Aktuelle Zeit: 22. Mai 2019, 13:47


T.: Klage wegen MH17-Absturz eines US-Opfer-Anwalts

Das "Forum der toten Kommentare" beinhaltet Meinungsäußerungen, welche es nicht bis zur Veröffentlichung geschafft haben.
  • Autor
  • Nachricht
Offline

Kritischer Hörer

  • Beiträge: 734
  • Registriert: 10. Dezember 2015, 12:16

T.: Klage wegen MH17-Absturz eines US-Opfer-Anwalts

Beitrag14. Mai 2019, 20:16

https://meta.tagesschau.de/id/141964/glyphosat-prozess-bayer-muss-milliarden-zahlen
14.05.2019 - 12:30 | Glyphosat-Prozess: Bayer muss Milliarden zahlen
Klage wegen MH17-Absturz
@11:00 von karlheinzfaltermeier
Der Vater eines US-Opfers klagt.
Aber da zögert die Justiz bisher ...
Was die Anwendung bei Roundup betrifft wurde offenkundig mit der einfachen und ungefährlichen Handhabung geworben, so dass dieses aus heutiger Sicht naive Verhalten erklärlich ist.

Anmerkung: Antwort auf:
"Gibt es....
eigentlich schon Klagen gegen Boeing, oder traut sich da doch kein Richter irgendeines Countys? Oder werden die Opfer in Indonesien oder Äthopien mit ein paar tausend Dollar abgespeist? Sind ja keine Amerikaner, oder? Was "roundup" betrifft, habe ich in US-Zeitungen nicht gelesen, daß die Anwendung immer den Hinweisen gemäß erfolgte.


Robert Parry hat mehrfach berichtet. Er bezieht u.a. auch den Bericht des Niederländischen Geheimdienstes ein. Demnach besaß nur die Regierung in Kiew BUKs.
21.01.16 https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/21/kerry-pressed-for-mh-17-evidence/
The father of a young American who died aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 is pressing Secretary of State John Kerry to release evidence to support his early claims that the U.S. government possessed details about the launch of the missile that killed 298 people, reports Robert Parry.
... In a letter to Kerry dated Jan. 5, 2016, Thomas J. Schansman, Quinn’s father, noted Kerry’s remarks at a press conference on Aug. 12, 2014, when the Secretary of State said about the Buk anti-aircraft missile suspected of downing the plane: “We saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory. We saw the hit. We saw this aeroplane disappear from the radar screens. So there is really no mystery about where it came from and where these weapons have come from.”
… Two days later, on July 22, 2014, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a “Government Assessment,” also citing “social media” seeming to implicate the rebels. Then, this white paper listed military equipment allegedly supplied by Russia to the rebels. But the list did not include a Buk missile battery or other high-powered anti-aircraft missiles.
The DNI also had U.S. intelligence analysts brief a few select mainstream reporters, but the analysts conveyed much less conviction than their superiors may have wished, indicating that there was still great uncertainty about who was responsible.
The Los Angeles Times article said: “U.S. intelligence agencies have so far been unable to determine the nationalities or identities of the crew that launched the missile. U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [the designation for a Russian-made anti-aircraft Buk missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.” ...
The analysts’ uncertainty meshed somewhat with what I had been told by a source who had been briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts shortly after the shoot-down about what they had seen in high-resolution satellite photos, which they said showed what looked like Ukrainian military personnel manning the battery believed to have fired the missile.
The source who spoke to me several times after receiving additional briefings about advances in the investigation said that as the U.S. analysts gained more insights into the MH-17 shoot-down from technical and other sources, they came to believe the attack was carried out by a rogue element of the Ukrainian military with ties to a hard-line Ukrainian oligarch. [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com’s “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts” and “The Danger of an MH-17 Cold Case.”]
... MIVD made that assessment in the context of explaining why commercial aircraft continued to fly over the eastern Ukrainian battle zone in summer 2014. MIVD said that based on “state secret” information, it was known that Ukraine possessed some older but “powerful anti-aircraft systems” and “a number of these systems were located in the eastern part of the country.”
But the intelligence agency added that the rebels lacked that capacity, having only short-range anti-aircraft missiles and a few inoperable Buk missiles that had been captured from a Ukrainian military base. “During the course of July, several reliable sources indicated that the systems that were at the military base were not operational,” MIVD said. “Therefore, they could not be used by the Separatists.”

Zurück zu "Eine Zensur findet nicht statt."

Wer ist online?

Mitglieder in diesem Forum: 0 Mitglieder und 5 Gäste

cron