Winter Patriot Community Blog

("Senior U.S. intelligence officials" is a useless source. There is no name we can follow up with. Therefore there's no verifiability and no accountability. Plus, it is the job of intelligence officials to collect data, establish truth, convey that truth to their superiors and political leaders who will use it for propaganda purposes.

The business of intelligence is the business of misleading people. Not a good source for truth for us. The use of the words "creating the conditions" is vague and designed to be interpreted any way you want to fit your prejudices. The term is so ambiguous as to be meaningless in this context. "But they offered no evidence of direct Russian government involvement" are weasel words or what The Saker calls 'caveat words'.

I covered in my previous article how the use of a proposition phrased in the negative i.e. 'no evidence' actually goes into the subconscious mind of the unwary reader as 'evidence' because the subconscious mind cannot process negative terms and understands only images or facts as positives - only things that exist. In this case, 'evidence' (which exists) and not 'no evidence' (which does not exist.)

The intelligence officials were cautious in their assessment, noting that while the Russians have been arming separatists in eastern Ukraine, the U.S. had no direct evidence that the missile used to shoot down the passenger jet came from Russia.

(The non credible, unnamed and unaccountable and perhaps fictitious intelligence officials prevaricate over their story. The word "cautious" is supposed to convey some sort of wisdom and restraint. Their claim that the Russians are arming the separatists is unsubstantiated and again we have the inclusion of "no evidence" planting the seed of suspicion.)

The officials briefed reporters Tuesday under ground rules that their names not be used in discussing intelligence related to last week's air disaster, which killed 298 people.

(These are serious charges that some are using to push the case for war and yet we are told these 'facts' in all seriousness but no names and therefore no one will be held accountable and there is no verifiability should it all lead to bloodshed. Why the need to hide behind anonymity if it is factual?)

The plane was likely shot down by an SA-11 surface-to-air missile fired by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, the intelligence officials said, citing intercepts, satellite photos and social media postings by separatists, some of which have been authenticated by U.S. experts.

(In fact, the evidence points to an air to air missile being responsible for shooting down the airliner. Again we have an unknown source quoting vague evidence some of it from discredited social media sources and absolutely no verification supplied. Remember the first step in clear thinking and presentation is to verify the facts. You cannot proceed to the logic or the meaning without that verification step being undertaken and expect to arrive with any truth.)

But the officials said they did not know who fired the missile or whether any Russian operatives were present at the missile launch. They were not certain that the missile crew was trained in Russia, although they described a stepped-up campaign in recent weeks by Russia to arm and train the rebels, which they say has continued even after the downing of the commercial jetliner.

(Again, we have the insertion of the erroneous concept that a surface to air missile is the culprit. Also there is not one single establishable fact in this paragraph. It is all unsubstantiated opinion and therefore valueless for our purposes. Within it, though, is the linking of Russia with "the downing of the commercial jetliner" in a sentence but without the grammatical linkage. But these experts in deception know that many readers will gloss over the lack of grammatical connection and just go with the fact that these two things, 'Russians' and 'downed airliner' in the same sentence, will be put together in the reader's mind and assume guilt. This is a common tactic)

In terms of who fired the missile, "we don't know a name, we don't know a rank and we're not even 100 percent sure of a nationality," one official said, adding at another point, "There is not going to be a Perry Mason moment here."

(My, there's a lot of things we don't know here but the clear implication is that they know something. "we're not even 100 percent sure of a nationality" implies that they are perhaps 50% sure of even 80% but certainly not 0%. Doubt is introduced here. The Perry Mason quip means that 'we know who, what and where but we can't prove it completely'. All bloody nonsense, of course)

White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said the U.S. was still working to determine whether the missile launch had a "direct link" to Russia, including whether there were Russians on the ground during the attack and the degree to which Russians may have trained the separatists to launch such a strike.

(Finally, we get a name but he is propaganda hack so still zero credibility as a source. "Direct link" implies they have indirect evidence but haven't quite got the 'smoking gun' yet. Again we also get the repetition of 'no evidence' with its implied guilt and again, the notion that the murder weapon was a surface-to-air missile. This is becoming rather 'ad nauseum'. Still, repetition is the foundation of all brainwashing techniques and is always present. Any continual repetition should be a warning signal of mind altering propaganda)

"We do think President Putin and the Russian government bears responsibility for the support they provided to these separatists, the arms they provided to these separatists, the training they provided as well and the general unstable environment in eastern Ukraine," Rhodes said in an interview with CNN.

(Pure supposition from a PR flack without any credible basis. "We do think" means they can make up anything they want later to justify saying this. They don't need proof because they are not saying "we know". They are saying "we think". Not that it would bother them too much anyway.

The hypocrisy is outstanding given that Victoria Nuland has admitted to spending $5b of US govt money 'bringing about democracy' i.e. the coup, the preceding riots and that she subsequently appointed the Ukrainian junta government who then istigated the war against its own civilians)

He added that heavy weaponry continues to flow into Ukraine from Russia following the downing of the plane.

(Unsubstantiated, of course. "Heavy weaponry" is a very vague term and presumably they are hoping the unsuspecting reader will interpret that to mean high altitude surface-to-air missiles - which Russia certainly has never supplied the resisting army of Novorossia. I know this is getting repetitive and tedious but we'll soon get to the end of this assault on our sensibilities. Hang in there folks!)

The intelligence officials said the most likely explanation for the downing was that the rebels made a mistake. Separatists previously had shot down 12 Ukrainian military airplanes, the officials said.

(Ah, we are back to Messrs No-names with their musing about the Novorossians ability to shoot down low flying aircraft belonging to the Ukrainian Air Force who have a predilection for strafing and bombing civilian apartment blocks, kindergartens and hospitals. This, of course, has no applicability to the shooting down of an innocent passenger aircraft flying at elevated altitude of 33,000ft. It's entirely irrelevant. But, I guess it is put in there just in case someone might erroneously make that connection. Why else would they mention it?)

The officials made clear they were relying in part on social media postings and videos made public in recent days by the Ukrainian government, even though they have not been able to authenticate all of it. For example, they cited a video of a missile launcher said to have been crossing the Russian border after the launch, appearing to be missing a missile.

(Who needs better evidence than this? Social media postings from the thugs that make up the Ukrainian government? You've got to be kidding. These people have been caught faking social media evidence. Its so easy to do anyway. So zero credibility there. And how is any of that credible intelligence? Absolutely no sense of shame exhibited here.)

But later, under questioning, the officials acknowledged they had not yet verified that the video was exactly what it purported to be.

(This is called CYA!)

Despite the fuzziness of some details, however, the intelligence officials said the case that the separatists were responsible for shooting down the plane was solid. Other scenarios — such as that the Ukrainian military shot down the plane — are implausible, they said. No Ukrainian surface-to-air missile system was in range.

(Don't you love the logic? Despite the "fuzziness", the case is "solid". But there are no verifiable facts to build any sort of logical case on. It's all back to front as all propaganda is. Start with the conclusion and fudge the facts and hope no one is watching. Its getting boring but I have to point out that they are repeating the notion of the guilty land based surface-to-air missile by engaging the 'no evidence' principle yet again. There's also the small problem that the Russians have identified Ukrainian missile detachments in the target area.)

From satellites, sensors and other intelligence gathering, officials said, they know where the missile originated — in separatist-held territory — and what its flight path was. But if they possess satellite or other imagery of the missile being fired, they did not release it Tuesday. A graphic they made public depicts their estimation of the missile's flight path with a green line. The jet's flight path was available from air traffic control data.

(This is outright lies. The US intelligence agencies' satellites and radar facilities are all over Eastern Ukraine and if the Novorossians had fired the missile that brought down the airliner, we would be seeing the missile tracking data, and not some 'estimation', on the six o'clock news and repeated every hour if not more often. )

In the weeks before the plane was shot down, Russia had stepped up its arming and training of the separatists after the Ukrainian government won a string of battlefield victories. The working theory is that the SA-11 missile came from Russia, although the U.S. doesn't have proof of that, the officials said.

(Not long to go now folks. Promise! What can I say? It's the 'no evidence' ploy again to plant doubt and suspicion in the reader's mind. We've been here before many times but, to be effective, this 'no evidence' technique needs to be repeated ad nauseum, as I said.)

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power said last week that "because of the technical complexity of the SA-11, it is unlikely that the separatists could effectively operate the system without assistance from knowledgeable personnel. Thus, we cannot rule out technical assistance from Russian personnel in operating the systems," she said.

(This is called "begging the question" in logic analysis. It is a fallacious argument whereby the conclusion assumes the presence of evidence in the premise to support it. Perhaps that's not well expressed but the point is it's circular and self referential and therefore valueless if not meaningless.

Because they don't know something, they can't rule anything out. They don't know if the separatists can operate the missile firing technology, therefore they don't know if the Russians helped them. It is nonsensical in the extreme. You cannot conclude anything form this and you can never prove a negative, anyway.

This all, of course, leaves aside the fact that the Novorossians don't have all the required radar equipment and also the fact that the airliner was not shot down with a land based missile, in any case. Bizarre! But what else would you expect from the foam flecked lips of Samantha Power?)

Asked about evidence, one of the senior U.S. intelligence officials said it was conceivable that Russian paramilitary troops are operating in eastern Ukraine, but that there was no direct link from them to the missile launch.

(Anything is conceivable. Even the possibility of a verifiable fact from the likes of the US Administration or even AP, though definitely not in this case. (Yet) Again, we are being beaten over the head with the 'no evidence' canard. It's like being beaten to death with a wet tissue. When will it ever end?)

Asked why civilian airline companies were not warned about a possible threat, the officials said they did not know the rebels possessed SA-11 missiles until after the Malaysian airliner was shot down.

(I figure you folks can sort this last one out by now. I'm done!