MH17 tragedy – 2 years on

Two years on and there has yet to be a a decision on who was responsible for shooting down Malaysian Airlines MH17 over Eastern Ukraine.

This video shows the local memorial meeting held near the crash site. We often forget that the locals in such tragedies also suffer as they have to deal with the destruction and death on the ground.

Another group which suffered this exposure to death and destruction were the members of thew OSCE special monitoring mission who were very quickly at the scene. The Chief Monitor of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, Ambassador Ertugrul Apakan, commented on July 17 saying:

“The disaster once again reminds all of us of the heavy toll that civilians pay in the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine, and in all armed conflicts. “

“We take this moment to again offer our sincere condolences to those who lost loved ones when Flight MH17 was downed two years ago in eastern Ukraine, with the loss of all 298 lives on board.”

“This tragic event affected many around the world, including SMM monitors, some of who were on the ground immediately following the crash. We recall that their involvement in the initial recovery efforts and in facilitating a localized ceasefire to allow access for emergency and recovery teams is a time of deep sorrow, but also of pride to have been able to assist in those dark hours,” said the Chief Monitor.

“The memory of those who perished is a reminder to us all that peace is precious and life sacrosanct.”

Similar articles

36 responses to “MH17 tragedy – 2 years on

  1. I was astounded today to hear Radio NZ National state as fact that the plane was brought down by “pro Russian separatists”.

    I thought investigation to date has been inconclusive (but often spun each way dependant on personal geopolitical allegiance). Cedric hasn’t even been back to say I told you so.

    Have I missed something?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. dependent , grrr, I do know the difference!

    Like

  3. For a long time it was illegal for the USA govt to propagandise its own people. Since about 2013 the law has been changed so they can do it in the interests of “freedom and democracy,” which is propaganda itself

    Monsanto has close links to govt with the rotating door.
    Two refs to look at: “One student asked what Monsanto was doing to counter the “bad science” around their work. Dr. Moar, perhaps forgetting that this was a public event, then revealed that Monsanto indeed had “an entire department” (waving his arm for emphasis) dedicated to “debunking” science which disagreed with theirs.”
    http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16046-monsanto-s-discredit-bureau-really-does-exist
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/former-monsanto-employee-fired-from-major-scientific-journals-editor-position/5439529
    The dividing line between science and propaganda is getting more blurry

    Monsanto have got their GMO crops into Ukraine but their shares are still dropping, except for a blip when Bayer put in a offer to buy Monsanto. Bayer is dropping, too.
    There will be a strong push to get the GMO crops into NZ for the few years here until the pest resistance develops here, too.

    Malta have now banned glyphosate, component of Monsanto’s Roundup which many GMOs are designed to be used with . I read it enhances occurrence of cancer-causing aflatoxin B1 on crops.

    A few airplane loads is nothing compared to what cancer kills.

    Like

  4. According to U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, “We picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing, and it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar”

    I honestly believe that John Kerry is a good man. His opposition to the Viet Nam war earned him nothing but hostility from the Nixon Administration . . . . And if anybody saw his first debate against George W. Bush, which focused mainly on the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq . . . Well I have to say, that’s when I became a real fan of John Kerry.

    Perhaps the way to go is to start a campaign and press the U.S. Secretary of State to release the intelligence to the global community that it says it has.

    Like

  5. Strange way of talking: “We picked up the imagery of this launch.”

    “pick up” is an expression normally applied to when a signal is being transmitted by human or galactic or some other means in some science experiment, that was not necessarily being aimed at your receiver or analysis. The expression sort of makes me think of picking up a signal from a nuclear test, that sort of thing rather than taking a look through your album of security photos and picking up one of a shop lifter.
    ‘Discovered one,” would be more common usage. Or did they pick it up clandestinely from somewhere? “I picked up a photo of such an such.” I have never heard anyone using that expression about a photo they themself took.

    ” We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing, and it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar”
    Again strange manner of speech. Knowing the trajectory, origin and timing gives the implication that things go various ways from that origin, at various times, and they know this particular event.
    And the use of “exactly,” is rather unusual. Because you have to think of the time from launch to explosion as part of that exactitude.

    To me this signals that John Kerry is hinting about something strange in what he has been advised. I feel the manner of speech to verge on that used by say anti-global warming pseudos when trying to swing people.

    Like

  6. “Disappeared from the radar.” There has been much talk of radar in the disappearance of this and the other plane, without acknowledging primary or secondary radar. Radar detects an object by bouncing a radiowave off it. With secondary radar the plane transmits back a signal giving more data.
    “Primary radar,” does not require the transponder and though it was the first radar we had it now seems to have taken on the aura of a military secret that should not be divulged.
    Falling bits of a plane would show on primary radar. They would not “disappear,” from primary radar until their altitude dropped to below the horizon.

    Like

  7. David, I don’t necessarily agree with you about Kerry. He is, after all, a politician and is heavily involved in the geopolitical information war. Just look at his duplicitous positions on Syria.

    I could say that Vladimir Putin is a “good man” and at least on this position he has maintained an honourable position (as I have said to some readers consternation – he has occupied the moral high ground). His position is not to disrespect the families and dead passengers by using the tragedy for political purposes and to let the investigation and criminal process take its course. It seems to me that the investigation is gradually locating the location of the launch site from the destruction pattern in the fuselage. But the Dutch-led team does not seem objective enough – so it is good that the Malaysians and Russians are doing their own investigation and asking for their acceptance as part of the Dutch-led team.

    I agree the US should release the information it has – so also should the Ukrainian authorities. It is disgusting (and suspicious) that they have refused to do so – and that the investigation team is not pressuring them. Both these governments are making claims which they refuse to provide evidence for. At least the Russian Federation released their information – rapidly and publicly (although the Dutch investigators claim there could be more data they have not released (primary civilian radar information which the Russians claim they do no store. Incidentally there is the same problem with the Ukrainians).

    At the moment the best publicly available intelligence information we have is that presented to the Dutch parliament. This indicated that the only forces on the ground with BUK missile systems were the Ukrainian army. At the moment I think they are the most likely suspect. I have also been impressed with the willingness of the Donbass authorities to cooperate – eg in locating and handing over the black boxes. whereas the Kiev authorities hindered the entry of investigation teams into the region because they insisted that there should be no direct contact with the rebels.

    Trouble is – the geopolitical information war is a huge confounding factor. As Richard points out we are being authoritatively told that “Russian separatists” were responsible (quite unfounded) and sometimes that the Russian Federation – or even Putin himself, were responsible. I am always suspicious of our media reports on these sort of matters (eg Syria at the moment) but the man in the (western) street is not yet suspicious enough on such geopolitical issues.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Brian, Kerry is a politician so we expect him to have a “strange way of talking.” Interestingly un-named members of the intelligence community did leak a bit more information at the time which they claim indicated that the BUK system was manned by men dressed in Ukrainian army uniforms.

    I know – just a rumour – but so was Kerry’s statement. That is the trouble with the information war – rumours are given far more credibility than they deserve.

    Like

  9. Who honestly believes that NATO doesn’t have the launch site pinpointed down to nearest the square metre and doesn’t have a good idea of the activity that took place around it?

    Kerry was stating the obvious.

    It was a war zone that the US and NATO had a huge strategic and tactical interest in, the area would have been under state of art surveillance.

    As Ken says, that no data has been forthcoming is very suspicious.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Soundhill, your diatribe is straight out of Conspiracy Theory 101. Get real.

    Ken, you lost me when you said Putin is a good man. Ok, whatever you say. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/sochi-olympics-2014_n_2070784.html

    I agree. If John Kerry (who, by the way was opposing the Viet Nam war when Putin was head of the KGB) says he has intel, he should present it to the world. I don’t know who shot down the plane, nor do you. Relying on a pro-Moscow bias won’t give you the answer.

    Like

  11. “Soundhill, your diatribe is straight out of Conspiracy Theory 101. Get real.”

    There have been a lot of people saying the Apollo 11 moon landing pictures the public were shown were produced by embarassed producers who left in things such as the Coke bottle on the moon shown on Australian TV, and repetitive use of background mountain scenes in order to indicate their displeasure.

    Like

  12. David Fierstien

    Soundhill, thank you for proving my point.

    Like

  13. In 1969 there wasn’t a TV link from east to west Australia and tapes had to be sent and would be probably delayed to night. The Coke bottle would not not be the strongest example. There is a lot more in this film which is what I was thinking of.

    It suggests faults were put in by disgruntled producers, buit maybe they just didn’t think people would notice.
    David I suggest you are very trusting if you think propaganda doesn’t exist, or just restrict it to one side of a “cold” war.

    Like

  14. David, it seems that too many people have a Pavlovian response to the word “Putin” (and also “the word “Russia”). I did not say personally that “Putin is a good man.” I simply mirrored your comment about Kerry. And pointed out that on the MH17 issue Putin occupied the moral high ground in not insulting the dead and their relatives by making political capital on the issue in the way that Kerry and many Western politicians did.

    Putin is of course a politician himself – whatever his personal qualities.

    But this knee-jerk salivation over Putin leads to some silliness, doesn’t it? What the hell has your link got to do with the MH17 tragedy? I imagine Putin was also opposed to the Vietnam war – although he was too young at the time to occupy any political position. He was never, as you claim, head of the KGB – at the time of the US war in Vietnam or at any other time. He was a KGB officer working in Germany at the time of the collapse of the USSR. Soon after he left the KGB and was working in St Petersburg for a local politician.

    I also do not know who shot down MH17 – and have never claimed to. All I have done is try to present what evidence I can find and to counter some of the extremely thoughtless propaganda we are exposed to on this matter. My view, at the moment, is that it was most probably soldiers from the Ukrainian Army who are responsible. And I have only lowered the probability it was the Donbass militia because of the summary of intelligence reports submitted to the Dutch Parliament which says that these militia did not have access to a working BUK setup. (I previously thought they did). But my mind is still open to new evidence on this.

    Your implication I “rely on pro-Moscow bias” is insulting. Could you please justify it – or withdraw the insult. Seriously, this sort of insult is the way brainwashing works in this information war climate. It is not intelligent to attempt to to cut the feet out from under your discussion partner by labeling their sincere contributions in this manner. It would be better to actually discuss the facts and the arguments – and show where I am wrong.

    You will not achieve that by Pavlovian mumbling about the words “Putin” “Russia,” or “pro-Moscow” any more than I would by labeling you as “pro-Washington” (which would be very silly of me).

    I agree that Kerry should present then information he has – especially to the investigators. It is very suspicious when people make claims like this and then just say “trust us.” Unfortunately this is happening a lot and people get fooled by it.

    Like

  15. Brian, I think you are also disrespecting the victims of the MH17 tragedy and their relatives by taking advantage of a discussion on the tragedy to promote your own irrelevant conspiracy theories.

    That is immoral.

    Like

  16. Sorry Ken, I have always had trouble with memorials such as ANZAC day services which seem to glorify those who were hoodwinked into giving their lives. I feel the nasty taste of the propaganda machine for the world-wide military industrial complex. “How great these people were to give their lives.”

    For this matter they were not hoodwinked into it.

    The service asks for tracing those responsible and to me that means looking at the propaganda machine.

    I suggested Kerry to be uneasy about what he was told to say, as indicated by his unusual use of words. You say it is just the way politicians talk. But I think it is also the reminiscent of the way AGW deniers bend words and scientific ideas.

    David says I am talking conspiracy, an accusation which is a technique of propagandists when they have no decent reply. I posted the vid which gives a the view of some that people under duress may seek other ways to express their worries, and is what I based my comment about Kerry on.

    So often it happens on this group that a comment is made, and challenged but then examination of the challenge is regarded off-topic.

    Sorry about the picture intruding, which seems to happen on this group if I post vids but I forgot. On Facebook they can be turned off.

    A journalist with sceptic views has recently been murdered:

    https://meduza.io/en/feature/2016/07/20/in-memory-of-pavel-sheremet
    (not perfect translation)

    So do you deny right of public figures to imply things indirectly?

    Like

  17. Ken, your quote: ” I did not say personally that “Putin is a good man.” I simply mirrored your comment about Kerry.”

    Actually, I said that I believe John Kerry is a good man. You did not mirror what I said. You applied what I said to this particular situation. If you had mirrored what I said, i.e., if you had said that Putin is a good man, I would have felt obliged to point out that John Kerry has never been accused of assassinating or imprisoning his political rivals. See, for example, the attached link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRer0ubNE0o

    What the hell does this link have to do with the downing of MH17? Absolutely nothing. But it is relevant to its preceding sentence and to your comment, as are other links I have posted.

    Your quote: “But this knee-jerk salivation over Putin leads to some silliness, doesn’t it?”

    Is it a knee-jerk reaction to respond as I did to your mention of Putin? Probably. But then again, if you had said Hitler was a good man based on the way he treated his dog, you probably would have seen a similar knee-jerk reaction. Again, none of this is relevant to the downing of MH17. See how we digress?

    Your quote: “I imagine Putin was also opposed to the Vietnam war, . . ”

    Any evidence of that? I imagine Putin is the antichrist who salivates at the thought of human oppression for his own benefit . . . but I don’t have any evidence of that either, other than his own track record.

    Your quote: “He was never, as you claim, head of the KGB – at the time of the US war in Vietnam or at any other time. He was a KGB officer working in Germany at the time of the collapse of the USSR. Soon after he left the KGB and was working in St Petersburg for a local politician.”

    You are correct, and I stand corrected. Putin was not the head of the KGB. He was a career opportunist who supported Communism for his entire career, until, of course, its fall, at which point he called it, “a blind alley, far away from the mainstream of civilization.” Such loyalty . . such a well defined moral compass.

    But I must ask, why would a retired chemistry professor living in New Zealand be so apprised about the career of a petty tyrant living in Russia? Thus the answer to this question: “Your implication I “rely on pro-Moscow bias” is insulting. Could you please justify it – or withdraw the insult.”

    I would be happy to research comments you have made in the past, but I think the question that I posed should suffice.

    Do you even consider being called Pro Moscow an insult? Honestly.

    Am I pro Washington? That would depend on the situation. If you are talking about Nixon’s pardon of Lt. Calley for his participation in the My Lai Massacre, the no, I would not be pro Washington. If you are talking about President Obama, then yes, in most cases. If Donald Trump is elected . . then probably not, but who knows what the hell that guy stands for. He is simply spewing crap that he thinks Americans want to hear.

    But we digress . . .

    My original comment simply pointed out that the U.S. Secretary of State claimed to have actual evidence of the launch of that missile, it’s trajectory, and the disappearance of MH17. I was simply suggesting that the Secretary of State be pressed to release that information to the world.

    Like

  18. David in reply to your URL
    “I can tell you one thing, and that is that Putin is much too smart to play into Washington’s hands in this way. Moreover, Nemtsov, although a loud mouth, had no impact on Putin’s 85% approval rating. Nemtsov’s support resided in the Washington-funded NGOs in Russia. If the CIA assassinated Nemtsov, they killed their own asset.

    It remains to be seen if the propaganda gains justify the CIA’s loss of a Putin critic.”
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/02/27/nemtsovs-assassination-propaganda-attack-putin/

    Liked by 1 person

  19. I agree that Kerry should be pressured to release the information he claims to have. In fact, in a court of law he would be found guilty of contempt for the way he has behaved – making charges without presenting evidence. Let’s not forget that there is a criminal investigation currently underway and hopefully the standards will be close to a court of law than the current way reports are issued.

    I also agree everything else is a diversion. I am happy to discuss your specific allegations against President Putin – mind you let’s start with the evidence you rely on for the charges.

    And who the hell is this retired chemistry professor in New Zealand? Surely not me – the highest position I attained while working at a university was a junior lectureship – while undertaking PhD work. Never been a professor.

    Perhaps you should rephrase the question so I can understand it – and please avoid the McCarthyist epithets. Both you an Kerry, as opponents of the US war in Vietnam as was I, must be aware of how silly they are.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. David Fierstien

    Perhaps you’re right. Perhaps the Office of Secretary of State should be forced to release its intelligence. Surely it’s not classified, since he himself alluded to it.

    Sincere apologies for applying an incorrect title to you. But I do believe you have a pro-Russian bias based on our previous discussion about the illegal annexation of Crimea. Your quote: “You ask me if I think “the Russian invasion of Crimea was a moral act?” I have to ask – what Russian invasion of Crimea? I am not aware of any invasion.”

    My quote: ” Russia was in violation of the Russian-Ukrainian Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet which did allow for those 25,000 troops to remain on their bases. Leaving the bases was a violation of the treaty. . . .

    “Moreover, Russia was clearly in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed by Russia, the U.S., and the U.K. in which they agreed to:

    1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.

    2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.

    3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.

    4. Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, “if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.

    5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine. (whatever “refrain” means)

    6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

    Again, violation of these treaties, particularly troops leaving assigned bases to carry out aggressive military action against the host country constitutes an invasion.

    Clearly Russia was in violation of treaty. I pointed out exactly how Russia was in violation of treaty.”

    Your quote: “I can’t for the life of me see how the RF was in violation of the Crimean bases treaty. Perhaps you could point me to the specific clauses. I am sure the military personnel based there would often travel throughout the country let alone the peninsula.”

    My quote: “according to paragraph 1, Article 6 of the Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the Status and Conditions of Presence of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in the Territory of Ukraine “Military units shall conduct their operations in the areas of disposition in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, obey its legislation and refrain from interference with Ukraine’s domestic affairs”.

    According to paragraph 2, Article 8 of the same Agreement, “Military units shall conduct exercise and other combat and operative training within the limits of training centers, training areas, positioning and dispersal areas, firing ranges, and, except forbidden zones, within the designated airspace as agreed with Ukraine’s competent authorities”.

    Now, I have been on U.S. Military Bases in foreign countries, and I can tell you for certain that once you leave that base, you are on foreign soil. If you leave that base armed you had better have permission from the host country. . . . .

    “Paragraph 5, Article 15 of the same Agreement reads: “Movements related to activities of military units outside of their areas of disposition shall take place following an approval by Ukraine’s competent authorities”. ”

    Your quote: “I don’t think the minutia of such treaties are important in this discussion as it is straw itching to use them to define such a obvious thing as an “invasion,”

    My quote: “I don’t know how much you know about international law, but the minutia of a treaty IS the treaty.”

    Ken, in that exchange, you were bending over backward to defend what the entire global community labeled an illegal act. That is a clear example of your pro-Moscow bias.

    Like

  21. David how long does it take to mobilise UN forces?

    “VLADIMIR PUTIN: I do not know how many times I spoke about this, but I will do it again.

    On February 21, Viktor Yanukovych signed the well-known documents with the opposition. Foreign ministers of three European countries signed their names under this agreement as guarantors of its implementation.

    In the evening of February 21, President Obama called me and we discussed these issues and how we would assist in the implementation of these agreements. Russia undertook certain obligations. I heard that my American colleague was also ready to undertake some obligations. This was the evening of the 21st. On the same day, President Yanukovych called me to say he signed the agreement, the situation had stabilized and he was going to a conference in Kharkov. I will not conceal the fact that I expressed my concern: how was it possible to leave the capital in this situation. He replied that he found it possible because there was the document signed with the opposition and guaranteed by foreign ministers of European countries.

    I will tell you more, I told him I was not sure everything would be fine, but it was for him to decide. He was the president, he knew the situation, and he knew better what to do. “In any case, I do not think you should withdraw the law enforcement forces from Kiev,” I told him. He said he understood. Then he left and gave orders to withdraw all the law enforcement troops from Kiev. Nice move, of course.

    We all know what happened in Kiev. On the following day, despite all our telephone conversations, despite the signatures of the foreign ministers, as soon as Yanukovych left Kiev his administration was taken over by force along with the government building. On the same day, they shot at the cortege of Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, wounding one of his security guards.

    Yanukovych called me and said he would like us to meet to talk it over. I agreed. Eventually we agreed to meet in Rostov because it was closer and he did not want to go too far. I was ready to fly to Rostov. However, it turned out he could not go even there. They were beginning to use force against him already, holding him at gunpoint. They were not quite sure where to go.

    I will not conceal it; we helped him move to Crimea, where he stayed for a few days. That was when Crimea was still part of Ukraine. However, the situation in Kiev was developing very rapidly and violently, we know what happened, though the broad public may not know – people were killed, they were burned alive there. They came into the office of the Party of Regions, seized the technical workers and killed them, burned them alive in the basement. Under those circumstances, there was no way he could return to Kiev. Everybody forgot about the agreements with the opposition signed by foreign ministers and about our telephone conversations. Yes, I will tell you frankly that he asked us to help him get to Russia, which we did. That was all.

    Seeing these developments, people in Crimea almost immediately took to arms and asked us for help in arranging the events they intended to hold. I will be frank; we used our Armed Forces to block Ukrainian units stationed in Crimea, but not to force anyone to take part in the elections. This is impossible, you are all grown people, and you understand it. How could we do it? Lead people to polling stations at gunpoint?

    People went to vote as if it were a celebration, everybody knows this, and they all voted, even the Crimean Tatars. There were fewer Crimean Tatars, but the overall vote was high. While the turnout in Crimea in general was about 96 or 94 percent, a smaller number of Crimean Tatars showed up. However 97 percent of them voted ‘yes’. Why? Because those who did not want it did not come to the polling stations, and those who did voted ‘yes’.”

    Like

  22. David Fierstien

    Soundhill, I really hate to enter into a discussion with you because you are not entirely rational. Not an ad hominem, a fact. As evidence, you don’t believe the Lunar Landings took place. When discussing something with an irrational person, the discussion cannot remain rational.

    However, from your copy/paste:

    Putin: “I will be frank; we used our Armed Forces to block Ukrainian units stationed in Crimea, . . ”

    That was a violation of Paragraph 5, Article 15 of the Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the Status and Conditions of Presence of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in the Territory of Ukraine which reads: “Movements related to activities of military units outside of their areas of disposition shall take place following an approval by Ukraine’s competent authorities.”

    It was also a violation of Paragraph 1, Article 6 which reads “Military units shall conduct their operations in the areas of disposition in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, obey its legislation and refrain from interference with Ukraine’s domestic affairs”.

    Russia used military forces to interfere with Ukraine’s domestic affairs.

    From your copy/paste, we see Putin openly admitting his violation of Treaty. Let me get this right. Are you actually using his own admission to defend illegal agression? This is what I mean when I say that I hate entering into discussion with irrational people.

    Like

  23. David, you seem to have moved on from the “Putin diversion” to a more general “pro-Moscow diversion” (which I think is one of the tricks McCarthy used).

    I suggest such diversions (and a one sided presentation of a previous discussion about Crimea) are not appropriate under this specific post. I have always felt dragging political hobby-horses into discussion of the MH-17 tragedy is disgusting and offensive to the memory of the people who died in the incident and to their relatives. That is why I have described Vladimir Putin’s request that the incident should not be used for such obvious political purposes, and that we should allow the unfettered progress of the investigation and criminal case to take its course, as him occupying the high moral ground. Something he should be congratulated for – in contrast to many politicians in the west who have behave appallingly.

    However, some people do want to vent their particular feelings about Putin so I will put up a separate post where they can discuss him and related issues. Hopefully this diversion will, in itself, be diverted to a more suitable place.

    I encourage you to make your points in discussion of that post and get stuck in. I hope, though, that the discussion will be more than emotive labelling and will give specific evidence for some of the claims that have been made.

    Like

  24. Ken, this is what you did. You said, ” “Your implication I “rely on pro-Moscow bias” is insulting. Could you please justify it – or withdraw the insult.” (And I don’t believe it’s an insult. You are free to hold any opinion you choose.)

    When I justified my comment by providing a specific example of your bias you then said, “I suggest such diversions (and a one sided presentation of a previous discussion about Crimea) are not appropriate under this specific post. I have always felt dragging political hobby-horses into discussion of the MH-17 tragedy is disgusting and offensive . . . ”

    You do have a pro Moscow bias. If you didn’t want me to explain why I am justified in saying this, or to provide an example of it, you never should have asked for it. Now is not the time to call my answer to your request “disgusting and offensive.”

    All I have ever said on the topic at hand is that the United States Secretary of State claims to have intelligence regarding the origin of the missile that shot down MH17. I believe that Office should be pressed to release that evidence to the world.

    Like

  25. Here in NZ (and presumably the USA also) we live in a society where an anti-Moscow bias is the prevalent paradigm and has been so for over a century.

    In such an environment, calls for the anti Moscow bias to be tempered or for a more neutral viewpoint can often be interpreted as a pro-Moscow bias. It challenges what many have been led to believe without ever examining it.

    Like

  26. I think we all agree that the US should be pressured to release the evidence on the MH17 tragedy they claim to have. But could people please refrain from diverting the discussion away from the subject of this post. I have explained my reasons for this.

    I do not want to close off the discussion here because of the disrespect implied by such political debates so have opened up another post where people can let loose on there hobby horses regarding Putin, Russia, Crimea, Syria, and my “pro-Moscow bias,” etc. You can get to it at https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/07/22/the-putin-diversion/

    David, I am not avoiding your comments and will respond to them in the discussion on the new post.

    I should add that personally I have been going through a family crisis with the death of a brother and the very serious illness of my partner. This is till taking up a lot of my time – and readers may have noticed that I have had to neglect this blog for over a month. I don’t know when I can get back to regular blogging – but I am certainly very interested in getting into this particular debate. I just ask for a bit of sympathy when I cannot respond immediately (there are days when I do not have internet access) or when I react strongly to unjustified personal criticism (my fuse is rather short at the moment🙂 ).

    Like

  27. David Fierstien

    All the best, health and happiness, to you and your loved ones.

    Like

  28. Thanks, David.

    It is, unfortunately, the stage of life I am at these days. One of the problems of growing old.🙂

    Like

  29. Are we sure that the Secretary of State hasn’t provided its intelligence to the Dutch? I actually do not know if they have or have not.

    The following is a transcript from the U.S. SOS Website. From this exchange it looks like they have not. I would like to pursue this further and contact the SOS for a definitive answer to that question, and if not, why not:

    QUESTION: The Dutch Public Prosecution Service wrote a letter with an update on their investigation into the downing of MH17. And in that letter, prosecutors write that the investigation does not have (a) any raw radar data and (b) any images of the location from which the missile was launched due to a clouded sky at the time. Yesterday, this letter from the Dutch prosecutor’s office was widely discussed in the Dutch parliament, and here’s what the Dutch MPs brought up. Four days after the downing of MH17, Secretary Kerry said on Meet the Press, quote: “We picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory.” Excuse me. “We know where it came from. We know the timing. It was exactly the time when the plane disappeared from the radar.” End of quote.

    It seems that the U.S. has everything that the Dutch investigators don’t have right now, almost two years after the downing of MH17. So my question is: Has the U.S. provided Dutch investigators with the data that Secretary Kerry said the U.S. had?

    MR TONER: I believe we have collaborated with the Dutch in their investigation. To what level of detail, I just don’t know.

    QUESTION: And specifically on radar data?

    MR TONER: I would assume we’d, in a spirit of transparency, share whatever information we had. But we’ve always said that this is a Dutch-led investigation. We’ve also been clear about expressing what we believe happened and transpired with the downing of that aircraft. But we have supported the Dutch in carrying out, as I said, a transparent investigation of their own. I know we’ve collaborated with them; I just don’t know to what level we’ve shared information with them. I’d have to look into that.

    QUESTION: Well —

    MR TONER: I don’t have it in front of me. I’m sorry.

    QUESTION: Well, the Dutch parliament grilled their officials over why —

    MR TONER: Sure.

    QUESTION: — investigators don’t have that data. They’re saying they don’t have it. They saw Secretary Kerry’s comments, they saw the prosecutor’s letter. My question to you: Has the U.S. received a request asking for that – for the data?

    MR TONER: Again, I know we’ve offered our assistance, we’ve worked with the Dutch investigators. I don’t know actually what was exchanged in terms of information with them. Frankly, I’m not aware of this latest story you’re talking about or this incident with the Dutch parliament. But we’ve been very clear all along what we believe happened. And frankly, the initial outcome of the Dutch investigation supported that conclusion. But I just can’t – I just don’t have any details to offer you in terms of what we’ve offered them.

    QUESTION: Can you find out?

    MR TONER: I can look into it.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. It really does look like the SOS is being evasive on this, doesn’t it. Here’s another back & forth with the SOS. It also looks like people are pursuing the question:

    QUESTION: Change of subject? What kind of data has the U.S. shared with Dutch investigators on the downing of MH17? I asked Mark Toner about this yesterday. He said he would look into it. I wonder if you have anything.

    MR KIRBY: Yeah. I’m actually not going to be able to give you a lot of information on that.

    QUESTION: Do you know if the data included satellite images or radar data?

    MR KIRBY: As I said, I’m not going to be able to give you much on that. There is an active – still an active review going on, and I’d refer you to the Dutch Government about – on that review. We have been and will continue to assist as is appropriate, but I’m not going to be able to give you much more detail on that.

    QUESTION: Has there been —

    QUESTION: You didn’t – hold on a second – you didn’t give any detail at all.

    MR KIRBY: Well, I said —

    QUESTION: “Not much more” is – there’s none. Can you confirm at least —

    MR KIRBY: Well, that’s a subjective opinion on your part. I thought I gave information. I said that we’re helping. I’m just not going to talk about exactly what we’re helping with.

    QUESTION: Okay. So – but you did give them some kind of information, yes?

    MR KIRBY: We continue to work with the joint investigation team and law enforcement authorities. But I’m not going into the details of cooperation.

    QUESTION: Does that mean that you have given them – I’m not asking what specifically – does that mean you’ve given them information —

    MR KIRBY: It means that we’ve continued to communicate and assist them.

    QUESTION: Well, I don’t know what that means. We’re continuing to communicate right now, but I’m not getting any answers and no one else is either. (Laughter.) So what does that mean, “continue to communicate?” Have you or have you not given them any information?

    MR KIRBY: It means that we are cooperating with them and assisting them —

    QUESTION: Does that —

    MR KIRBY: — in their efforts. I’m not going to get into the details of what that is.

    QUESTION: Does that mean that you – but that answer means nothing, though. Have you given them information, data – any kind?

    MR KIRBY: I’ve answered the question.

    QUESTION: Has there been a request from Dutch investigators for radar data or satellite images from the U.S.?

    MR KIRBY: You can contact Dutch authorities and ask them about the progress of their investigative efforts and what they’ve needed and how they’re doing on it. I’m not going to be able to give any more information.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. David, unfortunately I suspect that the Dutch are also being evasive.

    We know the investigation team received primary radar data from the Russian Federation whose military released it publicly shortly after the team was set up. Yet in the final report this data was ignored and the Dutch criminal investigators have instead complained that they have not been given Russian primary radar data (I think they are talking about civil data which the RF civil authorities claim they do not routinely save).

    On the other hand I have seen several times the Dutch saying they have received some “secret” information from the US. They appear to be refusing to disclose this information in the grounds that it would compromise the intelligence collection.

    The worrying thing is that we have investigators appearing to want to make an argument based on information they will refuse to disclose. That is an extremely dangerous practice which surely should not be allowed in a criminal investigation.

    I remember the Cuban missile crisis when the US government released photos showing the placement of missiles in Cuba. This, of course, provided credibility to their story and justification for the actions they took. Yet today we seem to have the US routinely making serious claims about things like the MH17 incident and the claimed presence of RF military in Easter Ukraine without providing any credible evidence – just saying “trust me.”

    Unfortunately our main stream media goes along with this silliness.

    I find it very hypocritical of the media who today are making millage about the exposures of Tony Blair using such methods yet they refused to apply any critical analysis to the bogus information used by Blair and Bush at the time of the invasion of Iraq.

    Unfortunately I think the same thing is currently happening over the Syria coverage. It seems incredible to me that our media can go along with the one sided coverage of that conflict, blithely reporting assumptions about things like the use of chemical weapons and accepting it is OK for foreign major powers to demand that an elected government and president must be replaced.

    Like

  32. Thanks for the transcripts, David.

    Like

  33. Ken, your quote: “We know the investigation team received primary radar data from the Russian Federation whose military released it publicly shortly after the team was set up.”

    How do we know this? Could you please provide a reference?

    Your quote: “Unfortunately I think the same thing is currently happening over the Syria coverage. It seems incredible to me that our media can go along with the one sided coverage of that conflict, blithely reporting assumptions about things like the use of chemical weapons and accepting it is OK for foreign major powers to demand that an elected government and president must be replaced.”

    I would call that a “diversion” if I had an axe to grind.

    Like

  34. I don’t see the US role in Syria as a diversion.  What are they diverting from? I see the the Syrian problem as just part of a more general strategy of regime change and intervention. (And wasn’t that exactly what happened on Ukraine?) I will post a link to the Russian Federation  presentation  of their radar evidence later when I have access to my PC. Not home at the moment.

    Sent from my Samsung device

    Like

  35. From memory the preliminary Dutch safety board report mentioned they had received that primary radar dara from Russia but did not discuss it. Somehow by the final report they had forgotten about it. 

    Sent from my Samsung device

    Like

  36. Here, I think, is the official information from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/0/ECD62987D4816CA344257D1D00251C76

    Not sure if I watched the video right through – found the need to translate quite tedious.

    In the Dutch Safety Board’s preliminary report they referred to having the Russian data in section 2.5.1

    (see my article https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/mh17-preliminary-report-leaves-most-conspiracy-theories-intact/)
    http://archive.mid.ru//brp_4.nsf/0/ECD62987D4816CA344257D1D00251C76

    In my article on the final report (https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/mh17-final-technical-report/) I commented that I could not see any reference to this data. I thought this strange as the final report did not indicate some frustration about neither the Ukrainian or Russian civil authorities passing on primary radar data.

    Maybe this was due to political pressure. Hopefully the criminal investigation team will now accept both Russian and Malaysian investigators (they should have right at the beginning) which will help reduce one-sided political influence.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s