nicaragua.   Where are these Reagan-funded "freedom fighters" today?   Where is "commie" Daniel Ortega?   Looks like
the Contras were fighting freedom alright, they were fighting the freedom of Nicaraguans.   I don't know why people think this
collection of used toilet paper has any gravitas.   It is nothing but a NATO elite narrative pusher.

The problem here is the Western-centrism mindset, which is extremely popular both in the East and The West. Even in my country you can see the 10% SOB who always dream about the so-called freedom paradise sincerely intepret all kind of imperialist activities as "liberation", "freedom" or "enlightenment".

Believe me, there are probably considerable number of people if you can call them people believe in Economist's article disregard of such blalantly bias argument.

This issue about the article, beside exposing the quality of the newspaper itself, also showing that there is still a great portion of the population who still blindly believe in the neo-con idea of "freedom paradise" and blindly believe in the so-called inferiority of Russia and Eastern world, disregard of how bias and how wrong it that belief is.

I don't know whether the neo-con propaganda media is so effective or a number of people are so ignorant.

GarryB wrote:Western propaganda has a dilemma... if it makes its enemies sound too powerful then one must ask what all those half a trillion dollars the US spends every year are doing.

kvs wrote:http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150930/1027807644/ngo-caught-faking-syria-casualties-report.html

The current propaganda frenzy in the NATO media is that Russia is bombing the "moderate" Assad opposition.
This spin is total rubbish.   Here are these Soros-funded NGO maggots hanging out with Al Nusra (aka Al Qaeda,
Syria branch):

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=873_1430935383&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

artjomh wrote:

GarryB wrote:Western propaganda has a dilemma... if it makes its enemies sound too powerful then one must ask what all those half a trillion dollars the US spends every year are doing.

Which is why when you read Western news, it appears that Russia is an eternally crumbling weak impotent country that is just one step away from completely taking over the world.

flamming_python wrote:

artjomh wrote:

GarryB wrote:Western propaganda has a dilemma... if it makes its enemies sound too powerful then one must ask what all those half a trillion dollars the US spends every year are doing.

Which is why when you read Western news, it appears that Russia is an eternally crumbling weak impotent country that is just one step away from completely taking over the world.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/28/surprise-surprise-russia-is-world-power-again.html

Exemplified best by articles such as this, which put both sides of the schizophrenic propaganda line at loggerheads with each other deliberately in the same article - how can it be, the article asks, that Russia is now a world power again despite lacking "modern consumer, agricultural and hi-tech sectors" and having an economy "smaller than that of England, France or Germany".

It's like Fox News is having a short-circuit or something; does not compute.

Which is what happens; when you simultaneously exaggerate both Russia's threat, and its weaknesses.

GarryB wrote:Of course the Russians and Chinese plotted a mass invasion of refugees into europe... remember it was their idea to bomb egypt and libya and syria and iraq and yemen and afghanistan over the last decade or two to make their own countries unliveable.

the west didn't want to bomb anyone but Russia and china made them do it....  

magnumcromagnon wrote:Why Svetlana Alexievich Won the Nobel Prize in Literature

kvs wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Why Svetlana Alexievich Won the Nobel Prize in Literature

Nobel prizes have always been politically tainted.   I recall during the cold war western media hacks routinely yapping about how
Soviet scientists, etc, were inferior because they didn't get this f*cking prize at the rate that western ubermenschen did.   For
f*ck's sake, they gave Obama the Peace Prize just for being elected.   Obama had zero contribution to world or regional peace
before his election.   He is no Jimmy Carter.   What sort of logic does it require to give a prize a priori?   Do they have future
sight ability in the Nobel Committee?  

The Literature Prize being given to this liberast hack is a new low for the Nobel Committee.   But no self-respecting Russian (or human)
should treat the Nobel Committee as some authority.  It should be treated as the joke that it is.

kvs wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Why Svetlana Alexievich Won the Nobel Prize in Literature

Nobel prizes have always been politically tainted.   I recall during the cold war western media hacks routinely yapping about how
Soviet scientists, etc, were inferior because they didn't get this f*cking prize at the rate that western ubermenschen did.   For
f*ck's sake, they gave Obama the Peace Prize just for being elected.   Obama had zero contribution to world or regional peace
before his election.   He is no Jimmy Carter.   What sort of logic does it require to give a prize a priori?   Do they have future
sight ability in the Nobel Committee?  

The Literature Prize being given to this liberast hack is a new low for the Nobel Committee.   But no self-respecting Russian (or human)
should treat the Nobel Committee as some authority.  It should be treated as the joke that it is.