« 12 Million Page Views 2005 t0 2015 | Main | What is Bibi's leverage in Moscow? »

20 September 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Babak Makkinejad

Early Ottomans were fired up by religious zeal; engaging in Jihad in search of rapine, plunder, booty, and slaves. All in the name of Islam.

I fail to see in what manner they were secularists.

The best you can say is that they continued the break with parts of the Islamic Tradition that the Seljuks had initiated.

William R. Cumming

Wondering about a SCOTUS appointment of a follower of ISLAM?

Seamus Padraig

"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prevents all governments in the USA establishing governmentally empowered national or regional religion."

That may be the modern assumption, but I doubt that squares with original intent. You're forgetting states rights here. The non-establishment clause was written to limit the power of the FEDERAL government only; not that of the states. US states were permitted to have established churches if they wished, and at least two (Connecticut and Massachussetts) actually did--well into the 19th century. They ultimately disestablished their churches through amendments to their own state constitutions. The federal courts were not involved.


Seamus Padraig

You are right about the state religion thing. Sorry. pl


Writing is what humans do; God doesn't write. Humans are flawed; God is not. I think this is one rather significant mistake that spiritual literalists -- of any stripe -- make. And I think, theoretically at least, this mistake can be corrected once it is realized.

Babak Makkinejad

On what basis can such mistakes be corrected?

Either Rome or Jerusalem; there is nothing in between.

By the way, Spirituality and Morality are not the same; a man can be very spiritual but quite immoral as well.

Johnny Reims

Babak – the clinician of Diocletian

Can you please give me the geographical boundary lines of your Diocletian thesis? It is starting to piqued my interest. Thanks. JR


David Habakuk,

the meaning of the shrapnel patterns was discussed in length over a year ago, the very low probability of an air-air-attack, too. I do not think that the opinion of one former weapon officer of the East German airforce does change this consensus.

If you have a lot of time and speak German you find a lot of good arguments in the older posts on "Augen Geradeaus", where many German officers post.

If you search for examople "Spiegel" and "Welt" you find at least three new articles which discuss the surface-to-air argument:




And somewhere there you find the statemant, that the Russians have chnaged their version of the incident. Now the cause is according to them a BUG launched by Ukranian forces.


Tidewater to David Habbakuk, ex-PFC Chuck, Ulenspiegel, Babak Makkinejad and All,

Well, I second Tyler's comment about the elegant 'shiv' of David Habbakuk. From his typepad record I see that DH has already written what amounts to a slender little volume on SST and the thing about the work that might also be noted is its 'civilitas'.

I agree with ex-PFC Chuck that John Helmer is one of the most important English speaking reporters based in Europe. (And thanks for the 'seconding.") Helmer has a very dark and alarmed view of what the administration has done and is doing in the MH17 case. He seems to be very close to believing that important figures in the administration are complicit in covering up mass-murder. He alleges that Biden should be closely scrutinized as one who is deeply involved in stone-wall and coverup. This is incredible.

I was out doing many errands with the Cossack today, and she ran into a younger former citizen of the old Soviet Union, not Russia proper. She knew him slightly. The minute she saw him they both started joyously speaking Russian. They speak it well in his region, she noted approvingly later on. I left them to chat. The Cossack is an artist, a brilliant pianist and song writer, and she has a breathtaking innocence about, well, about almost everything.

Later as I was driving her home, I asked her if she had had a nice conversation with him. She nodded and fell silent. Then she looked at me a little puzzled and said that he had told her that America wants to start a war with Russia. And that he had said that America had better watch out. That Russia has the means to destroy America. And that didn't Americans understand this? (Incidentally, her friend could very well have been speaking as a worried American citizen, or, if not, then one soon to be.) She was mostly searching from me for some confirmation. I felt a little twist of the knife. I nodded in agreement. She became quiet. I made sure we dropped the subject.

To Ulenspiegel I would comment that I, too, looked at the photos. My analogy would be that if a BUK is like a shotgun, then how can the concentrated hits on the left side in the cockpit area look like aimed rifle fire?

But no matter that. The important thing to note here is that this is a criminal case. And a civil case that will last into the end times when it will no longer matter. We are now moving into an entirely different realm; now begins the presentation of such evidence as the authorities seem willing to give up. Interestingly, they seem already to have slipped up. Evidence is getting loose. It cannot be recalled, as Helmer notes. He is beginning to examine coroner's reports. He is evaluating real evidence. He is observing the curious behavior of certain officials who have a legal duty to get at the truth. He is alarmed. It doesn't add up. He is shouting it out: something is rotten in the MH17 case.

I just ordered for my niece a book today that is about evidence and how you get it and what you can learn from it. It is by Alfred Allan Lewis and is called 'The Evidence Never Lies: The Casebook of a Modern Sherlock Holmes.' It is about the investigator Herbert Leon MacDonnell, a Canadian, who is one of those who developed blood-spatter analysis.

To Babak Makkinejad I ask the following question: Did the Great King have any religion at all? I have recently discovered Xenophon's Cyropaedia. Do you regard that as history? I was surprised to learn that in the 18th Century in America this book, about Cyrus the Great, was required reading. Google has some entertaining artices on the general theme of "influence of Cyrus the Great on Thomas Jefferson" and other of the founding fathers. One reason there was so much interest in the Great King was the interpretation that Jefferson, Adams and others put on the Cyropaedia that it presented good ideas about the separation of church and state. That, mind you, was in 580-530 BC.

William R. Cumming

We know the Pope's visit has something to do with American Catholicism but exact what?

Several of the announced candidates for the Presidency are announce as Catholics and wondering if a Kennedy like statement on religion forthcoming if nominated?



Thinly veiled anti-Catholicism lurks in many of the media comments and efforts to pick a fight with Frank the Good. I don't agree with all his opinions, but, so what! The 19th Century adoption of the doctrine of papal infallibility was in my view very fallible, but it only applies to papal statement made from the "throne of St. Peter" on matters of faith and morals. the doctrine has nothing to do with politics, climate change, etc. In all that Franks opinions are just that, his opinions. Catholic politicians do not care what Frank has to say about what they do or enact. I heard his biographer quote him as having said that he cares for the poor, dogs, little children, etc. because "a shepherd should smell like sheep." I heartily endorse the sentiment. The man is a grand pastor and I heartily applaud him for that. pl

Babak Makkinejad

Take the 18 or 19 longitude.


Got it. Thanks. Fascinating point of view.

Babak Makkinejad

I read that book long time ago and I do not recall much of it except the ending; which was in contradiction to the account of Herodotus on his death at the hands of the Massagets (sic) during another military campaign.

In the Bisotun/Bhistun Inscription - which follows the usual ancient Assyrian pattern for declaiming royal achievements (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_translation_of_the_Behistun_Inscription) there are multiple reference to Ahurmazad & His Grace.

This has been identified as indicative of belief in Zoroastrianism or some earlier version of it.


Tidewater to Ulenspiegel,

I have printed out and read the two Spiegel online articles. And thank you for providing them. (I have started reading Der Spiegel.)

Please let me explain how I, for one, have begun to become very suspicious of what is going on in the MH17 investigation. In fact, I have already been thrown a bit by the leaks--which is what they are-- that Spiegel has been basing their articles on. Most recently, Spiegel reports that investigators say that they "might" have found part of a BUK missile. This reported on August 11, 2015. What has become of this? Is someone blowing smoke in these reporters' ears?

That's just one discrepancy. Far more deceptive among the leaks were those from about a year ago. The following translation is by computer and is awkward, but this is from Spiegel: "In a preliminary report from the Netherlands in September 2014, stated that the damage to the aircraft were caused by "large numbers of objects that penetrated the aircraft at high speed from the outside."

Now that is important. A 'large number of objects" immediately suggests that the plane was hit with what I have described for convenience as being like a shotgun. The scattershot pattern of a shotgun would cover a large, conical pattern; so too the BUK. That suggested to me a BUK. At the time I said as much here. That plane would have been peppered.

But if the plane had been hit by an air-to-air missile you would not expect such a large number of "missiles", meaning flying frags, which would, of course, include parts of the airplane. Helmer discusses this. The investigators did not differentiate particularly well the source of each flying metal fragment. They grouped them.

Now, what is a large number? Would you think several hundred? A thousand? More than a thousand? The BUK is designed to throw out a lot. How many fragments were recovered?

Also, would this not suggest to you that a BUK strike would result in a large number of casualties inside the airplane precisely from these warhead fragments? Would you not expect that these fragments could be seen by X-Ray and by autopsy etc. in the victims' bodies? And would you not expect that many deaths would have been caused by this very lethal cone of metal instantaneously ripping through the plane? That there would have been much bleeding? Would you not expect that many, many of the BUK fragments would be recovered, from seats, plane structure, bodies, etc.? And would you not expect that spectroscopic analysis would have been done on the hundreds or thousands of fragments, that they would be of a metallurgic consistency? That you might even be able to identify the location of the ore used, and of the manufacturer of the warhead?

Now what I understand from Helmer is that only 25 metal "missile" fragments were recovered from the bodies. And he notes that this took place over a year's time and that the number did not increase. (Which I find odd.) Twenty-five missile fragments is simply not a large amount of metal purported to have come outside of the airplane from the explosion of a BUK warhead. This is surprising.

In a plane hit by an air-to-air missile you could very well assume the recovery of that small a number of "missile" frags. The air-to-air missile theory has not been removed at all. (But it seems as if someone were trying to carry along the BUK thesis for as long as possible.)

So where did these twenty-five fragments come from?

The first investigation of the Ustica shootdown in 1980, for example, reported the killer to be an air-to-air missile, because analysis failed to reveal that the metal skin of the plane was composed of at least three layers of different alloys. Initially the investigators said that fragments recovered were alien to the plane. They were wrong.

I mean by this that it is obviously necessary,routine and well-established that an investigation of this sort provide a metallurgic analysis by spectroscope etc. of what each of the 25 metal fragment "missiles" recovered is actually made of. Now get this: the Dutch investigators (among them Westerbeke) say they don't know the metallurgy of the fragments. How can this be? Should they demand to be told?

How is it that the Italians, in 1980, immediately zeroed in on the need for metallurgical analysis, even if they (as usual) completely screwed the whole investigation up? And the suppposedly efficient Dutch missed this whole idea? Or is it that they don't like what they found?

Helmer says the Dutch are trying now to release a report blaming the Russians, and they are actually going to do this without any mention of the metallurgy involved. Do they think they can do this without someone starting to laugh at them. I used to take the Dutch seriously.

There is more and more that seems like a coverup. The bodies had fractures and wounds, but there had been no bleeding or swelling around broken bones, because the bodies had had no blood pressure. The poor people were already dead when the plane began to break up, and the injuries to them began to be inflicted. The bodies were mostly intact.

So again--autopsy evidence revealed that what had killed them was the effect of oxygen deprival, freezing, shock, whatever it is that happens at 30,000 feet when the airplane skin is ruptured, loses pressure and begins to come apart. Bodies intact, mostly. Unwounded. Any fragmentation fatalities? No. None at all. (Do I get this right? What about the pilots? What killed the pilots?) Only twenty-five metal fragments recovered, some from autopsies.

Hey! Come on! This doesn't sound like a BUK!


Diocletian: Gaius Aurelius Valerius Dicoletianus Augustus


Map under the Tetrarchy:

seems he slightly expanded it east by now, 18, 19 longitude:


Notice he lately gave Russia some type of lying in wait position, although strictly they are outside his line. ;)


Haven't read the report: It feels to me that this is TTG's domain. In other words it would help to get his attention.

I caught part of a documentary recently, their argument seemed to mainly rely on tracing the movement of military vehicles in Russia and the Ukraine. In other words images could prove movement and locations of the supposedly used rocket launcher.

This intelligence relies on a British group of scholars (I think, don't recall) that used open source images. Supposedly they could track the movement of vehicle plus launcher from Russia to Ukraine.

What felt convincing to me, sad to admit, where the refutations of the propaganda about air to air missiles which seems the scenario you allude to. As I recall, this story seems to rely on one central witness, observing the pilots strange behavior (interpretation? interests?) supposedly on the day it happened. They interviewed this pilot. I guess this theory it wasn't deliberate but an accident. See strange behavior.

Johnny Reims

LeaNder (endorser of Berliner Weisse?)

Thank you for this info. I have only skimmed the Diocletian Dialogues of late but do believe Babak's insights give one pause from time to time, thus making his point of view worthwhile.


Ok, David, excuse I forgot this may be of interest to you too.

Go to Youtube: German documentary go to 21:47, you see images of the open source image research I talked about above. Shortly after Eliot Higgins is introduced.

He and his research team, as they are called, supported the German TV crew with open source image research. Thus you may be interested in Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat.


I was a bit surprised when I saw it, admittedly, wondering if it is possible one can trace the movement of a rocket launcher via Russia to the place from where it supposedly launched the rocket.

But ask him.


great comment, Tidewater. I love it when people are able to make a good point via a little story.

take care


I agree, he is often spot on, from my own limited nitwit perspective. As human he no doubt is interesting, what I seem to be struggling with seems to be his political position and his rigid "thesis foundations" in that context. I don't have the expertise to make sense of this apparent paradox, at least to me.

But I like enigmas/riddles and humans. ;)


sorry David, I didn't link. But then I didn't realize at the time I wrote I forgot I cannot use html tags here:

German First Channel/ARD documentary on you tube:

David Habakkuk


On 'Bellingcat', you should look at a report on 'Spiegel Online' from 4 June, entitled 'Bellingcat Report Doesn't Prove Anything': Expert Criticizes Allegations of Russian MH17 Manipulation.'

(See http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/expert-criticizes-allegations-of-russian-mh17-manipulation-a-1037125.html .)

At the start of his career, its founder, Eliot Higgins, produced what purported to be conclusive evidence that sarin attack at Ghouta was the work of the Syrian authorities. It was subsequently demonstrated to be bunkum.

(See https://consortiumnews.com/2013/12/29/nyt-backs-off-its-syria-sarin-analysis/ .)

While 'WikiSpooks' is a source I would use with care, and I have not had time to look in detail at its account of 'Bellingcat', it provides a 'way in' to the manifold controversies about his work.

(See https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Bellingcat .)

For many years now, I have followed the writings on Russia of the former long-serving Canadian government analyst Dr Patrick Armstrong. I would recommend to you and others a piece he wrote in August, entitled 'Questions a Real MH17 Report Would Answer'.

(See http://russia-insider.com/en/questions-real-mh17-report-would-answer/ri9226 .)

Among interesting claims:

'Earlier routes of this daily Amsterdam-Kuala Lumpur flight travelled well south of the fighting area, over the Sea of Azov. This day the plane was sent over the fighting area. Who did it? Then the Flight Aware tracks were changed. Who did that? (Note: this question is very important. First the re-direction and then the falsification. Prima facie evidence of a purposeful conspiracy and one that could not possibly be attributed to Moscow or to the rebels. At the time I looked the routes up on FlightAware and saw the earlier ones well south of the fighting. Then, a few days later, I saw that all the earlier tracks had been moved north. But I didn’t have the wit to make screen captures of the earlier tracks. Others did, however, and here they are.)'

Unfortunately, I have not had time to check this out, or do much in the way of reflection on the possible implications if the claims are accurate.

But whether or not you find his views convincing, Dr Armstrong does provide a useful guide to some of the many points at issue, and – as he always does, and I try to do – provides detailed links to support all his arguments.

And his tongue-in-cheek conclusion is, I think, very much to the point:

'Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

(especially when you know that any real evidence would have been plastered on every front page, news program and op-ed piece.)'


thanks, David.

concerning that part of the argument: I acknowledge my paranoid vein. I learned to acknowledge it in the 911 US web universe, ended up undergoing some type of self-experiment, before I wound up here.

I tried to make it clear--verbally--that this part of the argument didn't really convince me. I can easily imagine that nowadays people not only in Russia but everywhere take pictures. But are these pictures always connected to precise time? Are they always taken were in the right place?

I somewhat doubt.

I may get back to your privately though concerning Russia/context/regime change democracy. ;) My focus has been slightly more on Europe lately.

Charles Dekle

Your story about the Cossack and her friend reminds me that the other night I was watching RT and one of their news headlines running across the screen was about the US deploying new nuclear weapons into Germany. So I looked up the story: http://www.rt.com/news/316186-germany-us-nukes-upgrade/. Here is the first paragraph, but the rest of the story is worth reading.
"Starting third quarter 2015, the US Air Force is starting preparations to bring in new B61 nuclear bombs to Luftwaffe’s Büchel Air Base, according to ZDF TV channel. German parliament previously called for American nukes to be removed."
If true this is very concerning. What madness.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

September 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad