Archives for category: State Terror

This book review is reproduced for my Australian readers, particularly, but is recommended for everybody. The simple fact this review is banned in Australia gives added credence to the exposé it covers; the excellent journalism of John Helmer debunking the MH-17 (state sponsored) disinformation campaign cooked up by liberal democracies in the geopolitical game demonizing Russia. Originally found at John Helmer’s site. Reproduced with permission.

*

By Evan Jones, Sydney
@bears_with

The MH17 was brought down over six years ago. John Helmer, with others, has compiled a book on the farce that has attended the pursuit of cause and culprits. Australia’s involvement is peculiarly both integral and marginal.

Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was brought down over Eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014. All 298 people on board lost their lives – including 196 Dutch, 43 Malaysians and 38 Australian.

Overseen by the Dutch, a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) was established in August 2014, formally comprising personnel from the Netherlands. Ukraine, Australia and Belgium. Malaysia itself was not admitted to the JIT until late November, reputedly because of  its scepticism towards the Ukrainian version of the cause of the shoot-down and who was responsible.

Before anybody had inspected the site, that line was that Russia and/or pro-Russian rebels against Kiev did it. The weapon was a Buk ground-to-air missile, the launcher brought in from Russia and returned after the dirty deed.

The JIT investigation and Dutch court case is effectively a Dutch-Ukrainian affair. As Helmer et.al (henceforth Helmer) note, Ukraine possesses the  ‘right as a JIT member to veto what is investigated, what is disclosed, who to convict’ (Ch.6). Belgium  (4 nationals dead) is out of picture. Australia is both inside and outside the tent.

Site material reclaimed is partial, and evidence is spotty. Ukrainian air traffic control data have not been released. However, two forms of evidence, Australian-linked, appears to be atypically decisive, at least in a negative sense.

Helmer (Ch.6): ‘Two reports by Australian coronial investigators, David Ranson, a pathologist from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM) and Iain West, deputy coroner for the state of Victoria, have revealed the cause of death of the victims, ruling out shrapnel from an exploding Buk missile warhead. The first Ranson-West report, released in November 2014, [is outlined] here. A second report, eight pages in length and written by Ranson, followed a month later. This was sent to the Victorian State Coroner, Judge Ian Gray. …

‘To date, the consensus identification of the external blast source is a point to the left of the aircraft, forward of the left wing. … The record by [Dutch pathologist George] Maat’s Australian team members at [Dutch military base] Hilversum is that no Buk detonation could have taken place without filling the bodies of passengers on the left (port), forward side of the cabin, but the evidence of the bodies shows this didn’t happen.’

The Ranson report was released to victims’ families, discussed with the Australian Federal Police, and to select others. Ranson and West also spoke on the matter at the Asia-Pacific Coroners Society Conference in Melbourne on 14 November. However the material has subsequently been classified. Why?

The sister of the Malaysian MH17 pilot went to Halversum to inspect her brother’s body. She claimed that (Ch.8) ‘she had seen a film of his body and had been told by investigators there were no shrapnel or bullet wounds’. Her response was deflected in the Dutch media.

The Abbott government was in place. Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop had a priori opinions on whodunnit (Chs.8 & 9). In early November, Abbott claimed: ‘“We were given very strong security advice [that is, from the Americans] in the days following the atrocity as to the type of weapon, as to the place from where the weapon was fired and as to the likely prominence of the weapon and there’s been nothing since then to question that original security advice.”’

Their interests ran contrary to the information that Coroner Gray had in his possession. Abbott, titular Rhodes Scholar, had trouble reconciling his will, impetuous, with the forensic evidence produced by Australian specialists.

According to former Army officer James Brown in 2016, Abbott had initially offered to send Australian troops to control the crash site. Brown is Malcolm Turnbull’s son-in-law and apparent conduit for Turnbull’s exposé of Cabinet activity. Abbott then willingly brought Australia into an American-hatched idea to send Dutch and Australian troops (of which 3,000) into Eastern Ukraine (Ch.18), with logistic support from others. Germany said it’s not on; the Dutch then said it’s unrealistic. But Abbott had the Australian military and security establishment in knots even after the potential European partners had pulled the plug.

Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister in September 2015, bringing his own brand of ambiguity to the fog. Turnbull promised the victims’ families action to find and prosecute those responsible, wanted to blame the Russians, yet was more circumspect than Abbott. Turnbull declined to issue certification as to the crash’s cause that would open the way for the Australian government to pay compensation to the families under the Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Act.

There was another source of dissidence from Australian specialists. The Dutch Safety Board, officially responsible for investigations, had quickly (with Ukrainian and American governments’ support) attributed the aircraft’s demise to a Buk missile. Yet the senior figure in the Australian contingent, the AFP’s Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghue, urged caution. Helmer notes (Ch.14), citing Donoghue before a Victorian Coroners Court hearing 15 December 2015, ‘“initial information that the aircraft was shot down by a [Buk] surface to air missile” did not meet the Australian or international standard of evidence’.

In court, the forensic pathologist repeated conclusions contained in his late 2014 reports that no ‘distinctive pre-formed’ metal fragments had been found in the two CT scans of the Australian victim bodies.

Donoghue also noted that, courtesy of secret Australian government negotiations with Novorussian leaders, his Australian team had belatedly gained access to the crash site, in the face of Ukrainian government-enforced restrictions. Donoghue reported that some potential witnesses who had come forward refused to testify unless provided protection from Kiev reprisals.

Bizarrely, Deputy Coroner West’s judgment defied the evidence before him from Donoghue and Ranson, claiming that the Dutch Safety Board had it right in determining that a Russian Buk missile had caused the MH17’s destruction. This in spite of the fact that West’s name is attached to the first Ranson report of November 2014 which (with the second December report) notes the absence of metal fragments in the bodies that a Buk missile warhead would have produced.

In March 2017, then Attorney General George Brandis delivered to Prime Minister Turnbull advice that there remains (Helmer) ‘insufficient evidence of what and who caused the MH17 crash to meet the Australian statutory test of a terrorist act’ (Ch.21). Apart from attribution of guilt to culprits, there is the necessity to prove malicious intent.

Several days previously, the Ukrainian government (Helmer) ‘had applied to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to convict Russia of financing, arming and aiding terrorist acts, including the destruction of MH17’. Australian legal opinion thus undermined the Ukrainian government’s move, as well as the Joint Investigation Team’s renewed claim in September 2016 (Ch.18) that the Russians and the Ukrainian rebels reliant on them were responsible. The Dutch and Ukrainians aren’t listening.

Yet Turnbull continued to publicly blame Russia. On 5 March, the Sydney Morning Herald reported Turnbull, in the context of a stoush with Senator Pauline Hanson, thus:

‘But Mr Turnbull said there was no doubt Russia was involved in the 2014 “murder”. “Vladimir Putin’s Russia is subject to international sanctions, to which Australia is a part, because of his conduct in shooting down the MH17 airliner in which 38 Australians were killed. Let’s not forget that,” he said. “That was a shocking international crime. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is not, and should not be, an object of admiration in any respect.”’

Turnbull was wearing two hats – one as lawyer, the other as politician.

Part Three of Helmer’s book (‘The standard of proof’) is devoted to the Dutch prosecutor’s absence of proof. Part Four is devoted to the trial of four accused individuals – three Russians and a Ukrainian – amidst disdain for the absence of proof, involving  a travesty of Dutch law itself.

The farcical character of the proceedings has been ignored in the Australian media. The  Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) is representative.

The  SMH did report (8  March 2020) the disgust of the Russian Ambassador to Australia at the lack of evidence for the ‘official’ accusations of Russian guilt.

The  SMH also gave voice to one Jerry Skinner (27  May 2018), an American lawyer, flamboyantly seeking victim family clients to sue first Malaysia then the innately evil Russians for their murderous act. Skinner claims to have ‘helped negotiate $2.7 billion from the Libyan government to compensate families  of victims of the Lockerbie air disaster’. Given that the Libyans were not responsible for this atrocity (see Helmer’s Ch.25), Skinner’s talents are evidently remarkable. Helmer deals with Skinner and his litigious law firm in Chs.16 & 23.

The bulk of  SMH coverage of the MH17 crash and the investigatory and legal aftermath has been carried by successive London-based correspondents Nick Miller  and Bevan Shields. Miller and Shields have dutifully repeated the Western correct line without deviation.

What and who to believe? The detached Australian might ask, how could Dutch authorities be engaged in skulduggery? Aren’t the Dutch a decent and progressive people?

Well not quite. As is noted of the MH17 book’s co-author: Max van der Werff, he ‘began his career as a citizen journalist investigating the torture of civilians by the Dutch colonial administration during the Indonesian war for independence’.

As legal academic  Ramses Wessels reported  in 2008, the Netherlands opportunistically abandoned its previous neutrality in joining NATO in 1949. Wessels notes: ‘During the Cold War, the Netherlands proved  to be an active and loyal member of the Alliance, which allowed for a much larger role in international affairs than its size would justify.’ Ah, punching above their weight – where have we heard that before?

The Netherlands continues its allegiance to what has become, following the fall of the Soviet Union, a transparently criminal organisation.

As for the economy, the opportunistic Netherlands has probably been the second biggest beneficiary after Germany of the European Union and its exploitative hierarchy. Not content with its perennial trade surplus, the Netherlands has turned itself into a tax  haven at the heart of the EU (documented meticulously by Gabriel Zucman), that status becoming particularly attractive to trans-border European companies (such as Airbus and Peugeot/Fiat).

In short, predictably, the Netherlands has no principles, only interests. And thus it is with the MH17 show trial.

In the meantime, the victims’ families are treated as mere pawns in a brutal revamping of the Cold War, with the post-coup Ukraine dictating terms via the seemingly respectable Dutch court system. It is a phenomenon beneath contempt. You’ll have to read Helmer et.al because you won’t read about it in the Australian MSM.

[*] This review has been banned from publication in Australia.

Left, Associate Professor Evan Jones is a retired political economist, based in Sydney. He taught at the University of Sydney from 1973 until 2006. Right, click to read the book.

This article may also be read at Fort Russ News

So, Navalny’s Soros worshiping clique is asserting he has been poisoned. Immediately a plane is dispatched from Germany to snatch his body (lingering with a bit of inconvenient life) or better said, ‘rescue’ a gravely ill man from the nefarious Russian state; invoking the ghosts of Litvinenko, Nemtsov (oops, he was shot, not poisoned), and Skripal.

What do all of the above share in common?

1) None of them were in any sense a threat to Putin or the Russian state, in short, all of them had either outlived their usefulness (Litvinenko, Skripal) or never lived up to the expectations (Nemtsov, Navalny) of the West’s propaganda machine (read manipulations by foreign intelligence agencies.)

2) All of them become more useful to the West’s propaganda machine when dead, rather than appearing increasingly impotent, or irrelevant, while alive. How? Their deaths can be blamed on EVIL PUTIN!

Now, before we delve into the unthinkable, let’s (merely for the sake of argument) all rollover and assume Navalny has been poisoned. But not necessarily by the Russian state.

What?! If you have no conscience or soul (a prime ‘talent’ for those waging clandestine warfare via assassinations on behalf of the state) or simply ‘believe’ a wrong can be made into a right (along the lines of thinking ‘Navalny will never pull a color revolution off in Russia, but if Putin ‘poisons’ him, and this helped the West, no doubt he’d understand’ (you know, the future debriefing of Navalny in a WASP/Catholic chapter of Heaven that more or less excludes the Orthodox albeit with ‘chosen’ Soros sponsored exceptions.)

To demonstrate the pure hypocrisy of the West pointing to Putin and the ‘Russian regime’ as ‘poisoners’ one need look no farther than Western intelligence agencies own enraged idiots that cannot keep their mouths shut, this ‘gem’ of an example came in the wake of the Snowden revelations:

“…a US Army Intelligence Officer stated to Buzzfeed: “I think if we had the chance, we would end it very quickly.” [USA intelligence would like to find Snowden] “Just casually walking on the streets of Moscow, coming back from buying his groceries. Going back to his flat and he is casually poked by a passerby. He thinks nothing of it at the time starts to feel a little woozy and thinks it’s a parasite from the local water. He goes home very innocently and next thing you know he dies in the shower.” [1]

Now, if perennial color revolution non-threat Navalny risks looking ultimately impotent (he’d been at it too long with too little result) and would serve the interests of empire better if suddenly dead, and indeed he had been poisoned, probably the Russian state should be the last suspect. So, if it wasn’t Putin, who was it? News for you Kira Yarmysh, Ivan Zhdanov, Leonid Volkov, Cinema for Peace, Pussy Riot and countless other manipulated  stooges, chances are that Navalny, if actually poisoned, was hit by Western intelligence for the fact he was ineffective and therefor ‘transitioned’ from a useless idiot into a useful dead idiot. That thought brings up a bit of recent news:

“A minister has revealed real James Bonds can now eliminate enemies in countries other than war zones.

“Defence minister Annabel Goldie was asked if UK agents target foes “located in non-belligerent states”

“She replied: “The Government may draw on wide a range of tools including lethal force where there is no other effective option” [2]

There you go; United Kingdom had just gone on record as authorizing its intelligence agencies to carry out assassinations in Russia (among other countries.) Meanwhile Putin doesn’t need (or want) the negative publicity of another murder falsely pinned on his ‘regime’, for ‘edification’ in these matters, check out the alternative Skripal narratives, there’s plenty of credible investigators with sites proposing and/or developing evidence refuting the official line. [3], [4], [5], [6]

News for all of you Soros wannabe color revolutionaries, if you think Bernard Émié, Alex Younger, Gina Haspel, Bruno Kahl, Yossi Cohen, or any of the rest of the Western intelligence heads, actually care so much as a rat’s ass about people like Navalny, you’re as dumb as anything has ever set foot in God’s creation. If Navalny were convertible from a color revolution useless idiot to a Western intelligence propaganda operation’s useful dead idiot, to better serve the agenda of Western intelligence, that’s exactly what he’d be, a useful dead idiot. It is not only perfectly plausible that’s what happened to Litvinenko, Skripal, and if poisoned, now Navalny, it is actually far more likely Western intelligence did it than any likelihood these morons had been hit by the Russian state.

Alexey Navalny 2017.jpg

^ the look of mental hemorrhoids 

 

[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bennyjohnson/americas-spies-want-edward-snowden-dead

[2] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/britains-real-life-007s-licence-22527547

[3] http://johnhelmer.net/

[4] https://patrickarmstrong.ca/

[5] http://www.theblogmire.com/

[6] https://gordonhahn.com/

 

This article first appeared at Fort Russ News

The Rope-a-Dope of Iran and Hezbollah

How did “hundreds of kilograms” of ammonium nitrate suddenly morph into 2,750 tons, then get reduced by 1/2, prior to rendering 1/3 of the city of Beirut uninhabitable? Oh, and who did it? We could ask BND head, Bruno Kahl, to ring up his close friend, MOSSAD boss Yossi Cohen, for a start.

But first, it only takes a moment to back the telescopic lens off of Beirut to understand what we are actually looking at is a case of Iran/Hezbollah ‘rope-a-dope’ in cold geopolitical calculation on  a march towards a very hot war. Israel (or ‘Bibi’ and friends, not all Israelis are calculating criminals) are hell bent on dragging the USA into a war with Iran prior to November elections with no promise of a Trump victory; hence the multiple acts of sabotage (provocations) throughout Iran. The Ayatollahs and Hezbollah are meanwhile, letting Israel punch and punch again, but it is hard to say if Iran and Hezbollah’s intelligence assessments ruled out an Israeli attack erasing the port of Beirut (with 1/3 of the city collateral damage.) Maybe they understood there would be nothing they could do if Israel attacked the port with an outcome of a conventional explosion packing the punch of a tactical nuclear weapon.

Recalling the moron Bush & his ‘coalition of the willing’, the Emirates and Bahrain are being sucked into alliance with Israel (the Saudis are there, if not yet on paper, where Trump/Pence election needs are employing MOSSAD’s asset Kushner to exploit the Shia/Sunni divide) and all this points at what amounts to ‘foreplay’ in the orgiastic warmongers strategy.

In short, the deliberate erasure of the port of Beirut (with the ‘unfortunate’ rendering of nearly half the city uninhabitable) was a preemptive take-down of a Hezbollah supply line, anticipating the Iran aligned front opening on Israel’s northern frontier. This is little more than a preliminary.

Relevant to this, in the Spring of 2020, with a vigorous effort of MOSSAD (years in the making), Germany outlawed Hezbollah’s political wing. Part of the Israeli endeavor had been to produce convincing evidence Hezbollah had been storing “hundreds of kilograms” of ammonium nitrate at a port warehouse in Beirut. [1]

The many hundred of tons of ammonium nitrate reduced to hundreds of kilos by MOSSAD reporting is simple ‘cover your ass’ disinformation; when the Israelis took a decision to eliminate (detonate) the explosive (and if caught), it could be claimed the vast amount was not knowledge in the hands of the saboteurs or other elements of the Israeli state ostensibly going after a Hezbollah weapons stash. The objective of severely damaging Hezbollah’s logistics by wiping the port of Beirut out of the upcoming war equation has been accomplished.

Incidental to the preceding:

Despite the reporting of 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate detonated, the blast was actually half of that according to a recent Lebanese interior minister, the other half having been “stolen” (read removed by Hezbollah) over the years. [2]

Evidence of the Israeli strike on the port is forthcoming from state sources in Israel itself. [3]

And then:

“Channel 12’s source described Bruno Kahl, chief of Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND) as “a close friend of Mossad.”” [at [1] ibid]

The intelligence agencies are “crime organizations with a license” (quoting Tamir Pardo, former director of MOSSAD) somehow exempt from all law, including, it would appear, every human rights convention. Germany’s Bruno Kahl knows what happened (was complicit in the political preparations), as well, Trump was correctly informed when he stated the Beirut blast was an “attack.”

“Iran has said the explosions should not be “politicized,” while French President Emmanuel Macron, who has assumed an outsized role in managing the fallout and on Thursday demanded an international probe, as of Sunday judged there was “enough objective evidence” to judge the double blasts as “accidental” [4]

Everyone is lying on this march towards opportunity at literal Armageddon (co-engineered by Mike Pence i.e. Trump’s apocalyptic, 90 million strong, evangelical base’s theology), where Iran dare not be seen to take the initiative in what appears to be inevitable, upcoming war, Hezbollah cannot take responsibility for its port weapons facilities (including 1,350 tons of ammonium nitrate remainder after years exfiltration of explosive), Israel cannot admit it blew the ammonium nitrate up, Germany cannot openly & honestly point its finger at the perpetrator known to the intelligence agencies (a small matter of national ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ due to certain historical factors) and Pence and his Generals no doubt told Trump to “shut up.”

And Bibi? Well…

 

[1] https://nation.com.pk/04-May-2020/germany-banned-hezbollah-on-basis-of-information-shared-by-mossad

[2] https://asiatimes.com/2020/08/lebanon-ex-interior-minister-israel-blew-up-port/

[3] https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2020/08/10/israel-hezbollah-sworn-enemies-have-vested-interest-in-lying-about-beirut-attack/

[4] https://asiatimes.com/2020/08/planes-heard-seen-in-skies-of-beirut-before-blast/

 

This article first appeared at Fort Russ News

Вирусолог Павел Волчков

^ Geneticist Pavel Volchkov

“The intelligence services of the United States and Russia are essentially at war” -Dmitri Trenin, Colonel, GRU (retired)

There is little reason to believe Covid 19 would not be subject to the intelligence agency driven propaganda wars between the Western democracies and Russia & China. For those who’ve studied the Western propaganda method, it is clear the Edward Bernays’ ideal has triumphed on behalf of corporate boardrooms. In short, ‘public relations’ (media) is suborned to the sole benefit of the capital/corporate model. Western intelligence has become heavily invested in preserving what the USA calls its ‘vital national interests’, a euphemism for Western corporate control of the world’s resources and markets. All of this plays in the model envisioned by Bernays (pervasive lying to the public while incorporating principles of psychology), refined and applied to the modern media with a robust assist from the USA’s Central Intelligence (to which the NATO and European states intelligence agencies are practically feudal vassals.) From Carl Bernstein’s “CIA and the Media” in 1977, to the more recent confession of Udo Ulfkotte in his 2014 book “Bought Journalists: How Politicians, Intelligence Agencies and High Finance Control Germany’s Mass Media”, it is demonstrated Western media has (for many decades) been taking prepared script from Central Intelligence and ‘friends.’ No matter the light Bernstein (who folded back into mainstream, Wikipedia avoids directing readers to his 1977 work) or Ulfkotte (who found his audience in the German right) might be cast in now, both parties are/were veteran mainstream media personalities and their claims are credible.

Russian propaganda (I’ve not studied the Chinese method), on the other hand, recognizes Western media is so corrupt, the Russians need only more or less stick to the facts when reporting, to convince intelligent people their news platform is the superior model and ‘go to’ source to discover what is actually happening. Where the story might have ‘inconveniences’ that must be dealt with, the preferred Russian method is to initiate what I call ‘the flip’ (related to ‘lies by omission.’) Misleading, under-reporting is the result. Time to time, this becomes a quite notable event, where the Russian propaganda method skews things along (somewhat goes along with) the Western story-line; to neutralize the demonization employed by the Western intelligence (modified Bernays) model. When the Russians run with a Western propaganda lie, in order to ‘flip’ it, it usually is a ‘whopper’ (a really big lie.) A contemporary example of this would be the Russians allowing the patently fraudulent Dutch Buk missile story to gain traction at Sputnik & RT because the Russians have solid evidence that particular missile was in the possession of Ukraine when MH 17 was downed. That the Ukrainians (independently of the MH 17 downing) exploded that missile to create false evidence and blame Russia is not a story (argument) the Russians are interested in. The Russian propaganda approach (flip) is ‘if you want to claim that missile brought down MH 17, fine, we have the original Soviet era paperwork showing Ukraine possessed it’ (never mind all parties know it was a Ukrainian Air Force SU 25 combat jet brought down the civilian passenger plane.)

With the Covid 19 epidemic, there may be emerging evidence of a similar approach; where Russia to now has more or less played along with the West’s propaganda game (and ‘flipped’ it with high profile technical & humanitarian aid, e.g. to Italy) concerning the Covid epidemic rather than open up to be overtly demonized. But now Sweden and a particular (very well accredited) Russian virologist/geneticist may have thrown a bit of a monkey wrench into the propaganda machine’s gears. Follows is the Russian online magazine Izvestia interview that goes counter to all of the hysteria we see generated elsewhere. So, what are the real facts? Will there be a second Covid 19 wave? Do people lose their Covid immunity? These are valid questions.

**

Izvestia: Based on the fact that 20% of people with antibodies to coronavirus were officially recorded in Moscow, we can safely assume that 40-60% of the capital’s residents already have immunity to it, Pavel Volchkov, head of the MIPT genomic engineering laboratory, told Izvestia in an exclusive interview. This means that there will be no second wave of morbidity in the capital, the expert is sure. In addition, the virologist shared his views on exactly how the COVID-19 pandemic began. He is leaning towards the laboratory-origin version of SARS-CoV-2.

Izvestia: Pavel Yuryevich, from your point of view, how many people in Moscow already have immunity to SARS-CoV-2?

Volchkov : Recently, an article was published by Swedish scientists who conducted a study of T-cell immunity (“Sustainable T-cell immunity in recovering patients with the asymptomatic COVID-19 course”), the results of which I personally had long been waiting for. They analyzed a large number of biological samples by conducting an expensive ELISPOT analysis (Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSpot – T-cell detection method). It turned out that even those who did not have IgG antibodies had T-cell immunity. And there are two to three times more such people in the population than those with antibodies.

Izvestia: What does it mean?

Volchkov: If in Moscow [it is] officially recorded 20% of people with high titers of IgG antibodies, then you can safely add another 20-40% to this figure. It turns out that about half of Moscow residents are immune to coronavirus. They will not get sick anymore.

Izvestia: Recently, articles appeared that showed that antibodies are lost …

Volchkov: And that’s fine. They must be lost. This always happens. There is a half-life of IgG, IgM, IgA antibodies. Their amount in the blood begins to fall six months to a year after meeting with the infection. There are so few of them that this amount cannot be detected by any test. What is the purpose of antibodies? Here the virus flew into the respiratory tract, infected a group of cells, created a small local focus (with a mild course of the disease). The immune system recognized these cells and localized them – it is like the city of Wuhan was closed in China. It turns out that a large number of antibodies do not seem to exist, but the immunity has formed and worked. However, it is concentrated in T- and B-memory cells. When the infection again is exposed to a person, the immune system recognizes it, the cells will begin to produce antibodies.

Izvestia: Does it make sense then to test for IgG antibodies?

Volchkov: It does. This test is cheap and gives us a cutoff. This cut-off now is 20%. So we can multiply this amount by two to three times. It’s hard to say the exact number, for this you need to conduct a large-scale study using expensive ELISPOT analysis, as the Swedes did.

Izvestia: Is it possible to say that the ‘herd’ immunity that everyone has been talking about for so long has already taken shape in Moscow?

Volchkov: For the multi-million population city, today’s figures in the region of 700 new infected per day indicate that it has formed. If we really had only 20% of the residents with immunity, then with open restaurants and shops, we would expect a much larger number of infected people.

Izvestia: But after all, on this figure (+700 people per day) you can maintain for a long time. Or not? What is your prediction?

Volchkov: I think this figure will now begin to decline and will reach zero at the end of August. It is clear that in the capital for a long time there will be imported cases from regions that belatedly began to ‘pick up’ the coronavirus.

Izvestia: That is, the second wave will not happen?

Volchkov: For Moscow, it is already impossible. Now people who have formed natural immunity in the capital are 40-60%. If the dynamics continues, their number will increase by the end of August to 80–90%.

Izvestia: And in other cities of Russia, the second wave is possible?

Volchkov: Only in those that are well insulated and where there is an extremely low level of infection. In big cities, definitely not. If you have already burned the grass, then the burned-out areas cannot be ignited again. Do you know how firefighters fight fire? They take and burn the front of the strip to stop the fire. This strip is our buffer immunity.

Izvestia: But what about the fact that the virus mutates and the body may simply not recognize it?

Volchkov: In any case, it does not mutate very quickly. Even the seasonal flu virus needs several years to re-infect you. And then in the event that part of its segments, and the flu has eight, will be re-sorted, that is, replaced by parts from another influenza virus. Coronavirus is single-segment – it cannot change that way.

Izvestia: But can it recombine?

Volchkov: Maybe. But this event is more rare. It must take at least a couple of years for it to be able to return and cause you some kind of pathology. And still it will not be comparable to the first time. The immune system at least somehow recognizes it, which means it [the immunity] will work. A secondary immune response will develop.

Izvestia: The war of supporters of the natural and artificial origin of the coronavirus continues on the pages of the media, on social networks and blogs. What can you say at the moment when so many articles about its structure have been published?

Volchkov: I came to the conclusion that the probability of the virus overcoming the inter-species barrier without human help [accidental eating of a bat carrier SARS-CoV-2] is significantly less than the one that it had help. By help, I mean prolonged cultivation of the virus in the laboratory, the introduction of amino acid modifications, experiments to infect human cells if possible. All this is described in the famous article of 2015 [Nature magazine, November 9, 2015]. In favor of this hypothesis is also the location of the city of Wuhan.

Izvestia: How is that in your thinking?

Volchkov: Wuhan is located in the very center of China. Bats are not found there. They live in the south, in Yunnan, on the border with Vietnam. It was there that they were caught to isolate new coronaviruses, which are now stored in the collection of the Wuhan laboratory. Although theoretically it can be assumed that they were brought thousands of kilometers to eat.

Izvestia: But it is possible?

Volchkov: Yes, perhaps. But in practice, traditional cuisine is considered traditional because its menu contains local species of animals. If the virus ‘jumped’ onto a person when it was eaten, it would be found in Yunnan, on the border with Vietnam, Laos and Myanmar. From there the epidemic would have spread.

Izvestia: Speaking about the origin of SARS-CoV-2, you can only consider probabilities?

Volchkov: I’m afraid so. In the [genome] sequence it is not written: ‘I am made synthetically.’ There are no obvious ‘donkey ears’ – traces of a genetic engineering structure. But there is a hint of it. This is the famous furin insert, about which much has already been said.

Izvestia: But could it find itself in the genome of the virus during recombination?”

Volchkov: It could. However, the likelihood of this event greatly increases, provided that you create thousands of amino acid mutations. And the fact that American and Chinese scientists did this is proved by the 2015 article. If you look at the publications of these scientific groups, it becomes clear that they are very active, have worked with these viruses for a long time. In addition, the Chinese have a large library of coronaviruses, where the most genetically close sample of RatG13 has been discovered. It was brought to the Wuhan Institute of Virology from Yunnan in 2013. For seven years, when it was cultivated, passivated, it could naturally acquire a large number of mutations. In addition, science has made great progress in this regard over the past 10 years. We live in an era of synthetic biology, when you can synthesize some parts de novo, and then ensure a seamless insertion of such a synthetic part into the genome.

Izvestia: That is, 10 years ago, you would definitely say, looking at the genome, what is inserted there?

Volchkov: Exactly. And now there are technologies of extended genetic synthesis, when thousands of nucleotides can be synthesized. You simply send the letter sequence to a special company that synthesizes it and sends it back. The possibilities are huge now. In this way, whole libraries of new coronaviruses can be generated. Suppose there are 10 million of them there. And then you can choose the most promising one from them, assemble it using the reverse genetics method and test for the ability to infect human cells.

Izvestia: That is, from your point of view, the probability that the virus has leaked from the laboratory is quite high?

Volchkov: Yes. An argument in this favor is also that coronaviruses were not considered particularly dangerous for some time. And it was possible to work with them at the second level of protection [there are four of them, the third and fourth levels, according to the American classification, are especially dangerous. – Izvestia]. Actually, this is understandable, because the initially isolated viruses could not pass from an animal to a person to overcome the inter-species barrier and, accordingly, from person to person.

Izvestia: That is exactly what was affirmed at the very beginning of the pandemic …

Volchkov: At the second level of protection, it could easily fly out and infect the scientist. And what’s important: it’s impossible to see right away. The funny thing is that the one who brought this virus out of the laboratory did not even understand that they did it. And still may not understand to now.

The original Russian language interview with geneticist Pavel Volchkov at Izvestia:

https://iz.ru/1031582/anna-urmantceva/vtoraia-volna-dlia-moskvy-uzhe-nevozmozhna

An aside: insofar as freedom of press is concerned, something so straightforward with counter-narrative as the preceding interview in what amounts to Russian ‘mainstream’ news would NEVER pass muster and go to press in the Western corporate media.

Tip of the hat to John Helmer –

Further reading:

1) https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/covid-19/

2) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/stockman-clown-cars-are-fully-loaded-and-dr-faucis-leading-parade

 

I don’t doubt Soros funds (and more) are behind fanning the flames of the USA street violence over the murder of George Floyd, there’s no doubt in my mind societal anger is cynically manipulated in what amounts to a deep state internecine war that could lead to civil war. But there is another side of this story, the story of the USA’s endemic racism. Here are three voices:

Dave Chapelle:

Glen Ford:

John Oliver:

In fact, I am not aware of any egalitarian deal inclusive of Blacks in American history other than the pirate culture where escaped slaves, both Black & White (Whites were slaves under the euphemism of ‘indentured servants’), elected their own ship captains and equally shared the spoils.

Think about it.

This article first appeared at Fort Russ News

Update: On the 3rd of June charges against Derek Chauvin were upgraded to include second degree murder.

Floyd Murder - 1

Judging from the video (enlarged screenshot, above), Derek Chauvin enjoyed the act of killing George Floyd, hands in his pockets, nonchalant, rocking his knee pinning Floyd’s neck to the pavement with near full force of his body weight. Then, Chauvin’s former ‘moonlight employer’ says in no uncertain terms Chauvin had exhibited symptoms of cowardice when on the job as security at her night club:

“He seemed afraid when there was an altercation. He always resorted to pulling out his mace and pepper spraying everyone right away, even when I felt it was unwarranted” [1]

So, Chauvin felt ‘brave’ murdering Floyd when his buddies had his back, no doubt disgusting those good cops who should break ranks and condemn in no uncertain terms the culture of cowardice behind police brutality.

Minnesota Statutes Sections 609.19 – Murder in the Second Degree and 609.195 – Murder in the Third Degree [2]

Murder in the 2nd Degree: 1) Killing a human intentionally, but without premeditation (not thinking about or preparing for before), 2) Killing a human while committing or attempting a drive-by shooting, 3) Causing someone’s death without intending the death of anyone, while committing a felony other than criminal sexual conduct or a drive-by shooting, and 4) Causing a death unintentionally, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict great physical harm on the victim when the murderer is currently restrained by a protection order (including for domestic violence, harassment, divorce, or any similar protection order) and the victim was the protected party in that order.

Third-degree murder in Minnesota is causing someone’s death by one of two ways: 1) A depraved heart or mind murder, which places others in eminent danger of death and disregarding human life and 2) unintended death by use of scheduled drugs

The penalty for Murder in the 2nd Degree is maximum 40 years. The penalty for Murder in the 3rd Degree is maximum 25 years.

Chauvin is charged with 3rd Degree murder while people are calling for 1st Degree murder charge but that apparently requires element of premeditation (a planned murder.)

How the murder charge could/should be upgraded to 2nd Degree murder and 40 years for Chauvin under Minnesota law is, interestingly…

Causing a death unintentionally, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict great physical harm on the victim when the murderer is currently restrained by a protection order (including for domestic violence, harassment, divorce, or any similar protection order) and the victim was the protected party in that order

…because once he’d been handcuffed, Floyd should have been under a DE FACTO protective order protecting his civil rights, particularly his right to life, while under arrest in police custody according to the (widely ignored) rules governing police behavior, which should be construed to constitute a permanent, general purpose protective order.

Hoping the right person sees this and passes it on to those attorneys of influence who can insist Chauvin be put away for 40 years (where the coward will live in fear for the remainder of his days.)

 

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2020/05/29/george-floyd-and-derek-chauvin-worked-at-the-same-nightclub-but-may-not-have-known-each-other-owner-says/#19150b4374d8

[2] https://statelaws.findlaw.com/minnesota-law/minnesota-second-degree-murder.html

This article may also be read at Fort Russ News

Hapsburg_Satan - 1

This Hapsburg Satan killed thousands of animals, in a single sustained rage, over several weeks, denuding a vast noble estate of all forest life

Cicily Isabel Fairfield, one of those rare social observers with penetrating insight into the hypocrisies of Western culture, speaking to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his assassin Gavrilo Princip, sums up more or less so:

The murder was absolutely to be expected simply from a perspective of social dynamics. Princip aimed his pistol from the absolute bottom of the oppressed and shot dead a principal at the apex of the oppression.

She goes into great detail, with explanation of both backgrounds, and how the archduke and Princip were production of peak and basement of the (then) existing hierarchy. Insofar as nastiness of character, violence of personality and murderous motivations, one might say the archduke was Satan himself, assassinated by a child resident drawn from an Austrian ruled Hell where his parents had been framed as criminal and confined in that domain for the simple fact of being born Serb peasants in Bosnia.

Fairfield’s observations were drawn from contemporary sources, including interviewing eyewitnesses to the last meeting of the archduke, one witness who remarkably noted the archduke practically goosestepped in circles, tweeting in reedy voice, while acting the complete idiot in taking the travel decision that got him killed. If it wasn’t absolute incompetence or an intuitive suicide, then certainly it was fate (policy) killed this Hapsburg Satan.

In the present day, Gavrilo Princip’s ‘hero’ status is largely reduced to the Serb ethnicity; the Muslim Bosniaks who were placed as overlord to Serbs under the Austrian empire see him as a “terrorist” (who’d actually displaced their privileged position), the Croats hate him for the fact he was an ethnic Serb (the pro-Catholic, pro-German, Croatian prejudice opposed to all things Orthodox) and of course ‘mainstream’ Europe’s narrative has nothing or little to say in regards to the assassination’s actual causation by Austrian policy of domestic state terror, practiced by the Hapsburgs, in relation to their subject(ed) peoples.

It followed, the several European monarchs’ demise in the wake of the first two world wars changed nothing in matters of European social habit; today’s practical royals, represented in the likes of the many tyrants or Merkels, Netanyahus and Erdogans of this world, are at the head of what amounts to de facto monarchies (so-called ‘democracies’) whose’ noble class are the large corporate stakeholders, especially the military industrial stakeholders (as it ever were.)

Today’s is merely a repackaged, old state terror model, with modern subject(ed) peoples conditioned to their serfdom as ‘consumers.’ On the backs of taxing the common people, false-flag perpetrated wars of empire go on, with the current era little different to yesteryear’s; coupled to the modern pseudo-politicians’ impunity very much a royal clone of centuries past.

If Gavrilo Princip was an assassin, he certainly was also an involuntary expression of a culture whose’ rulers engage their respective peoples in a predator-prey relationship.

It is for these reasons it would seem World War III is inevitable. The template of Western or European civilization, in and of itself, is culturally a leopard and leopards, it should be honestly said, cannot shed their spots.

 

This article also appears at Fort Russ News

This is a follow-on to the excellent reporting by Russell Bentley at Fort Russ News, as well, this author’s initial piece at Fort Russ on the subject of Flight 752.

In the downing of Flight 752 we’ll look at three kilogram verses fifteen kilogram warheads and a direct hit versus a ‘proximity’ detonation. [1], [2]

A proximity detonation is preferred over a direct hit in surface to air missile defense against hostile aircraft. [3]

The rationale behind designing anti-aircraft, surface to air missiles, for proximity detonations is simple. The initial rationale for proximity was a narrow miss in the early days. As accuracy and dependability improved, proximity fuses were often kept, in addition to impact fuse, as it had been discovered an aircraft’s air-frame can actually contain the effect of the explosive warhead, depending on the design of the aircraft and the location of impact. A modern missile guided to proximity detonation (a mere few feet away from the aircraft) is likely to inflict greater damage, more often than not, because the shrapnel from the high explosive warhead has a better chance at penetrating and damaging a wider area of the target, more readily compromising critical flight control systems (especially wing-flaps and associated hydraulics.) This is why light mobile combat systems such as the Russian Strela 10’s early and middle models (through 1988) with a three kilo warhead had both impact and proximity fuses. The Strela, proximity fused three kilogram warhead used by Iraq in Desert Storm (1991) was capable of taking down the American A-10 ‘Warthog’ (two A-10s shot down by this missile, according to the American military), one of the toughest planes to shoot down with ground-fire in modern combat (to this day.) [4]

By the era of the Stinger, very effective against Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan, missiles had become so maneuverable and accurate, the Stinger was only adapted for a proximity fuse in later (recent) development phases; to be effective against very small (difficult to direct hit) UAVs (drones.) The three kilo (average) warhead launched with a MANPAD (shoulder launched) surface to air missile, it was likely a Stinger FIM-92J (proximity fused warhead), provided by CIA to the so-called ‘moderate opposition’, is what had brought down a SU-25 in Syria:

 

As well, it may have been (likely was) a Russian made IGLA (SA-24) with a 2.5 kilo warhead brought down an AN-30 over Ukraine:

What is noticeable with the much larger AN-30 is, with the starboard (right) engine on fire after having been hit with a 2.5 kilogram MANPAD warhead, the plane is stable and keeps course as the crew is bailing out. What the crew understands is, the heat of the fire will quickly compromise the aluminum alloy of the plane’s wing structure, which should soon buckle and there will be no control. It is better to parachute out before that happens.

What we have (very briefly) looked at to now is what 3 kilo heat-seeking warheads can do to military planes, the smaller planes tend to go down more quickly, more often than not, with immediate loss of control, is the main difference. The smaller SU-25 jet’s wing mounted engines (the heat-seeking target) are more tightly integrated to the main air-frame and wing control flaps. A larger plane has a better chance at keeping control, but the control won’t last long if the plane is on fire, and fire is what happens when heat-seeking warheads hit jet engines.

Of course, bailing out with parachutes is not an option for the passengers and crew of a Boeing 737-800, a medium size passenger jet not all that much larger than the AN-30 in the (2nd, above) video.

All of the preceding would be consistent with Iran initially reporting they believed a ‘technical issue’ or engine fire was the culprit that brought down Flight 752 if they were unaware of a missile launch.

Now, the Flight 752 story begins to become problematic at many levels.

A MANPAD heat-seeking missile has small cross-section and radar signature but it does show up on radar. With its’ small signature, it might be understandable if a MANPAD  were missed or somehow interpreted as an anomaly by civilian operators of traffic control at an international airport, but that shouldn’t be the case with a larger missile. For example, a Stinger MANPAD has a missile diameter of 70mm versus 235mm diameter of the Tor m1 missile attributed to shooting down Flight 752. One should expect a Tor M1 missile(s) would have been picked up by the civilian air traffic control radar at Tehran’s international airport. So, already the Iranian story is showing a hole, when it is supposedly ascertained no one but the military knew what had happened. Over at John Helmer’s blog the (increasingly demonstrated to be false) Iranian story is set out very well. [5]

““The plane has been hit at a low altitude by a short-range missile with a small warhead and proximity fuze,” Hajizadeh reported. “It has exploded at the proximity [of the aircraft]; so the plane has found the chance to fly for a while; it hasn’t exploded in the air. After hitting the ground, it has collapsed. So no one at the [Iran Civil] Aviation Organisation knew about it, and I should defend my dear brothers there.””

This is not a particularly convincing deceit on more than one ground; on top of no explanation as to why the civil airport radar didn’t pick the missile up, there is a problem with the missile strike description. We have seen what a 3 kilogram warhead can do to aircraft already. The Tor M1 warhead is fifteen kilograms, this is NOT a small warhead (the Iranians are claiming a 7 kilo warhead but I don’t buy it and 7 kilos is still double what had brought down the AN 30.) A ‘proximity’ strike (mere feet from the aircraft with the thoroughly modern Tor system), should be devastating to a Boeing 737. By comparison, the superman of SAM systems, the S-400, uses a 24 kilo warhead in typical air defense configuration (excludes the ‘below the horizon, search and destroy’ warhead, an entirely different purposed missile.)

Then, John Helmer weighs in as this reporter is composing:

In the initial reporting from the Iranian side, we’d seen [6]

“Qassem Biniaz, an official at the Iranian Ministry of Roads and Urban Development, told state news agency IRNA that an engine caught fire and the pilot was unable to regain control” [6]

Firstly, loss of control is not the immediate effect of an engine fire, loss of control comes after the aluminum alloy structure has been compromised, this is when there will be no regaining of control, but this may actually what had been referred to.

The Western reaction:

“…the U.S. manufacturer does not believe a 3-year-old airplane that just underwent inspection days before caught on fire.

“That aside, an engine fire doesn’t rule out a missile,” the source said. “A missile strike itself could’ve caused the fire. The explanation is ridiculous and the conclusion is more than suspicious.” [7]

The Boeing ‘source’ is actually helpful, if he only knew how: a plane with an engine fire from a missile, that keeps a bit of control, is going to, nearly every time, come down from having been hit by a MANPAD.

We do know the pilot had been able to turn the plane back towards the airport, and the preceding would be consistent with both, a MANPAD strike and a lack of complete understanding of the circumstance; before the Iranians had time to line up all the possible duck configurations, discover the facts and make a decision as to how to proceed with what this author is convinced had been a MANPAD take-down of Flight 752 by a Western intelligence cell inside Iran.

It follows, ultimately Iran decided to take on a false accountability for two simple but compelling reasons; 1) the international institutions and Western press are bought little different to referees and judges can be bribed to determine a boxing match outcome & 2) Western cells operating within Iran to point of bringing down Flight 752 would be a serious black eye to the domestic perception of Iranian security, weakening the regime in the public perception. Falsely swallowing responsibility is the path of least immediate damage to the Iranian governing institution, both internally and externally.

The stupidity on the Western side in this is, yeah, you hit the ayatollahs below the belt and got away with it, but you also likely convinced them there can never be a genuine détente with Western institutions, ever.

Is something like this what happened? Lots of ‘smoke to clear’ yet in emerging picture but the entire business just goes on smelling wrong –

“It is sometimes very hard to tell the difference between history and the smell of skunk” -Cicily Isabel Fairfield

 

1 https://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_american_missile_system_vehicle_uk/stinger_fim-92_fim-92a_man_portable_air_defense_missile_system_manpads_technical_data_sheet_picture.html

2 https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_missile_system_vehicle_uk/tor-m1_9a331_sa-15_gauntlet_technical_data_sheet_specifications_information_description_pictures_uk.html

3 Author’s training at the USA Air Defense Artillery School, Ft Bliss

4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10#Combat_use

5 Flight 752 discussion begins about 1/2 way into Helmer’s article: http://johnhelmer.net/the-fog-of-war-gorilla-radio-discusses-the-russian-focus/

6 https://www.businessinsider.com/iran-ukraine-plane-crash-flight-752-timeline-unfolded-events-allegations-2020-1

7 https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/us/2020/01/09/pentagon-increasingly-suspects-uia-flight-752-was-shot-down-by-sa-15-tor-missile-system/

Also see:

8 https://www.fort-russ.com/2020/01/how-was-a-recording-made-iran-ukraine-the-shootdown-of-uia-752/

9 https://www.fort-russ.com/2020/01/texas-iranian-flight-crash-facts-not-adding-up/

This article first appeared at Fort Russ News

11 January update: The Iranian military has released a statement (English version) claiming responsibility, but point 3 is patent BS:

“3- Under such sensitive and critical circumstances, the Ukrainian airline’s Flight PS752 took off from Imam Khomeini Airport, and when turning around, it approached a sensitive military site of the IRGC, taking the shape and altitude of a hostile target. In such conditions, due to human error and in an unintentional move, the airplane was hit [by the Air Defence], which caused the martyrdom of a number of our compatriots and the deaths of several foreign nationals”

That’s just not a tenable position unless the SAM operators (crew, not one individual, the launch officer should have not only input from the screen operator, but should oversee the radar tracking, looking at all indicators himself) PANICKED and launched on what could only morph into the “shape and altitude of a hostile target” in the radar crew’s fantasy. This aspect of the explanation  does not convince, it ignores too many indicators this was a civilian flight. Is taking responsibility for the shootdown the least damaging (to the Iran security establishment’s domestic reputation) means of laying the issue to rest? Iran’s explanation leaves some loose threads hanging, not least an Iranian shootdown would have been reported immediately via chain of command to leadership; which should bring the initial denials under close scrutiny. In such any case, rather there should have been a non-committal ‘let’s see what the investigation determines.’

My thanks to Russell Bentley, for the timely heads up in the comments at Fort Russ.

*

manpad - 1

So, the  Canadians (Justin Trudeau, a midget political caricature in the shadow of his father) have ‘intelligence’ showing Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 had been ‘inadvertently’ shot down by the Iranians. Meanwhile the New York Times has come into possession of a video, they had time to have professionally analyzed, showing UIA 752 had been struck by missile. Newsweek reports Ukrainian intelligence has identified fragments of a Tor M1 surface to air missile circulating on social media, ostensibly found in a Tehran suburb. The Tor M1 is a Russian built short range surface to air missile Iran possesses and plainly expected to be on high alert (launch ready) at the time of UIA 752’s departure from Tehran, due to Iran’s strike on the USA bases in Iraq.

So far, so frog, all is consistent with a ‘fog of war’ scenario where the Iranian forces had brought down the civilian jet. But wait a minute.

The first red flag is how quickly all of this was put together for Western media. It was simply too fast.

The second red flag is the video itself. Why, would anyone be recording an empty night sky that does not show flight 752 (at a distance, invisible in the dark) except they would be expecting to see something, and wellah, a missile appears to come from the left of the otherwise empty sky and boom! .. lights up the night sky with a strike on the (otherwise invisible) civilian liner. That kind of stinks, particularly since the otherwise pointless (clearly a psychic compelled someone to film an empty night sky) video immediately ends up in the hands of Western media.

Third, unlike the Ukrainians, the Iranian military is not populated with demoralized, undisciplined drunks who shoot down civilian liners with SAM systems (such as the face-saving device offered to the Western states by Russia, for Ukraine actually having shot down MH 17 with a combat jet.) The Iranians are a highly professional, motivated, well trained caliber of military with a high state of self discipline.

The thoroughly modern Tor M1 system would, via IFF (Identification, Friend or foe), the civilian jet’s transponder, speed, trajectory and flight path, clearly identify Flight 752 as a civilian flight departing Tehran. What’s more is, any radar tracking an actual hostile target would have seen its approach originating from outside a circumference surrounding Tehran. By the time the civilian plane had been turning, its’ point of origin should have already been established within this circumference, i.e. the international airport.

The odd fact as yet unexplained; why UIA 752’s departure time coincided with Iran’s missile launch on the American bases? A priority given to the passengers getting out of Iran with the possibility of escalating tit for tat exchange? And why, other than flight crew, why were there practically no Ukrainians on UIA 752 to Kiev? That seems out of ordinary as well. Was this somehow promoted as an evacuation flight?

Throw into the mix of this the several experts indicating Iran had signaled to the USA the time and targets of the Iranian missiles launch on the American bases in Iraq, to minimalize escalation, and you have all of the necessary elements for a Western intelligence cell in Iran to prepare for recording itself bringing down the Ukrainian flight with a manpad (shoulder launched surface to air missile.) Insofar as producing Tor M1 fragments, this system is widespread across the geopolitical spectrum, even NATO  states possess this system, example given is Greece. Planting these pieces (whether in a Tehran suburb or elsewhere mimicking a Tehran location) to be promptly spread on social media (where military and intelligence agencies maintain thousands of fake profiles), you can pin the fault on the Iranians. This sends a message ‘we can strike inside Iran’ and, as well, causes Iran civil aviation problems on the world stage.

Is this what actually happened? It would explain the Iranians immediate denials, as simple as their launch systems people would probably (and likely truthfully) report no Tor M1 had been fired.

War crimes are nothing new in regards to the West directed at Iran, after all, the cynical inside joke at Department of State over the 2003 rationale for invading Iraq was, ‘yeah, we know they have chemical weapons, we gave them to Saddam to use on Iran.’

Of course this is entirely speculation, the case could go either way and we shall see what happens with the already argued over investigative efforts… but in my opinion the Western media presentation smells bad, the picture emerged too quickly, too conveniently.

11 January (2nd update) in the comments at Ft Russ, Russell Bentley has this to say:

“You know, something still smells fishy about this. In my research yesterday, I discovered the SA-15 actually has two targeting systems – Radar and TV. The TV is a visual system, all weather, day/night, NV/IR, with first class optics and a 20 Km range. The radar has a 25 Km range, but the missiles have a 15 Km range, max. So if they could hit it, they HAD to be able to see it. And as you said, the SA-15’s were part of an integrated system, and would have known that a sudden appearance of a blip on the screen without prior warning from longer range systems located closer to the border would have required double checking. And your point about turning – as I understand, it did not turn until after it was hit by the first missile. (And BTW, it appears to have been hit by TWO missiles, while it was going 316 MPH at an altitude of less than 8,000 feet, well within range of Strela, Igla, Stinger, Polish Grom and British Starstreak MANPADS.) It’s original flight path, towards Parand, is 180 degrees away from the Aria military airfield, and 90 degrees away from Tehran. In fact, the flight path would have been very similar to what Iranian AF jets would have taken if they were going to intercept incoming enemy aircraft from Iraq, so it is really hardly believable that an outgoing 737 could be mistaken for an incoming “bogey”. Particularly when you consider the IRGCAF’s (utterly non-existent) reputation for “panic and incompetence””

My Reply:

“It is entirely feasible the Iranians decided to falsely swallow responsibility as the easiest means of deflecting the several possibilities for complications, both external & internal. As a matter of fact, I actually think that’s what Saudi Arabia ultimately decided to do in the case of Jamal Khashoggi. S**t is flung in deeply devious ways in geopolitics, it comes with the territory (in a severely messed up world.)”

 

Suleimani - 1

Was Soleimani an enemy of Americans? Without question, this was the case. But who created him? How did Soleimani become an enemy of the USA? Plain and simple, American policy is squarely to blame.

In short, it was 1953 when the CIA overthrew the democratic government of Iran and converted Shah Reza Pahlavi into an absolute monarch who promptly morphed into a brutal dictator infamous for the widespread torture & executions of his own people. The Shah’s new secret police (created in 1956), SAVAK, trained in kidnapping, torture and disappearing people by CIA, MI6 & MOSSAD, crudely propped up this iteration of Iranian ‘governance’ with domestic state terror to 1979.

By this time, Iranian people across widely divergent political paths had been long united in determination to be rid of both; the Shah and the foreign influence that had propped up his murderous rule for 25 years, leading to capture of the USA embassy by the Iranian student movement.

As it happens, the dust settled after the revolution of 1979 and it was the conservative ayatollahs came out on top and a theocratic republic had been established in Iran. Since, this Islamic republic has zealously refused the influence of the USA and Israel’s regional hegemony (Britain had faded from this equation as a major player but that could change.)

Who could blame the Iranians? There has been nothing short of ongoing decades hostility directed at Iran, resulting in an Iranian patriotism devoted to a sincere antipathy to Zionism, whether that of Israel’s “Yinon Plan” or the necrotic-apocalyptic Christian Zionism of the USA that is backing habitual Israeli regional-geopolitical misdemeanors; up to and inclusive of USA support for Israeli assassination of Iranian scientists in recent times, generating support for the ayatollahs across Iranian society.

Soleimani was brilliant at undermining USA/Israeli interests in Syria, Lebanon & Iraq. There is little doubt his efforts have helped the Houthis versus the Saudis in Yemen. He was also key in organizing the main effort which led to defeating the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (it were never a black & white world.) No doubt he would have seen Iran’s enemy al-Qaida (and its’ spinoff Islamic State) as a USA production and not without reason; al-Qaida was born out of the USA arming the Mujahideen against the Soviets in 1980s Afghanistan. This all goes to the Iranian understanding (context) of American-Israeli duplicity when the Americans and Israelis were arming both sides in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s (Iran-Contra) so both parties might better tear themselves to pieces.

Iran has little reason to be grateful to the USA in both; practical and historical terms. From an Iranian national point of view, Iran has every reason to be more than suspicious of any regional acts of the Americans, in practical terms creating perception leading to policy where Iranian national self preservation demands a hostile demeanor towards the USA.

Will the assassination of Suleimani change any of this? In terms of Iranian policy, no, it only reinforces the preceding. In terms of brilliance applied by the Iranians towards their perceived enemies, it could go either way; removing Suleimani might open to lesser or greater minds taking up his assigned duties. In terms of practical application of violence, likely yes, the Americans just opened themselves to the assassination of their own in what should have been off-limits territories: the international airports of this world. This last is consistent with the (as old as Rome) rule of reciprocity in the international common law. This was an overt act of war.

The assassination of Qassem Alì Soleimani was a tremendous blunder that is entirely at odds with Trump’s protestations he does not want war with Iran. But the assassination is entirely consistent with the apocalyptic (Fellowship) cult behind Mike Pence and the leadership at the Pentagon.

I’m no fan of Iran’s ayatollahs but there should be a genuflection to the facts: American policies create America’s enemies and Iran is no exception, rather this act is example of the American empire’s hubris.

 

%d bloggers like this: