[Marxism] On Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine & MH17

Shane Mage shmage at pipeline.com
Fri Aug 8 18:23:04 MDT 2014


On Aug 8, 2014, at 7:31 PM, Clay Claiborne via Marxism wrote:
>
>      On Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine & MH17
>      <http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/2014/08/on-russias-war-of-aggression-against.html 
> >

The evidence of "Ukraine"'s guilt is now overwhelming. Mr. Claiborne  
continues to ignore it. Expect him to "reply" by denouncing GR for  
everything--except for the content of Eric Zuesse's clear and  
convincing summary of the evidence!


Systematically Reconstructing the Shoot-Down of the Malaysian Airliner  
MH17

by Eric Zuesse

Global Research (August 07 2014)

On July 22nd, zerohedge bannered sarcastically, "Flight MH-17 Black
Boxes To Be Analyzed In 'Impartial' London" {1}, and reported that
they would be analyzed by the US-allied, anti-Russian, pro-Ukrainian,
British Government.

A mere four days later, on the 26th, CBS News headlined the results,
"Black box findings consistent with missile blast" {2}, but they
declined to report who, or even what country's government, had
actually done the analysis. CBS reported merely: "Unreleased data from
a black box retrieved from the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
in Ukraine show findings consistent with the plane's fuselage being
hit multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion. 'It did what
it was designed to do', a European air safety official told CBS News,
'bring down airplanes'. The official described the finding as 'massive
explosive decompression'." That's all. Nothing more.

However, this "explosive decompression" would have happened with
bullets too, if the pressurized airliner were punctured by bullets
instead of shrapnel. Why did that person (whomever it was) assume that
the plane had been hit by a missile's shrapnel, instead of by hails of
bullets fired by machine-guns from a fighter-plane flying alongside
it? Maybe because Britain is allied with the Obama-installed Ukrainian
Government, against the anti-Government rebels who have no airplanes
at all and thus cannot get gunmen 33,000 feet up into the air to shoot
directly at the Malaysian airliner's pilot, and that's what actually
brought this plane down. We'll show that the latter scenario is,
indeed, correct.

Only idiots would trust Britain to interpret these black boxes to
determine what and who brought down that plane. But, fortunately, the
physical evidence lying on the ground at the site in Ukraine was
photographed very quickly by locals there and uploaded to the Internet
sometime before any fighters and any governments were able to tamper
with anything; and there happened to be one modest-looking item found
at the site that tells a remarkably complete and entirely credible and
convincing account of how this plane came down.

It tells that the Ukrainian Government itself did this
airliner-downing, with bullets, not with shrapnel. You'll see the
evidence laid out before you here; you won't need to rely upon the
British Government to tell you how this event happened. The evidence
will tell you that.

On July 30th, the retired Lufthansa pilot and published historian
Peter Haisenko issued his "Shocking Analysis of the 'Shooting Down' of
Malaysian MH17" {3}, in which an extremely close-in photo of the most
important piece of physical evidence regarding this event is shown -
it's the side-panel on the left-hand side of the cockpit directly
where the downed plane's pilot was seated - and this photo shocked me,
too.

Here, first, is that side-panel shown inserted back onto its airliner,
so that you can see precisely what and where this piece of the
wreckage was on the plane. {4} You will immediately notice the big
gaping hole that had been shot through the side-panel where the pilot
sits - in other words, targeting directly at the plane's pilot.

This is incredibly precise targeting, of a specific person, and not
merely of the far larger body of an airliner. A ground-based
missile-shot fired from 33,000 feet below cannot achieve that gaping
hole precisely where the pilot sits. A fighter jet plane that's
escorting the airliner into the conflict-zone can. This is how:

Here is that side-panel shown close-up, from Haisenko {5}. Some of the
projectiles that pierced it, as you can see, were inbound into the
plane (or bent inward), and some of them were coming out of the plane
(or bent outward). In other words, going back again to the
full-cockpit photo {6}, and if there were two fighter jets escorting
this plane into the conflict-zone, and if one of them was below the
pilot and cockpit to the left, and the other was below them to the
right, and if both of those fighter-planes then suddenly fired
machine-gun magazines directly into the pilot, so that the bullets
that were coming from his right exited outward from this left-side
cockpit-panel, while the bullets that were coming into the pilot from
his left entered into and through this cockpit-panel and bent the
panel inward to the cabin, then the evidence would be able to look
exactly like what we see it as being here - but otherwise, probably
not (and we'll get to that in a moment).

Here is the entirety of the side-panel piece that so struck Haisenko  
{7}.

Haisenko further managed to post to the Web an astoundingly clear and
detailed photo of this cockpit-panel {8}, so that even individual
screws and their deformations can be seen and examined now by the
general public. Looking at that, some of the holes to the
aluminum-layer on the plane's outside are splayed outward as if the
projectile were outbound, while the plastic layer toward the plane's
inside is obviously splayed inward, and this divergence there, between
the inward-folding plastic layer and the outward-folding aluminum
layer, can indicate that the aluminum layer was getting pulled back
either by the wind on the descent downward to the ground, or else by
the ground itself as the panel impacted with the ground - that
aluminum outer-layer didn't always have to be ripped into an
outward-folding position by a projectile's actually coming outward. It
could sometimes result instead from the wind-impact and/or the
ground-impact. Moreover (and this is very important here), s!
ince a bul
let has a sharp point going into an object, even an inbound bullet can
peel outward in a rush the relatively brittle aluminum outer layer, by
the mere fact of its own impact, violently throwing that aluminum
layer sideways as the point pierces and forces that aluminum outward,
while the more-yielding inner plastic layer simply yields into the
direction that the bullet is traveling, and is pushed and then pulled
by that bullet inward into the plane, as the bullet thence proceeds
onward into the plane. A shrapnel projectile, by contrast, doesn't
have a bullet's sharp front, and so would not produce such outward
flares in the aluminum layer while penetrating into the plane from the
plane's outside.

So, what is seen in this photo is 100% consistent with the projectiles
going in both directions (inbound and outbound), and with the
projectiles being bullets instead of shrapnel.

Haisenko examined the many online photos of this wreckage, and he saw
nothing like the concentration of projectiles that were focusing on
that pilot, such as is displayed by this side-panel: it's unique. His
article says, "This aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central
portion". He's a retired airline pilot, and so he knows how
missile-shrapnel-punctures are splayed over a rather broad
surface-area of a plane, and all of them are inbound into the plane; a
shrapnel-spray onto a plane isn't bi-directional. Here is a photo of
such a plane that was hit by missile-shrapnel in Iraq {9}.

In my article on August 5th {10}, I noted, regarding that photo:





   As you can see there, a plane that's hit by a ground-fired missile,
instead of by bullets fired from an attack-plane only a few yards
away, has the damage spread rather widely over its body, not
concentrated into a tiny area, such as to where the plane's pilot is
seated. Certainly, the contrast between that photo and this one {11}
is enormous.

   Furthermore, note also that the shrapnel damage to that plane comes
from above it, which is where missiles usually hit a plane from,
releasing their shrapnel from above, down onto the plane. By contrast,
the hail of bullets to the Malaysian plane's pilot came from below the
plane, aiming upward at the cockpit, from both sides of the cockpit.

   Furthermore, note also that all of the holes appear to be inbound
into the plane, none outbound.




It's radically different: what hit the Malaysian airliner wasn't
missile-shrapnel.

What, then, could have been the military planes that actually did this?

On 17 July 2014 the pro-junta Kiev Post headlined "Russian military
plane shot down Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft in Ukraine" {12}, and
reported that, "The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council
(NSDC) has said that a Russian military aircraft launched a missile
strike against a Su-25 aircraft of the Ukrainian Armed Forces over
Ukrainian territory on Wednesday, July 16". So, even the Ukrainian
military admitted that they had Su-25 jets flying in the
conflict-zone. But Su-25s are designed only for low-altitude combat
and bombing; so, Su-25s would be the type of planes that the rebels
would likeliest succeed at bringing down (and did on July 16th), as
opposed to the higher-flying Su-27s, which are far less likely to be
hit by the rebels' ground-based fire.

Note: There's no independent confirmation that "Russian military
aircraft" had actually been involved in the incident reported in the
Kiev Post; and there have been numerous instances when the Ukrainian
Government charged that there was such direct Russian involvement and
it was subsequently established that there hadn't been any at all.
Obama and the Ukrainian Government want a pretext to extend their war
into Russia, but Russia has not been cooperating with their desire.
Thus, "(NSDC) has said that a Russian military aircraft launched a
missile strike" there was probably reporting a lie.

During the very late afternoon in Ukraine on July 17th - the same day
as the headline "Russian military plane shot down Ukrainian Su-25
aircraft in Ukraine" - the Malaysian airliner, MH-17, went down. The
most-thorough article on the plane's flight-path and timeline was
published by Twenty First Century Wire on July 25th {13}. Two of the
fighter jets it notes to be in the Ukrainian Government's air force
are:

Su-25 'Frogfoot' fighter – Ceiling: 23,000 feet (7,000) meters, or up
to 32,800 feet (10,000) meters, depending aircraft modifications

Su-27 'Flanker' fighter – Ceiling: 64,000 feet (19,000 meters)

Su-25s could barely have escorted the Malaysian airliner into the
conflict-zone at around 33,000 feet where it was hit, but Su-27s
definitely could easily have done that job.

On July 21st, The Aviationist bannered "All flights, including
Malaysian B777, were being escorted by Ukrainian Su-27 Flanker jets
over Eastern Ukraine" {14} and (though in language that's cumbersome
to understand) reported that, "Six fully armed Flankers [or Su-27s]
have always been in the sky especially when the other Ukrainian Air
Force airplanes such as transporters and attackers like Fulcrums and
Rooks were in the East of Ukraine", and that, "Provided the Su-27s
were really escorting or (more likely) watching from their CAP
station", the Malaysian airliner could have been hit by a Buk missile
33,000 feet below from the ground, just as the Ukrainian Government
was saying, notwithstanding its "escorting or (more likely) watching
from their CAP station". The speculation continued on like that,
stenographcally following the Ukrainian Government's line (that
ground-fired Buks did it, via rebels, not via the Government), by
asserting that, "in the wake of the downing of the S!
u-25 [on J
uly 16th], the operators inside the Buk [what Buk? – The Aviationist
was merely assuming this] may have mistaken the Boeing 777 shadowed
by/near two Flankers for a high-value plane of the Ukrainian Air
Force. On their radar screens, the sight of a large plane with two
accompanying (or circling in CAP not too far away) fighter jets was
completely new and may only mean the Ukrainians were escorting an
important plane. And that would be the reason why they downed it." If
"they" downed it.
The Twenty First Century Wire article also noted that,





   The BBC {15} reported on July 17th: "Ukraine's SBU security service
has confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukrainian air
traffic control officers and the crew of the doomed airliner, a source
in Kiev has told Interfax news agency".




However, the BBC subsequently removed from their online article the
statement that was quoted there, perhaps as part of their cleansing
history of things that are subsequently determined by the managers to
be inappropriate for readers to know. However, that quoted assertion
does appear also in a web-search (quoted at other sites), where it is
also attributed to the BBC. Perhaps, then, after the Snowden affair,
more-ironclad means of whitewashing "history" will become established,
so as to cleanse "history" of the sorts of things that aren't supposed
to be known by the wrong people (such as are you and I). It's not just
the Ukrainian Government that retrospectively removes what it wishes
the public not to know (such as radar-records).

The Twenty First Century Wire article also mentioned that, "On June 4
2014, Janes Defense {16} reported that Kiev have recently returned to
service two other higher performance fighters, including the Su-27
'Flanker' and the MiG-29 'Fulcrum' fighters". Moreover: "According to
IHS Jane's World Air Forces data, Ukraine still possesses a fleet of
24 Su-24Ms, 36 Su-25s, 45 Su-27s, 20 An-26s and 140 MiG-29s", but
regarding the MIGs, "39 of these were captured" by Russia when Crimea
broke away from Ukraine and rejoined Russia, of which it had been a
part between 1783 and 1954. Obama and his regime demand that Crimea be
returned to Ukraine, which the Crimeans never ever voted to become
part of. He supports the Ukrainian Government's promise to seize it by
military means.

Some readers have objected that it's difficult to bring down a plane
by air-to-air fire. One person cited the shooter's need to take into
account the other plane's evasive maneuvers, and to aim at where the
target-plane will be {17} when the bullets are expected to get there.
This is a valid point, if the targeted plane is an enemy's
fighter-jet. That's called a "dogfight in the air". However, if the
target-plane isn't military, and if the pilot in the target-plane has
been given to understand that the fighter jets that are accompanying
him are friendly, he's just a sitting duck for those "escorts", and
the targeters can align themselves exactly where they want to be, and
coordinate when they will jointly commence firing at him. The result
will be like this side-panel is.

There was another expert who happened to be shocked by this side-panel
and who concluded from it what Haisenko does. As I have previously
noted and explained in detail {18}, the first member of the
international investigating team to arrive on the scene in order to
negotiate with the locals the safety of the entire team that was to
come into this civil war area, was immediately struck by the fact
that, "There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been
really pockmarked with what almost looks like machine-gun fire, very
very strong machine-gun fire". However, he didn't examine it then as
closely as Haisenko has now done, to such a fine point as to have
noticed that some of those bullet-holes came from the plane's right,
and some came from the plane's left. That fact is even more remarkable
than that the projectiles were probably bullets, because this fact
confirms that they actually had to be.

I also made note in that article that:





   The latest report from the intelligence community was headlined on
August 3rd by Robert Parry, "Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts"
{19}, and he revealed there that, "Contrary to the Obama
administration's public claims blaming eastern Ukrainian rebels and
Russia for the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, some US
intelligence analysts have concluded that the rebels and Russia were
likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces
were to blame, according to a source briefed on these findings. This
judgment - at odds with what President Barack Obama and Secretary of
State John Kerry have expressed publicly - is based largely on the
absence of US government evidence that Russia supplied the rebels with
a Buk anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a
civilian jetliner flying at 33,000 feet, said the source, who spoke on
condition of anonymity."

   It's actually based on lots more than that; it's based not on an
absence of evidence, but on positive proof that the Ukrainian
Government shot the plane down, and even proving how it was done.




Unlike what Parry's source alleged, there does exist powerful and
convincing evidence of how this plane was downed, and it's that
side-panel.

What, then, of the possibility that the inbound and outbound
bullet-holes might have been produced by just a single Su-27? That
scenario has been proposed, but it fails to account for the event, and
here is why: The very moment when that gunman poured his hale of
bullets into the pilot and thereby pulverized and blew open that huge
gaping hole where the pilot was sitting, the plane's pressurized air
would have immediately rushed out that hole. It might have broken into
pieces within seconds. As Haisenko said, due to the air-pressure-shock
to the plane, "The largely intact fragments of the rear sections broke
in mid air at the weaker points of contstruction [sp]", thereby
producing "the widely scattered field of debris".

I shall close with what I think is the most important fact of all:

No matter whom the trigger-pullers at the bottom of any
power-and-authority hierarchy are who actually did this (gunmen or
else missilemen), and regardless of whether they even did it
intentionally at all, or else entirely by mistake, a far deeper and
indisputable reality is that "Obama Definitely Caused the Malaysian
Airliner to Be Downed" {20}. That's true in the same sense that Adolf
Hitler definitely caused the Holocaust to happen: It wouldn't have
happened but for him and the decisions and choices that that person at
the very top of the power-structure made, which were merely being
carried out by his subordinates.

He is the one person who should be held accountable the most of all.
Obama intends the ethnic-cleansing campaign that is occurring in
southeastern Ukraine to get rid of the people who live in the areas
that overwhelmingly elected as Ukraine's President in 2010 the man
whom Obama's February 2014 coup in Ukraine overthrew. Without that
ethnic-cleansing campaign and the consequent need of the residents
there to shoot down the Government's planes, even the Obama-team's
explanation - that the aircraft-downing was a case of the residents
there firing upon what they thought to be a Government bomber -
wouldn't have existed at all, because there wouldn't then have been
the ethnic-cleansing campaign for them to be protecting themselves
from. So: even if the downing of that airliner hadn't been done
intentionally by the Ukrainian Government as a "false flag event" to
blame the victims in order to get the EU to go along with stiffened
sanctions against Russia for helping the rebels, th!
ose sancti
ons would still be an outrage: morally, practically, and also
violations of international law: aggression that's based on lies. The
fact that this was a false-flag event by Obama's people only makes it,
and the current US President, an outrage squared: an outrage upon an
outrage.

There need to be EU sanctions now against the United States - my own
country - or else the EU itself is as rotten as the US has become.
Instead, the EU has joined Obama's sanctions against Russia. America
under Clinton, Bush, and Obama, has performed fine for its aristocracy
(which control them all), but abominably for everyone else. Is that
the kind of model the EU wishes to copy? If so, it should end, because
the EU's leadership then seeks to go the way of the US,
aristocratically controlled, against the public, a model that's
shameful - scandalous, in fact: something not to be perpetrated
against anyone, neither the victims in Obama's MH-17 downing, nor the
victims in his ongoing ethnic-cleansing campaign against the residents
in Ukraine's southeast {21}. Obama's crimes are much bigger than just
the downing of that single airliner.

There is a subordinate fact that extends from this central fact of
Obama's clear guilt - his guilt that would apply regardless of whether
some Buk missile system had been fired by rebels to protect themselves
and their families from being bombed by planes of the Kiev government:
Even if that were the case, the rebels' measure in that matter was
purely defensive. Contrast that with the situation that has been
described here: The situation that has been described here is that the
Kiev government intentionally brought this airliner down. That's not
an innocent error; it is instead an enormous intentional war crime,
planned as such. If the rebels made a tragic error, by falling for a
trap in which the Kiev government had escorted the Malaysian airliner
into the war-zone hoping that the rebels would make such an error,
then who is the actual guilty party? Is it Obama and the Kiev regime
that he installed in order to do this ethnic cleansing so that Ukraine
in the future will have!
only anti
-Russian Presidents? Or is it the victims of that ethnic cleansing?

No matter how one looks at this, the guilt is clear and damning
against Barack Obama: first, by his installing this ethnic-cleansing
regime into power in Ukraine; and then, by his continued support of
those bloody psychopaths whom he had empowered there.

No matter what, Barack Obama has massive innocent blood on his hands
{22}. And the victims of the MH-17 disaster are only a relatively
small part of that much bigger picture.

Thus far, the penalties have fallen on Russia and Vladimir Putin, not
on the Ukrainian Government and Barack Obama.

Links:

{1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-22/mh-17-black-boxes-will-be-analyzed-uk-whose-prime-minister-compares-russian-aggressi

{2} http://www.cbsnews.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-17-black-box-findings-consistent-with-blast/

{3} http://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2014/shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/

{4} http://i0.wp.com/www.rumormillnews.com/pix7/mh17cockpithit.jpg?w=615

{5} http://www.anderweltonline.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Cockpit-MH017.pdf

{6} http://i0.wp.com/www.rumormillnews.com/pix7/mh17cockpithit.jpg?w=615

{7} http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/secondary/185456.jpg

{8} http://www.anderweltonline.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Cockpit-MH017.pdf

{9} http://rinf.com/alt-news/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/3.August.2014.Screen-shot-2014-08-03-at-3.25.30-PM.jpg

{10} http://rinf.com/alt-news/featured/5-august-even-certain-now-obamas-ukrainian-stooges-intentionally-malaysian-airliner/

{11} http://i0.wp.com/www.rumormillnews.com/pix7/mh17cockpithit.jpg?w=615

{12} http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/russian-military-plane-shot-down-ukrainian-su-25-aircraft-in-ukraine-356422.html

{13} http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/07/25/mh17-verdict-real-evidence-points-to-us-kiev-cover-up-of-failed-false-flag-attack/

{14} http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/21/su-27s-escorted-mh17/

{15} http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28360784

{16} http://www.janes.com/article/38772/ukraine-returns-combat-aircraft-to-service

{17} http://phantomfighters.tripod.com/PF/train/deflectionshooting.htm

{18} http://rinf.com/alt-news/featured/5-august-even-certain-now-obamas-ukrainian-stooges-intentionally-malaysian-airliner/

{19} http://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/

{20} http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/obama-definitely-caused-malaysian-airliner-downed/

{21} http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-U-S-Elite-Run-a-Ukraine-by-Eric-Zuesse-Ethnic-Cleansing_Genocide_Hate-Racism-Bigotry_Nuclear-Weapons-140703-248.html

{22} http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/obama-definitely-caused-malaysian-airliner-downed/




Shane Mage

"scientific discovery is basically recognition of obvious realities
that self-interest or ideology have kept everybody from paying  
attention to"





More information about the Marxism mailing list