US: No evidence of direct Russian link to plane

DeadSeraph:

Show me where the U.S said Russia had no involvement.

the U.S. had no direct evidence that the missile used to shoot down the passenger jet came from Russia.

Seems pretty legit to me.

What say you?

DeadSeraph:

I asked you to show me where the U.S said Russia had no involvement in the incident and you posted a quote from the article. If you want to be taken seriously and have a 2 way conversation here, at least try to be honest.

Umm, did I miss something?

Look at above quote:

the U.S. had no direct evidence that the missile used to shoot down the passenger jet came from Russia.

. . . which is how I presented that Russia was NOT involved in the downing of MH17.

If you're DONE crying over spilt milk, perhaps we can continue?








wait, wait, wait. . .

Whats your point? The argument is that the BUK was supplied to the separatists by the Russians, and was later driven back across the Russian border after they realized they'd shot down a civilian airliner instead of the Ukrainian military transport plane they originally thought they'd bagged.

You got A LOT of explaining on that ^^^

From one curious mind to another.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Funny how your type always claims we are "sheeple" blinded by western propaganda yet you are completely incapable of questioning the Russian party line. Why is that?

My type? I like you!


You should question why the U.S./Boeing hasn't released ANY sat photos or ANY 'evidence'. . . Yet the 'untrustworthy' Russians have.

. . . and then the U.S. media are BACKTRACKING on their propaganda.

Oh look - another anonymous "whistleblower" being trumpeted as "the truth" on ATS.....

originally posted by: theMediator
I also don't see the motive to why Russians would of done it anyway.

You dont see a motive because the premise is based on only one mindset - The plane was intentionally shot down.

What people are refusing to look at is was it accidentally shot down. People refuse to look at that because it undermines their argument.

originally posted by: SurrenderingAmerica
a reply to: DeadSeraph
You should question why the U.S./Boeing hasn't released ANY sat photos or ANY 'evidence'. . . Yet the 'untrustworthy' Russians have.

well the Russian releases have been drivel - maybe that explains it?

. . . and then the U.S. media are BACKTRACKING on their propaganda.

Such as?

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Turn on your U.S. propaganda. . .

Whoops. I mean 'Ministry of official truth.'


. . . You from the U.S.? If so, turn it on.

They're BACKTRACKING.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
What people are refusing to look at is was it accidentally shot down. People refuse to look at that because it undermines their argument.

Indeed - US officials have today said that they believes the shooting down was a case of mistaken identity - ie no-one targeted the plane thinking it was civilian.

but there's no such thing as a mistake in conspiracy-la-la-land...

a reply to: SurrenderingAmerica
So you should be able to provide an example of that backtracking without any difficulty.....

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul


Next, the U.S. Ministry of truth will reveal that Sat images reflect that 'separatists' were dressed in Ukrainian fatigues.

1yr later, they'll say that the missile was fired in-between the Ukrainian forces & the 'separatists'.

LoL!

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: SurrenderingAmerica
So you should be able to provide an example of that backtracking without any difficulty.....

I've already did.

Don't be lazy if you're in America, turn the BooBTube on. You want me to hold your hand?

a reply to: SurrenderingAmerica

Do you understand the difference between intelligence officials claiming they have no direct evidence that the missile that brought down MH17 was Russian, and the U.S absolving Russia of any involvement in the incident whatsoever? You keep saying "seems pretty legit to me" but there has never been a claim that the Russians WEREN'T involved at all. Only that they have no DIRECT evidence the missile was Russian.

Do you realize how much indirect evidence there is of Russian involvement? Or were the tweets straight from the Russian supported separatists not enough for you? I suppose their accounts were hacked by the CIA? Why? If the U.S wanted a war with Russia they already have more than enough grounds to justify one. It's pretty clear to most that the U.S does not want a war with Russia. They've said so publicly. So why concoct a big conspiracy to pin on the Russians?

Are you claiming the Ukrainians shot down the plane? Did they shoot down their own military planes too? Which is more likely? That a fledgling newly elected Ukrainian government would risk its own legitimacy by shooting down a civilian airliner with 298 people on board, on purpose, in order to pin on the Russians, or that the separatists accidently brought down a plane they thought was a Ukrainian military transport (which they have shot down previously)?

originally posted by: SurrenderingAmerica
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul


Next, the U.S. Ministry of truth will reveal that Sat images reflect that 'separatists' were dressed in Ukrainian fatigues.

1yr later, they'll say that the missile was fired in-between the Ukrainian forces & the 'separatists'.

LoL!

I'm glad you find this all so funny.

This conversation is over.

a reply to: SurrenderingAmerica

HAHAHA thank you for that video, for it brought about some nice boistrous laughter that I needed at this moment! The spectacle known as the MSM here in the west is ludicrous!

I will give them this, it is a suprise that they admitted that much, which is probably not a good sign at all for the fascists in Kiev. I saw a couple people speculating about intelligence ops and how if they begin to fail, you allow those you propped up to take the fall. This could very well be in the works.

Also nice job to the spokesman bringing out the whole Defesnse Support Program, I do not know how secretive it was, but this is the first that I am hearing of this and if it has the capability to prove Russia did not do it, can it not readily identify who did? I mean I am sure Washington really wants to find out who did this, and with that program I am sure they already do!

originally posted by: SurrenderingAmerica
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Turn on your U.S. propaganda. . .

Whoops. I mean 'Ministry of official truth.'


. . . You from the U.S.? If so, turn it on.

They're BACKTRACKING.

ok...

Heads to TV to tune into RT America.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

So soon.

I refuted facts.

Also went head on w/ the 'out of context' line.


Now, gotta go?


Bye, I guess.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If the cigar fits

originally posted by: SurrenderingAmerica
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
Next, the U.S. Ministry of truth will reveal that Sat images reflect that 'separatists' were dressed in Ukrainian fatigues.
.......

so still no actual example of US MSM "back tracking" - I thought you said it was easy, or obvious or something - what's the problem??

originally posted by: SurrenderingAmerica
a reply to: Xcathdra
If the cigar fits

If the cigar fits then it should be easy to show that it fits - why won't you provide and example of this backtracking you say is going on??

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: SurrenderingAmerica
a reply to: Xcathdra
If the cigar fits

If the cigar fits then it should be easy to show that it fits - why won't you provide and example of this backtracking you say is going on??

First:

Don't defend Xcathedra; she's a big girl.

2nd:

Complain to your U.S. Ministry of truth for NOT uploading it fast enough.

. . . Plus, if YOU'RE too lazy to watch, then what else am I supposed to do?

Once they do, you will be the sorest piece of a$$ around ATS. Are you ready??

I bet you got a beautiful smile:

Oh cool, I got a selfie of a Ukie soldier with a BUK:




Public was told that they're wasn't ANY Ukrainian military BUKs.

What happened?