There is something in common between different crashes. Even between such different how the disaster of flight MH-17 over the Donbas, the explosion of the Jumbo jet in the skies of Egypt and the fall of Boeing-737 in Rostov.
In the Donbass there has been a military incident or someone being framed with the objective to declare a war criminal, or just knocked down by mistake (wanted a cook, and ate cook, as he sang Vysotsky).
In Egypt was a terrorist attack. Planted the bomb, set the timer, the bomb worked. Experts found the wreckage of the plane traces of explosives from foreign producers, as we reported. The motives of terrorists seems to be clear and understandable – revenge for Russia on Syria, trying to put pressure on the Russians to the Syrian campaign was not popular among the people.
In Rostov – the classic accident at landing approach in adverse weather conditions.
What do they have in common? The nature of these disasters are different. In Donbass it was anti-aircraft missile, in Egypt a bomb in Rostov – weather events. But let us turn to the original causes that led to these disasters.
Is it by chance over Donbass brought down Boeing MH-17?
To calculate the air defense missile system BUK hit the airliner may have been accidental. Military, nakauchi the start button missiles, might not know what purpose it knocks really.
But by chance if Boeing was over the combat zone? I’m not even about the Manager who gave the command to change course, but about the emergence of civil aircraft over the zone of military conflict in principle.
Why a civilian airliner over the conflict zone? Because it wasn’t closed airspace. Why it was closed? Because Ukraine received money for every mile that the international pass flights over the territory.
Money. Banal money. Benefit. Income.
By the way, this factor is even an international Commission has found. No matter how wanted Europeans and Americans to back the Ukraine from responsibility for downed Boeing, they had to admit that Kyiv has created a danger to civilian flights. And the reference to the fact that the opponent hits only low-flying targets – does not pass, because the headquarters of the ATO said that a day before Boeing militia shot down a military Board at high altitude. It turns out that not only in theory, was to assume the existence of risk for civilian aircraft, but the precedent of destroying high-altitude targets was. And generally to close the sky for civil aviation should already after the first case of enemy MANPADS.
The principle is simple: if you do not control the territory, it is not necessary to send it via civilian flights for which they are responsible. But if still sent, then answer.
Is it by chance blew up a Jumbo jet over the Sinai?
There is already no chance it could not be. The plane was blown up deliberately, on purpose. But why?
Tales that ideological Islamists are going to build Islamic state, because Islam love is a fairy tale that recruiters can tell in social networks particularly naive patients.
ISIS arose in Iraq, which the United States previously liberated from Saddam Hussein, not by accident. And not by itself. And weapons they captured not by accident. Money and they did not appear by accident. And the Arab spring did not emerge by chance. And the al-Nusra front was not a chance. And ISIL moved into Syria was not a coincidence.
Especially not a coincidence ISIS demonstration penalty shot by professional cameras from several points with a good installation. And on the net, these videos are not accidentally dispersed.
If ISIS emerged spontaneously, against the wishes of the USA, the Americans were thrown on the heads of terrorists the bombs, not the boxes of weapons. And would make it much more accurate. They can do. Do not think that the United States had nothing to do with ISIS, because the American bombers sights are bad, and good Russian. This is not so. Again, this is a tale for those suffering from infantilism in an advanced stage.
They would not tolerate the emergence of ISIL and the Saudis, if it is contrary to their interests. And about Israel the same thing can be said.
We can argue who invented the ISIS, for what purpose, to whom it was most necessary – the US, Saudi Arabia or Israel, but the fact that someone needed it – obviously.
Someone looked at the appearance of ISIS through his fingers, someone has allowed ISIS to be armed and even helped in it, someone had put brand new jeeps by the dozens and even hundreds. In a network there was video as an American helicopter escorts a column of jeeps with the militants. Not attacking, but accompanies. Someone organized a shooting demonstration executions and posted them online. And these videos were placed on YouTube – a service of the American Corporation.
By the way to this Islamic “Holy war, ISIS” has little relevance. Real Islam ISIS militants violate day in and day out. Islam for ISIL is just a cover and method of recruitment. Same cover as for Bandera their national idea, the struggle for which can be justified and banditry, and war crimes, and much more.
So ISIL was created not ideological Islamists and even terrorists are not ideological. ISIL is an army, not belonging to only one state but several. We can say that ISIL is a transnational army. The new model army.
And all that makes ISIL is a very big business. Business and politics. And politics in the modern world is also a kind of business. Because the policy is funded by the business and serves the interests of business.
So what is the conclusion concerning Airbus exploded?
Airbus blew up not ideological fighters, enraged by the actions of Russia and terrorists who were on a mission of their command. And the command carried out the tasks set by the owners of this multinational army.
Accident in Rostov fell, the Boeing 737?
Some randomness would be to say, if the right in the lightning struck the plane or if it crashed when you first approach.
But the plane after the first attempt to land went to the waiting area, which was about two hours, and the pilot had enough information and time to make a decision about landing at the airfield. Many other pilots this decision was made. Why the pilot of the crashed Boeing received him not?
Obviously, from the security point of view the best solution was to go to Krasnodar. Don’t know exactly how much time would have to fly there, but obviously less than two hours.
It would seem the choice is obvious. And faster and easier, and most importantly, safer – to go to Krasnodar. But why the pilot persisted in waiting for better weather in Rostov and went to land in difficult conditions?
Because the flights to Krasnodar is not only fuel consumption (two hours over Rostov was spent much more), but also additional costs for maintenance at another airport, the cancellation of the return flight (because it was planned from Rostov). It’s the angry customers who bought tickets to Rostov, and brought them to Krasnodar. This angry customers in Rostov, who bought the ticket in Dubai, and the flight is delayed or cancelled altogether. It is an angry boss who is less interested in weather conditions and wants the customers happy and not handed over tickets.
That’s why the pilot decided to land in Rostov.
To satisfy customers and to avoid displeasing the authorities, which may, in case of reduction of staff just to count the number who had problems on flights, and to dismiss those who statistically would be more “unprofitable”. Because the boss will quickly forget that the pilot was concerned about the safety of passengers, but about the decision about diversion will not forget – it will remain in the report.
This means that the pilot tried hard to sit in Rostov for the benefit of its airlines. Rather for the benefit of its owners.
And Airbus over the Sinai blew up for profit only for profit, not aviation companies, and transnational military Corporation called ISIS. That is, again for the benefit of the owners.
And the situation in which it became possible crash Boeing MH-17 over the Donbas, also occurred due to the fact that Kiev took care of the benefit of income from transactions of flights in its airspace.
By the way the military situation in the ATO zone have not entered the benefit – because according to the rules of IMF not to lend to countries involved in military conflicts. And the use of the APU without the introduction of martial law is a violation of the law. Another violation for profit. As for whether martial law – airspace would be closed for sure.
So what are the similarities between three seemingly different planes? Benefit!
To paraphrase a classic, we can say this: if you fall from the sky planes, so it is beneficial to someone!
Alexander Rusin
