It definitely appears to have been Ukrainian jets that brought MH17 down and, due to the speed of "evidence" released against the pro-Russian rebels, this was carefully pre-planned.
Will the truth ever get out though? It suits the US to continue penalising Russia (this is about control of the World's gas supplies really) so the agenda would not be best served by the World finding out that the Ukrainian military brought down the plane and that Russia were blameless.
SF_LFC’s profile
SF_LFC
Published posts and replies
In fairness Kim, I am absolutely not saying that Putin is a good bloke and his suppression of opponents is definitely up there with some of the monsters of the past. Then again, the erosion of human rights / freedoms in many Western countries since the 9/11 event is not good either. Snowdon did the World a huge favour in that regard.
As for America, I love America and the country is fantastic. It has been a while since my last visit but I can't wait to get over there again. The problem is that their government (or is the government a puppet?) are stirring up trouble all over the World and people are not aware of it.
So a strong Russia is probably good for the World (as it puts the brakes on US aspirations) and Putin has definitely strengthen Russia but at what cost to some of the Russian people who were against him?
SF
Read discussionAs for America, I love America and the country is fantastic. It has been a while since my last visit but I can't wait to get over there again. The problem is that their government (or is the government a puppet?) are stirring up trouble all over the World and people are not aware of it.
So a strong Russia is probably good for the World (as it puts the brakes on US aspirations) and Putin has definitely strengthen Russia but at what cost to some of the Russian people who were against him?
SF
Whilst Putin may not be a nice person and not everyone in Russia is behind him, there is clearly an anti-Russia bias in the Western governments and the associated puppet media.
Going back a little bit, the Western allies wanted to overthrow the democratically elected president in Syria (sure, there are questions over the definition of democracy but what country can claim real democracy) so they armed some rebels and caused a civil war. The US apparently wanted to build a gas pipeline through Syria and al-Assad was not supporting so he needed to be removed. Out of interest, a pipeline was the reason the Taliban were removed from Afghanistan too. But for Syria, Putin out maneuvered the West as the main argument was the weapons of mass destruction (where did we hear that before?) and Putin cleverly pulled the rug from under that argument.
Then onto Ukraine. The democratically elected president of Ukraine was not doing what he was supposed to do (he was turning towards Russia rather than the West) so the Western powers funded demonstrations and overthrew the president who is now in exile. Why do the West want Ukraine? Again it is down to gas. Apparently the waters around Crimea are full of gas and the West wanted it. Russia's quick annexation of Crimea means that getting the gas would now require all out war with Russia and that isn't an attractive option so now new plans are required. Did you see, for example, that an approved Russian pipeline through Bulgaria has been held up by the EU? Russia wanted a new corridor for gas into Europe (Ukraine is a little troublesome) and Bulgaria was the chosen route so the EU are now making it difficult. The new plans are showing their heads.
Now onto the unfortunate plane that was shot down by someone. The West has been quick to say it was the Ukrainian pro-Russian self-defense forces that shot the plane down but they have offered no evidence yet. Despite no evidence, the puppet Western media keep churning out the same old rubbish. Some questions:
1. Where is the Spanish air-traffic controller who was working for Ukraine air-traffic control at the time of the crash? He tweeted directly after the crash that a Ukrainian military jet was near the plane when it was shot down. His twitter account has been deleted and the chap has disappeared. Should this not be getting a little more coverage than it is?
2. A Russian general went public yesterday with radar evidence that a Ukrainian jet was tracking the plane but that hasn't been covered by the Western media either. Why? Maybe it doesn't suit the message. The general also provided evidence that Ukraine had a number of BUK launchers in the area and they moved them sharpish after the plane came down.
3. An aviation mathematician has published calculations that indicate that it would have been impossible for a BUK operated by the Ukrainian pro-Russian self-defense forces to have shot down the plane. The calculations don't say that the plane could not have been downed by a BUK but they do indicate that the location of the Ukrainian pro-Russian self-defense forces means they couldn't have done it. That isn't being reported either for some reason.
4. Last night the BBC had a video from the lead Dutch investigator saying that the crash site had been very well preserved but the video was quickly removed and this morning some US expert (not on site) has been saying that we all know that the site has been contaminated by big booted militia trampling all over the evidence. Why does the opinion of a remote expert matter more than the lead Dutch expert on the ground? Maybe the message was not "right". Maybe the Dutch chap was being honest.
Just for the record, I am not Russia (or Ukrainian) but I am from western Europe. I am just sick of the puppet Western press always sticking to a message and not publishing facts that don't suit the message. Look at the Boston bombings, the 7/7 London bombings, 9/11, etc. There are so many examples of the truth being suppressed. And we know that the sheep believe everything they see on TV so control the TV and you control the sheep. Easy.
But Putin has been very quite so I believe he is about to pull another master stroke against the West. As I said at the beginning of my rant, Putin may not be universally approved of in Russia (I didn't like him until recently and I am still against his treatment of some opponents) but he certainly has returned Russia to being a global power. Then again, since the US "got" their nemesis (Osama bin Laden), they need a new nemesis and Russia (or the USSR) filled that role excellently for many years so why not again? Maybe this is bigger than Putin and the West.
Read discussionGoing back a little bit, the Western allies wanted to overthrow the democratically elected president in Syria (sure, there are questions over the definition of democracy but what country can claim real democracy) so they armed some rebels and caused a civil war. The US apparently wanted to build a gas pipeline through Syria and al-Assad was not supporting so he needed to be removed. Out of interest, a pipeline was the reason the Taliban were removed from Afghanistan too. But for Syria, Putin out maneuvered the West as the main argument was the weapons of mass destruction (where did we hear that before?) and Putin cleverly pulled the rug from under that argument.
Then onto Ukraine. The democratically elected president of Ukraine was not doing what he was supposed to do (he was turning towards Russia rather than the West) so the Western powers funded demonstrations and overthrew the president who is now in exile. Why do the West want Ukraine? Again it is down to gas. Apparently the waters around Crimea are full of gas and the West wanted it. Russia's quick annexation of Crimea means that getting the gas would now require all out war with Russia and that isn't an attractive option so now new plans are required. Did you see, for example, that an approved Russian pipeline through Bulgaria has been held up by the EU? Russia wanted a new corridor for gas into Europe (Ukraine is a little troublesome) and Bulgaria was the chosen route so the EU are now making it difficult. The new plans are showing their heads.
Now onto the unfortunate plane that was shot down by someone. The West has been quick to say it was the Ukrainian pro-Russian self-defense forces that shot the plane down but they have offered no evidence yet. Despite no evidence, the puppet Western media keep churning out the same old rubbish. Some questions:
1. Where is the Spanish air-traffic controller who was working for Ukraine air-traffic control at the time of the crash? He tweeted directly after the crash that a Ukrainian military jet was near the plane when it was shot down. His twitter account has been deleted and the chap has disappeared. Should this not be getting a little more coverage than it is?
2. A Russian general went public yesterday with radar evidence that a Ukrainian jet was tracking the plane but that hasn't been covered by the Western media either. Why? Maybe it doesn't suit the message. The general also provided evidence that Ukraine had a number of BUK launchers in the area and they moved them sharpish after the plane came down.
3. An aviation mathematician has published calculations that indicate that it would have been impossible for a BUK operated by the Ukrainian pro-Russian self-defense forces to have shot down the plane. The calculations don't say that the plane could not have been downed by a BUK but they do indicate that the location of the Ukrainian pro-Russian self-defense forces means they couldn't have done it. That isn't being reported either for some reason.
4. Last night the BBC had a video from the lead Dutch investigator saying that the crash site had been very well preserved but the video was quickly removed and this morning some US expert (not on site) has been saying that we all know that the site has been contaminated by big booted militia trampling all over the evidence. Why does the opinion of a remote expert matter more than the lead Dutch expert on the ground? Maybe the message was not "right". Maybe the Dutch chap was being honest.
Just for the record, I am not Russia (or Ukrainian) but I am from western Europe. I am just sick of the puppet Western press always sticking to a message and not publishing facts that don't suit the message. Look at the Boston bombings, the 7/7 London bombings, 9/11, etc. There are so many examples of the truth being suppressed. And we know that the sheep believe everything they see on TV so control the TV and you control the sheep. Easy.
But Putin has been very quite so I believe he is about to pull another master stroke against the West. As I said at the beginning of my rant, Putin may not be universally approved of in Russia (I didn't like him until recently and I am still against his treatment of some opponents) but he certainly has returned Russia to being a global power. Then again, since the US "got" their nemesis (Osama bin Laden), they need a new nemesis and Russia (or the USSR) filled that role excellently for many years so why not again? Maybe this is bigger than Putin and the West.