This article is a translation of "Wordt MH17 ons 9/11?"
Because I have long studied the workings of shadow power structures, the disaster with Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July 2014 soon gave me the sense I was looking at a double-layered operation. I am only too aware of the fact that this is an area that also attracts people who will draw conclusions in haste, let their prejudices speak too loudly, and who will make up facts themselves if they can’t piece together the entire story (or insinuate to fill the gaps). But that does not mean that one should therefore look the other way just to avoid being blackballed as a ‘conspiracy theorist’. For everything points to MH17 revealing a lot of NATO and Dutch policy towards Russia.
Let me stress that the MH17 disaster is not something that one can afford to be cavalier about. In a way we are all ‘loved ones’ of the victims, and the images of children’s playthings and booklets affects me as much as somebody whose own child or grandchild perished there (and then I am not even talking about the 4,000 plus non-Dutch dead that this struggle has already caused). However, as a relative outsider and somebody who has some mileage in this domain, I feel obliged to delve deeper into this affair than the average family member can afford emotionally or in terms of expertise. Clearly we cannot rely on the mainstream media in this matter.
Often it is the speed with which events are being crafted into a standing narrative that makes one suspicious. Hilary Clinton, who resigned as Obama’s secretary of state over his refusal to intervene directly in Syria, immediately knew who had shot down MH17: ‘Now Putin has really gone too far’. That has become the silently but broadly accepted interpretation of the disaster.
Every day that passes without us knowing who really was responsible for the shooting down of MH17 therefore works to the advantage of those who want to corner ‘Putin’ and are working hard on it, with sanctions, manipulating the oil price, etc.
That does not mean that Russia can therefore not have been involved under any circumstance, on the contrary. We can safely say that there are two immediate suspects: the regime in Kiev that came to power after the Maidan revolt, and the rebels in the eastern provinces. At the same time there are outside players having a hand in what is happening—the US, NATO and the EU on the side of Kiev, and Russia on the side of the Russian-speaking Ukrainians). I will not be concerned here with the degree to which this is the case on each side.
The suspicion that the story about MH17, departed from Schiphol with mainly Dutch passengers on board, is a different one from what really happened, arises because of the obvious untruths peddled by the responsible authorities. So initially ‘we’ were supposedly unable to reach the crash site because it was too dangerous. But Canadian OSCE observers were there straightaway and concluded that workmen were sawing on the cockpit; a BBC report of the Russian language programme spoke with eyewitnesses without delay, etc. First our government declared that the plane had exploded at once because of decompression, but then a journalist played so ably on the vanity of our minister of foreign affairs, Frans Timmermans, that he suddenly revealed that one passenger had been found wearing an oxygen mask, which suggests a radically different scenario.
All along, whilst these contradictions were emerging, there were to my taste just too many memorial services in which reporters were fixated on how moving things were, the flowers, how the chairs had been arranged, the expression on the Queen’s face, etc.
According the Canadian former diplomat and professor at the University of California at Berkeley, Peter Dale Scott, the grand old man of research into shadow power structures, outsiders cannot entirely solve undercover operations in most cases—there always remain aspects which only a strong parliamentary commission with a strong research staff that works closely with loyal intelligence agencies and the police, can bring to light.
However, by studying a series of such cases, it becomes possible to detect a certain structure.
From my own work on the assassinations of Moro in Italy and Palme in Sweden, the Lockerbie disaster, the Moluccan train hijack, and others, as well as reading Scott’s book on the JFK assassination, work on 9/11, etc. I see this structure as follows:
Under each heading there are other possibilities that can be included but this is the core structure. The starting point for an investigation is usually D, that is, by what is said and what is not said, because people contradict themselves, etc., questions arise. ‘B’ is of course the trickiest issue. But in all cases Napoleon’s famous saying applies that for those seeking to hide the truth of the matter, it is not necessary to suppress the truth, it is enough to postpone it.
In the MH17 affair I recognise several elements of the above, and that is how the issue must be investigated. Preferable not in twenty years’ time, but now.
Kees van der Pijl
Often it is the speed with which events are being crafted into a standing narrative that makes one suspicious. Hilary Clinton, who resigned as Obama’s secretary of state over his refusal to intervene directly in Syria, immediately knew who had shot down MH17: ‘Now Putin has really gone too far’. That has become the silently but broadly accepted interpretation of the disaster.
Every day that passes without us knowing who really was responsible for the shooting down of MH17 therefore works to the advantage of those who want to corner ‘Putin’ and are working hard on it, with sanctions, manipulating the oil price, etc.
That does not mean that Russia can therefore not have been involved under any circumstance, on the contrary. We can safely say that there are two immediate suspects: the regime in Kiev that came to power after the Maidan revolt, and the rebels in the eastern provinces. At the same time there are outside players having a hand in what is happening—the US, NATO and the EU on the side of Kiev, and Russia on the side of the Russian-speaking Ukrainians). I will not be concerned here with the degree to which this is the case on each side.
The suspicion that the story about MH17, departed from Schiphol with mainly Dutch passengers on board, is a different one from what really happened, arises because of the obvious untruths peddled by the responsible authorities. So initially ‘we’ were supposedly unable to reach the crash site because it was too dangerous. But Canadian OSCE observers were there straightaway and concluded that workmen were sawing on the cockpit; a BBC report of the Russian language programme spoke with eyewitnesses without delay, etc. First our government declared that the plane had exploded at once because of decompression, but then a journalist played so ably on the vanity of our minister of foreign affairs, Frans Timmermans, that he suddenly revealed that one passenger had been found wearing an oxygen mask, which suggests a radically different scenario.
All along, whilst these contradictions were emerging, there were to my taste just too many memorial services in which reporters were fixated on how moving things were, the flowers, how the chairs had been arranged, the expression on the Queen’s face, etc.
According the Canadian former diplomat and professor at the University of California at Berkeley, Peter Dale Scott, the grand old man of research into shadow power structures, outsiders cannot entirely solve undercover operations in most cases—there always remain aspects which only a strong parliamentary commission with a strong research staff that works closely with loyal intelligence agencies and the police, can bring to light.
However, by studying a series of such cases, it becomes possible to detect a certain structure.
From my own work on the assassinations of Moro in Italy and Palme in Sweden, the Lockerbie disaster, the Moluccan train hijack, and others, as well as reading Scott’s book on the JFK assassination, work on 9/11, etc. I see this structure as follows:
| A. There is a political crisis situation which only by a drastic intervention can be overcome. |
B. There are always marginal groups, both in the state and in society, which are ready and able to resort to violence. They are now provoked or just not stopped from coming into action in the matter under A. |
C. The responsibility is placed before the party which has been identified as a the cause of the crisis under A. |
D. A reading emerges in which A (the crisis) and C (the cause) are turned into a single narrative; aspect B is taboo (‘conspiracy theory’). |
Under each heading there are other possibilities that can be included but this is the core structure. The starting point for an investigation is usually D, that is, by what is said and what is not said, because people contradict themselves, etc., questions arise. ‘B’ is of course the trickiest issue. But in all cases Napoleon’s famous saying applies that for those seeking to hide the truth of the matter, it is not necessary to suppress the truth, it is enough to postpone it.
In the MH17 affair I recognise several elements of the above, and that is how the issue must be investigated. Preferable not in twenty years’ time, but now.
Kees van der Pijl
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten