MH17 : "A lot of indications that the BND theory stinks"

a reply to: RyleeNator

There is more evidence of a cover up than there is to prove the rebels shot it down otherwise it would be proven beyond all douth and you can't deny that fact

Yes by the separatists, or they would have allowed the investigators to do their job before they contaminated and moved parts of the plane away from the crash site.







But then we also have them discussing the downing of a plane thought to be a Ukraine cargo plane when in fact they shot down MH17, but of course that doesn't prove anything does it?

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The Dutch have recovered as much debris as they could and its heading to the Netherlands to be reconstructed. This part of the investigation will move into specific causes and who is responsible.

You mean, they'll find some "patsy" to pin it on.

Already know who's ultimately responsible. The dutch, themselves ... they are the ones who "agreed" to the flight path, knowing fully well it would take the plane over a war zone. They also are the ones who the most to gain, from a anti-Russian movement in Ukraine, and military campaign to retrieve the area where the plane went down ... as they've bought gas rights from Ukraine ... in pricesely that area.

Coincidence? there is no such thing.

Well, this can be something. Netherlands and Ukraine also have an agreement, that they will make findings secret if there a chance that it will harm Ukraine or Netherlands.

a reply to: baburak

No they don't.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: baburak

No they don't.

Malaysia Today says otherwise.

And in Dutch.

Exactly the fact of secret dealings means the people envolved in keeping secrets know the truth and one can only conclude that because the people blaming the rebels are the ones who insist on secrecy must be the guilty party a reply to: baburak

a reply to: baburak

Yup..

There is no agreement.

Your ignorance is astounding the the deal with Australia Belgium Holland and Ukraine was broadcast on sky news
: Xcathdra

originally posted by: RyleeNator
Your ignorance is astounding the the deal with Australia Belgium Holland and Ukraine was broadcast on sky news
: Xcathdra

not at all...

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: RyleeNator
Your ignorance is astounding the the deal with Australia Belgium Holland and Ukraine was broadcast on sky news
: Xcathdra

not at all...

Yes...

Fresh from the press the conformation :

The four countries which together perform the criminal investigation into the disaster flight MH17 have indeed signed a confidentiality agreement.

Google translate (funny how it makes RTL Nieuws (News) into Yahoo! News) :

Australia, like Netherlands refused to make the agreements public. Commenting on the decision, in an official letter of 15 October (.pdf), Australia recognizes that it is formally a non-disclosure agreement.

The agreements' write consensus between the parties before information concerning the investigation public. Because compliance is a prerequisite, all countries have therefore a veto. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs confirmed to Yahoo! News that the document 'authentic' is (.pdf). "It's non-disclosure of information is important not to jeopardize the investigation, and not to hinder future criminal prosecution under investigation. ''

Google Translate

Original Link

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

nope... try again.

Good god you guys need to friggin read and understand what you are reading.

What part of not jeopardizing the investigation do you guys just not grasp. Its to prevent nations involved from speaking about the incident and releasing information that can adversely affect the investigation. It also states the investigation will look into Ukraine's involvement.

This does not prevent the report from being complete or released if a nation does not like the info it contains. It refers to nations involved that have access to the investigative material from discussing the investigation BEFORE the investigation is complete. Its an international version of a court gag order. It prevents involved parties from releasing information in a manner that can affect the investigation and prosecution.

As an example if the investigation discovers that a Russian made missile was used it would prevent nations from releasing the info since the parties involved use Russian made missiles.
From your own source -

The agreements' write consensus between the parties before information concerning the investigation public. Because compliance is a prerequisite, all countries have therefore a veto. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs confirmed to Yahoo! News that the document is "authentic" . "It's non-disclosure of information is important not to jeopardize the investigation, and not to hinder future criminal prosecution under investigation. ''

Well there you have it in all its glory The pact to secrecy now are you still going to bare face lie about the situation or are you gonna come back with an ignorant one sentence reply reply to: Xcathdra

a reply to: Xcathdra

Each country have a veto on what goes Public. You didnt read that part.

originally posted by: RyleeNator
Well there you have it in all its glory The pact to secrecy now are you still going to bare face lie about the situation or are you gonna come back with an ignorant one sentence reply reply to: Xcathdra

Read my response and understand what it is you are reading.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Xcathdra

Each country have a veto on what goes Public. You didnt read that part.

I did read that. What you guys are ignoring is its referencing the investigation. Its stating nations involved cannot release information because it could interfere the investigation and criminal prosecution. It prevents countries involved from using the media to spin their own version.

It has NOTHING to do with a complete report and criminal prosecution from being released / occurring.

It specifically deals with involved nations having access to the investigative material and putting a mechanism in place to prevent those countries from releasing information so it does not jeopardize the investigation.

H0w do you guys not understand that?

Again -

The agreements' write consensus between the parties before information concerning the investigation public. Because compliance is a prerequisite, all countries have therefore a veto. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs confirmed to Yahoo! News that the document is "authentic" . "It's non-disclosure of information is important not to jeopardize the investigation, and not to hinder future criminal prosecution under investigation. ''

I have assisted other police agencies with investigations. Because those investigations are not mine I cannot release investigative material I am exposed to. The investigating agency is responsible for the investigation, including what information, if any, they release to media.

I have been involved in investigations that dealt with multiple agencies. I have taken part in giving updates to the various agencies involved. The information they get is confidential to the point that we can give them the info but they are prohibited from discussing / releasing investigative material without our consent.

We view the situation as a criminal investigation. Some of the entities we briefed are not law enforcement and see the information in a political instead of investigative manner.

Make sense now?

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Every "Western" news story contains words like "believe"or "probable," suggesting that not all the facts are in yet and that it is only a theory that a missile launched mistakenly by separatists is to blame. Meanwhile, the Russian media broadcast fabrications like this:



Who is doing the most responsible reporting?

USA evidence is nil none not a shred pure lies so you are spreading ignorance I actually don't know who shot down the plane but I do know who is telling lies and by applying logic I would be more incline to think USA/Ukraine are the guilty one's and the no other Russian haters are on this tred to back you up I reckon it's the general consensus

a reply to: RyleeNator

Right...

Again read the article and my response instead of throwing a temper tantrum because its not what you want.

As for nill and lies see the post above yours where Russian media fabricated an image and tried to pass it off as real.

a reply to: Xcathdra

To state this you must have read the signed agreement? Or did you just interpret the artical which is a subject of Public opinion already conserning the signed agreement?

Fabricated or not it is still more than the USA has brought to the table and Ukraine brought an image off a computer game for God's sake I'll probable get barred from the sit but your thoughts on the situation are moronic and I can only guess that your an idiot or a shillreply to: Xcathdra

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Xcathdra

To state this you must have read the signed agreement? Or did you just interpret the artical which is a subject of Public opinion already conserning the signed agreement?

What part of my posts are confusing you?

I have pointed out the error you and others are making about the document. It does NOT allow those nations to veto the conclusion of the investigation. It allows nations to veto the release of investigative material they get briefed on so as NOT to jeopardize the investigation criminal prosecution.

This is not a hard concept to understand.