Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 03, 2019

On Eve Of 4th Of July Parade U.S. Attempts To Lure Iran Into Shooting Down Another U.S. Plane

Today a manned U.S. reconnaissance plane entered Iranian airspace in a clear attempt to provoke Iran into shooting it down. Such an incident would have created an occasion for Trump to give the American people a special 4th of July fireworks.

On July 3 1988 the guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shot down the civil Iranian Flight 655 with 290 people on board. The U.S. claimed that the plane's transponder was signaling an Iranian military identification code, that it was seemingly attacking the Vincennes, that the ship warned the plane 12 times, and that the ship was in international waters when the incident happened.

The crew of the Vincennes received medals for killing the Iranian civilians.

Investigations showed (pdf) that all the above claims were false. The shoot down was intentional. Iran sued the US in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over it. The case was settled in 1996 when the U.S. agreed to apologize and to pay $61.8 million to the families of the victims.

On June 20 a large U.S. reconnaissance drone, accompanied by a manned U.S. military airplane, flew into Iranian air space east of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran shot the drone down. The U.S. threatened to strike Iran over the incident but Trump did not follow through.

There were reports that some people in the White House doubted that the U.S. Central Command, the U.S. military command for the Middle East, told it the full truth about the incident. Two days before the drone incident happened Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the former CIA director, had unusual talks with the U.S. Central Command. This led to speculations that the incident was designed to provoke Iran into a shoot down and to push Trump into a war on Iran.

The case today is not in doubt. The U.S. military definitely tried to provoke Iran into shooting down another one of its planes.


bigger
Manu Gómez @GDarkconrad - 9:17 UTC - 3 Jul 2019

USAF Rivet Joint tracking over The #PersianGulf, spoof Hex Cod 730000 C/S IRI00061

The US Airforce RC-135V Rivet Joint are signal intelligence planes that snoop on other countries.


bigger

The plane flew over the islands Abu Musa and Sirri in the Persian Gulf which are Iranian territory and Iranian airspace. It falsely signaled that it was an Iranian plane.

The aviation transponder of the U.S. spy plane was set to a code that is associated with Iran. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) defined (pdf) 24-bit addresses that identify the type of the plane and the country where a plane is registered . The 24 bit codes for Iranian registered airplanes begins with the country identifier 0111 0011, written in hexadecimal as 73. The flight radar page that Manu Gomez used displays these 'S-Mode' transponder codes the airplane sends as a six digit hexadecimal number.

This use of code that identified the plane as Iranian was not a mistake but absolutely intentional:

Steffan Watkins @steffanwatkins - 11:53 utc - 3 Jul 2019
Steffan Watkins Retweeted Manu Gómez

There are so many things wrong with what the #USAF is doing here, that are very much not evident to the casual observer.

1) The RC-135 has changed its unique transponder number to 730000 (hex), an Iranian assigned code. So, the USAF is impersonating an Iranian plane.

2) As @GDarkconrad pointed out, this isn't an accident, the USAF did this with Venezuelan codes off the coast of #Venezuela too. US reconnaissance planes are impersonating the codes of the countries they are conducting reconnaissance on, endangering future civilian flights.
...

The track shows that the plane was coming from west north west, probably Kuwait, and flew directly over Sirri Island and Abu Musa. It then immediately turned around and flew again over both islands.


Detail of the tweeted screenshot

Sirri Island is the location of an oil platform that was destroyed by the U.S. Navy forces on April 18, 1988. The island has a landing strip and there are several oil and gas installations on it.

Abu Musa is a 12.8 square kilometer (4.9 sq mi) inhabited island near the entrance of the Strait of Hormuz. It is, like Sirri, Iranian territory and Iran has troops stationed there. They have decent air defense systems (vid) well capable of taking the Rivet Joint plane down. Abu Musa is the Iranian 'castle' that controls the Strait and most traffic west of it. Its strategic importance is immense.

After Iran shot down the U.S. drone its foreign minister posted maps showing the flight path of the drone and the demarcation of the Iranian airspace (red line). It is obvious that the U.S. plane today entered it.


bigger

This morning the U.S. spy plane willingly penetrated Iranian airspace. It squawked a fake code which showed ill intention. This happened on the 31st anniversary of Flight 655. The Iranian military would certainly still like to take revenge for that mass murder. It was a huge provocation likely intended to lure Iran into shooting it down.

Trump recently threatened to 'obliterate' some areas of Iran should it attack "anything American":

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - 2:42 utc - 25 Jun 2019

....Iran’s very ignorant and insulting statement, put out today, only shows that they do not understand reality. Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration. No more John Kerry & Obama!

This led to speculation that Trump was threatening a nuclear strike.

Had Iran shot the plane down it would have been clearly within its rights. But imagine it had done so. A manned U.S. reconnaissance plane, not a drone, would have come down and the crew would be dead. U.S. media would scream for revenge.

It would have happened on the eve of Trump's 4th of July speech which will be followed by the military parade and overflight he ordered. 5,000 people from military families are invited to the event.

An ideal TV situation to announce that the U.S. Commander in Chief ordered to 'obliterate' Abu Musa island, the castle that controls the Strait of Hormuz, with maybe a small nuke. The U.S. public would have loved those 4th of July fireworks. Newspapers would headline "Commander In Chief Demonstrates His Resolve!" Trump's approval rating would soar to above 80%.

It would take days until the information that the flight was an intended provocation would enter the news. U.S. media would simply ignore it just as they ignored the evidence about Flight 655. The island would be unusable for Iran but the wider environmental damage from a small, kiloton range nuclear device would be minimal. No one in the U.S. would care about it.

One wonders who came up with such a nefarious plan. Was it Trump, the great showman, himself? Was that the reason why he ordered the military to join the 4th of July parade on such a short notice? Or was it John Bolton or 'we lie, we cheat, we steal' Mike Pompeo? Some minion at the CIA or CentCom?

Whoever came up with it, and those who signed off to allow this incident to happen, will now be disappointed. Iran clearly did not fall into their trap.

The world owns a big thank you to the Iranian air defense crews on Abu Musa for their disciplined behavior.

Posted by b on July 3, 2019 at 20:21 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

If we admit that the downed flight MH17 over Donbass,was actually the MH370 lost few months before,we could suppose that the passenger of MH17 with or without their airplane,are kept in refrigeration hangar somewhere.It would be a nice reservoir,though a bit smell of putrid and formol,for future false-flagging,without sending friendly troops to the abyss.The whole identification of victims was a fraud.
I posted before on the subject of MH17,but never found my comment.
Because the Empire is playing on many fronts,we should be aware of actions involving Ukraine coming up,now Zelensky is seeing Chrysta Freeland,Trudeau,and some other highplaced warmongers in Canada.They need to feed so many crises to Russia at the same time,,so as to perpertrate their crimes elsewhere,and of course they won't stop because they can't stop.Who knows,next is an other Malaysian Airliner to go down by hand of Russia.

Posted by: willie | Jul 4 2019 11:52 utc | 101

‘If’ this is true, it’s very worrying!
Not least the potential for false flags !
http://armswatch.com/us-military-has-acquired-russian-s-300-air-defense-systems/

We can’t expect Iran or Russia to solve the present crisis, we need to ‘own it’ it’s our problem and we in the West are the only people who can stop the trump insanity !

Posted by: Mark2 | Jul 4 2019 12:11 utc | 102

I have to defend (partially) my fellow Amurkins, the government has not listened to our wishes or paid attention to our protests at least since Vietnam. Like the citizens of the USSR we get no say, our democracy is and has been a scam, a TV show, at least since the Kennedy assassination. The economic unequality here is a mirror image of the political situation, petty gray men who hide from public view control what happens with violence and propaganda. A government of Dick Cheneys and Dick Cheney wannabes is what we have. We've been cheated and lied to and treated like chattel, and it is anger at that treatment that put Trump in the White House, one of many such politicans in our Neo-democratic modernity.

We have flooded Washington many times and they do not listen. Short of violence (which some do resort to) we have no options that work, and violence isn't going to work either.

Meanwhile large numbers of our foreign "partners" and "allies" have been happy to take our money when it came their way and then feed it back into the corrupt political machines here.

===

I've decided that the prefix "Neo-" really means "not, and in "neocon" mean Not conservative, etc. Try it out.

Sort of like "virtual", which also mean "not really".

Posted by: Bemildred | Jul 4 2019 12:35 utc | 103

Usual purpose of such provocation would be to light-up defense systems. Have they moved since last.
Pence will be planning limited precision strikes - likley missile strikes or do they dare fly over.
Probably Iran will need to take it on the nose this time to allow all to see the agression although US will claim is ensuring freedom of navigation. Trump is enterring the window prior to election when cannot begin new major conflict with possible unpleasant consequences that could be blamed on him. One would hope he stands not chance of reelection so maybe this will be last chance to win - the war rally.
One would think Iran will carefully choose timing of substantial asymetric bloody nose - punish the weak ones. The future conflict is unavoidale its a matter of how and when.

Posted by: jared | Jul 4 2019 12:50 utc | 104

@ Posted by: Jay | Jul 4 2019 0:37 utc | 54

But that episode has some fundamental differences to an hypothetical Iranian one today:

1) China is much more powerful than Iran;

2) George W. Bush, albeit an imperator POTUS (i.e. a warmonger, aggressive president), had a very clear doctrine in his mind and was very closely tied to the interests of the American Oil lobby. He wanted to control production and distribution of Middle Eastern oil by the USA and to the USA. Trump simply wants Middle Eastern oil to stop flowing to China (trade war, Fabian strategy). That is highligthed by the fact that China wasn't in Bush's "Axis of Evil" list -- which made retaliation against China even more difficult at an operational and diplomatic level, since it wasn't in the doctrine.

3) The episode happened in the "End of History" Era (December 1991 - September 2008), when the USA was at its apex. When you're in your apex, your inner contradictions are less apparent and less urgent. The Americans could afford to be cocky and more selective with their priorities then (April 2001).

Posted by: vk | Jul 4 2019 12:57 utc | 105

"The jet that went down over Lockerbie did so with a bomb concealed in a radio made by a Palestinian bomb maker and placed aboard by the Iranians in London. London where the luggage storage area was obviously broken into but never made the news..." snedly arkus@75
There is no evidence to support this obvious libel of both Iran and, in the original version of the story, the Palestinian resistance. It must be clear to the person who repeated this nonsense that its effect, politically, is to sustain the Israeli/Imperialist position just as the kangaroo court which convicted Libya did.
Most of the possible causes of the Lockerbie disaster involve actors much closer to home than Islamic Jihad or the Iranian government.
As to CIeh's blaming Iran-even under the Shah!- for crimes in Lebanon and Syria, I'm sure that CIA agree.
It is indicative of the provenance of these sub zionist theories that CIeh

Posted by: bevin | Jul 4 2019 13:07 utc | 106

Regarding the possible flight crew, I'm reminded of a military slogan, "you find the laziest man (person), to do the most difficult job, because he or she will find the easiest way to do it, in the shortest amount of time." There must be in the military organization, as in any large organization in mho, an ample supply of individuals suited for sacrificing their lives whether they are aware of it or not. And an appropriate slogan for finding them out?

Or, sacrifice civilians, even better, here and there if there is any way to avoid the possible martyr.

I would wonder whether anyone willing some kind of armegeddon on the world had really thought that sentiment through? Would be a good litmus test for any possible divine saviour stupid enough to take that job, this hoping for global destruction with a copy of the bahgavad gita in her or his pocket!

But of course, it's extremely difficult in the heat of the moment, or in any moment really, using one's experience of life, knowledge of human nature earned over years of travel and examination, and so on, to think out any of one's possible acts. Anyone may be lacking any or all of the abilities required to do so. Far too ponderous. Better just not to apologise, that's an easier course!

Posted by: Geoff | Jul 4 2019 13:13 utc | 107

@ powerandpeople 76

Thanks for that link. When two local sides argue over anything it is hard for an outsider (international law) to do more than give an opinion or offer arbitrage. Sometimes that extends to leverage but UN force is usually only deployed after hostility has started, once a form of peace accord has been reached, to monitor that. At most the use of force by another is authorised.

The Gulf Islands Dispute IRAN-UAE: A Journey through International Law

From Queen Mary Studies in International Law Malgosia Fitzmaurice

(A large part is free exerpt on online books)

Gives an interesting historical account. Anyone might try to deduce from that better than I have exactly what kind of reclamations are at play, but then this also misses the full Iranian point of view, involvement by outside countries, the mindset of leaderships, use of the theme as propaganda or purposeful antagonism, etc. etc.

There are other statutes and counter statutes and so on around, from all sides, on these islands, accepted or rejected to a certain degree.

So the status of the various islands, including Sirri which is normally recognised as Iranian, remain questionable and open to interpretation .

Posted by: gzon | Jul 4 2019 13:16 utc | 108

There will be many provocations to lure Iran into war, the time is running out for the Empire of Chaos to try its last card to save itself from utter economic collapse, the US needs a war badly so it can add assets to its coffers (oil/gas) and delay a bit more the inevitable demise.
Time for cool headed people to lead the anti Empire of Chaos coalition and it seems, so far that the right balance is there, but we will never know when a false flag will be used so global western MSM will enter in scene to support another criminal war in support of the Zio-Neocon morons.

Posted by: Canthama | Jul 4 2019 13:27 utc | 109

@86 joh dowser

The US would claim that the missile they fired off were normal missile that target Iran nuclear material cache.

Posted by: HW | Jul 4 2019 13:28 utc | 110

There were live people in the plane so the Iranians did not shoot at it.
The US is trying to provoke the Iranians. And the Syrians. And the Venezuelans. And the Chinese. And the Russians. And the North Koreans. The list is getting very very long.

Posted by: Kaiama | Jul 4 2019 13:40 utc | 111

C I eh? @ 90

I have always thought Hudson is sincere but a mistaken globalist, with plenty of great ideas that will inevitably be misappropriated and misused.

As I have stridently pointed out many times, globalism is same as the air we breath. If you wish to locate a solution for the problem of globalism you will need to find it in the fallen human nature which has led to this point since the beginning of mankind.

Furthermore, globalism is not going anywhere anytime soon and "neo-nationalism" is a form of political theatre to mollify those discontents who might otherwise band together and fight back, not a solution for all those who've lost economically as a result of the changing globalist economic order of the last 40 years (IE, the working and middle income people of the most developed globalised economies).

I like the comment of Bemildred, I believe it was upthread who said "neo" equals "not".

There is less chance of the world reverting to a form of capitalism (or socialism for that matter) that is limited to being wholly contained within national borders than there is for a man to walk on the planet Jupiter.

There is a decidedly greater chance for "neo-nationalist political actors" to create an unstable platform for war and annihilation. The final wars of nationalism were fought during the first half of the 20th century.

If this makes me too "a sincere but mistaken globalist" like Hudson, than I will simply accept the fact I am surrounded by well-intentioned, intelligent commenters who ignore the reality in which we live and misunderstand the recipe for remedy of our grievances will not be found in nostalgic displays of nationalist political theatre.

Posted by: donkeytale | Jul 4 2019 14:00 utc | 112

@ powerandpeople 76

After browsing over the text of that link, one thing stands out, and that is that the definitions of existing treaties or understandings often get decided after a fact. That is to say sides enter into conflict with the understandings and interpretations which suit them. What is left once the dust settles is each trying to justify previous position and actions.


........

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/gibraltar-detains-super-tanker-carrying-oil-to-syria-11756345

Is going to be "interesting" - breakin EU sanctions on Syria, with oil that breaches Iran embargo, stopped by UK in UK territorial waters, that are claimed as Spanish by Spain with EU backing . Saying that for being quite familiar with Gibraltar, Spain, EU dispute.

Posted by: gzon | Jul 4 2019 14:10 utc | 113

Happy Independence from UK Day!
No more of that royal baby claptrap!!

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jul 4 2019 14:24 utc | 114

I was only a boy when the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were dropped and I was thoroughly imbued with the conventional view of the Japanese as suicidal monsters. The adults that I knew who were in the Pacific Theater and slated for roles in the invasion of Japan were certain that dropping the bombs saved their lives. My uncle certainly did.

The assertion that the Japanese were ready to surrender is likely true. But when and under what conditions? That is irrelevant today. What I find especially disturbing is discussion of the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances. You have to be mad to entertain such thoughts.

You also have to be mad to keep poking with a sharp stick anyone and everyone who does not jump to your commands.

Posted by: John | Jul 4 2019 14:34 utc | 115

@gzon...

I am also reading Iran has summoned the British ambassador. Didn't know there was one.

Posted by: Kc | Jul 4 2019 14:44 utc | 116

Gzon@114
The tanker is Iranian, which might complicate things and apparently the UK did this because the US asked.
---
Abu Musra ; my take on this to expect a landing followed by an occupation of one or both the islands - by the US forces (including large contingents of marines on Naval assets etc).
Followed by the "justification" that it was not really Irans' in the first pace, and they are there to "guarantee freedom of the seas" or some such rubbish.

The US is making an effort to increase it's flock of "bases" on "enemy territory", or on recently liberalized ones.(Near Venezuela, Chile, probably Brazil - chums with India etc.). (Guantanamo, Diego Garcia islands are already part and even if these should be handed back the US has ignored all courts and calls to do so)
Syria's Eastern part, Sri Lanka, It doesn't seem to matter any more if the country agrees or not.
Note that the newest "tanker" attack is directly related to the US wish to ruin Syria. They also control/sell most of the Syrian Oil and gas. (East of the Euphrates)

Posted by: stonebird | Jul 4 2019 14:45 utc | 117

More on the tanker. Spain says it was a US requested operation.

Posted by: Kc | Jul 4 2019 14:48 utc | 118

@ donkeytale

It is funny, because nationalism vs globalism can be interpreted in many ways, some of which have totally opposite meanings in terms of social or political structure. Globalism can be understood as a now subtle form (but later not maybe) of neo-nationalism (per your description, which is quite good in a way) for example, a global form and one that the individual would have no escape from. There would also be "re-nationalism" (?) as much more mundane. Nation to me is just a natural extension of local order and culture, of tradition, but to those that have not much of one, or one that they don't appreciate, then it will seem superfluous or unwelcome, in fact they might not ever understand the depth of meaning others experience . It is not for an outsider to deny another their own , unless looking for conflict. I think we will have fun discussing this over time, but I have to leave this thread now.

Posted by: gzon | Jul 4 2019 14:58 utc | 119

Laying in bed this morning, I had this crazy imagination that I'm Colonel Isfahan, commander of the IRGC 23d Missile Battalion. I'm hunkered down in my command bunker in the hills of western Iran, and my "babies," my cruise missiles, are similarly at rest in their bunkers, with some on mobile launchers secreted in the nearby forests and town.

My mission, if the balloon goes up, is to destroy the US naval installations in Bahrain, one of many US military complexes scattered about the northern and western Gulf shores. Bahrain is the home of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, U.S. 5th Fleet and Combined Maritime Forces, a total of over seven thousand Americans, plus some allies. It is the primary base in the region for the naval and marine activities, and only a relatively short distance away. A lot of important American uniforms that are helping to keep my country down. Great targets. Easy Targets. They may ask for it. My weapons are all dialed in. Let my babies go!

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jul 4 2019 15:03 utc | 120

@ stonebird 118

You might want to read up on Socotra island and bases , plus some other island off Yemen further south where UAE hopes claim or base. Then there is Djibouti and cross involvement in Sudan and further, including Chinese. I have to leave this thread now though as have to put my attention elsewhere.

Posted by: gzon | Jul 4 2019 15:11 utc | 121

On island ownership, it's really only a matter of possession. Recently Japan took possession of the Senkakus in the East China Sea, disputed island that China also claimed, and the US then said that the Senkakus would fall under the US-Japan defense treaty, and the US would defend them.

China, naturally, took note of that and immediately increased its presence on islands in the South China Sea. The US first recognized that these were China territories, and invoked "innocent passage" to sail near them (within 12nm). Recently the US has changed its position and now calls them "disputed islands" and sails near them at will, with China objecting to it as it should. So where the US previously took pride in not being involved in the validity of foreign territorial claims, now it does. They have a new category -- "disputed." Look for it.

So there, in the western Pacific, is some precedence about what may happen with Iranian possessions in the Persian Gulf, which the US mistakenly calls the Arabian Gulf, speaking of possession.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jul 4 2019 15:20 utc | 122

gzon @122: Yes, Socotra is an interesting case. UAE seems to be leaving the war in Yemen, seeking to appease Iran I expect, but I think they will still try to stay on Socotra.

The first few days of a hot war would be over air defenses, Iran's and anybody firing at them, and all US assets for sure. Saturation attacks in both directions. Radar for radar. Base for base.

During those few days, what else will Iran get up to? I expect ground attacks on any handy nearby US assets, looking for hostages. Should be walkovers, can't really send air support until the Iran air defenses are down, Iraq and Afghanistan will likely invite them in.

Iran's defenses are in the mountains, they have difficulties with mobility. The US is all out in the open, they can run, but they can't hide. (Heh.)

Posted by: Bemildred | Jul 4 2019 15:25 utc | 123

A minor point but significant.

... why he ordered the military to join the 4th of July parade on such a short notice? - b

Trump has always admired military parades and advocated for the US to display them, for ex:

https://youtu.be/eDZgXiBbfk4 - some US tv show - 2018

Trump’s military parade in Washington now delayed until 2019

-> too expensive.

NBC. https://nbcnews.to/2Bi9cLX

Pic at link shows Melania, Bibi Macron, others, clapping at some show of death machines, how glorious and wonderful is that?

This 6 minute youtube shows extracts - a pub 'movie' - of the 2019 KSA military parade, US no 1 ally. Showtime! (recommended.)

https://youtu.be/sqFUKkzrvrE

Trump no doubt wants to better the moving image success of others, not at present challenged or matched by the US.

Re. KSA, an hour of the 2014 milit. parade can be seen here. Interesting.

https://youtu.be/5PHP-RyhYN8

Naturally, none of this has concerns military capability whatsoever. Pure propaganda to keep the mopes on board and award kudos, admiration, allegiance to 'leaders', 'the milit', etc.

Posted by: Noirette | Jul 4 2019 15:26 utc | 124

Yes, did the crew of the plane know they were bait? Or was there even a crew on the plane? I'd imagine it would not be terrible difficult to remotely pilot an empty plane on that route. I'm guessing the p-8 they put up next to the drone that was shot down was similarly unoccupied. I have to say, I'm surprised the US didn;t just blow up the plane themselves and blame it on Iran. Why bother with the bait at all?

Posted by: Casey | Jul 4 2019 15:30 utc | 125

Ah, yes, the discipline of the Iranian air defense crew. Those noble yeomen far down the chain of command deciding whether to start a war in the Middle East. No Gavrilo Princip's they. They will hold their fire.

Sure. You don't talk about intelligence. What if Iran knew this was going to happen? That would certainly take a lot of responsibility off the shoulders of the air defense crew.

Whoever ordered this stunt, must just have the tiniest worry that someone is reading his mind. Oh, I daresay might be.

Posted by: William Herschel | Jul 4 2019 15:33 utc | 126

gzon

I'm not discounting nationalism as an existent "thing" or even that it is entirely unrelated to the form of economic system in which a nation participates. I had a long and enjoyable discussion regarding this subject with dh-mtl in the previous open thread.

What I am clearly saying is nationalism is antithetical and not a cure-all for the class struggle which has become cleverly misdirected by "neo-nationalist play actors" into a fake political movement which can only achieve a nightmare in Hell if it actually succeeds....as indicated by the taste of such nationalist stuff as the US-Iran contretemps we currently go on and on about, or the US-China Trade Wars (ditto).

Meanwhile, neo-nationalist politics will not even put a miniscule dent on Global Capitalist hegemony around the world. This should be made plain already to anyone following along with the Brexit idiocy which Britain currently flogs itself over endlessly with no solution in sight...and they will be rewarded with their own Trump. Lmao

The reason there is no happy ending to Brexit is simply because none exists.

Posted by: donkeytale | Jul 4 2019 15:50 utc | 127

Lochearn @ 50

"The US billionaire shadow force has gotten too greedy..."

They've always been greedy. Now, I think, they're scared. These grossly wealthy people know climate change is real, they know countries are moving to get out from under the restrictive petrodollar, they know nations are shifting loyalties away from the US, if not blatantly, then tacitly and the US way of life is in danger.

I politely disagree that nothing will happen. The most overwhelming fear of rich people is the loss of their riches, and such a scared animal is capable of anything.

Posted by: Summer Diaz | Jul 4 2019 16:16 utc | 128

@ donkeytale #113

.. globalism is same as the air we breath. If you wish to locate a solution for the problem of globalism you will need to find it in the fallen human nature which has led to this point since the beginning of mankind.

Indeed globalism is the same as the air we breath, and nationalism is the same as the ground upon which we stand.

Nationalism versus Globalism is yet another false dialectic. Every -ism in existence is a co-option of something more essential. Human feelings and emotions generated by land and community are not ilegitimate no matter how much Donald Trump's handlers' beguile his supposed base.

Hudson is looking for conceptual solutions for the problems created by human nature, like all Marxists do. He believes in systemic coercion because he is a materialist and as I've just discovered watching the interview posted by tungsten above, also a Trotskyite. For me this means he puts nurture over nature and therefore power and fetish over substance and being.


Posted by: C I eh? | Jul 4 2019 16:23 utc | 129

C i eh @ 130,

Human nature is whatever the ruling class needs it to be. Did you just get done reading neoliberal shill Jordan Peterson?

Posted by: Jonathan | Jul 4 2019 17:59 utc | 130

C I eh?

Well I didn't watch the video (this is a personal failing....I cannot watch/listen to lectures without losing interest and/or falling asleep within 10 minutes) so I'm only going by the upthread comment (paraphrased) that Hudson believes everyone should read Das Kapital in order to better understand the alternatives.

Yes, I'm a know it all without knowing anything...a donkeytale specialty...but unless Hudson is writing political prescriptions than I believe it is unfair to conflate Hudson's urging as an economist for students to understand Marx's critique of capitalism or Hudson's admiration for Trotsky with him being either a Marxist or a Trotskyite.

Hudson as a sophisticated academic economist surely agrees with some, maybe much of Marx and Trotsky and probably thinks less of or outright dismisses other parts. This alone hardly would qualify him as either Trotskyite or a Marxist.

And then there's also this thing where he reveals he worked for the CIA? Does this then mean he's a career spook? Same reasoning to me...

If I'm wrong about this (and admit I may be) then please advise and I will need to force myself to watch the video which will probably take several days for me to sleepwalk through....unless there is a written transcript available somewhere...my brain does much better absorbing ideas through reading rather than watching.

Thanks for the comment.

Posted by: donkeytale | Jul 4 2019 18:09 utc | 131

I'm curious about the many comments addressing whether the crew of the US plane, and the crew of the manned aircraft accompanying the drone on June 20th, knew they'd been sent on "suicide missions"-- and implicitly or explicitly expressing horror that this might be the case.

I've never served in the military, but isn't sending personnel into high-risk situations for strategic and tactical purposes Standard Operating Procedure on every level? I remember being shocked at Vietnam vets casually describing being sent ahead to "draw fire" during routine platoon-strength infantry patrols. I don't know, maybe I took "Paths of Glory" and other fictional and non-fictional portrayals of this dynamic too seriously.

I presume that there are both pragmatic and humanitarian reasons (in that order) for commanders to avoid gratuitous suicide missions, but as harrowing and reprehensible as it seems to my lily-livered, bleeding-heart self, I have the impression that every service person understands that they are pawns that may be ruthlessly deployed on high-risk missions as potential sacrifices to achieve "big(ger) picture" success and victory.

Put another way, I don't get all of the consternation over the prospect that military and/or state security authorities are ready, willing, and able to put subordinates in harm's way for dubious and capricious reasons. It's horrific to me, but isn't that the nature of the stoic warrior-culture beast?

Posted by: Ort | Jul 4 2019 18:50 utc | 132

That spy plane should have been downed. If it really was within Iranian airspace, and not least judging by B’s assessment it was, it should have been downed no matter what. Taken down by ground-to-air missiles, by missiles fired from Iranian interceptors, by onboard cannon, it doesn’t matter. Even if the Iranians would have failed to even hit that US plane once, the gesture of taking the risk would have been crucial. There would also have been a way of getting at that plane without firing a single shot, by exposing it to massive wake turbulences from Iranian air-force craft. And if you can’t down the plane that way, at least harass it, make it desist.

It’s been pointed out many times, by B and many in the community here, that the US and its minions have basically given themselves the green light for anything short of actual warfare with regard to Iran. They don’t want an actual war, can’t afford one, wouldn’t even know how to proceed in it, yet they think they can get away with all the BS that we’ve been seeing lately. Now, why is that? Iran is down on its knees, it’s got nothing much to lose as a country. And here come the US, flying a fragile, sluggish and unarmed airframe into Iran, from a “forward operating base”. It would have been imperative for Iran to snatch it. Sun Tzu tells us that the very first objective in the art of war is not to implement one’s own strategy, let alone engage the enemy in an outright way, but to thwart the enemy’s strategy, render all his scheming useless from the get-go. So, since it’s the apparent strategy of the US to screw Iran and yet avoid a war (for so many reasons), it absolutely has to be Iran’s strategy to call the bluff and go for war recklessly, or at least give the credible impression of being of such a mind. “Good luck with those forward operating bases. Any last words?”

The same goes for that pathetic capture of the tanker in the Strait of Gibraltar. It should have rained missiles in Akrotiri and Dhekelia by now.

Posted by: Scotch Bingeinton | Jul 4 2019 19:15 utc | 133

Everyone is saying what great restraint Iran has showed. Are you kidding me?? Now the US can openly fly military aircraft over Iranian territory and Iran can not respond?

Posted by: Mike Tanner | Jul 4 2019 20:21 utc | 134

@Alexander P #2
Among other things:
1) US use of a nuclear weapon tells the entire world that nuclear weapons are needed for defense. While US policy is never known for self consistency, even the most idiotic would not be able to reconcile a nuclear bomb dropping peacekeeper with "protection of the world from nukes".
2) The use of a nuclear weapon in the Persian Gulf would impact the populations all over the area. I'm sure the Emiratis, Iraqis, Bahrainis, Omanese, and Saudis will all appreciate the measurable spike in radiation.
3) The EU has gone along with US policy on nuclear containment because of ostensible peace and stability preservation; as with 1), impossible to reconcile the actual use of a nuke with either of those aims.
4) US use of a nuke for policy purposes would negate all credibility and past agitprop regarding prevention of other nation's from acquiring nuclear weapons. Among the reasons: nukes are flying - they need their own.

Posted by: c1ue | Jul 4 2019 21:36 utc | 135

@Don Bacon #72
World War 2 bombing was basically carpet bombing.
There is no need to do so today. Modern societies - even in 3rd world nations - are heavily dependent on centralized utilities and food/fuel transport.
Take down sewer processing, water pumping, electrical stations, dams, railroads and major road junctions and let the population starve.
Take down communications: cell towers, telephone lines, major telecom PBX centers and you slow down or stop recovery efforts.
Hospitals are a net drain, which is why the Red Cross is approved of.

Posted by: c1ue | Jul 4 2019 21:43 utc | 136

@willie #101
MH370 has been pretty conclusively demonstrated to have flown in an evasion path toward Antarctica, and crashed. Including found debris in the tidal collections areas around the Indian Ocean.

Posted by: c1ue | Jul 4 2019 21:46 utc | 137

@C I eh? #90
Sadly, you either lack patience or comprehension.
Hudson is from a family of socialists/Communists, but what he talks about are the actual tactics used by modern imperialists as learned from his actual work in the belly of the beast, buttressed by decades of independent (and recognized) research.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/07/michael-hudson-discusses-the-imf-and-world-bank-partners-in-backwardness.html
>His latest interview on Naked Capitalism is an example of the quality of his work.
And the sad part is that he himself notes that what he described in "Super Imperialism" and other books - intended as education for those fighting the 1%/oligarchs/imperialists - has instead morphed into a how-to book for the wannabes.
It is the cluelessness of the masses, including apparently you, which clearly isn't contributing towards a solution.

Posted by: c1ue | Jul 4 2019 21:52 utc | 138

@14:34 utc | 115

See> "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb" (Gar Alperovitz)

Groves spoke to the purpose of the bomb privately at dinner up on the mesa in March of '44. According to the bomb project manager the purpose of the bomb was that it be used on the Soviets as an adjunct force, a threat, in order to force their obedience in post war "diplomatic relations".

Bomb test #1 was at Trinity, #2 was Hiroshima, #3 was Nagasaki...and these tests served the purpose of instructing the Soviets about who was boss. Dresden was the same sort of object lesson, as the Reads were a mere 80 klicks away... The Crossroads tests followed on to add to the threats. It worked at first, and they evacuated Iran under threat from Truman.

Of course the delayed secondary aftereffect was the Soviet bomb and an arms race.

Japan was entirely beaten and trying to surrender...read the book.

Some probably would benefit from Reading "Churchill's War" (Irving)

Get it, friend. W2 was the result of financial forces boosting the nazis into power to conquer USSR, for England to loot the continent. It was England that declared war, not Germany or USSR or anybody else - but England started the affair... Read about "the Focus" zionist and others paying Churchill to act as they wished... Winston belonged in jail by 1940....

When, after Stalingrad, the Red Army began to win it became necessary to add to German force and land on D-Day to prevent the Reds from getting to Paris...Groves was watching that with hopes he'd have the bomb to stop a commie victory...

The entire affair was to steal Eurasia from the folks what lived there.

It still is. Look on a map...

Posted by: Walter | Jul 5 2019 0:20 utc | 139

And lest we forget,,, we also have the British poodle 'commandos' boarding Iranian ships in the same 24 hour period. Took 42 of them to take a unarmed tanker.... Brave souls..... About right for the Red Coats.

Posted by: ken | Jul 5 2019 1:59 utc | 140

Did the crew know this? Or were they so dumb that they couldn't figure it out. If they did know, they must have had a Death Wish knowing their lives were to be sacrificed so Bolthead could get his WWIII and destroy all life on Earth.

Posted by: William H Warrick II | Jul 5 2019 3:34 utc | 141

@Jonathon Gillespie #13

You gotta give the Iranians credit. They're inhumanly restrained and patient.
They can afford to be restrained. They know God is on their side.

Posted by: Procopius | Jul 5 2019 11:54 utc | 142

My father was on an island in the Pacific in August, 1945. When the US dropped the first bomb they told him it was to save his life, and he believed it.
When they dropped the second one, three days later, he thought "Why was that necessary?"
If he could figure that out, sitting on an island, on August 9, 1945, why can't the rest of the US figure it out 74 years later?
Oh, wait, I know. My dad was really smart, and he had morals.

Posted by: wagelaborer | Jul 5 2019 13:35 utc | 143

The use of nukes in the ME by the US is, though not common there are precedents: Iraq, in Yemen by Israel, Syria, and Afghanistan. To use one when everyone is watching, now that's another story.

Posted by: Joseph | Jul 5 2019 15:03 utc | 144

Excerpt from Paul Williams excellent book OPERATIO GLADIO.
"Bellatrix, for example used $200 million of Its assets to purchase French made Exocet AM-39 missiles for Argentina's military junta in its struggle with England over the Falkland Islands" Bellatrix was a Vatican owned company with strong ties to the CIA and Italian mafia.

Posted by: Joseph | Jul 5 2019 16:04 utc | 145

@ William H Warrick 141

FDR did this with a reconnaissance sailboat prior to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, which he did not expect. The skipper of the sailboat, the only American on board, was going to be sacrificed to start the war. The crew of the reconnaissance plane didn't know.

But it seems to me that b's theory is absolutely correct. Trump's speech was a complete departure from his previous speeches. It was a call for national unity. It was a speech written to be delivered while the U.S. was attacking Iran.

Lang seems to believe war with Iran is inevitable. This post certainly makes that seem true. And then one has to look at Israel. Trump has succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of the most rabid member of AIPAC in turning the U.S. into the 51st state of Israel. But the war party in Israel realizes that the odds of Trump's being a one term President far exceed 50%. They will never have another Trump. The U.S must attack Iran now. And his speech proves that Trump himself is starting to believe that like GWB before him, his only chance for a second term is as a "War-Time" President.

So what will happen. An incredibly heavy, prolonged air attack on Iran, not including nukes, or only deniable nukes. And after the attack has begun to sputter for logistic reasons Iran will strike back. It will be first nation since WWII that has the expertise and the material to truly put a hurt on the U.S. This will not be a pretty picture.

Oh, and did I mention that FDR has imposed heavy sanctions on Japan prior to their attack? History is not merely rhyming.

Posted by: William Herschel | Jul 5 2019 18:50 utc | 146

@William Herschel #146
There are those who don't believe Trump can win a 2nd term, but I'm not one of them.
The somewhat more progressive Sanders could beat Trump, but another "3rd way"/Democratic National Committee candidate - i.e. the entire rest of the field - has no chance unless a recession starts literally now (and is detected in 6 months).
Even Gabbard - talks a good talk, but looking at the actual historical record reveals some disconcerting timing. Gabbard first volunteered well after the initial attacks in Afghanistan (2004), but also after it was very clear that the pretexts were false. Her second term of service was in a military police unit ... after Abu Ghraib was revealed.
Not that I'm saying she personally did anything reprehensible, but it is a little odd to volunteer to join a war which you say is wrong, and also concerning to become an MP when torture and sadism by other MP units less than 500 miles away.

Posted by: c1ue | Jul 6 2019 0:25 utc | 147

Since this is a posting/thread about the US trying to lure folks into shooting down their planes there is this short posting from Xinhuanet
"
MOSCOW, July 5 (Xinhua) -- A Russian Su-27 fighter has chased off a U.S. reconnaissance plane, which was approaching the Russian territorial waters over the Black Sea, the Russian Defense Ministry said Friday.

"The Russian jet approached an air object at a safe distance, identified it as a U.S. P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft, which immediately changed its direction of flight and moved away from the Russian border," it said in a statement.

The intercept took place close to the region where Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are carrying out naval force drills separately in the Black Sea.

In another statement on Friday, the Defense Ministry said that Russian war planes took off three times in the last seven days to prevent foreign aircraft from violating the Russian border.
"

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jul 6 2019 4:37 utc | 148

My first guess as to the "crew" of the decoy plane was that they batch of trans-gendered privates from cent-com and were told they off for R&R in Thailand.

Posted by: NOBTS | Jul 6 2019 20:47 utc | 149

ken @140

I've read that it was 30 of them from a unit with a designation that includes the number '42'.

Doesn't change your point about overwhelming force.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 6 2019 21:29 utc | 150

@ ph 148
reconnaissance aircraft, which immediately changed its direction of flight and moved away from the Russian border
If that is true, then this was truly a rare "intercept," or change in course. Usually in this type of news report, and there are many such reports, the "intercepted" plane continues on course, IOW not a true intercept, although they call it that. But in this case the plane was "approaching the Russian territorial waters" which is also unusual to begin with, since enemy planes normally follow a route parallel with territorial limits (12nm).

It makes me wonder if RDM got its facts right.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jul 6 2019 23:10 utc | 151

The crew on the US plane must have been crazy, and/or suicidal..

Posted by: Ingrid B | Jul 7 2019 3:57 utc | 152

« previous page

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Working...