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
