41–50 of 52 posts
This makes me question Bellingcat's work somewhat: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/expert-criticizes-...
Unless you believe that it's Bellingcat that's manipulating photos, their narrative seems pretty sound.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do not know if "German image forensics expert Jens Kriese" who is interviewed by Spiegel was paid off or threatened in one form or another, especially if he happened to come from East Germany where the Soviet backed regime had files on everyone back before reunification. Spiegel.de != Jens Kriese
Now who's spreading FUD?
Russian/rebel social media also played a role in all this, in a way that's not mentioned in this article. There are some official and close-to-official social media accounts that are used by the Russian rebels to announce progress (Twitter, Facebook, VK) usually straight from the mouths of commanders and higher ups. When MH-17 was downed they boasted about shooting down a Ukrainian plane only to find themselves quick…
Are there any reputable sources or archives for this claim?
As for the actual content in question - here's an archive of a tweet of them boasting about having Buk missile launcher, the tweet was later deleted:
http://web.archive.org/web/20140707150151/https://twitter.co...
Here's a screenshot of the VK account where their (now former) commander and defense minister (and allegedly "ex" FSB member) claimed the downing of a Ukrainian plane, later the content was deleted:
http://i.imgur.com/fi4Zkx6.png
The Wikipedia article covers all that in depth:
Russian/rebel social media also played a role in all this, in a way that's not mentioned in this article. There are some official and close-to-official social media accounts that are used by the Russian rebels to announce progress (Twitter, Facebook, VK) usually straight from the mouths of commanders and higher ups. When MH-17 was downed they boasted about shooting down a Ukrainian plane only to find themselves quick…
Are there any reputable sources or archives for this claim?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how devoid of credibility the West's intelligence agencies have become. I know it has been known for a while since Snowden It's older than that. I remember 40 years ago it was possible that rather obvious facts (such as "you need to queue a long time to get basic consumer goods in the USRR") were dismissed simply because they could be labeled "CIA propaganda". In my country we even had an initiative for a "peace la…
> It's older than that. I remember 40 years ago it was possible that rather obvious facts (such as "you need to queue a long time to get basic consumer goods in the USRR") were dismissed simply because they could be labeled "CIA propaganda". This was even scarier before that. Check out the following biography review[0]; it's worth the time to read. Some quotes: "although it is clear to him that the Soviet economy is…
That's an excellent article, with deep insights. Thank you!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's older than that. I remember 40 years ago it was possible that rather obvious facts (such as "you need to queue a long time to get basic consumer goods in the USRR") were dismissed simply because they could be labeled "CIA propaganda". This was even scarier before that. Check out the following biography review[0]; it's worth the time to read. Some quotes: "although it is clear to him that the Soviet economy is…
> [0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/11/book-review-chronicles-... That's an excellent article, with deep insights. Thank you!
How does this: Higgins had played an important role in surfacing the use of chemical weapons in Syria by the regime of Bashar al-Assad relate to this? "Serious Questions about the Integrity of the UN Report" http://web.mit.edu/sts/Analysis%20of%20the%20UN%20Report%20o...
It establishes him as a reliable source for verification of civilian casualties, even relied on and confirmed by the U.N. From the director of strategic communications, UNAMA: "Verification of civilian casualties is a painstaking, long and often extremely difficult and sensitive process, involving multiple sources and sometimes conflicting data and reports." What he said is an understatement. The 2011 casualty number…
Don't get me wrong. I think every life is sacred and a single loss is an incredible tradgedy. But I tend to think spending effort on the living is more useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They ordered the downing? That's probably not right is it? I thought the rebels didn't realise it was a passenger plane. I don't get why Russia just doesn't say "yep, we supplied it, but we didn't fire it, too bad so sad". Russia aren't alone in supplying rebel forces with weapons.
According to most sources, the rebels didn't have the trained personnel to use such an advanced weapon - this is no MANPAD. So, actually, it was almost for sure one of Putin's soldiers to pull the trigger.
Surely you mean the retired and very much ex-Russian Army civilians who voluntarily felt it was their civic duty to travel to a neighboring country and voluntarily engage in civil war... right, comrade?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It establishes him as a reliable source for verification of civilian casualties, even relied on and confirmed by the U.N. From the director of strategic communications, UNAMA: "Verification of civilian casualties is a painstaking, long and often extremely difficult and sensitive process, involving multiple sources and sometimes conflicting data and reports." What he said is an understatement. The 2011 casualty number…
Four years and how many person-hours. Is an accurate count really that important? Couldn't 300 with some statistical bounds be used? Don't get me wrong. I think every life is sacred and a single loss is an incredible tradgedy. But I tend to think spending effort on the living is more useful.
I'll argue that this IS spending effort on the living. UN report is a credible figure, which CENTCOM can't ignore, and that hopefully will result in strategy or tactics change that result in fewer civilian casualties.
Take a look at this infographic, and you'll hopefully spot 2011 in it at once on the top/bottom graphs: http://projects.voanews.com/aircraft-weapons-released-in-afg...
It's 2010 that appears like it has greater number of aerial strikes, but that's not the case. Yes, it has some big spikes, but it's actually 2011 that cumulatively has more strikes. Below is the corresponding number of civilian victims of aerial strikes as determined by the UN. The bottom numbers, the casualty numbers, are going down after 2011. Note that the last "15" number came from a preliminary UN report and will be updated soon.
Back to the person-hours you mentioned. Was it worth it to keep counting 2011 statistics, four-five years later? I think yes, because otherwise it's really easy for CENTCOM or anyone else to either miss the correct numbers, or cherry-pick them. If anyone had only cited the 2011 UNAMA report (which was initially reported as 305), it would imply that number of casualties remained the same instead of rising sharply like it did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For those who didn't get the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvine...
We have a joke in Poland, about Russia's head of intelligence getting scolded by Putin for creating a mess. - "Mówiłem, żeby mu dać tylko parę 'rad'!" ("I told you to only give him some 'advice'!") - "Rad, polon, co za różnica towarzyszu?" ("Radium, polonium, what's the difference comrade?")
