????????????? We have evaluated the evidence presented by the news sources at that time. It was flimsy. The Pentagon had not presented any evidence at that time, and probably will not present any evidence in future too. My recommendation to you: Handle me like any other source, following my prescription for evaluating sources. What would be my result evaluating myself? You will not find any intentional lies. You will usually find a link to the sources (with some exceptions, I usually don't link here Russian sources, as well as when many different sources support a single claim, like a particular village being taken by the Syrian army or the terrorists). The language is sufficiently neutral, with some intentional exceptions (like naming "terrorists" what the Western press names "rebels"). You will not find arguments I refuse to discuss if they are relevant for claims I have made (really made, not in iceaura's fantasies). You will seldom find ad hominem attacks. Of course, there are exceptions (an ad hominem argument is not wrong, but only very weak). You will find that, say, that I ignore claims about what I think and memories about what I wrote in the past without links, with iceaura being the author being sufficient to ignore it, given that this is always wrong when checked. Information from Western media about what unknown sources from US intelligence is also ignored, and this is also ad hominem: The Western media have lied very often in this form, and what essentially never follows is that the secret services later present this evidence. So, this is for me information of type "the well-known liar XXX has claimed without presenting any evidence". So, following my own criteria I would be a sufficiently good source (once evaluated by myself, one would not expect another result Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! , so that you have to do this check yourself.) That the source which I consider as unreliable has claimed something correct in this particular case may change your personal evaluation of that source. But there is no reason to reevaluate me or MoA. We have not trusted a source which in this particular case has given correct information. And we will continue to do so, following the German proverb "Wer einmal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht, und wenn er auch die Wahrheit spricht." (Anyone who lies once is not believed, even if he speaks the truth.) So, I would not recommend you to trust that source too, just because the information in this case appeared to be correct. Note that neutrality is not among the important criteria I would recommend to use. It is important to recognize the political preferences, because this usually allows to identify the direction where the source tends to err. But all sources usually have particular political preferences, the neutral source is a fantasy.
Surely you have no justification for quoting a blog that claims that it does have Pentagon evidence? Pentagon Accuses Iran Of Shooting Down A Ukrainian Plane But Its Evidence Is Flimsy The Pentagon is accusing Iran's air defense of shooting down the Ukraninan plane that crashed yesterday near Tehran. The Pentagon says that it was an accidental incident. But the evidence on which the claim is based is flimsy. Why are you finding it soooo hard to admit an error. It is only making it more embarrassing for you. "It's evidence is flimsy".... media reports are not Pentagon evidence....they are media reports... Using propaganda to support propaganda is just... not cricket.
Of course I already do but not in the way you probably think... Perhaps true perhaps not.... how can I tell which? Ever heard of the phrase "Confirmation bias"? When someone is passionate about a goal it is amazing how easily they will find stuff that appears to support that goal. Especially if fear is involved. and there in lays your greatest problem. You need at least three "independent of each other" sources before the claim you are researching even gets off the ground, then you dig a bit deeper. You need to look for the source that kills the claim.... not the ones that support it. You will always find supportive claims. That is the nature of confirmation bias. For example: Canada was too quick in stating that they believed the plane was accidentally shot down by Iranian military. The fact they refer to it as an accident is the key to the genuine nature of their intel. I might remind you that like Australia, Canada has access to some of the most sophisticated highly classified intelligence on the planet...they probably had access to all mobile phone data and have recordings of Iranian military commanders sobbing about killing 176 (?) innocent civilians. It would have been the saddest and most tragic intel ever, if that was the case. IMO.
There are multiple reports going around stating that the reason the Tehran airport was left open was to deliberately populate the area and skies with human shields in case the US retaliated for Iran's missile strikes. I have no trouble whatsoever believing them because Iran and its proxies (especially Hezbollah) have a decades-long history of using human shields, and it's the only reason they've been able to survive as long as they have despite engaging in repeated conflicts with stronger powers such as Israel. Any semi-competent authority would have shut down commercial traffic during the strikes as a safety measure, unless their safety was not considered a priority. The passengers on the Ukraine flight were almost certainly intended to be used as sacrificial pawns, although it was supposed to be the US shooting them down by mistake, not the Iranians themselves. Iran and its proxies have murdered and displaced millions and threaten every week to do even worse. After just one year of only partially cancelling their compliance with the JCPOA deal, they're now thought to be mere months away from having a nuclear bomb despite Barack Obama's assurances that his deal would keep them far, far away. The obvious intention behind having such a nuclear program is either to engage in a suicidal and genocidal war against Israel and/or the West, or to pursue massive conventional aggression with the nuclear threat as a backup. It shouldn't take an airliner shootdown for the world to finally see what kind of regime is governing the country and why it must be isolated and contained at all costs.
I don't buy this analysis of Iran's reasons for a nuclear bomb at all. The entire history of nuclear weapons - apart from the first and only aggressive use of them by the USA - is the logic of retaliation. It make no sense whatever to use nukes aggressively as you will get incinerated. But nukes are a brilliant defensive weapon, not least against invasion by the USA. Compare N Korea and Iraq. The US has been threatening to topple the Iranian regime for years. What could be more rational than to want a nuke, to forestall any such attempt? And they are surrounded by nuclear powers: Pakistan, India, China, Russia and Israel.
They are indeed surrounded by nuclear powers (all but one of whom are relatively friendly to them at the moment), and yet they have no fear of spreading mass chaos throughout Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria while massacring and jailing dissidents at home, shutting down the internet for a week, lying for 3 days about downing an airliner, knocking Saudi Arabia's main oil refinery offline... Just imagine how bold they'll be when they can wave nukes at anyone who tries to intercede, just like Russia snatches land and then threatens nuclear escalation if any major powers intervene.
I imagine it will make little difference. I do not think they are currently holding back their manipulation of forces in Yemen, Palestine and Syria etc for fear of invasion. If I were Iranian, I would definitely want a nuke for the reasons I've stated.
It will make a difference though when the rest of the world eventually has to force a halt to the Shiite Crescent expansion policy. I agree that talk of regime change also inspires the race for nuclear weapons and should be shunned at every opportunity, but assurances to the contrary should only be given on condition that the regime behaves like a responsible global citizen, and should be separate from any economic or diplomatic concessions which would require more in return than just not causing chaos.
Some of that I can agree with. But, at least as I understand it, Iran's Shiite crescent policy is not one of territorial expansion, but an expansion of influence. The idea of spheres of influence is common to a number of states. The Shiites in many of the these countries have been oppressed and excluded in spite of being sizeable minorities - or even a majority as, so I understand, in Bahrain. The idea behind the Obama/EU deal was to offer a carrot alongside the stick of the sanctions, to try to give Iran an incentive to start playing the game and thus, little by little, to come in from the cold and give up all this cloak and dagger interference. I see it as somewhat analogous to the N Ireland peace process, by which terrorists were eventually given seats in the N Ireland parliament - some actually became close friends with their erstwhile opponents (cf. "Chuckle Brothers"). But that's a long game and both sides need patience and vision, which sadly are qualities conspicuous by their absence from Trump's administration. The latest hamfisted Trump operation has set that back to square one. It will have reinforced the Iranians' conviction that a nuke is what they absolutely must have, for their own security.
That sphere of influence is coming at the expense of millions of lives, as well as lost business opportunities for those who don't care about the former. Furthermore, based on Ayatollah Khamenei's rhetoric, there's no reason to believe Iranian territorial and political ambitions would end with the establishment of a sphere of influence and the power that comes with it. The Northern Ireland peace process required willing cooperation from the IRA and strong support from the general Northern Irish public. In Iran there are plenty of signs that the general public wants to negotiate a reasonable deal, but the regime is not accountable to the public's demands and not beholden to any friendships they might strike up. Personally I think more Americans would be dead today than at present if the US hadn't hit the Iraqi militias and then Soleimani himself. The attack on the US embassy after the militia hits wasn't a peaceful protest and could have ended in major casualties if the US hadn't rushed reinforcements in. The leadership in Iran appears to view lack of action as a sign of weakness rather than restraint, encouraging further more serious attacks when lesser ones are ignored.
Perhaps you don't see it but could not the same be said for USA aggressive promotion of it's sphere of influence. Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Germany, Russia and so on as seen from the eyes of the ones being influenced. One could just as easily argue that the sheer influence of the USA nuclear arsenal alone has cost millions of lives, some of them North American. As the fear and incumbent paranoia grips any one who sees a USA aircraft flying over head or hears that a POTUS has threatened to obliterate a nation. The deaths of 176 people on a civilian air craft could find an indirect causation to Trumps threats against the Iranian regime.. forcing Iranians including the military to live under the cloud of imminent USA nuclear annihilation. Pushing the fear button is always a a potentially deadly game... You only have to read the press in all nations to see the amount of paranoid hysterics involved... Evangelistic Christians who ignore their own most important principles. ie. Thou shall not kill, love thy neighbor etc. Evangelizing Democracy the American way. When people are not able to become democratic societies by virtue of low education or strict patriarchal traditions or other reasons that the American ideals fail to consider. By giving trillions of dollars in oil money to nations that never had money and expecting them to be capable of handling the power that the money grants them. ( post ww2 - oil dollar transformation of the Middle East) By handing a man an AK45 when he has only ever handled a spear or a bow and arrow before. Emotionally and intellectually - other wise called culture shock. Like a wank walking through a poverty region with a 100 dollar bill sown into his back pocket so that the starving malnourished hookers go crazy... ( yeah I met one such guy on the sea side boulevard - Natale Brasil - he thought it was a hoot ) By with holding previously agreed to essential military aid to a nation with the demand for personal favor before that aid is released... Do you have any idea how much enmity this sort of behavior generates?
The US hasn't fought in Vietnam or Korea for half a century, did nothing aggressive towards Germany during that time, nor did it do anything to Russia except provide conditional aid and sell products. Maybe Russians would prefer to return their US-designed phones, TV's and computers for stuff made by domestic companies and go back to living like it's the 80's and driving Ladas, I dunno. As for Iran, right now it seems like the Iranian people are more afraid of their own regime than they are of the US. Someone stood up to the Iranian bully, so he was forced to act out even more in response to make sure he had his way, and whoever stood up to them should be ashamed of themselves? The 176 deaths wouldn't have happened if the victims weren't being deliberately used by the regime as human shields against US strikes, it's inexcusable behaviour no matter what the alleged provocation was. Trump is a problematic president and I've never denied that, but the upswing in regional chaos Iran has been causing of late began during the Obama administration and was in many ways enabled by his own appeasement. Trump poses serious dangers to US democracy, but Iran poses even more serious dangers to global democracy.
So do you agree that your complaint concerning Iranian influence could just as easilly be levied against the USA or not?
I simply see no error. The evidence which was available - and any other evidence does not count - was flimsy. The point being? I do not play word games, I care about the content. And the content is clear. The full Pentagon evidence is unknown, it is even unknown if they had more than what was discussed in the article and correctly classified as flimsy. Remember, the Russian blogger was, without any Pentagon evidence, able to predict the American reaction correctly. Different from iceaura I will not speculate about you probably think. I have given my recommendations. If somebody regularly lies intentionally, this becomes quite obvious after some time. That's why it is important to recognize the political position of the source. It predicts in which direction the confirmation bias (if the source has a problem with this) works. As a scientist, I'm not very passionate about whatever. For my own theories, I have known and recognized some problems which remained open problems for some years, until I was able to find a solution. The same holds for my political views. So what? You think I post all sources I have seen? You cannot know how many sources I have seen and rejected. I think all governments which have made whatever statements about what they believe were too quick. The only reasonable thing a government could say in such a situation is that "we have to wait what the investigation shows". There has been a decision of Khamenei that nuclear weapons are incompatible with their religious values. I'm not sure if one can trust this. AFAIU the Quran allows to lie to infidels, but this is a religious decision, thus, it would mean they lied to Muslim people too. Note also that Iran has not been afraid of openly bombing the US bases and to paint a red line against any retaliation with the threat to open a real war even without nuclear weapons, it may be very well their decision not to obtain them. First, they supported the Chechen terrorists. Saudi Arabia even send a lot of fighters to Chechnya, but the West supported these terrorists too. Up to now. Recently, one of those Chechen terrorist murders was killed in Germany, probably during some disagreements inside the Chechen mafia. The Germans used this to blame Russia, as usual. Whatever, it became clear that the Russians have informed Germany about this guy, and informally, via secret service channels, requested his extradition, which was denied. So, a Chechen terrorist who murdered many people was walking around free in Germany, with the full knowledge of the German secret service. Then, they heavily supported the mafia and the oligarchs who stole the property of the Russian state and transferred a lot of money to Western bank accounts. This was a common scheme for Russian criminals: Pay large bribes to some Russian politicians, gain control over some company, sell it to some Western firms, leave the money in London and move to London. And the bribed politicians also transferred the money to the West and run away too. Last but not least, they heavily manipulated the elections, to be sure that drunken Yeltsin remains in power, because it was their guy. In fact, many Russians actually use Russian products, the role of import is not essential at all. If they buy foreign things, then most of them come from Europe and China. So, the Russians are not afraid of any US sanctions, given that import from US is anyway irrelevant. Buying cars produced in Russia is quite common. Many of them have, of course, Western labels. Lada exists today, is now controlled by Renault. In Western propaganda fantasy land, it may seem so. LOL, global democracy. There is no such animal. Iran supports Shia populations, that's all. There is a large one in Lebanon. Lebanon was, a long time, a victim of Israeli aggression, which has even occupied some part of it. There was also a long civil war. Iran has supported the Shia faction, Hezbollah. The result is that Israel has been thrown out of Lebanon, and that there is no civil war now. Some Sunni terrorists (Al Qaida, IS) have had strong positions in the border region with Syria during a long time of the Syrian civil war, they have been defeated. The reason for the latest trouble (quite small in comparison with the former civil war situation) was an attempted color revolution by the US. So, it was Iran which helped to stop the local chaos in Lebanon. What else? In Syria and Iraq the chaos was caused by Wahabi terrorists, supported by the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Israel. These terrorists had genocidal intentions against the local Shia as well as other religions, in particular Christians. So, to support those under the threat of genocide was natural and justified - a sufficiently clear case of responsibility to protect. The US supported also Kurdish separatism, another line of conflict in those states. Instead, Iran contributed a lot fighting the IS and Al Qaida together with other US-paid terrorists. It also helped to free Kirkuk from Kurdish occupation. Again, chaos created by the US and its allies, and Iran helping to stop this chaos. Then there is Yemen. A horrible war of aggression by Saudi-Arabia supported by the US as well as the local Al Qaida, against the Houthis. They bomb whatever they can, with a lot of civilian victims, and try to use hunger as a weapon by preventing food being delivered to the regions. Here Iran supports the Houthis, the victims of this aggression, and it is also a clear case of responsibility to protect. There is reasonable hope that in some future this support leads to an end of the war too.
The link you provided is easy for any one to access At no time does the blogger provide any of the Pentagon evidence he considers as flimsy. NONE! have another read for your self.... https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/...an-plane-but-its-evidence-is-flimsy.html#more If you disagree with my position it is up to you to indicate the evidence you believe is from the Pentagon... as for me here is the evidence provided. see? None... now your turn...
Looks like you really started a long subthread because of the three letters of "its", which should have been "the"????????? Sorry, but such things I ignore like a typo. I thought you have some objections about the content of the article, say, that some of the evidence discussed there is not flimsy, or that there was some important evidence accessible at that time MoA has not considered.
Consider that you have 12 million refugees and over 500,000 dead in Syria alone, the vast majority caused by the Assad regime and its allies, which would not have been possible without the massive Iranian intervention to rescue him (they sent in over 100,000 foreign Shiite militants and confiscated homes for many of them to settle long term). In Iraq the Sunni communities and Kurds have faced a string of massacres and ethnic cleansing that follows after Iranian operations ostensibly directed against ISIS, their communities are being systematically uprooted. During the US occupation of Iraq I believe the stats were something like 2,000,000 Iraqi dead from conflict, of whom only 200,000 or so were attributed directly to US action. In Yemen the Iranian-backed Houthis allied with an ousted dictator to seize control of parliament from the newly elected president and have since played a major role in imposing the ongoing humanitarian crisis. In Lebanon Hezbollah has repeatedly used its Iran-supplied military to force increased concessions and power within the government, which has currently led the country to the standstill it now finds itself in with risks of major debt default and economic collapse, thousands have died from its actions there and millions more are at risk.
So as a "scientist" you will not only post a blog full of typos that only you can know as support for your particular theory you will spend many posts defending the inexcusable. There is no declaration of war between the USA, Iran, Iraq, Syria or Lebanon. There is no Pentagon evidence that could be considered, let alone declared as flimsy. There is no scientific objectivity present in any of your posts. so... there is no scientist. I am not concerned with getting into the over enthusiastic subjective assessments of the unverifiable evidence presented in the blog. It is obviously full of typos that I should ignore any how. (sarc) According to current news sources ( all of which are to be taken with a grain of salt) Iranian authorities have arrested persons connected with the accidental shooting down of the civilian jetliner. They have also arrested the person who uploaded the video that shows the missile strike. Perhaps the Iranian regime doesn't appreciate typos either...? You will note of course that there has been no arrests for those responsible for attempting to officially cover up this tragic mistake of theirs...from their own people...in an attempt to poison relations with the West even more...to deliberately mislead the people of Iran .... An indication of the degree of corruption and moral bankruptcy involved perhaps...? It is pretty obvious who the real enemy of the Iranian people is and it certainly isn't the USA. Don't hold your breath... Meanwhile every political, military leader in the world is looking over their shoulder and sky wards wondering if there is a POTUS sanctioned drone strike coming their way. The precedent set has huge ramifications... IMO
