“Terrorist International” Takes Shape … Against Russia

Theme: US NATO War Agenda

russian-air-force-400x266On October 1, Turkey and six other countries of the US-led coalition published a joint declaration expressing concern over Russia Air Force strikes against the militants in Syria. The signatories include the United States of America (as expected), the monarchies of Persian Gulf (Saudi Arabia and Qatar that were also expected to join), as well as Great Britain, Germany and France.

The statement actually does not say anything extraordinary. Russia stole the initiative from the West. Instead of following the example of «anti-terrorist coalition» and delivering strikes against Syria’s government forces (which together with Kurds conduct combat actions against the militants of so-called Islamic State), Russia bombed the positions of the terrorists. It allowed the legitimate Syrian government to regroup forces, get a break and finally launch a ground offensive to clear the territory from the terrorist plague.

The expression of concern by the United States is logical and natural: Washington has spent great effort to train the «moderate» Syrian opposition (which mysteriously has turned into a source of weapons and manpower for «immoderate» groups). The start of the Russian operation may incur direct financial losses, let alone damage the image of the US.

There is nothing surprising in the fact that the monarchies of Persian Gulf – Saudi Arabia and Qatar – were eager to sign the statement. One may forget what country Osama bin Laden and the majority of terrorists, who seized the aircraft on September 11, 2001, came from. But it’s impossible to reject the fact that the Gulf monarchies (no matter all the real or imaginary contradictions and disagreements dividing them) are the main sponsors of major terrorist groups operating in the Greater Middle East – from Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and, especially, in Pakistan. In case of Saudi Arabia the overthrow of Bashar Assad is just the first step on the way to do away with Iran, its main opponent in the region.

It’s easy to explain why the declaration was initiated by Turkey. Ankara views the Islamic State as the only force able to nip in the bud the aspiration of Kurds, the divided people, for statehood. It makes pale such things of ‘little importance’ like cheap oil exported by militants from Iraq and Syria with Turkey being the main customer.

It’s worth to mention the position of Europe. The fact that London signed the declaration can be explained by the inability of the 51st US state to stop playing the role of American poodle on a leash. It obediently dances to the US tune. The participation of France and Germany seems to be a bit irrational.

So many things have happened in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Berlin and Paris could have realized that the events seemingly not interconnected meet the logic of US strategy aimed at creating an axis of instability. Its only goal is to preserve the unipolar world where West Europe plays the role of a passive satellite, not an independent actor.

The events in Ukraine occurred exactly when a Europe-Russia energy alliance started to loom and the US-led talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership got stalled. Just a coincidence, of course.

All these events let the United States to partially achieve the main goal – it has succeeded in driving a wedge between Europe and Russia, but the talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership did not make much progress. The United States had another ace up its sleeve. The civil war in Syria gave rise to the massive migrant flows threatening the very foundation of the European civilization and making European allies meekly ask the big brother overseas for help.

Russia’s resolute actions in Syria leave no chance for these plans. Supposedly, Europeans should breathe a sigh of relief. But it has not happened as yet.

What is the reason? Has the habit to snap to attention become so deeply enrooted? Have the Europeans left any thoughts about having a choice? Some analysts believe that the US National Security Agency has acquired serious compromising material to blackmail European leaders into agreement with Washington.

The hope is still looming that after some time Europe will realize where its real interests lie. The abovementioned declaration of the seven looks more like a creation of a new instrument of Washington. This time it has the form of an international alliance to support terrorists of the so-called Islamic State.

Malaysia Airlines MH17 Shot Down by Ukrainian Jet Fighter to Assassinate Russian Leader Vladimir Putin

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES – AUSTRALIA

By Erik Pineda | December 7, 2014

The ill-fated Malaysia Airlines MH17 was accidentally shot down July this year by the Ukrainian air force and the tragedy according to new reports was the direct result of Kiev’s failed bid to assassinate Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Flight MH17 exploded mid-air and crashed July 17 in a region controlled by pro-Moscow Ukrainian separatist rebels. All 298 passengers and crews, including 38 Australians, perished.

The aviation disaster was suspected caused by a surface-to-air missile fired from the rebels’ side that mistook the commercial aircraft for a Ukrainian military plane, which the separatists have vehemently denied.

Also, Kremlin has long maintained that Kiev is to be blamed for the attack.

Ukraine plotted to kill Putin

And in what appears as fresh claims that Kiev has blood on its hands for the numerous civilian deaths, reports from Russia are saying that the Ukraine attacked MH17 by mistake trying to eliminate Putin.

The information came from Russia’s television program Moment of Truth and the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper, which the UK-based Daily Mail noted are known as Kremlin-friendly media outlets.

The reports have stated that the Ukrainian air force Su-25 jet fighter was tasked to shot down Putin’s official aircraft Plane Number One. Unfortunately, Plane Number One’s Ilyushin build, which was reportedly scheduled to fly over the rebel-controlled area on the day of the attack, had an identical silhouette with the Boeing plane that was used in Flight MH17.

The military jet ended up downing the Malaysia Airlines flight instead. Evidences presented by the Russian media reports suggested too that combination of 30mm canon shots from the Su-25 and an anti-aircraft missile that was launched from the ground as the weapons used on the doomed plane.

“Pieces of 30mm rounds were found in the bodies of the (MH17) pilots,” said the Daily Mail on its report, somehow indicating that the Su-25 pilot first targeted the commercial plane’s cockpit area that was then followed by the missile that blew the aircraft into pieces.

Elaborate conspiracy

The reports identified as well a prominent figure involved in the failed assassination try on Putin. Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi was pinpointed as the brain behind the attack. Kolomoyskyi is widely regarded as a vocal critic and enemy of Putin.

The Ukrainian billionaire is said to have been tipped off that Putin’s Plane Number One flight plan on July 17 2014 included a pass over on the same route that was taken by MH17.

Two more names surfaced as part of the plot – Ukrainian top-gun pilot Lt Col Dmitro Yakatsuts and air traffic controller Anna Petrenko. Yakatsuts piloted the Su-25 linked to MH17 shooting down while Petrenko, described by Daily Mail as “glamorous,” was said to be in-charge of MH17 when it was flying over Ukraine.

The two have since disappeared and the last sighting of the couple was in Dubai, according to Russian media reports.

Following Putin’s annexation of Crimea, tension between Russia and Ukraine remain over the former’s reported incursions on the Ukrainian border and explicit support of rebels fighting for independence from Kiev.

Ukraine, A “Suspect in Crime” involved in the MH17 Criminal Investigation

What is the Joint Investigation Team, What Is It for, Who’s Leading it and Why is Malaysia Excluded?

In-depth Report:

Malaysia-MH17Several authors have recently asked why Malaysia is not part of the MH17 joint investigation team and why is Ukraine, a suspect in this case, part of it? The questions we should first be asking are what exactly is the joint investigation team, in which legal framework is it operating and why was it established?

There are actually several investigations going on on the shootdown of MH17. We will,  however,  focus on two of them which people seem to get mixed up: the first official inquiry led by the Dutch Safety board (DSB), which published a preliminary report on September 9, 2014 and the joint investigation team inquiry, which was established August 7, 2014.

The first investigation, led by the DSB an independent organization, is ruled by the Convention on International Civil Aviation, also known as the Chicago Convention, which was established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a United Nations agency.

In the event of a plane crash, the country on which soil the accident occurs is responsible for the investigation, according to the Annex 13 protocol.

At Ukraine’s request, the Netherlands is conducting the investigation through the Dutch Safety Board. This is not a breach of protocol, since the State of Occurrence, in this case Ukraine, “may delegate the whole or any part of the conducting of such investigation to another State by mutual arrangement and consent.” (Annex 13 To the Convention on International Civil Aviation, paragraph 5.1)

Article 26 of the Chicago Convention also says:

“The State in which the aircraft is registered [Malaysia] shall be given the opportunity to appoint observers to be present at the inquiry and the State holding the inquiry shall communicate the report and findings in the matter to that State.”

The states which participate in the Dutch Safety Board inquiry are Malaysia, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Australia. Apart from Ukraine, the United States and Russia, all other countries part of the investigation had nationals onboard MH17. The fact that other states take part in the investigation is also standard practice, so, for all we know, this investigation follows the international rules and recommendations of the Chicago Convention.

The “sole objective” of the Dutch Safety Board investigation “is the prevention of similar accidents and incidents” not “to apportion blame or liability in respect of any party.” In other words, this is not a criminal investigation. (Preliminary report, Dutch Safety Board, September 2014)

On the other hand, that is, as we will see, the specific objective of the joint investigation team (JIT): to conduct a criminal investigation and “apportion blame”. It is a European entity conducting a criminal investigation under a European legal framework and which, unlike the Dutch Safety Board, does not have to abide by the rules of the ICAO. The JIT can include anyone or any state, but most importantly, and contrary to the DSB investigation, it is under no obligation to include Malaysia.

What exactly is a  joint investigation team?

Under the auspices of Europol and Eurojust:

A joint investigation team (JIT) is a team consisting of judges, prosecutors and law enforcement authorities, established for a fixed period and a specific purpose by way of a written agreement between the States involved, to carry out criminal investigations in one or more of the involved States. (Joint Investigation Teams, Historical background, Eurojust)

The team will be led by a person from the State in which the JIT operates. Although the members of the team may originate from various jurisdictions they are to carry out their duties in accordance with the national law of the territory where the investigation is taking place. (General Legal Basis for JITs)

JITs can be set up with countries outside of the European Union as well, provided that a legal basis for the creation of such a JIT exists between the countries involved. The legal basis can take the form of an international legal instrument, a bi- or multilateral agreement or national legislation (e.g. respective Article(s) in the code of criminal procedure). (Ibid.)

Participants may come not only from EU bodies/agencies, e.g. Europol, Eurojust, OLAF, etc., but also from third States and their agencies, e.g. the FBI (Joint Investigation Teams Manual)

Ukraine has acceded to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and thus may set up a JIT. In Ukraine the authority “which decides on setting up a joint investigation team shall be the General Prosecutor’s Office in Ukraine”. The rules and regulations of JITs can be found in the Article 20 of the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.

As you can see, there are clearly two investigations, operating under different legal frameworks and with two different purposes. It is convenient to note that nowhere in the DSB preliminary report is the word “crime” mentioned.

Establishment of a JIT in the Hague: Who is Leading this Criminal Investigation?

The JIT was created in late July, when “public prosecutors and investigators from the 12 countries that are involved in the investigation into the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 met at Eurojust in The Hague to discuss their judicial cooperation strategy.” (Eurojust coordination meeting: investigations into Flight MH17, Eurojust, The Hague, July 28, 2014)

The Eurojust press release states further:

Today, public prosecutors and investigators from the 12 countries that are involved in the investigation into the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 met at Eurojust in The Hague to discuss their judicial cooperation strategy.

The Dutch Public Prosecution Service has started the coordination of international cooperation, and requested the assistance of Eurojust in arranging today’s coordination meeting. Eurojust is the EU’s judicial coordination and cooperation agency. Its mandate is to facilitate the coordination and cooperation of the Member States, and it can also invite countries from outside the European Union to participate in coordination meetings to plan strategies in fighting serious organised crime.

At today’s meeting, chaired by Mr Han Moraal, National Member for the Netherlands at Eurojust, representatives of the 11 countries whose citizens are victims – the Netherlands, Australia, Malaysia, UK, Belgium, Germany, the Philippines, Canada, New Zealand, Indonesia and the USA – in addition to Ukraine, Europol and Interpol, were present.

The goal of today’s meeting at Eurojust was to discuss cooperation and ways of broadening and accelerating the investigations, including the establishment of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT). The JIT will focus first on the technical and forensic investigation in Ukraine, the location of the criminal offence. (Ibid.)

Unlike the DSB, an independent organization, the Dutch Public Prosecution Service, which “started the coordination of international cooperation” is a governmental agency. The Eurojust press release states that the investigation, initiated by the Dutch, will take place in Ukraine. Is it being conducted under Ukrainian or Dutch national law? Remember, according to General Legal Basis for JITs, the “team will be led by a person from the State in which the JIT operates” and even though ”the members of the team may originate from various jurisdictions they are to carry out their duties in accordance with the national law of the territory where the investigation is taking place.” 

What the press release above does not mention is that the Ukrainian “Prosecutor General’s Office was one of those who initiated the formation of an international investigative group,” according to an article by Interfax.

Does it mean that, since the JIT investigation is taking place in Ukraine, it is ruled by Ukrainian law and that Ukraine, one of the suspects, is leading the investigation? If so, this JIT investigation has no credibility whatsoever and is absolutely not independent. It is a parody of justice.

The Ukrainian Prosecutor General Vitaliy Yarema said:

“It is our priority or even our duty to the international community to hold a detailed inquiry into this tragedy and restore justice…”(Ukrainian Prosecutor General: Intl probe into MH17 flight crash to go on, Interfax, October 29, 2014)

The Interfax article stated further:

The Prosecutor General’s Office recalled that an agreement setting up the joint investigative group of the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Ukraine, Malaysia and Eurojust was signed on August 7, 2014.

That JIT agreement, initiated at The Hague on July 28, 2014, includes a non-disclosure agreement between all the countries except Malaysia, which was only granted a “participant” status:

In the framework of the 4-country agreement signed on 8 August between Ukraine, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia, information on the progress and results of the investigation of the disaster will remain classified.

This was confirmed at a briefing in Kiev under the auspices of the office of the Prosecutor General Yuri Boychenko. In his words, the results of the investigation will be published once completed only if a consensus agreement of all parties that have signed the agreement prevails.

Any one of the signatories has the right to veto the publication of the results of the investigation without explanation.

Following the signing of this agreement, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine ratified the agreement and allowed for the participation of Malaysian staff to participate in the investigation. (The Causes of the MH17 Crash are “Classified”. Ukraine, Netherlands, Australia, Belgium Signed a “Non-disclosure Agreement”, Live Journal, August 23, 2014)

So one of the major differences between the Dutch Safety Board investigation and the JIT investigation is that in the DSB investigation “The State in which the aircraft is registered [Malaysia] shall be given the opportunity to appoint observers to be present at the inquiry and the State holding the inquiry shall communicate the report and findings in the matter to that State.”

The JIT investigation, on the other hand, is under no obligation to “communicate the report and findings” to Malaysia.

On October 9, Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Frans Timmermans and Minister of Defence Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert wrote the following in a letter to the President of the Dutch House of Representatives:

A meeting was held at Eurojust on 28 July 2014, laying the groundwork for a good working relationship between the police and justice authorities of the countries involved. One of the forms this has taken is the establishment of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT), comprising representatives of the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Ukraine and Malaysia [as a “participant”]. This team will pave the way for better international cooperation, facilitating the exchange of knowledge, expertise and evidence.

How is excluding Malaysia from the team and granting it an inferior status in the investigation paving “the way for better international cooperation, facilitating the exchange of knowledge, expertise and evidence?” It does exactly the opposite.

Malaysian officials have complained in late November that the were excluded from the JIT and are headed to the Netherlands on December 3 to discuss their status:

 Come Dec 3, Malaysia’s inspector-general of police (IGP) and the attorney-general (A-G) will head for the Netherlands to discuss among others, the role of the Malaysian team in the joint international investigations into the downing of Malaysia Airlines (MAS) Flight MH17 in July…

At the moment, Malaysia is not in the joint investigation team. We are merely, a participant. We must be included in the joint investigation team,” he said…

Currently, the Netherlands, Belgium, Ukraine and Australia are in the joint investigation team.

During his visit to Malaysia earlier this month, Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte had agreed to Malaysia’s participation in the international investigation. (MH17: IGP, A-G Off To The Netherlands On Dec 3, Bernama, November 19, 2014)

Why is Belgium part of the JIT and not Malaysia? Four Belgians died on the plane compared to 43 Malaysians. But more importantly, it was a Malaysian plane which was attacked. How can Malaysia be excluded from this investigation? Some authors argue that it is due to Malaysia’s reluctance to put the blame on the Russians or the Donetsk separatists without irrefutable evidence.

Media Blackout on Ukraine’s Official Report blaming Russia and the “Pro-Russian Rebels” 

Ukraine did not hesitate to point the finger at the militants in the Donetsk region though. We may recall that the exact same day the JIT agreement was signed, on August 7, 2014, Ukraine’s Secret Service (SBU) published its own investigation report entitled Terrorists and Militants planned cynical terrorist attack at Aeroflot civil aircraft. This report, which blames “pro-Russian rebels”, went virtually unnoticed in the mainstream press.

According to the official SBU report entitled Terrorists and Militants planned cynical terrorist attack at Aeroflot civil aircraft, the Donetsk militia (with the support of Moscow) was aiming at a Russian Aeroflot passenger plane and shot down the Malaysian MH17 airliner by mistake. That’s the official Ukraine government story which has not been reported by the MSM.

Following the release of the SBU report, the Western mainstream media went silent. (Michel Chossudovsky, Desperate MH17 “Intelligence” Spin. Ukraine Secret Service Contends that “Pro-Russian Rebels had Targeted a Russian Passenger Plane”. “But Shot Down Flight MH17 by Mistake”, August 11, 2014)

Why did Ukraine issue a report blaming the separatists the same day it joined the  investigation team? And why didn’t the mainstream press talk about it? We can only speculate, but it is unusual that it was not a “breaking news”.

Western governments, particularly the U.S., were quick to place the blame on Russia and/or the militants in Eastern Ukraine, who had allegedly “shot the passenger plane” down with a missile, or so they said. Without a shred of evidence, that narrative was parroted by the western mainstream media and is still upheld today, even though the preliminary report published by the Dutch Safety Board last September does not even mention once the term “missile”. The very unusual term “high energy objects” was used to describe what had hit the plane and caused its demise.

Moreover, of significance, a major piece of legislation introduced into the US Congress H.Res. 758 refers to the downing of MH17 allegedly by Russia and pro-Russian separatists as a potential casus belli, which could be used to justify military action against the Russian Federation.

Whereas Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, a civilian airliner, was destroyed by a Russian-made missile provided by the Russian Federation to separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, resulting in the loss of 298 innocent lives;  (See full text of H.Res. 758, 113th Congress, November 14, 2014)

For Western governments and their subservient media, the preliminary report “proved” they were right: “high energy objects” confirmed it was a missile that brought the plane down. Why then was not the word “missile” used in the report?

Independent analysts as well as OSCE monitor Michael Bociurkiw have rather mentioned no signs of a missile could be found on the wreckage, only machine gun-like holes, evidence which corroborates the Spanish air trafic controler’s testimony who claimed Ukrainian fighter jets had shot MH17 down. Eyewitnesses on the ground have also told the BBC Russian service that they saw Ukrainian fighter jets next to MH17 before it crashed. The report was censored by the BBC. (You can view it and read the transcript in this article: Deleted BBC Report. “Ukrainian Fighter Jet Shot Down MHI7″, Donetsk Eyewitnesses)

It poses a serious problem that Ukraine is part of an investigation into an incident for which it is a suspect, when the main victim, Malaysia, is excluded. The investigation should either include all the suspects as well as the victims or none of them. But most importantly, Ukraine should not lead an investigation into a crime for which it is a suspect.

Malaysia must take leading role in MH17 investigations, says Suaram

 

Published: Saturday November 22, 2014

by tan yi liang

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia must take a leading role in investigations into the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, said Suaram adviser Kua Kia Soong.

“The government should not put up with being sidelined in the (criminal) investigations. The airliner belonged to Malaysia, a big group of the victims were Malaysian,” said Kua.

Kua, who spoke to The Star Online after delivering a paper at Parti Sosialis Malaysia’s “World in Turmoil: Imperialism and Resistance in the 21st Century” conference here questioned the time taken to investigate the shooting-down of the Boeing 777.

He raised the issue of an alleged non-disclosure agreement drawn up by four countries – Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands and the Ukraine regarding criminal investigations into the crash.

Kua pointed out that Malaysia has yet to question this alleged agreement, adding that foreign observers have already raised issues about it.

“Something simple like the fact that these four countries can keep the findings of the MH17 crash to themselves is unacceptable,” said Kua.

He added that it was also unacceptable that under the alleged agreement made in August, there had to be consensus between all four nations before any findings were disclosed to the public.

“I have seen things online that make sense to me such as the damage to the fuselage; you don’t have to be an expert to see the difference between damage caused by a BUK missile and bullets from a fighter,” said Kua.

He also asked why the black boxes recovered from MH17 were handed over to Britain.

“The black boxes belong to Malaysia, why were they handed over to the United Kingdom. If Malaysia was chairing the investigation team, then that is fine,” said Kua.

He added that Malaysia should rightfully be chairing the investigation team.

On Tuesday it was reported that Malaysia has yet to be involved in the criminal investigation into the downing of Flight MH17, although Dutch-led workers have already started combing the crash site in Ukraine.

Malaysian Ambassador to Ukraine Chuah Teong Ban believed that Malaysia would not be allowed to inspect the debris unless it became part of the criminal investigation team.

Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai said recently that Malaysia had expressed its stand very clearly that it must be part of the criminal investigation team and had informed Dutch authorities of its intention.

On July 17, Flight MH17 crashed in eastern Ukraine after being allegedly shot down.

A total of 298 people on board, including 43 Malaysians, perished in the tragedy.

Why Do We Allow Ukraine’s Government to Write the Official Report on The Downing of MH17?

Posted on November 21, 2014 by Eric Zuesse.

There are only two suspects in the shoot-down of the MH17 Malaysian airliner over Ukraine on July 17th: the separatist rebels, whom the Ukrainian Government charge had shot it down mistaking it for one of the Ukrainian Air Force bombers that routinely drop bombs onto the separatists and their families and indiscriminately onto everyone else in that region; or otherwise the Ukrainian Air Force itself, as a means for President Obama to be able to win increased international sanctions against Russia for Russia’s support of those blamed rebels.

That’s it, and that’s all.

One of these two suspects, the Ukrainian Government, was granted by the other three member-states of the official MH17 ‘investigating’ commission, a veto-power over anything that’s written into that ‘investigating’ report.

In other words, basically what exists is this:

The Ukrainian Government gets to write the official ‘investigation’ report on that ‘accident.’ The other three Obama-allied nations will place their signatures onto it — or else there simply won’t be any such ‘final report.’

This agreement on Ukraine’s veto-power was signed on August 8th, by Ukraine, Australia, Belgium, and Netherlands, the four member-nations of the official ‘investigation.’

This fact, of a Ukrainian veto, was made public on August 12th, in an obscure Ukrainian announcement.

Then, on August 23rd, the first English-language news report on it was published at Global Research.

The very next day, the present writer published a news-report placing that secret agreement into a fuller context.

And, on November 20th, Russian Television reported that the four-member ‘investigating’ team are still refusing to say anything about the earlier news reports that the Ukrainian Government possesses this veto-power.

Do Western Governments, and their now (in the wake of Obama’s coup) client-state of Ukraine, really think that the public are so stupid as not to recognize that this is an admission by the West (i.e., by the U.S. President and his various international stooges) that Russia was framed by themselves and their colleague U.S. client-states, into those economic sanctions?

That’s the basic question, now, isn’t it?

How many ‘reporters’ in the Western ‘news’ media are asking it? Why do their bosses refuse to allow them to ask it?

Here is why: If ‘journalists’ don’t report it, then who’s to blame, for the public’s not knowing it, isn’t really their respective public (as any elite likes to claim: “Democracy is really just mobocracy”), but is instead those ‘news’ media themselves, for hiding this important information from them. So: that’s what the ‘news’-elite wants — an ignorant or misinformed public, a public that can be led around by the nose, like animals to their slaughter.

Western diplomacy has become a scam, basically. Russia faces economic sanctions for what Obama did. And that’s the news that none of the Western ‘news’ media will report.

This cover-up of that scam is, itself, very big news. How will Western ‘news’ media cover it? Or will they instead cover-up the cover-up; and, to the extent that they report about it at all, will they charge that the authentic news-reports about the matter, such as this one, are ‘mere opinion pieces, not really news-stories at all,’ and so simply ignore the solidly documented facts that are reported in these news-stories?

However, is it really fair to expect the public to form truth-based opinions about things of which they are intentionally being kept ignorant, and even outright deceived (such as whether the sanctions against Russia are based on what they were told they were)?

Is the problem really democracy, as so many executives in the ‘news’ business say? Or is it actually oligarchy itself: that this ‘democracy’ is merely fake?

Will the Western ‘news’ media please, just for once, stand up and answer that? Or will they instead merely ignore it, as they ignore other vital truths?

(One high ‘news’-executive at one of the largest ‘news’-organizations privately answered that question to me by saying “I would highly doubt” that they would ever even consider to make the reality, which they already know quite well, public.)

How much longer can the public accept being raped by the press, and by their allegedly ‘democratic’ government?

How much longer will they, in fact, accept it?

But how can they not accept it, if they are being constantly lied-to? Is that what the Western press will continue to do?

Big news can have big consequences. But not so long as it’s still being kept secret, and lied-about.

Like this. But wasn’t Hitler supposed to have lost World War II? And weren’t we his enemies? So, why is today’s U.S. President leading this restoration of nazism — of racist fascism — only this time against ethnic Russians?

In fact, why does NATO itself even still exist, after the Cold War against communism was won? What are we fighting for now? What are we fighting against? Why are we fighting at all, so constantly at war?

Who benefits from this? Why do we allow it?

Perhaps, when a nation’s press is like this, controlled by oligarchs, the political drift towards and into fascism is inevitable. A ‘democratic’ fascism results if the public are deceived by an oligarchy. Racist fascism becomes then the way to build a passionate reactive compliance among the public, so they’re devoted to destroying what the oligarchs want them to fight and kill, thus to grab for the oligarchs land and resources the oligarchs want to conquer. Such a reactive passion among the public produces for oligarchs cheap soldiers. It cuts oligarchs’ costs, and thereby increases oligarchs’ profits. The idea that the press is merely a passive component in the body-politic is false; maybe it’s actually an oligarchic fraud. But, in any case, a press like this doesn’t merely result from racist fascism; it produces racist fascism. And maybe that explains what is happening in our time. Maybe that’s it. Maybe this press doesn’t merely result from fascism; maybe it causes fascism. Maybe that’s why Hitler posthumously is winning the ideological war he waged against America’s President in his time, FDR. Maybe that’s how fascism is taking over America, at last.

If this is the case, then the answer to our title-question is, of course, likewise clear.

———-

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010.

Russia preparing new package of documents for MH17 crash probe

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


21 November 2014

Russia is preparing a new package of documents for the Netherlands’ commission investigating the crash of the Malaysia Airlines MH17 flight in eastern Ukraine. The package will be sent in response for the commission’s request, RIA Novosti quoted deputy head of the Russian Federal Air Transport Agency (Rosaviatsiya) Oleg Storchevoy as saying. “Everything that we have available and that could help in investigating the crash, we are ready to hand over – and we are doing this – to the Netherlands,” he said.

Malaysian Airlines MH17 Downed by Ukrainian Military Aircraft. Kiev Regime False Flag

 

mh17pilot1At the APEC Summit in Beijing,  Australia’s Prime Minister Tony Abbott who is hosting this week’s G20 meetings in Brisbane, intimated in no uncertain terms, during a 15 minute encounter with Russian President Vladimir Putin, that Moscow was responsible for the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine. 

During the meeting, Mr Abbott is reported to have stated that “Russia had armed the rebels who shot down the aircraft and killed 38 Australians.”  Mr Abbott said that  “MH17 was destroyed by a missile from a launcher that had come out of Russia, was fired from inside Eastern Ukraine and then returned to Russia… [and that this] was a very serious matter.”

906138-03becdec-6984-11e4-b8fc-0b9f02c7ac0dPrime Minister Tony Abbott meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing. Pic: AFP

Global Research has from the outset provided extensive coverage of the downing of MH17. The evidence and analysis not only dispels Prime Minister Abbott’s accusations, it points unequivocally to a false flag attack instigated by the US-NATO supported Kiev regime, as well as a coverup by the Australian and Dutch investigators.

Lest we forget, the downing of MH17 was used as a pretext by Washington to impose economic sanctions on the Russian Federation.

The Western media and governments have gone to arms length to suppress and distort the evidence which points to the downing of MH17 not by a Buk missile but by a Ukrainian military aircraft.

Spanish Air Traffic Controller’s Twitter Report [translated from Spanish]

One of the first reports (in real time) pointing to the presence of two Ukrainian military aircraft  was revealed by the Spanish air traffic controller’s twitter messages on the day of the attacks. (emphasis added)

11:48 – 17 de jul. de 2014

The B777 plane flew escorted by Ukraine jet fighter until 2 minutes before disappearing from the radar,

11:54 – 17 de jul. de 2014

“If kiev authorities want to tell the truth, It´s gathered, 2 jet fighters flew very close minutes before, wasn’t downed by a fighter”

12:00 – 17 de jul. de 2014

“Malaysia Airlines B777 plane just disappeared and Kiev military authority informed us of the downing, How they knew?”

12:00 – 17 de jul. de 2014

“7:00 minutes after [plane disappeared], the downing was notified, later our tower was taken with foreigner staff, they still here ”

12:01 – 17 de jul. de 2014

“all this is gathered in radars, to the unbelieving, shot down by kiev, here we know it and military air traffic control also”

13:15 – 17 de jul. de 2014

“Here the military commanders are in control and admit that the military could be following other orders , but no, the pro-Russian”

13:29 – 17 de jul. de 2014

“Interior Minister knew what the fighters were doing in the area, the defense minister didn’t.”

13:31 – 17 de jul. de 2014

“Military confirm It was Ukraine, but still does not know where the order came from”

The Spanish air-controller’s Twitter account was closed down by Twitter. This report from Kiev’s air traffic control was  dismissed by the mainstream media as “a conspiracy theory”. The audio records of communication between air traffic control and the plane were not made public.

Spanish Air Controller @ Kiev Borispol Airport: Ukraine Military Shot Down Boeing MH#17 bBy Global Research News, July 18, 2014

The Report of German Pilot Peter Haisenko

csm_mh17-einschu__sse_c43fcedbccGerman pilot Peter Haisenko in a path-breaking analysis pointed to bullet like holes which could not have been triggered by a buk missile:

The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile.

Revelations of German Pilot: Shocking Analysis of the “Shooting Down” of Malaysian MH17. “Aircraft Was Not Hit by a Missile” By Peter Haisenko, September 09, 2014

The Suppressed BBC Report on Eyewitness Testimonies

The BBC  in an early report from Eastern Ukraine (which was subsequently suppressed) provided testimonies that MH17 was shot down by a military aircraft.  The BBC has censored its own news reporting. That BBC report including the video was removed by the BBC:

The inhabitants of the nearby villages are certain that they saw military aircraft in the sky shortly prior to the catastrophe. According to them, it actually was the jet fighters that brought down the Boeing.

The Ukrainian government rejects this version of events. They believe that the Boeing was shot down using a missile from a “BUK” complex that came in from Russia.

BBC reporter Olga Ivshina and producer Oksana Vozhdayeva decided to find the place from which the missile was allegedly launched.

Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.

Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.

Original BBC Video Report: Preserved by Google Web-cache

[both the original BCC video as well as the web cache BBC report on Google has also been suppressed]

Below is the same BBC Russian Services report which was reposted on the internet:

UKRAINE Eyewitness Confirm Military Jet Flew Besides MH17 Airliner: BBC Censors Video 25Jul2014