Iran Watch...

Discussion of the latest Peak Oil news (please also check the Website News area below)

Moderator: Peak Moderation

Little John
Posts: 8688
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

stumuz1 wrote:Are you saying the plane did not crash?
Don't be daft. You know exactly what I am saying. I am saying in the absence of any evidence as to why it crashed, the very last word anyone should be trusting on the basis of their assurances that they have "evidence" that they nevertheless do not produce is that of the US.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11247
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

Looks like sufficient evidence to be suspicious to me:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51060859


>>You lot are hilarious.

And you are too quick to come to conclusions.
Little John
Posts: 8688
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

UndercoverElephant wrote:Looks like sufficient evidence to be suspicious to me:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51060859


>>You lot are hilarious.

And you are too quick to come to conclusions.
The "impartial" BBC?

Rightho....... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Little John
Posts: 8688
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

I've just read that BBC article. Unsubstantiated drivel from start to finish.

To be clear about what we DO know:

A plane has crashed in Iranian airspace.

The location of the crash makes it unlikely to have been a typical crash. But, as yet, there is no evidence produced from any sources to be able to clarify that any further.

This crash has occurred right in the middle of an escalating conflict between the US and Iran.

The US has extensive form on producing serial lies and black flags in such situations.

Given, the above, it is entirely rational to be deeply skeptical of anything the US or its allies and stooges and various lackey media outlets have to say about this crash.
stumuz1
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:12 pm
Location: Anglesey

Post by stumuz1 »

Little John wrote:I've just read that BBC article. Unsubstantiated drivel from start to finish.

To be clear about what we DO know:

A plane has crashed in Iranian airspace.

The location of the crash makes it unlikely to have been a typical crash. But, as yet, there is no evidence produced from any sources to be able to clarify that any further.

This crash has occurred right in the middle of an escalating conflict between the US and Iran.

The US has extensive form on producing serial lies and black flags in such situations.

Given, the above, it is entirely rational to be deeply skeptical of anything the US or its allies and stooges and various lackey media outlets have to say about this crash.
To be fair, we know a bit more than that.

We know a Boeing 737-800 has exploded near Tehran airport shortly after taking off.
We know the Boeing 737-800 has an excellent safety record and is the most used aircraft in the world today.
We know that the Boeing 737-800 has never exploded in mid air before.
We know that when ballistic missiles are used in anger, civilian aircraft are mistakenly shot down by air defences.

So are you saying that if the US says "we didn't do it guv" We should not believe them? or are you saying that if Iran says "we didn't do it guv" they should be believed?
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11247
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

Looks to me highly likely that it was shot down by an anti-aircraft missile, from the Iranian side, either accidentally or intentionally as a way of hitting back at the western world in general.
stumuz1
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:12 pm
Location: Anglesey

Post by stumuz1 »

UndercoverElephant wrote:accidentally or intentionally as a way of hitting back at the western world in general.
Why kill your own citizens to hit back at the western world in general?
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11247
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

stumuz1 wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:accidentally or intentionally as a way of hitting back at the western world in general.
Why kill your own citizens to hit back at the western world in general?
Most of the passengers were Canadian.
stumuz1
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:12 pm
Location: Anglesey

Post by stumuz1 »

But there were Iranians, question still stands.
Little John
Posts: 8688
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

stumuz1 wrote:
Little John wrote:I've just read that BBC article. Unsubstantiated drivel from start to finish.

To be clear about what we DO know:

A plane has crashed in Iranian airspace.

The location of the crash makes it unlikely to have been a typical crash. But, as yet, there is no evidence produced from any sources to be able to clarify that any further.

This crash has occurred right in the middle of an escalating conflict between the US and Iran.

The US has extensive form on producing serial lies and black flags in such situations.

Given, the above, it is entirely rational to be deeply skeptical of anything the US or its allies and stooges and various lackey media outlets have to say about this crash.
To be fair, we know a bit more than that.

We know a Boeing 737-800 has exploded near Tehran airport shortly after taking off.
We know the Boeing 737-800 has an excellent safety record and is the most used aircraft in the world today.
We know that the Boeing 737-800 has never exploded in mid air before.
We know that when ballistic missiles are used in anger, civilian aircraft are mistakenly shot down by air defences.

So are you saying that if the US says "we didn't do it guv" We should not believe them? or are you saying that if Iran says "we didn't do it guv" they should be believed?
You have just repeated eveything I said. But, have merely added the implication that we should believe the US.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I am saying we don't know what caused it as there is no evidence forthcoming as yet. But, we do know that the Yanks routinely carry out black flag operations and tell lies. That is not a reason to assume they did it. But, it is an excellent reason to not believe a single solitary thing they have to say about it unless and until evidence is forthcoming.
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6596
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:14 pm
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

Does it ever occur to you Little John that you are more then a bit paranoid?
Would the US government lie to the world (not just you) if it served some purpose for them? Yes, just like every other government out there both liberal and conservative and Capitalist and socialist. But if there is no advantage to be gained by a lie when the true facts will serve better and hold up under critical inspection why would they not go with the truth.
The moment that plane went down I expected it was an accidental shoot down by the anti aircraft forces in place around Tehran. They had the position , ability and were on a razor edge of alert. For anybody else to hit that plane at that point and position requires a lot of improbable logistics without a motive worth the effort.
Perhaps some alternate theory will win out in the end but I severely doubt it.
Little John
Posts: 8688
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

vtsnowedin wrote:Does it ever occur to you Little John that you are more then a bit paranoid?
Would the US government lie to the world (not just you) if it served some purpose for them? Yes, just like every other government out there both liberal and conservative and Capitalist and socialist. But if there is no advantage to be gained by a lie when the true facts will serve better and hold up under critical inspection why would they not go with the truth.
The moment that plane went down I expected it was an accidental shoot down by the anti aircraft forces in place around Tehran. They had the position , ability and were on a razor edge of alert. For anybody else to hit that plane at that point and position requires a lot of improbable logistics without a motive worth the effort.
Perhaps some alternate theory will win out in the end but I severely doubt it.
And there we have it folks. The power of a lifetime of brainwashing.
Little John
Posts: 8688
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

So The US Is Invading Iraq Again

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/so-t ... f362f4f0f2
So the US has decided to become an invading, occupying force in Iraq again.

It won’t be as exciting as last time. There will be no “shock and awe� invasion tactics this time. The invaders won’t even have to enter the country, because they’re already there. It will be a very boring, underwhelming sequel that leaves everyone feeling generally pessimistic about life and human existence. Like This Is 40.

If the initial invasion of Iraq was a violent sexual assault by a stranger in a dark alley, this one is more like an abusive husband raping his wife and then making her cook him dinner. But it is just as much a violent violation of personal sovereignty in both instances.

The US State Department has issued a press statement in response to Iraq’s vote to demand that the US remove its military presence from the nation, saying the US won’t even discuss a troop withdrawal. I’m just going to post the whole thing here, because its language is so creepy, disgusting and abusive that it should really be read carefully and in full:

“America is a force for good in the Middle East. Our military presence in Iraq is to continue the fight against ISIS and as the Secretary has said, we are committed to protecting Americans, Iraqis, and our coalition partners. We have been unambiguous regarding how crucial our D-ISIS mission is in Iraq. At this time, any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to discussing how to best recommit to our strategic partnership — not to discuss troop withdrawal, but our right, appropriate force posture in the Middle East. Today, a NATO delegation is at the State Department to discuss increasing NATO’s role in Iraq, in line with the President’s desire for burden sharing in all of our collective defense efforts. There does, however, need to be a conversation between the U.S. and Iraqi governments not just regarding security, but about our financial, economic, and diplomatic partnership. We want to be a friend and partner to a sovereign, prosperous, and stable Iraq.�

That last part is my favorite. A “friend and partner to a sovereign, prosperous, and stable Iraq.�

Like, of course we want you to be a sovereign nation! Just not the kind of sovereign where your elected government has any say in what happens in your country. We want you to be the kind of sovereign nation that does everything our government tells it to do. That kind of sovereignty we can really get behind!

I also love the “America is a force for good in the Middle East� bit. Right. When a bunch of guys with guns show up at my house, start killing my family members and refuse to leave, the first thing I’m going to think is, “These guys are such a force of good!�

Just as a side note, if you ever find yourself in any kind of relationship with someone who violates your personal sovereignty in this way and then uses the sort of I’m-your-friend, this-is-for-your-own-good language used by the State Department above to justify it, run, don’t walk, out the door. Because you’re dealing with a full-fledged sociopath.

Since 2014, America’s military presence in Iraq has been at the consent and invitation of the Iraqi government, the democratically elected government the US has used to justify its regime change intervention both before the invasion and ever since. Now that permission has been revoked, and the US government has suddenly lost all interest in Iraqi freedom and democracy. This US government, incidentally, is being led by a president who campaigned in 2016 on the platform of bringing the troops home from nations like Iraq.

So to recap, in 2003 the US wanted to occupy Iraq, and Iraq told them to F--k off. The US responded by invading, killing a million people, killing Saddam Hussein, tearing apart its Ba’ath party, tearing apart its military, rebuilding the whole system from scratch, installing a puppet regime, and creating a narrative about being Iraq’s “friend and partner� instead of an illegal occupying force.

The end result after 17 years? The US wants to occupy Iraq, and Iraq is telling them to F--k off.

The invasion of Iraq has been a senseless, unforgivable evil from the very beginning, and it remains so to this day, to the exact same extent. Nothing that was done was justifiable in any way, shape or form. Those million Iraqis died for no legitimate reason. The thousands of US soldiers died for no legitimate reason. Nothing was accomplished but the advancement of brute force control over a region the US has no business being in and an energy resource we’ve got no business relying on anymore.

A force for good? Bitch, you misspelled farce.

Caitlin Johnstone
User avatar
PS_RalphW
Posts: 5865
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Cambridge

Post by PS_RalphW »

Iran admits shooting down airliner. Their excuse, that it flew too close to a military site, is ludicrous. It was a commercial airliner from a major airport on a standard flightpath with an operational transponder. The data was collected in real time by multiple independent Web monitoring sites
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6596
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:14 pm
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

Little John wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:Does it ever occur to you Little John that you are more then a bit paranoid?
Would the US government lie to the world (not just you) if it served some purpose for them? Yes, just like every other government out there both liberal and conservative and Capitalist and socialist. But if there is no advantage to be gained by a lie when the true facts will serve better and hold up under critical inspection why would they not go with the truth.
The moment that plane went down I expected it was an accidental shoot down by the anti aircraft forces in place around Tehran. They had the position , ability and were on a razor edge of alert. For anybody else to hit that plane at that point and position requires a lot of improbable logistics without a motive worth the effort.
Perhaps some alternate theory will win out in the end but I severely doubt it.
And there we have it folks. The power of a lifetime of brainwashing.
But now we have this.
https://apnews.com/21f4a92a2dfbc38581719664bdf6f38e
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran on Saturday acknowledged that its armed forces “unintentionally� shot down the Ukrainian jetliner that crashed earlier this week, killing all 176 aboard, after the government had repeatedly denied Western accusations that it was responsible.
Just whose brain has been washed?
Post Reply