A few questions worth looking into

Dear friends,

I am still sick, so I cannot write much, but I am listening to interviews and reading analytical reports.  I have a couple of questions I would love to get answers to:

1) did the Ukie ATC ever explain why MH17 was told to take a route to the north of the normal route and at a lower altitude?
2) does anybody know if the transponder of MH17 continued working up to the moment of impact of the missile which hit it?
3) how are these events seen by the Malaysian media, which side does a majority the Malaysian media blame for what happened?

If you come across anything which could reply to these questions I would be most grateful.

Thanks a lot and kind regards to all,

The Saker

How I will deal with unverifiable stories from now on

Okay, I carefully read all your comments and have come to something of a conclusion.

First, almost everything I post in unverified and often unverifiable.  Which compares advantageously with the main stream media which deliberately lies and whose reporter and editors simply don't care about the truth.

Second, I really don't feel like singling out one story or source for the typical "this is an unconfirmed report" or the like like the MSM does because typically these caveats are used to cast a doubt on the info itself, or to discredit the source, and all for political ideological reasons.  Besides, this is the Internet and the blogosphere - I never met *any* of my contacts face to face, not one, nor do I personally know any of the people who are helping me with this blog (the French teams, the interpreters, the sobcors, Juan, Mindfriedo, Auslander, etc.).  My personal vetting system is based on the words of Christ "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" (Matt 7:16).  If I find out that somebody deliberately lied or is a untrustworthy source I will simply not post info from that person again and I might even post a correction.

Third, I don't buy the "too far" argument.  Wars are horrible and atrocities are the norm, not the exception.  Especially wars waged on the basis of an ideology which de-humanizes the other side.  The Ukrainian Nazis call the Russians "insects" (колорады), "jackets" (ватники) while their leader called Russian subhumans.  And since on top of that, these Banderites are  ideologically a mix of Nazis, Uniat crusaders and rabid xenophobes I see absolutely no reason at all to doubt the story of Berezin.  Does it mean that I trust him?  No.  But I have no reason to dis-trust him either.  I certainly trust him more than I would trust any western newspaper or TV channel.

Fourth, in what concerns the credibility of this blog, or me personally, I think that it should not depend on a single or even a few posts.  Everybody can be mislead, and I have a long history of being wrong and I have never pretended otherwise.  I don't claim to be infallible, I only claim to be honest.

Fifth, there is a good possibility that Berezin wrote this report with a great deal of pain and distress in his heart, and it is possible that what he says is true.  Who am I to reject it on the basis that it could be false?  His text was an appeal for help, for justice, I could not sit on it and do nothing.

Sixth, in my experience all sides lie during a war.  The only exception to this rule is, as far as I know, Hassan Nasrallah.  Many continue to think that a good lie is a smart way to fight the information war.  I disagree, but I know that that notion is out there.  And, just for the record, Putin did say that no Russian troops were involved in the move to liberate Crimea while Strelkov did say that it was men under his command which wiped out the Ukrainian checkpoint even though in both cases there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  If I had to rate Putin and Strelkov as sources I would rate Putin as a 'B' and Strelkov as a 'C', which is on par with the very best corporate media.  If there is a Russian Nasrallah out there, I have not met him yet, alas.

I guess that if/when I get the new website up I might include some kind of generic warning, but that is the best I can do.  As long as a story sounds credible to me, I will have to post it, even if I cannot verify it (there will be one coming from Sweden in tomorrow's SITREP which is also very interesting, but which I cannot verify.  Still, I will post it).

Now if something is clearly wrong, fabricated, or truly non-credible, then I will include some kind of disclaimer (assuming I post it in the first place).

I hope that you guys can live with that :-)

Kind regards, thanks for the input,

The Saker

An important question about the veracity of the info coming out of Novorossia.

When I posted the translation of the Ukrainian Successors to Hitlerite Wehrmacht Rape and Murder in Saurovka  Message from Fyodor Berezin, Igor Strelkov’s Deputy" I knew that I was doing something risky which would raise some eyebrows and, sure enough, it did.  Here are two examples of such reactions:

Too far. Way too far.  Ukie Nazis cutting men to pieces alive, keeping women so they can rape them, killing each other and carelessly dumping bodies along with weapons, a female sniper with a bright new American automatic rifle (?)... This is the point when the source loses all credibility. Saker, I thought you were warning of that few days ago...
In order that credibility is maintained (as with Hezbollah!), a claim such as this should provide some proof. Videos or photos, explanations about this is known. If the Ukies are regularly returning to rape, that must mean they control this village, right? If so, how does the resistance know about this?

This is what I posted in reply:

Several of you have expressed very reasonable doubts about the veracity of this story and I for sure cannot confirm a single word in it. When anonymous read "Ukie Nazis cutting men to pieces alive, keeping women so they can rape them, killing each other and carelessly dumping bodies along with weapons, a female sniper with a bright new American automatic rifle (?)..." he/she concluded "Too far. Way too far." This was also my initial thought. Then however, I remembered that "peaceful civilians, including women and old men, beat up, gassed and burned to a crisp while the Nazi crowd sang joyful songs. The few who tried to jump from windows were shot and beat to death after their fall. At least one pregnant woman was choked to death with a telephone cord". Is that not also a case of far, too far? Except that it happened in Odessa, in front of literally thousands of witnesses. So let me ask you this:

a) what are these guys capable of when there are no witnesses?
b) should I de-facto censor this testimony from the combat area on the grounds that there is no proof or that such atrocities are far, too far?

You tell me. Honestly! I am asking for advice here.

Maybe that guy made it all up and maybe he is a clumsy propagandist. As far as I can tell, he is Strelkov's deputy and I know that Strelkov does not always get it right (his claim about the Ukie unit destroyed by his forces goes against all the witnesses of the case). So that does not reassure me. So what do I do?

Shall I pass on the message "as is" or should I block it on grounds of "too far"?

If there had been only ONE witness in Odessa - would it have not bee "too far"?

You tell me.

Then, having thought about it, I decided that this is too important an question to leave at the bottom of a long thread.  This is why I am re-posting it here.  And let me re-phrase it this way:

First, I personally have no doubts whatsoever about the Ukie death squads' capacity for vicious atrocities unthinkable to a sane human being.  I need no further confirmation for myself.  Second, I have no way of verifying most of the info which I get from Novorossia and Banderastan.  Third, this is your blog - you, the reader - and you should have a say in how it is run because this blog is here to serve you, not me.  So - what do you want me to do the next time when I get such a report?

I shall be waiting for your advice with great anticipation and gratitude.

Coming back to the issue of the kind of people who are in power in Banderastan, I leave you with a report by The Truthseeker which touches exactly on this issue.

Kind regards and many thanks,

The Saker
-------

Request for comments about my moderation policy

Dear friends,

I have decided to take the opportunity of a lull in my Sunday afternoon to seek your advice as to what to do about my comments policy.

After quite a few years of relative obscurity, this blog has seen a sudden and massive explosion in readership.  For years I was getting about 1000 visitors per week, now it regularly gets over 20'000 visitors per day from literally all over the world.  With that influx of visitors, a lot of weird, sick and outright deranged also showed up - that is normal, even 1% of 20'000 is still 200 and my sense is that the freaks are even much less than that - possibly 20 or about 0.1%.  That really ain't much, but that is enough to be a real pain in the ass, pardon my French.  These freaks fall into several categories.

1) Your typical garden variety trolls
2) Obsessive compulsive racists
3) Monothematic delusional folks completely fixated on Jews
4) Nazis
5) Plain old idiots who simply cannot make sense

In the past, when my blog had few visitors I had a 100% freedom policy.  Except for commercial spam, I would literally allow anything no matter who stupid or insulting.  Then a little over a month ago I got really fed up with some exceptionally dumb Nazis so I decided to kick them out.  Or rather then banning them, I began sending any moronically racist or Nazi post to the trash.  When I asked for your inputs only one person got angry at me.  Everybody else told me that they fully supported that decision and that I had waited enough.  This new policy definitely helped and some of the worst offenders packed and left.

And yet I still get way, waaaaaaay to much comments about Jews and while I do not get many Nazis any more, I still get some world class idiots posting their nonsense.  So I am not sure what to do next.  

One thing I could do is drop my normal policy of "there is no such thing as off-topic on this blog" and require comments to remain generally pertinent to the topic at hand.  But that would also mean losing the opportunity of having some very interesting off-topic comments posted.  Or I could use my discretion and decide that off-topic comments I find worthwhile publishing and which not.

I could try to set up some pretty sophisticated and detailed posting guidelines,  but that would be very time consuming and still probably leave loopholes.

Or I can ask you to trust my judgment and basically toss out anything I would find too offensive or too stupid.  What I do not like about this option is that it sort of implies that every comment that I would allow would then get my implicit endorsement but that would be completely wrong.  If, say, somebody posts a comment saying that Russia should try to vaporize the USA in a preemptive surprise nuclear strike I would categorically disagree with that, but I cannot say that this is not a legitimate comment in a threat discussing Russian options to stop US aggression.  But if I do let such a comment through, would that not look like an implicit endorsement?

Bottom line - I need some advice from you all.  I consider this blog as much yours as it is mine, and I want it to meet your expectations.  I do not want to allow freaks and morons to pollute it, but I don't want to censor it either.  So, please, post your suggestions here or email me.

Many thanks and kind regards,

The Saker