Are you someone who values the truth . . .

[another_liberal]

Do you genuinely want to know what really happened to flight MH17? If you can answer "yes" to both of those questions, please read on. If you can not, I politely advise you to read no further. Thank you.

Dutch experts and OSCE representatives work at Malaysian Airlines MH17 crash site.


MH17 Report Not Released As It Proves Russia Not Responsible for Crash

The facts don't support the US propaganda that Russia is responsible for the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 crash; that is why Washington is pushing a UN International Tribunal on the catastrophe to get what it wants, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts stresses. There is something very fishy about the fact that Washington and Kiev refused to release crucial data related to the MH17 catastrophe, while Russia, in contrast, provided all evidence in its possession in full compliance with the evidentiary requirements of the investigation, according to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, a prominent American economist, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and author.

"Washington refuses to release the information from its spy satellite that was directly overhead at the moment of the airliner's destruction, and Kiev refuses to release its communications with the airliner that directed the airliner to change course and to fly over a combat zone," Dr. Roberts pointed out.

"The Dutch or the Europeans, whoever it is that is responsible for investigating the downing of the Malaysian airliner MH-17, is unable to get a report released. What does this tell us? It tells me that the facts don't support the propaganda that Russia is responsible. You can bet your bottom dollar that if there was any evidence of Russia's responsibility, the report would have been out long ago," he stressed.

However, while Washington can block the Dutch report on the tragedy it cannot completely falsify it. Thus far, Washington is racing against the clock to push ahead a UN International Tribunal on the MH17 airliner in hopes of gaining the results it wants. In order to prevent its "frame-up," Moscow had to veto the resolution in the UN, and now it is accused by the West "of hiding its complicity in the attack on the airliner and opposing justice for Malaysia," Dr. Roberts noted.

(snip)


Read more at: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150801/1025303329.html

[Dr Hobbitstein]

1. If you believe the truth is what the Russian government says...

Sputnik News as proof? Wholly owned and operated by the Russian government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_%28news_agency%29

[another_liberal]

2. I don't trust anyone to tell me the truth . . .

I try to listen to everyone who has something to say, and then decide for myself what is believable.

That being said, anyone who just accepts what our government (or any government) says on any matter of international importance has a major disillusionment coming.

[PeaceNikki]

3. Yet here you are pushing the Russian government's narrative.

And going so far as to tell the rest of is that's it is the truth. Mocking those of us who doubt it.

Weird

[another_liberal]

6. I am not doing any such a silly thing!

Offering a source of information for the consideration of it's content is not "pushing" anything. I did not claim this particular article is the "truth" concerning what happened to MH17. I certainly did not "mock" anyone by offering this post.

Let's dial back the vitriol a little, shall we?

[Bluenorthwest]

13. That is very much exactly what you are doing. There is no 'vitriol' in that post to you.

Your verbiage in the OP is there to read. You should try to learn that presenting government owned and operated 'sources' by suggesting they are more valid than other sources is laughable, so people will laugh.

[another_liberal]

24. Hi Blue!

The same old suspects are showing up all at once.

I'm getting a little misty-eyed (sniff!).

[PeaceNikki]

26. "suspects"? "Suspects" of what, exactly?

What do you "suspect" us of?

[another_liberal]

32. You had to be following me on these boards a year or so ago to understand . . .

Trust me when I say: I'm using the term "suspects" in a very familiar (if not affectionate) context.

[PeaceNikki]

34. Unlike some, I don't keep dossiers on DUers, so I have no idea what you were doing last year.

Calling people who disagree with you "suspects" and implying in your OP that they aren't interested in the truth (which clearly you think you are privvy to) is far more "vitriolic" than any of my responses in this thread.

[PeaceNikki]

30. I question your understanding of the word "vitriol".

[another_liberal]

33. Everything should be open to "question". . .

Please, feel free to do so in this instance.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

4. Well, the Russian government's mouthpiece said Russia didn't do it.

Everyone else says Russia did it. Who're you gonna believe?

[another_liberal]

7. "Everyone else" says that Russia did it?

I think you are badly mistaken in suggesting that is the case. That kind of statement is exactly why I take the trouble to offer articles with a different point of view, alternate sources of information which don't follow the lock-step message of our MSM.

[ion_theory]

38. This exactly...

"Everyone Else" essentially means US allies who aren't going to go against what the US says is truth. Russia could very well have had something to do with it, but if that were 100% so why would evidence not be disclosed. History tells us that means a lie is afoot and pair that along with the political situation in East Ukraine....some things never change.

[another_liberal]

42. Thanks for seeing that, ion_theory.

And welcome to Democratic Underground!

[-none]

5. As if our government is honest and believable.

Ya, sure, ya betcha dar Charley.

[MineralMan]

8. I am, but I never expect to find it on sputniknews.com

Please let me know when that site is independent of Putin's propaganda machine.

Uff da!

[another_liberal]

9. It is your prerogative to reject my source . . .

But I would rather you at least consider what that source has to say; after all, do any of us really know for certain who is responsible for what happened?

The truth is sometimes unpleasant, but it is still most important not to accept a pleasing lie instead.

[hobbit709]

10. A lot of people claim they didn't do it when caught. Governments are no better.

[another_liberal]

20. You got that right!

Governments are actually far, far worse in that regard.

[Eleanors38]

11. The "truth" belongs to whomever gets their first and slaps on the label. nt

[another_liberal]

18. No . . .

The truth is the truth. Everything else is a mistake, or a lie.

[ion_theory]

39. I think you are confusing truth with perspective. nt

[NuclearDem]

12. Wow, Sputnik and PCR in the same post.

Wonderful.

If Russia is so interested in finding the truth about MH17, then why be the lone vote against an international tribunal investigating the incident?

[another_liberal]

14. Read the article . . .

You will find that they claim the game is rigged against them and vetoed what was, undeniably, a quite novel resolution to have the UNSC investigate an airliner crash. We are, after all, hardly the nation to criticize another Security Council member for vetoing a resolution that was likely to pass, because it would have adversely affected their international interests. How many times have we done that to protect Israel alone?

[NuclearDem]

17. I love these attempts at Iraq analogies.

Especially when the people making them don't realize how they're defending an Iraq-like act of aggression and violation of international law by doing so.

[another_liberal]

22. What "Iraq analogy?"

Are you replying to a different comment by mistake?

[SidDithers]

15. sputnik. LOL...

Sid

[another_liberal]

16. Hi Sid!

Long time no see.

[NuclearDem]

19. Not only that, but a Sputnik article citing the one and only Paul Craig Roberts.

[another_liberal]

21. Of course . . .

Vicky Nuland is a far more reliable source, right?

[NuclearDem]

23. And those are the only two sources on this issue.

Nuland or PCR.

[another_liberal]

27. Oh, hardly the only two . . .

But of those two, I know for certain who I find more believable.

[NuclearDem]

31. You're the only one who brought up Nuland.

I personally don't give two shits what that woman has to say about the situation.

I'm pretty sure the only reason you brought her up is because she's a convenient boogeyman to employ when you can't defend the fact you're citing Russian state media, a source with tremendous bias on the issue, in turn citing a white supremacist asshat.

[another_liberal]

35. As Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs she is central to our policy in Ukraine . . .

Whatever you may think of her personally, she is as much a factor in our policy toward the Russian Federation as anyone else in our government. She is also, I believe, a liar and a mass murderer.

[NuclearDem]

36. And again, I don't care what she has to say on the issue.

Despite what some think, people opposed to Russia's illegal act of aggression don't hold that stance because they like Nuland.

She's utterly irrelevant to me as far as my position on Ukraine is concerned. Coup or no coup, Russia has zero business inside Ukraine's borders.

[another_liberal]

41. I hate violent, aggressive foreign policy, whomever it may be championed by . . .

That is why I have spent so much time criticizing Ms. Nuland and her thoroughly aggressive policy of great power imperialism in Ukraine.

As to the Russian Federation's actions taken in response: I honestly do not see them as "aggressive." Defending one's borders from the World's greatest imperialistic power is not, as I see it, "aggression."

[SidDithers]

25. Putin's propaganda publication pushing a white-supremacist...

Well, there's a big shocker.

Sid

[malaise]

28. Truth will out

Have no fear

[another_liberal]

29. Yes . . .

Given time, the truth will leak out.

[randome]

37. You post far too much pro-Russian news sources.

Yours is not a very intellectually objective point of view.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[another_liberal]

40. In your opinion, perhaps . . .

On the other hand, my strongly opinionated friend, someone with your stated point of view might be criticized by some for being "Provincial" or "Narrow-minded." I suggest we should both just try to get along, and endeavor to keep the hurtful comments to a minimum. OK with you?

[NuclearDem]

45. You're back!