Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

gandalf

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's closest equivalent is the conservative mouthpiece FOX news US

Naw Fox News is Newsertainment,

RT is propagantainment.

It's also a waste of good slot on Virgin Media's package. Surely they could give it to something useful like another MTV channel or the Gardening Channel

Dohnjoe

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I can honestly say I cannot think of a single impartial western media outlet- not one, the Guardian (RIP) was probably the last.
I have NEVER heard, not once, the mainstream media acknowledge the existence let alone interview pro-Assad Syrians or anti-coup ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, these are non people or unpeople as John Pilger calls them.

Why do we hear continuously about Russian airstrikes on Aleppo yet the attacks on civilians in Yemen goes unnoticed/covered up in the impartial media of varying quality?

Use multiple sources, they corroborate each other

I have seen many reports and interviews from within Damascus, including BBC's Bowden speaking directly to people on the street, he also interviewed Assad

Likewise I've watched many interviews with the locals of Donetsk and other cities/towns under rebel control, as well as locals/rebels/soldiers in Western Russia

There are plenty of reports on the bombings in Yemen

These all come from multiple sources, from my perspective many European and Middle Eastern outlets

I used to watch RT a long time, I have long lost faith in Russian media because it's increasingly fallen under direct state control and there are few impartial stations left

Schadenfreudia

The state-owned France 2 channel has used images of Russian air strikes in Syria - not to applaud Moscow’s efforts in the fight against ISIS, but to illustrate the ‘achievements’ of the Western/Gulf coalition (of which France is a member) instead.

Anyone want to say this report is inaccurate? :cool:

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/332294-isis-bombing-plagiarism-syria-russia/

Schadenfreudia

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There are plenty of reports on the bombings in Yemen

Read Chomsky. :cool:

It isn't the existence of reports that matter - it is the frequency, importance, the missing information - the agenda - that counts.

RT (and Russian media) reports almost every anti-Russian view at some stage; they simply downplay it, ridicule it or dismiss it.

Just as the Western Corporate/State MSM deals with the massive US and Nato backed slaughter in Yemen. :rolleyes:

Dohnjoe

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Read Chomsky. :cool:

It isn't the existence of reports that matter - it is the frequency, importance, the missing information - the agenda - that counts.

RT (and Russian media) reports almost every anti-Russian view at some stage; they simply downplay it, ridicule it or dismiss it.

Just as the Western Corporate/State MSM deals with the massive US and Nato backed slaughter in Yemen. :rolleyes:

No one needs to read Chomsky to see the obvious here

Thousands of journalists, reporters and professionals from all over the world which contradict your world view are neatly part of the "mainstream corporate controlled state media"

Yet one outlet, which is directly controlled by the state and was specifically commissioned as a foreign speaking propaganda channel by Putin himself, which coincidentally forbids reports critical of the Russian leader.. this is somehow the truth..

What you have there is the "North Korea" of arguments

Schadenfreudia

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No one needs to read Chomsky to see the obvious here

Thousands of journalists, reporters and professionals from all over the world which contradict your world view are neatly part of the "mainstream corporate controlled state media"

Wrong.

Thousands from the Western world's MSM - are not synonymous with "from across the World"

There are a vast range of outlets from the other 80% of the world (including Russia, China, India, Iran, Islamic world, Africa etc ) which have a fundamentally different perspective and agenda.

Yet one outlet, which is directly controlled by the state and was specifically commissioned as a foreign speaking propaganda channel by Putin himself, which coincidentally forbids reports critical of the Russian leader.. this is somehow the truth..

Not necessarily "the truth" - but as close to the "truth" as the thousands of Western Corporate payees.

Look at Hamas, as one example.

The Western corporate press (which includes Western news agencies) routinely refer to them a "terrorist organisation", in sync with their EU and Western Governments.

Almost no media outside the West does, again in sync with their Government attitudes.

This is just one from a vast number of examples I could give.

The Western Mainstream (Corporate/State) Media reflects Western policy as faithfully as any other media.

And we ain't just talking about RT....

Elmer Blooker

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No one needs to read Chomsky to see the obvious here

Thousands of journalists, reporters and professionals from all over the world which contradict your world view are neatly part of the "mainstream corporate controlled state media"

Yet one outlet, which is directly controlled by the state and was specifically commissioned as a foreign speaking propaganda channel by Putin himself, which coincidentally forbids reports critical of the Russian leader.. this is somehow the truth..

What you have there is the "North Korea" of arguments

State controlled media? What do you think of this from the Ministry of Truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNpWO_OcGFc
Ever read 1984? How did Orwell get it so right?

Busted Flat.

It is good to see posters having an interest into the MH17 disaster by some posters, it is now 18 months or more since the crash nobody seems to have the guts to ask what the fook happened. The families need some closure. Or is the NATO/EU position more important than the truth.

Schadenfreudia

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Or is the NATO/EU position more important than the truth.

It is fairly safe to say that any relationship that any NATO/EU position on anything has to do with the truth is purely coincidental!

On topic, I'd wager that the victims of MH17 have about the same prospect of getting justice/closure as those on board as Iran Air flight 655...that is, none.

gandalf

Busted Flat. wrote: »

It is good to see posters having an interest into the MH17 disaster by some posters, it is now 18 months or more since the crash nobody seems to have the guts to ask what the fook happened. The families need some closure. Or is the NATO/EU position more important than the truth.

I think most normal people have a very good idea what happened. A pack of thugs were given a weapon by Russia that shot down an airliner full of civilians who had nothing to do with the proxy war being perpetrated in the Ukraine by mercenaries and Russian troops on "Holidays".

The only people I see saying otherwise are probably watching RT in their underpants while they lube themselves up singing the Hymn of the Russian Federation with their head wrapped in Bacofoil !!

Schadenfreudia

gandalf wrote: »

The only people I see saying otherwise are probably watching RT in their underpants while they lube themselves up singing the Hymn of the Russian Federation with their head wrapped in Bacofoil !!

Noted.

Can I safely characterise you in a similar manner?

weisses

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Noted.

Can I safely characterise you in a similar manner?

You can characterise anybody buddy but you are still caught with your pants down in regards to the RT BUK waffle you tried to push as being accurate.

You didn't read the link prior to posting that nonsense ... Admit it and focus on the fact it was probably brought down by Russian forces.

Busted Flat.

gandalf wrote: »

I think most normal people have a very good idea what happened. A pack of thugs were given a weapon by Russia that shot down an airliner full of civilians who had nothing to do with the proxy war being perpetrated in the Ukraine by mercenaries and Russian troops on "Holidays".

The only people I see saying otherwise are probably watching RT in their underpants while they lube themselves up singing the Hymn of the Russian Federation with their head wrapped in Bacofoil !!

If that's the case why are the US and the Dutch hiding the evidence I would hardly think it's to protect the rebels in Eastern Ukraine.

Gatling

Busted Flat. wrote: »

If that's the case why are the US and the Dutch hiding the evidence

What exactly are they supposedly hiding from the world and according to who says their hiding evidence

weisses

Busted Flat. wrote: »

If that's the case why are the US and the Dutch hiding the evidence I would hardly think it's to protect the rebels in Eastern Ukraine.

What evidence are they hiding ? (gatling asked already i saw later )

Schadenfreudia

weisses wrote: »

You can characterise anybody buddy but you are still caught with your pants down in regards to the RT BUK waffle you tried to push as being accurate.

You didn't read the link prior to posting that nonsense ... Admit it and focus on the fact it was probably brought down by Russian forces.

Again....I am not your buddy.

I never post nonsense, I leave that to folk like you.....RT correctly reminded you that there is no proof of the claims you make.

weisses

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Again....I am not your buddy.

I never post nonsense, I leave that to folk like you.....RT correctly reminded you that there is no proof of the claims you make.

Oh dear

https://www.rt.com/news/318531-mh17-experiment-almaz-antey/

What was that you said about nevr posting nonsense ??

They cannot seem to make up their minds ..... Something their fanbase seem to suffer from as well

Schadenfreudia

weisses wrote: »

Oh dear

https://www.rt.com/news/318531-mh17-experiment-almaz-antey/

What was that you said about nevr posting nonsense ??

They cannot seem to make up their minds ..... Something their fanbase seem to suffer from as well

MH17 downed by outdated BUK missile fired from Kiev-controlled area – Defense system manufacturer

That could well be true, false flag operation?

I said I never post nonsense; I'm not responsible for yourself or RT :rolleyes:

weisses

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

MH17 downed by outdated BUK missile fired from Kiev-controlled area – Defense system manufacturer

That could well be true, false flag operation?

I said I never post nonsense; I'm not responsible for yourself or RT :rolleyes:

Correct ... You didnt need me nor RT to post nonsense

But where does it say alleged in that piece ??? Or is this the new accurate version for you ?

Schadenfreudia

weisses wrote: »

Correct ... You didnt need me nor RT to post nonsense

But where does it say alleged in that piece ??? Or is this the new accurate version for you ?

Eh..nope. I said I don't post nonsense and suggested that you do. As you are well aware.

And I didn't say the piece above contained the word "alleged" - that refers to the earlier RT article you were whining about :rolleyes:

(as you also well know)

weisses

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Eh..nope. I said I don't post nonsense and suggested that you do. As you are well aware.

And I didn't say the piece above contained the word "alleged" - that refers to the earlier RT article you were whining about :rolleyes:

(as you also well know)

Soooo which one is the accurate version ? .. This one or the one where they say alleged BUK in reference to what brought the plane down ?

I just ask because you because you seem quite fond of this nonsense posting news source

Schadenfreudia

weisses wrote: »

Soooo which one is the accurate version ? .. This one or the one where they say alleged BUK in reference to what brought the plane down ?

I just ask because you because you seem quite fond of this nonsense posting news source

Either could be accurate; in the absence of proof, who knows?

Do you imagine there is any news outlet in the Western MSM that wouldn't have articles with different views on any topic over a period of years?

Unless you can cite a single example then you are making a non-point. :rolleyes:

Remember Saddam's WMDs?

Schadenfreudia

weisses wrote: »

Soooo which one is the accurate version ? .. This one or the one where they say alleged BUK in reference to what brought the plane down ?

I just ask because you because you seem quite fond of this nonsense posting news source

Two full-scale experiments by the Almaz-Antey defense company aimed at recreating the MH17 crash conclude the missile that downed the flight was an old BUK model fired from a Ukraine-controlled area, contesting the preliminary theory by Dutch investigators.

That is the report in RT (Oct 2015) - are you saying that what they reported is not factual?

Or are you saying that the Almaz-Antey defense company got it wrong?


Which is it?

(Hint - it makes a big difference to your take on RT)

Or - third option - do you actually know what point you are trying to make??

weisses

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

That is the report in RT (Oct 2015) - are you saying that what they reported is not factual?

Or are you saying that the Almaz-Antey defense company got it wrong?

Nope .. What I think of the report is not important in context to what you find accurate (but based of the detailed findings in the Dutch report added with the bellingcat findings I do think Almaz-Antey got it wrong)

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Or - third option - do you actually know what point you are trying to make??

I go for option 3 today

Let me try to explain:

In October RT reports

the missile that downed the flight was an old BUK model fired from a Ukraine-controlled area

Plus loads and loads more references pointing out to the old model and that it was ukraine who shot down MH17, but a BUK missile nonetheless

Then on February 9th RT reports

Desperate for answers that would shed the light on who fired the BUK missile that allegedly hit the passenger plane on July 17, 2014

Allegedly definition :

Represented as existing or as being as described but not proved; supposed: an alleged conspiracy; an alleged traitor; an alleged victim of a crime.

your reply to this article is

Excellent article by RT - sums things up accurately.

So you actually believe the BUK theory is one without proof, thereby contradicting yourself, that's where the term Nonsensical comes in

So despite every party involved agrees based on the evidence that it was a BUK Missile ....RT posted article after article claiming as such ... Then the same news outlet all of sudden uses the term alleged, described by you as being accurate. ... I cannot make it any clearer there for you.

So why do you think the BUK scenario is not proven to date ?

Schadenfreudia

weisses wrote: »

So why do you think the BUK scenario is not proven to date ?

Where is the proof?

Without it, the RT article using the word "alleged" is accurate.

Unlike you, I don't confuse an opinion I have based on what I think is most likely with fact.

You don't appear to understand the difference between fact and opinion. Which, indeed, explains many of your posts on this thread :rolleyes:

weisses

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Where is the proof?

Without it, the RT article using the word "alleged" is accurate.

Unlike you, I don't confuse an opinion I have based on what I think is most likely with fact.

You don't appear to understand the difference between fact and opinion. Which, indeed, explains many of your posts on this thread :rolleyes:

Proof ?

Bellincat rpeort

The dutch report

Almaz-Antey

Russian officials stating it was A BUK

Ukranian officials stating it was a BUK

Rest of the world stating it was a BUK

You having NO doubt it was a BUK

RT stating it was a BUK

Those are the facts

Then we have your opinion agreeing with RT that there is no proof (contradicting themselves) which we can classify as nonsensical

http://twitter.com/RT_America/status/653935559564328960/photo/1

http://twitter.com/RT_com/status/653916886820765701/photo/1

What more do you want stating the difference between facts and your waffle ?

Schadenfreudia

weisses wrote: »

Proof ?

Bellincat rpeort

The dutch report

Almaz-Antey

Russian officials stating it was A BUK

Ukranian officials stating it was a BUK

Rest of the world stating it was a BUK

You having NO doubt it was a BUK

RT stating it was a BUK

Then we have your opinion agreeing with RT that there is no proof (contradicting themselves) which we can classify as nonsensical


What more do you want stating the difference between facts and your waffle ?

Someone "stating it was a BUK" isn't proof.

You obviously don't know what the "rest of the world" says - which is a pretty meaningless statement anyway.

So I have helpfully eliminated your non-facts and focussed on three sources which may or may not provide proof.

As I haven't read any of them I don't know so maybe you could link the "proof" they contain?

If I am convinced that there is indeed proof then I will upgrade my opinion from a BUK being the most likely cause of the downing of the plane to a fact established beyond reasonable doubt.

Until then, alleged is the best word to use.

Now, those links please.....

darkpagandeath

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Someone "stating it was a BUK" isn't proof.

You obviously don't know what the "rest of the world" says - which is a pretty meaningless statement anyway.

So I have helpfully eliminated your non-facts and focussed on three sources which may or may not provide proof.

As I haven't read any of them I don't know so maybe you could link the "proof" they contain?

If I am convinced that there is indeed proof then I will upgrade my opinion from a BUK being the most likely cause of the downing of the plane to a fact established beyond reasonable doubt.

Until then, alleged is the best word to use.

Now, those links please.....

Well it was hardly jet pack flying Nazis was it...... List something in the area that could have Done it at the time bearing in mind the altitude of the passenger plane.

Gatling

But but but

Nahhhhh

weisses

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

As I haven't read any of them I don't know so maybe you could link the "proof" they contain?

Now, those links please.....

Maybe reading some material before posting ill informed replies will help you next time

The link to the Dutch report is in this thread and can be found online... Same goes for the bellingcat report. You do know how to use google right ??

And the Alma's antey is widely covered by your favourite news outlet.( they had a nice presentation prepared .. Nice video )

Off you go now and do some reading up and maybe then we can have a serious discussion