The Russians are coming.

[Azer]

As Windwalker rightly points out, as of today there has been zero evidence provided by the US. Excuses as to why it cant provide it are absolutely ridiculous, it's like a school yard argument "He did it! I know, but I'm not gonna tell you why! He did it!". However, I would wager even if they did provide evidence, taking in to account the US track record of lying on the international stage, I would assume such evidence, which I suspect doest actually exist, would likely be bought by only a few gullible US and Euro citizens.

Russia has already provided satellite images of Ukrainian air defence forces active in the region, which directly contradict Ukraine's official statements that there were no air defence forces within range. Likewise, Russia has said that it knows of at least two US surveillance satellites covering the same region at the same time, yet the US keeps quiet.

As is blatantly obvious, the two beneficiaries from such an "accident" are US/NATO and Ukraine. If we follow the money, and this is what this NATO adventurism is about, then the trail leads to the same devious house of lies as last time, and the time before, and the time before, so forth and so on..

In the meantime, the laughable British decepticon D. Cameron has got himself in a bit of pickle:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28424395

As if such weapons would make a slight damn difference. Still nice to have this poodle's incompetence reconfirmed.

[Michael]

Cameron used to ride his bike to parliament. So he must be one of us.

[Azer]

Lol... Yeah, that elitist fathead is always trying to look "normal" in the media here.

Oddly enough, you do sometimes come across politicians here going about their business. I've seen the former mayor of London (Commie Ken) on the tube a few times. Some years back, when Labour was in power, I was in a queue at Tesco and when I turned around, to my dismay standing behind me was Alistair Darling, I think he was the Chancellor at the time. It was quite odd. Certainly wouldn't expect such sites in most other countries, I'm also surprised some of the guys have the balls to show their faces in public, though I doubt Tony Bliar does, he would likely get lynched anywhere he went.

[Azer]

This is funny, an incompetent idiot assuming the audience is equally incompetent and idiotic. Where the hell do they find these people and who hires them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhPwX8p9i5w

[Azer]

[Michael]

The pic should somehow incorporate how the missile needed to be launched because otherwise the jet could attack London within 45 minutes.

[Michael]

This is funny, an incompetent idiot assuming the audience is equally incompetent and idiotic. Where the hell do they find these people and who hires them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhPwX8p9i5w

"We know they have the SA-11, and..."

repeat, repeat, repeat

"Weapons of mass destruction..."

repeat, repeat, repeat

"Very strong assessment..."

We know what we know which we know from our knowledge of knowing about the things we are knowing about that.

[Azer]

LOL ^^^ That's a fairly accurate summary

[Michael]

That "reporter" axing the questions was the same pusilanimous pipsqueak tying his tongue in knots not to offend a different US Gubmint spokeswoman a few months ago. He's difficult to endure, almost as bad as those perky spokespeople. I think the last one was a redhead. eeegads

[Azer]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've seen that guy before during one of these sorts of press things.

[Steve James]

As is blatantly obvious, the two beneficiaries from such an "accident" are US/NATO and Ukraine. If we follow the money, and this is what this NATO adventurism is about, then the trail leads to the same devious house of lies as last time, and the time before, and the time before, so forth and so on..

"Beneficiaries"? The Netherlands is a member of NATO. So, was it the "they put dead bodies on a remote controlled plane" argument put forth by Russian msm or did the Dutch killed 80 of their kids?

[Azer]

"Beneficiaries"? The Netherlands is a member of NATO.

I should be more specific, when I say NATO, I really mean US.

Beneficiaries on multiple levels:

1) Economic rift between Europe and Russia, specifically in terms of energy will allow the US to enter the Euro energy market, which it plans to do by 2016. Otherwise, it really has no market nor competitive advantage (over Russia) as the logistical costs wont allow it. Other than the potential for Europe and a few lone countries, there is no market for US energy outside of the US.

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natur ... r-21054975

and

2) With the same process US can ensure a large volume of trade will still be conducted in US dollars, something the BRICS and some Euro countries are beginning to dump. People are sick of enriching an aggregative expansionist state which also dictates who you can trade with solely to further their economic and geopolitical goals.

3) Control over significant energy routes between Europe and Russia

4) Access to the UA shale gas/oil reserves (we looked at these earlier). Biden has already got his boy in there (confirmed) and I hear so does Kerry (?).

5) Social rift between Europe and Russia and setting up Russia as the new bogeyman, reversing years of falling NATO defence budgets i.e. falling US industrial military sales.

So, was it the "they put dead bodies on a remote controlled plane" argument put forth by Russian msm or did the Dutch killed 80 of their kids?

That's an argument from a Russian tabloid (and maybe RT?). If you consider that news, you will love this website:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

[Azer]

NVM, it wasn't Kerry's son, more details here:

Biden's Son, Kerry Family Friend Join Ukrainian Gas Producer's Board

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2284706288

9 Questions To Ask About Biden’s Work With A Gas Company In Ukraine

http://thefederalist.com/2014/05/13/9-q ... n-ukraine/

[Steve James]

Then, your argument isn't about NATO benefits at all or their past actions. It means that the US unilaterally decided that shooting down a Malaysian aircraft with 250 passengers from NATO member states in order to spoil things between the EU (i.e. NATO states) and Russia.

Well, I think it's more likely that someone made a mistake. And I think the fact it was a mistake that was enabled by the rebels possessing advanced weaponry they could only have gotten from Russia is why there's been so much denial. Yes, it puts Russia and Putin in a bad light. Yes, it makes it more difficult for the Public of those countries to accept their government cooperating with Russia, especially because Russia holds their gas hose.

Of course, as you said, Russian satellite intelligence on the region must be superb, and they can certainly identify if, when and where any missile were fired in their territory. The US probably has similar capabilities, but it's silly to ask them to share. Are they going to tell Russian intelligence just what they can see, hear and detect? Nope. And they'd be foolish to consider it.

Besides, the fact that this makes Russia look bad for supplying weapons, evil for lying about supplying them, and untrustworthy when it comes to assuring how and when these weapons are used, is not evidence for the US or Ukraine to shoot down or cause the downing of that plane.

That Russia may suffer in terms of its reputation because of this may have economic costs may just be the result of an accident. The more defensive Russia gets, the worse the public opinion will be. Yeah, the zombie plane and other theories don't help. Neither does chuckling about how the US does things like this all the time. What happens is that it makes the other side even harder and cold-blooded. I would worry more about countries sending more advanced weapons to fight the rebels than the economic sanctions --which will be slow in coming. People won't care whether they're called terrorists or not.

[Azer]

Then, your argument isn't about NATO benefits at all or their past actions. It means that the US unilaterally decided that shooting down a Malaysian aircraft with 250 passengers from NATO member states in order to spoil things between the EU (i.e. NATO states) and Russia.

Well it's really both I think. There are specific benefits to the US as I mentioned earlier, and other benefits for NATO, namely that it remains relevant and grows.

Well, I think it's more likely that someone made a mistake. And I think the fact it was a mistake that was enabled by the rebels possessing advanced weaponry they could only have gotten from Russia is why there's been so much denial. Yes, it puts Russia and Putin in a bad light. Yes, it makes it more difficult for the Public of those countries to accept their government cooperating with Russia, especially because Russia holds their gas hose.

Mistake, maybe, but I am inclined to assume advanced weapons would require advanced operators, who I don't think would make such glaring mistakes.

Could have only gotten from Russia? What do you base this on? We know for a fact that the rebels looted many UA armed forces arms depots as well as various police stations etc. On top of that there were numerous defections from Kiev's sides.

Of course, as you said, Russian satellite intelligence on the region must be superb, and they can certainly identify if, when and where any missile were fired in their territory. The US probably has similar capabilities, but it's silly to ask them to share. Are they going to tell Russian intelligence just what they can see, hear and detect? Nope. And they'd be foolish to consider it.

I'm pretty sure both sides are well aware of each other’s capabilities, just a guess of course. If someone is not willing to share evidence on which they base their claims, then their claims are worthless. If they were never planning to share the evidence, then they should not be making any claims, particularly inflammatory and defamatory ones.

Besides, the fact that this makes Russia look bad for supplying weapons, evil for lying about supplying them, and untrustworthy when it comes to assuring how and when these weapons are used, is not evidence for the US or Ukraine to shoot down or cause the downing of that plane.

It would make Russia look bad, if there was evidence. Ukraine's motives and benefits from such action being blamed on Russia are pretty obvious.

That Russia may suffer in terms of its reputation because of this may have economic costs may just be the result of an accident. The more defensive Russia gets, the worse the public opinion will be.

Which public? I think the more defensive Russia gets the better the public opinion in Russia and many former Soviet republics. I've been looking at news sources from BRICS nations too, they are a lot more level headed compared to the western MSM.

Yeah, the zombie plane and other theories don't help. Neither does chuckling about how the US does things like this all the time. What happens is that it makes the other side even harder and cold-blooded.

Yes, I agree.

I would worry more about countries sending more advanced weapons to fight the rebels than the economic sanctions --which will be slow in coming. People won't care whether they're called terrorists or not.

I think this would be a very fine line with very potent and dangerous consequences. I doubt many nations would get support for such actions, but hey, never underestimate human stupidity.