1) socrates asked a lot of questions, but he didn't lay much shit down. the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing.
2) nietschze was obsessed with "oriental knowledge". he was all about zoroastrianism.
3) voltaire despised basically everything. he had little more than contempt for western civilization.
you should replace the three westerners with glaucon, hegel and liebniz.
the caricature of chinese civilization is even worse. in fact, confucius is widely regarded as the ideological force behind china's return to capitalism. the hierarchical thinking is really just feudalism, and that existed in the west as well (although we never called it philosophy).
you know, i didn't really give mh-17 a second thought. malysian airlines foolishly sent a civilian plane through a warzone, and it accidentally got shot down. take away? don't fly through a war zone. and, maybe it's worth pointing out that an integrated system would be useful to everybody; it's the kind of thing that seems crazy to run on a national level. and, we're moving on to more important matters...
....but the fact that the state department is going to such lengths to assert it's narrative is curious to me. the idea that the russians shot it down out of cold blood is ludicrous. and, if there's bombers flying overhead (and in fact attacking infrastructure), the civilians in the region have a right to defend themselves - marie would agree with that. at the least, they're taking advantage of it to try and spread russophobia. at worst, it fuels the conspiracy theories.
an innocent, professional state department would have noted that the air space was not secure, sent it's condolences and deflected further questions to the relevant bodies.
i've spent a lot of time at that site (globalresearch) over the years, and i might classify it using the term "caveat lector". but i truly mean reader beware. on the one hand, it seems to be strongly aligned with russian intelligence. i've caught it posting flat out lies more than once. on the other hand, it is sometimes a source of valuable information that is difficult to find elsewhere and seems to be entirely accurate. i've long taken the position that you can neither write that site off nor take it at face value, you have to treat is a generator of hypotheses that require further verification.
robert parry is a more trustworthy source, but his article is very speculative and does not come anywhere near to authoritatively blaming the ukrainian military, nor concluding it had to do with a plane; rather, it suggests that it may have been shot down by missiles on the ukrainian side. so, this is actually a good example of globalresearch acting in it's role as a front for russian propaganda, rather than in it's role as a valuable source of rare information.
i do not have the expertise required to analyze a plane crash and conclude what caused it to fall.
however, the russian story (in this case) does not strike me as more rational than the american story. sometimes it does. not here. i can fathom no realistic motive as to why the ukrainians would shoot down a civilian airliner, let alone target a plane with putin in it. these suggestions are as outrageous and ridiculous as anything coming out of the washington propaganda complex.
it may seem broadly consistent with historical american attempts to start wars, from blowing up their own ships in havana to shooting at whales in the gulf of tonkin. but, this plane was not american, and had no americans on board. the logic doesn't really assert itself. nor is it reasonable to think that they would think they could trick europe into launching a war against russia on this basis; europe is not that stupid, and america knows that europe is not that stupid.
if we can establish it was a missile - and i think the preponderance of evidence and experts across the spectrum acknowledge this as true - then we're left with three realistic scenarios:
1) the rebels accidentally shot it down.
2) the ukrainians accidentally shot it down
3) it was targeted by american missile defense testing, as a "live test" to catch a "live missile".
i wouldn't expect either government to promote this third hypothesis, as it is in nobody's interest to have that known. the american response is rather odd and draws attention to itself, but this in itself does not prove the russian propaganda or provide it with any heightened legitimacy; when analyzed on it's own terms, it becomes equally dubious and it becomes clear that a third explanation is required. i have no evidence to provide, even as i look at both official narratives with skepticism. but, my intuition is likely to remain with the third hypothesis until evidence appears that can thoroughly reject it. of the three, it strikes me as the most likely - even if it has the least direct evidence.