Skip to main content

Did the UN Just Admit That Russia Isn't Responsible For Attack on Syria Aid Convoy?

By
The "blame Russia!" narrative is collapsing — again.
We knew we were in for a real treat when the United States announced that Russia had bombed a U.N. aid convoy in Syria. What a terrible crime against humanity, timed perfectly to distract from the fact that, for lack of a better term, the U.S. was caught giving air support to ISIS. As always, Russia is guilty until proven deserving of more sanctions. Of course, even a casual news consumer will quickly recognize that the "Russia did it!" narrative is severely lacking. Let's see how Reuters frames this terrible (Russian) crime:
Two Russian Sukhoi SU-24 warplanes were in the skies above the aid convoy at the exact time it was struck late on Monday, two U.S. officials told Reuters, citing U.S. intelligence that led them to conclude Russia was to blame.
Oh, and look what we have here. The BBC says it was a helicopter attack:


But here's the best part of this terrible Russian helicopter/fighter jet/whatever attack which cannot be confirmed by anyone:
"The U.N. in Syria was informed of the attacks as they unfolded. Despite our efforts and communications with parties to the conflict, further attacks continued throughout the night, hampering efforts to reach and attend to the wounded," the statement by the coordinators, Massimo Diana and Kevin Kennedy, said.
An original version of the statement referred to "air strikes" rather than "attacks", but it was amended within minutes.
...
"The explanation is that we are not in a position to determine whether these were in fact air strikes. We are in a position to say that the convoy was attacked," said Jens Laerke, U.N. humanitarian spokesman in Geneva.
Remarkable. So a convoy carrying U.N. aid came under fire, and the U.N. was updated on the attacks as they happened, but it's impossible to determine whether the attacks were from the air or not? We're even told that the attacks "continued throughout the night" which hampered "efforts to reach and attend to the wounded."
Remarkable. So a convoy carrying U.N. aid came under fire, and the U.N. was updated on the attacks as they happened, but it's impossible to determine whether the attacks were from the air or not? We're even told that the attacks "continued throughout the night" which hampered "efforts to reach and attend to the wounded."

So the U.N. was well aware of the attacks, and there were even people on the ground, as the attacks were happening, attempting to help those who were wounded, but, it's absolutely impossible to say if these attacks came from the air! Yes, how could the U.N. know if bombs were dropping from the sky? They were only "informed of the attacks as they unfolded...throughout the night". It's really unreasonable to expect the U.N. to be able to determine if these attacks came from the air, or from the sea, or maybe even from a sinkhole, right?

The new and improved headline of this Reuters story is: "Russian aircraft believed to hit Syria convoy, U.S. officials say", and no, we're not joking. You know what this is called? Covering your ass. Of course, the U.N. won't come out and say it, but there's a very good reason why they've dropped the "air strikes" from their statement: It's because they know it's utter bullshit.
So to answer our own headline's question: Yes, in its own cowardly way, the United Nations just confirmed what we already know: Russia shot down MH-17!!

Labels:
Location: United States

Popular posts from this blog

Russia: Let's Improve Baltic Air Safety! NATO: No Thanks, We'll Pass

By
NATO has rejected air-safety proposals made by Russia which would have ensured all military planes flying in the Baltic region would operate with their transponders switched on. This makes no sense. According to the Wall Street Journal, NATO officials said the proposals “would do little to improve” air safety — a strange response, given that NATO has repeatedly scolded Russia for allegedly flying its military jets over the Baltic with transponders switched off. Headlines about ‘dangerous’ and ‘unsafe’ Russian military flights have been ten-a-penny over the last couple of years. Such stories have become so ubiquitous — and the media so obsessed with blowing them out of proportion — that at one point a woman in Cornwall became convinced that she saw Russian bombers overhead one day when she was out for a driving lesson. One would imagine then, given NATO’s repeated criticisms and concerns over safety in the Baltic region, that they would have welcomed any kind of common-sense prop...
Post a Comment
Read more

Clinton Versus Trump on War with Russia

By
The biggest difference between the two major-Party U.S. Presidential candidates is that Hillary Clinton wants to continue the Obama-Administration’s policy of regime-change in nations that aren’t hostile towards Russia (such as Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and now Syria), and that Donald Trump doesn’t. Trump wants to focus U.S. national-security policies instead upon eliminating jihadists (a problem that the U.S. and Saudi governments actually gave birth to in Pakistan and Afghanistan starting in 1979, in order to cripple the Soviet Union — which ended in 1991). Trump says that the Cold War is over , but Hillary says «Russia must pay a price». However, neither candidate has provided any fleshed-out position on the matter. Hillary Clinton doesn’t need to do so, because she has already shown by her actions in public office, that she has consistently favored overthrowing heads-of-state who were either neutral or else downright friendly toward Russia, of which there have been four cases that...
Post a Comment
Read more

Obama Vetoes 9/11 Bill, Defends Saudi Arabia from Lawsuits

By
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has vetoed a bill that would have allowed the families of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia. The move sets Obama up for a possible first veto override by Congress. Both chambers passed the bill by voice vote. The House sent Obama the bill just before the 15th anniversary of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001. Obama says the bill would “upset longstanding international principles regarding sovereign immunity.” The bill would have given 9/11 families the right to sue in U.S. court for any role that elements of the Saudi government may have played in the attacks. Fifteen of the 19 men who carried out the attacks were Saudi nationals.
Post a Comment
Read more