Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Russian jets over UK.


shrooma

Recommended Posts

USA doesn't want any nation to challenge their super power status , and any country would do the same . USA now has problems with China because Chinese influence is growing. USA was tapping German politicians phones... Etc etc .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

USA doesn't want any nation to challenge their super power status , and any country would do the same . USA now has problems with China because Chinese influence is growing. USA was tapping German politicians phones... Etc etc .

Chinese market has stalled in recent times. Got nothing to do with USA or China

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chinese market has stalled in recent times. Got nothing to do with USA or China

Might be but I don't think USA would sit back and watch any other country grow and challenge it's super power status.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I see. So in your point of view, two wrongs make a right, and whatever happened in the past justifies whatever Russia does in the present and future. Nice way to defend Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. Congrats on that.

You dont see, and that's the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we are demonstrating our different knowledge levels.

So yours being "nothing" then, presumably? Russia was never "framed" for MH-17. It was (wrongfully) accused directly, but it was never "framed".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You dont see, and that's the point.

Oh I see clearly. You are erroneously justifying Russia's aggression by claiming some sort of significant relation to what happened years ago in the Middle East. It's not that hard to see at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So yours being "nothing" then, presumably? Russia was never "framed" for MH-17. It was (wrongfully) accused directly, but it was never "framed".

I do appreciate your acknowledging that it was wrongfully accused. :tu:

As for 'framed', I suppose we would have to decide what the word means in this situation.

Having watched the MSM here in the US report the incident on the day it happened, I will still use the word. As presented(spun) by NBC, CBS and ABC, there was no doubt that Russia had done it. ABC, NBC and CBS "knew" this because they had been told so by "sources within the government", and it was a slam-dunk case, no doubt whatsoever in anybody's military or civilian mind that Russian rebels had done it, with equipment given them by Russia. It was all most inaccurate information.

Framed? I suppose it depends upon one's perspective, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for 'framed', I suppose we would have to decide what the word means in this situation.

Framing would mean an intentional attempt at making Russia look responsible for an incident such as MH-17 when it wasn't. Everyone who knows something about it will know that it wasn't the Russians that did it but the rebels in Eastern Ukraine. Primarily because the Russian explanations of who shot it down don't hold water.

Framed? I suppose it depends upon one's perspective, eh?

No. It depends on how much you know and who you are inclined to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny... In late 2014 I read a news article about all of Russia's provocation... In it they cited examples of how Russia is being the aggressive for sending its aircraft close to NATO airspace. Also in the article it cited an example of how Russia is being aggressive for threatening and chasing a NATO surveillance plane out of their airspace, forcing it to enter Swedish airspace.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

Mordorc, not even the Ukrainian army seriously believes that the Russian army is sending troops into Ukraine.

http://www.globalres...lshoods/5428523

You have been believing NATO's propaganda undiluted and without question. i think your acting under the delusion that we're the good guys so we never lie, never have long term secret strategic objectives to destroy other nations and certainly never fly covert missions into another nations Sovereign air space :yes::w00t:

Unfortunately for that very reason I can't really take you that seriously.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing about this blame-the-aggressor, whether it be USA or Russia or whoever... why? Aggression like that is just an inability to get your will across otherwise. Imposing of their will, they are blind to that humans will always have a free will and such things they try to build with sword will erode, by the corrosion caused by that free will which can not be overridden. It can grow weaker and weaker, but as long as there's a free will, that exists here, it will find a way to be free from structures aggressors of any kind try to impose. It is only taking it's sweet time.

Great leaders of the world don't understand the most basic laws of the world, thus conflict.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mordorc, not even the Ukrainian army seriously believes that the Russian army is sending troops into Ukraine.

http://www.globalres...lshoods/5428523

You have been believing NATO's propaganda undiluted and without question. i think your acting under the delusion that we're the good guys so we never lie, never have long term secret strategic objectives to destroy other nations and certainly never fly covert missions into another nations Sovereign air space :yes::w00t:

Unfortunately for that very reason I can't really take you that seriously.

Br Cornelius

And the reason many here don't take you seriously is that you do precisely the same thing except it is by believing ANYTHING that is against the west. Quite predictable you are ;)
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Framing would mean an intentional attempt at making Russia look responsible for an incident such as MH-17 when it wasn't. Everyone who knows something about it will know that it wasn't the Russians that did it but the rebels in Eastern Ukraine. Primarily because the Russian explanations of who shot it down don't hold water.

No. It depends on how much you know and who you are inclined to believe.

As we are in the UK and Europe section, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are European or British, and thus were not subjected to the same "coverage" of the MH17 incident as I was on US mainstream media that Thursday evening when it happened.

Having sat through 1 hour of that 'coverage', and more, Russia and its rebels were absolutely portrayed as the responsible parties for the MH17 downing. Thus, it is very easy for me to say that Russia and the rebels were framed for this incident, when facts gathered in the next few days and weeks made it perfectly clear they had nothing at all to do with it.

So use whatever language suits you, believe whatever story suits you. I've been indoctrinated enough times by the MSM over here and its government 'sources', that I am quite comfortable saying that Russia was framed for something they did not do.

In military parlance, that is known as a false flag operation.

In public relations parlance, what I and other viewers of the MSM were exposed to was perception management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

And the reason many here don't take you seriously is that you do precisely the same thing except it is by believing ANYTHING that is against the west. Quite predictable you are ;)

Then your assumption would be misplaced since I am not an actual defender of Russia, I am a defender of a neutral none interventionist position. I have frequently been found to complain about people lionizing Putin and Russia in general as been totally misguided in their assessment. However when I see people like yourself excusing every action your own side makes, no matter how reprehensible, then I have to object.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we are in the UK and Europe section, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are European or British, and thus were not subjected to the same "coverage" of the MH17 incident as I was on US mainstream media that Thursday evening when it happened.

I'm in New Zealand. But I've given a lot of thought into this elsewhere.

Having sat through 1 hour of that 'coverage', and more, Russia and its rebels were absolutely portrayed as the responsible parties for the MH17 downing.

And although they blamed Russia for it, the rebels shooting down the aircraft is correct.

Thus, it is very easy for me to say that Russia and the rebels were framed for this incident, when facts gathered in the next few days and weeks made it perfectly clear they had nothing at all to do with it.

Except that this isn't true (for the rebels, the Russians had nothing to do with it). All the evidence clearly points to an accidental shootdown. Whether you want to accept this or not is up to you, but denying the clear facts is the same as claiming that the earth is flat, or that vaccines cause autism. Anything that corroborates those "theories" is based on bull**** science, much like the alternate "theories" put forward by Russia after the shootdown.

If you knew remotely anything about the incident, you'd have realized this pretty damn quickly.

In military parlance, that is known as a false flag operation.

Of course. Everything is a conspiracy for some nefarious reason. Nothing can be easily explained by basic fact because it's some sort of moronic idea of the "narrative".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in New Zealand. But I've given a lot of thought into this elsewhere.

And although they blamed Russia for it, the rebels shooting down the aircraft is correct.

Except that this isn't true (for the rebels, the Russians had nothing to do with it). All the evidence clearly points to an accidental shootdown. Whether you want to accept this or not is up to you, but denying the clear facts is the same as claiming that the earth is flat, or that vaccines cause autism. Anything that corroborates those "theories" is based on bull**** science, much like the alternate "theories" put forward by Russia after the shootdown.

If you knew remotely anything about the incident, you'd have realized this pretty damn quickly.

Of course. Everything is a conspiracy for some nefarious reason. Nothing can be easily explained by basic fact because it's some sort of moronic idea of the "narrative".

In all probability sir, I am much better informed about the MH17 incident than you are.

Peace, my Kiwi friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius
Clue: British media run interference by conjuring a “Storm”

Soon after the incident, British news outlets began floating the story - without evidence, that MH17 was diverted to “avoid thunderstorms in southern Ukraine”. This was also placed on Wikipedia at the same time. Nico Voorbach, who is Dutch, is president of the European Cockpit Association, and was the man used to nudge out this talking point. Voorbach casually slides this crucial fabrication out there, telling The Guardian of all papers, “I heard that MH17 was diverting from some showers as there were thunderclouds”.

The only problem is that Malaysian Airlines immediately refuted this in a report from Malaysia News:

“MAS operations director Captain Izham Ismail has also refuted claims that heavy weather led to MH17 changing its flight plan (…) There were no reports from the pilot to suggest that this was the case,” Izham said.

What is significant, however, is that the Western media acknowledged that the change in the flight path did occur, indicating that the alleged “heavy weather” narrative is a fabrication designed to distract, and obscure the fact that MH17′s course was indeed divert into the war zone that day.

Global Research clarifies this confusing issue:

“The route over Ukrainian airspace where the incident occurred is commonly used for Europe to Asia flights. A flight from a different carrier was on the same route at the time of the MH17 incident, as were a number of other flights from other carriers in the days and weeks before. Eurocontrol maintains records of all flights across European airspace, including those across Ukraine.”

“What this statement confirms is that the MH17 ‘s “usual flight path” was similar to the flight paths of some 150 international flights which cross Eastern Ukraine on a daily basis. According to Malaysian Airlines “The usual flight route [across the sea of Azov] was earlier declared safe by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The International Air Transportation Association has stated that the airspace the aircraft was traversing was not subject to restrictions (that approved flight path is indicated in the maps below).”

The regular flight path of MH17 (and other international flights) over a period of ten days prior to July 17th (day of the disaster), crossing Eastern Ukraine in a southeasterly direction is across the Sea of Azov.

The Times of India reported this: “Minutes before the crash caused by a missile strike, the AI pilots had also heard the controller give the Malaysian aircraft MH17 what is called “a direct routing”. This permits an aircraft to fly straight, instead of tracking the regular route which is generally a zig-zag track that goes from one ground-based navigation aid or way point to another. “Direct routing saves fuel and time and is preferred by pilots. In this case, it proved fatal,” said an airline source.”

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/07/25/mh17-verdict-real-evidence-points-to-us-kiev-cover-up-of-failed-false-flag-attack/

Just one of the glaring holes in the official narrative about why MH17 found itself re-roughted directly into a war zone.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know that the rebels changed their story when they said they shot down a "Ukrainian plane" however when it was MH17, they removed the story and blamed on the Ukrainians.

The most bizarre theory was from one of the Russian media claiming that the Russian presidential plane was shot down. Also Russian media posted an image of the plane shot own by a fighter jet, I have seen the image, and its fake, poor standards

Also the rebels are saying they are getting Russian support however Moscow denies this. So whos telling fibs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, but they never expand on the point of him being a murderer. Its like he was KGB-lite, (never had blood on his hands) yet they let the mind wander in reference to Ex KGB- President Putin. Point is both were/are bad b*******. a great book of fact is - Death of a Dissident. I highly recommend it.

This will work on your phone or tablet. http://www.willzuzak...nLitvinenko.pdf

Ummm... DID he commit any murders ? He was stationed for most of his career in KGB Third Chief Directorate (military counter-intelligence..... e.g. spying on the Red Army). When this was split into FSB/SVR, he became an organised crime intelligence analyst with the FSB. I've NEVER heard anything about him having "blood on his hands".

Speaking of russian "bombers" ... these are actually Tu-95 long-range maritime surveillance aeroplanes, and propeller-driven to boot. Hardly a threat to the UK.

Nevertheless, and appropos of nothing, here is an amusing story.

A couple or three years ago a USA Carrier Battle Fleet was trundling around the Pacific near Japan. (vaguely). As is typical of such fleet, it consisted of a humungous Nimitz-class Assault Carrier in the middle, surrounded at varying distances by a screen of protective anti-submarine and anti-aircraft escort ships, all equipped with the awesome SPY-1/AEGIS battle management system, capable of shooting down small insects at a range of up to 20,000 miles.... or somesuch. The US Navy is VERY proud of these fleets, and boast that NOTHING flies or floats within 250+ miles of the fleet without the Carrier Captains permission.

The SPY radars where turned off as the fleet was in "listening" mode.... trying to spot enemy subs, ships or aircraft from their radar/radio/sonar transmissions.

Funnily enough, so where the crew of two Tu-114 "Bear-F" marine reconnaissance/strike aircraft. (designed to take out aircraft carriers using long-range sea-skimming cruise missiles). They where semi-randomly pootling around at low altitude, engaged in training by running simulated attacks against passing merchant shipping. The merchant ships probably weren't even aware of their presence. The Russian pilots certainly weren't aware of the presence of the American ships, let alone the aircraft carrier. They had - by sheer incredible accident - flown in-between all of the picket ships, at an altitude too low to be seen visually. But now they had found something interesting - a very large Oil Tanker to practice on. Gosh... it was even the same SIZE as the hated American "Nimitz" class carriers. Good find comrade... bring the missile guidance radars online please for a practice run.......

It's probably unknown as to who had the greatest "brown trousers" moment.

The captain of the Aircraft carrier, suddenly seeing missile-guidance radar firing up at point blank range, followed by two Russian bombers flying OVER his precious "nothing gets within 250 miles" aircraft carrier.

Or the captains of the two Soviet bombers, who suddenly discover that the "Oil Tanker" they where practicing on was now launching aircraft up at them !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm... DID he commit any murders ? He was stationed for most of his career in KGB Third Chief Directorate (military counter-intelligence..... e.g. spying on the Red Army). When this was split into FSB/SVR, he became an organised crime intelligence analyst with the FSB. I've NEVER heard anything about him having "blood on his hands".

Speaking of russian "bombers" ... these are actually Tu-95 long-range maritime surveillance aeroplanes, and propeller-driven to boot. Hardly a threat to the UK.

Nevertheless, and appropos of nothing, here is an amusing story.

A couple or three years ago a USA Carrier Battle Fleet was trundling around the Pacific near Japan. (vaguely). As is typical of such fleet, it consisted of a humungous Nimitz-class Assault Carrier in the middle, surrounded at varying distances by a screen of protective anti-submarine and anti-aircraft escort ships, all equipped with the awesome SPY-1/AEGIS battle management system, capable of shooting down small insects at a range of up to 20,000 miles.... or somesuch. The US Navy is VERY proud of these fleets, and boast that NOTHING flies or floats within 250+ miles of the fleet without the Carrier Captains permission.

The SPY radars where turned off as the fleet was in "listening" mode.... trying to spot enemy subs, ships or aircraft from their radar/radio/sonar transmissions.

Funnily enough, so where the crew of two Tu-114 "Bear-F" marine reconnaissance/strike aircraft. (designed to take out aircraft carriers using long-range sea-skimming cruise missiles). They where semi-randomly pootling around at low altitude, engaged in training by running simulated attacks against passing merchant shipping. The merchant ships probably weren't even aware of their presence. The Russian pilots certainly weren't aware of the presence of the American ships, let alone the aircraft carrier. They had - by sheer incredible accident - flown in-between all of the picket ships, at an altitude too low to be seen visually. But now they had found something interesting - a very large Oil Tanker to practice on. Gosh... it was even the same SIZE as the hated American "Nimitz" class carriers. Good find comrade... bring the missile guidance radars online please for a practice run.......

It's probably unknown as to who had the greatest "brown trousers" moment.

The captain of the Aircraft carrier, suddenly seeing missile-guidance radar firing up at point blank range, followed by two Russian bombers flying OVER his precious "nothing gets within 250 miles" aircraft carrier.

Or the captains of the two Soviet bombers, who suddenly discover that the "Oil Tanker" they where practicing on was now launching aircraft up at them !

I enjoyed reading that. it reminds me of the report - A Chinese sub surfaced right in the middle or in range of a US battle group. (USS Kitty Hawk)

in reply to the bold, He was asked to assassinate his best friend are we to believe this would be his first ever time? Its impossible to know the answer either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Tupolev Tu-95 (Russian: Туполев Ту-95; NATO reporting name: "Bear") is a large, four-engine turboprop-powered strategic bomber and missile platform. First flown in 1952, the Tu-95 entered service with the Soviet Union in 1956 and is expected to serve the Russian Air Force until at least 2040.[1] A development of the bomber for maritime patrol is designated Tu-142, while a passenger airliner derivative was called Tu-114.

The aircraft has four Kuznetsov NK-12 engines, each driving contra-rotating propellers. It is the only propeller-powered strategic bomber still in operational use today. The tips of the propeller-blades move faster than the speed of sound, making it one of the noisiest military aircraft.[2] Its distinctive swept-back wings are at a 35° angle."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Tupolev Tu-95 (Russian: Туполев Ту-95; NATO reporting name: "Bear") is a large, four-engine turboprop-powered strategic bomber and missile platform. First flown in 1952, the Tu-95 entered service with the Soviet Union in 1956 and is expected to serve the Russian Air Force until at least 2040.[1] A development of the bomber for maritime patrol is designated Tu-142, while a passenger airliner derivative was called Tu-114.

The aircraft has four Kuznetsov NK-12 engines, each driving contra-rotating propellers. It is the only propeller-powered strategic bomber still in operational use today. The tips of the propeller-blades move faster than the speed of sound, making it one of the noisiest military aircraft.[2] Its distinctive swept-back wings are at a 35° angle."

They learned a lot from back engineering that B-29 they appropriated.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mordorc, not even the Ukrainian army seriously believes that the Russian army is sending troops into Ukraine.

http://www.globalres...lshoods/5428523

And why should I believe a site run by psuedo-intellectuals who regularly push conspiracy theories as fact and established by a "professor" who is widely regarded as being a lunatic and believes that the American military has weapons such as HAARP? If I wanted to listen to absolute bull****, I would tune into RT. They seem to be doing a better job of pushing their agenda across.

You have been believing NATO's propaganda undiluted and without question.

If this is how you're going to formulate your argument, don't bother replying. I'm not going to debate with someone who won't debate the facts instead of peddling wild theories that do not stand up on their own two legs.

i think your acting under the delusion that we're the good guys so we never lie, never have long term secret strategic objectives to destroy other nations and certainly never fly covert missions into another nations Sovereign air space :yes::w00t:

I'm not denying that we haven't done these things before. But I've said that such missions are more dangerous these days because of the increase in civilian air traffic. There are a lot more people flying these days than there were back in the 1970's and the 1980's when such interceptions were common place. Flying without a detailed flight plan, not responding to radio calls and turning off your transponder is dangerous and only serves to endanger the lives of the crew and everyone else flying around them.

Unfortunately for that very reason I can't really take you that seriously.

That's fine. My credibility is not under scrutiny and I'm more than happy to engage with someone who's actually willing to debate with me rather than simply write me off as someone who is "brainwashed". If you're willing to debate with me, I've got all the time in the world.

In all probability sir, I am much better informed about the MH17 incident than you are.

I sincerely doubt that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

As I said Mordorc its your total lack of balance which offends me.

America is running flights of exactly the same nature all of the time and yet you look the other way;

The Cold War aerial games of chicken portrayed in the movie "Top Gun" are happening in real life again nearly 30 years later.

A U.S. Air Force spy plane evaded an encounter with the Russian military on July 18, just a day after Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was downed by a suspected surface-to-air missile that Ukraine and the West allege was fired by pro-Russia rebels in eastern Ukraine.

The RC-135 Rivet Joint fled into nearby Swedish airspace without that country's permission, a U.S. military official told CNN. The airplane may have gone through other countries' airspace as well, though it's not clear if it had permission to do so.

The U.S. plane had been flying in international airspace, conducting an electronic eavesdropping mission on the Russian military, when the Russians took the unusual action of beginning to track it with land-based radar.

U.S. spy plane evades Russian jet 01:32

PLAY VIDEO

Russians push Cold War talk 03:13

PLAY VIDEO

The Russians then sent at least one fighter jet into the sky to intercept the aircraft, the U.S. official said Saturday.

The spy plane crew felt so concerned about the radar tracking that it wanted to get out of the area as quickly as possible, the official said. The quickest route away from the Russians took them into Swedish airspace. The U.S. official acknowledged that was done without Swedish military approval.

As a result of this incident, the United States is discussing the matter with Sweden and letting officials know there may be further occurrences where American jets have to divert so quickly they may not be able to wait for permission.

"We acknowledge a U.S. aircraft veered into Swedish airspace and will take active steps to ensure we have properly communicated with Swedish authorities in advance to prevent similar issues before they arise," the U.S. State Department said.

The incident was first reported by the Swedish news agency Svenska Dagbladet.

Russian officials did not provide any immediate reaction about the encounter.

This was at least the second potentially-dangerous encounter between a U.S. plane and Russia over the past few months. On April 23, a Russian Su-27 Flanker fighter jet buzzed within 100 feet of the nose of a U.S. Air Force RC-135U reconnaissance plane over the Sea of Okhotsk between Russia and Japan, a Defense Department official said.

Russian fighter jet nearly collided with U.S. military plane in April

Russian and U.S. aircraft often encounter each other, both in Northern Europe as well as the area between the Russian Far East and Alaska. But the official said the land radar activity by the Russians in this instance was unusual.

The ongoing civil unrest in Ukraine and the downing of MH 17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, which killed all 298 people aboard, have heightened tensions between Washington and Moscow. Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was brought down by a suspected missile.

Pro-Russia rebels have denied allegations from Ukraine and the West that they shot down the Malaysian airliner, or that Russia supplied equipment used to shoot it down.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/02/us/us-spy-plane/

Thats why I can't take you seriously.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said Mordorc its your total lack of balance which offends me.

How pathetic. You won't debate any of the points I made and you claimed to be "offended" because I don't share the same opinions as you do. "Balance" has nothing to do with this. You don't want to debate with me because your argument doesn't hold water. Your entire premise doesn't hold water. All you're doing is promoting a bunch of nonsensical conspiracy theories that don't have any basis in facts and you get "offended" when someone calls you out on it.

America is running flights of exactly the same nature all of the time and yet you look the other way;

I'm not looking the other way. It's dangerous to do so no matter who flies those missions. There's no need to do so anyway. Not with much more advanced spy satellites.

Thats why I can't take you seriously.

You're not even trying.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.