There Goes the Guardian, Lying About Ukraine…Again!
Interesting response to the Bellingcat claims posted here the other day. Also notes other instances when Guardian reporting has not been as objective as one might hope. The author suggests media outlets who helped disinform us into the disaster that was the Iraq War should think twice about pushing the warmonger line on us yet again. NOTE: President Putin is offering me a bonus of 100 rubles for every 
that appears in this thread, so don't hold back.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/20/the-guardian-lying-about-ukraine-again/
by ERIC DRAITSER
WEEKEND EDITION FEBRUARY 20-22, 2015
The western media is busily trying to prop up their failed narrative of “Russian aggression” in Ukraine in a desperate attempt to legitimize their consciously deceitful reporting. To do so, they are now relying not on experts or western intelligence reports, but a discredited blogger and his corporate media chums.
On February 17, 2015, The Guardian ran a story with the headline “Russia shelled Ukrainians from within its own territory, says study.” The title alone is enough to convince many casual observers that yes, the mainstream media reporting on the civil war in Ukraine has been correct all along. You see, it’s all because of Russian aggression, or so the meme would go. But closer analysis of this story, and the key players involved, should cause any reasonably intelligent and logical person to seriously doubt the veracity of nearly every aspect of the story.
Let’s begin first with the headline and subhead which, as anyone in media knows, is often all that will be read by many readers. The headline leads with a conclusion: Russia shelled Ukraine from within Russian territory. Simple. Clear. Why bother reading further? Well, in reality, the article both overtly and tacitly admits that the so called “study” (more on that later) has not reached that clear conclusion, not even close. Here are some key phrases sprinkled throughout the piece that should give pause to any serious-minded political observer or analyst.
Despite the declaration in the headline, a close reader encounters phrases such as “near conclusive proof,” “estimated trajectories,” “likely firing positions,” and other ambiguous phrases that are more suggestive than they are declarative. In other words, these are mere rhetorical flourishes designed to lead casual, uninformed readers to make conclusions that are simply not backed up by the evidence.
The so called study relied heavily on “crater patterns from satellite photos of three battlefields,” and it is from these crater patterns, and the equally dubious “tyre tracks” that the authors of the study drew their conclusions. However, even the independent military forensics expert contacted by The Guardian “warned that the accuracy of crater analysis in determining direction of fire on the basis of satellite photography was scientifically unproven.”
Indeed, conveniently buried at the end of the long article is the key quote from Stephen Johnson, a weapons expert at the Cranfield Forensic Institute, part of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom who said quite clearly that crater analysis is “highly experimental and prone to inaccuracy.” Mr. Johnson added that “This does not mean there is no value to the method, but that any results must be considered with caution and require corroboration.”
Wait a second. I thought that our dear expert authors of the study had “near conclusive proof” according to the lead paragraphs of the story. When you actually read what the real expert, as opposed to the non-experts who conducted the “study,” has to say, it immediately casts a long shadow of doubt on the entire narrative being propagated by the article. Is The Guardian here guilty of clear manipulation of the story for political purposes? It would seem at best unprofessional and dishonest reporting, at worst it’s outright lying in the service of the agenda of those at the top of the western political establishment.
more...
= new reply since forum marked as read
awww..
tell me to stick it again.
its like 80's cold war talking points are being redistributed, along with attack the messenger. Ive never seen such dedication to making sure we all hate Russia. Too bad I know that US media are the ones who have been lying us into wars for decades. I guess I dont drink the kool aid and Im a terrorist lover
Like living an episode of "The Americans" only with Chinese Slave Labor iPads. It gets harder and harder to understand how Humans have existed for 100,000 years or whatever it is. We need a Stanley Kubrick moment
By the way, if you haven't seen this, the first parts are specifically about the gang of neocons that infiltrated Ronnies first term- Wolfowitz, Kristol etc. The birth of PNAC.
Free to watch online and/or download- from the BBC "The Power of Nightmares"
https://archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares-Episode1BabyItsColdOutside
3 hours, 3 parts starting with "Baby it's cold outside"
It's a 5 star documentary- well worth the time. Typically British Excellence.
But in all honesty there's alot of misinformation being put out on both sides of the Ukraine issue it wouldn't surprise me to know that a paper put it out
Response to Karmadillo (Original post)
It would be hilarious when an American talks about "Illegal Wars of Aggression" if it wasn't so sad. Sometimes it's as if the last 100 years haven't happened- especially the last 20.
without the overt use of U.S. military force. Often, such operations are tasked to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Regime change has been attempted through direct involvement of U.S. operatives, the funding and training of insurgency groups within these countries, anti-regime propaganda campaigns, coups d'état, and other activities usually conducted as operations by the CIA. These actions were sometimes accompanied by direct military action, such as following the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 and the U.S.-led military invasion of Iraq in 2003.
1 During the Cold War
1.1 Syria 1949
1.2 Iran 1953
1.3 Guatemala 1954
1.4 Tibet 1955–70s
1.5 Indonesia 1958
1.6 Cuba 1959
1.7 Iraq 1960–63
1.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
1.9 Dominican Republic 1961
1.10 South Vietnam 1963
1.11 Brazil 1964
1.12 Ghana 1966
1.13 Chile 1970–73
1.14 Argentina 1976
1.15 Afghanistan 1979–89
1.16 Turkey 1980
1.17 Poland 1980–89
1.18 Nicaragua 1981–90
1.18.1 Destablization through CIA assets
1.18.2 Arming the Contras
2 Since the end of the Cold War
2.1 Iraq 1992–96
2.2 Venezuela 2002
2.3 Iran 2005–present
2.4 Syria 2012–present
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
Now run along, grown ups are talking.
Whatever shall I do now?
I'm sure Pootie Poot is watching this thread to see how much he owes you!
Lol! I haven't counted, but I definitely wouldn't want you to be deprived of your 'payoff'!
Hilarious, isn't it? If you dare to question the propaganda we are constantly subjected to when it comes to 'war', you are 'not a patriot'!
Thanks for the OP. When you see McCain and Inhofe screaming for 'war', you absolutely have to pay attention before we are involved in another one of their 'proxy wars'.
Funny how they push for 'war money', as if we have a bottomless pit of money when at the same time they cut school lunches and other social programs 'because we can't afford them'.
a couple decades ago. I, too, have noticed the necon slant in the "new" Guardian's coverage, particularly of events in Libya and Syria. Now that I'm finally paying attention to the Ukraine, it appears to have an agenda there, as well.
Too bad, it used to be an antidote for the NYT, WaPo, Times of London, Le Monde, etc. Now, they all seem to be owned by Internet tycoons, Saudi sheiks, or reprint articles from each other. 
You neocon are just trying to get us into another war! Because talking about Putin giving weapons to rebels in countries talking to NATO is JUST LIKE LYING ABOUT WMDs!
Or so I'm told.
