XPost: soc.culture.china, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.russian   
   XPost: soc.culture.latin-america, rec.sport.tennis, soc.culture.iraq   
   XPost: soc.culture.palestine   
   From: acoustic@panix.com   
      
   I find Obama's statements on the downing of the MH17 un acceptable.   
      
   1) Obama clearly has in mind as culprits the rebels who have been   
   shooting down Kievan planes in the area and implies that the shooting   
   was a deliberate and pre-meditated act, with the knowledge that it was   
   a civilian jet.  There is zero evidence that the rebels had any plan   
   to shoot down a plane full of civilians, whether it was Ukrainians or   
   foreigners.  And there is nothing to gain but much to lose for them to   
   commit such an act.   
      
   2) Even though it is far from certain that the rebels were responsible   
   for the shooting and bringing down the plane, the rebels have been   
   fighting an existential war in which they have no planes at their   
   disposal while Kiev's army has all kinds, including "ground-attack"   
   planes and large military transport planes, at its disposal.   
      
   So, in my opinion, if the rebels were firing at planes that flew over   
   the increasingly tightened areas that were still under their control,   
   it was rather human for them to fight what they thought was a fair   
   fight in order to survive.  I mean every Kievan plane the rebels are   
   able to shoot down necessarily improve their chances of fighting back.   
   That is important in a warfare.  Who can blame them?   
      
   Remember that Poroshenko had called off all negotiations with the   
   rebels.  Poroshenko was, after the stunning recapture of Slavyansk,   
   expecting an imminent total victory in the rest of the troubled   
   regions, talking about momentum and all.   
      
   Poroshenko had made it abundantly clear that he wanted nothing less   
   than a total, unconditional surrender from the rebels, something   
   pretty hard for me to imagine, given the latter's ties to the regions   
   and the lives that have been lost in their fierce struggle for   
   self-determination.   
      
   So, if Obama wants the war to stop in the east of Ukraine - and   
   immediately - why does he not call on Poroshenko to stop his   
   "anti-terrorist" operation?  What kind of behavior is it for a   
   government to incessantly shell its cities and deploy its air force   
   to bomb its own people?   
      
   Who has the war planes?  Who has control over electricity and water   
   for the regions?  Who has the access and numerical superiority?  And   
   who has been incessantly shelling the cities and killing the   
   civilians?   
      
   3) As for a mistaken shot, history has recorded several prominent ones   
   that include both the United States as well as Ukraine itself.  How   
   soon has Obama forgotten about the 290 Iranian civilians who perished   
   because our missile blew their plane out of the sky over the Persian   
   Gulf?  Even in the light most favorable to our military adventurism,   
   i.e., even if it was treated as an accident connected to our guntoting   
   adventure half-way around the world from home, there is no reason for   
   Obama to pretend that we are such a noble people to call what we know   
   little about in Ukraine as an "attack" and "an outrage of unspeakable   
   proportions"!   
      
   As for collateral damages in a conflict of a military nature, haven't   
   we done enough outrages for decades against people from the people on   
   the Korean peninsula, to the Indochinese people, to the Iranians, the   
   Iraqis, the Afghans, the Libyans, the Serbs, and the Latin-Americans?   
      
   Even Ukraine's military brought down a Russian civilian jet, killing   
   all its passengers that numbered near a hundred.  That was deemed an   
   accident.  It was done during a military drill over the Black Sea that   
   NATO has been doing a lot lately.  So, using your logic, Mr. Obama,   
   why should we call on all countries to stop their military drills so   
   that the outrage of snuffing out some 100 innocent civilians lives   
   would not happen again.   
      
   And how has Obama's weekly drone-assassination program worked out in   
   defeating al Qaeda?   
      
   Given what is happening in Syria, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in   
   Libya, there is no evidence that killing a 16 year-old American boy   
   and his Yemini friends of comparable age, just because his father was   
   a fiery radical Islamic preacher, was a real outrage, a real "crime   
   against humanity of unspeakble proportion".  Why don't you stop it   
   before you cynically point figners at others?  Why don't you tell your   
   Vice President to sever his daily stewardship of the Kievan president   
   before you can speak freely about stopping the war in east Ukraine?   
      
   In fact, according to the former Iraqi vice President who has been   
   forced into exile from the Maliki government, al Qaeda is beside the   
   point.  It was our policy in Iraq that made the ISIS resurgence   
   inevitable.  We killed too many Sunni Iraqis and that's why ISIS has   
   so much support in Iraq right now.  We destroyed Iraq and what is our   
   excuse to continue to have the green zone in Baghdad, knowing how much   
   the Iraqis are holding us responsible?   
      
   And why are we dragging our feet in Afghanistan when we keep killing   
   innocent civilians just to hold on to Bagram?   
      
   So why is Obama beating his chest and talking about "attack" as if it   
   was intentional and premeditated and about an "outrage ofunspeakable   
   proportion"?   
      
   Is it because he has already taken the prejudicial attitude toward the   
   Ukrainian people that their Russian speakers don't count and that this   
   tragedy involving the hapless nation of Malaysia would be an excellent   
   excuse for Washington to finish off the Russian speaking people in   
   Ukraine?  Of course, it is.  Obama's VP Joe Biden has been advising   
   Kiev's military junta 24/7 and his son is reaping millions for   
   providing "legal advice" to Ukraine's energy company.  Talking about   
   conflict of interests, how can Obama's "outrage" be taken seriously by   
   any independent-minded third parties?   
      
   lo yeeOn   
      
   1) Washington is not clean, even as far as shooting down civilian jets   
   in the middle of the Persian Gulf, tens of thousands of miles from our   
   land.   
      
     Tod Robberson / Editorial Writer   
     trobberson@dallasnews.com   
     11:14 am on July 17, 2014   
     http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/07/did-russi   
   -shoot-down-a-malasian-passenger-plane-over-ukraine.html/   
      
     It's entirely possible this was an accident. Recall that in July   
     1988, the USS Vincennes was patrolling the Persian Gulf when its   
     missiles downed an Iranian passenger jet, killing all 290 civilians   
     on board.  It was inexcusable, even as an accident.   
      
   2) Obama speaks of "outrage of unspeakable proportion"   
      
   http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28378388   
      
   US President Barack Obama has said a surface-to-air missile fired from   
   a rebel-held area in east Ukraine brought down Malaysia Airlines   
   flight MH17.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)