Thanks Tony, the big man strutting the world stage has overplayed it again. A civilian plane got shot down in a war zone, and all blame was heaped on Russia by our strutting cowboy, exposing Oz for special attention.

His outfit is running Australia into the ground, nationally and internationally. He is so bumbling and out of his depth and it looks like we'll have to suffer him for three years yet as he refuses to go to the DD election he beat up.

A plea to the LNP, at least do us the respect of changing leadership.

There is evidence that Russia had nothing to do with the downing of MH17 yet Abbott was the first to blame Russia. The Ukrainian troops will not let our investigators anywhere near the evidence. http://www.globalresearch.ca/support-mh17-truth-osce-monitors-identify-shrapnel-like-holes-indicating-shelling-no-firm-evidence-of-a-missile-attack/5394324

Luciferase,its a novel, a fiction..............sure reads like one the past 6 months.

I particularly like Joe Bidens son Hunter joining the board of the Ukrainian Gas Company....

Re Abbott......we are in it up to our ears as puppets of the US administration............Gillard and Rudd would have towed the line as well....muppet puppets..

Dear Luciferase,

The country that has killed 38 of our citizens is now
banning our food imports? What cheek! And of course
no thought is given to their own people who will be
deprived of these products. Our PM is right to take
such a strong stand in this matter. Absolutely!

Australia will find other markets.

My god Foxy you believe whatever MSM puts before you. The evidence to to the contrary.MH17 debris is full of bullet holes and thus was not shot down by a missile.

I believe it was a missile fired by morons. To blame Russia means to take sides in the Ukraine-Russian conflict. Is that what Australia is doing?

The past is murky, with the whimsical decisions of past Russian leaders intersecting with modern-day international law. Until a UN position is reached which is consistent with that Abbott and Bishop have expressed outside that forum, we leave ourselves exposed to retaliatory action. BTW, I'm starting to think Abbott/Bishop are dining out a bit much on our disgust. Ukraine has used the situation to its advantage too, making it as hard as has Russia to secure the crash site.

If Gillard had done this Rupert would have had her guts for garters, of course, like he did when cruelty to animals brought the Indonesian beef trade to a halt and cost farmers export dollars.

Foxy, just trying to look at this soberly. I feel so very bad for our fellow Australians going through so much (like the the poor, poor Perth parents of three beautiful children killed along with their grandfather. How can they ever rise again from the enormous pain they feel?).

Dear Luciferase,

Sometime ago I read a very interesting article
written by Dr A. Kabaila in the Lithuanian
newspaper, "Musu-Pastoge." (Nr. 12, 2014).
He asked the question - "Should we care about
Ukraine?"

Dr Kabaila stated:

"The Second Word War was an extraordinary event. It
cost not just hundreds of thousands of lives - it
cost millions of lives. After that followed a time
of "cold war," as two super-powers confronted each
other with the prospect of mutual destruction. It
was an uneasy peace, but nevertheless it was peace,
a new kind of peace."

"There were "small wars" which cost many lives,
particularly civilian lives. But it was not an ultimate
madness of "big wars" and European nations that had
been at each others' throats for thousands of years,
enjoyed the unheard of prosperity as a result of peace,
the absence of "big wars."

"What happened after the World War II that enabled the
countries of Europe to develop in relative peace?
It was an agreement, often a tacit agreement, to
regard the territories of all independent states as
"exempt" from being taken over by their neighbours in
"small wars," small wars that often ended up by dragging
other neighbours in even bigger and bigger wars."

"What has happened recently in Ukraine, breaks that
tacit agreement not to invade neighbours. The tacit
agreement that kep at least Europe in relative peace for
nearly three quarters of a century was broken."

"The "Greater Russia" as the current leaders seem to like to
call the remnants of the Soviet Empire, has invaded a part
of another independent country. Ukraine, and absorbed that
part - the Crimea, in to the "Greater Russia."

TBC...

cont'd ...

"The "referendum" to join up with the invading state
was taken after the invasion. I matters not that the
soldiers of the invading country removed insignias from
their uniforms. It does not matter how farcically
unbalanced the referendum questions were, it does not
matter how jubilantly the crowds in the capital of the
"Greater Russia" greeted the "new era" of expansion."

"What does matter is that this breach of the territorial
integrity of another country has started the new era.
We are returning to the pre-World War II behaviour of
some nations. It is a start of expansionism, ignoring
all norms of international treaties and agreements."

"It is too easy to brush aside the events that have
been unfolding, events which in the past involved most
countries of the world into endless conflicts and horrific
wars."

"Yes, it is wise not to ignore the fire that has already
started as nobody can predict where it will end. Perhaps
it is a time to reflect on the events that took place before
the outbreak of all-out war to end all wars, World War II."

"Are we not at the same state of mind of some leaders that
were spreading the hegemony of their countries, at first
by relatively peaceful means, then by promises of peace in
the near future, "the peace in our time," Are these not
the lessons that we need to learn?"

"Yes, we need to care what is happening in Ukraine."

..."Substantial aresenal of nuclear weapons, including
the "delivery systems," were stationed in the Ukrainian
territory when the Soviet Union collapsed, and were under
the control of the newly emerged Ukraine. The "western powers"
were anxious to avoid proliferation of nuclear weapons and
wanted to destroy them. As Russia was regarded as a
reliable, big power, it was put to the Ukrainians that they
should surrender their nuclear weapons to Russia to deal
with the destruction."

TBC ...

cont'd ...

"This was regarded as a reduction of nuclear
danger to all "western powers." As it did nothing to
reduce the danger to Ukraine, Ukraine was guaranteed
its security in return for their willingness to
surrender peacefully their arsenal. Yes, Ukraine did
hand over their nuclear arsenal to Russia."

Have you seen the graphic TV re-broadcast of a TV program
in Moscow that reminded in threatening tones that
Russia "was the only power able to destroy New York and
other American cities, leaving behind only radio active
ashes?"

It is worth noting that is was shown at the same time as
the invasion of Crimea by the Russian troops.

Our PM is behaving correctly.

Arjay,
The Russian Missile that was fired at MH17 explodes in front of the plane causing the plane to fly into the exploding shrapnel. It is not like a single bullet that causes one impact. The missiles fired were supplied by the Russia military and fired by a person supported by Russia. The radio transcript of ground conversations indicates a person known as "Geek" being involved.

We do not need Russian markets for our food, Asia will buy up any spare produce. Putin is loosing image in the region and can only reclaim it by military intervention in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. A severe winter in Russia and we will have them crying for food.

Dear Right is Right, and Josephus,

Thank You.

You can fool most of the people all of the time, especially if it's done by the MSM.

Dear Robert,

That's why one should use a variety of sources,
not only the main stream media to make informed
choices and decisions.

Dear Foxy,
I NEVER use the MSM.

Dear Robert,

I must admit that I do - especially, "The Age,
"Sydney Morning Herald," and a few others as well.
I largely tend to avoid Mr Murdoch's papers -
where I find the News is Limited. ;-)

Of course Russia is to blame.
Anyone stupid enough to hand a weapon like that over to a mob of
untrained rebels, or supplied the operators has to carry all the blame.

Arjay the holes are schapnel. That is how they work the missile does not
hit the aircraft it explodes on a proximate fuse and the shrapnel is
sent to shred the aircraft, and passengers.

It is unbelieval how many lefties want to excuse the Russians.
I have news for them, communism died some time ago, most are now greens.

Bazz, you do know that Ukraine having been part of USSR, inherited Soviet weapons?
This includes BUK ground to air missiles.
There is a very good analysis of where the missile COULD have been launched from and brought down MH 17, causing the debris field where it is to be found.
This proves that it could only have been launched from Ukraine and NOT the rebel help part of Ukraine.
It is politically expedient to blame Russia and by inference Putin but taking into account the past record of the CIA, it is more likely to have been instigated by the US.
As it is, the US has dug a hole for itself and the Europeans as well as Australia who slavishly follow the US in everything.
I suggest you read the link below CAREFULLY and bring yourself up to speed on the real world and not the make believe of Abbott.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/61qa99yt6v3dq64/MH17Analysis+Parts+1+and+2.pdf

Well Robert, I read the article. It has all the appearence of being
very thorough etc.
However where did the author get all the performance data on the BUK
missile system ?
I would have thought that would be very tightly held info.
Also the radar range of 30km sounds suss to me.

There was this phrase in the text;
Engaging a fleeing aircraft is known as target pursuit and it does not
result in an optimum firing solution.

I will be interested to see the official report re the damage and position of damage.
The little I saw indicated damage was under the pilots window.
Perhaps that indicated a hit from close ahead or alongside.
Anyway we can all speculate, but the article sounded a bit politically driven.

Dear Robert and Bazz,

The following two links may help:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/07/26/why-putin-shot-down-mh-17/

http://www.newsweek.com/we-shot-down-mh17-says-pro-russian-soldier-260630

Let us not forget that Stalin also denied
the Ukrainian famine - of 1932-33, the wholesale
destruction of the Russian peasantry, and later of the
peasantry and intelligensia in the occupied
territories as well. Concentration camps operated at
a high fever pitch prior to , and during the war years.
While half of the criminals, the Nazis, have been
pursued all over the world for their crimes, the other
half, the communist criminals, were allowed to go free.

They were, in effect, given tacit permission to continue
the operation of their concnetration camps, to expand their
draconian systems to include psychiatric wards, thereby
raising torture, suppression and murder to a science.
The fact that the process persisted was vividly disclosed
to the free world by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn in his
book, "The Gulag Archipelago."

Can we really trust anything Mr Putin may say in light of
the Communist philosophy so lucidly expressed by Lenin:

"The communist must be prepared to make every sacrifice,
and, if necessary, even resort to all sorts of cunning,
schemes and stratagems, to emply illegal methods, to
evade and conceal the truth ... The practical part of
communist policy is to incite one (enemy) against
another... not to convince but to break up the ranks of
the opponent, not to correct an opponent's mistakes but
to destroy him, to wipe his organisation off the face of
the earth. This formulation is indeed of such a nature as
to evoke the worst thoughts, the worst suspicions about an
opponent."

No Soviet authority or communist leader has abandoned
this concept.

Foxy, I find it impossible to believe the first link as Russia has
changed a lot since the communist collapse.
If reports are true Putin only has marginal control of the southern
army and one of the Generals would have loved to have that order in
his hands to beat him over the head with it.
BTW that collapse was caused by USSR peak oil !
I'll bet you didn't know that !

The second link has ring of truth to it, but then that soldier would
have no idea who gave the order.
The suggestion that the Ukrainians did it has a major flaw, the operators
probably would have had direct contact with air traffic control.

I do not think looking at present day dangerous world-wide developments through emotions grounded in mid-twentieth century events and situations - as much as I can understand them since I had lived under Communist, ergo indirectly Russian, oppression - is very helpful. I am old enough to remember the times when we needed VoA and RFE to get a better picture, but I would never have thought that the time would come when I would have to brush up my feeble knowledge of Russian to read on the internet assessments of the situation from the other side, albeit equally biased.

In particular, nothing seems to be as absurd as incideenthttp://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/07/26/why-putin-shot-down-mh-17/, where the author claims that Putin had intentionally shot down the MH17. What would he expect to gain? And why would pro-Russian Ukrainians and their Russian supporters need a sophisticated anti-aircraft weapon at all, had Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko (and their American supporters) not decided to bomb their own citizens to submission?

The Forbes article is outdated. So is - although much more relevant to the present-day situation - Putin’s September 2013 article in the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), where he warns, among other things, against actions that could lead to the rise in power of the ISIS (now IS). While Putin is being made to suffer for his support of pro-Russian insurgents that got out of his hands, nobody blames those who invaded Iraq and supported anti-Syrian insurgents that got out of their hands in the form of ISIS that are now rampaging in North Syria and Iraq. The ISIS victims in Syria and Iraq exceed many times the 298. The Ukrainians provided just the trigger for disengaging - as it seems now - Putin from an active role in Syria with his support for Assad who was able to hold the ISIS fanatics at bay.

Khodorkowski - who certainly has no reasons to defend Putin - gave a recent interview (http://smi2.mirtesen.ru/blog/43943265943/Mihail-Hodorkovskiy:-Bez-Putina-Rosii-stanet-huzhe). No need to translate the lot, just the title: “Without Putin Russia would be worse off”. Indeed, a Russian version of the madman Yatsenyuk (with a finger on the nuclear trigger in addition ) is the last thing that not only Russia but we all, need.

A lot of people see that we're going the wrong direction and we seem to be the bad guys in the world - but no one in politics can express that which many of us feel.
Does anyone know of anything concrete we can do?
I look at a lot of crap on the internet and one thing I've noticed is that the majority of people around the world are just like me. If I put myself in their situation I'd probably do much the same thing as them - whether their Jewish or Arab, Muslim, Christian whatever. Its just the propaganda that we're exposed to that makes us different. Most people just want to live peaceful prosperous lives and have friends around the world.
But what can I do about it - I'm getting old and I worry about the world I leave behind for my kids - I don't want them to inherit a huge debt and live as slaves paying interest - who gets that billion $ a month anyway?
Putin seems to be the only politician that has any answers and pushes for world peace and international co-operation but most Australians think he's the devil - Yet he seems more Jesus-like to me.
I'm lost .... anyone got any good (non-religious) advice?

doucmeasicu,
What character and actions and wisdom does Putin express that makes him Messianic? The Whole International Community thinks otherwise.

Putin is a KGB apparatchik.
That says it all.
No further comment needed.

Why is he sending 300 trucks laden with supplies to Ukraine, who do not need aide? Is it to support a raid by Russian support troops?

Josephus, did you see the SBS news tonight ?
One video showed Military vehicles and armed personel carriers at the
entry point into the Ukraine and the Ukraine army said the ones that
crossed earlier had been "eliminated".

Next video showed all those "white" trucks.
The trucks are army green in & out and covered with white tarpaulins.
The crews are all young men of army age all wearing identical shorts.
One truck they showed was almost empty just a few boxes.
Another had a smaller army truck in the back.

What has been seen so far would have to make you very suspicious.
If I was the Ukraine I would not let them in.

Bazz,
I did see both convoy of trucks. If the first was genuine aid to Ukraine then the second cancels out any humanitarian aid as they were Army trucks and the 600 men in the first trucks were Russian reinforcements to the pro-Russian Ukrainian separatists. Putin is no Messiah just a bully loosing power. Unfortunately the West cannot get involved in this conflict even though Ukraine has voted to align themselves with the Economic Union. The pro-Russian separatists will not accept the result of the vote so look to Mother Russia for military support. Again they are bullies not happy for peace and cooperation but determined to blast their fellow countrymen into oblivion. Typical of a Bear with a saw head.