Thursday, July 31, 2014

Malaysian scholar refutes MH 17 lies

34 International EIR August 1, 2014
Guest Commentary
Who Stands To Gain?
by Chandra Muzaffar
Dr. Muzaffar is the President of the International
Movement for a Just World
MALAYSIA, July 26—The Russian
military has released military monitoring
data which challenges allegations
circulating in the media pertaining to
the MH 17 crash in the Donetsk Region
of Eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.
Questions have been raised about Kiev
military jets tracking MH 17, Ukrainian
air traffic controllers, and the deployment
of Buk missile systems. Kiev
should also release military data on the
circumstances leading to the crash. So
should the Pentagon, which reportedly has relevant intelligence
and satellite data.
Since military data is hardcore information, Kiev
and Washington should be persuaded to be transparent
and accountable. The UN Secretary-General can play a
role in this since there is a specialized agency within the
UN, the ICAO, dedicated to international civil aviation.
Military data from Moscow, Kiev, and Washington
should be scrutinized by the independent international
panel that is supposed to probe the MH 17 catastrophe.
Such data carries much more weight than videos
purportedly revealing the role of the pro-Russian rebels
and the Russian government in the crash. One such
video showing a Buk system being moved from Ukraine
to Russia is a fabrication. The billboard in the background
establishes that it was shot in a town—Krasnoarmeisk—
that has been under the control of the Ukrainian
military since May 11. Similarly, a YouTube video
purporting to show a Russian general and Ukrainian
rebels discussing their role in mistakenly downing a civilian
aircraft was, from various tell-tale signs, produced
before the event.
The public should be wary of fabricated “evidence”
of this sort, after what we have witnessed in the last so
many years. Have we forgotten the monstrous lies and
massive distortions that accompanied the reckless allegation
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
(WMD), which led eventually to the invasion of that
country in 2003, and the deaths of more than a million
people? Iraq continues to bleed to this day.
What about the Gulf of Tonkin episode of 1964,
which again was a fabrication that paved the way for
wanton U.S. aggression against Vietnam
that resulted in the death of more
than 3 million Vietnamese?
The “babies in incubators” incident
in Kuwait in 1990 was yet another
manufactured lie that aroused the anger
of the people and served to justify the
U.S. assault on Iraq.
Just last year we saw how an attempt
was made by some parties to pin
the blame for a sarin gas attack in
Ghouta, Syria upon the Assad government,
when subsequent investigations
have revealed that it was the work of
some militant rebel group.
A False-Flag Operation?
From Tonkin to Ghouta, there is a discernible pattern
when it comes to the fabrication of evidence to justify
some nefarious agenda or other. As soon as the
event occurs before any proper investigation has begun,
blame is apportioned upon the targeted party. This is
done wilfully to divert attention from the real culprit,
whose act of evil remains concealed and camouflaged.
The colluding media then begins to spin the correct version
with the help of its reporters and columnists who
concoct “fact” out of fiction. Any other explanation or
interpretation of the event is discredited and dismissed
derisively to ensure that the “credibility” of the dominant
narrative remains intact. As the narrative unfolds,
the target, often embodied in a certain personality, is
demonized to such a degree that he arouses the ire of the
public and becomes an object of venom.
The pattern described here is typical of what is
known as a “false-flag” operation in which blame for
some dastardly deed is consciously transferred to one’s
adversary. It has happened right through history, and
many contemporary nation-states—and not just the
United States—are guilty of flying false flags.
To protect ourselves from being deceived by such
operations, the general public should always ask: Who
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar
August 1, 2014 EIR International 35
stands to gain from a particular episode? Cui Bono is in
fact an important principle in the investigation of a
crime. In the case of the MH 17 carnage, the pro-Russian
rebels do not benefit in any way from downing a
civilian airliner. Their goal is independence from the
Kiev government, which is why they are fighting Kiev
through sometimes violent means, including shooting
down its military planes. Massacring 298 passengers in
a flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur does not
serve their cause. Moscow, which backs the rebels to an
extent, also gains nothing from involving itself in such
a diabolical carnage.
The Demonization of Putin
Ten days after the carnage, it is now clear who is
trying to reap benefits from that terrible tragedy in the
skies. The demonization of the Russian President,
Vladimir Putin, orchestrated from various Western capitals,
including Kiev, after Crimea voted to join the
Russian Federation, thus thwarting one of the primary
strategic goals of NATO’s eastward expansion, has now
reached its pinnacle. After MH 17, it has become a lot
easier to convince people—even without an iota of evidence—
that Putin is a “mass murderer.” The tarnishing
of Putin’s image is crucial for those in the West who
want to curb Russia’s political re-assertion so that the
U.S. and its allies can perpetuate their global dominance
without hindrance.
MH 17 has helped the elite in Washington in yet another
sense. It has strengthened its push for tougher
sanctions against Russia which began after the Crimea
vote. Given their extensive economic ties with Russia,
many European countries such as Germany, France,
Netherlands, and Italy have been somewhat lukewarm
about widening and deepening sanctions. But will that
change now? Will an outraged European public, incensed
by the MH 17 massacre, demand that their governments
punish Moscow?
It is obvious that those who seek to punish Russia
and the pro-Russian rebels, namely, the elite in Washington
and Kiev, are poised to gain the most from the
MH 17 episode. Does it imply that they would have had
a role in the episode itself? Only a truly independent
and impartial international inquiry would be able to
provide the answer.
In this regard, we must admit that while elites in
Kiev and Washington may stand to gain from MH 17,
those who actually pulled the trigger may be some other
group or individual with links to the powerful in the two
capitals. It is quite conceivable that a certain wellheeled
individual equipped with the appropriate military
apparatus and with access to air-control authorities
in the region may have executed the act of evil itself.
Because of who he is, and where his loyalties lie, that
individual may have also decided to target Malaysia.
Was he giving vent to his anger over our principled stand
on the question of justice for the Palestinians? Was he
also attempting to divert public attention from Israel’s
ground offensive against Gaza, which time-wise coincided
with the downing of the Malaysian airliner?
As we explore MH 17 from this angle, would we be
able to connect the dots between MH 17 and MH 370,
between July 17 and March 8, 2014?
We should not rest till the whole truth is known and
the evil behind these two colossal catastrophes punished
We owe this to every soul who perished on those
fateful flights.
This article is dedicated to the cherished memory of
all those on MH 17—especially the 80 children who
were on board.
Feature Film
Eight months
before the
September 11,
2001 attacks,
Lyndon LaRouche
forecast that the
United States was
at high risk for
a Reichstag Fire
event, an event that would allow those in power to manage,
through dictatorial means, an economic and social crisis
that they were otherwise incompetent to handle. We are
presently living in the wake of that history.

No comments: