World Politics

[Merckx index]

Some other studies suggest otherwise.

Link?

Nevertheless, as gay couples avail of surrogacy, as soon as a child is born that is the last bit of motherhood that a child will have got. That's what is unjust and unfair. As a genetic parent is lost, everything should be done in ensuring a child's right to a mother and father. Children at the stage of birth can't speak up for this right and so it's left to this generation of adults who feel similarly to me to highlight this point. I make no apologies for it. While a same sex couple's love is equal, should it be fair that their wish in such a scenario be at the expense of the child's right? I don't think it should. I want my State and government to protect that right in every way possible. That won't be the case.

OK, so your argument is just that children of same-sex couples will have a parent of only one sex (they might have two mothers as well as two fathers). That is very different from your implied argument against not knowing both your biological parents, which was essentially the entire focus of the article you linked and spoke favorably of.

On absentee fathers from a child's birth, unplanned pregnancies, etc and single parents in the upbringing, circumstances of life mean it's not always the case that a child will be brought into the world and raised by his/her own mother and father. That's an accepted point. But never before has the State taken that right away.

The phrase “the State has taken that right away” is very misleading. The state is saying that it’s OK for same-sex couples to have children—no law against it. But the state has previously said that it’s OK—no law against it—for parents to live apart from their children, as long as they economically support them. If allowing same-sex marriage is taking away the right of a child to have two parents of different sex, so is allowing divorce and other broken families. My point is that you aren’t being consistent in opposing one and not the other. You’re basically arguing that same-sex marriages should be opposed on the grounds that they facilitate something that is already facilitated far more by conditions that are not illegal.

Divorce is not some random, unfortunate event that the state is powerless to control. It's a process that is specifically sanctioned by the state, in full awareness that it frequently has detrimental effects on children. The state--composed of voters like you--has decided that the benefits of allowing an incompatible couple to break apart outweigh the negative consequences to the children. In the same way, the state is deciding that the benefits of allowing a same-sex couple to marry outweigh the negative consequences of having two parents of the same sex. Negative consequences, I should add, that aren't nearly as severe as those accompanying many divorces, and which in fact bring with them other benefits that divorce does not.

You also have ignored my point that, as far as I know, the great majority of children of same-sex couples are adopted. Isn’t it better for a child to have two parents of any sex than to have no parents? And if the result of same-sex marriage is that the number of children removed from orphanhood greatly exceeds the number of children conceived by surrogacy, you're basically arguing that the rights of a relatively few children to have both a mother and a father are greater than the rights of a much greater number of children to have any parents at all.

 

[pmcg76]

To the point of single parents, that's a circumstance dictates, be it for tragic reasons or for whatever other reason. The child still had the right of a loving mother and father at birth. That wouldn't be absent in these instances.

Single parents do brilliant jobs in the upbringing of their children but of course the other parent's loving influence that would be wanted by all children would be missed. Children grow up into adults and look back in some cases with anger and others with sadness at the absence of such a relationship. Yet on the topic of discussion, should a child miss this right from birth. I don't think that's right. Hence why the relationship of a loving father casemother to a child at this particular moment of the child's life, should be paramount to this discussion.

So why are you not addressing those studies linked to by MI that show that same-sex couples seem to be raising children that are as happy as other children? Shouldn't that be the cornerstone in the argument you wish to make? As it is now, you completely by-pass this and make a short-cut from same-sex parents to unhappy (or however you want to quantify it) children. That's very dogmatic and not very fair.

Some other studies suggest otherwise. Having said that, I never suggested gay couples are harmful to a child's upbringing. I certainly never suggested "gays are hurtful to children" as was directed towards me earlier.

Nevertheless, as gay couples avail of surrogacy, as soon as a child is born that is the last bit of motherhood that a child will have got. That's what is unjust and unfair. As a genetic parent is lost, everything should be done in ensuring a child's right to a mother and father. Children at the stage of birth can't speak up for this right and so it's left to this generation of adults who feel similarly to me to highlight this point. I make no apologies for it. While a same sex couple's love is equal, should it be fair that their wish in such a scenario be at the expense of the child's right? I don't think it should. I want my State and government to protect that right in every way possible. That won't be the case.

On absentee fathers from a child's birth, unplanned pregnancies, etc and single parents in the upbringing, circumstances of life mean it's not always the case that a child will be brought into the world and raised by his/her own mother and father. That's an accepted point. But never before has the State taken that right away. A yes vote follows on that issue and therefore the reason why I voted No.

Just wanted to clarify something right here regards childrens rights etc as this was strongly used by the no side. Also maybe not all our international commentators are aware of this fact.

Primarily, adoption or surrogacy by a gay couple was already legal in Ireland and had zero to do with this referendum. Gay couples could still adopt etc even if the vote had been no. Gooner you are effectively saying you voted no because of something that was already in place before this referendum. Way to waste a vote.

For the record I did not vote as I never vote, don't think I am even registered. Yes I know it's terrible not to vote but it is my right as well. For me personally, there would have been other issues where I would have felt more compelled to vote than on this issue. It would have been a yes if I had voted.

Whilst I might have had some small doubts regarding some issues gooner raises, once I realised they were irrelevant, yes was the only possible answer.

 

[hrotha]

Personally I don't see what's so all-important about having both a male and a female parent/role model.

 

[sniper]

lol, Vatican calls Irish referendum a "defeat for mankind"
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/home-ehe-vatikan-nennt-irland-votum-niederlage-fuer-die-menschheit-a-1035691.html
Thought this Franciscus guy was a tad bit more progressive.

 

[phanatic]

Re:

Ehh? I didn't follow this at all, but I always thought Ireland was a conservative Roman Catholic country when it came to this sort of stuff. Too bad for them I guess.....

The relationship between Ireland's Catholics and the Catholic Church has often been just another loveless, troubled Irish marriage.

I'm moving back to Jersey.

 

[blutto]

....had an absolutely brilliant post ( even by my very high standards ) eaten by some forkup in our new glorious most bestest ever web site thingee ( and that is the third one this week....we are not pleased !...)

...anyways....wasn't going to weigh in on this but thought youse guys and gals may find the following interesting...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservative Silence on Ireland Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage (Updated)



After Ireland voted by a feckin' landslide to legalize same-sex marriage, the Rude Pundit thought, "Huh. Now that a nation that eats Eucharist wafers and shits family has said that they don't give a damn if two men marry, I wonder what our doyennes of morality will have to say." And, for the most part, the response is...not a goddamn thing.

If anyone was going to stroke out over it, you'd think that Bill Donahue of the Catholic League - hell, Bill Donahue is the Catholic League - would be everywhere condemning the living *** out of the Irish. Except he hasn't. That corn kernel-toothed motherfucker can't wait to send out his press releases of the damned on anything slightly Catholicish. Charlie Hebdo artist leaving his job? Donahue is practically dancing on the graves of Renald Luzier's dead colleagues. Today, Marco Rubio said some *** thing and Donahue was praising the *** out of it. The Irish referendum was last Friday. Oh, angry old bastard, where is your rage?

It's really kind of remarkable how much the right is just ignoring the vote so far. Maybe they're regrouping? Trying to figure out how to wrestle with this without offending the large number of religious people who did vote "Yes"? Perhaps they don't want to go down the rabbit hole of Irish anger at the Catholic church for, you know, *** children and abusing women?

On Shakey the Deaf Clown's Masturbatorium of Hate, Rush Limbaugh said not a word today, even though he regularly uses his bully pulpit to bully people over LGBT rights. The blog Redstate, led by Jesus's sandal huffer, Erick "Erick" Erickson, has not peeped a peep. Other than some Twitter hate, and saying there's hate on Twitter is like saying, "We breathe air," the nets and waves are blissfully free of attacks, not even a good "oh, they were drunk when they voted" bit of stereotyping.

Of course, it's not totally silent. The National Organization for Marriage (motto: "One man, one woman, like God intended except for all the polygamy in the Bible") said, "This is a reflection on the increasingly secularized nature of Ireland, together with the utter abandonment of principle by every political party in the nation, all of whom endorsed the referendum. This, combined with intense harassment of any group or individual who spoke out in opposition to the referendum, made it difficult for opponents." You know, when groups that harass LGBT people complain about harassment, you gotta almost laugh at the lack of self-reflection.

And the Vatican weighed in today, with Cardinal Pietro Parolin exclaiming, "I believe that we are talking here not just about a defeat for Christian principles but also about a defeat for humanity." A bit drama queeny, but pretty much what you'd expect for a church that's grappling with its outdated beliefs in a world that, more and more, tells it to go *** itself. That's a sin, by the way.

Surely, this silence will not last. Surely, the hate machine will churn out its incoherent blatherings as a kind of crude response, the cavemen telling the evolved humans how much God hates them for walking upright.

Update: Rude reader Greg M. pointed out that the National Review has yet to chime in about the Irish marriage vote, with not even a word from their array of angry bloggery practitioners.
- See more at: http://rudepundit.blogspot.ca/2015/05/conservative-silence-on-ireland.html#sthash.dKms6WnS.dpuf

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...note also the response from the Church was from a spokesman, a high ranking spokesman, but a spokesman nonethless, and not from the highest seat in the house....is this to give Pope Dude some wiggle room in formulating a response?....or...has that spokesman gone kinda rogue and is speaking for the conservative faction that has been running things for a while....would be interesting to hear from our man in Rome on this point...

Cheers

 

[TheGreenMonkey]

The opposition in Australia have now announced they will be putting forward a bill to make homosexual marriage legal.

It does not surprise me, it is just another erosion of the ideal of sexual morality that has now been almost totally destroyed,

All sex outside of marriage is wrong, I don't care whether someone has sex with a member of the opposite sex, the same sex, a child, an animal, it is all wrong, totally and utterly wrong, there is absolutely nothing good about any of it at all. It is simple, if you are not married to it don't have sex with it. Marriage is a relationship between one woman and one man for life, ideally a commitment made explicitly before God. None of this divorce, make a commitment and stick to it, God will stick to his commitment to the church.

However there is no real point abstaining for this immoral behavior if you are an atheist, you have bigger problems, you deny the existence of God, being a little bit more or less moral is not going to do you any good in the big picture.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

...it is all wrong, totally and utterly wrong, there is absolutely nothing good about any of it at all...

I don't really understand that point of view, do you believe in sex only for reproduction?

 

[TheGreenMonkey]

Re: Re:

...it is all wrong, totally and utterly wrong, there is absolutely nothing good about any of it at all...

I don't really understand that point of view, do you believe in sex only for reproduction?

No, I don't and nor does the Bible by the way. In the Apostle Paul's writing he is very for married couples having sex, he seems to almost command it, and he does not mean for only for having children. However that would have been the common outcome in that time of people when it involved women of the right age.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

...it is all wrong, totally and utterly wrong, there is absolutely nothing good about any of it at all...

I don't really understand that point of view, do you believe in sex only for reproduction?

No, I don't and nor does the Bible by the way. In the Apostle Paul's writing he is very for married couples having sex, he seems to almost command it, and he does not mean for only for having children. However that would have been the common outcome in that time of people when it involved women of the right age.

Then I don't get it if it's for pleasure. That's there whether the people are married or not (I'll not makes the obvious joke). But this is straying off topic so we should probably leave it

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Most contemporary civil rights have in fact arrived through a slippery slope process. Giving African-Americans and women the voting franchise and other rights opened the doors to other minorities as well. I don't have any problem with this. The term slippery slope implies a process taking society somewhere that it doesn't want to go, and strictly speaking, that's true. There are all kinds of changes in modern society that most people easily accept that would be abhorrent to their ancestors a couple of centuries ago. The question is not where society wants to go; it's how it feels when it gets there.

I'm at this point not so much arguing on why I think there shouldn't be same sex marriages, but rather why people who oppose it shouldn't be antagonized with accusations of discrimination and being against human rights and so forth, which is now frequently done is these types of discussions and in this very topic. The argument I'm trying to make isn't really that same sex marriage is wrong because it would open the door the polygamy. But in my mind not allowing for marriages with two men and a woman or some similar construction isn't discrimination of people who identify as polyamorouse, similarly I would argue that not allowing for marriages with two people of the same sex is not discrimination of people who identify as homosexual. Just as you say, the rights that polyamorouse people are entitled to can be protected without changing the institution of marriage to suit their needs; similarly I feel the rights of homosexual people can be warranted without changing the institution of marriage.

a church that's grappling with its outdated beliefs in a world that, more and more, tells it to go **** itself. That's a sin, by the way.

Good to know that the Western world now equals the world........

 

[TheGreenMonkey]

Re: Re:

...it is all wrong, totally and utterly wrong, there is absolutely nothing good about any of it at all...

I don't really understand that point of view, do you believe in sex only for reproduction?

No, I don't and nor does the Bible by the way. In the Apostle Paul's writing he is very for married couples having sex, he seems to almost command it, and he does not mean for only for having children. However that would have been the common outcome in that time of people when it involved women of the right age.

Then I don't get it if it's for pleasure. That's there whether the people are married or not (I'll not makes the obvious joke). But this is straying off topic so we should probably leave it

Yes it is getting off topic, so we can leave it.

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

The opposition in Australia have now announced they will be putting forward a bill to make homosexual marriage legal.

It does not surprise me, it is just another erosion of the ideal of sexual morality that has now been almost totally destroyed,

All sex outside of marriage is wrong, I don't care whether someone has sex with a member of the opposite sex, the same sex, a child, an animal, it is all wrong, totally and utterly wrong, there is absolutely nothing good about any of it at all. It is simple, if you are not married to it don't have sex with it. Marriage is a relationship between one woman and one man for life, ideally a commitment made explicitly before God. None of this divorce, make a commitment and stick to it, God will stick to his commitment to the church.

However there is no real point abstaining for this immoral behavior if you are an atheist, you have bigger problems, you deny the existence of God, being a little bit more or less moral is not going to do you any good in the big picture.

Australia is not Ireland but I would not be surprised if the bill was successful. Of course the legal fraternity will be happy as then we will have gay divorce as well. Many people could not care less, it's a non issue. They already have all of the same legal rights for everything else, if they want the piece of paper and the church wedding as well and the cake, whatever. Then the whole tired debate can disappear and they can start complaining about marriage costs.

 

[blutto]

....seems the group in charge of The Glorious Revolution in The Ukraine realized they weren't corrupt enough so they brought in some outside help...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ukraine president appoints ex-Georgia leader Saakashvili governor


Source: AFP/Yahoo

Odessa (Ukraine) (AFP) - Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on Saturday appointed fiercely pro-Western former Georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili, who once fought a war with Russia, as governor of the strategic Odessa region.


Poroshenko made the announcement at a televised event in the Black Sea port alongside the reformist Saakashvili, calling the ex-Georgian president a "great friend of Ukraine".

"There remain a large number of problems in Odessa: preserving sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and peace," Poroshenko said.

"But maybe the biggest challenge is another war -- a war against corruption, a war against injustice, a war against the unreformed economy."

The controversial announcement of the flamboyant Saakashvili as head of the southern coastal region is a pointed signal from Kiev to Moscow that it remains set on its pro-European course despite a bloody separatist conflict in the east blamed on the Kremlin.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-president-appoints-ex-georgia-leader-saakashvili-governor-131316539.html


This conflict has now truly entered into bizarro land. Imagine being from Odessa and having a governor appointed over you that is not even from your own country. It makes no sense, especially in consideration of what he previously was responsible for. In case anyones wondering, this is what being a great friend of Nuland and McCain gets you."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....some background...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A fugitive from criminal prosecution in his own ex-country....figures.





On 28 July 2014, criminal charges were filed by the Georgian prosecutor's office against the former President Mikheil Saakashvili over alleged "exceeding official powers" during the 2007 Georgian demonstrations as well as a police raid on and "seizure" of Imedi TV and other assets owned by the late tycoon Badri Patarkatsishvili. Saakashvili, then being in Hungary, responded by accusing the Georgian authorities of political score-settling and attempts at appeasing Russia. The United States expressed concerns over the case and warned that "the legal system should not be used as a tool of political retribution". The European Union stated that it took "note with concern" and it will "closely monitor these and other legal proceedings against members of the former government and current opposition in Georgia".


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikheil_Saakashvili#Legal_prosecution
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

....seems the group in charge of The Glorious Revolution in The Ukraine realized they weren't corrupt enough so they brought in some outside help...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ukraine president appoints ex-Georgia leader Saakashvili governor


Source: AFP/Yahoo

Odessa (Ukraine) (AFP) - Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on Saturday appointed fiercely pro-Western former Georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili, who once fought a war with Russia, as governor of the strategic Odessa region.


Poroshenko made the announcement at a televised event in the Black Sea port alongside the reformist Saakashvili, calling the ex-Georgian president a "great friend of Ukraine".

"There remain a large number of problems in Odessa: preserving sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and peace," Poroshenko said.

"But maybe the biggest challenge is another war -- a war against corruption, a war against injustice, a war against the unreformed economy."

The controversial announcement of the flamboyant Saakashvili as head of the southern coastal region is a pointed signal from Kiev to Moscow that it remains set on its pro-European course despite a bloody separatist conflict in the east blamed on the Kremlin.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-president-appoints-ex-georgia-leader-saakashvili-governor-131316539.html


This conflict has now truly entered into bizarro land. Imagine being from Odessa and having a governor appointed over you that is not even from your own country. It makes no sense, especially in consideration of what he previously was responsible for. In case anyones wondering, this is what being a great friend of Nuland and McCain gets you."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....some background...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A fugitive from criminal prosecution in his own ex-country....figures.





On 28 July 2014, criminal charges were filed by the Georgian prosecutor's office against the former President Mikheil Saakashvili over alleged "exceeding official powers" during the 2007 Georgian demonstrations as well as a police raid on and "seizure" of Imedi TV and other assets owned by the late tycoon Badri Patarkatsishvili. Saakashvili, then being in Hungary, responded by accusing the Georgian authorities of political score-settling and attempts at appeasing Russia. The United States expressed concerns over the case and warned that "the legal system should not be used as a tool of political retribution". The European Union stated that it took "note with concern" and it will "closely monitor these and other legal proceedings against members of the former government and current opposition in Georgia".


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikheil_Saakashvili#Legal_prosecution
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers

If Ukraine wants to move forward and has to if it wants financial assistance and improbable EU membership at this point, then this is not the way to do it. What is Poroshenko thinking ? What are the benefits of this move ? I don't see any except to the new governor.

 

[TheGreenMonkey]

72% of Australians are in favor of gay marriage.
I don't want to be an Australian any more.
I don't want to be from this planet any more.
The earth is covered in darkness.

 

[Amsterhammer]

To return to a hot subject of last year - lots of interesting stuff on this page.

With this new report all four major claims made at the Russian Ministry of Defence press conference have now been shown to be false:

– The flight path was not altered in the way claimed by the Russian Ministry of Defence. Data from the Dutch Safety Board’s preliminary report and other sources show Flight MH17 made no major course changes such as the one described in the Russian Ministry of Defence press conference.

– The Russian Ministry of Defence claimed the video of the Buk missile launcher presented by the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior was filmed in the Ukrainian government control town of Krasnoarmeisk. This has been proven to be untrue, with analysis of the video showing it was filmed in the separatists controlled city of Luhansk.

– Radar imagery was described as showing an aircraft close to Flight MH17 after it was shot down. Experts interviewed by various media organisations have stated this is almost certainly debris from Flight MH17 as it broke up over Eastern Ukraine.

– Satellite imagery shows Ukrainian Buk activity around July 17th. As this report shows, those claims are untrue, and were based on fabricated satellite imagery.

These claims, representing the majority of information publicly presented by the Russian government since the downing of Flight MH17, are a clear attempt by the Russian government to deceive the public, global community, and the families of the Flight MH17 victims, only days after Flight MH17 was shot down.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/05/31/mh17-forensic-analysis-of-satellite-images-released-by-the-russian-ministry-of-defence/

 

[python]

before reading the another *forensic* investigation on mh17, i attempted to check the author - a certain bellingcat - credentials...

turns out, there are none, including at the bloger's own site, except a stamp - 'by and for citizen investigative journalistse '...thus, i would not take it any more serously than the rebel's or russian propaganda.


@movingtarget
saakashvili is the sole reason i started following everything eastern europe in 2008. that he is being sought for crimes in his native georgia is not that unusual for a former soviet republic. not defending the foolish guy, but it is their standard practice to sue for corruption when the real reason is political.

the real problem with saaka is that he is a hot-blooded, irresponsible adventurist...according to the eu's own report, he started a war in 2008 attacking an independently minded region during the olympicgames counting that putin, while in peking, will not dare to react...he miscalculated and the russian troops almost drove him out of his capital.

my interest THEN was aroused by the crazy riskiness (or an utter stupidity) of his move. i tried to understand if he was given a green light by america...my research conclusively showed, he was not...while somewhat ambiguous, the state dept. did not encourage him.

iow, saaka is crazy and can lead to much trouble if not controlled.

i can not see anyone in the struggling, weak ukraine capable of controlling him. unless, it is another state department blunder of ambiguity.

 

[Merckx index]

Thanks for the link, Amster. That link links in turn to the most recent report, an analysis of photos provided by the Russian Defense Ministry (MoD) that Bellingcat (the blogger providing this analysis; it took me a minute to get the significance of that name) claims were digitally modified using Adobe Photoshop. An analysis of vegetation and other things on the ground seems to indicate that photos the MoD claimed to have been taken in mid July last year actually were taken in June. That is significant, because the point of the photos was to provide evidence that the missiles were moved by the Ukrainians to an area corresponding to that from which the missile that shot down the plane was believed to have been located. Modification of the photos is supported by showing that different areas of them have different levels of errors, which I take it would not be the case for an original photo.

However, Bellingcat also claims that the Russians actually added/removed images of missile launchers in these photos. I did not see evidence for that in his report. I'm not sure, but it seems that he's jumping from evidence that the photos were modified to making specific conclusions about what was modified. Still, if the photos were modified, and incorrectly dated, this is a very serious charge against the Russians. Maybe there's someone in the forum who is more familiar with photoshopping than I am, and can comment.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Re:

before reading the another *forensic* investigation on mh17, i attempted to check the author - a certain bellingcat - credentials...

turns out, there are none, including at the bloger's own site, except a stamp - 'by and for citizen investigative journalistse '...thus, i would not take it any more serously than the rebel's or russian propaganda.

A quick search turned up plenty of information about the blogger running this page, whom you so arrogantly dismiss.

Higgins has received significant praise and support from human rights groups, journalists, and non-profit organisations. "Brown Moses is among the best out there when it comes to weapons monitoring in Syria," said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch.[1] The New York Times war reporter C.J. Chivers said that fellow journalists should be more honest about the debt they owe to Higgins' Brown Moses blog. "Many people, whether they admit or not, have been relying on that blog's daily labour to cull the uncountable videos that circulate from the conflict," he said.[1] Amnesty International said that the Brown Moses Blog was vital in proving the Syrian government was using ballistic missiles, information then used to send a research mission to Syria.[14]

Eliot Higgins has been a subject of interest for the British and US media. He has been profiled in The Guardian,[1] The Independent,[11] The Huffington Post[3] and The New Yorker[2] as well as by Channel 4 News[14] and CNN International.[4] He has also been covered in foreign press.[15]

 

[blutto]

Re:

To return to a hot subject of last year - lots of interesting stuff on this page.

With this new report all four major claims made at the Russian Ministry of Defence press conference have now been shown to be false:

– The flight path was not altered in the way claimed by the Russian Ministry of Defence. Data from the Dutch Safety Board’s preliminary report and other sources show Flight MH17 made no major course changes such as the one described in the Russian Ministry of Defence press conference.

– The Russian Ministry of Defence claimed the video of the Buk missile launcher presented by the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior was filmed in the Ukrainian government control town of Krasnoarmeisk. This has been proven to be untrue, with analysis of the video showing it was filmed in the separatists controlled city of Luhansk.

– Radar imagery was described as showing an aircraft close to Flight MH17 after it was shot down. Experts interviewed by various media organisations have stated this is almost certainly debris from Flight MH17 as it broke up over Eastern Ukraine.

– Satellite imagery shows Ukrainian Buk activity around July 17th. As this report shows, those claims are untrue, and were based on fabricated satellite imagery.

These claims, representing the majority of information publicly presented by the Russian government since the downing of Flight MH17, are a clear attempt by the Russian government to deceive the public, global community, and the families of the Flight MH17 victims, only days after Flight MH17 was shot down.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/05/31/mh17-forensic-analysis-of-satellite-images-released-by-the-russian-ministry-of-defence/

.....really hate to rain on your parade here but a quick peek at the author reveals the following which deals with his treatment of the sarin attacks in Syria ( which are more or less the equivalent of the gotcha moment that MH17 is in the Ukrainian situation....)...

"Richard Lloyd and Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology stated that "although he has been widely quoted as an expert in the American mainstream media, [he] has changed his facts every time new technical information has challenged his conclusion that the Syrian government must have been responsible for the sarin attack."

....and the following which concerns one of the pieces of evidence presented above by Higgins...

"On 18 Jul 2014, Bellingcat "Found The Buk Missile Launcher That Downed Flight MH17" - though the photograph, widely claimed to have been taken in the town of Snizhne, was actually taken in the town of Torez and under weather conditions significantly different to those on the day of the MH17 crash.[8] [9] Eliot Higgins (proprietor of Bellingcat: known for investigative social media and weapons analysis) didn't consider when the photograph was taken to be important. The photo used by Bellingcat in the "investigation" as to the location of the BUK was uploaded on 18 July 2014 at 18:26:41. This "investigation" as to the location of the BUK" is an unusual way to go about things. Why not simply ask the person who took it or whoever supplied it? And why not ask when it was taken?

2014 Jul 18, 8:36 PM: Within a minute or so of Brown Moses tweeting that the Buk had been geolocated to Torez, James Miller (managing editor of Interpretermag) commented: "cool. Where?"[10]. James Miller, coincidentally, had been asked to geolocate the image (which appears to have originated from the Ukrainian Interior Ministry) only the day before[11]."

....from... https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Bellingcat


...thanks for the information but I think I will stick to the interpretations of journalists Parry, Escobar et al whose views are quite at odds with what Higgins (formally an unemployed finance and admin worker who spent his days taking care of his child at home before becoming an internet "journalist" ) presents...

...also see the following ...

"Higgins is not an unconnected loner with a strange hobby at all. He is part of the The London Project Investigation media network, a partnership of hackers and journalists of the Financial Times. Additionally there exists ties to the much greater OCCRP, The Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project. Officially a research project concerning organized crime, but in reality an anti-Russian information database. The OCCRP is sponsored by organisations as the The Open Society of the speculator George Soros.

Another sponsor is the very governmental US NGO and CIA front US Aid."


Cheers

"

 

[python]

Re: Re:

before reading the another *forensic* investigation on mh17, i attempted to check the author - a certain bellingcat - credentials...

turns out, there are none, including at the bloger's own site, except a stamp - 'by and for citizen investigative journalistse '...thus, i would not take it any more seriously than the rebel's or russian propaganda.

If he is what you claim, to add credibility and transparency, he should post under his real journalistic name...that he failed to do so, and you failed to entertain his reasons, speaks of an intent to cover up bias.

otoh, i clearly pointed my scepcisism towards most blogs, including those of the russian supported rebel blogs.

That you failed to note it is the problem of your ignorance, perhaps even your obnoxiousness.



A quick search turned up plenty of information about the blogger running this page, whom you so arrogantly dismiss.

Higgins has received significant praise and support from human rights groups, journalists, and non-profit organisations. "Brown Moses is among the best out there when it comes to weapons monitoring in Syria," said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch.[1] The New York Times war reporter C.J. Chivers said that fellow journalists should be more honest about the debt they owe to Higgins' Brown Moses blog. "Many people, whether they admit or not, have been relying on that blog's daily labour to cull the uncountable videos that circulate from the conflict," he said.[1] Amnesty International said that the Brown Moses Blog was vital in proving the Syrian government was using ballistic missiles, information then used to send a research mission to Syria.[14]

Eliot Higgins has been a subject of interest for the British and US media. He has been profiled in The Guardian,[1] The Independent,[11] The Huffington Post[3] and The New Yorker[2] as well as by Channel 4 News[14] and CNN International.[4] He has also been covered in foreign press.[15]

If he is what you claim, to add credibility and transparency, he should post under his real journalistic name...that he failed to do so, and you failed to entertain his reasons, speaks of an intent to cover up bias.

otoh, i clearly pointed my scepcisism towards most blogs, including those of the russian supported rebel blogs.

That you failed to note it is the problem of your ignorance, perhaps even your obnoxiousness.

 

[python]

Thanks for that excellent pice of quick research, blutto. For the reasons above, I was too sceptical to bother...

Turns out, the blogger hiding his real name, is just anther nut in in a media war sponsored by one of the sides.

 

[blutto]

...look, while I may have issues with the stuff AH has posted here I think the last line in your post is way too hot....we all have put out information that has proved sometimes dodgy ( like who knows maybe the stuff I just posted is dodgy too...but Higgins does strike me a nutter back-filling an agenda...btw love the Atlantic Council ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-insiduous-role-of-the-atlantic-council-securing-the-21st-century-for-nato/18945 ) photo of him in Maidan Square ( http://russia-insider.com/en/whats-bellingcat-anyway/ri7522 ) ...wonder who was baby sitting the kids... )...its cool to call out AH on the info presented but going personal doesn't make people look good...I mean this isn't SoWrong we are dealing with here...

....so everybody tranquillo...now, big group hug, and lets get to just plain old arguing....

Cheers

 

[python]

Look, calling my impersonal yet sceptical view of the blogger arrogant, that's what was personal...just as his earlier assersions of my Hatred for the ukrainians b/c i was critical of the 'revolution'

Such baseless, personally targeted comments leave space for my responce. Otoh, i always treat respectful disagreemnts with inherent understanding.