Iran and friends

It's nice to see someone trying to be reasonable.

There are plenty of documented mistakes of military shooting down civilian aircraft.

Even the US has done it.

If Iran wanted to make someone disappear, it would have been much easier, and less conspicuous, and less controversial to take care of that on the ground - as they have many times before.

The US has even lost some nuclear bombs! But, two rockets not likely a mistake. It's easy to make someone disappear but,
1) If the person is a known VIP everyone will wonder what happened when they disappear=that will create a political backlash
2) If the person is from, or has been residing, outside the country then the problem in #1 is compounded
3) a plane crash gives plausible deniability
4) a plane appearing to be shot down by a US retaliatory strike even helps pass the buck,

Ok.

Let's use logic:

Please provide a logical reason why Iran would purposefully shoot down a civilian Ukrainian airliner with 176 civilians on board.

Please be as specific as possible and explain exactly what they thought they would gain... what was their goal.

See post #123

I did.

It reads:
"The US has even lost some nuclear bombs! But, two rockets not likely a mistake. It's easy to make someone disappear but,
1) If the person is a known VIP everyone will wonder what happened when they disappear=that will create a political backlash
2) If the person is from, or has been residing, outside the country then the problem in #1 is compounded
3) a plane crash gives plausible deniability
4) a plane appearing to be shot down by a US retaliatory strike even helps pass the buck,"

HOWEVER it does NOT provide any logical reason, purpose nor goal for Iran to shoot down a civilian air craft.

Let's break your statement down:

> "The US has even lost some nuclear bombs! <<< This statement suggests a mistake not something done on purpose.

> But, two rockets not likely a mistake. <<< This statement suggests that USA can make a mistake (lose nukes), but Iran cannot shoot missiles by mistake. That is an illogical assumption.

> It's easy to make someone disappear but, <<< This isn't what happened so is Irrelevant

> 1) If the person is a known VIP everyone will wonder what happened when they disappear=that will create a political backlash <<< This isn't what happened and has nothing to do with whether or not Iran did it on purpose or by mistake so is Irrelevant...

> 2) If the person is from, or has been residing, outside the country then the problem in #1 is compounded <<< This isn't what happened and has nothing to do with whether or not Iran did it on purpose or by mistake so is irrelevant

> 3) a plane crash gives plausible deniability <<< This isn't what happened and has nothing to do with whether or not Iran did it on purpose or by mistake so is irrelevant.

> 4) a plane appearing to be shot down by a US retaliatory strike even helps pass the buck," <<< This didn't happen (the plane was shot down by Iran not the USA and there was never a suggestion otherwise) so it is also irrelevant.

It seems that you want to claim that you are engaging in a Plato/Socrates like discussion using logic, but that you don't really want to actually use any logical.

Obviously the first statement was a reply to Mrmhead's post, and has nothing to do with the incident.

Accidentally firing one missile is more believable than accidentally firing two missiles, it means two mistakes were made at the same time or the order to fire was actually given by a commander controlling both missile sites.

The plane was hit during ascent, not descent, therefore mistaking it for an incoming cruise missile is unlikely

There were 19 planes that took off after the attacks by Iran on the airbases, so why THAT particular plane.

If there was a student protest leader on it we in the west have not been told BUT
https://abcnews.go.com/International/iran-protests-downed-ukrainian-plane-turn-violent-trump/story?id=68245797

All the statements 1-4 are exactly correct. You cannot say they are incorrect simply because no one from the CIA called you personally and said there was or wasn't a VIP on the plane. We simply do not know yet.

It would appear to me they hoped to blame the US for the strike. The plane they shot down was from the Ukraine. The plane was shot down soon after the airstrikes. Even after it came out they ( Iran ) shot down the plane they still tried to blame it on US adventurism. So, though a failed attempt and a big bungle if I'm correct, saying their intention may have been to blame it on the US is not incorrect.

Your description of events was exactly correct... Really? EXACTLY. Not a possibility... not a theory... not a guess... exactly correct.

So you are saying that you know someone in the CIA who told you that:

>>> A specific known person who is a VIP who's is from, or has been residing, outside some country (Iran? USA? Canada? Some other country?) was in a plane crash which gave plausible deniability to someone (Iran?) and the plan was designed to look like the a plane had been shot down by USA as a retaliatory strike. <<<




You really need to start writing Sci-Fi stories.

So, since we're going to fill this thread, or at least CHASKI is going to fill this thread. with elongated pointless posts in order to detract from the topic. Let us take each statement one at a time.

In reference to a possible student protest leader from Iran;
1) "If the person is a known VIP everyone will wonder what happened when they disappear=that will create a political backlash"

Tell us what is wrong with that statement Chaski

Which passenger on the Ukrainian airliner was a known VIP?

Often times they highlight notable victims of a tragedy.


BBC a few days ago: A list of passengers was released by the airline, but the BBC is awaiting confirmation from people known to the victims.
They go on to mention some of the victims from Canada

BBC

If you want to prove your point, you can probably find the list and then lookup each passenger, and then provide the name of the VIP.
But even a that wouldn't prove that that flight was purposely targeted.

You might find such information on InfoWars or AboveTopSecret.

Prefaces to questions:

> Since the 1970's Iran has arrested in excess of 150 people from the USA, UK, Canada,Australia, Lebanon, France, Germany, Austria, Russia, Holland, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Armenia, South Africa....

> Many of these people were charged (more or less) with spying.

> That is, Iran is not shy of arresting people...

> There have also been reports of Iranian conducted (or supported) assassinations.

> Iran doesn't seem to care if they cause international incidents.

This leads to the following question?:

Why would Iran shy away from arresting a "VIP" and accusing him/her of spying?
Why would Iran all of a sudden shy away from assassinating someone they don't like?
Why would Iran purposefully shoot down a civilian airliner full of Canadian and/or Iranian citizens, when it would be easier to arrest or assassinate a single individual (aka a VIP)?

That is... Why would Iran all of a sudden shy away from pissing off the international community by arresting or killing someone, when for the last 40 years it has been their standard operations procedure?

The statement as given is not a proof there was a VIP on board. We don't know if there was one or not. The statement is simply that; a statement. This statement could apply to any given number of scenarios. SO, the question to you is, what do you find wrong with the following statement.

In reference to a possible protest leader from Iran disappearing
If the person is a known VIP everyone will wonder what happened when they disappear=that will create a political backlash

So there may or may not have been a VIP on the flight >>> Therefore Iran did it on purpose.