Israeli false flag attacks

[jpetr48]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

This is one of better articles as it addresses Israel calculations respective of 2012 election.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ilitary-action

Make no doubt about - its not a matter of if but when as Iran is motivated to attack by their divine authority 12th imam
israel has to defend and Iran knows it - while some are saying 2012 - I agree later as this next chess move will be close to a game over in drawing Russia etc into the mix.

[Prazak]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

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

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

Well, yes, since the alleged plot was to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., and since the charged suspects allegedly attempted to work through what turned out to be an undercover DEA (I think it was) agent working in Mexico, then naturally it was exposed by U.S. authorities (FBI, IIRC). Contemporaneously Saudi officials in Washington and Riyadh were denouncing the plot, noting that it marked an escalation in the struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran -- which was the point I was trying to make in citing it as an example.

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.

Sorry, I should have said docking rights, not basing rights. And while it is not unusual for foreign warships from friendly powers to call at port, it does strike me as unusual for foreign warships from unfriendly powers. How often do we see Russian or Chinese warships entering U.S. territorial waters, anchoring in U.S. ports, refueling, and steaming off to flex their muscle somewhere in the neighborhood?

[tacito]

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/

What did the Saudis do for the Iranians? The Suez Canal is in Egypt.

[Prazak]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

What did the Saudis do for the Iranians? The Suez Canal is in Egypt.

From that article: "Two Iranian ships -- the destroyer Shahid Qandi and the Kharg -- were docked in Jeddah two days ago."

Jeddah is a port city in Saudi Arabia.

[tacito]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

I see, thanks. I didn't pay attention at the end of the article.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

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.

Referencing my response to Southerguy's post after which you began your usual intellectual competition.

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,

So according to you, the US suffered 670K casualties in WWII.......and the 500K of Purple Hearts manufactured specifically in preparation for the land invasion of the Home Islands of Japan are irrelevant....when did a plan than made a logistical/casualty assumption for a single operation that equated to 74% of total war casualties qualify for irrelevant?

especially in the context of what every other single major power suffered in terms of wounded and killed,

Your "context" equates to "if the Russians and Germans suffered horrific casualties, then so should the US" which is about the same as if the Russians/Germans jumped in front of a bus, then so should the US.

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.

It is clear TODAY from an amateur armchair general perspective. If it WAS as clear as you state then the massive logistical tail that is required(and WAS BUILT) to preceed such an unprecedented planned invasion(the 500k Purple Hearts specifically for the invasion casualty estimates is a rounding error regarding preparation for it) as well as defensive measures that included rudimentary efforts to turn young Japanese school children into combatants WOULD NEVER HAVE OCCURRED.




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

So you're referring to Purple & Magic?

I'm familiar.

SIGINT traffic between Manila and Tokyo is one thing........hardline traffic within the Japanese Home Islands late in the war is another.


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

I can cherry pick from your report too:

"The controlling opinion, however, was that any estimate of the effects of bombing on the Japanese social fabric and on the political decisions of those in control of Japan was bound to be so uncertain that target selection could safely be made only on the assumption that ground force invasion would be necessary to force capitulation."



So basically what you are saying is that 2 wrongs make a right.

What I'm saying is the dropping of two nuclear weapons provided sufficiently sharp political/psychological/military force dominance to end the war decisively.......I am NOT saying 2 wrongs makes a right.....what I am saying is that a punch in the mouth and a kick in the testicles was far faster and resulted is less damage than continued death by a thousand cuts.

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

WHAT is with you?

I'm not taking ANY moral high ground, war isn't moral, it's dirty.....I've served on operations, don't you think I MIGHT have some sort of clue about it? Or are my experiences irrelevant compared to yours? What are your experiences with conflict? I'm happy to share mine in more detail. It's unpleasant

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'.

WHAT is with you? Is it because I wear a uniform on occasion? WHY do you persist in attempting to portray me as some sort of rabid lover of war?

"I don't seem to have any issues with similar behavior"

Evidenced(reasonably please) by what exactly?


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.

"Apologist"

"do no wrong"

Please provide sufficient proof.......if you're going to assassinate my character, where's the beef?


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.

If you have a look at my post history, I think you'll find that all the stuff preceeding the question marks is a quest for knowledge, requests for further information.......unfortunately it seems the only time I run into a problem with a member here in iTulip is with you...no one else.......while you seem to have acquired a growing list of people YOU'VE offended...repeatedly.

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.

"unabashed apologism for military policies"

Prove it...where's my post history that justifies such character assassination and disparaging dismissal?

The ONLY thing I've espoused is the following:

On several occasions I've brought to the attention of the group the DISTINCT lack of defense/security analysis/SME.

In a world where EJ has gone doomish(ish)....and touches on the distinct possibility of conflict..and others here feel the same....I have simply reminded folks of the lack of depth on this forum in the realm of defense/security analysis/SME.

As I've stated before, I've NEVER claimed SME experience in this realm.....but I have LIVED in it for 10 years with direct access to those that ARE SME....and I've been around it enough to know when it's missing from the room.

I have only pointed out a clear weakness in one aspect of analysis in this community....


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.

What I'm "sensitive" to is people like yourself who are arrogant enough to believe that because they are competent in one field of analysis they are automatically competent in another. The word hubris comes to mind.

"And you must have missed the part where your own link report states clearly:

"ground force invasion would be necessary to force capitulation."

[/b]

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.

Where did I state "no mistakes were made"?

Please direct me to this latest misquote....

With direct experience beyond the armchair, I'm well aware mistakes are made all the time in both peacetime, war, and in between at both the tactical and strategic level.

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:



Let's see

public changes in Japan's government leadership: check Attempted coup to fight to the bitter end JUST before the war ended...check
clear and measurable damage to Japan's ability to wage war: check Recent experience with Japan fighting to the bitter end in Iwo Jima/Okinawa and Germany fighting FAR beyond the point of common sense...check
clear and measurable impact on the Japanese public's understanding of the prosecution of the war: check Train Japanese kids to fight coming invaders with sharp sticks, check
Negotiations opened to surrender: check I asked previously...what were these CLEAR political communications and clear signals that surrender was on the table? The US said surrender unconditionally and Japan was communicating what exactly and when to signal it's desire to surrender?

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

I'll conclude with this:

Plenty could have been done....everything from the unrealistic walking away up through and including the even more unrealistic failing to accept Japan's surrender and simply turning Japan into a radioactive self lit parking lot finishing in 1950.

Millions of options could have been chosen, from the simple to the crazy.......but a nuclear punch in the mouth and kick in the testicles was chosen over continuing the death of a thousand cuts.


As to your concluding, let me finish with this: your character assassination and portrayal of me is inappropriate.

Please conclude with sufficient evidence to support your attempt at character assassination or let's take this to management.

Put up, shut up, or as stated let's take this to management.....I'm happy to defer to the FRED.

[Shakespear]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

israel has to defend and Iran knows it - while some are saying 2012 - I agree later as this next chess move will be close to a game over in drawing Russia etc into the mix.

Well this chess game has not seen all the unexpected moves.

Pakistan won’t help US attack Iran, says Zardari

Addressing a joint news conference, along with his Iranian and Afghan counterparts Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hamid Karzai, President Zardari emphatically stated that Pakistan’s relationship with the brethren countries cannot be undermined by the international pressure of any kind. “Pakistan and Iran need each other and no foreign pressure can hinder their ties.”

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...n-says-zardari

I think that Pakistan realizes that they will be next in the cross hairs sometime in the future. There is enough "bones" on the table to make this argument. Zardari better make sure his body guards are fully awake.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...istans-affairs

[jpetr48]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

Well this chess game has not seen all the unexpected moves.

Agreed however once Iran gets their nuclear capabilities secured underground and ready to launch, we will experience a series of dominos where those unexpected countries like Saudi Arabia Kuwait join with others to avoid annihilation by Iran.


Ej refers to a forcing function for the Ka Poom theory where people will " pray at the cross"
this is why I refer to close to game over geopolitically.

[c1ue]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

How often do we see Russian or Chinese warships entering U.S. territorial waters, anchoring in U.S. ports, refueling, and steaming off to flex their muscle somewhere in the neighborhood?

Here's a picture of the Varyag, a Russian guided missile cruiser, in San Francisco:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAVP1E2O3N.DTL

And some Chinese missile ships in LA:

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surf...pe052_luhu.asp

There's a huge difference between active confrontation and normalcy. While certainly Saudi Arabia and Iran have many differences including religion and a real or imagined contest over leadership of the Muslim/Arab world, I've never seen any indications of outright confrontation directly between the two.

Equally so I'm curious what your definition of 'unfriendly' is. Is China an 'unfriend' despite having a massive mutual trade?

If on the other hand 'unfriends' are any nation which doesn't meekly accept US hegemoney worldwide, I'd say that the vast majority of the other nations would then be classified as 'unfriendly'.

[c1ue]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

Referencing my response to Southerguy's post after which you began your usual intellectual competition.

Once again unclear what exactly you're referring to. And once again you seem to equate my not meekly accepting your view as some type of intellectual competition, which you equally don't seem to like.

So according to you, the US suffered 670K casualties in WWII.......and the 500K of Purple Hearts manufactured specifically in preparation for the land invasion of the Home Islands of Japan are irrelevant....when did a plan than made a logistical/casualty assumption for a single operation that equated to 74% of total war casualties qualify for irrelevant?

I'd say that the manufacturing of Purple Hearts is an administrative function. There are all sorts of reasons why a sudden 'surge' of Purple Heart manufacturing can occur, not least being completion of contracts between the US government and its medal supplier - given that World War II was clearly winding to an in 1945. Thus,

1) Please document that this was done specifically for a land invasion of Japan. You've asserted this several times without evidence.

2) Please document that the land invasion was in fact a primary plan. You've not shown evidence of it.

3) Please show how either of the above invalidate my comment: that Japanese civilian casualties were irrelevant, only American ones.

It is clear TODAY from an amateur armchair general perspective. If it WAS as clear as you state then the massive logistical tail that is required(and WAS BUILT) to preceed such an unprecedented planned invasion(the 500k Purple Hearts specifically for the invasion casualty estimates is a rounding error regarding preparation for it) as well as defensive measures that included rudimentary efforts to turn young Japanese school children into combatants WOULD NEVER HAVE OCCURRED.

I do find it interesting that somehow you think that it is impossible to have done different - given that you as well as I are both not in the position of 'being there'.

How exactly is it that you can say conditions were 'X' from your distant viewpoint while I am not permitted to say conditions were 'Y' from my equally distant viewpoint?

Oh yes, it is because in your view, no doubt based on what military documents are made available, the military could not possibly have made mistakes, or made decisions based on non-admirable motives, or were instructed to do distasteful things in the interests of real politik, and so on and so forth.

I'll also note that the military is just like any other bureaucracy: anything and everything can be justified. Bureaucracies don't function by outright lying, they function by simply ignoring or leaving out anything which is inconvenient, and the US military has exhibited all manner of this type of bureaucratic behavior.

Massive logistical tails - that sounds nice but perhaps you could show me where the US military had amassed the million plus troops slated for the invasion? As a former resident of one of the 'jump off' islands, I can categorically tell you there was no such flood.

I'm sure at least some of them were on the way, but they never arrived.

Equally so the reality of military contingency planning is such that troop movements occur exactly for contingency purposes: even if it was thought Japan was losing and close to collapse, troops still would be moved in case the impression is wrong.

I conclude by noting that your 'Japanese schoolchildren being turned into combatants' implies a far higher degree of intelligence on the ground in Japan. How exactly was the US able to determine this, but was not able to understand the ramifications of several top level Cabinet changes?

So you're referring to Purple & Magic?

I'm familiar.

SIGINT traffic between Manila and Tokyo is one thing........hardline traffic within the Japanese Home Islands late in the war is another.

Fair enough, but it is equally fair to say that the US had very considerable signals intelligence capabilities and thus presumably had a fairly nuanced picture of Japan's military situation as a result.

I can cherry pick from your report too:

"The controlling opinion, however, was that any estimate of the effects of bombing on the Japanese social fabric and on the political decisions of those in control of Japan was bound to be so uncertain that target selection could safely be made only on the assumption that ground force invasion would be necessary to force capitulation."

Indeed, and the prior part of the section you quoted says:

Certain of the United States commanders and the representatives of the Survey who were called back from their investigations in Germany in early June 1945 for consultation stated their belief that, by the coordinated impact of blockade and direct air attack, Japan could be forced to surrender without invasion.

So in other words even within the US military command there were open views that a ground invasion was not necessary.

This doesn't seem to support your view that no other choices were available, but does point to one or more powerful individuals as "controlling opinion".

What I'm saying is the dropping of two nuclear weapons provided sufficiently sharp political/psychological/military force dominance to end the war decisively.......I am NOT saying 2 wrongs makes a right.....what I am saying is that a punch in the mouth and a kick in the testicles was far faster and resulted is less damage than continued death by a thousand cuts.

Frankly this opinion is just as revisionist as you say mine is.

If, according to your view, Japan was so fanatical that it would order its troops to fight to the last man and its children to sacrifice themselves defending the motherland, and death before dishonor, and subhuman atrocity committers, and so forth, why exactly would the death of a couple small cities matter? The damages from the 2 atomic bombs were nowhere near what was done to Tokyo, Osaka, and other major cities in the prior firebombing campaigns.

That's the problem with dehumanizing your opponents - it severely limits the ability to understand what they really are thinking.

Why is it not equally possible that the yet again ratcheting up of civilian casualties would only harden Japan's leadership's resolve?

WHAT is with you?

I'm not taking ANY moral high ground, war isn't moral, it's dirty.....I've served on operations, don't you think I MIGHT have some sort of clue about it? Or are my experiences irrelevant compared to yours? What are your experiences with conflict? I'm happy to share mine in more detail. It's unpleasant

Fair enough, I do retract any implication of your immorality - and it was not nor ever my intention to imply you were immoral.

However, it does not detract from my statement that indiscriminate bombing of civilians is immoral, and that the firebombing of Germans and Japanese was immoral. Equally so the use of the atomic bombs on cities filled with civilians was not moral.

To excuse this as some form of morality, that in my view is not moral behavior.

WHAT is with you? Is it because I wear a uniform on occasion? WHY do you persist in attempting to portray me as some sort of rabid lover of war?

"I don't seem to have any issues with similar behavior"

Evidenced(reasonably please) by what exactly?

I've never portrayed you as either a war lover or a person in uniform.

What I said specifically is that you have a consistent pattern of agreeing with whatever the military says and does, and did.

Do you disagree with this?

"Apologist"

"do no wrong"

Please provide sufficient proof.......if you're going to assassinate my character, where's the beef?

Apologist is too strong a term, I apologize. But the statement above stands: that from my perception you have consistently defended whatever has been done by the military as having been the only choice at the time.

This isn't apologism exactly, but it is unwavering faith in motives and process.

If you have a look at my post history, I think you'll find that all the stuff preceeding the question marks is a quest for knowledge, requests for further information.......unfortunately it seems the only time I run into a problem with a member here in iTulip is with you...no one else.......while you seem to have acquired a growing list of people YOU'VE offended...repeatedly.

Fortunately for me I don't actually care who I offend.

From my view, truth is truth.

If I am being untrue, call me on it and we can go forward from there.

If, on the other hand, there are views which I don't agree with, I don't let them lie.

In this I am much different than most of iTulip, whom are mostly seeking to listen.

So you can try to put social pressure on me all you want, but I don't care about it and never have.

"unabashed apologism for military policies"

Prove it...where's my post history that justifies such character assassination and disparaging dismissal?

The ONLY thing I've espoused is the following:

On several occasions I've brought to the attention of the group the DISTINCT lack of defense/security analysis/SME.

In a world where EJ has gone doomish(ish)....and touches on the distinct possibility of conflict..and others here feel the same....I have simply reminded folks of the lack of depth on this forum in the realm of defense/security analysis/SME.

As I've stated before, I've NEVER claimed SME experience in this realm.....but I have LIVED in it for 10 years with direct access to those that ARE SME....and I've been around it enough to know when it's missing from the room.

I have only pointed out a clear weakness in one aspect of analysis in this community....

SME/military is concerned with outright conflict - and is thus a concern of winning outright conflict. Within this specific sphere, the SME/military viewpoint is perfectly understandable and acceptable.

However, in the real world, SME/military is only a one view, one of many including SME/human relations, SME/national interests and SME/ethnic identity, of which SME/politics derives from.

The world for the most part is not about outright conflict. Even during outright conflict, there are degrees.

If aliens invaded Earth with the goal of killing all of humanity so they could colonize, then the unadulterated SME/military doctrines would be perfect.

Barring that, even in an outright war you cannot do whatever you want, because there are future consequences to same. Even a brief perusal of the European conflicts shows the tit-for-tat nature.

Equally so you cannot win guerrilla warfare without depopulating - this has been thoroughly and conclusively demonstrated for thousands of years.

Thus while I think it is great to understand the SME/military viewpoint, at the same time I do not and will not accept that the SME/military viewpoint is in any way effective in the situations around the world today.

I have yet to see from you even the possibility that SME/military doctrines have failed in Iraq, are failing in Afghanistan, and will continue to fail as SME/military itself is not the way to resolve these situations, rather than SME/military just hasn't been employed right or the latest greatest SME/military will do this or that.

What I'm "sensitive" to is people like yourself who are arrogant enough to believe that because they are competent in one field of analysis they are automatically competent in another. The word hubris comes to mind.

"And you must have missed the part where your own link report states clearly:

"ground force invasion would be necessary to force capitulation."

And again you see what you want to see. As I noted above, the report clearly shows that the 'no other choices' you keep repeating was anything but.

And that the final decision was, like most anything, a product of people not process. I would not doubt for an instant that political posturing within the military had a role.

Which itself points to yet another issue: unquestioning acceptance of SME/military views automatically ignores the possibility that these views may in fact be the product of something beyond objective analysis.

Where did I state "no mistakes were made"?

Please direct me to this latest misquote....

With direct experience beyond the armchair, I'm well aware mistakes are made all the time in both peacetime, war, and in between at both the tactical and strategic level.

What you've said specifically is that there was no other course of action available at the time, therefore any mistakes made were unavoidable.

I've already shown that there were in fact options available even at the highest levels of military and civilian command.

public changes in Japan's government leadership: check Attempted coup to fight to the bitter end JUST before the war ended...check

Which failed. Showing clearly it was a minority viewpoint. And furthermore this is hindsight which you've already derided.

clear and measurable damage to Japan's ability to wage war: check Recent experience with Japan fighting to the bitter end in Iwo Jima/Okinawa and Germany fighting FAR beyond the point of common sense...check

US military deaths in Okinawa and Iwo Jima: 12,500 and 6,812
Japanese military deaths in Okinawa and Iwo Jima: 95,000 and 21,844

Both islands being peripheral to the Japanese mainland, though key for mainland bombing attacks.

As for Germany, I'd fight too if the nation I'd just killed 20 million+ of was coming in for revenge.

There was no such situation for Japan - though understandably Americans were extremely angry over Pearl Harbor.

clear and measurable impact on the Japanese public's understanding of the prosecution of the war: check Train Japanese kids to fight coming invaders with sharp sticks, check

Funny again how this type of detailed intelligence was available, but nothing about Japan's political situation. It is also amusing how this is somehow unusual - it happens every time any nation gets desperate.

Negotiations opened to surrender: check I asked previously...what were these CLEAR political communications and clear signals that surrender was on the table? The US said surrender unconditionally and Japan was communicating what exactly and when to signal it's desire to surrender?

As I noted above, the main question is whether Stalin communicated Japan's attempt to use Russia as an intermediary in surrender negotiations to Truman.

There is no question whatsoever that Japan was interested in surrender.

There is equally no question that the US did not make any unilateral attempts to negotiate, and equally that the US was not under any obligation to do so.

It is very likely, from my view of both cultures, that this situation was entirely a failure of cultural understanding.

If so, this would be a failure from both sides.

[Prazak]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

I didn't say it never happened, I said it was unusual -- as do the articles you've linked to. Here's the lead from the first: "The first Russian surface warship to visit San Francisco in 147 years is docked on the Embarcadero this week on a visit that combines friendship, history and a display of military power." And this from the second: "The destroyer and two other Chinese warships made a historical visit to San Diego, CA on 21 March 1997 in the first-ever visit by People's Republic of China Navy ships to the mainland US."

So yes, this sort of thing strikes me not only as unusual, but as extraordinary -- at times even historic. I can't imagine the Nimitz docking in Shanghai after it steamed through the Taiwan Straits a couple decades ago, for example, or that U.S. warship in the Black Sea last summer pulling into Sebastapol for R&R.

There's a huge difference between active confrontation and normalcy. While certainly Saudi Arabia and Iran have many differences including religion and a real or imagined contest over leadership of the Muslim/Arab world, I've never seen any indications of outright confrontation directly between the two.

There is indeed a huge difference. And much in between. What is happening now between Saudi Arabia and Iran seems to me much closer to active confrontation than to normalcy, and not at all imagined. Iran is pushing to master the weaponization of nuclear power; Saudi Arabia declares that it will immediately obtain a nuclear weapon if Iran develops one; Saudi Arabia privately urges the U.S. to attack Iran to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power; a leader from Iran's ruling circle threaten Saudi Arabia with armed reprisal; the two countries wage proxy warfare in places like Bahrain and Syria; Iran allegedly attempts to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.; and on it goes.

So yes, given the degree of conflict between the two states it did strike me as unusual that Iranian warships would be docked in a Saudi port -- although perhaps it is explained, as I think you noted, by the mission at hand: sending warships to off Israel's shores on the Mediterranean.

Equally so I'm curious what your definition of 'unfriendly' is. Is China an 'unfriend' despite having a massive mutual trade?

I don't think I have a definition of "unfriendly". I'd like to say it's like that famous Supreme Court dictum regarding the definition of pornography: "I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." But truth be told, it's difficult to "know it when I see it".

Trade relations are one thing. Robust trade between the U.K. and Germany on the eve of The Great War did not preclude an underlying political, economic, and military (especially naval) competition for supremacy, and did not prevent them from waging war on each other. Did those bilateral trade relations make the two nations "friendly" or "unfriendly"? For awhile both, I suppose, until it turned decidedly unfriendly.

There are some similar dynamics in the U.S.-Sino relationship, are there not? Yes, there is massive mutual trade (the friendliness of which cannot be assumed). But there is also a political, economic, and military competition that I would not characterize as friendly -- and at times would characterize as unfriendly. The uniformed military leadership on both sides certainly regard the other as a principal threat, game out various scenarios for military conflict, and produce armaments aimed specifically at the other. Not necessarily unfriendly, but certainly not friendly.

I would say current relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran are unfriendly. So the notion of Iranian warships docking in a Saudi port struck me as unusual, just as it would strike me as unusual to see the the U.S.S. Independence stop through Shanghai on the way to its new base in Singapore.

If on the other hand 'unfriends' are any nation which doesn't meekly accept US hegemoney worldwide, I'd say that the vast majority of the other nations would then be classified as 'unfriendly'.

Well, no, of course, I didn't and don't define "unfriends" as such. And yes, I'd say that the vast majority of other nations do not meekly accept U.S. hegemony worldwide.

[Prazak]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

There is no question whatsoever that Japan was interested in surrender.

I'm sorry to keep posting on this from memory, but my recollection on this point was always that Japan was very much divided on whether to surrender and on the terms of surrender, right up until Hiroshima was incinerated, and even immediately after. It's easy to find that narrative in unreliable internet sources, but I'm certain that there are abundant citations on that point by serious historians (although I'm too lazy to go digging . . .).

There is equally no question that the US did not make any unilateral attempts to negotiate, and equally that the US was not under any obligation to do so.

That is correct, the U.S. was in no mood to negotiate, full stop. It issued a declaration of terms following Potsdam (although ultimately the U.S. did bend on the issue of maintaining the role of the Emperor).

It is very likely, from my view of both cultures, that this situation was entirely a failure of cultural understanding.

If so, this would be a failure from both sides.

That much is certainly true. And I think I recall you saying you've lived in Japan, so no doubt you have insight on this point.

Given Japan's sheer vulnerability to aerial destruction, however, wasn't it vastly more incumbent on the Japanese government to dispel the fog of cultural misunderstanding than it was on the Americans? Instead of clearly responding to the Potsdam Declaration, Japan inquired to the Soviets to clarify the scope of the declaration while remaining silent officially, followed by Japanese newspapers reporting (correctly or not) that the declaration had been formally rejected. The result of this decidedly ambiguous response was that Hiroshima was incinerated by an impatient United States.

Moreover, wasn't the Japanese cabinet divided even after Hiroshima on whether to surrender and if so on what terms? And in the meantime wasn't the official line domestically still to proclaim their intention to continue fighting and to speculate openly that the U.S. could not produce a second nuclear bomb? Again, not the message to send in the face of an enemy wielding such destructive power. The U.S. promptly incinerated Nagasaki.

Wouldn't Japan's most responsible course of action after Hiroshima have been to immediately and unambiguously surrender unconditionally? This Japan failed utterly to do. We can't blame Stalin for that, and cultural misunderstanding only goes so far when the stakes are that high.

[Southernguy]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

I could not have imagined that a simple mention to US nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would generate such an interesting discussion.
"1. The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly."
The first definition of the word "massacre" that appears as the first google search result is cited above.
It is not possible to discuss, then, that such bombings were "massacres".
So, why did I introduce the first and fortunately, till now, only nuclear bombings of cities in history in a discussion about attacks on Israelīs diplomats being "false flag attacks"?
My logic was that the underlying history is the possibility of Iran working to get nuclear armament.
That is by no means a proven fact.
And I wont go into detail as to the number of occidental high ranked military and intelligence officers who say that.
But, of course, there is a real possibility that Iran is really trying to attain a nuclear military capability.
So what?
The US (the only nuclar armed power so far having used atomic bombs on innocent civilians), Rusia, Ukraine, China, the UK, France, have atomic bombs. Somehow, the have them "legally".
And then, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and of course, Israel have atomic bombs. They do so "ilegally", that is, they didnīt sign or did not respect the non proliferation treaty.
As to what can be seen for their behavior in international affairs so far, none of them are "peaceful nations".
The most aggresive of them is, without any doubt, Israel.
Maybe Iīm mistaken, but no nation on earth is, for decades violating several UN resolutions every single day. General Assembly resolutions, as well as Security Council resolutions.
And it is a nuclear, illegal, power.
So, why wouldnīt Iran have the right to become also a nuclear, illegal, power?
As to my knowledge Iranīs regime has not, so far, invaded any forign nation. The only war in which they were involved was a defensive one against Irak. Irak attacked Iran with Western support. It was supposed at the time that a mostly secularist regime was a good alternative to a Theocratic islamist one.
We all know how history developed.
Then, Iran is "accused" of supporting Hizbullah and Hamas. And both are named as "terrorist" organizations.
Well, they are not. They are both mass organizations devoted to the development to their respective populations in occupied Palestine and Lebanon.
And of course, they have no alternative but to resort tu armed struggle against an aggresive power such as Israel.
That can hardly qualify as "terrorism".
It is just assimetric warfare, the same the North American colonies developed against England, about 300 years ago.
Or the French, Poles, Soviets in occupied URSS, Chekz, etc against the Nazis.
Whatīs the logic of saying, as a given truth, that "once Iran has the bomb it shall use it against Israel"?
There is none.
Why donīt the Pakistanis throw atomic bombs on the Indians?
Or the other way round?
Itīs simple, atomic weapons are not to be used. But, as recent history states, those who donīt have them are under serious threat of "regime change" by Western powers.
Thatīs what happened in Lybia. And thatīs what can happen in Syria. And thatīs what it is not going to happen in North Korea.
Once you get atomic weapons you get an insurance policy. You shall not be militarily attacked by Western powers or their proxies.
Nuclear proliferation does not make me happy, at all.
But I think that, given recent lessones derived from history, Iran has the same right as Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea AND the US, UK, etc to have atomic bombs.
So, were the attacks on Israli diplomats false flag attacks?
I donīt know.
But every piece of supposed evidence about Iran being behind them must be taken with extreme caution.
Iran, so far, has demonstrated a very careful approach to diplomatic and military matters.
Yes, they are showing their (real or not, who knows) military might.
Thatīs quite understandable in the present situation.
But so far their actions and words have been only defensive.
My only hope is that a war, a very cruel and utterly unnecesary one, does not happen.
And I ask everybody, from high ranked officers to simple world citizens not to call to "trash" anything.
I have some experience about "trashing" (being within the victims, of course) and nobody deserves it. Except, of course, a small number of sycopaths who at times get to the higher offices in powerful countries.
Give peace a chance.

[Shakespear]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

Not sure you guys are aware of this book, so here it is

The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable

http://www.amazon.com/Pearl-Harbor-M.../dp/1597970425

Despite the history of war, the idea that Roosevelt withheld warnings from Kimmel and Short for the purpose of getting the United States openly into a European war is still unthinkable to many people, but to fewer and fewer as the years past. As has happened over time with other unthinkable acts, the repugnance aroused by the idea of using the Pacific Fleet as a lure will probably continue to fade.

I have no problem believing this as well as the "underwear bomber" kabuki theater. It is always "Gosh had we gotten those files organized we would have understood everything." Always some BS to ram through what the "Public Opinion" does not support.

I watched this but to be honest could not bring myself to watch it to the end. Perhaps it will be useful to you guys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3xlb6_0OEs

[c1ue]

Re: Israeli false flag attacks

I didn't say it never happened, I said it was unusual -- as do the articles you've linked to. Here's the lead from the first: "The first Russian surface warship to visit San Francisco in 147 years is docked on the Embarcadero this week on a visit that combines friendship, history and a display of military power." And this from the second: "The destroyer and two other Chinese warships made a historical visit to San Diego, CA on 21 March 1997 in the first-ever visit by People's Republic of China Navy ships to the mainland US."

So yes, this sort of thing strikes me not only as unusual, but as extraordinary -- at times even historic. I can't imagine the Nimitz docking in Shanghai after it steamed through the Taiwan Straits a couple decades ago, for example, or that U.S. warship in the Black Sea last summer pulling into Sebastapol for R&R.

Fair enough. I will note, however, that Russia and China are both very, very far from the US. Russian ships have to go 5000 miles from Vladivostok to San Francisco, and there simply is no reason whatsoever for them to go there. There isn't significant Russian trade with the US via Vladivostok, there aren't open Russian allies on the west coast of the Americas, etc etc.

Equally Chinese warships have to go over 6000 miles. There is much more trade, but equally little reason for them to be wandering this far afield.

The Iranian ships had to travel all of probably 300 miles from their home port to Jeddah. For that matter, the distance from Riyadh to Jerusalem is all of 750 miles.

To deny docking rights to someone literally next door - that would indeed be an indication of open confrontation.

What is happening now between Saudi Arabia and Iran seems to me much closer to active confrontation than to normalcy, and not at all imagined. Iran is pushing to master the weaponization of nuclear power; Saudi Arabia declares that it will immediately obtain a nuclear weapon if Iran develops one; Saudi Arabia privately urges the U.S. to attack Iran to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power; a leader from Iran's ruling circle threaten Saudi Arabia with armed reprisal; the two countries wage proxy warfare in places like Bahrain and Syria; Iran allegedly attempts to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.; and on it goes.

Again, while I'm sure all of the above is true, at the same time I wonder how much is Saudi Arabia vs. how much is the United States. I've not seen any evidence, for example, that Iran had funnelled arms and/or money into Bahrain.

I wouldn't be surprised on the money part, at least some, but then again the insurrectionists and Iran are co-religionists. Even if the government of Iran doesn't want to, I'm sure relatives and/or religious radicals would.

From my view, it is unclear that Saudi Arabia believes it can achieve leadership of the Arab/Muslim world by openly attacking other Muslim nations. I think we can all agree that Saudi Arabia wouldn't cry if Iran met with serious misfortune, but this is a far cry from being in an cage match.

There are some similar dynamics in the U.S.-Sino relationship, are there not? Yes, there is massive mutual trade (the friendliness of which cannot be assumed). But there is also a political, economic, and military competition that I would not characterize as friendly -- and at times would characterize as unfriendly. The uniformed military leadership on both sides certainly regard the other as a principal threat, game out various scenarios for military conflict, and produce armaments aimed specifically at the other. Not necessarily unfriendly, but certainly not friendly.

I can certainly agree with this.

However, I will note that in the last generation (35 years), there has only been one nation which has consistently gone far beyond its borders in active military pursuit of its objectives. And it ain't China.

While I do view the increase of military strength in China with alarm, particularly because of its huge demographic bulge of young males, at the same time it is extremely hard to fault it given the massive military spending and high military activity levels of the United States.

Much as the US with, via its ever increasingly odious hoops for foreigners to visit, has instituted a tit-for-tat visa cost escalation, so in turn is at least some of other nation's military escalation a response to US spending and actions.

I'm sorry to keep posting on this from memory, but my recollection on this point was always that Japan was very much divided on whether to surrender and on the terms of surrender, right up until Hiroshima was incinerated, and even immediately after. It's easy to find that narrative in unreliable internet sources, but I'm certain that there are abundant citations on that point by serious historians (although I'm too lazy to go digging . . .).

Moreover, wasn't the Japanese cabinet divided even after Hiroshima on whether to surrender and if so on what terms? And in the meantime wasn't the official line domestically still to proclaim their intention to continue fighting and to speculate openly that the U.S. could not produce a second nuclear bomb? Again, not the message to send in the face of an enemy wielding such destructive power. The U.S. promptly incinerated Nagasaki.

I think again there is a cultural misunderstanding occurring.

Were there members of the pro-continuation of resistance among the Japanese cabinet? Yes

However, a Japanese committee whether cabinet or otherwise is fundamentally different than an American one.

An American committee with dissenting members has an official stance on any given public decision, but its members will continue to publicly lobby as well as express their dissenting opinions.

A similar Japanese committee will have a similar official stance for public decisions, but will not see even a tiny fraction of the public dissent. This type of unharmonious behavior is not acceptable; only in cases where the concensus is balanced on the knife's edge would both 'sides' be heard.

Thus simply having the presence of fanatics is irrelevant. The public leadership of Japan's cabinet in spring 1945 was unquestionably no longer that of the 'war' party.

That much is certainly true. And I think I recall you saying you've lived in Japan, so no doubt you have insight on this point.

...

Given Japan's sheer vulnerability to aerial destruction, however, wasn't it vastly more incumbent on the Japanese government to dispel the fog of cultural misunderstanding than it was on the Americans? Instead of clearly responding to the Potsdam Declaration, Japan inquired to the Soviets to clarify the scope of the declaration while remaining silent officially, followed by Japanese newspapers reporting (correctly or not) that the declaration had been formally rejected. The result of this decidedly ambiguous response was that Hiroshima was incinerated by an impatient United States.

Wouldn't Japan's most responsible course of action after Hiroshima have been to immediately and unambiguously surrender unconditionally? This Japan failed utterly to do. We can't blame Stalin for that, and cultural misunderstanding only goes so far when the stakes are that high.

Again the cultural disconnect.

First you have to keep in mind that suicide - whether literal or figurative - is not in any way an unacceptable action which it is in the Western world.

Secondly 'face', which is a much more uncompromising variant of 'honor', is necessary in all actions in Japan.

Yes, from the Western viewpoint, the Japanese government should have tried harder to make its intentions clear.

However, even despite nearly 70 years of pro-American propaganda and Western presence, most Japanese today still don't understand foreigners. Japanese culture is even more rigid than most outsiders think, but what most don't realize is that this rigidity is internalized. And as rigid as it is today, I can only imagine it was even more so back then.

In a real sense, all Japanese interaction with foreigners is a massive case of cognitive dissonance.

I'll give you one example which is incredibly funny, but equally indicative.

There are many foreigners in Japan who speak Japanese fluently - at least in the sense of grammer, vocabulary, etc. The majority of these are men, simply because there are far more foreign men in Japan than women.

However, what most of these don't realize is that they talk like girls. The reason? Teaching Japanese to foreigners is as low a status (face again) occupation as you can possibly find. As a result, 95% of teachers of Japanese are women.

In Japanese, the word choice as well as a general tone is different when a man speaks to a woman vs. the opposite. Equally different are parent/child, employer/employee, elder/youth, etc etc.

For literally generations foreign men have been traipsing around Japan thinking they are fluent, when every Japanese they speak to is at least to some extent giggling behind their facade, because this foreign guy talks like a girl.

And this is a totally conscious reaction. I have a Japanese family as friends in the Bay Area. Due to the relative absence of Japanese in daily life, the man of the house generally leaves his son (the youngest) at home with his mother and sister. When I had asked him about the above - this was some time ago - he said that my observation was true and that he was worried because his son was starting to talk like a girl.
'
Circling back to the point - the Japanese government very likely was literally unable to act in the way you surmise.

I'd also note that while the US was in no way obligated to unilaterally negotiate, at the same time the US leadership had a very real fiscal as well as fiduciary responsibility. The problem with arguments about land invasion casualties, or cost of the ongoing war, or to date all of the reasons used to justify the atomic bombs except for the warning to the Soviets, is that a serious attempt to negotiate a Japanese surrender would be just as effective, and was never attempted.

Does anyone seriously think that the US was in any danger of losing the War in the Pacific in 1945? The Japanese fleet was largely nullified, Japanese conquests as well as traditional Japanese territory had been conquered, and all that was left was mopping up and beating the Russians to post-war positioning.

I'll conclude with this note: even today there are nut-bags in Japan decrying the presence of US troops on sacred Japanese soil. Blaming the foreigners for all ills. etc etc.

And they aren't ensconced in out of the way places like Idaho, they run around Tokyo with megaphones. Japan, whether because of its high social pressure culture, or xenophobia, or more likely a combination of everything, has a lot more extremists than the United States or Europe.

Yet at the same time these loudmouths aren't represented in any way in Japanese foreign or domestic policies today.

During World War II, the industrialists, nationalists, and these nut bags more or less had the same position. Is it so surprising that after the industrialists changed their mind and nationalists were acknowledging their plan had failed, that the nut-bags still tried to go on?