Obama: New sanctions are not the start of new Cold War

Michelle Kosinski takes a look at the new sanctions against Russia that President Obama announced on Tuesday.

[blackturtleshow]

It has not determined that pro-Russian separatists downed the airliner and yet the commentator actually made that assertion. Sloppy journalism much?

[jaymay]

1. Ukraine was never attacked by helicopter's, fighter jets, or bombers by Pro-Russian militant's.

2. Pro-Russian militant's are supposedly untrained civilian's that's not being given weapons or training of any sort from Russia to help further the civil unrest .

3. Why would Ukraine strike down a flying object knowing that they won't be attacked by any sort's of helicopter's, fighter jets or bombers during this civil unrest because the pro-Russian militant's are not trained to utilize any aerial vehicles.

4. The Commercial plane wasn't crossing into Kiev controlled territory which means that the Kiev controlled territory wasn't in any sort of immediate danger from an aerial attack so therefore Kiev wouldn't have a reason to suspect their lives were in danger. The Pro-Russian militant's on the other hand were being attacked by aerial strikes. Therefore the pro-Russian militant's would believe that this flying object is out to cause them immediate danger and so the pro-Russian militant's reacted without taking precautious measures.

5. If Kiev even thought for one second that this large aerial vehicle was out to cause harm to Ukrainian territory and it's people the only forces capable of carrying out such an aerial attack would be trained Russian military forces and Kiev wouldn't dare to attack a Russian military unit especially since they're already having enough trouble taking back Donetsk and Slavyansk from pro-Russian militant's. What type of sense would it make to attack Russian forces and draw them into the conflict and make taking back the country more difficult?  
RT will deny all creditable information coming from the U.S no matter how much sense it makes. Let's also be fair as to say majority of the news stations in America shouldn't be trusted 100% of the time. Sometimes you have to utilize your critical thinking skills to determine the cause and effect of situations. No the U.S hasn't presented 100% factual evidence of the pro-Russian militant's downed this Malaysian flight but, you simplify cannot ignore the evidence presented because all the evidence isn't there.

Here's a logical Example:

 If you had ten pieces of chewing gum and I had zero and when you went to sleep and awoken to see I had 9 pieces of chewing gum and tenth one was missing should you deny I took your bubble gum because all ten pieces weren't in my possession?  

[johndyoung]

Just because he says it, doesn't mean it is the true. I wonder if he knows the definition of "Economic

[ykhwima]

back in the Cold War, we can see that ourselves, politicians wouldn't admit it, in the 1st Cold War, late 1940s, people couldn't admit it either, even today, historians don't agree on which year the 1st Cold War started.

[mustafahish]

This is what a German pilot-cum-air technology expert Peter Haisenko has just published on the subject of the MH17 disaster (my emphases):

‘The misfortune of the Malaysian MH 017 is known to all. The flight
recorder is in England and is being evaluated. What can come of this?
May be more than you want to accept….if you look at the image of
Cockpit-Fragments, this picture is certainly shocking.
Entry And Exit holes from bullets in the area of the Cockpit. This is not speculation, but analysis of clear facts: the cockpit
shows clear evidence of bullet holes. You can see the entry holes and
some exit points. The edges of the bullet holes are bent inwards,
these are much smaller and round in shape. A 30mm calibre. The exit
holes are less well formed and the edges are torn outwards.
Furthermore it is visible that the exit holes have torn the double
aluminium skin and bent them outwards. That is to say, splinters from
inside the cockpit blew through the outside of the cabin. The open
rivets have also been bent outwards….There is only one conclusion one can make, and that is that this: the
aircraft was not hit by a missile. The damage to the aircraft is
exclusively in the cockpit area….

Armour-Piercing Ammunition. Russia has published radar data that a
Ukranian SU 25 was close to MH 017. this corresponds with Spanish air
traffic control that two Ukranian fighter aircraft were in direct
contact with MH 017. Examine the weaponry of the SU 25: it is fitted
out with a 30mm cannon Type GSch-302 /AO-17A, with 250 rounds of
splintering exploding bullets on a belt – shrapnel rounds. The cockpit
of MH 017 was hit from TWO sides, as there are entry and exit holes on
the same side….’
Very compelling stuff, is it not?

Now read this (also German) article by defence expert Bernd Biederman, who offers equally sound reasons why the
shooting down could NOT have been from a surface to air missile:

‘ the shooting down of the Malaysian
Boeing on July 17 in the Eastern Ukraine “could not have been hit by a
surface to air defense missile” .

This is the assessment of retired Colonel Bernd Biedermann in an
article for the daily newspaper published in Berlin “new Germany”
(Thursday edition). Had splinters from a surface to air missile hit
the plane, it would have immediately caught fire, argues the NVA
anti-aircraft missile specialist. His reasoning is because of the
“enormous frictional heat that the splinters generate on penetrating
the fuselage. A single splinter contains the same kinetic energy as a
40-ton freight car hitting the buffers at 60 kilometers per hour.” In
the case of the Malaysian Boeing, scattered fires had broken out after
the impact with the ground, because hot debris from the aircraft had
come in contact with combustible materials.

Biedermann is familiar with Soviet and Russian air defense technology,
he led units in the duty officer system in East Germany and taught at
the Military Academy in the field of anti-aircraft missile troops.’

Articles are beginning to appear across the Web to the effect that Angela Merkel is disturbed by (and growing tired of) the incessant US propaganda being emitted in favour of its energy agenda….and so we must perhaps in turn view these articles in the light of her alleged new agenda concerning the creation of an alternative bloc to that of America. (More on this here in the near future).

But spin or not, these analyses make sense. The US State Dept has now shifted its position from ‘Russian atrocity’ to ‘tragic accident’. The above opinions suggest that neither are true: they suggest strongly that the Ukrainian air force took out MH17.