world. So what is he 'lying' about in your opinion? You haven't offered much of anything to refute Parry.

desperate undertaking. As Parry is working with his own sources and the public facts (sadly diminished by the USA's curious refusal to release its slam dunk evidence), however, I appreciate his efforts to discover the truth in this matter. President Kennedy learned skepticism was an appropriate tool for evaluating the advice and "evidence" of intelligence agencies and I think we're probably well-served today by continuing to follow his example.

Kremlin, lapping up every crumb of propaganda from the Putin regime with ZERO skepticism.

Not seekers of truth, just willful peddlers of someone else's bullshit.

Parry is reporting what he knows. In regards to MH-17, much of which comes from Der Spiegel and their sources in German intel.

Besides invective towards Parry's readers, you have yet to write what makes you believe that he's not telling the truth. Why?

He has an agenda and forces his pieces to support that agenda. That is not journalism, it's lobbying or issue advocacy.

His writings on the subject are op-ed pieces, not reportage, and viewed as op-ed pieces, are of a very poor quality.

I'd like to learn about it.

Changes not a word of the German intelligence conclusion, does it?

From his insistence that the events in February 2014 constituted a "coup", and that said "coup" was directly orchestrated by western powers.

To his framing of a mob violence incident in Odessa back in May between pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian protesters as a recreation of an extremist one-sided pogrom by the pro-Ukrainian side, without a single mention of the actual facts of that day leading up to the deadly fire.

For whatever reason, he's constantly toed the same exact line as Russian state media and all their claims. I'm not saying necessarily that he's in cahoots with the Kremlin, but he sure has enabled their lies.

performed by newly minted and old guard empirical military interventionists
who see no evil, hear no evil, and smell no evil unless its those appointed
enemies overseas or those leftist extremists round here.
why should torture be a problem when masses are being killed?
Maybe a Hillary Clinton/Ayn Rand ticket for 2016?

Why is Parry such a Liar?

"Germany's intelligence service believes Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by pro-Russian rebels using a missile taken from a Ukraine military base, a German newspaper has reported."

http://www.smh.com.au/world/prorussian-rebels-using-seized-ukrainian-missile-downed-mh17-passenger-plane-says-germany-20141020-118i9u.html


pourmecoffee Heavy check mark @pourmecoffee
Follow
"Go to your room, right now, and never invade another sovereign nation again." (Daniel Dal Zennaro/AP)
3:18 PM - 17 Oct 2014 520 Retweets 466 favorites

Though I think the line was crossed to mendacity some while ago.

I strongly doubt, for instance, the man actually has any sources active in the intelligence community, or even in regular witting contact with people who are.

How Corporate McPravda Gets Us to Believe Lies: Alex Carey: Corporations and Propaganda -- The Attack on Democracy.

Maria Gilardin and Time of Useful Consciousness Radio's news, sources, information, media analysis and criticism are tops.

http://www.tucradio.org/new.html

Robert Parry and ConsortiumNews, too. Don't see too many journalists and news sources covering Gary Webb.

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/10/18/wposts-slimy-assault-on-gary-webb/

What a joke he has become.

Then America isn't to blame for the Contras.

Give me a break.

The story is not over. The Germans need Russian gas. The story is not over.

Gazprom has a lot of influence in Europe.

I have no comments on who the perps were, but my EU/Russia/Ukraine bullshit sniffer started going off again a day or so ago, something is up.

Weekend after next, I think, a bit before ours. Probably accounts for a bit of renewed jockeying....

The loud bloviating, smug statements, and smarmy expressions are not the same as what we get here, but it's similar.

It is only the recent appearance of MH17 stories that are not about body parts and burials, after a long quiet spell since the "cease-fire", with nothing but bickering, threats, and cease-fire violations, and a couple of carefully worded and not very illuminating statements, that leads me to think there may be more to it. And Winter IS coming. And they do seem to have agreed on a gas price.

And especially after they spun up the Mighty Wurlitzer for the plane that was hijacked into the Indian Ocean right before.

When the political birds are suddenly all atwitter, and the "News" organizations are industrious in picking and choosing and slanting the story bits and headlines, I pay attention. I've been wondering all Summer when we were going to find out who brought the plane down, and how. Nothing new. In the last few days, political spokespersons have suddenly discovered the subject again. European and Russian and Ukrainian politicians are making threats and accusations again, (Edit) and suddenly the price of oil is dropping through the floor. But that could be a lot of things, that one.

So, maybe it's nothing. So maybe it's the election.

were fed bullshit woven out of whole turds and ate it up.....but no apologies of course, the Big Lie will linger.

Same thing we objective folks have been saying for months, that always was the prime suspicion.

Edit, sorry, I thought you were responding to the current news, not rehashing old news.

Parry claiming the missile came from a "Ukrainian military base" intentionally distorts the situation by making it sound as if the Ukrainian military shot the plane down.

He's being incredibly disingenuous and shows a severe lack of ethical journalism.

how do rebels fire an enemy missile from the enemy base?

The missile did "come" from a base, from which it was seized, very clear.


What is unclear?


"But now the narrative has shifted. The German intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst or BND, asserted that while it believes rebels were responsible for shooting down the plane, they supposedly did so with an anti-aircraft battery captured from a Ukrainian military base, according to Der Spiegel."

But immediately in the article summary, Parry says the missile "came" from a Ukrainian base, misleading a casual reader glancing at the piece to think that the Ukrainian military itself shot the plane down, an argument Parry never actually discounts in the entire piece despite not having any evidence to support such a claim.

It's intentional yet subtle manipulation of opinion on Parry's part.

I repeat, what more do you need to know, the rebels stole the missile and negligently fired it?

But Parry's trying to put a flower on a turd by using suggestive language indicating Ukrainian culpability and straw manning by insinuating that most people in the West believed the Russian regular military itself shot down the plane, a theory actually expressed by very few.

though it had to be thought of by many.

A good investigator rules out nothing at an early stage. Pushing a pet theory with low probability though, is tunnel vision, the bane of all investigations.

Sid

"The missile came from an ukrainian base." insinuates that it was fired from an ukrainian base.

The Ukrainian government not only did not fire the missile that destroyed the plane, it is fighting the people who did launch the missile.

BTW, Where did $5 billion go? No audits? No one cares?

This is one of the 'zombie facts' that people trot out, for no more apparent reason than to identify themselves as people without any serious grasp of the situation, with nothing worthwhile to say about it....

What was it used for. What qualified them for aid?

Did the aid escalate recently or was it "evenly allocated" since 1991? Unless we saw the figures we have no way of knowing how recently the bulk of the 5 Billion might have been spent and for what purpose.

That's still a lot of money for a country of no strategic interest to us even if it was evenly distributed over a couple of decades.

First, there was the delicate question of the Soviet nuclear weapons remaining on its territory. It was considered a good idea to have Ukraine leave them go, and some sweetener doubtless was advisable.

Second, the general state of countries formerly under Soviet rule was decidedly below standard at the time, and everything from ecological concerns to economic function and infrastructure needed improvement.

Third, there are real questions of political competence in societies that have emerged from totalitarian rule, and at least the common view is that the more democratic a polity, the better in terms of peace and stability.

Success is another question, aside at least from the fact that Ukraine did agree to give up the weapons (and its government is probably kicking itself for that soundly now). Ukraine has not made a very successful transition from Soviet rule to sound political democracy or stable prosperity. Both these have been held at bay by early rising oligarchs in a loose and bickering kleptocracy --- not unlike that which has succeeded Soviet rule in Russia itself.

In terms of U.S. budgeting, it is far from a lot of money. I hesitate to try and calculate quickly in my head what sums the United States government has expended over the last twenty-odd years, but I would be amazed to learn it was less than something on the order of fifty trillions: five billions is %0.01 of fifty trillions, a barely detectable proportion.

We don't have the money to meddle anymore. The meddling is costly when your country is spent out... And, our meddling has increasingly done more harm than good. Freedom & Democracy sound great to MIC...but, they've had their turn and the list of failures grows long. The Death, Destruction and Dislocation is not what most Americans bargained on along with the cost.

There may be blood lust whipped up for a time here because we look for excuses as to why our country is in the mess it is with massive surveillance, militarized police and Wall Street cooking up it's next disaster for bailout. We love our sports and demonizing the "other teams"....but, eventually that ends badly. When one destroys freedom and democracy at home to bring it elsewhere with disastrous results...what is there left for us to rebuild with? The conflict is now here...with events like Ferguson and others. You remember the 60's? It's in the air..... The haunt of those issues that weren't fully resolved is back again. The challenges are far more daunting this time around. And we won't win the endless wars...but, we could lose our souls and more by trying.

That was really my point. And, perhaps you might agree on some of that...or not.

If someone thinks blood lust can be or is being stirred up here over it they are sadly mistaken.

The problem with the basic line of analysis is that it attributes agency solely to the U.S. and its ruling elite: only the U.S. acts, all other react, whether in submission or defiance, but always doing as they were left no choice to do by the U.S. and its ruling elite. It is an incredibly blinkered way of looking at the world. Everyone acts, everyone has their own agency. In regard to Ukraine, it simply is a fact that Russia has an expansionist, imperialist, and revanchist agenda of its own, which it is acting on in 'the near abroad'. The key to its actions are its conviction that the West will under no circumstances actually fight, will never oppose it openly with military force, no matter to what degree Russia employes and threatens force. And they are right; the idea the U.S. or NATO is 'looking for' a war in east Europe is a sick joke; that is the one thing they are determined to avoid at almost any cost.

A thought experiment for you, Ma'am:

Mr. Putin was recently quoted as follows, speaking of U.S. policy in Europe at present: “We hope that our partners will realize the recklessness of attempts to blackmail Russia, will remember the risks that a spat between major nuclear powers incurs for strategic stability.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/10/15/putin-to-u-s-stop-the-blackmail.html

What do you think the reaction ought to be to a statement like that?

What do you think the reaction would be, or should be, were President Obama to say something like this: 'We hope our partners will realize the recklessness of trying to change the map of Europe by force majeure, will remember the risks that a spat between major nuclear powers incurs for strategic stability.'"

Except that you got my "Blood Lust" comment wrong. I meant that Obama's approval ratings are UP because he followed John McCain and Neocons advice and his "General" Martin Dempsey prepared Americans for Endless war because of "ISIS/ISIL" (which Kerry got tongue tied over trying to figure out which it was and State Department Spokesperson Psaki ....also had trouble with the new definition of is it ISIS/IS/ISIL) and it was a Hoot to watch them stumble with the "New Dictates" coming from WHO? When the Islamic States call it by a totally different Name. (I'm not getting into that because I'd have to go back and give you links, don't have time)...but we really need to "clean out our DOS" there are some really incompetent folks working there. They seem like recent college graduates who got "ahead of themselves" rather than "Diplomatic Spokespersons with knowledge of "Culture and Seasoning on Issues" from some years of experience in the field.

Here's something I'd be interested in your views on that I watched last night. Feel free to PM me if this thread goes to archives.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12485

BTW....if you lived close enough..would love to have you over for Dinner or meet you somewhere for a Drink. But....please don't bring those folks you've been hanging around with lately. They would NOT be welcome because they don't believe in Discussion of Differing Viewpoints Amongst Friends. I don't know why you are hanging out with them...but..."Politics makes Strange Bed Fellows." Just saying.....






---------

I agree with a great deal of Mr. Buzgalin's views as expressed here. He seems a sensible and humane fellow.

But I note that you have not commented on the two quotes, one actual, one a concocted mirror of the actual one. I am genuinely curious what your view might be.

Please feel free to do that. But, I might not get back tonight...

I'm glad you took the opportunity to watch the "You Tube" of that post that I linked. I thought it interesting also.

BTW did you ever get the You Tube of Putin's View of Russia Going Forward from WAY BACK? I have it somewhere in my bookmarks. I thought it interesting his view. It may have been fluff and puff like all politicians (including our latest with Obama) but...his view of what he saw for Russia was interesting in that it was very altruistic. As was Obama's when he ran for President. But, Putin put forward a Business Interest Prospect (which was very Enviro/Left Thinking Friendly)...... whereas Obama was dealing with a FINANCIAL CRISIS....which was a "Bad Hand of Cards"...yet BOTH of them deal with OLIGARCHS!

I've often wanted to post that speech of Putin here on DU when I found it a couple months ago. But, there really isn't an environment for that kind of post here on "DU" these days..is there?

The United States and Russia respect Ukraine's territorial integrity and provide aid, and Ukraine surrenders Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil.

Plus the success of the Marshall Plan indicated that countries in dire straits benefit from an infusion of money to rebuild their infrastructure.

Circumstances have changed. We can't seem to get beyond that. Most of what we rebuilt after we destroyed it didn't lead to success or freedom and democracy in our adventures from Vietnam onward. Even Korea has not been a success (country is still split and dependent on our troops and aid in the South) and that goes back to 1950's. Add, Iraq, Egypt (yes we had something to do with Arab Spring), Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia have hardly been anything like a Marshall Plan for success because the circumstances are so different.

And, Ukraine isn't ending up working out quite the way we thought, either.

NOW...we look forward to "endless wars."

But here is a link:

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/08/was-putin-targeted-for-mid-air-assassination/

Exclusive: Official Washington’s conventional wisdom on the Malaysia Airlines shoot-down blames Russian President Putin, but some U.S. intelligence analysts think Putin, whose plane was flying nearby, may have been the target of Ukrainian hardliners who hit the wrong plane, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

U.S. intelligence analysts are weighing the possibility that the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was a botched attempt by extremists in the Ukrainian government to assassinate Russian President Vladimir Putin whose aircraft was returning from South America the same day, according to a source briefed on the U.S. investigation.



I seriously like his trying to lay this twaddle of on 'U.S. intelligence analysts'....

Mr. Parry has, in his commentaries on Ukraine, showed himself to be ignorant, sensationalist, and dishonest. He has demonstrated such faulty judgement that there is no reason whatever to treat his comments seriously: one may know from the by-line that they do not contain sound analysis or accurate description, just as one knows from seeing the bylines of Farrah or Beck, or La Rouche.

have deleted. 's

What I was getting at is that the Russia/Ukraine situation has seemed to put some people here on opposite sides. And going after Robert Parry for reporting because he's not blaming Russia for everything to do with Ukraine is part of the problem. It's always Russia vs Ukraine. It smacks of tribalism with people fighting over taking a side with one country or the other rather than discussion, from many points of view, the issues involved. The trashing by some of those honestly trying to understand the issues between Ukraine, Russia and the EU and Neocon involvement and who read many sources are constantly hounded that there's something wrong with their sources rather than addressing the issues of what the sources are discussing and why. How is Attacking reporters and fellow DU'ers helpful?

Shortly after the MH17 disaster, Parry came out with a piece where he put forth a theory that the Ukrainian military had shot down the plane because they somehow mistook it for Vladimir Putin's presidential plane. It was a theory so logically bereft and so laughable that I'm amazed anyone here took it seriously....except some actually did.

And yet, Robert Parry has never retracted that ludicrous claim. Which pretty much makes his word on MH17 completely bankrupt.

Robert Parry is a jackass whose work on the Ukrainian crisis is highly non-credible. My ethnicity has nothing to do with making that assessment.

conclusion that the separatists fired a missile at MH-17. What is it that justifies such faith in unreleased evidence?

it was exonerating Pooty Poot.

would, no doubt, be an excellent person to explain why so many posters here seem willing to embrace its conclusion regarding the separatists and a missile fired at MH 17. Thank you in advance for your input.

Pooty Poot?

You certainly did not object to someone embracing the BND's findings regarding the origin of the missile when it was your hero Parry doing so in his usual pathetic attempt to carry water for the Kremlin

It hardly takes Sherlock Holmes to figure out that when a rocket is fired from the territory controlled by the only people who have been shooting at airplanes in the area.

The only alternative to blaming Pooty Poot's proxies is to embrace the batshit insane theory that Ukraine intentionally massacred the people on that plane.

Or, in the case of Pooty Poot's pathetic poodle Parry, the hilarious claim that Ukraine was trying to murder Putin.

respond to my question, please feel free to do so. Maybe you could put a star in the "Reply title" field so I'll know you're not just engaged in increasing your post count and I should actually read what you have to say.

First, most entered this thread to deride the ludicrous twist in Mr. Parry's account of the German report, one more example of the distortions and sensationalism he presents in his opinion pieces on the subject --- they are not, repeat not, reportage, but simply op-ed pieces, and of very low quality.

Second, as much comment on this report, in this and other threads has noted, the German report is pretty much what most objective observers concluded had happened in the first hours of the event's being reported, and no one anywhere has produced since then anything which compels reconsideration of that initial conclusion: secessionists fired a missile, thinking as they did they were firing at a Ukrainian military transport, but instead, they were firing at a civil airliner, and that is what they hit.

it's in line with pre-existing opinions of "objective" observers. That doesn't seem like a very strong foundation for believing the BND. What I was wondering was do they have a history of reliability outside of occasions when their unseen reports coincide with pre-existing opinions? Something like they said "X" and the evidence later did/did not show "X" to be correct.

Regarding your feelings on Parry, it's fair to say we're not going to agree on that one, but it does seem the unseen BND report appears to coincide with Parry's pre-existing opinion that Russia was not involved in the attack on MH-17, so he would seem justified, at least by the measuring stick we seem to be adopting here for reliability, in writing the article the way he did.

Their latest report seems in agreement with my view. I did not need their input to reach my view, nor do I need their corroboration to continue in it.

I am certain, again independently of the present German report, that the whole rigmarole of various 'false flag' scenarios presented by Russia, and by commentators like Parry and Zuesse, is trash on a par with claims no plane struck the Pentagon and that no one was really shot in the school at Sandy Hook.

In regard to Russian responsibility, all the German report says is that they did not supply the particular missile fired. It says nothing about influence, nothing about whether the crew had received training, or direction, from Russia, nor does it speak to whether it was functioning under a command structure directed or influenced by Russian 'special service' types, whom we both know to be active in the military structures of the secessionist militias. You can find readily here numerous threads and posts holding the United States responsible for actions of the Ukrainian armed forces, simply because the posters claim the United States called the present government in Kiev into being, and sustains it by diplomatic support and economic assistance; I can recall it even being claimed early on by a Russian official that whoever downed the airliner, Kiev was to blame because its attempts to re-assert governing authority in the east led to the fighting amid which the airliner was shot down. With ascriptions of responsibility like this being flung about wholesale in one direction, it is pretty hard to claim Russia bears no responsibility for the actions of its client secessionists, militias it created, armed, and set to action with assistance of covert operatives. And it is impossible to say honestly the German document, as reported, 'clears Russia'.

And please do not attempt to convince me you do not believe Russian 'special service' types have been operating in the east of Ukraine from the earliest days of the secessionist outbreaks.

Maybe one more reason to wait for visible evidence instead of the unseen conclusive proof supposedly in the possession of the US and Germany?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-real-story-of-curveball-how-german-intelligence-helped-justify-the-us-invasion-of-iraq-a-542840.html

The Real Story of 'Curveball': How German Intelligence Helped Justify the US Invasion of Iraq

<edit>

As is now clear, the seating was auspicious. The German secret service actually had more to do with providing justification for the US invasion of Iraq than it would now like to admit. Chancellor Gerhard Schröder -- like his colleagues in Paris and Moscow -- was a vehement opponent of the war. But of all people, his own agents provided Washington with the key bit of “evidence” which helped fuel the war hysteria: the story about the mobile biological weapons laboratories. It was information that helped justify a war that has cost more than 500,000 lives and plunged the Middle East into chaos. And this information came from just one man: “Curveball.”

He was, as Tenet said then, an "invaluable asset." Today, it is clear that "Curveball" is an imposter, a fabulist, a man who, in the US, is referred to as the "con man who caused the war." "Curveball," writes spy-thriller author Frederick Forsyth, is responsible for the "biggest fiasco in the history of secret intelligence."

Germany's BND is the agency responsible for this man. And the most important question surrounding "Curveball" still hasn't been answered to this day. Why does German intelligence remain loyal to its source?

more...