Remember flight MH 17 and the supposed "Russia" connection?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
Hi everyone,
since "Russiagate" just recently was a major media topic in the USA media, here's a different interesting information in regards to main stream media propaganda
Ukrainian Security Official Says Ukraine Shot Down MH-17
Hope you will find the information helpful ..
Comments
-
In this article, the "top ranking" Ukranian intelligence service agent, who the article says recently "escaped to Russia," makes the following BOLD claim: (emphasis added)
- In his "personal opinion" and "on the basis of (his) own analysis," both which "(rely) on certain information," he "can speculate who was an accomplice in the crime and who was involved in concealing evidence." He then identifies two candidates.
Now THAT'S a compelling argument! 😛
If you thought the article might exonerate Russia - as I did, given this thread's title - you (and I) were mistaken. The author makes no attempt to dispute the findings of the international investigation team that last year produced photo and video evidence of what it claimed proved Russian culpability for the tragedy.
The article's pro-Russian political bias is easily noted. For example, in its final paragraph the author says the international team concluded the missile that shot down the plane "might have been brought" from a Russian brigade, when in fact, the team concluded that the missile definitely came from said brigade.
Additional proof of the article's pro-Russian bias is found just below its final paragraph, where it provides readers with a link to Russia's Tass news service, a link at which is found an article which in large measure is a word-for-word copy of the article that provided the link. I'm guessing the Tass article was the original source.
-
The article's pro-Russian political bias is easily noted. For example, in its final paragraph the author says the international team concluded the missile that shot down the plane "might have been brought" from a Russian brigade, when in fact, the team concluded that the missile definitely came from said brigade.
There is just the problem that the parts of the fuselage from the cockpit area show canon gun fire holes ... and a few other items not mentioned in this article nor the "international investigation team's report" which excluded some internationals and granted other internationals (Ukraine) special favorrs ... in other words, which was a bad joke rather than an investigation. Ever heard of importance of motive in an investigation? Who had a motive? who actually tried to benefit from the crime?
