Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby thrulookingglass » Sat Jan 11, 2020 9:46 am

This is what happens (downing of Ukrainian flight) when supercilious armchair warriors place peoples lives in jeopardy. Iran didn't 'mi culpa'. They're not saying oops. If they hadn't been given cause to be on such a hair trigger high alert the downing of this flight would have never occurred. And we can thank CIC I have the best words for that. 176 people are dead for no reason besides pompous male posturing and international egoism. This 'war with Iran' in the headlines is a distraction from a failing presidential re-election campaign and the imposing threat of impeachment. The demon-rats are weak on terror. Let's hope so.
User avatar
thrulookingglass
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: down the rabbit hole USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby Harvey » Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:34 pm

8bitagent » Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:54 pm wrote:Trump kills their cult like beloved general and Iraq's Hezbollah militia leader.



Cult. CULTure. What's the difference? A serious question. I have to say, the whole 'pledge of allegiance' thing is deeply weird from where I stand. Anyway.

Aaron Maté and Scott Ritter in conversation:





And:


Harvey » Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:40 pm wrote:Former British Ambassador Craig Murray:

Lies, the Bethlehem Doctrine, and the Illegal Murder of Soleimani https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... soleimani/


In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence.

Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu’s government and then Blair’s, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of “pre-emptive self-defence” against “imminent” attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept. Including me.

What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “Imminent” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “soon” or “about to happen”. An attack may be deemed “imminent”, according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of “intelligence” you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again.

I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine. It has been the formal legal justification for drone strikes and targeted assassinations by the Israeli, US and UK governments for a decade. Here it is in academic paper form, published by Bethlehem after he left government service (the form in which it is adopted by the US, UK and Israeli Governments is classified information).

So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were “imminent” he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language. It is no use asking him what, where or when these “imminent” attacks were planned to be. He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something.

The idea that killing an individual who you have received information is going to attack you, but you do not know when, where or how, can be justified as self-defence, has not gained widespread acceptance – or indeed virtually any acceptance – in legal circles outside the ranks of the most extreme devoted neo-conservatives and zionists. Daniel Bethlehem became the FCO’s Chief Legal Adviser, brought in by Jack Straw, precisely because every single one of the FCO’s existing Legal Advisers believed the Iraq War to be illegal. In 2004, when the House of Commons was considering the legality of the war on Iraq, Bethlehem produced a remarkable paper for consideration which said that it was legal because the courts and existing law were wrong, a defence which has seldom succeeded in court.

(b)
following this line, I am also of the view that the wider principles of the law on self-defence also require closer scrutiny. I am not persuaded that the approach of doctrinal purity reflected in the Judgments of the International Court of Justice in this area provide a helpful edifice on which a coherent legal regime, able to address the exigencies of contemporary international life and discourage resort to unilateral action, is easily crafted;


The key was that the concept of “imminent” was to change:

The concept of what constitutes an “imminent” armed attack will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats


In the absence of a respectable international lawyer willing to argue this kind of tosh, Blair brought in Bethlehem as Chief Legal Adviser, the man who advised Netanyahu on Israel’s security wall and who was willing to say that attacking Iraq was legal on the basis of Saddam’s “imminent threat” to the UK, which proved to be non-existent. It says everything about Bethlehem’s eagerness for killing that the formulation of the Bethlehem Doctrine on extrajudicial execution by drone came after the Iraq War, and he still gave not one second’s thought to the fact that the intelligence on the “imminent threat” can be wrong. Assassinating people on the basis of faulty intelligence is not addressed by Bethlehem in setting out his doctrine. The bloodlust is strong in this one.

There are literally scores of academic articles, in every respected journal of international law, taking down the Bethlehem Doctrine for its obvious absurdities and revolting special pleading. My favourite is this one by Bethlehem’s predecessor as the FCO Chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood and his ex-Deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst.

I addressed the Bethlehem Doctrine as part of my contribution to a book reflecting on Chomsky‘s essay “On the Responsibility of Intellectuals”

In the UK recently, the Attorney
General gave a speech in defence of the UK’s drone policy, the assassination
of people – including British nationals – abroad. This execution
without a hearing is based on several criteria, he reassured us. His
speech was repeated slavishly in the British media. In fact, the Guardian
newspaper simply republished the government press release absolutely
verbatim, and stuck a reporter’s byline at the top.
The media have no interest in a critical appraisal of the process
by which the British government regularly executes without trial. Yet
in fact it is extremely interesting. The genesis of the policy lay in the
appointment of Daniel Bethlehem as the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office’s Chief Legal Adviser. Jack Straw made the appointment, and for
the first time ever it was external, and not from the Foreign Office’s own
large team of world-renowned international lawyers. The reason for that
is not in dispute. Every single one of the FCO’s legal advisers had advised
that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and Straw wished to find a new head
of the department more in tune with the neo-conservative world view.
Straw went to extremes. He appointed Daniel Bethlehem, the legal
‘expert’ who provided the legal advice to Benjamin Netanyahu on the
‘legality’ of building the great wall hemming in the Palestinians away
from their land and water resources. Bethlehem was an enthusiastic
proponent of the invasion of Iraq. He was also the most enthusiastic
proponent in the world of drone strikes.
Bethlehem provided an opinion on the legality of drone strikes
which is, to say the least, controversial. To give one example, Bethlehem
accepts that established principles of international law dictate that
lethal force may be used only to prevent an attack which is ‘imminent’.
Bethlehem argues that for an attack to be ‘imminent’ does not require it
to be ‘soon’. Indeed you can kill to avert an ‘imminent attack’ even if you
have no information on when and where it will be. You can instead rely
on your target’s ‘pattern of behaviour’; that is, if he has attacked before,
it is reasonable to assume he will attack again and that such an attack is
‘imminent’.
There is a much deeper problem: that the evidence against the
target is often extremely dubious. Yet even allowing the evidence to
be perfect, it is beyond me that the state can kill in such circumstances
without it being considered a death penalty imposed without trial for
past crimes, rather than to frustrate another ‘imminent’ one.
You would think that background would make an interesting
story. Yet the entire ‘serious’ British media published the government
line, without a single journalist, not one, writing about the fact that
Bethlehem’s proposed definition of ‘imminent’ has been widely rejected
by the international law community. The public knows none of this. They
just ‘know’ that drone strikes are keeping us safe from deadly attack by
terrorists, because the government says so, and nobody has attempted to
give them other information


Remember, this is not just academic argument, the Bethlehem Doctrine is the formal policy position on assassination of Israel, the US and UK governments. So that is lie one. When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning “imminent” attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which “imminent” is a “concept” which means neither “soon” nor “definitely going to happen”. To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem.

Let us now move on to the next lie, which is being widely repeated, this time originated by Donald Trump, that Soleimani was responsible for the “deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans”. This lie has been parroted by everybody, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Image

The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11, in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran.

This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which, regardless of party, are beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money. It is, the USA affirms, the Sunnis who are the allies and the Shias who are the enemy. Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi attack was by Sunnis, Isil are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.

Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which the Shia forces of Soleimani were responsible? Is there a list? It is of course a simple lie. Its tenuous connection with truth relates to the Pentagon’s estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated enemy – that back during the invasion of Iraq itself, 83% of US troop deaths were at the hands of Sunni resistance and 17% of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance, that is 603 troops. All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani, remarkably.

Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion. The Iraqi Shia militias – whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion. The idea that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible. Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was “responsible for hundreds of American deaths” is intended, as part of the justification for his murder, to give the impression he was involved in terrorism, not legitimate combat against invading forces. The idea that the US has the right to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of the laws of war.

As I understand it, there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational command of Shia militias during the invasion, and in any case to credit him personally with every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense. But even if Soleimani had personally supervised every combat success, these were legitimate acts of war. You cannot simply assassinate opposing generals who fought you, years after you invade.

The final, and perhaps silliest lie, is Vice President Mike Pence’s attempt to link Soleimani to 9/11. There is absolutely no link between Soleimani and 9/11, and the most strenuous efforts by the Bush regime to find evidence that would link either Iran or Iraq to 9/11 (and thus take the heat off their pals the al-Saud who were actually responsible) failed. Yes, it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan. But there is zero evidence, as the 9/11 report specifically stated, that the Iranians knew what they were planning, or that Soleimani personally was involved. This is total bullshit. 9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.

Soleimani actually was involved in intelligence and logistical cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan post 9/11 (the Taliban were his enemies too, the shia Tajiks being a key part of the US aligned Northern Alliance). He was in Iraq to fight ISIL.

The final aggravating factor in the Soleimani murder is that he was an accredited combatant general of a foreign state which the world – including the USA – recognises. The Bethlehem Doctrine specifically applies to “non-state actors”. Unlike all of the foregoing, this next is speculation, but I suspect that the legal argument in the Pentagon ran that Soleimani is a non-state actor when in Iraq, where the Shia militias have a semi-official status.

But that does not wash. Soleimani is a high official in Iran who was present in Iraq as a guest of the Iraqi government, to which the US government is allied. This greatly exacerbates the illegality of his assassination still further.

The political world in the UK is so cowed by the power of the neo-conservative Establishment and media, that the assassination of Soleimani is not being called out for the act of blatant illegality that it is. It was an act of state terrorism by the USA, pure and simple.



Edit to add: more links at source.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby Elvis » Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:08 pm

Harvey wrote:Cult. CULTure. What's the difference? A serious question


That's a great question!

I suppose one difference is that mass culture is what 'seems normal' to almost everyone... too often to the point where they can't imagine anything different. But still has all the qualities of a "cult."
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby 8bitagent » Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:19 am

thrulookingglass » Sat Jan 11, 2020 8:46 am wrote:This is what happens (downing of Ukrainian flight) when supercilious armchair warriors place peoples lives in jeopardy. Iran didn't 'mi culpa'. They're not saying oops. If they hadn't been given cause to be on such a hair trigger high alert the downing of this flight would have never occurred. And we can thank CIC I have the best words for that. 176 people are dead for no reason besides pompous male posturing and international egoism. This 'war with Iran' in the headlines is a distraction from a failing presidential re-election campaign and the imposing threat of impeachment. The demon-rats are weak on terror. Let's hope so.


Well hey, I say Iran shouldn't have to be on the hook til America fully compensates and admits to 655 1988 (and TWA 800 1996?) and Russia admits to 2014 Malaysia. One big international truth commission of "oopsies". Yet ironic the current media narrative of "regime change" is because thousands of Iranian hipster millennials demand the current Iranian regime vacates over the Ukranian flight.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby thrulookingglass » Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:13 pm

If there is any message or truth I wish to convey is that violence as a societal control mechanism is disastrous. And we who don't oppose (homicidal) actions by the elite/assumed dictators endorse said behaviors through inaction, which is also a choice. All of those flights you stated should never have been downed. War is the most fruitless tree. Nothing is gathered in war but loss. The pestilence of rule through bloodshed must end for peace to begin. This is why no one truly progressive can occupy the heads of state within our world for authority through wrath has been infused into the human psyche. This is what is destroying the spirit of humanity. Belief in and or the use of violent reprisals by the hands of any harms all. The tide must turn. As a species we must reject power through or by use of brutal force. No greater truth exists before this fact that cruelty cannot be wielded as a corrective force. Grace works in practice, not in theory.
User avatar
thrulookingglass
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: down the rabbit hole USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby chump » Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:03 am


http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.c ... ed-to.html

Iran: Communication Jamming Led to Missile Fire

Today, Iran is acknowledging they unintentionally shot down the plane.

I'm glad they are taking responsibility for this error.  It's the right thing to do.

Obviously, there are many unanswered questions. A few I'm asking..

Why was this plane in flight considering all that had occurred? 

Why did the plane turn around, as has been reported? 

Why deviate from planned course? 

And who was jamming communications?  

Because communications being jammed is very possible, very likely,  given the circumstances.

LINK

The Iranian missile operator who shot down a Ukrainian passenger jet opened fire independently because of communications "jamming", a Revolutionary Guards commander said on Saturday.

The operator had mistaken the Boeing 737 for a "cruise missile" and only had ten seconds to decide whether or not to open fire, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the Guards' aerospace commander, said in televised remarks.

The plane was shot down on Wednesday, hours after Iran launched a ballistic missile attack on two military bases housing US troops in Iraq in retaliation for the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in an American airstrike in Baghdad.

Hajizadeh, the head of the guard's aerospace division, said his unit accepts “full responsibility” for the shootdown. In an address broadcast by state TV, he said that when he learned about the downing of the plane, “I wished I was dead.”

He said guard forces ringing the capital had beefed up their air defences and were at the “highest level of readiness", fearing that the US would retaliate. He said an officer made the “bad decision” to open fire on the plane after mistaking it for a cruise missile.

"He had 10 seconds to decide. He could have decided to strike or not to strike and under such circumstances he took the wrong decision."

“It was a short-range missile that exploded next to the plane,” he added.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, expressed his “deep sympathy” to the families of the victims and called on the armed forces to "pursue probable shortcomings and guilt in the painful incident.”

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy issued a statement saying the crash investigation should continue and the “perpetrators” should be brought to justice. He said Iran should compensate victims' families, and he requested “official apologies through diplomatic channels.”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, with the country mourning the loss of many of its nationals, said closure and accountability were needed after Iran's announcement.

The plane, en route to the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, was carrying 167 passengers and nine crew members from several countries, including 82 Iranians, 57 Canadians and 11 Ukrainians, according to officials.
User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby Harvey » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:44 am

Apparently this model of 737 has remote pilot capability. Does anyone know if it can be hacked?
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:06 pm

Okay, the Iranian authorities have accepted responsibility for shooting it down with an anti-aircraft missile. So no need to hack the autopilot software. One question is whether their radar and defense systems were being jammed, leading to the error. Totally believable.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby Elvis » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:12 pm

For 2-3 days I couldn't get presstv to live-stream, but it's working again:

https://www.presstv.com/Live


Right now, they're reporting that 51 US senators are on board for restricting Trump's ability to make war on Iran. :thumbsup
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby Cordelia » Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:39 pm

Yesterday's TIME 'launched' video of EU Foreign Policy Chief announcing the opening of a formal Dispute Mechanism in response to Britain, France and Germany's letter to 'trigger' (EU chief stresses it is not about reimposing U.N. sanctions.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHo5bZRcj5I

An international law firm's timeline and analysis of what a Dispute Mechanism entails:

Iran Sanctions: The potential re-imposition of UN and EU Sanctions under the JCPOA

https://bakerxchange.com/rv/ff0058206de ... 33ff6cef6c


in the meantime,

Instagram is taking down posts supporting slain Iranian general Soleimani

Soleimani ran a group the US government designated a terrorist organization.


Timothy B. Lee - 1/13/2020, 12:26 PM

----------

After the Trump administration designated the IRGC a terrorist organization last April, Instagram deleted accounts connected to the IRGC. But the latest takedowns seem to be more wide-ranging—removing posts commenting on Soleimani's death by people without a direct connection to him or the IRGC.

The International Federation of Journalists reported last week that at least 15 Iranian journalists have had their accounts suspended since Soleimani's death. "Some accounts of Iranian newspapers and news agencies have now been removed from the social media platform," the IFJ wrote.

Instagram's actions are significant here because Instagram is one of the few social media platforms that is not yet blocked in Iran. Twitter and Facebook are not allowed in Iran—though of course some Iranians still access it via VPNs. But Instagram remains legal, perhaps because Instagram content is predominantly non-political.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202 ... soleimani/
The greatest sin is to be unconscious. ~ Carl Jung

We may not choose the parameters of our destiny. But we give it its content. ~ Dag Hammarskjold 'Waymarks'
User avatar
Cordelia
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby Harvey » Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:57 pm

We can't let the war whores win this. Demilitarisation is the only way we all win, from climate to our own personal lives.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby Harvey » Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:16 pm

JackRiddler » Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:06 pm wrote:Okay, the Iranian authorities have accepted responsibility for shooting it down with an anti-aircraft missile. So no need to hack the autopilot software. One question is whether their radar and defense systems were being jammed, leading to the error. Totally believable.



Causally challenged?
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:04 pm

.

Causally challenged? Jeez, do you mean am I stoopid? Never know.

You mean, what if they autopilot-hijacked it to make it go off course, prompting the shootdown?

Problems I see:
- Could go wrong, revealing the capacity.
- Iranians saying flight did not deviate from assigned and expected route.

Jamming seems more plausible, and, in the minds of the war-mongers and most Americans, it's even acceptable given the Iranian attack (or rather, ritualized "attack") on the US bases in Iraq.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby kelley » Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:41 pm

Is it plausible Iran accepts responsibility for an act committed by hostile proxy? To confound the narrative and etc etc etc
kelley
 
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:49 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby Harvey » Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:18 pm

JackRiddler » Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:04 am wrote:.

Causally challenged? Jeez, do you mean am I stoopid?


Why on earth would I think that? I don't.

You mean, what if they autopilot-hijacked it to make it go off course, prompting the shootdown?


See, you didn't need to pretend.

Problems I see:

- Could go wrong, revealing the capacity.


We know the plane can be flown remotely. We know anything networked can be hacked and we know all kinds of hardware has back doors built in, usually at the point of manufacture but sometimes introduced later. If such a thing did happen, the Iranians already know about it. I can think of reasons they wouldn't protest too much if it were the case, and besides, who'd believe them?

- Iranians saying flight did not deviate from assigned and expected route.


I haven't heard the Iranians say that, I've heard it said they have and I've also read as much. Do you have a link to the statement? Creative translation aside, I've read, heard and seen claims the plane did deviate off course, some of which appear credible to me, but who knows?

Jamming seems more plausible, and, in the minds of the war-mongers and most Americans, it's even acceptable given the Iranian attack (or rather, ritualized "attack") on the US bases in Iraq.


I have neither the hard information nor the expertise to judge what is or is not plausible but I do like to keep an open mind. Especially as a terrible tragedy (however it was caused) is now being used as a stick to beat Iranians with, if not a stepping stone to another greater tragedy. I think considerable scepticism is not only warrented but required.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests