Page 20 of 36 FirstFirst ... 10121314151617181920212223242526272830 ... LastLast
Results 476 to 500 of 876
  1. #476
    Thailand Expat
    Albert Shagnastier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    22-03-2015 @ 09:09 PM
    Location
    City of Angels
    Posts
    7,164
    Quote Originally Posted by koman
    "Biedermann is familiar with Soviet and Russian air defense technology, he led units in the duty officer system in East Germany" Yes, clearly an unbiased party in all this....
    So by your own reasoning we should trust nothing the US government comes out with as they are "Dyed in the wool capitalists who hate the commies"?

    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub
    Your typical retort to anyone who doesn't blindly agree with you. I can assure you that I do not believe much that my government says nor do I trust them. In this case I have drawn my conclusion based on information from sources other than government ones.
    Well glad to hear you don't trust your government - it's a step in the right direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub
    He is not independent but a former pilot in the DDR air force. A pilot is by no means an "expert" in aircraft crash scene investigation. He is most likely a bitter old fool seeking his ten minutes of fame.
    He's the representative the German government sent in first FFS. So you are saying Germany sends in a buffalo to have a look around?


    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub
    Another one of your typical responses when people disagree with your blinkered and often paranoid views. I for one agree with you on many topics, but I think you do go over the edge from time to time and this is one of those.
    I don't see why you leap from one extreme to the other. What's so difficult to understand about the fact that the plane could have been downed by EITHER Russian separatists OR Ukrainian forces, and until there is (if ever) concrete proof of what happened - everything else is speculation.

    However, with the form the US government has for inciting wars through nefarious means and false flags - I for one certainly don't believe a word that comes out of them.

    Why is Ukraine bombing the fvck out of the site so no one can get near it.?
    Destroying as much evidence as possible?

    Let's hear what all the other crash investigators say first - but right now your guess is as good as mine.
    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

  2. #477
    Thailand Expat
    Albert Shagnastier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    22-03-2015 @ 09:09 PM
    Location
    City of Angels
    Posts
    7,164
    Here's one for you Bsnub and Koman.

    Maybe you will be open to listening to some Ex-US military operatives?

    Posted with permission of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

    MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

    FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

    SUBJECT: Intelligence on Shoot-Down of Malaysian Plane

    Executive Summary

    U.S.–Russian intensions are building in a precarious way over Ukraine, and we are far from certain that your advisers fully appreciate the danger of escalation. The New York Times and other media outlets are treating sensitive issues in dispute as flat-fact, taking their cue from U.S. government sources.

    Twelve days after the shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, your administration still has issued no coordinated intelligence assessment summarizing what evidence exists to determine who was responsible – much less to convincingly support repeated claims that the plane was downed by a Russian-supplied missile in the hands of Ukrainian separatists.

    Your administration has not provided any satellite imagery showing that the separatists had such weaponry, and there are several other “dogs that have not barked.” Washington’s credibility, and your own, will continue to erode, should you be unwilling – or unable – to present more tangible evidence behind administration claims. In what follows, we put this in the perspective of former intelligence professionals with a cumulative total of 260 years in various parts of U.S. intelligence:

    We, the undersigned former intelligence officers want to share with you our concern about the evidence adduced so far to blame Russia for the July 17 downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17. We are retired from government service and none of us is on the payroll of CNN, Fox News, or any other outlet. We intend this memorandum to provide a fresh, different perspective.

    As veteran intelligence analysts accustomed to waiting, except in emergency circumstances, for conclusive information before rushing to judgment, we believe that the charges against Russia should be rooted in solid, far more convincing evidence. And that goes in spades with respect to inflammatory incidents like the shoot-down of an airliner. We are also troubled by the amateurish manner in which fuzzy and flimsy evidence has been served up – some it via “social media.”

    As intelligence professionals we are embarrassed by the unprofessional use of partial intelligence information. As Americans, we find ourselves hoping that, if you indeed have more conclusive evidence, you will find a way to make it public without further delay. In charging Russia with being directly or indirectly responsible, Secretary of State John Kerry has been particularly definitive. Not so the evidence. His statements seem premature and bear earmarks of an attempt to “poison the jury pool.”

    Painting Russia Black

    We see an eerie resemblance to an earlier exercise in U.S. “public diplomacy” from which valuable lessons can be learned by those more interested in the truth than in exploiting tragic incidents for propaganda advantage. We refer to the behavior of the Reagan administration in the immediate aftermath of the shoot-down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 over Siberia on August 30, 1983. We sketch out below a short summary of that tragic affair, since we suspect you have not been adequately briefed on it. The parallels will be obvious to you.

    An advantage of our long tenure as intelligence officers is that we remember what we have witnessed first hand; seldom do we forget key events in which we played an analyst or other role. To put it another way, most of us “know exactly where we were” when a Soviet fighter aircraft shot down Korean Airlines passenger flight 007 over Siberia on August 30, 1983, over 30 years ago. At the time, we were intelligence officers on “active duty.” You were 21; many of those around you today were still younger.

    Thus, it seems possible that you may be learning how the KAL007 affair went down, so to speak, for the first time; that you may now become more aware of the serious implications for U.S.-Russian relations regarding how the downing of Flight 17 goes down; and that you will come to see merit in preventing ties with Moscow from falling into a state of complete disrepair. In our view, the strategic danger here dwarfs all other considerations.

    Hours after the tragic shoot-down on Aug. 30, 1983, the Reagan administration used its very accomplished propaganda machine to twist the available intelligence on Soviet culpability for the killing of all 269 people aboard KAL007. The airliner was shot down after it strayed hundreds of miles off course and penetrated Russia’s airspace over sensitive military facilities in Kamchatka and Sakhalin Island. The Soviet pilot tried to signal the plane to land, but the KAL pilots did not respond to the repeated warnings. Amid confusion about the plane’s identity – a U.S. spy plane had been in the vicinity hours earlier – Soviet ground control ordered the pilot to fire.

    The Soviets soon realized they had made a horrendous mistake. U.S. intelligence also knew from sensitive intercepts that the tragedy had resulted from a blunder, not from a willful act of murder (much as on July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner over the Persian Gulf, killing 290 people, an act which President Ronald Reagan dismissively explained as an “understandable accident”).

    To make the very blackest case against Moscow for shooting down the KAL airliner, the Reagan administration suppressed exculpatory evidence from U.S. electronic intercepts. Washington’s mantra became “Moscow’s deliberate downing of a civilian passenger plane.” Newsweek ran a cover emblazoned with the headline “Murder in the Sky.” (Apparently, not much has changed; Time’s cover this week features “Cold War II” and “Putin’s dangerous game.” The cover story by Simon Shuster, “In Russia, Crime Without Punishment,” would merit an A-plus in William Randolph Hearst’s course “Yellow Journalism 101.”)

    When KAL007 was shot down, Alvin A. Snyder, director of the U.S. Information Agency’s television and film division, was enlisted in a concerted effort to “heap as much abuse on the Soviet Union as possible,” as Snyder writes in his 1995 book, “Warriors of Disinformation.”

    He and his colleagues also earned an A-plus for bringing the “mainstream media” along. For example, ABC’s Ted Koppel noted with patriotic pride, “This has been one of those occasions when there is very little difference between what is churned out by the U.S. government propaganda organs and by the commercial broadcasting networks.”

    “Fixing” the Intelligence Around the Policy

    “The perception we wanted to convey was that the Soviet Union had cold-bloodedly carried out a barbaric act,” wrote Snyder, adding that the Reagan administration went so far as to present a doctored transcript of the intercepts to the United Nations Security Council on September 6, 1983.

    Only a decade later, when Snyder saw the complete transcripts — including the portions that the Reagan administration had hidden — would he fully realize how many of the central elements of the U.S. presentation were false.

    The intercepts showed that the Soviet fighter pilot believed he was pursuing a U.S. spy aircraft and that he was having trouble in the dark identifying the plane. Per instructions from ground control, the pilot had circled the KAL airliner and tilted his wings to order the aircraft to land. The pilot said he fired warning shots, as well. This information “was not on the tape we were provided,” Snyder wrote.

    It became abundantly clear to Snyder that, in smearing the Soviets, the Reagan administration had presented false accusations to the United Nations, as well as to the people of the United States and the world. In his book, Snyder acknowledged his own role in the deception, but drew a cynical conclusion. He wrote, “The moral of the story is that all governments, including our own, lie when it suits their purposes. The key is to lie first.”

    The tortured attempts by your administration and stenographers in the media to blame Russia for the downing of Flight 17, together with John Kerry’s unenviable record for credibility, lead us to the reluctant conclusion that the syndrome Snyder describes may also be at work in your own administration; that is, that an ethos of “getting your own lie out first” has replaced “ye shall know the truth.” At a minimum, we believe Secretary Kerry displayed unseemly haste in his determination to be first out of the starting gate.

    Both Sides Cannot Be Telling the Truth

    We have always taken pride in not shooting from the hip, but rather in doing intelligence analysis that is evidence-based. The evidence released to date does not bear close scrutiny; it does not permit a judgment as to which side is lying about the shoot-down of Flight 17. Our entire professional experience would incline us to suspect the Russians – almost instinctively. Our more recent experience, particularly observing Secretary Kerry injudiciousness in latching onto one spurious report after another as “evidence,” has gone a long way toward balancing our earlier predispositions.

    It seems that whenever Kerry does cite supposed “evidence” that can be checked – like the forged anti-Semitic fliers distributed in eastern Ukraine or the photos of alleged Russian special forces soldiers who allegedly slipped into Ukraine – the “proof” goes “poof” as Kerry once said in a different context. Still, these misrepresentations seem small peccadillos compared with bigger whoppers like the claim Kerry made on Aug. 30, 2013, no fewer than 35 times, that “we know” the government of Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical incidents near Damascus nine days before.

    On September 3, 2013 – following your decision to call off the attack on Syria in order to await Congressional authorization – Kerry was still pushing for an attack in testimony before a thoroughly sympathetic Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. On the following day Kerry drew highly unusual personal criticism from President Putin, who said: “He is lying, and he knows he is lying. It is sad.”

    Equally serious, during the first week of September 2013, as you and President Vladimir Putin were putting the final touches to the deal whereby Syrian chemical weapons would be given up for destruction, John Kerry said something that puzzles us to this day. On September 9, 2013, Kerry was in London, still promoting a U.S. attack on Syria for having crossed the “Red Line” you had set against Syria’s using chemical weapons.

    At a formal press conference, Kerry abruptly dismissed the possibility that Bashar al-Assad would ever give up his chemical weapons, saying, “He isn’t about to do that; it can’t be done.” Just a few hours later, the Russians and Syrians announced Syria’s agreement to do precisely what Kerry had ruled out as impossible. You sent him back to Geneva to sign the agreement, and it was formally concluded on September 14.

    Regarding the Malaysia Airlines shoot-down of July 17, we believe Kerry has typically rushed to judgment and that his incredible record for credibility poses a huge disadvantage in the diplomatic and propaganda maneuvering vis-a-vis Russia. We suggest you call a halt to this misbegotten “public diplomacy” offensive. If, however, you decide to press on anyway, we suggest you try to find a less tarnished statesman or woman.

    A Choice Between Two

    If the intelligence on the shoot-down is as weak as it appears judging from the fuzzy scraps that have been released, we strongly suggest you call off the propaganda war and await the findings of those charged with investigating the shoot-down. If, on the other hand, your administration has more concrete, probative intelligence, we strongly suggest that you consider approving it for release, even if there may be some risk of damage to “sources and methods.” Too often this consideration is used to prevent information from entering the public domain where, as in this case, it belongs.

    There have been critical junctures in the past in which presidents have recognized the need to waive secrecy in order to show what one might call “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind” or even to justify military action.

    As senior CIA veteran Milton Bearden has put it, there are occasions when more damage is done to U.S. national security by “protecting” sources and methods than by revealing them. For instance, Bearden noted that Ronald Reagan exposed a sensitive intelligence source in showing a skeptical world the reason for the U.S. attack on Libya in retaliation for the April 5, 1986 bombing at the La Belle Disco in West Berlin. That bombing killed two U.S. servicemen and a Turkish woman, and injured over 200 people, including 79 U.S. servicemen.

    Intercepted messages between Tripoli and agents in Europe made it clear that Libya was behind the attack. Here’s an excerpt: “At 1:30 in the morning one of the acts was carried out with success, without leaving a trace behind.”

    Ten days after the bombing the U.S. retaliated, sending over 60 Air Force fighters to strike the Libyan capital of Tripoli and the city of Benghazi. The operation was widely seen as an attempt to kill Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who survived, but his adopted 15-month-old daughter was killed in the bombing, along with at least 15 other civilians.

    Three decades ago, there was more shame attached to the killing of children. As world abhorrence grew after the U.S. bombing strikes, the Reagan administration produced the intercepted, decoded message sent by the Libyan Peoples Bureau in East Berlin acknowledging the “success” of the attack on the disco, and adding the ironically inaccurate boast “without leaving a trace behind.”

    The Reagan administration made the decision to give up a highly sensitive intelligence source, its ability to intercept and decipher Libyan communications. But once the rest of the world absorbed this evidence, international grumbling subsided and many considered the retaliation against Tripoli justified.

    If You’ve Got the Goods…

    If the U.S. has more convincing evidence than what has so far been adduced concerning responsibility for shooting down Flight 17, we believe it would be best to find a way to make that intelligence public – even at the risk of compromising “sources and methods.” Moreover, we suggest you instruct your subordinates not to cheapen U.S. credibility by releasing key information via social media like Twitter and Facebook.

    The reputation of the messenger for credibility is also key in this area of “public diplomacy.” As is by now clear to you, in our view Secretary Kerry is more liability than asset in this regard. Similarly, with regard to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, his March 12, 2013 Congressional testimony under oath to what he later admitted were “clearly erroneous” things regarding NSA collection should disqualify him. Clapper should be kept at far remove from the Flight 17 affair.

    What is needed, if you’ve got the goods, is an Interagency Intelligence Assessment – the genre used in the past to lay out the intelligence. We are hearing indirectly from some of our former colleagues that what Secretary Kerry is peddling does not square with the real intelligence. Such was the case late last August, when Kerry created a unique vehicle he called a “Government (not Intelligence) Assessment” blaming, with no verifiable evidence, Bashar al-Assad for the chemical attacks near Damascus, as honest intelligence analysts refused to go along and, instead, held their noses.

    We believe you need to seek out honest intelligence analysts now and hear them out. Then, you may be persuaded to take steps to curb the risk that relations with Russia might escalate from “Cold War II” into an armed confrontation. In all candor, we see little reason to believe that Secretary Kerry and your other advisers appreciate the enormity of that danger.

    In our most recent (May 4) memorandum to you, Mr. President, we cautioned that if the U.S. wished “to stop a bloody civil war between east and west Ukraine and avert Russian military intervention in eastern Ukraine, you may be able to do so before the violence hurtles completely out of control.” On July 17, you joined the top leaders of Germany, France, and Russia in calling for a ceasefire. Most informed observers believe you have it in your power to get Ukrainian leaders to agree. The longer Kiev continues its offensive against separatists in eastern Ukraine, the more such U.S. statements appear hypocritical.

    We reiterate our recommendations of May 4, that you remove the seeds of this confrontation by publicly disavowing any wish to incorporate Ukraine into NATO and that you make it clear that you are prepared to meet personally with Russian President Putin without delay to discuss ways to defuse the crisis and recognize the legitimate interests of the various parties. The suggestion of an early summit got extraordinary resonance in controlled and independent Russian media. Not so in “mainstream” media in the U.S. Nor did we hear back from you.

  3. #478
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier
    He's the representative the German government sent in first FFS. So you are saying Germany sends in a buffalo to have a look around?
    Ohh my. Where did you come up with this gem? He is an old retired DDR air force officer he was never sent anywhere by the German government and most assuredly is not a representative of it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier
    Why is Ukraine bombing the fvck out of the site so no one can get near it.?
    Destroying as much evidence as possible?
    Ukraine has not bombed the crash site, but the rebels have been doing there best to destroy it. Feel free to forward to 3:15 of this video to see some proof of that;


  4. #479
    Thailand Expat
    Albert Shagnastier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    22-03-2015 @ 09:09 PM
    Location
    City of Angels
    Posts
    7,164
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub
    Ohh my. Where did you come up with this gem? He is an old retired DDR air force officer he was never sent anywhere by the German government and most assuredly is not a representative of it.
    Right o - so he just wondered in there under the heavy bombardment and had a peek



    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub
    Ukraine has not bombed the crash site, but the rebels have been doing there best to destroy it. Feel free to forward to 3:15 of this video to see some proof of that; Searching Through the Debris of Flight MH17: Russian Roulette (Dispatch 61) - YouTube
    So you won't accept information from people actually there and witnessing it (as well as your own intelligence analysts above)

    ... and you want to present news from a bunch of crack heads "Vice News"

    Laughable mate.

  5. #480
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier View Post
    Here's one for you Bsnub and Koman.

    Maybe you will be open to listening to some Ex-US military operatives?

    Posted with permission of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

    MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

    FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

    SUBJECT: Intelligence on Shoot-Down of Malaysian Plane

    Executive Summary

    U.S.–Russian intensions are building in a precarious way over Ukraine, and we are far from certain that your advisers fully appreciate the danger of escalation. The New York Times and other media outlets are treating sensitive issues in dispute as flat-fact, taking their cue from U.S. government sources.

    Twelve days after the shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, your administration still has issued no coordinated intelligence assessment summarizing what evidence exists to determine who was responsible – much less to convincingly support repeated claims that the plane was downed by a Russian-supplied missile in the hands of Ukrainian separatists.

    Your administration has not provided any satellite imagery showing that the separatists had such weaponry, and there are several other “dogs that have not barked.” Washington’s credibility, and your own, will continue to erode, should you be unwilling – or unable – to present more tangible evidence behind administration claims. In what follows, we put this in the perspective of former intelligence professionals with a cumulative total of 260 years in various parts of U.S. intelligence:

    We, the undersigned former intelligence officers want to share with you our concern about the evidence adduced so far to blame Russia for the July 17 downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17. We are retired from government service and none of us is on the payroll of CNN, Fox News, or any other outlet. We intend this memorandum to provide a fresh, different perspective.

    As veteran intelligence analysts accustomed to waiting, except in emergency circumstances, for conclusive information before rushing to judgment, we believe that the charges against Russia should be rooted in solid, far more convincing evidence. And that goes in spades with respect to inflammatory incidents like the shoot-down of an airliner. We are also troubled by the amateurish manner in which fuzzy and flimsy evidence has been served up – some it via “social media.”

    As intelligence professionals we are embarrassed by the unprofessional use of partial intelligence information. As Americans, we find ourselves hoping that, if you indeed have more conclusive evidence, you will find a way to make it public without further delay. In charging Russia with being directly or indirectly responsible, Secretary of State John Kerry has been particularly definitive. Not so the evidence. His statements seem premature and bear earmarks of an attempt to “poison the jury pool.”

    Painting Russia Black

    We see an eerie resemblance to an earlier exercise in U.S. “public diplomacy” from which valuable lessons can be learned by those more interested in the truth than in exploiting tragic incidents for propaganda advantage. We refer to the behavior of the Reagan administration in the immediate aftermath of the shoot-down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 over Siberia on August 30, 1983. We sketch out below a short summary of that tragic affair, since we suspect you have not been adequately briefed on it. The parallels will be obvious to you.

    An advantage of our long tenure as intelligence officers is that we remember what we have witnessed first hand; seldom do we forget key events in which we played an analyst or other role. To put it another way, most of us “know exactly where we were” when a Soviet fighter aircraft shot down Korean Airlines passenger flight 007 over Siberia on August 30, 1983, over 30 years ago. At the time, we were intelligence officers on “active duty.” You were 21; many of those around you today were still younger.

    Thus, it seems possible that you may be learning how the KAL007 affair went down, so to speak, for the first time; that you may now become more aware of the serious implications for U.S.-Russian relations regarding how the downing of Flight 17 goes down; and that you will come to see merit in preventing ties with Moscow from falling into a state of complete disrepair. In our view, the strategic danger here dwarfs all other considerations.

    Hours after the tragic shoot-down on Aug. 30, 1983, the Reagan administration used its very accomplished propaganda machine to twist the available intelligence on Soviet culpability for the killing of all 269 people aboard KAL007. The airliner was shot down after it strayed hundreds of miles off course and penetrated Russia’s airspace over sensitive military facilities in Kamchatka and Sakhalin Island. The Soviet pilot tried to signal the plane to land, but the KAL pilots did not respond to the repeated warnings. Amid confusion about the plane’s identity – a U.S. spy plane had been in the vicinity hours earlier – Soviet ground control ordered the pilot to fire.

    The Soviets soon realized they had made a horrendous mistake. U.S. intelligence also knew from sensitive intercepts that the tragedy had resulted from a blunder, not from a willful act of murder (much as on July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner over the Persian Gulf, killing 290 people, an act which President Ronald Reagan dismissively explained as an “understandable accident”).

    To make the very blackest case against Moscow for shooting down the KAL airliner, the Reagan administration suppressed exculpatory evidence from U.S. electronic intercepts. Washington’s mantra became “Moscow’s deliberate downing of a civilian passenger plane.” Newsweek ran a cover emblazoned with the headline “Murder in the Sky.” (Apparently, not much has changed; Time’s cover this week features “Cold War II” and “Putin’s dangerous game.” The cover story by Simon Shuster, “In Russia, Crime Without Punishment,” would merit an A-plus in William Randolph Hearst’s course “Yellow Journalism 101.”)

    When KAL007 was shot down, Alvin A. Snyder, director of the U.S. Information Agency’s television and film division, was enlisted in a concerted effort to “heap as much abuse on the Soviet Union as possible,” as Snyder writes in his 1995 book, “Warriors of Disinformation.”

    He and his colleagues also earned an A-plus for bringing the “mainstream media” along. For example, ABC’s Ted Koppel noted with patriotic pride, “This has been one of those occasions when there is very little difference between what is churned out by the U.S. government propaganda organs and by the commercial broadcasting networks.”

    “Fixing” the Intelligence Around the Policy

    “The perception we wanted to convey was that the Soviet Union had cold-bloodedly carried out a barbaric act,” wrote Snyder, adding that the Reagan administration went so far as to present a doctored transcript of the intercepts to the United Nations Security Council on September 6, 1983.

    Only a decade later, when Snyder saw the complete transcripts — including the portions that the Reagan administration had hidden — would he fully realize how many of the central elements of the U.S. presentation were false.

    The intercepts showed that the Soviet fighter pilot believed he was pursuing a U.S. spy aircraft and that he was having trouble in the dark identifying the plane. Per instructions from ground control, the pilot had circled the KAL airliner and tilted his wings to order the aircraft to land. The pilot said he fired warning shots, as well. This information “was not on the tape we were provided,” Snyder wrote.

    It became abundantly clear to Snyder that, in smearing the Soviets, the Reagan administration had presented false accusations to the United Nations, as well as to the people of the United States and the world. In his book, Snyder acknowledged his own role in the deception, but drew a cynical conclusion. He wrote, “The moral of the story is that all governments, including our own, lie when it suits their purposes. The key is to lie first.”

    The tortured attempts by your administration and stenographers in the media to blame Russia for the downing of Flight 17, together with John Kerry’s unenviable record for credibility, lead us to the reluctant conclusion that the syndrome Snyder describes may also be at work in your own administration; that is, that an ethos of “getting your own lie out first” has replaced “ye shall know the truth.” At a minimum, we believe Secretary Kerry displayed unseemly haste in his determination to be first out of the starting gate.

    Both Sides Cannot Be Telling the Truth

    We have always taken pride in not shooting from the hip, but rather in doing intelligence analysis that is evidence-based. The evidence released to date does not bear close scrutiny; it does not permit a judgment as to which side is lying about the shoot-down of Flight 17. Our entire professional experience would incline us to suspect the Russians – almost instinctively. Our more recent experience, particularly observing Secretary Kerry injudiciousness in latching onto one spurious report after another as “evidence,” has gone a long way toward balancing our earlier predispositions.

    It seems that whenever Kerry does cite supposed “evidence” that can be checked – like the forged anti-Semitic fliers distributed in eastern Ukraine or the photos of alleged Russian special forces soldiers who allegedly slipped into Ukraine – the “proof” goes “poof” as Kerry once said in a different context. Still, these misrepresentations seem small peccadillos compared with bigger whoppers like the claim Kerry made on Aug. 30, 2013, no fewer than 35 times, that “we know” the government of Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical incidents near Damascus nine days before.

    On September 3, 2013 – following your decision to call off the attack on Syria in order to await Congressional authorization – Kerry was still pushing for an attack in testimony before a thoroughly sympathetic Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. On the following day Kerry drew highly unusual personal criticism from President Putin, who said: “He is lying, and he knows he is lying. It is sad.”

    Equally serious, during the first week of September 2013, as you and President Vladimir Putin were putting the final touches to the deal whereby Syrian chemical weapons would be given up for destruction, John Kerry said something that puzzles us to this day. On September 9, 2013, Kerry was in London, still promoting a U.S. attack on Syria for having crossed the “Red Line” you had set against Syria’s using chemical weapons.

    At a formal press conference, Kerry abruptly dismissed the possibility that Bashar al-Assad would ever give up his chemical weapons, saying, “He isn’t about to do that; it can’t be done.” Just a few hours later, the Russians and Syrians announced Syria’s agreement to do precisely what Kerry had ruled out as impossible. You sent him back to Geneva to sign the agreement, and it was formally concluded on September 14.

    Regarding the Malaysia Airlines shoot-down of July 17, we believe Kerry has typically rushed to judgment and that his incredible record for credibility poses a huge disadvantage in the diplomatic and propaganda maneuvering vis-a-vis Russia. We suggest you call a halt to this misbegotten “public diplomacy” offensive. If, however, you decide to press on anyway, we suggest you try to find a less tarnished statesman or woman.

    A Choice Between Two

    If the intelligence on the shoot-down is as weak as it appears judging from the fuzzy scraps that have been released, we strongly suggest you call off the propaganda war and await the findings of those charged with investigating the shoot-down. If, on the other hand, your administration has more concrete, probative intelligence, we strongly suggest that you consider approving it for release, even if there may be some risk of damage to “sources and methods.” Too often this consideration is used to prevent information from entering the public domain where, as in this case, it belongs.

    There have been critical junctures in the past in which presidents have recognized the need to waive secrecy in order to show what one might call “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind” or even to justify military action.

    As senior CIA veteran Milton Bearden has put it, there are occasions when more damage is done to U.S. national security by “protecting” sources and methods than by revealing them. For instance, Bearden noted that Ronald Reagan exposed a sensitive intelligence source in showing a skeptical world the reason for the U.S. attack on Libya in retaliation for the April 5, 1986 bombing at the La Belle Disco in West Berlin. That bombing killed two U.S. servicemen and a Turkish woman, and injured over 200 people, including 79 U.S. servicemen.

    Intercepted messages between Tripoli and agents in Europe made it clear that Libya was behind the attack. Here’s an excerpt: “At 1:30 in the morning one of the acts was carried out with success, without leaving a trace behind.”

    Ten days after the bombing the U.S. retaliated, sending over 60 Air Force fighters to strike the Libyan capital of Tripoli and the city of Benghazi. The operation was widely seen as an attempt to kill Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who survived, but his adopted 15-month-old daughter was killed in the bombing, along with at least 15 other civilians.

    Three decades ago, there was more shame attached to the killing of children. As world abhorrence grew after the U.S. bombing strikes, the Reagan administration produced the intercepted, decoded message sent by the Libyan Peoples Bureau in East Berlin acknowledging the “success” of the attack on the disco, and adding the ironically inaccurate boast “without leaving a trace behind.”

    The Reagan administration made the decision to give up a highly sensitive intelligence source, its ability to intercept and decipher Libyan communications. But once the rest of the world absorbed this evidence, international grumbling subsided and many considered the retaliation against Tripoli justified.

    If You’ve Got the Goods…

    If the U.S. has more convincing evidence than what has so far been adduced concerning responsibility for shooting down Flight 17, we believe it would be best to find a way to make that intelligence public – even at the risk of compromising “sources and methods.” Moreover, we suggest you instruct your subordinates not to cheapen U.S. credibility by releasing key information via social media like Twitter and Facebook.

    The reputation of the messenger for credibility is also key in this area of “public diplomacy.” As is by now clear to you, in our view Secretary Kerry is more liability than asset in this regard. Similarly, with regard to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, his March 12, 2013 Congressional testimony under oath to what he later admitted were “clearly erroneous” things regarding NSA collection should disqualify him. Clapper should be kept at far remove from the Flight 17 affair.

    What is needed, if you’ve got the goods, is an Interagency Intelligence Assessment – the genre used in the past to lay out the intelligence. We are hearing indirectly from some of our former colleagues that what Secretary Kerry is peddling does not square with the real intelligence. Such was the case late last August, when Kerry created a unique vehicle he called a “Government (not Intelligence) Assessment” blaming, with no verifiable evidence, Bashar al-Assad for the chemical attacks near Damascus, as honest intelligence analysts refused to go along and, instead, held their noses.

    We believe you need to seek out honest intelligence analysts now and hear them out. Then, you may be persuaded to take steps to curb the risk that relations with Russia might escalate from “Cold War II” into an armed confrontation. In all candor, we see little reason to believe that Secretary Kerry and your other advisers appreciate the enormity of that danger.

    In our most recent (May 4) memorandum to you, Mr. President, we cautioned that if the U.S. wished “to stop a bloody civil war between east and west Ukraine and avert Russian military intervention in eastern Ukraine, you may be able to do so before the violence hurtles completely out of control.” On July 17, you joined the top leaders of Germany, France, and Russia in calling for a ceasefire. Most informed observers believe you have it in your power to get Ukrainian leaders to agree. The longer Kiev continues its offensive against separatists in eastern Ukraine, the more such U.S. statements appear hypocritical.

    We reiterate our recommendations of May 4, that you remove the seeds of this confrontation by publicly disavowing any wish to incorporate Ukraine into NATO and that you make it clear that you are prepared to meet personally with Russian President Putin without delay to discuss ways to defuse the crisis and recognize the legitimate interests of the various parties. The suggestion of an early summit got extraordinary resonance in controlled and independent Russian media. Not so in “mainstream” media in the U.S. Nor did we hear back from you.
    This is really doesn't make any difference to me. Like I said before I drew my conclusion based on other evidence. While it would be nice if the Americans came forward with their evidence it would be just icing on the cake in my opinion. To me there is plenty of evidence already.

    1. Video and pictures of the BUK launcher in the area with one missile missing.
    2. Intercepted rebel cell phone conversations clearly stating that they shot down a civilian airliner.
    3. Scrubbed twitter posts by the rebel commander that they shot down a Ukrainian transport plane at the exact time the jetliner was shot down.



    If you’re a long-time reader of Open Culture, you know all about Archive.org — a non-profit that houses all kinds of fascinating texts, audio, moving images, and software. And don’t forget archived web pages. Since 1996, Archive’s “Wayback Machine” has been taking snapshots of websites, producing a historical record of this still fairly new thing called “the web.” Right now, the Wayback Machine holds 417 billion snapshots of web sites, including one page showing that “Igor Girkin, a Ukrainian separatist leader also known as Strelkov, claimed responsibility on a popular Russian social-networking site for the downing of what he thought was a Ukrainian military transport plane shortly before reports that Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 had crashed near the rebel held Ukrainian city of Donetsk.” (This quote comes from The Christian Science Monitor, which has more on the story.) Girkin’s post was captured by the Wayback Machine at 1522 on July 17. By 16:56, Girkin’s post was taken offline — but not before Archive.org had its copy.

    You have to be so blinded by what you want to see as the truth, stupid or the worlds worst detective not to be able to put the pieces together.

  6. #481
    Thailand Expat
    Albert Shagnastier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    22-03-2015 @ 09:09 PM
    Location
    City of Angels
    Posts
    7,164
    Turn on the captions.

    Eyewitnesses saying there was a military plane flying next to the airliner


  7. #482
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier
    Right o - so he just wondered in there under the heavy bombardment and had a peek
    He never went there. He looked at some pictures online and made his decision. He was then interviewed by some obscure newspaper called "New Germany". Gee I could only speculate what that newspapers bent could be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier
    So you won't accept information from people actually there and witnessing it
    Just who are those people? Rebel sympathisers or the rebels themselves? Bollocks the international inspectors who are there have not reported Ukrainian jets bombing the crash site nor have other freelance journalists who are currently there (I follow several of them on twitter and they update frequently).

    The reality is that the battle is moving closer to the crash site. The Ukrainian army is advancing and the rebels are retreating. The fact that the Ukrainian airforce would fly more planes into an area were they have already lost several aircraft is absurd.
    Last edited by bsnub; 30-07-2014 at 12:18 PM.

  8. #483
    Thailand Expat
    koman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-05-2023 @ 11:36 AM
    Location
    Issan
    Posts
    4,287
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier
    So you won't accept information from people actually there and witnessing it (as well as your own intelligence analysts above)
    Apparently you don't want to accept information from any source other than a few mystery "experts" and "analysts" who pop up here and there looking for a bit of attention. Such people always seem to materialize in droves when things like this happen....and of course the tin hatters will cling to everything they come up with, however ridiculous or improbable it may be.....

  9. #484
    Thailand Expat
    Albert Shagnastier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    22-03-2015 @ 09:09 PM
    Location
    City of Angels
    Posts
    7,164
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub
    Just who are those people
    ^^^ The locals.

  10. #485
    Thailand Expat
    Albert Shagnastier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    22-03-2015 @ 09:09 PM
    Location
    City of Angels
    Posts
    7,164
    Quote Originally Posted by koman
    Apparently you don't want to accept information from any source other than a few mystery "experts" and "analysts" who pop up here and there looking for a bit of attention. Such people always seem to materialize in droves when things like this happen....and of course the tin hatters will cling to everything they come up with, however ridiculous or improbable it may be....
    See post above.

  11. #486
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,408

    How An Su-25 Can Shoot Down A Faster, Higher-Flying Aircraft

    Early in Len Deighton's Funeral in Berlin, his nameless British agent (he was Harry Palmer in the movies) confronts his long-time adversary, Colonel Stok. The KGB man goes all sentimental and explains that his plan is to use the defection of a top scientist to fund his own escape and retirement.

    "What would you do in my position, Mr Dorf? What would you do?"

    I let the sound of the lorry rumble away down Keibelstrasse.

    I said, "I'd stop telling lies to old liars for a start, Stok. Do you really think I came here without dusting off your file? I know everything about you from the cubic capacity of your Westinghouse refrigerator to the size your mistress takes in diaphragms."

    Which is just about my reaction to the Sovi... er, Russian explanations, official and otherwise, for the shootdown of MH17. Let's take two that have floated around the Internet.

    The first is that the Ukrainian air force shot the Boeing 777 down itself, using a Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot carrying an R-60 Aphid air-to-air missile (the only AAM normally carried by the Su-25). This would require some remarkable timing and a pilot immune to nose-bleeds, because the Su-25 can manage Mach 0.82 flat out, on a good day, and a 777 can do 0.89, and furthermore the Su-25 is unpressurized and has a normal service ceiling of 23,000 feet. No doubt coincidentally, on the day this claim was published, a Wikipedia editor with a Russian address was found trying to insert a 33,000-foot ceiling on the Su-25 page. As for the R-60, the 3 kg warhead's ability to assure a kill on a large aircraft with highly redundant systems is dubious at best.

    A second theory is that two Ukrainian Su-27 fighters trailed the Boeing and somehow drew the missile on to it. Aside from the fact that the Buk-M1 is about as discriminating as a Rottweiler with ADHD, and that it could be activated at such a short range that the Su-27s would be inside its no-escape zone, the weakness of this story is its extreme similarity to the KGB-disseminated excuse for the shootdown of KAL 007, 31 years ago. The story then was that an RC-135 was deliberately shadowing the civilian 747, possibly using it to "ring the fire alarm" and gather data on Soviet air defenses.

    Bears don't have spots, but if they did, they'd have a hard time changing them.

    How An Su-25 Can Shoot Down A Faster, Higher-Flying Aircraft | Ares

    Here is a link to the profile of the author of that article. He has far more experience and credibility then the so called experts you have pointed to.

    Bill Sweetman

    Furthermore the after the fact "eyewitness" accounts posted up in your video seem to toe the line of the rebel supplied story. Sorry I will take the word of a real aviation expert over some rebel sympathising Russian speaking babushkas.

  12. #487
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,408

    Could This Old Warplane Really Shoot Down MH17?

    Following the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over separatist-held eastern Ukraine, Russian state-owned media started focusing a lot on a strange little plane. The Sukhoi Su-25 "Frogfoot" is a jet fighter from the late Cold War, designed to support ground troops from closer overhead, and in the MH17 tragedy, what the Su-25 can and can't do is a centerpiece of Russian denials.

    According to some theories, a Ukrainian Air Force Su-25 jet fighter fighter was armed with anti-air missiles and flew to an altitude of 33,000 feet, within 3 miles of MH17–implying that the warplane shot down MH17. Primarily Russian media (including Russia's state-owned English language television network RT, Russian state-owned media news agency RIA Novosti, and Pravda.ru) are reporting this version of events. Russia is hardly an unbiased party in this conflict. But if there was going to be a rumor about the Ukrainian government shooting the airliner, it couldn't have fixated on a less ideal jet.

    The Sukhoi Su-25 "Frogfoot" is not designed to destroy airplanes. Instead, it's a close air support or ground attack aircraft. First flown in 1979, it serves in the air forces of many post-Soviet states, including Ukraine. It's primarily used for destroying tanks, armored vehicles, trucks, and bunkers, where the Frogfoot's armor and 9,000 lbs of armaments make it a deadly force. Among those armaments can be AA-8 Aphid anti-air missiles, which are usually limited in range to under two miles. But there's an upper limit to the plane's performance: it can only fly up to 23,000 feet, well below MH17's reported 33,000 cruising distance. For an anti-tank plane, that's not a problem, but it poses a challenge to theories that Ukraine used one to down an airliner.

    On Monday morning, someone from an IP address in Moscow edited the Su-25's Russian Wikipedia page to increase the maximum height the plane can reach by about 10,000 feet.

    On the website of the Su-25's manufacturer, the maximum service ceiling reflects the first version, and also the actual capabilities of the plane. It's not just absurd that a Ukrainian Su-25 shot down the airliner, it's almost technically impossible.

    Instead, it looks like the Su-25 has a more somber connection to MH17. Earlier today, two Ukrainian Air Force Frogfeet were shot down in the same region of separatist-held eastern Ukraine where MH17 met its grim fate.

    Could This Old Warplane Really Shoot Down MH17? | Popular Science

    And yet more aviation experts saying guess what? Nope not likely.

    British Aviation Expert Says Russian MH17 Claims Highly Unlikely

    Can the Su-25 intercept and shoot down a 777? | Locklin on science


    I could post more links but I think I made my point. OH BTW your "expert" that old DDR Colonel he claimed that the fuselage of the aircraft showed that it was strafed by the gun of the SU-25 a claim even more far fetched then what the Russians are claiming because the fighter could only climb as high as 23,000 feet. So those thirty caliber guns must have set the all time record to be able to shoot another 10,000 feet up into the sky and miraculously hit the jetliner.

  13. #488
    Thailand Expat
    koman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-05-2023 @ 11:36 AM
    Location
    Issan
    Posts
    4,287
    Good stuff there Bsnub. Quite frightening that you and I seem to be on the same side in a TD debate..... Still we can see how thin the straws are that the tin hatters are clinging to.

    Apart from all the technical issues involving altitude capabilities and armament limitations, there is still that nagging question; "why would a Ukrainian pilot with full visual contact shoot down a totally neutral aircraft...and a civil airliner to boot? Nothing to be gained and a great deal to be lost. Reports of fighters by witnesses is hardly a big surprise in an area where rebel forces are known to be operating...especially a ground attack aircraft....maybe looking for SAM launchers.....

    Drunk rebels with a cool new SAM system on the ground are not likely weighing the pros and cons too much when they have a hard on to try out the new hardware.

    Most commentary on this incident seems to agree that it was most likely a mistake. The thing is...who's mistake was it and who was in the best position with the right equipment to bring down a high altitude airliner?

  14. #489
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,408
    Quote Originally Posted by koman
    Quite frightening that you and I seem to be on the same side in a TD debate....
    I doubt that this will happen anytime again soon.

    Quote Originally Posted by koman
    there is still that nagging question; "why would a Ukrainian pilot with full visual contact shoot down a totally neutral aircraft...and a civil airliner to boot? Nothing to be gained and a great deal to be lost.
    Exactly it just makes no sense but the point is really not worth pondering because the aircraft just could not have done it with its limitations.

  15. #490
    Thailand Expat HermantheGerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    18-02-2024 @ 11:26 PM
    Location
    Germany/Satthahip
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by koman View Post
    On the other hand; a herd of fairly drunk and stupid "freedom fighters" with a nifty new missile launcher on the ground.........
    Of course you have a valid point there.

    -But, what about the herd of fairly drunk and stupid politicians sitting in the Ukraine parliament ?

    -And what about our western politicians supporting these drunk and stupid Ukraine politicians ? What excuse do they have ? Alcohol or drugs ?

    Not much news arround about these animals (politicians). Why do you think it's like this ?

    Why Ukraine's government, which just collapsed, is such a mess July 25, 2014, 7:30 a.m. ET



    Why Ukraine's government, which just collapsed, is such a mess - Vox

  16. #491
    Thailand Expat
    koman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-05-2023 @ 11:36 AM
    Location
    Issan
    Posts
    4,287
    Quote Originally Posted by HermantheGerman
    -But, what about the herd of fairly drunk and stupid politicians sitting in the Ukraine parliament ?
    No argument there....the Ukraine parliament has been a clusterfuck for a long time. Nobody is really saying that it could not have been the Ukrainians who shot the plane down, but the preponderance of evidence and opportunity points strongly at the rebel forces. It must be a really depressing place to live for all the ordinary people who are caught up in all this crap.

  17. #492
    Lord of Swine
    Necron99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Nahkon Sawon
    Posts
    13,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier View Post
    Turn on the captions.

    Eyewitnesses saying there was a military plane flying next to the airliner


    These russian peasants must like their carrots to be able to see a 16 meter long jet flying at 33,000 feet........

  18. #493
    Thailand Expat HermantheGerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    18-02-2024 @ 11:26 PM
    Location
    Germany/Satthahip
    Posts
    6,675
    By the way, these brawls in Ukraine parliament happen on a regular basis. For the past 15 YEARS.

  19. #494
    Lord of Swine
    Necron99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Nahkon Sawon
    Posts
    13,021
    Quote Originally Posted by HermantheGerman View Post
    By the way, these brawls in Ukraine parliament happen on a regular basis. For the past 15 YEARS.
    Lot's of parliaments are dysfunctional. Ukraine got nothing on Taiwan.


  20. #495
    Thailand Expat HermantheGerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    18-02-2024 @ 11:26 PM
    Location
    Germany/Satthahip
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by koman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HermantheGerman
    -But, what about the herd of fairly drunk and stupid politicians sitting in the Ukraine parliament ?
    No argument there....the Ukraine parliament has been a clusterfuck for a long time. Nobody is really saying that it could not have been the Ukrainians who shot the plane down, but the preponderance of evidence and opportunity points strongly at the rebel forces. It must be a really depressing place to live for all the ordinary people who are caught up in all this crap.
    No argument there....

  21. #496
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Necron99
    These russian peasants must like their carrots to be able to see a 16 meter long jet flying at 33,000 feet........

  22. #497
    Thailand Expat HermantheGerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    18-02-2024 @ 11:26 PM
    Location
    Germany/Satthahip
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Necron99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HermantheGerman View Post
    By the way, these brawls in Ukraine parliament happen on a regular basis. For the past 15 YEARS.
    Lot's of parliaments are dysfunctional. Ukraine got nothing on Taiwan.

    Compare the Taiwan economy to the Ukraine.
    Compare the natural resources of Taiwan to the Ukraine.
    I think the taiwanese parliament can afford a good brawl

  23. #498
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Online
    Today @ 09:36 AM
    Posts
    18,475
    Quite amusing the disinformation put out by the Russians designed to support the contention the aircraft was shot down by automatic weapons fire from a military fighter plane, seemingly on the basis that that would account for alleged bullet holes in the airframe and cockpit.

    Stuff and nonsense but typical rubbish from idiot Russians who still believe western folk are as dumb as they consider their own doltish masses who are probably the target for such propaganda.

    Modern missiles are designed to explode on proximity fuses at a closing speed of over 2500 feet per sec maximising the killing zone. The missile itself becomes a fragmented ball of shrapnel in addition to its own payload of armoured bolts etc. Thus on impact the target will be encompassed by a blast of red hot metal sufficient to bring anything down within its zone.

    The aircraft remnants will bear witness to this and any metallurgical analysis will confirm evidence of damage commensurate with such an attack. Additionally, the corpses will show evidence of cauterised penetration wounds. Literally, the cadavers will testify to how they met their end.

    Russians are cvunts and reading their utter shite simply confirms what everyone with a brain knows, the fuckers brought down this aircraft, and that is that.

    The only doubt remaining is just how long it will take for the West to confront the Russians with their murderous incompetence.

  24. #499
    Thailand Expat
    Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:32 AM
    Location
    In the EU
    Posts
    12,202
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Necron99
    These russian peasants must like their carrots to be able to see a 16 meter long jet flying at 33,000 feet........
    On an overcast day....

    Cannon fire? How do the Russians account for those pieces of steel found amongst the wreckage?

    Only problem is proving actual Russisan involvement in the firing of the buk.

  25. #500
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,408
    Quote Originally Posted by thegent
    Russians are cvunts and reading their utter shite simply confirms what everyone with a brain knows, the fuckers brought down this aircraft, and that is that.
    The tinfoil morons on this forum will continue to deny facts and reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by thegent
    The only doubt remaining is just how long it will take for the West to confront the Russians with their murderous incompetence.
    Unfortunately the cowardly Euros will continue to be resistant to any type of manly confrontation.

Page 20 of 36 FirstFirst ... 10121314151617181920212223242526272830 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •