Assassination, Lies and the Trump Difference
 

[URL]https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/10/assassination-lies-and-the-trump-difference/[/URL]
[QUOTE]United States presidents have long lied about the pretexts for, and the nature of, their murderous and criminal foreign policy actions. Remember George W. Bush and Dick Cheney’s fraudulent claims that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq government possessed vast stocks of “weapons of mass destruction” that threatened the world and that Iraq had participated in the September 11, 2001 jetliner attacks?

Lyndon Johnson obtained Congressional authority to escalate the crucifixion of Vietnam by spreading disinformation about a 1964 naval incident in the Gulf of Tonkin. He campaigned that year on a pledge not to “send American boy 10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.” The following year he did exactly that, using the Tonkin lie as his justification.

Richard Nixon campaigned for the presidency promising to end the “Vietnam War” while working with Henry Kissinger to undermine peace negotiations in Paris to ensure Hubert Humphrey’s defeat in the 1968 election. Nixon went on to extend and expand the U.S. was on Southeast Asia with the secret bombing of Cambodia.

Ronald Reagan ludicrously justified his regime-change invasion of Grenada with the idiotic claim that the tiny Caribbean island’s radical government posed a lethal threat to the U.S.


George H.W. Bush absurdly sold the U.S. regime-change invasion of Panama as a defense of “democracy” and “human rights.”..... [/QUOTE]And so it goes, and so it goes.

[url=https://www.duffelblog.com/2020/01/nations-defense-contractors-promise-no-attack-against-us-will-go-unprofitable/]Nation’s defense contractors promise no attack against US will go unprofitable[/url] | Duffel Blog

[QUOTE=kladner;535023][URL]https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/10/assassination-lies-and-the-trump-difference/[/URL]
And so it goes, and so it goes.[/QUOTE]
Iraq trucked a lot of toxics to Syria. And Iraq had used some on its own people and on Iranians before that. Inspections don't find what's been already used up, or sold off, or given away to another despot. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program[/url]

On the subject of Iraqi chemical weapons, especially in the Iran-Iraq war, but also in use against domestic unrest.
[URL]https://duckduckgo.com/?q=us+assist+iraq+chemical+weapons&t=ffsb&atb=v167-1&ia=web[/URL]
[URL]https://www.counterpunch.org/2004/06/17/how-reagan-armed-saddam-with-chemical-weapons/[/URL]
[QUOTE]On August 18, 2002, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, “Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas”. Quoting anonymous US “senior military officers”, the NYT “revealed” that in the 1980s, the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided “critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war”. The story made a brief splash in the international media, then died.

While the August 18 NYT article added new details about the extent of US military collaboration with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during Iraq’s 1980-88 war with Iran, it omitted the most outrageous aspect of the scandal: not only did Ronald Reagan’s Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime’s repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq’s Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

Nor did the NYT dwell on the extreme cynicism and hypocrisy of President George Bush II’s administration’s citing of those same terrible atrocities–which were disregarded at the time by Washington–and those same weapons programs–which no longer exist, having been dismantled and destroyed in the decade following the 1991 Gulf War–to justify a massive new war against the people of Iraq.

A reader of the NYT article (or the tens of thousands of other articles written after the war drive against Iraq began in earnest soon after September 11, 2001) would have looked in vain for the fact that many of the US politicians and ruling class pundits who demanded war against Hussein–in particular, the one of the most bellicose of the Bush administration’s “hawks”, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld–were up to their ears in Washington’s efforts to cultivate, promote and excuse Hussein in the past.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kriesel;535058]Iraq trucked a lot of toxics to Syria.[/QUOTE]

Link?

There's a lot of this kind of talk going around
 

[URL]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52851.htm[/URL]
[CENTER] Iranian Flight Crash Facts Not Adding Up -By Russell Bentley
[/CENTER]
This is not the only article proposing alternative stories for what the Iranian government has already admired to.


[QUOTE] There remain a lot of unanswered questions and implausible explanations in the story of the Ukrainian airliner shot down near Tehran on January 8th, 2020. And while the Iranians have publicly and officially taken responsibility, there may be other reasons for them taking responsibility besides their actually having done it. I can think of several, and I will propose a few. But one thing I am certain of, with good reason – the “accident” story is bullshit, no matter who is telling it, and no matter why. They may have a good reason for telling it, but it’s a lie. There may be a good reason for telling it, but there’s no good reason for believing it, at all.

The first thing to understand about the SA-15 system is that it DOES have an IFF interrogator built into its radar system. The interrogator sends out a pulse that detects and interprets the IFF civilian airliner transponder signal automatically, every few seconds. Boeing 737 aircraft are equipped with two IFF transponders, which are set and activated prior to take off. Planes can be allowed to take off with only one operational transponder, and it is possible that the single transponder can fail or a pilot (and co-pilot, and even ATC) can forget to make sure it’s on before take off. My friend, a professional airline pilot, explains that if the plane is preparing for take off and the ATC does not see the transponder on his radar screen, he will remind the pilot, who will turn it on before take off. My friend has also told me that it does happen that the pilot, co-pilot and ATC can and sometimes do all forget and/or fail to notice the transponder is not on before take off. So, it could be possible for a plane to take off without an IFF transponder operating. On a flight across several international borders, into combat skies, where the IFF would be THE most important single safety system on the plane on this flight. Even flight PS-752.

Yes, it would be possible that they all overlooked it, except for one thing – we KNOW that they did not. That the flight was recorded on FLIGHTRADAR24.COM, proves that the transponder was on and working. The transponder was on and working, and the SA-15 radar, would have seen the unique flight info code for the regularly scheduled civilian flight on the radar screen, as would all ADA radars and all other civilian and military radars within range.[/QUOTE]I don't know what to make of any of this The speed and described powers of the missile system in the video are mind boggling. I will come up with related posts after I get some sleep.

[YOUTUBE]objljEE7B6M[/YOUTUBE]

Just a minor technical detail: Being visible on Flightradar24 doesn't tell anything about the IFF transponder, or secondary surveillance radar (SSR) transponder. FR24 listens to ADS-B transmissions, which are sent anyway, no radar interrogation needed. But maybe if one system is working, the other should be, too?

The fact that PS752 was shot down by a missile has, IMO been proved beyond cavil. To claim otherwise is to willfully disregard obvious facts.

The Ukrainian investigating team established within hours of its arrival that the wreckage of PS752 was riddled with small, irregular holes -- clear proof of shrapnel damage. This is exactly what would be expected from a Tor missile, which has a fragmentation warhead. And one would be hard-pressed indeed to explain such damage in any way other than the plane being shot down.

There were other facts known before this that made any explanation other than a missile shoot-down hard to swallow -- like the plane's flight transponder suddenly going dead, the lack of any call from the flight crew indicating trouble, and the plane being engulfed in flames but still mostly intact, while still in midair.

The FAA had barred American pilots from the area due to the "potential for miscalculation or misidentification," and other countries' airlines had also rerouted to avoid the area. So the possibility of just such an occurrence had in fact been [i]anticipated[/i].

It is arrogant to contest that one's own inability to explain circumstances of how something happened, somehow overcomes clear proof that it did in fact happen.

When it comes to the potential for things to go wrong when people are involved, I am reminded of something a friend of mine told me once upon a time, long long ago that his father liked to say: "It is hard to make things foolproof, because fools are so ingenious."

So let us take as given that the plane was shot down by a missile, and seek explanations of how that could have happened, safeguards notwithstanding.

It is possible that the AA battery's IFF interrogator wasn't working or was turned off. The crew [i]was[/i] operating "emissions quiet" in order to avoid detection by enemy weapons systems.

But let us assume it was on and working. Let us also assume that PS752's IFF transponder was on and working. How could the crew have launched anyway?

One possibility is, they didn't understand the meaning of what the IFF interrogator was telling them. They may have been poorly trained, and were almost certainly extremely tired after being on alert for days on end.

Another possibility is that there was some kind of "jamming" occurring in order to counter enemy weapons systems, and that this was defeating the IFF system. The first reports of Iran's admission of an inadvertent shoot-down said that the officer who gave the order to fire had tried to radio for further information before giving the order, but had been unable to get through.

Once you start going down the rabbit-hole of conspiratorialist fairy-tales based on ignoring established facts, the things that require "explaining" rapidly mushroom. In this case, one has to "explain" (1) what [i]else[/i] could have brought down the plane, yet looks [i]exactly[/i] like a missile shoot-down, (2) why in the world Iran's government would admit to something that it didn't do, and (3) why Iran's government behaved [i]exactly[/i] like a government that was desperately trying to deny it had made a terrible mistake before making its admission.

[i]My[/i] explanation is, (1) PS752 was brought down by a missile, (2) Iran admitted it because incontrovertible evidence of it was beyond their ability to suppress, and (3) Iran's government behaved exactly like a government trying desperately to deny it had made a terrible mistake, because that's exactly what it was.

I wonder whether the folks who promulgate conspiratorialist fantasies actually [i]believe[/i] the tales they're spinning. Perhaps they don't, and are merely determining whether there are enough gullible people to justify the effort to produce a "blockbuster" book or "documentary" about what "really" happened.

One thing I can [i]not[/i] explain is, after the US killed Soleimani, and the Iranians had decided to strike back, why didn't they simply close Iranian air space as their military had advised? Perhaps it was because that would have cost a lot of money. But did it not occur to them that innocent human lives are worth far more than money?

The question, as I see it, is one of intent, not the missile(s) itself. There is no arrogance involved.

The missile is inarguable. The apparent lapses in the defense system are the real issues being suggested. Why were the Operator's calls not answered? Why was there a delay in radar information? And, as mentioned, why was the airspace not closed to civilian craft?

I would have to reread this and maybe other articles to find it, but has been mentioned that the Ukrainian crew may have chosen to fly in spite of being warned.
Here we go:
[URL]https://thesaker.is/how-and-why-iran-shot-down-ukrainian-boeing/[/URL]
[QUOTE]The data provided in the statement of the General Staff, and the press conference of the Head of the Aerospace Division of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) provide the following chain of events:
[LIST=1][*]At approximate 23:00 UTC, on January 7, the IRGC carried out a missile strike on US military targets in Iraq;[*]The country’s air defense network was on highest alert amid reports on a possible cruise missile strike by the United States and increased flights of US warplanes near Iranian airspace;[*]At 2:38 UTC, January 8, the PS752 took off from Imam Khomeini International Airport and moved close to a “sensitive” facility of the IRGC “when completing a loop”. The aircraft reportedly deviated from the general PS752 course for around 2km;[*]The altitude and the direction of the flight’s movement “were like an enemy target”. The surface-to-air missile system operator mistakenly identified as the plane as an incoming “cruise missile” 19km away;[*]The missile system operator acted independently because of a failure in the communication system;[*]The operator then “took the wrong decision” of firing on the perceived threat in a “ten-second” time span to shoot or ignore the flying object. [U]During the night, the operator repeatedly called for a halt in flights in the area. This was not done.[/U][*]A “short-range missile” exploded next to the plane. After this, the plane continued flying for a while, and “exploded when it hit the ground.” The Iranian side did not mention the missile system used. Supposedly, it was the Tor low to medium altitude, short-range surface-to-air missile system.[/LIST] Thus, Iran described the situation with the Boeing as a result of the combination of aforementioned factors in the “atmosphere of threats and intimidation by the aggressive American regime against the Iranian nation”. Nonetheless, the real picture of events may have been different.

[U]It remains unclear how the Boeing 737-800 may have been mistaken for an incoming cruise missile, especially taking into account that this situation developed near the capital’s working airport.[/U] If one takes this explanation with a grain of salt, the scenario could have been the following.

The plane experienced some technical difficulties during or immediately after the take-off and deviated from the course moving closer to the IRGC military site. [U]Information appeared that the preflight inspection checklist was not signed by Iranian airport engineers, but the Ukrainian side [B]insisted to fly at its own risk and responsibility.[/B][/U]

Therefore, the system operator, that experienced a communication failure, considered the plane as a ‘military threat’ because it may have been hijacked for a 9/11-style attack, got under control via a cyber-attack and/or used as a cover for a pinpoint missile strike on the IRGC site.

This version does not explain how the communication failure could appear at the air defense post that must have two shielded communication channels: primary tactical circuit and the alternative. The possible explanation with an electronic warfare attack does not hold up against criticism civilian communication channels remained operational with routine flights continuing from the Tehran airport. Another factor is the video of the missile hit that appeared online. How this person, could have known when and what exactly to film without advance knowledge of the developments?
[/QUOTE]Neither of these posts disputes the missile(s?). To run with that misperception as a basis for argument is a bit arrogant in itself. The questions are Who, Why, How, and perhaps others. What sequence of events and circumstances led to this event which should not have taken place? Waving the "conspiracy" flag is a standard diversionary tactic. It is a means of dismissing ideas which conflict with one's own, or which reveal uncomfortable facts. Perhaps you could address the arguments which are actually being made.

[QUOTE=nomead;535146]Just a minor technical detail: Being visible on Flightradar24 doesn't tell anything about the IFF transponder, or secondary surveillance radar (SSR) transponder. FR24 listens to ADS-B transmissions, which are sent anyway, no radar interrogation needed. But maybe if one system is working, the other should be, too?[/QUOTE]
You know this stuff better than I do. It can be a struggle just to keep up with jargon, acronyms, and initialisms. I did look up ADS-B and find that it is a plane regularly reporting its self-determined location. The explanation said that this is a transformative technology with benefits ranging from improved safety to reduced operating costs.

I looked at the site you linked to, and what to my wondering eyes should appear, but (my emphasis)[quote]And while the Iranians have publicly and officially taken responsibility, there may be other reasons for them taking responsibility [b]besides their actually having done it.[/b]
<snip>
On the other hand, [b]it may be that US/NATO/MOSSAD/ISIS/UKROPS shot down the plane in a false flag op[/b] to further inflame world opinion against Iran. Expecting Iran to deny their involvement, a powerful, emotional and ongoing good guy/bad guy drama could be created and exploited. By Iran’s acceptance of responsibility, it shuts off the propaganda narrative before it gets started. [b]Whether they actually did it or not,[/b] by taking responsibility, it becomes moot and the subject is closed. A smart move.[/quote]So, yeah, this guy [i]is[/i] talking about the missile launch never having happened, and is touting conspiratorialist nonsense.

I note a couple of factual issues: First, the claim that PS752 was deviating from course is, by all indications, just plain wrong. And, [i]two[/i] missiles were launched, apparently 20 seconds apart. This provides an explanation for something that had puzzled me -- why were people taking videos of that seemingly unremarkable patch of sky [i]before[/i] what appeared to be a missile launching and exploding? It seems that the [i]first[/i] missile launch and detonation drew peoples' attention, so they were recording by the time the [i]second[/i] launch was made.

The "defense post" was a mobile AA unit. I seriously doubt it had "shielded communication channels." In fact, they were being "emissions quiet" in order to avoid detection by any enemy.

The insistence that an "accidental" (mistaken) launch is simply "not possible," does not take into consideration the infinite human capacity for self-deception. People see what they want to see, or what they fear they may [i]be[/i] seeing. In the above quotation, for example, we have somebody seeing a Western "false flag op" instead of the Iranian AA missile launch that unquestionably happened.

But to the destruction of PS752: The AA crew had been on high alert for four days. They knew that the President of the United States had threatened military retaliation if Iran struck back for the US killing Soleimani, and that Iran [i]had[/i] struck back. Since every pilot on God's green earth knew about the situation, the crew might well have discounted the possibility of civilian air traffic, and when they got a radar blip, assumed the worst. Then, based on that assumption, they could easily have misread or disregarded everything the system was telling them about it, and acted based on the fear that there was an incoming missile. Fire! Uh-oh, looks like the target is still flying! Fire two!

And now, there does seem to be an explanation of sorts for another thing that puzzled me -- the failure of Iran's government to admit the truth immediately: [i]National security![/i] From [url=https://apnews.com/12f79660172bc1ba81bf032e78152acd]this story[/url], [quote]Not admitting the plane had been shot down "was for the betterment of our country's security, because if we had said this, our air defense system would have become crippled and our guys would have had doubted everything," said Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the head of the Guard's aerospace program, in television footage aired Wednesday.[/quote]