How Western Media faked it - a Russian view

[Smoker]

I've seen Abby Martin criticize Russia once or twice on her RT show Breaking the Set. The show does seem to have a slightly anti-american theme, but I don't think it is as biased as Fox News. Abby Martin may also be the most beautiful woman I've ever seen in my life.

 

[Jayjay]

So shove it. Western coverage of russian officials (Putin, Lavrov, etc) is appalling.
Truth is that Mademoiselle has no way to even form informed opinion, she is really a talking head.
And I believe it was her who refused to go to Crimea and ask people herself, she is like 12 year old with fingers in the ears.

Her working for RT for five years makes here opinion hell of a more informed than someone's who says he doesn't even watch RT on television. And from her interview you can get the idea that the reason she worked for RT was the opportunity to work on underreported domestic issues in UK, not international news. So why the hell would she go to Crimea, and how would going to Crimea have given her a more informed opiion on what happened to MH17, which was the stated reason for her resignation?

Really? that's the only reason she left? really?

According to her, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. In this interview Sara Firth explains that she wasn't too happy with RT's policies to begin with, but MH17 tragedy was a "final nudge". And she also points out that RT would not give stories about Ukraine to journalists who would be asking tough questions to begin with, so your accusation that she's "like a 12-year old with fingers in the ears" is unwarranted and unsupported.

And it's not like Russia and the separatists aren't part of the same command and control structure. At the time of the shooting the leader of the separatists was still a Russian ex-FSB officer.

Who are you talking about? Strelkov?

Yep.

Also, it turns out that in the intercepted phone call, Igor Bezler is talking to Vasily Geranin who is a colonel in GRU.

No, he does not, he is talking to an empty space because myphical Vasily Geranin produce no sounds.

I may not speak Russian, but clearly there are two people talking to each other here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5E8kDo2n6g Or are you referring to some other conversation?

And I notice you didn't address Strelkov being a Russian ex-FSB officer. It's plain as day to anyone that the separatists take their orders from Moscow, though of course some of their members are well-meaning nationalists.

As for incriminating evidence, the pictures and videos of the BUK missing one projectile and the numerous statements by the rebels themselves are enough.

You keep repeating this bullshit over and over. How does that prove Russia involvement?
And what statements?
I only know about one statement, the one where rebels claim capturing Buks from Ukrainian Army.

A story which was broken by a Russian state owned news agency, never confirmed by Ukraine, and is highly suspect.

Bullshit again. it was not broken by anybody. Rebells twitted it themselves and took it down month later when MH17 was shot down.

The same rebels who are tools of Russian government - of course they would tweet the same propaganda. Nice to see that you admit the rebels (and by extension, Russia who gives their orders) is trying to cover up that they had a BUK that could have and very likely did shoot down the plane.

If Russia did give the separatists a BUK, they would not be so stupid as to not have plausible deniability, so it's not too far fetched to assume they planted the story about a "captured" BUK so that in case it was photographed or seized by Ukraine, Russia could continue to deny that it's arming the separatists.

But even if the story was true, and separatists did seize the BUK from an Ukrainian base, they were still the ones who used it. And even in that case the BUK was carted off to Russia which means that Russia would still be complicit in covering it up.

That's a nice theory, unfortunately it's a only a theory without any facts.

...

As for ukrainians, they did pretend they did not shoot the passenger plane at least once before.

Are you referring to  Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812? If so, it's true that Ukraine (and Russia!) initially denied it but they came clean after a week or so and never mounted a widespread disinformation campaign to try to divert attention away from them.

It took more than that and they were not entirely honest in the process, and it took years to make them pay compensation.

I stand corrected. It seems that Ukraine to this day has not officially admitted shooting down the plane, you are right about that. So Ukraine does have a history of lying, I grant you that.

But the interesting thing is that there is more evidence about Russia and/or the separatists shooting down MH17 than there is about Ukraine shooting down the Siberia Airlines flight in 2001. It's disingenius for you keep repeating that "it's only a theory without any facts" when there exist conclusive proof that there was a BUK traveling in separatist-controller territory that lost one projectile around the same time when MH17 was hit. This is hell of a lot more conclusive that anything we have on flight 1812, so if you were to be consistent in your conspiracy theories, you should be agreeing with the Ukrainian courts in denyign that it shot down the Siberian Airlines flight 1812.

As for the intercept, fine, I never considered it conclusive before, it hardly changes my opinion if it is still inconclusive. As I said, it just adds to the body of evidence against Russia and the separatists. Meanwhile the insinuations from Russian propaganda that somehow Ukraine shot the plane down has absolutely zero evidence to support it.

The footage is not staged. Some conspiracy theorists (which RT is glad to give plenty of free air time) are claiming that it is, but that doesn't make it true. Only part that we know was changed in that report was the editing out of the word "chemical weapons" so as not to give the audience a misleading picture of what was going on, as it was a report about victims of an incendiary bomb. All this story shows is how dishonest and misleading RT is in its own reporting.

Also, if it was staged as you claim, why the heck would BBC stage an incendiary bomb attack, if the purpose was to turn world opinion against Syria for using chemical weapons? Why not fake a sarin gas attack as long as you are hiring actors? It doesn't make any sense at all.

Fuck!
there is no ifs or buts. footage was staged, period!

It is customary to provide evidence when you are making outrageous claims. You can stomp your feet to the ground and have a tantrum if you want but it doesn't change the fact that BBC in this case has been shown to do nothing but follow high standard of journalist ethics, while RT is shown to be dishonest and inaccurate. 1-0 to BBC.

 

[barbos]

Jayjay, you keep repeating things as if I have not refuted them.
All I can say, I heard what I heard on that tape, there is absolutely nothing bad there.
And I find this remarkably ironic considering you are defending BBC staged footage.
These are bad actors in there.

As for Strelkov then of course he is a retired FSB guy. Who else is gonna be commanding rebel forces?
Former ice skating champion? Same with Bezler, he is a retired army guy too.
In any case both of them left their positions.

 

[barbos]

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4127349.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4127349.htm

PAUL KEATING: We had a chance at the end of the Cold War to settle the status of Russia. It took us two world wars to settle the status of Germany. We had a chance in 1989-'90 to settle the status of Russia and basically the US blew it. And what did it do? It extended NATO into the boundary of Russia to the west - Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic States. And instead of seeing these as bridges between Russia and the West, they made them outposts, Western outposts. And of course, this inflamed Russian nationalism. In a very large measure, the US created Putin.

TONY JONES: I was going to ask you: do you think the rise of a demagogue in Russia like Putin was inevitable when you mount that kind of pressure on their border?

PAUL KEATING: Well it certainly didn't help. And the other thing is, you see, the Northern European Plain runs from the north of France to St Petersburg. Bonaparte went across is, Hitler went across it and the Russians came back across it to Berlin. It's fundamentally indefensible. Yet, we had Barack Obama up in Estonia recently making a speech about protecting the Baltic states, 300 miles wide, 200 miles deep. They're fundamentally not capable of defence against Russian infantry and artillery. So, we've made these - we've bitten off pieces of the pie crust when the Russians were weak instead of taking the longer view: this is a piece of elasticity, a bridge where we had to deal with: Russia is a great state. Whatever we think about, Russia is a great state and it has one particular characteristic: it has - alone in the world, it has the capacity to obliterate the US. So, if for that reason alone, if no other, you would have a policy towards it. You would have a policy which would be about integrating Russia into Europe. That should have been the ambition of the Clinton administration. It wasn't. It was the Clinton administration who decided to extend NATO and the Bush administration extended it further.

TONY JONES: So, a final question. We're virtually out of time. But you're not suggesting that you have any sympathy, are you, for Putin's methods of arming ethnic Russians inside some of those border states, some of those hinterland states?

PAUL KEATING: No, no, Putin's a shocker, but the thing is: one bad act begets another. The West made a shocking strategic error in extending NATO at the end of the Cold War and what we're seeing now is part of the - is part of the debris from that decision.

Is former Australian PM a Russia's cheerleader too?
cause I agree with him.

I see russia-haters ignoring Australian Prime Ministers.

 

[Ford]

I see russia-haters ignoring Australian Prime Ministers.

And as we all know, former Australian Prime Ministers are natural authorities on all things Russian.


I don't know about everyone else, but when I'm looking to form an opinion about what Putin is doing, the first and last source I look to for information is former Australian PMs. They're the bees knees when it comes to this topic, and are clearly never wrong in their take on whatever is happening in Moscow. If a former Australian Prime Minister says it, then by Lenin it must be gospel!

 

[barbos]

Yes, Jen Psaki is authority on Russia, everybody knows that. She is even bigger authority than Sarah Palin.

 

[Ford]

Yes, Jen Psaki is authority on Russia, everybody knows that. She is even bigger authority than Sarah Palin.

And you're an authority right up there with both of them...

 

[Daioh]

I see russia-haters ignoring Australian Prime Ministers.

He seems to ignore Russia in all of this
As far as I can see he is trying to blame Nato and US for not finding better relations with Russia after the cold war but neglects to mention Russias thoughts and actions in all of this
IF Nato had extended open arms to Russia would they have taken it? or seen it as a sign of weakness?
IF Nato hadn't extended itself to places like the baltic states would it have created a better atmosphere? or allowed Russia to pursue the actions it has in the Ukraine against them in an attempt to reconquer them?
He calls them "Outposts" against Russia, but could it not equally have been the opposite, seeing them turned into "Outposts" under Russian control against Nato?

All I see is alot of finger waving at Nato and the US with no mention of Russias role in this whole thing
And as the old saying goes "it takes two to tango"

As for the idea of the strategic weakness of needing to defend places like the Baltic states he comes across as kind of a jerk doesn't he?
Like Nato and the US should basically just leave them as speed bumps and buffer states and not try to help hem at all

 

[Jayjay]

Jayjay, you keep repeating things as if I have not refuted them.
All I can say, I heard what I heard on that tape, there is absolutely nothing bad there.
And I find this remarkably ironic considering you are defending BBC staged footage.
These are bad actors in there.

You have not given any evidence that there were actors, or that the report was staged. You're just sticking fingers in your ears and insisting that it's staged because you heard it on RT or some other bullshit propaganda site. And it was you who asked me if I wanted to discuss the BBC footage, now you want to bail out? That's your prerogative, we all decide how to use our time and there are better things to do than to discuss politics on the internet (such as discussing Kim Kardashian's butt on the internet, or watching paint dry). But if you are so utterly in denial about BBC having staged footage, why should anyone take your word about the inconclusive audio tape regarding Ukraine being fake or staged either?

As for Strelkov then of course he is a retired FSB guy. Who else is gonna be commanding rebel forces?
Former ice skating champion? Same with Bezler, he is a retired army guy too.
In any case both of them left their positions.

Who else is going to be commanding the rebel forces except some guy from Russia with ties to FSB[/url]? Really, that's your argument? That just proves my point, that the "rebels" were created by Russia rather than being a real movement by the local residents. Sure they were able to get locals to help them out eventually and even Putin must have realized that it looks bad to have a Russian operative running the show, so he switched to a local puppet instead. Just in time for the mock "elections".

 

[barbos]

You have not given any evidence that there were actors, or that the report was staged. You're just sticking fingers in your ears and insisting that it's staged because you heard it on RT or some other bullshit propaganda site.

You are ridiculous, all the evidence is there. Described in formal complains. It is you who sticking your fingers in your ears again.

And it was you who asked me if I wanted to discuss the BBC footage, now you want to bail out? That's your prerogative, we all decide how to use our time and there are better things to do than to discuss politics on the internet (such as discussing Kim Kardashian's butt on the internet, or watching paint dry). But if you are so utterly in denial about BBC having staged footage, why should anyone take your word about the inconclusive audio tape regarding Ukraine being fake or staged either?

As for Strelkov then of course he is a retired FSB guy. Who else is gonna be commanding rebel forces?
Former ice skating champion? Same with Bezler, he is a retired army guy too.
In any case both of them left their positions.

Who else is going to be commanding the rebel forces except some guy from Russia with ties to FSB[/url]? Really, that's your argument? That just proves my point, that the "rebels" were created by Russia rather than being a real movement by the local residents. Sure they were able to get locals to help them out eventually and even Putin must have realized that it looks bad to have a Russian operative running the show, so he switched to a local puppet instead. Just in time for the mock "elections".

Nope, rebels were not created by Russia, and you can't make any conclusions from the fact that they are retired Russian military,

 

[barbos]

I see russia-haters ignoring Australian Prime Ministers.

He seems to ignore Russia in all of this
As far as I can see he is trying to blame Nato and US for not finding better relations with Russia after the cold war but neglects to mention Russias thoughts and actions in all of this
IF Nato had extended open arms to Russia would they have taken it? or seen it as a sign of weakness?
IF Nato hadn't extended itself to places like the baltic states would it have created a better atmosphere? or allowed Russia to pursue the actions it has in the Ukraine against them in an attempt to reconquer them?
He calls them "Outposts" against Russia, but could it not equally have been the opposite, seeing them turned into "Outposts" under Russian control against Nato?

All I see is alot of finger waving at Nato and the US with no mention of Russias role in this whole thing
And as the old saying goes "it takes two to tango"

As for the idea of the strategic weakness of needing to defend places like the Baltic states he comes across as kind of a jerk doesn't he?
Like Nato and the US should basically just leave them as speed bumps and buffer states and not try to help hem at all

Too many what-ifs.
Fact is, NATO has never even tried to change its course and extend their open arm.
They did what they did, they continued to treat Russia as an enemy and acted accordingly.
US/NATO created Putin. US were pretty happy watching SU and then Russia disintegrating offering no help other than with destroying nukes.
When Russia had problems with Chechens, all these "separatists" had complete freedom to enter US/Europe, meeting with White House officials. Think about it, when separatists are against Russia they are automatically good, and it's opposite when it's opposite.
Then War with Georgia, you still think Russia started it. You really think you score any points among russians for that? It was crystal clear that Georgia and US were wrong ones and it was nothing but a proxy war against Russia even georgians now mostly agree that it was a "mistake".
I don't know what would have happened if Europe/US extended their open arms in 1990s, but I am sure as hell they did not do it.
I understand that Obama must satisfy his voters and say things which increase chances of his party. But it's 21 century, everything he says gets heard everywhere and trust me, he is no longer popular in Russia, not when he says things like "Sanctions will make weak Russia even weaker and it is good" It worked really well with Germany, did not it Mr. President?
If US really expect some kind of world leadership then they really need to work under the assumption that people in other countries are effectively voters too. So far, US politicians lost them, not even russian opposition (to Putin) likes current US administration.

US MO is incredibly simple. Any asshole from bordering Russia country comes to White House and says "Russia bad, me not like Putin" automatically gets to be friend of US and especially of McCain.

 

[Jayjay]

You are ridiculous, all the evidence is there. Described in formal complains. It is you who sticking your fingers in your ears again.

Formal complaints to which BBC has meticulously investigated, responded to and addressed all the original points. I just read the most recent complaint (which has not received a response yet, but no doubt it will) and the unaddressed issues are that now someone found a guy in Syria who is saying the bombing never happened, and that there is some Dutch woman in facebook that migth have passing resemblance to someone on a video from the incident that BBC did not even film. So basically the complainer is scraping the bottom of the barrel now and is just coming up with new accusations and theories as the old ones get refuted.

That's how conspiracy theories and disinformation thrives: the crazies can make up ten new lies in the time it takes for honest person to disprove one. That's why there will always be outlets like RT that can peddle horse shit to sympathetic audiences year after year... Fox News works pretty much the same way but is not quite as bad and lacks the global reach RT has.

And it was you who asked me if I wanted to discuss the BBC footage, now you want to bail out? That's your prerogative, we all decide how to use our time and there are better things to do than to discuss politics on the internet (such as discussing Kim Kardashian's butt on the internet, or watching paint dry). But if you are so utterly in denial about BBC having staged footage, why should anyone take your word about the inconclusive audio tape regarding Ukraine being fake or staged either?

As for Strelkov then of course he is a retired FSB guy. Who else is gonna be commanding rebel forces?
Former ice skating champion? Same with Bezler, he is a retired army guy too.
In any case both of them left their positions.

Who else is going to be commanding the rebel forces except some guy from Russia with ties to FSB[/url]? Really, that's your argument? That just proves my point, that the "rebels" were created by Russia rather than being a real movement by the local residents. Sure they were able to get locals to help them out eventually and even Putin must have realized that it looks bad to have a Russian operative running the show, so he switched to a local puppet instead. Just in time for the mock "elections".

Nope, rebels were not created by Russia, and you can't make any conclusions from the fact that they are retired Russian military,

I rest my case and let the jury decide.

 

[barbos]

Jayjay, dude. I saw the footage, these were a bunch of bad actors.

Taking words out of con

Taking words out of context, eh? So dutch of you.
I meant the fact that commanders are russians (as in "russian citizens"). Not all the rebels.
Russian military have an extensive experience (thanks to Chechen wars) and it's no wonder that they became commanders.
Ukrainian army have had no actual experience and are in pretty bad shape.
And despite what you may think FSB and even KGB are/were not what all these movies portrayed them to be.
FSB is pretty much regular army, Border Control guards is FSB too, and chechen wars were mostly fought by FSB units.
So FSB="Hollywood KGB" is far from the truth. Strelkov was fighting in Chechen war, so what?

 

[Jayjay]

Jayjay, dude. I saw the footage, these were a bunch of bad actors.

We've all seen the footage. The problem is with your inability to distinguish reality from fiction. You want desperately to believe that all the conspiracy theories are true, and so you see things that aren't there and you are likely to believe every kooky theory that supports your world view. It's the same logic that 9/11 truthers use to convince themselves that the planes couldn't obviously have brought down the entire building (they saw the footage!), or why the NASA moon landing footage must have been obviously staged (they saw the footage!).

I've seen the documentary too. And BBC, being a serious news organization rather than a propaganda outlet like RT, took the accusations seriously so they asked an actual doctor familiar with burn victims to verify whether what's seen in the footage is consistent with what would actually have happened. And his conclusion was that there were no discrepancies whatsoever, to the point that even the complainer dropped that in his subsequent follow-up. So who the fuck are you to say that the footage is staged with "bad actors"? Are you a medical professional? Have you compared what's on the footage with real incendiary bomb victims? Do you do community theater in your spare time?

 

[barbos]

Jayjay, dude. I saw the footage, these were a bunch of bad actors.

We've all seen the footage. The problem is with your inability to distinguish reality from fiction.

It's not me, it's you.

 

[Daioh]

Fact is, NATO has never even tried to change its course and extend their open arm.

And Russia?
You missed the central point which was asking just what Russia did in all this
Did they extend open arms? or change course?

would Nato extending open arms have been met with welcome by Russia or hostility?
What was Russian doing to it's neighbours at the time?
How was it presenting itself to the world?

They did what they did, they continued to treat Russia as an enemy and acted accordingly.

And what did Russia do?

 

[barbos]

And Russia?
You missed the central point which was asking just what Russia did in all this
Did they extend open arms? or change course?

Yes, they changed course. If having no course is a change.

would Nato extending open arms have been met with welcome by Russia or hostility?
What was Russian doing to it's neighbours at the time?

Nothing, absolutely nothing and Russia was not in a position to do anything, it was a slow decay.

How was it presenting itself to the world?

Actually World liked Russia at the time. They would do nothing to help but they liked it.

They did what they did, they continued to treat Russia as an enemy and acted accordingly.

And what did Russia do?

Russia was busy trying to survive, while Clinton was dancing with drunk Eltsin.

 

[Daioh]

Yes, they changed course. If having no course is a change.

You say decay, that is a course

Nothing, absolutely nothing and Russia was not in a position to do anything

So in all this time Russia just sat passively back?

Actually World liked Russia at the time. They would do nothing to help but they liked it.

So how does publicly liking them gel with publicly viewing them as an enemy?

I would also ask again
Did Russia ever try to join things like Nato?
Do you believe Russia would have joined if asked?
Has Russia ever tried to become something more then the bogeyman to the places around it (Or a decaying state)?

 

[dystopian]

Fact is, NATO has never even tried to change its course and extend their open arm.

Except that they did, as I had pointed out to you in a previous thread. In fact, high placed members of NATO memberstates' governments (notably Poland and Germany) have in the past suggested Russian membership in NATO. These overtures have been rebuked by Russia. NATO also initiated the Partnership for Peace program between itself and Russia, intended to increase trust; and NATO has attempted to work *with* Russia on various security matters through the NATO-Russia council. To state that NATO has never extended an open arm is blatantly false.

You don't get to just ignore the parts of history that conflict with your chosen narrative and expect the rest of the world to not notice that fact.

 

[barbos]

You say decay, that is a course

Nothing, absolutely nothing and Russia was not in a position to do anything

So in all this time Russia just sat passively back?

Actually World liked Russia at the time. They would do nothing to help but they liked it.

So how does publicly liking them gel with publicly viewing them as an enemy?

For politicians? easy.

I would also ask again
Did Russia ever try to join things like Nato?

No

Do you believe Russia would have joined if asked?

No, but that's no excuse to go all NATO on Russia.
There are other ways to deal with rejection.

Has Russia ever tried to become something more then the bogeyman to the places around it (Or a decaying state)?

You confuse cause and effect. Russia would not join NATO but as I said it's not a reason to paint Russia as bogeyman.