Israeli false flag attacks

[flintlock]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

Back on the topic of this thread.

I completely disagree with this being a false flag operation.

Israel and/or US and/or whoever have been killing Iranians for a good few years now.

People might be surprised to learn close to 100 Iranians have been killed/abducted/defected in the last 5 years who are directly or indirectly related to Iran's nuclear program(s)...scientists, the head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Org, IRGC commanders, Quds Force, etc...and these are just the KNOWN open source numbers.

It doesn't take a life insurance actuary to figure out something VERY strange is going on in Iran.

Iran has a much longer history of using asymmetric warfare to achieve it's foreign policy goals than conventional warfare....so it's easily within the realm of possibility to see Iran counter attacking Israel using some of the same means being used against them these past 5 years.

Iran has used it's Hezbullah proxy as well as direct means to achieve it's goals......Beirut Marine Barracks and Foreign Legion bombings......Argentina bombings...etc...and aggressive recent commentary from the Mullahs has supported that.

Some light may be shed on things shortly, as an Iranian has JUST been captured in Bangkok after having blown his own legs off in one of three explosions possibly meant to target Israelis.

Things are getting "weird" not just in Iran....but also Azerbaijan, India, and Thailand.....multiple open source incidents in Thailand.

When Israel has pursued aggressive asymmetric means to achieve it's foreign policy goals in the past...like post Black September Olympic Massacre...when Israel hunted down and killed those it felt responsible(including a terrible murder of an innocent in Norway).....there was a response to Israel in the form of a letter bomb campaign and other incidents.

All three countries Azerbaijan, India, and Thailand would not be considered non-permissive nations for the Iranians to operate from/in.....it's not like they would likely have Shin Bet/FBI crawling all over them by the dozens, neither country has the resources to counter Iranian efforts everywhere....and flights to/from each with Iran are frequent enough.....simplest explanation is usually the most accurate.

False flag operation? I seriously doubt it.

Finally, some sanity. Nice contrast to all the crackpot know it alls that have taken over this once nice forum

[c1ue]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

What's wrong?

That the US can make some incredible achievements but still make horrible mistakes? Much like Iran can build cars and rockets, but still stuff up as well?

How is that wrong?

Unclear what exactly you are referring to. I've never said that the US shouldn't ever make a mistake, or isn't a once dynamic nation and economy, or whatever.

How are YOU not looking through the lens of history with perfect hindsight?

Were the intelligence estimates on casualties I posted wrong?

Maybe you should have a read of the horrorfest that would have resulted if Op Downfall/Olympic went forward.

Why would so many body bags and Purple Hearts have been manufactured and staged if they weren't expected to be used in the invasion of Japan's home islands?

Let's talk about "historical evidence":

You claim Japan was looking for ways to honorably surrender?

Your comment on Purple Hearts would be a lot stronger if 1 million weren't issued in World War II. (see wiki:purple heart)

So what if 100,000 were manufactured and left unissued?

To put this in context: 16 million different Americans served in the military in WW II. A few over 400,000 died, with 670K wounded.

Given this context, your Purple Heart numbers are frankly irrelevant, especially in the context of what every other single major power suffered in terms of wounded and killed, and it further underscores what I said: that Japanese and German civilian casualties were irrelevant and the moral considerations of not targeting, much less protecting non-combatants was completely ignored.

As will be noted below, the brandishing of US ground war casualties in a land invasion of Japan is irrelevant since it was quite clear such a military maneuver was unnecessary.

How, and how effectively, did they communicate this to the US Allies AT THE TIME?

Given that the US had cracked many of Japan's military codes, your assertion that somehow communications were not possible is frankly not credible.

The US itself sponsored a Strategic Bombing Survey report which concludes that the strategy to force Japan's surrender without a ground invasion is identical whether using conventional or nuclear weapons, and gives horrific details on the types of conventional indiscriminate bombing employed:

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

By the end of November 1944, 4 months after seizure of the islands, the first of the long-range bomber bases in the Marianas became operational. The number of planes originally available was small and opposition was significant. Losses on combat missions averaged 3.6 percent. The tonnage dropped prior to 9 March 1945 aggregated only 7,180 tons although increasing month by month. The planes bombed from approximately 30,000 feet and the percentage of bombs dropped which hit the target areas averaged less than 10 percent. Nevertheless, the effects of even the relatively small tonnage hitting the selected targets were substantial. During this period, attacks were directed almost exclusively against aircraft, primarily aircraft engine, targets. The principal aircraft engine plants were hit sufficiently heavily and persistently to convince the Japanese that these plants would inevitably be totally destroyed. The Japanese were thereby forced into a wholesale and hasty dispersal program. The continuing pressure of immediate military requirements for more and more planes during the campaigns in the Pacific had prevented any earlier moves to disperse. When dispersal could no longer be avoided, the necessary underground tunnels, dispersed buildings, and accessory facilities such as roads, railroad spurs and power connections were not ready. As a result the decline in aircraft engine production, which shortages in special steels requiring cobalt, nickel and chrome had initiated in mid-1944, became precipitous.

On 9 March 1945, a basic revision in the method of B-29 attack was instituted. It was decided to bomb the four principal Japanese cities at night from altitudes averaging 7,000 feet. Japanese weakness in night fighters and antiaircraft made this program feasible. Incendiaries were used instead of high-explosive bombs and the lower altitude permitted a substantial increase in bomb load per plane. One thousand six hundred and sixty-seven tons of bombs were dropped on Tokyo in the first attack. The chosen areas were saturated. Fifteen square miles of Tokyo's most densely populated area were burned to the ground. The weight and intensity of this attack caught the Japanese by surprise. No subsequent urban area attack was equally destructive. Two days later, an attack of similar magnitude on Nagoya destroyed 2 square miles. In a period of 10 days starting 9 March, a total of 1,595 sorties delivered 9,373 tons of bombs against Tokyo, Nagoya, Osake, and Kobe destroying 31 square miles of those cities at a cost of 22 airplanes. The generally destructive effect of incendiary attacks against Japanese cities had been demonstrated.

...

Not only were the Japanese defenses overwhelmed, but Japan's will and capacity for reconstruction, dispersal, and passive defense were less than Germany's. In the aggregate some 40 percent of the built-up area of the 66 cities attacked was destroyed. Approximately 30 percent of the entire urban population of Japan lost their homes and many of their possessions. The physical destruction of industrial plants subjected to high-explosive attacks was similarly impressive.

...


The growing food shortage was the principal factor affecting the health and vigor of the Japanese people. Prior to Pearl Harbor the average per capita caloric intake of the Japanese people was about 2,000 calories as against 3,400 in the United States. The acreage of arable land in Japan is only 3 percent of that of the United States to support a population over half as large. In order to provide the prewar diet, this arable acreage was more intensively cultivated, using more manpower and larger quantities of fertilizer than in any other country in the world; fishing was developed into a major industry; and rice, soybeans and other foodstuffs amounting to 19 percent of the caloric intake were imported. Despite the rationing of food beginning in April 1941 the food situation became critical. As the war progressed, imports became more and more difficult, the waters available to the fishing fleet and the ships and fuel oil for its use became increasingly restricted. Domestic food production itself was affected by the drafting of the younger males and by an increasing shortage of fertilizers.

By 1944, the average per capita caloric intake had declined to approximately 1,900 calories. By the summer of 1945 it was about 1,680 calories per capita.

What reliable intelligence did the US/allies have about Japan AT THE TIME? Modern persistent intelligence collection(which still has it's flaws) didn't exist at the time...not even close.

How can a nation responsible for such orgiastic violence in the Nanking and Manila Massacres be allowed to conditionally surrender and maintain regime continuity?

How could a nation responsible for horrific mistreatment, murder, cannibalism, and WMD weapons testing on of POWs be allowed to conditionally surrender with honor?

How could a nation who's military fought to the last man and whose civilians were indoctrinated to commit mass suicide on the outer islands be expected to act if directly invaded other than fight to the bitter end?

How could the US/allies NOT decisively break the will of the enemy to fight to the bitter end?

Past performance is indicative of future performance......Japan's past actions(including actions just days/weeks prior to Hiroshima in other Areas of Operation) justified the bombings.

So basically what you are saying is that 2 wrongs make a right. Yes, Japanese did commit horrible crimes. Equally so did Germans, and Americans, and French, and British, albeit at different degrees.

I fail to see how you can try for the moral high ground in performing immoral acts.

But then again perhaps I should not be surprised since you don't seem to have any issues with similar behavior today in the 'War on Terror'.

IF a secondary objective was to demonstrate to the Soviets the capability of the US, then the result was excellent.......what would the Soviets have likely done had the war lasted another 1-2 years with a land invasion?

The Soviets amassed significant forces late in the war in the Manchurian Offensive...would they have sat it out and watched? Or would they have forced a split of Japan much like Korea....leading to another Cold War hot confrontation.

Seriously, sometimes I think you argue with folks on this forum just to argue or to pursue some sort of intellectual alpha male dominance.

Seriously, I often think that you are too much an apologist for the American military, that it can do no wrong and all actions are justified.

Which brings me to a separate note....this is not the first time I find your posts to be condescending, patronizing, and arrogant.....and I don't believe I am the only person on the forum that feels this way.

While I respect your intellect and the content of your posts at times, you seem to have a need to achieve some sort of intellectual dominance on most every topic you enter....which covers a broad spectrum of topics.... and it's worth noting that I've yet to meet anyone who has effectively achieved subject matter expertise in all.....although I've seen a few who have tried and failed.

Once again I appreciate your content most of the time, but your not my university professor and I strongly encourage you to consider how your posts are perceived and how you are shaping your perception in others eyes on this forum.

If at anytime I've come across as arrogant, patronizing, or condescending to you or anyone else on this forum I certainly hope I get called out on it.....as that is never my intent.

I also understand that I have far more to learn than offer on this forum......but all I detect in you is teacher and never student....sorry...that's just my honest perspective and perception.

Your perception is your own. While I do not try to give offense, the reality is that few people like to hear anything which does not match their own world views.

I have never complained about the often unabashed apologism for military policies which you espouse, yet at the same time you complain about factual contrast to what you say.

I have no problem with anyone expressing their view, but I do find it curious that you are so sensitive about actions which even the US military itself acknowledges were ill considered.

I'm well aware of Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay and their fire bombing campaigns.....at the time mass urban centres of gravity(manufacturing/distribution and their work forces) were considered legitimate targets....and I find it bizarre that so much focus is placed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when so much more damage and destruction was caused in previous firebombing campaigns...yet the focus is on the two nuclear bombings? Firebombing that caused FAR more death and destruction didn't end the war......but two nukes did......which I think lends support towards their legitimate and effective use....regardless of how incredibly destructive they were....the number of dead Americans/Allies were likely far less.....and the same goes for Japanese casualties...even though the consideration of that was probably of very little consequence at the time.

I perceive in your post a definitive Monday Morning Quarterback OPINION that fails to consider the reasonable intelligence picture available AT THE TIME which included the massive casualties of the very recent, very real, and very tangible Battles of Manila, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.

It's easy to poo poo the use of nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki with clinical dispassion and 65+ years of perfect 20/20 hindsight to put the pieces of the puzzle together like a game of Risk.

Just my opinion.....

Given that the Strategic Bombing Survey above clearly notes that the conventional campaign was highly effective in reducing Japan's war making capability, as well as spreading mass civilian destruction, I'd say that your view that no mistakes were made nor was any alternative policy even possible is incorrect.

This survey was commissioned in November 1945 - the same year as Japan's surrender - and published in July 1946 thus cannot be said to be 'Monday Morning Quarterbacking' as you so term it.

It is equally clear from the survey that Japan was in fact actively seeking a way to surrender, exactly as I noted above:

Rear Admiral Takagi of the Navy General Staff made a study between 20 September 1943 and February 1944, of the war's battle lessons up to that time.

Based on analysis of air, fleet and merchant ship losses, Japan's inability to import essential materials for production, and the potentiality of air attacks on the home islands, Takagi concluded that Japan could not win and should seek a compromise peace. His study and a similar one made by Sakomizu of the Cabinet Planning Board documented the fears of the Jushin, and through them of Marquis Kido, that all was not well with Tojo's prosecution of the war. With the loss of Saipan, it was possible to build up sufficient pressure to force Tojo's retirement.

The government of General Koiso, who was chosen by the ever-cautious Kido to head the succeeding cabinet, did not have the strength to stand up to the military and was a disappointment to the more enthusiastic peace makers. In spite of original instructions to give "fundamental reconsideration" to the problem of continuing the war, his only accomplishment in that direction was the creation of a Supreme War Direction Council, an inner cabinet which supplied the mechanism through which the problem of surrender was eventually resolved.

The conviction and strength of the peace party was increased by the continuing Japanese military defeats, and by Japan's helplessness in defending itself against the ever-growing weight of air attack on the home islands. On 7 April 1945, less than a week after United States landings on Okinawa, Koiso was removed and Marquis Kido installed Admiral Suzuki as premier. Kido testified to the Survey that, in his opinion, Suzuki alone had the deep conviction and personal courage to stand up to the military and bring the war to an end.

Early in May 1945, the Supreme War Direction Council began active discussion of ways and means to end the war, and talks were initiated with Soviet Russia seeking her intercession as mediator.

The talks by the Japanese ambassador in Moscow and with the Soviet ambassador in Tokyo did not make progress. On 20 June the Emperor, on his own initiative, called the six members of the Supreme War Direction Council to a conference and said it was necessary to have a plan to close the war at once, as well as a plan to defend the home islands. The timing of the Potsdam Conference interfered with a plan to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special emissary with instructions from the cabinet to negotiate for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender, but with private instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price. Although the Supreme War Direction Council, in its deliberations on the Potsdam Declaration, was agreed on the advisability of ending the war, three of its members, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Navy Minister, were prepared to accept unconditional surrender, while the other three, the Army Minister, and the Chiefs of Staff of both services, favored continued resistance unless certain mitigating conditions were obtained.

Let's see

public changes in Japan's government leadership: check
clear and measurable damage to Japan's ability to wage war: check
clear and measurable impact on the Japanese public's understanding of the prosecution of the war: check
Negotiations opened to surrender: check

But by all means continue to think that 'nothing else could have been done'.

I'll conclude with this:

Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

[c1ue]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

If anything the most likely scenario is Israel, in a truly desperate situation, sets off its own bomb in a suburb of Tel Aviv in order to garner world sympathy.

Idiotic? Pot meet kettle!

And that is exactly the point.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

Fascinating thread, I still love this forum. Thanks to whomever that was for posting the salon link. Yes, if you watch the news at all, the propaganda push is on hard. I almost couldn't believe it last week when I heard about that poll indicating 50% of the country was ready for war.

But, I'm thinking Iran is more 2013, than 2012. Can't see it happening during the election. It's a gut feeling.

[Shakespear]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

c1ue I salute you.

You have a hell of a lot more stamina than I do to answer some of the comments here. Your statement

I fail to see how you can try for the moral high ground in performing immoral acts.

That last part of this statement hits the attitude of the debaters straight in the bulls eye, as I see it, "We are the guys in the White Hats and are just doing the right thing."

Question : Where are the bio-vans and bio-weapons in Iraq? Where are the nuclear bombs in Iraq? and on and on ....
Answer: Saddam was headed in that direction and could have produced them. We couldn't be sure if ...

Is there any sense in going on? It is as bad as a cat chasing its own tail.
I am convinced that true history is far far from the high school version. I find taking a trip to "Half Price Books Store" a very educational activity which can open a mind rather than watching CNN or FOX.

[yosmitesam]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

It is equally clear from the survey that Japan was in fact actively seeking a way to surrender, exactly as I noted above:

Let's see

public changes in Japan's government leadership: check
clear and measurable damage to Japan's ability to wage war: check
clear and measurable impact on the Japanese public's understanding of the prosecution of the war: check
Negotiations opened to surrender: check

But by all means continue to think that 'nothing else could have been done'.

Thank you, Captain Hindsight. How bloody obvious that the Japanese were about to surrender, except for them shooting, bombing, torpedoing, etc.

Top 10 Ways for Japanese to Surrender:
1. White Flags
2. Stop shooting
3. Broadcast "We Surrender"
4. Send flowers with a note
5. Offer to make us cars and transistor radios
6. Maybe releasing all the POWs would have been considered a peace gesture.
7. Emperor + Suicide = reasonable interpretation as surrender
8. enough is enough...

Maybe sinking the Indianapolis was a peace gesture misinterpreted by those war mongers in Washington.

This is nonsense. To make a case for conventional bombing, when conventional bombing killed hundreds of thousands? Would you really be happier if we fire bombed them into submission?

Or is your point that the US was morally bound to stop attacking Japan because they couldn't fight as well as they could previously?

Or that they actually received the surrender telegram, but pretended that it didn't come, or couldn't translate it, or that Truman left his reading glasses with Bess that day, so he could nuke them for the sport of it, 'cause that's how they roll in Missouri.

Thanks Captain Hindsight.

Of course, if you would have told everyone this at the time, I'm sure they would have believed you. Or not. Oh the humanity.

Oh, and the Russians were wrong for raping the Germans and dividing Europe. And England and France were really harsh on the Germans after WWI. Sorry about the Rhineland. And the Romans really shouldn't have salted the fields of Carthage.

Or just maybe people are just really violent and hateful when it comes to war, and sometimes in peace. Or most times in peace.

50,000 years of inter-tribal feuding and counting.

But those two bombs were a mistake. Something else could have been done.

[c1ue]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

Thank you, Captain Hindsight. How bloody obvious that the Japanese were about to surrender, except for them shooting, bombing, torpedoing, etc.

You're missing that the Japanese had actually tried to get Russia to act as an intermediary in surrender negotiations; I don't know if Stalin communicated to the US that such an attempt was made.

The reality is that the US was fully aware of the military and economic damage that had been done to Japan, and what future conventional actions would have reaped.

Maybe sinking the Indianapolis was a peace gesture misinterpreted by those war mongers in Washington.

Totally nonsensical. No one said anywhere that combat had ceased.

Barring a ceasefire - unilateral or bilateral - negotiations do not equal peace.

This is nonsense. To make a case for conventional bombing, when conventional bombing killed hundreds of thousands? Would you really be happier if we fire bombed them into submission?

As you have clearly misunderstood what the Strategic Bombing Survey noted, I suggest you re-read or actually read what is there.

What it says is that the bombing campaigns even in May 1945 had appreciable and measurable negative impact on Japan's economic and military situation.

Or in other words, it was not only working but was clearly working against Japan's favor.

Oh, and the Russians were wrong for raping the Germans and dividing Europe. And England and France were really harsh on the Germans after WWI. Sorry about the Rhineland. And the Romans really shouldn't have salted the fields of Carthage

Irrelevant and pointless.

The Russians had 20 million or more war dead, they were understandably unhappy with the Germans.

I fail to see what this has to do with Japan's surrender.

But those two bombs were a mistake. Something else could have been done.

The other point you seem to have missed is that the bombs were very potentially justifiable - at least in real politik terms - if the goal was to dissuade the Russians or 'contain' Soviet gains in former Japanese mainland Asia possessions.

However, this goal is far less nice than the concept of 'saving lives from a land invasion'.

And that is the point and the difference between propaganda and reality.

[Prazak]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

The other point you seem to have missed is that the bombs were very potentially justifiable - at least in real politik terms - if the goal was to dissuade the Russians or 'contain' Soviet gains in former Japanese mainland Asia possessions.

However, this goal is far less nice than the concept of 'saving lives from a land invasion'.

And that is the point and the difference between propaganda and reality.

There's been a debate about Truman's motives for many years. You've probably read Zhukov's interpretation. It's been quite a number of years since I looked into this closely, but my feeling then was that it's nearly impossible to discern the motives involved, given the complexity of the circumstances and given Truman's personality. You are certainly correct that dropping the bomb was not strictly necessary to end the war, and that the number of U.S. casualties that were then estimated to prosecute the Pacific theater to the desired conclusion of unconditional surrender were wildly inflated. No doubt post-War positioning among the Allied Powers, and especially the U.S. and the Russians, was also in play. Racism and hatred toward the Japanese (which I don't want to judge from my comfortable office chair 60 years after the fact) was also no doubt in play, as was the sheer force of momentum of the race to build and use the bomb. But I think it over-reaches to argue that dropping the bomb was wholly disconnected from military ends, or that it was intended primarily as a demonstration to the Russians of American firepower. Use of the bomb was no less justifiable at that time, militarily or morally, than the fire-bombing of major Japanese (and German) cities as a means for bringing the Japanese (or Germans) to unconditional surrender. And it's not easy to get into Truman's head all these years later. It might not have been all that easy contemporaneously, either: he wasn't big on nuance, introspection, or communication. (In this regard, among others, Bush II always reminded me of how I imagine the Missouri haberdasher to be.)

[c1ue]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

It's been quite a number of years since I looked into this closely, but my feeling then was that it's nearly impossible to discern the motives involved, given the complexity of the circumstances and given Truman's personality. You are certainly correct that dropping the bomb was not strictly necessary to end the war, and that the number of U.S. casualties that were then estimated to prosecute the Pacific theater to the desired conclusion of unconditional surrender were wildly inflated. No doubt post-War positioning among the Allied Powers, and especially the U.S. and the Russians, was also in play. Racism and hatred toward the Japanese (which I don't want to judge from my comfortable office chair 60 years after the fact) was also no doubt in play, as was the sheer force of momentum of the race to build and use the bomb. But I think it over-reaches to argue that dropping the bomb was wholly disconnected from military ends, or that it was intended primarily as a demonstration to the Russians of American firepower. Use of the bomb was no less justifiable at that time, militarily or morally, than the fire-bombing of major Japanese (and German) cities as a means for bringing the Japanese (or Germans) to unconditional surrender. And it's not easy to get into Truman's head all these years later. It might not have been all that easy contemporaneously, either: he wasn't big on nuance, introspection, or communication.

A very well nuanced and sensible commentary which I am in almost complete agreement with.

You'll note that I've never said the bombs shouldn't have been dropped, or that firebombing of civilians should never have been done.

What I've said is calling these moral actions is false. Treating all Allied actions in WW II as moral is false, just as treating all Axis actions in WW II as immoral is equally false.

I will also point out that the Allies uniformly condemned the firebombing of Coventry, therefore there was a clear Allied public policy position that indiscriminate bombing of civilians was immoral, yet later in the war there were apparently no issues with a conversely far greater magnitude attack on civilians.

While I agree we cannot fully place ourselves in the positions of those who made decisions, at the same time it is both irresponsible and reprehensible to retreat into a view that there were no other choices, especially when other choices were quite clear even at that time.

To blindly accept the official position leads to such uncomfortable positions as wondering just how the W. Bush invasion of Iraq was justified, when the original justifications were not only false but were demonstrably known false.

[Prazak]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

I'm puzzled why the Saudis do this for the Iranians? http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02...terranean-sea/

[Shakespear]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

The Russians had 20 million or more war dead, they were understandably unhappy with the Germans.

The Russians , lets not forget, had their commissars (NKVD officers) in all units who were pumping the soldiers all kinds of propaganda as to who they were fighting. We can guess the sort of things they were saying. Hence these young guys were "pumped" to waist the Germans.

A shocking statistic of how ugly this war was for the Red Army. I read that from its original size at the start of the war only 5 % remained at the end. One cause, Stalin's methods to de-mine fields was with his soldiers+vodka.

[c1ue]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

I'm puzzled why the Saudis do this for the Iranians? http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02...terranean-sea/

Why is this puzzling? Saudi Arabia has never been in direct conflict with Iran.

Why do so when its US finger puppet will do all the aggressive posturing for them?

In the meantime the Saudis can pretend to be the sensible nice Islamic nation.

[Prazak]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

You'll note that I've never said the bombs shouldn't have been dropped, or that firebombing of civilians should never have been done.

I did note that to myself, and should have noted it in my reply. Indeed, after I clicked "post" I realized that all I had really done was buttressed with a bit more detail the point that you were making, which I think was this: "And that is the point and the difference between propaganda and reality." That is indeed, in somewhat greater relief, the point and difference between propaganda and reality.

I was really addressing the more extreme dissident position on that conversation -- John Gaddis comes, perhaps unfairly to my enfeebled mind some quarter century after I studied this, as one of the leading proponents of the "Truman bombed Nagasaki gratuitously for the sake of realpolitik" school of thought.

I will also point out that the Allies uniformly condemned the firebombing of Coventry, therefore there was a clear Allied public policy position that indiscriminate bombing of civilians was immoral, yet later in the war there were apparently no issues with a conversely far greater magnitude attack on civilians.

That could be hypocrisy, or it could reflect the deteriorating standards of humanity after a half-decade of carnage. Probably both.

Interesting to hear the echo of hypocrisy these past days as the U.S. and Israel express outrage over Iran's alleged use of the very same explosive device in India that Israel (presumably) used to assassinate one of Iran's nuclear scientists.

While I agree we cannot fully place ourselves in the positions of those who made decisions, at the same time it is both irresponsible and reprehensible to retreat into a view that there were no other choices, especially when other choices were quite clear even at that time.

To blindly accept the official position leads to such uncomfortable positions as wondering just how the W. Bush invasion of Iraq was justified, when the original justifications were not only false but were demonstrably known false.

Agreed, and of course that's not what I was arguing. The sometimes inscrutability of the human mind and its motivation does not relieve us of our duty to try to understand it. In fact the study of history is one of the best means of doing so, even if it is sometimes impossible to get much beyond speculation.

[Prazak]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

Why is this puzzling? Saudi Arabia has never been in direct conflict with Iran.

Why do so when its US finger puppet will do all the aggressive posturing for them?

In the meantime the Saudis can pretend to be the sensible nice Islamic nation.

Saudi Arabia is engaged in a struggle with Iran for regional political and religious influence. And that struggle is becoming increasingly hot. The Saudis allege that Iran recently attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States, for example. Iran just declared that it would regard as an act of war the Saudis increasing their oil production to offset the loss of oil supply resulting from the latest sanctions and Iran's announced oil boycott. So yes, extending basing rights to Iran's navy to help them steam into the Mediterranean seems counter-intuitive to me. But I suppose a plausible rationale, as you intimate, is in a Saudi effort to appeal to regional (anti-Zionist) public opinion.

[c1ue]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

The Saudis allege that Iran recently attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States, for example.

Actually, I think it was American police forces which uncovered that dastardly plot:

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-11/j...?_s=PM:JUSTICE

U.S. agents disrupted an Iranian assassination-for-hire scheme targeting Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, U.S. officials said Tuesday.
Elements of the Iranian government directed the alleged plan, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said.
A naturalized U.S. citizen holding Iranian and U.S. passports and a member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard face conspiracy charges connected with the plot.
"In addition to holding these individual conspirators accountable for their alleged role in this plot, the United States is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions," Holder said.

Nary a mention of Saudi Arabia anywhere except that it was the Saudi ambassador that was the target.

So yes, extending basing rights to Iran's navy to help them steam into the Mediterranean seems counter-intuitive to me.

I reread the release, and there was no mention whatsoever about basing rights. 2 Iranian warships stopped over is all that was mentioned.

Barring outright declaration of hostilities, it is not so unusual for foreign warships to be able to stop over in any port city - presumably with prior approval.