EPA chief McCarthy
Posted on 11/05/2014 8:34:24 AM PST by se99tp
The début of the new printed newspaper in the era of the digital domination, which shrank or eliminated conventional centuries old media must come as a big surprise.
Last Saturday the first issue of “Australian National Review” enriched the offer of the political magazines available in the Australian newsstands. The owner of the new title is the Australian “entrepreneur”, “financial advisor” and “educator” Mr. Jamie McIntyre, who now decided also took role of publisher.
In his attempt to portray himself as pro-Russian Mr. McIntyre is ignoring views of significant percentage of Russian population. He seems to be satisfied with the opinions and reports from Kremlin and pro-Kremlin media.
(…)
In fact the publisher of the Australian National Review consciously or not seems to continue infamous tradition of reproduction of propaganda's slogans and imitation of its specific language.
In 1962 Australian publicist Wilfred Burchett, published series of articles that included levied accusations against the United States. Among them was the charge that American forces were using chemical and biological weapons in South Vietnam….
(Excerpt) Read more at ccdreport.blogspot.com.au ...
EPA chief McCarthy
Thanks for posting this.
I wonder how much Kremlin funding it is getting?
Why did an airliner fly perfectly over the center of a warzone where multiple planes had recently been shot down including a military cargo plane at 23,000 feet?
Didn’t this defy common sense?
Why did Malaysian crew protest the route and some of them traded shifts to avoid being on the flight if it wasn’t?
The Donetsk/Luhansk warzone is a truly tiny part of Ukraine, it would only take a minute and a small amount of fuel to divert around.
Why have the tapes with Ukrainian air traffic control been hidden away instead of released?
Shouldn’t part of the blame be assessed to the airline that made the decision to fly right over the warzone, and the Ukrainian air traffic which directed them over it?
How about the people who made the decision to simply raise the air ceiling instead of directing traffic around the warzone?
Shouldn’t the punishment for whoever did the shooting down of the airliner be the same as what was done to the USA in 1998 and Ukraine in 2001 when they both shot accidentally shot down passenger planes?
It isn’t Russian propaganda to ask common sense questions.
‘’Russian propaganda to ask common sense questions’
As long as it is labeled as such, in big red letters....
You say airlines shouldn’t have been there...........
I say terrorist guys with missles, guns, tanks, etc,
shouldn’t have been on the loose tearing up Donbass......
but take their grievances to the ballot box,,,,
To the best of my knowledge international airlines had information that neither terrorists nor Ukrainian soldiers are not using high altitude weapons. In fact until that day no BUK missile was fired.
Analogous situation was during the war of Hezbollah with Israel in 2006. None of the military’s or fighting group would use high altitude weaponry.
On that day the Malaysian plane was flying several miles away from the territory where actual fighting was taking place. Pilots and the traffic controllers did everything possible to lead the plane outside of dangerous area. Unfortunately noone knew that terrorists where operating also in other regions…. And here the responsibility about passing information to IATA and other agencies is on Russians since they seemed to have the up-to-date information at that time.
It is question whether is there any such a strong link.
The content looks very amateurish although it can appeal to people who are interested in sensations. This newspaper plays role of support of Kremlin views in Australian public debate.
Your welcome. Thank you for your interest.
“To the best of my knowledge international airlines had information that neither terrorists nor Ukrainian soldiers are not using high altitude weapons. “
That’s not true.
Only 3 days before the Malaysian flight was shot down, a military cargo plane was shot down at an altitude of 21,000 feet in this area. That is well beyond the range of manpads and should be considered high altitude.
Why are you using the word “terrorist”?
“Pilots and the traffic controllers did everything possible to lead the plane outside of dangerous area. “
This is also completely untrue.
They didn’t do anything at all to lead it outside of the dangerous area, the path is a straight line right over the center of rebel controlled territory.
The costs for a slight diversion around it would have been minimal — the warzone is a truly tiny portion of Ukraine.
There was no diversion at all.
Sending the flight over the warzone defied common sense and was partially to blame for the tragedy.
This is from Business Insider based on Reuters (I can't find this particular wire): "Since the beginning of the fighting in Ukraine, 10 aircraft (five Mi-24 Hind, two Mi-8 Hip helicopters, one An-2, one An-30 and the Il-76 at Luhansk) have been shot down by the local militia using portable surface-to-air missile systems."
IL-76 was downed shortly after take off from Luhansk.
Another source says explains that on June 6 terrorists shot down AN-30. link
But the fligh path of the Malaysian plane was few miles away from Luhansk.
Why are you using the word “terrorist”?
I could use word "criminals" in regard to these bands but I think the more adequate word is terrorists sponsored by Kremlin/GRU (as everybody knows).
This is also completely untrue. They didn’t do anything at all to lead it outside of the dangerous area, the path is a straight line right over the center of rebel controlled territory. The costs for a slight diversion around it would have been minimal — the warzone is a truly tiny portion of Ukraine.
The flight path was not secretly designed. I would encourage you to read the official pre-report by the Dutch investigators. It is written that the flight path was considered as safe according to the international aviation standards. This is what I meant when I said "they did everything what they could to provide security".
Sending the flight over the warzone defied common sense and was partially to blame for the tragedy.
On this altitude nothing happened before in this area. Until the moment of tragedy/crime the cruising altitude was considered safe by international community.
You have your facts all wrong.
Again, only 3 days before the Malaysian plane was shot down, a military cargo plane was shot down at 21,000 feet.
That is high altitude, far beyond the reach of portable AA systems.
“Ukraine’s minister of defense, Valeriy Heletey, said the plane was flying at 6,500 meters, or more than 21,000 feet, well beyond the reach of the shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles the rebels are known to have used before.”
Your claim that only portable AA systems were used before the Malaysian crash is now thoroughly debunked.
“It is written that the flight path was considered as safe according to the international aviation standards. “
That’s false. IATA did not make any independent assessment about the safety of the flight route, they simply conveyed the decision of Ukraine air traffic officials to raise the flight ceiling instead of avoiding the area.
And that decision is a big scandal, and partly to blame for the tragedy. Of course it wasn’t safe. Lots of airlines decided to avoid the area by policy, including all USA airlines. So no, it wasn’t considered safe by the international community.
The Malaysian flight crew protested the route and several traded shifts to avoid it. They obviously didn’t consider it safe.
“According to well-placed Malaysia Airlines sources, at least two cabin crew swapped shifts so they would not be on MH17, specifically because they were worried about the flightpath. The Mail on Sunday has been told worried pilots consulted air traffic controllers in Malaysia and also made an informal approach to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). But still Malaysia Airlines did not divert the route, unlike other carriers.
British Airways as well as all US airlines, Lufthansa, Air France and Qantas, were already avoiding the war zone in Ukraine, adding an extra 20 minutes’ flight time, and there is growing pressure on Malaysia Airlines to explain why it did not follow suit.”
(Note that the 20 minute figure is the cost of avoiding Ukraine entirely — the warzone is a tiny part of Ukraine and could have been easily avoided at a much lower cost)
Common sense would have been to divert air traffic around the war zone instead of simply raising the air ceiling.
“But the flight path of the Malaysian plane was few miles away from Luhansk. “
You’re also wrong about that.
The plane crashed before it got to Luhansk, but the flight path would have taken it right over it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.