ThoughtCrimes
Old Navy Vet
There is a problem with the report right from its outset. The agreement to conduct the investigation gave Ukraine veto powers over what information was released. And second, the report relies heavily on the SBU, not exactly an unbiased participant.A report over 100 pages long with 169 sourced footnotes and you dismiss it as untrustworthy out of hand? You're either a fool or more likely a shill!bellingcat?????))))) man, are you serious?)))) who is BELLINGCATex-sailesman of underwears?)) only stupid asshole can eat his shit! and what about REAL PROOFS?! what about Dutch report and JIT work made by ADULTS, not nerds from social networks?Here is a more precise list and detailed investigation that pinpoints the actual Russian unit and soldiers that need to be questioned and were probably responsible for the shootdown.Really???)) so maybe you will show us this part of Dutch report? with these NAMES? or this part is like Obama's evidences which nobody have ever seen?The names are revealed in the Dutch report and other sources. It is the Russians who have blocked them from being questioned in a real court.
www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/53rd-report-public.pdf
The question is, have you read the report and validated the footnotes, or are you just uncritically accepting the report? The latter would suggest that it is you who is the shill.
You're asking that of the wrong person. You should be asking that to the shill that dismissed the report out of hand without ANY review of the report! I haven't taken the time to revied that long report in detail but I have skimmed it. Further, what exactly do you find not credible about the evidence in say the video of footnote 64? Didn't analyze it did you, smart ass! Ya shouldn't let your mouth overload you assThe question is, have you read the report and validated the footnotes, or are you just uncritically accepting the report?
Last edited: