Russia shelled Ukrainians from within its own territory, says study

[moondust]

Source: Guardian

Tuesday 17 February 2015 09.00 EST

When Ukrainian forces came under withering attack in the east of the country last summer, soldiers were surprised as much as scared by the ferocity of the attack. The separatists they were up against had proven fierce and organised. But this was something else.

Now a group of British investigative journalists using digital detection techniques, satellite imagery and social media has provided near conclusive proof that the shelling came from across the border in Russia.

~more~


Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/17/russia-shelled-ukrainians-from-within-its-own-territory-says-study

[sakabatou]

1. If the shelling truly came from Russia

this is going to get much, MUCH uglier.

[uhnope]

67. ...

[Major Nikon]

2. It can't possibly be true. RT says no.

[rhett o rick]

18. And of course the American government never lies to it's people.

Well maybe Bush lied and H. Clinton lied, but other than that our government would never lie and we should believe everything they say.

[Major Nikon]

19. And of course the American government commissions it's own propaganda network cleverly disguised

as a news network specifically for the purpose of lying to its people and we should believe everything they say.

[rhett o rick]

21. If you are speaking of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, then yesss. They would tell us there were WMD's

in Iraq.

[Major Nikon]

22. Well there you go, EXACTLY the same

All those networks are ran by a raging homophobic nutbag who is on the payroll of and subservient to the raging homophobic nutbag who exercises totalitarian control over the country.

[rhett o rick]

24. Your post is ridiculous, but I guess that's what you do when you have nothing.

You guys only listen to those that say that Obama is wonderful, the Democratic Party is perfect and the USofA is the best country in the world. Should anyone suggest anything different you want to alert/hide/lock/ban. Not very "politically liberal".

[Major Nikon]

33. You stole my line!

[NuclearDem]

65. Ridiculous.

It's a matter of principled vs unprincipled.

People who were disgusted by the illegal invasion of Iraq apply that principal to the illegal invasion of Crimea, while others bend over backwards to justify it (the Crimeans greeted the Russians as liberators!).

Some people's principles only apply agains the West, not uniformly.

[Cha]

48. Your post says it all and thereof is

NOT "ridiculous".

[JonLP24]

23. The US actually does

Alhurra is one.

More indirectly -- this won a Pulitzer BTW



How the Pentagon Spread Its Message

In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.

The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/04/20/washington/20080419_RUMSFELD.html?_r=0

[rhett o rick]

25. Some don't want to hear anything except goodness about our government. nm

[newthinking]

30. Project Censored - What is modern censorship?

Modern censorship is extremely effective because much of the population remains unaware.


http://www.projectcensored.org/censorship/

WHAT IS MODERN CENSORSHIP?

At Project Censored, we examine the coverage of news and information important to the maintenance of a healthy and functioning democracy. We define Modern Censorship as the subtle yet constant and sophisticated manipulation of reality in our mass media outlets. On a daily basis, censorship refers to the intentional non-inclusion of a news story – or piece of a news story – based on anything other than a desire to tell the truth. Such manipulation can take the form of political pressure (from government officials and powerful individuals), economic pressure (from advertisers and funders), and legal pressure (the threat of lawsuits from deep-pocket individuals, corporations, and institutions).

[rhett o rick]

43. Yep, right on. nm

[Major Nikon]

38. You said it brother

If anyone dares to throw out the idea that rt.com is nothing more than Putin's mouthpiece, they MUST believe everything our government has to say.

[Major Nikon]

55. So RT is biased 'JUST LIKE' CNN, but I'm the one that has a bazaar way of looking at things

[Major Nikon]

60. "...I recognize that RT is biased just like CNN is."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141016680#post44

Your turn. Why don't you try quoting where I used the word censor, a derivative of that word, or any other word or phrase that is on this side of reality that remotely resembles that word. Fair enough? Instead you are continuing to put that word in my mouth even after I called bullshit. Sounds like "a bazaar way of looking at things", no?

Maybe then you'll get a bit more traction out of the claim of "putting words into my mouth"? Otherwise you sound more than just a bit hypocritical.

Just sayin'

[Major Nikon]

66. Next time try making more sense and you might have better luck

Cheers!

[treestar]

56. Well it's a lot better than the Russian one

[rhett o rick]

64. I am not arguing whether Russia is better than the USofA, I am arguing against censorship on a

"politically liberal" message board. USofA isn't infallible but you'd never hear that on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox. Some times it's interesting to get a view from outside the USofA. But I trust "politically liberal" posters to be able to figure it out for themselves and have a problem with those among us that think they should decide what we can read or not.

[Major Nikon]

37. You forgot to mention the Propaganda Broadcasting Service (PBS)

...which is EXACTLY like Alhurra in that it receives government funding. The exception is PBS actually includes child indoctrination programming like Sesame Street which makes it EXACTLY like the Hitler Youth.

Yes, exactly. All of these things are EXACTLY like RT.com in that they are directly financed and managed by the central government exclusively for the purpose of spreading propaganda and misinformation.

[JonLP24]

39. RT really isn't like that

It is other news organizations in Russia that is.

I've actually watched RT and they're more like (but better) than CNN, Fox, MSNBC but a little more on the tabloid side.

[Major Nikon]

40. RT really is like that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Criticism

[JonLP24]

51. RT covers the criticism

[rhett o rick]

45. So you have nothing of substance to add except that Sesame Street is like the Hitler Youth?

Funny how you guys take pot shots at The Guardian, al Jazeera, and RT, yet never, ever mention which news outlets you trust.

I think once you start censoring those that you don't like, it becomes a very slippery slope.

[Major Nikon]

46. Sarchasm

(sär'kăz'əm)

1. (n.) The abyss between the creator of witticisms and the intended recipient who does not find the humor in it.

Evidently you have nothing to add other than RT is worthy of equal trust compared to any news outlet I'd care to name, which tends to speak volumes about what you trust or don't better than I ever could.

Cheers!

[rhett o rick]

47. If it was an attempt at sarcasm I think you failed. I didn't say that "RT is worthy of equal trust

compared to any news outlet I'd care to name." But putting words into my mouth makes it easier for you to argue.

I say keep an open mind, don't be so quick to censor, at least for others. Those that would censor are conservatives.

[Major Nikon]

54. Who said anything about censor?

"But putting words into my mouth makes it easier for you to argue."

[Cha]

49. Right.. it's from the Guardian so it can't possibly be accurate.. and this has nothing to do with

whether the corporatemediawhores in the US LIE.. they lie for kochsters.. RT LIES for Putin.

[JonLP24]

52. The Guardian has probably been by far the greatest source regarding this conflict

They have many reports & stories that would be dismissed as "Putin boot-licker" propaganda though

Vice has been the best regarding video journalism.

[Man from Pickens]

3. Interesting "investigative journalism group"

brought to you by the same folks who tried to drag us into war in Syria by falsely blaming a chemical weapons attack on Assad

the propaganda over Ukraine and Syria is so thick you can barely scratch it with a diamond drill

[Fred Sanders]

6. Same psych-ops group, same con game, same war mongering, same guillable targets.

New social media.

[newthinking]

31. Exactly. This is not a "Study", which is the first thing that should make people realize this

is not honest information.

The media is trying to make it sound like this is some kind of professional study, which it is not. Even in the articles there are multiple references to the fact that the information is not scientific or reliable.

[geek tragedy]

7. "falsely blaming chemical weapons attack on Assad" sorry the only parties guilty of falsehoods

are the Assadapologists who deny the overwhemelming evidence that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons.

Not surprising to see those in the tank for Assad also in the tank for Putin though.

[Man from Pickens]

9. That "evidence" was soundly refuted and rejected

Do you not remember at all the failed (first) attempt at getting us into war with Syria? These claims were central to it, and the dubiousness of those claims was a primary reason why this country did not support getting into yet another war.

[geek tragedy]

11. "the evidence was soundly refuted and rejected" by no one with any credibility

Just because war was a bad idea does not mean that the butchers in the Assad regime didn't commit this atrocity.

This is just like the fact that Saddam gassed the Kurds. That did not mean it was a good idea to invade Iraq, but it was also pointless to try to deny that Saddam used poison gas on civilians.

[Man from Pickens]

14. The American people have credibility

all that matters in a democratic system.

Maybe you should take a page from the rest of us and develop a healthy sense of skepticism when war is proposed on the basis of secret intelligence information. Most people learned that lesson from the Iraq disaster.

[geek tragedy]

15. Thinking war was a bad idea is not the same thing as thinking that the Assad regime was

not guilty of using chemical weapons. Do you seriously not understand this basic concept?

Also, by your curious logic evolution has thoroughly been refuted by the wisdom of the American voters.

[Man from Pickens]

20. They go hand-in-hand

It made no sense whatsoever for Assad to use chemical weapons, especially directly on the heels of it being stated that that would be the explicit trigger for a US invasion. Never mind that he had no prior history of using them and there was no military reason to use them either. It was as clear a set-up to create a pretext for war as they get.

Not only that, but the set-up was exposed and blew up in Kerry-McCain's faces. Let me remind you of the unavoidable key fact: Elizabeth O'Bagy, on whose claims the accusations against Syria relied, was revealed as a complete fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_O%27Bagy

And here is the fraud herself in her "expert" role on Syrian chemical weapons:

After being fired (she was outed for having a fake Ph.D.) she was hired by John McCain.

I hope this refreshes your memory as to what exactly happened a year and a half ago and why we didn't end up invading Syria then.

[geek tragedy]

28. The UN and Human Rights Watch reports have all established facts pointing the finger

at Assad's regime. The antics of one irrelevant self-promoter do not change the facts as found by the forensic investigators.

No serious investigation has ever pointed the finger away from Assad.

Do you admit that Saddam gassed the Kurds?

The reason why there was no war here is that Syria agreed to give up its chemical weapons. All of them. Not because anyone changed their mind on whether they had used them.

It is simply false to say the reason war was avoided had anything to do with exculpation of the Assad regime.

[newthinking]

32. People are ignorant that this is a continuation of PAX Americana and the International Republican

Institute and the neocons are still moving forward with the basic PNAC ideology.

The propaganda is so effective that while I was skeptical, I did not even realize the extent to which these "color" revolutions were falsely portrayed until I saw it happening in a country I am familiar with. Once the scales fell off I started reading more and saw many of the same things. That war reporting is completely "narrative" (and not truth) based. We have supported violent groups who are actually minority parties (because they are willing to pull it off?) that are nasty and frighten people, and that has been the reason for collapse into civil war and all the "unpredictable" consequences that follow.

[Fred Sanders]

10. ..........................

Stephen Johnson, a weapons expert at the Cranfield Forensic Institute, part of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, said that the application of crater analysis techniques to satellite imagery was “highly experimental and prone to inaccuracy”.

“This does not mean there is no value to the method, but that any results must be considered with caution and require corroboration,” Johnson said in an email after reviewing the Bellingcat report. He added that “the most significant part of the report” was the discovery of the apparent firing positions on the border.

The ground markings do not seem to be consistent with agricultural machinery, Johnson said. “They indicate an orientation of vehicles that would not be unusual for artillery vehicles, and there does appear to be some ‘scorch’ damage that is not a wheel or track.”

[geek tragedy]

13. He's saying that the ground markings on the Russian side were evidence of artillery use

Since they were consistent with artillery vehicles and not agricultural ones, and that there were scorch marks.

In other words, he's agreeing with the report.

[Cha]

50. Right.. according to the Usual Suspects.. Assad and Putin are blameless homophobic despots..

Billy Graham's Son Supports Putin's Anti-Gay Hysteria: Two Peas in a Homophobic Pod

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/bill-graham-s-son-supports-putin-s-anti-gay-hysteria-two-peas-in-a-homophobic-pod/18545-bill-graham-s-son-supports-putin-s-anti-gay-hysteria-two-peas-in-a-homophobic-pod

[JonLP24]

53. How do the other so-called "usual suspects" feel about Ukraine's government?

Oleksandr Sych
Deputy prime minister

Sych, 49, is a member of the far-right nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party. He is an anti-abortion activist and once publicly suggested that women should "lead the kind of lifestyle to avoid the risk of rape, including refraining from drinking alcohol and being in controversial company". He has attracted criticism from women's and human rights groups.

From the Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/04/who-governing-ukraine-olexander-turchynov

[geek tragedy]

57. We're glad Svoboda got bounced from the government

http://mw.ua/UKRAINE/nationalist-s-svoboda-party-members-resign-from-government-420_.html

Ukraine is much more democratic and less fascist than the regime in Moscow.

[Bill USA]

12. yeah, let's take Assad's word for it that the rebels used them even though they didn't have CW. LOL!

.. yeah, Assad's a trustworthy source.

[Man from Pickens]

17. Saddam's too, while we're at it

by the way that Chamberlain pic is the go-to illustration of all warmongering fascists - every targeted enemy is the new Hitler therefore anything and everything is justified

[DeSwiss]

4. WHAT A LOAD OF FUCKING BULLSHIT

- You heard it here first.

You warmongering motherfuckers, no one has any use for you............

[Fred Sanders]

5. So the U.S. Military is incapable of also discovering this "truth"? Some journalists can?

"Stephen Johnson, a weapons expert at the Cranfield Forensic Institute, part of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, said that the application of crater analysis techniques to satellite imagery was “highly experimental and prone to inaccuracy”.

“This does not mean there is no value to the method, but that any results must be considered with caution and require corroboration,” Johnson said in an email after reviewing the Bellingcat report. He added that “the most significant part of the report” was the discovery of the apparent firing positions on the border.

The ground markings do not seem to be consistent with agricultural machinery, Johnson said. “They indicate an orientation of vehicles that would not be unusual for artillery vehicles, and there does appear to be some ‘scorch’ damage that is not a wheel or track.”

[jakeXT]

8. "doing so could expose the secret intelligence operations involved in making such claims."

“We have new evidence that the Russians intend to deliver heavier and more powerful rocket launchers to the separatist forces in Ukraine, and have evidence that Russia is firing artillery from within Russia to attack Ukrainian military positions,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters during the Thursday afternoon briefing.

When asked by Lee for any evidence, however, Harf said the State Dept. is unwilling at this time to disclose further details because doing so could expose the secret intelligence operations involved in making such claims.

“I would like to know what you’re basing this new evidence that the Russians intend to send any heavier equipment,” Lee asked.

The details, Harf responded, are “based on some intelligence information.”

“I can’t get into the sources and methods behind it,” Harf insisted to Lee’s chagrin. “I can’t tell you what the information is based on,” she said at one point during the back-and-forth.


http://en.crisisua.net/state-dept-accuses-russia-firing-artillery-ukraine-refuses-provide-evidence-video/

[MattSh]

29. Translation:

We have no evidence.

[Fred Sanders]

34. "This is the best evidence we got"...... Speculation.

[Blue_Tires]

16. Won't be seeing any of the usual suspects in this thread, I promise you

[joshcryer]

26. Just a day or so ago they attempted to murder some CNN guys.

They sent them to an area to do a report and "magically" a mortar round fell nearby.

http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2015/02/russian-proxies-tried-to-kill-bbc-crew.html

[Fred Sanders]

35. Coincidence is not evidence. Speculation is not fact. Wishes are not horses.

Russia is not and did not invade Ukraine. Unless you are Senator Inhofe, then it is already a world war.

[joshcryer]

41. Read the link.

There is no other reasonable explanation.

[freshwest]

27. VIDEO from the link, imagine being on the recieving end. Beautiful countryside:

[polly7]

36. Says study.......

Last edited Wed Feb 18, 2015, 10:31 AM - Edit history (1)

Maybe this guy led it:

"If you've ever wondered how bad the propaganda can actually get, a BBC reporter is nearly on the receiving end of a Ukrainian army incoming mortar round which is clearly seen blowing up on camera, yet he still declares the rebels are shelling themselves and conducting a 'scorched earth' policy. This is pure insanity caught on video. Further proof that the western media is absolutely useless and only good for telling lies. The BBC has completely jumped the shark.

Distinctive sizzle of incoming fire and round hitting directly behind the jackass at the 1:23 mark. This is comedy gold."

(borrowed from a friend).

Says a lot about the 'reporting' in all of this. I don't believe a word of it.

[joshcryer]

42. You can clearly hear the round fired nearby.

He even caught the rebel general off guard when he asked about it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

62. Your friend out west. nt

[tech3149]

58. Always check your source

http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/bellingcat_brown_moses.php?page=all

It seems Bellingcat will push any story that is anti-Russian.

[moondust]

61. That you, Pooty?

Last edited Thu Feb 19, 2015, 02:35 PM - Edit history (1)

CJR is saying "Watch out for Bellingcat" in the sense that these guys are something to keep an eye on as this kind of citizen journalism may prove to be a complement or even a challenge to conventional journalism, along the lines of Uber.

He has never been to Syria or any other war zone. Yet he consistently identified which weapons were being used by which side (or rebel group) through the meticulous appraisal of photographs, satellite images, and YouTube videos, and the use of social media to seek information when he was uncertain.

That's an intern at CJR recognizing their achievement.

This article says nothing about Bellingcat pushing propaganda; quite the contrary.

Nice try.


By the way, what's for lunch in the Kremlin cafeteria today?