Is MH-17 the Lusitania redux? It's beginning to look like it.
Cui bono? The Lusitania affair helped turn the public opinion in the United States rapidly and drastically against Germany. In conjunction with Admiral Tirpitz’s renewal of unrestricted submarine warfare, it prepared the ground for a previously isolationist Congress to declare war on the Kaiserreich in April 1917. In the attainment of that outcome, the Lusitania was pure gold for the British propaganda machine and its American interventionist constituency.
The MH17 affair and its mainstream media treatment have replicated many features of the Lusitania affair. Of course America, Britain and their allies are not in a shooting war with Russia (not for now, thank God, but that could change if the War Party lunatics in Washington have their way). They are in an escalating global geopolitical and propaganda contest with her, however. It is in this context that the results of the Dutch-led inquiry into the shooting down of the Malaysian plane need to be scrutinized. Its most important undisputed finding is that the air space above the war zone in eastern Ukraine was left inexplicably open to civilian air traffic by the Kiev authorities. To what end, and with what expectations? Again, cui bono? On October 13 the New York Timesdescribed this potentially crucial question as a “stray detail.” That in itself highlights its importance.The first thing that investigators of a crime look for is motive. Cui bono? To whose good.
There was no good to be gained by either the insurgents or Russia from shooting down a civilian airlner. There was a great deal of good to be gained from a false flag operation making it seem so. The immediate rush to judgment without providing evidence lends credence to that suspicion.
Couldn't happen? Remember the Lusitania.
Chronicles
the mh17 report: caveat emptor
Srdja Trifkovic
9 comments:
This is getting more and more desperate. "Who shot down the plane?" "Kiev left the skies open". LOL
Ha how dare they think civilian air traffic is normal!
Tom this thing looks like a civil liability matter less some sort of "false flag" conspiracy theory stuff..
The Dutch thing below sounds like they want to hold Russia responsible so they can go to court and obtain some sort of civil judgement.... Ukraine is broke...
No. Kiev did not "leave the sky" open. Air traffic control directed the planes path, and Ukraine has vanished the people in air traffic control at the time and won't produce them.
Then when the plane is hit there is rush to say the Putin did it, which implies that it was known that a Russian BUK was in the position that is claimed to the point of launch.
Why was the plane directed over such a path when the authorities knew beforehand of the existence of the missile battery?
To me all indications point to false flag rather than an "accident." This looks to me like another set up like the Iraq debacle. It's the kind of stuff that deep states pull off, and it is nothing new historically.
The fact that investigators are not considering it a possibility is in itself suspicious. I would guess that the Ukrainians diid, possibly with knowledge or help of the CIA. That is was immediately picked up by the US government as propaganda is circumstantial evidence leading to suspicion that the operation was coordinated with the US and possibly UK. Subsequent events reinforce this view.
If this were a slam dunk there would be transparency. Instead there has been opacity on the side of Ukraine and the US from the get-go.
But the harmed parties will be in Court in Amsterdam and Malaysia.... not Ukraine or Russia.... the court is not there...
"Ukraine has vanished the people in air traffic control at the time and won't produce them"
that's what you would do if you are trying to obstruct an investigation to determine liability...
they will just rule it was either one of them who cares, and then get their judgement from both of them or one of them whoever has some liquid asset within reach of the Dutch court.... I'd think Russia would have better assets within reach so they are probably leaning that way...
The plane was not a military plane.... look at the KAL shoot down over Sakhalin back in the 80's as a parallel.... this is a civil matter....
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
SSDD with these nut-jobs....
John Helmer, What Ambulance-Chasing Lawyers Reveal About The Mh17 Shoot-Down – There Is Insufficient Evidence For Criminal Prosecution In Any National Or International Court
Oh ok just because "Dances with Bears" says there is no case they should just forget it.... c'mon...
It's going to go to court if the DSB says it was a military shootdown they can probably hold both belligerents liable if they can show obstruction... get what they can...
The article is about criminal prosecution. Civil is a different matter.
BTW, Malaysian leaders are saying that they are not blaming the Russians. They want to know who did it, as does the world. The only way forward with that is a completely transparent investigation.
Otherwise, this will end up being like most similar controversial investigations — opaque and biased.
Just looks to me like neither of these 2 nut-job nations wants to pay....
Post a Comment