Shots in the Dark

One of Britain’s best-known purveyors of misinformation, The Times, had the following words splashed across the front page of its July 19 edition: “MH17 lost after rebels shot down wrong jet”.

The story refers to the terrible tragedy of the mysterious crash of yet another Malaysia Airlines passenger plane two days earlier.

The subheading of the story in the Times reads: “World rounds on Russia for fomenting violence”.

The next ten pages of the paper were filled with the careful blend of fact and fiction which represents the state of the art of western propaganda. There is so much misinformation contained in the fifteen words of that headline and subheading alone that you have to hand it to the Times; it really is very good at what it does.

The first thing to do is look at the evidence. What evidence does the Times supply to support its headlines?

In the absence of any evidence whatsoever from any reliable independent investigators at this early stage, let’s assume the plane was indeed shot down, instead of other possibilities for the crash – such as mechanical failure, or it being blown up by a bomb inside the plane. So if it was indeed shot down the first most obvious question is who did it?

At first glance the Times appears, as usual, very sure of itself: the “rebels” did it. But, using a trick the Times often employs, it soon backtracks on itself. By just the second paragraph of the accompanying front page article, it’s already hedging its bets:

“[T]he catastrophe MAY have involved the pro-Russian separatists” (my emphasis)

So it quickly becomes clear that the Times is offering no hard evidence at all for its own headline.

The next part of the headline, suggesting there was a “right” jet to be shot down, is equally short of verifiable evidence, because that revealing second paragraph tells us the “pro-Russian separatists” were “trying to hit a Ukrainian military transport plane that was in the skies at the same time”.

Once again, there is no evidence to support this. As we don’t know for sure that so-called “pro-Russian separatists” were responsible, how could we possibly know what they were trying to do? As for a Ukrainian military transport plane being “in the skies at the same time”… that may or may not be relevant. “The skies” are a big place.

The Times’ subheading, “World rounds on Russia for fomenting violence”, is equally short on hard evidence. By “the world” the Times appears to mean President Obama (“Putin has gone too far… says US”), and… the Australian prime minister who, allegedly, “led a chorus of western disdain for Russia’s attempt to distance itself from the cause of the crash.” (2) Why western leaders need to be “led” by the Australian prime minister to express “disdain” is curious. Perhaps it’s because the Times presents us with pretty little else in the way of hard facts about any other western leader rushing to jump on the empire’s war wagon. As for the other fairly sizeable parts of the world – Asia, Africa, South America – the Times provides not a single shred of evidence in its ten pages of “news” about the tragedy of anyone from these continents “rounding on Russia”. Neither, it seems, did the official representative of world opinion, the United Nations, “round on Russia”. Instead we learn that the so-called security council, not exactly famous for its pacifism, “called for a ‘full, thorough and independent investigation into the tragedy’”. Even the British prime minister, who usually routinely obeys his master’s instructions, seemed to be very guarded in his opinion: “If, as seems possible, this was brought down then those responsible must be brought to account.” “If”? “as seems possible”? These are not the words of someone “rounding on Russia”. In other words, the evidence provided by the Times actually contradicts its own headlines (not for the first time) and would seem to suggest that the only people who are clearly “rounding on Russia” is Mr Obama, that awesome western leader the Australian prime minister, and the jingoistic Times newspaper (“Stand tall against the barbarians”). Hardly “the world” in my view.

The BBC also included considerable news-time to the words of the US president. It’s interesting that Britain’s mainstream media are as focused as they are on the emperor. I mean, I haven’t seen a single news report about the reaction of the queen, our own de jure head of state – not that it would be relevant anyway, of course – but it’s still interesting that our so-called news is more attentive upon the words of a foreign head of state than our own. (And if a foreign head of state is going to act as spokesman for the British people why on Earth are we paying millions of pounds a year to Elizabeth Windsor?)

As more and more people slowly become aware of the deeply cynical and evil phenomenon known as false flag operations, more and more people are understanding the very considerable difficulty in knowing who for sure is behind horrific tragedies such as this latest disaster. I mean, it’s not that long ago when the US president was confidently telling the world that a terrible gas attack in Syria had been perpetrated by the Syrian government, and that they should be punished. Of course there was as little hard evidence then to support Obama’s outrageous claims as there is now. It could indeed have been eastern Ukrainians trying to hit a military plane last Thursday. But that is just one possibility. There is another, and that is that the plane was shot down by people pretending to be eastern Ukrainians. Who exactly those people might be and why they would do that is anyone’s guess.

As the civil war in Ukraine is largely the handiwork of the United States – given that the US government paid for and stage-managed the illegal coup d’état that triggered the war, the most obvious alternative possibility is that the shooters were on the US payroll. Another reasonable possibility is that the Israelis were responsible (which is basically the same thing). After all, the Zionists are busily engaged in committing genocide in Gaza at the moment and it would be very convenient for them to have a major disaster story to deflect global attention away from them – not that very much attention is ever focused on them anyway, and not that they give a damn even when it is. In fact, it’s an amazing coincidence that the Zionist war machine mobilized itself outside of Gaza several days before the tragedy and then did very little… as though waiting for a signal to begin the latest round of war-crimes in which its currently engaged.

It’s also an amazing coincidence that this tragedy happened to another Malaysia Airlines jet, a mere couple of months after the mysterious disappearance of flight MH370. Given the number of airlines operating around the world, the odds of two such disasters happening to the same company in such a short space of time are pretty small.

It’s likely we’ll never know for sure who exactly is responsible for this latest outrage – unless a whistle-blower appears. But given the vicious persecution of whistle-blowers by our trusted leaders I won’t be holding my breath. However, if MH17 was indeed shot down, the most culpable perpetrators would be the US government, either directly or indirectly; because even if the shooters were not directly employed by one of the US government’s numerous gangs of dirty-tricks specialists, it was unquestionably the US government that caused the civil war in Ukraine in the first place. If they had not done that flight MH17 would most probably have reached its destination.

So Mr Obama can act the outraged emperor all he likes, and his mainstream media lackeys can fill our TV screens and ten pages of newsprint with hysterical jingoism all they like; but the game is up: more and more people are slowly learning the truth about how the world really works. If any government can be blamed for the tragedy of flight MH17, it’s the US government. The US government has assumed for itself the role of global emperor, so it and it alone bears the responsibility, directly or indirectly, for most of the terrible manmade tragedies that occur anywhere on the planet.

John is a writer and political activist based in England. He can be contacted through his website. His main contribution comprises three free-to-use works-in-progress: The People’s Constitution, The School of Kindness, and EnMo Economics . Read other articles by John.