[Keith_McClary]

The hacker group Pawn Storm is suspected of the attempts to hack the Dutch Safety Board website in September and early October 2015.

The relevant message was posted on the website of the Trend Micro antivirus software company on October 23.

According to Deutsche Welle, the cybercriminals tried to steal the materials of the investigation into the Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 crash in Donbas.

The Trend Micro also stated that the main objectives of the Pawn Storm in the network included the government, military, and media resources of the United States, Ukraine and other countries in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, as well as the NATO databases and the websites of Russian opponents of the Kremlin. However, the company failed to determine whether the hacking group had been backed by the Russian intelligence services.

Earlier, Bloomberg reported that the Pawn Storm could be a special unit of the Federal Security Service of Russia.
http://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ukrnews ... rash.html#

Why would anyone need to "steal" information from a "transparent" investigation?

[AgentR11]

Better question; why would the website server be networked in to the investigative workstations. That's where you'd get super secret stuff; not the website.

Story doesn't hold water really. The hack attempt could be real enough, but the suggested motive is stupid.

[tita]

tita, the problem is, any investigation is going to have political bias. People are biased. Any reasonable investigation, for that reason needs to be transparent, and it needs to address all available evidence. Including supposedly contradictory evidence such as eye-witness reports that don't fit the narrative. You can't just choose to dismiss data that doesn't support the pre-established story, and pre-identified culprits.

There are two pre-identified culprits (UA and pro-rebel russians), and different pre-established stories.

Again, what is needed is transparency. For example, the black box recordings, you state there's nothing to suggest any shooting before the explosion, I wonder what you would accept as positive evidence? Would it have taken the pilot saying: "we're taking fire from an Su-25?". Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. What most people critical of the secrecy wanted to hear, wasn't a transcript of the last few moments, but the dialogue between the aircraft and flight control during the transit of Kiev airspace.

What you suggest is that the investigation is biased, and we can't rely on them. I think shooting would have been recorded (specific noise). And I also assume the investigators are doing their job.

With respect to the exact missile type and warhead, don't you see that it is extremely important to identify where the missile came from? If it was indeed an active Russian Army BUK system, as has been claimed, then it would have had to have been operated by either Russian crew or authorised separatists, with full operational target identification. If it was a Ukraine Army system then it would have had to either be operated by Keiv, again with full target identification, or was the captured partial system operated by separatists and was just an (un-)lucky hit.

Yes, it is important... But from where came the narrative that the conclusion from the investigation was biased?

I have no idea what happened that day. I followed events as they happened at the time, and have read quite a lot about it. I have my suspicions, which are evidently different to yours, but I would stop far short of claiming to know the truth, or claiming any particular line of evidence is bullshit. Appeals to authority, are just that. It isn't proof.

What happend that day started a big machine of disinformation, proof destruction. Plenty narratives were made to accuse one or the other side. This is what interest me. How it is made, how public opinion is manipulated. I would not be surprised if UA is the culprit, unlike what I was thinking one year ago. But maybe it is because the disinformation from the russian side is working? I find this fascinating. But I'm sad, because it is made with no regards of the death of innocent people...

[dissident]

https://youtu.be/m140AXJxfyY

A deliberately blurred video from eastern Ukraine exposed. Basically all of the "evidence" of Russian involvement in the alleged Buk attack (it has not been established what actually brought down MH17 alleged single pellet fragments not withstanding) are of this cheesy fraud quality.

It is incredible how compartmentalized the thinking is of the average prole. If Russia dispatched SAM systems to the Donbas then why would they only use them to shoot down one civilian airliner? The Kiev Banderite regime was initiating regular Su-25 attack missions and were using transport planes to deliver men and materiel into the Donbas itself. These aircraft would have been blown out of the sky on a regular basis and there would be plenty of amateur video of the smoke trails. Just as there is plenty of amateur video of basically everything else to do with that civil war.

MH17 was an obvious ploy by NATO to poison public opinion against Russia. The ridiculous stories of regular Russian army units fighting in Ukraine without a single shred of proof (sorry, fuzzy photographs of combines does not prove squat) are part of the same hate propaganda campaign. It is looking more and more like the NATO organized coup in Ukraine was deliberately designed to initiate a war on Russia. Russia took the bait to some extent by allowing Crimea to hold a referendum and secede. But Russia did not fall for the most important bait and that would be to invade Ukraine and replace the regime in Kiev. So NATO has to make the Donbas fighting into some sort of epic Russian invasion. But that has not really gotten them the traction they were expecting so they are using the "invasion and annexation" of Crimea as the causus belli.

[dissident]

https://youtu.be/iNx2DvY3qaw?list=FLe7W ... 0stjzjOSDQ

Even the Kiev regime admits that it has not been fighting Russian forces in the Donbas. Yet the NATO mass media keeps spewing the propaganda that Russian regular forces have been fighting the Kiev regime army. NATO is totally detached from reality. This is extremely dangerous for life on this planet.

[ennui2]

all of the "evidence" of Russian involvement in the alleged Buk attack (it has not been established what actually brought down MH17 alleged single pellet fragments not withstanding) are of this cheesy fraud quality.

Wrong.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37495067

Bias and willful ignorance are extremely dangerous for life on this planet.

[AgentR11]

While I would never trust bbc with regard to anything regarding Russia; a SAM is the most likely solution. What is in no way clear is which side fired the SAM. Both UA and NAF were incredibly disorganized and inexperienced; lines of control basically non-existent. Both could, by hook or crook, get their grubby paws on at least enough of a BUK system, in the general area, to put one in the air. UA would have been thinking they were firing at Russian invaders; NAF would have been thinking they were firing at a UA transport.

NEITHER of those likely possibilities is even remotely a war crime. Its called, an American parlance, "Collateral Damage". We generally say, "ooops" and write some low-dollar checks for passenger families, and pay for the airplane. That's what UA did when they killed a Russian passenger airliner over the Black Sea as well.

The problem of course, is that even were one side or the other to say, "oops, we did that." There would be no checks. Because neither has any money to speak of.

As to getting checks from Russia? It'll never happen. Sanctions are permanent, everyone knows that, thus Russia has ZERO reason to be nice or acknowledge any particular verdict in a Western court.

[ennui2]

Both could, by hook or crook, get their grubby paws on at least enough of a BUK system, in the general area, to put one in the air.

This just gets increasingly tinfoil. You're reaching.

[peripato]

Whoever directed that plane to change its course to fly over the war zone is responsible. At the time Dnipro (Dniepropetrovsk) air traffic control was in charge. All you need to know really...

[ennui2]

While I would never trust bbc with regard to anything regarding Russia....

It's now being reported everywhere, so drop the shoot-the-messenger routine.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... /91210390/

[dissident]

The NATO circlejerk farce goes on. Using some supposed audio "evidence" supplied by the SBU is the ultimate joke. How come none of the audio evidence of Nuland, Pyatt and others openly discussing the coup and the engineering of the new regime in Kiev are taken seriously? Audio is audio, right? At least we know how the voice of Nuland and Pyatt sounds. The SBU tapes are pathetic acting jokes. At the same time the SBU and the Kiev regime never handed over the ATC tapes. Yet the Kiev regime is considered by the Dutch investigators as credible.

http://www.segodnia.ru/sites/default/fi ... 20MH17.pdf

Yeah, Putin gets off on shooting down civilian airliners. That is why there have been so many of them shot down over Russia since 1999. NATO drones are swimming in their own piss-fermented koolaid.

[dissident]

Whoever directed that plane to change its course to fly over the war zone is responsible. At the time Dnipro (Dniepropetrovsk) air traffic control was in charge. All you need to know really...

Let's suppose the rebels really did shoot it down. Where is the malicious intent? What use is it for them to bring down a civilian airliner? So that they can be hated by the world? It serves precisely zero military purpose. And the Donbass rebels are not Daesh who get off on blowing up airliners in the name of Allah.

That leaves collateral damage as the explanation assuming they shot off the missile. How come when the USA butchers 100s of civilians by attacking wedding parties as "militant gatherings" there is no UN Security Council frenzy and NATO mass media concern? It is fobbed off as "shit happens". Well, twerps, right back at you. The same goes for MH-17. So cut all the crocodile tears and the BS concern theater.

Back in the real world, there was no military function for the Buk in rebel hands. The Kiev regime was sending low flying ground attack aircraft at them (SU-25s and helicopters). The rebels succeeded in bringing down these aircraft with MANPADs. But for the Kiev regime there was a military function for Buks being deployed to the war zone. They were afraid Russia would actually invade and were preparing to shoot down Russian attack jets.

[peripato]

Whoever directed that plane to change its course to fly over the war zone is responsible. At the time Dnipro (Dniepropetrovsk) air traffic control was in charge. All you need to know really...

Let's suppose the rebels really did shoot it down. Where is the malicious intent? What use is it for them to bring down a civilian airliner? So that they can be hated by the world? It serves precisely zero military purpose. And the Donbass rebels are not Daesh who get off on blowing up airliners in the name of Allah.

That leaves collateral damage as the explanation assuming they shot off the missile. How come when the USA butchers 100s of civilians by attacking wedding parties as "militant gatherings" there is no UN Security Council frenzy and NATO mass media concern? It is fobbed off as "shit happens". Well, twerps, right back at you. The same goes for MH-17. So cut all the crocodile tears and the BS concern theater.

Back in the real world, there was no military function for the Buk in rebel hands. The Kiev regime was sending low flying ground attack aircraft at them (SU-25s and helicopters). The rebels succeeded in bringing down these aircraft with MANPADs. But for the Kiev regime there was a military function for Buks being deployed to the war zone. They were afraid Russia would actually invade and were preparing to shoot down Russian attack jets.

As far as I'm concerned, it's the Ukro sock puppets who were responsible. At the time, the NAF had about 6 working tanks and some manpads, neither of which had the range to knock down anything that high. As for the rebels having a BUK, it's total nonsense. The only BUK's in the area at that time were Ukrainian Army ordinance.

Yes, it's plainly obvious that the whole tragedy was manufactured for propaganda and shock and awe purposes, coinciding with a huge Ukrainian push to cut the Donbass Republics off from each other, plus Israel's murderous offensive in Gaza the following day. Truly loathsome stuff. The West => Empire of Evil...

[AgentR11]

Not shooting the messenger. I'm saying that posting a bbc article about Russia is pointless. They are not a reliable source in that regard, nor are they in any way unbiased.

That doesn't imply that any particular story in the bbc is true or false; it means that they do not possess a presumption of telling the truth.

Truth, in just the right measures, is the ultimate tool of propaganda.

That said, I've seen nothing in these various reported articles that causes me to doubt my analysis that the most likely shooter was a loose NAF crew that captured a UA Buk, repaired it enough, and launched it; terminal guidance on the missile locked on the easy target, fired at the easiest aspect to target, and killed MH17.

The point is, that such a result, IS NOT A WAR CRIME. It is collateral damage, and the shooters should pay a few thousand bucks to each family and a million or few for the airplane; subject to their ability to pay, as is the case in all civil damage claims. Seeing as how the shooters have no money, no bank accounts, and the individuals that might be responsible are likely dead. The case is... DEAD.

The slightly less likely result that a UA team fired on what they thought was a Russian transport, is equally devoid of anyone with an ability to pay. And there also, IT IS NOT A WAR CRIME.

The rest is just circus BS to help NATO sell F35's to a bunch of suckers.

[peripato]

That said, I've seen nothing in these various reported articles that causes me to doubt my analysis that the most likely shooter was a loose NAF crew that captured a UA Buk, repaired it enough, and launched it; terminal guidance on the missile locked on the easy target, fired at the easiest aspect to target, and killed MH17.

Agent, I like your thinking. But, the idea that a bunch of taxi drivers, school teachers and grocery clerks, who were the primary makeup of the NAF at that time, could operate such a thing, without the launch codes, which in the Ukrainian-style BUK's are provided by a remote fire control officer, who would have to also be Ukrainian, is ludicrous.

[AgentR11]

You're welcome to believe that none of the soon to be lustrated senior UAF officers defected. I hold a different opinion in that regard.

[peripato]

You're welcome to believe that none of the soon to be lustrated senior UAF officers defected. I hold a different opinion in that regard.

Let me know when they find him...

[AgentR11]

why would I do that?

[peripato]

why would I do that?

Okay. I give up...

[AgentR11]

that would be wise.