Trump isn’t convicted Russia is responsible for MH17 downing

trump_mh17

The Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he was not sure that Russian-backed militants shot down flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine in July 2014.

The Russian military constantly denied their involvement in the downing of the Boeing 777, although Western intelligence agencies, including the U.S., believe that Moscow is complicit in the tragedy.

Despite this, the Republican candidate Donald Trump told MSNBC Live that he was not certain about who shot down the plane with 298 passengers on board.

When asked if he would hold Russia accountable for the crime committed, Trump said “They say it wasn’t them. It may have been their weapon, but they didn’t use it, they didn’t fire it, they even said the other side fired it to blame them. I mean to be honest with you, you’ll probably never know for sure.”

Trump later admitted that it “it probably was Russia”, but said that he had no desire to involve America in the events in Ukraine.

He added that “there are only a few people that know. And you know one of them could be Putin, and we know one thing: he’s not going to be talking about it.”

The Dutch Safety Board did not directly accuse Russia or pro-Russian forces in Ukraine, but stated that the Russian-made missile was fired from the territory controlled by the separatists.

In response, Russia claims that Ukrainians shot down the plane in order to discredit Moscow.

Source: inosmi.info

 

  • K Pomeroy

    Of course Trump doesn’t believe Russia shot down the MH17. That’s because it’s pretty clear Ukraine did it, and Trump is sharp enough to perceive that out of all the media chaos and propaganda. He has to be a little hedgy on the subject, or else the all-powerful Western elite will make it harder for him to get elected. Running for president is a real tightrope, in a country that is no longer an open democracy. There are a lot of incisive opinions about MH17. American geopolitical historian Eric Zuesse is one of the major contributors. For links to his MH17 articles, along with theories on the motive, see:

    https://quemadoinstitute.org/2016/09/29/mh17-crash-investigation-links-from-eric-zuesse-and-commentary-by-quemado-institute/

    • Victor Ionopin

      “Pretty clear” for who?

      All right, Ukraine did it you say. With Su-25, right (as Russian Defense Ministry claimed 2 years ago)? Or with BUK, as they claimed later? Or with something else, because “our radars show there was no another object near the Boeing”, as they claimed just recently?

      So, what they hit the Boeing with? 😀

      • K Pomeroy

        Hello Victor. You seem sincere about trying figure these puzzles out, so I’ll do my best with what I know. Frankly, there are so many conflicting theories and so much contradictory evidence, it’s hard to sort out. But Hector Reban is of the opinion that the false AN-26 shootdown story came from RIA Novosti. Apparently the news agency jumped to the conclusion that another AN-26 had been shot down, as had happened twice in the days before July 17, 2014. TASS then got the false account, but retracted it shortly after publication. That a third An-26 had been shot down would have been an obvious conclusion to reach, if you had witnessed the event from a distance. See the short comment section after the article below (the article itself is long), especially the comments of Brendan and Hectorreban, for details:

        https://hectorreban.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/down-the-rabbit-hole-with-putin-haters-old-narative-fails-but-strelkov-did-it-anyway/

        The Dutch claim a Buk missile shot down the MH17. I disagree. I think it was shot down by one or more Ukrainian fighter jets. The first Dutch Safety Board report gave actually no technical proof at all it was a Buk missile. I read the document carefully twice. I’m a retired physicist, so I would I hope I can tell what valid reasoning looks like. The Dutch ignored, without much explanation, all the important data that pointed to fighter jets, such as the perfectly round 30 mm holes in the fuselage, as well as eye-witness reports, and the fact that there were only two bow-tie shaped fragments in the wreckage, where a Buk missile would have caused hundreds.

        But the new Russian data is very confusing, I agree. It contradicts previous accounts coming from Russia, such as the air control tower in Russia that reported fighter jets within 3 km of the Boeing. I would need to look at the details of the new Russian data and see how it was analysed to figure out why their conclusions were different. Something seems wrong there.

        • Victor Ionopin

          Really? REALLY? It is said perfectly clear in the report that Buk’s shrapnel was extracted from the debris, and the metal matched 100% with the one in their reference missile’s shrapnel.

    • Victor Ionopin

      Also, what shall we do with Russian TV report about “separatists shot down an Ukraininan An-26 near the city of Torez: a missile hit the plane, an explosion was heard, and the plane started to fall. It crashed near the shaft”? They reported it right on July 17, 2014, near 5 pm.

      Did anyone find debris from that An-26? No, there was no such thing. But there were debris from MH17 exactly at that place, “near the shaft”.

      That’s your “motive” by the way: it was the An-26 they wanted to shoot down. Plain and simple.

      In case you don’t know: LifeNews is one of Russia’s main propaganda channels. They would NEVER forge an anti-Russian fake like that.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxsO_pL_N4k#t=52s