Boeing 777 shot down

Speaking of the Daily Mail, I found it very interesting that they reported Putin as being on a flight as well on Thursday 17th July, and that he was "returning from the World Cup"... no mention of BRICS and the landmark agreement between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, to start up a global development bank, rival to the World Bank/IMF. Which was the real reason he was there (in Brazil) and which the Western media is trying not to mention too much. World Cup my arse.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of the Daily Mail, I found it very interesting that they reported Putin as being on a flight as well on Thursday 17th July, and that he was "returning from the World Cup"... no mention of BRICS and the landmark agreement between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, to start up a global development bank, rival to the World Bank/IMF. Which was the real reason he was there (in Brazil) and which the Western media is trying not to mention too much. World Cup my arse.

Also Russia bombed out of the world cup on June 26th...
 
Putin attended a few games after - can't remember which exactly - but camera panned over him a few times in the crowd. IIRC atleast 2 of the Argentina games.

That's well and good that he chose to watch a few games while he was there on his very important business trip. But it's the business trip he was there for, which I'm positive the writers (and editors) of the Daily Mail are well aware of (even if it is tempting to wish to believe otherwise...).
 
Which was the real reason he was there (in Brazil) and which the Western media is trying not to mention too much. World Cup my arse.

im sure you think this is because all the western media is part of some conspiracy but its more that it is of no interest to the people who buy their articles.
 
im sure you think this is because all the western media is part of some conspiracy but its more that it is of no interest to the people who buy their articles.

By that token, we'd be seeing headlines like:

"Cameron returns from the hairdresser."

"Milliband visits his auntie."

No. They didn't even have to go into detail about it ("Putin was returning from BRICS meeting", there, simple), so consciously replacing the real reason he was there, with "World Cup", is what makes it interesting.
 
By that token, we'd be seeing headlines like:

"Cameron returns from the hairdresser."

"Milliband visits his auntie."

No. They didn't even have to go into detail about it ("Putin was returning from BRICS meeting", there, simple), so consciously replacing the real reason he was there, with "World Cup", is what makes it interesting.

errr why would you be seeing headlines like that?:confused:


seriously why would you?

how do you get from

"the general newspaper buying public finds international government facilitated banking tedious"


to

"public wants to know that Milliband has visited his auntie"


I'm curious about the mental journey you took to get there.


No. They didn't even have to go into detail about it ("Putin was returning from BRICS meeting", there, simple), so consciously replacing the real reason he was there, with "World Cup", is what makes it interesting.


not really, he was at the world cup, which is more interesting to their readers.
 
errr why would you be seeing headlines like that?:confused:


seriously why would you?

how do you get from

"the general newspaper buying public finds international government facilitated banking tedious"


to

"public wants to know that Milliband has visited his auntie"


I'm curious about the mental journey you took to get there.

Don't know why the very simple point has evaded you, but if you really need an explanation:

Putin, like Cameron and Milliband, is a politician not a professional football player. The readers of the Daily Mail would therefore have no problem reading, "Putin was returning from a BRICS meeting," or "Putin was returning from talks with Brazil, China, India and South Africa."

If your claim that the Daily Mail only ever puts things in non-political terms for their readers were true, then they'd be coming up with headlines like those where Cameron or Milliband were concerned, instead of relating what political events or statements they had been involved with or issued. Plainly, that is not the case.

Hope this helps. ;)
 
No. They were Russian troops pretending to be sepratists. Sepratists don't have and cannot use such military hardware.

So essentially you are saying that the crew were highly trained therefore knew it was a passenger plane....

You are emplying that the Plane was shot down by Putins orders... Well question is, what has he gained from it or hoped to gain? :confused::confused:
 
No. They were Russian troops pretending to be sepratists. Sepratists don't have and cannot use such military hardware.

That scenario simply doesn't make sense to me.

If you murder someone, you don't walk home with the murder weapon.

If you rape someone, you don't walk home with your piece hanging out.

If you blow down 300 innocent people, you don't cover a BUK in some tarpaulin so everyone knows it's a BUK and put it on the back of a green painted 18 wheeler so everyone knows it's military, and then drive it all the way back to Russia so everyone knows it's Russian. You simply do not do that under any circumstances whatsoever, unless you absolutely want the world to know think it was you.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of the Daily Mail, I found it very interesting that they reported Putin as being on a flight as well on Thursday 17th July, and that he was "returning from the World Cup"... no mention of BRICS and the landmark agreement between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, to start up a global development bank, rival to the World Bank/IMF. Which was the real reason he was there (in Brazil) and which the Western media is trying not to mention too much. World Cup my arse.

He was a guest of FIFA at the World Cup Final, being as Russia hosts the next WC in 2018. The BRICS International Development Bank was announced the day after the WC Final IIRC, which I read about ... in the western media (BBC to be precise).
 
That scenario simply doesn't make sense to me.

If you murder someone, you don't walk home with the murder weapon.

If you rape someone, you don't walk home with your piece hanging out.

If you blow down 300 innocent people, you don't cover a BUK in some tarpaulin so everyone knows it's a BUK and put it on the back of a green painted 18 wheeler so everyone knows it's military, and then drive it all the way back to Russia so everyone knows it's Russian. You simply do not do that under any circumstances whatsoever, unless you absolutely want the world to know think it was you.

:confused:

Of course it makes sense - take it back to Russia where it can't be examined and confirmed as the system that fired the missile that downed MH017. As long as you don't admit responsibility it seems that there'll always be plenty of gullible idiots who will pretend impartiality while defending Russia.
 
Back
Top Bottom