Reporters push State Department for evidence of Russian ‘false flag’ plan

most Wikipedia articles have sources, and sources are proof

 

Look at what?.....no links?

Projecting again?

 

Ronstar, If the links do not lead to official documents, but to false and custom articles, then this is not proof.
zoom_copter66, there is a link - look carefully.

 

false, in your mind only

 

The trouble is that revealing the evidence gives away too much about how we know. What do you want the State Department to do? Show an email? Play a recorded phone call? Show some video recorded by a spy in the KGB? Reveal that we are using some kind of new spying technology?

We are not going to do that.

 

I understand why the US government would release this information if they had it. Why do you think they invented it?

 

Yes I did. The reporter also said he was waiting on those WMDs in Iraq but the flustered Ned kept trying to talk over him.

Ned said the supposed evidence was now "declassified". When asked for evidence, he said I just told you what it is! Phony allegations are now enough evidence to start wars according to the State Department. Iraq = fake WMDs. Syria = fake chemical attacks. Ukraine is next.

 

The West pressured The Czechoslovakia to surrender the Sudetenland. The Czechs did not need foreign troops to defend it.

Compare this to the West pressuring Ukraine to surrender its nukes - the die has been cast. Ukrainians will have to defend their borders or choose not to.

 

"Highly Likely" - exhaustive evidence in the XXI century. Others are not required. If your people believe in it, but they can hang any noodles on their ears.

 

We're not going to show any evidence because your beloved government doesn't have it. It's fake news at the highest level.

How about some cell phone video of this supposed staged event? You do realize it would have to be done in the Donbass, either in Donetsk or Lugansk to have any credibility. In public places. People in the Donbass have cell phones. They have access to Youtube, etc. You don't think something of this magnitude would create a scene that someone would record? As President Potato Brain would say, "Come on Man".

It's fake bullshit.

 

You have no idea if it’s fake bs or not, but you’re welcome to your opinion.

 

no one knows if it's fake or not. But even if it is a fake, the consequences will be like the real one.

 

It's pushing for war when the information is coming from known liars. Serbia and Iraq come to mind.

Today there are protests going on all over the US by those who are against a war with Russia. I betcha our controlled media won't report any of it.

Your fix is not a fix, because it lacks the rhythm which I consider a perquisite.

Because what you're posting doesn't conform to his agenda.

Yeah, kind of like the Germans that turned against their Nazi government. Sad, really sad.

Especially in Syria with the false flag chemical attacks. A worrisome sign were the British agents which headed to Ukraine 2 months ago. They're specialists at it - in the same way the Ukrainians specialize in assassinations.

The land you're speaking of has been inhabited by those Russian separatists for 2 thousand years. Seems more like a land grab by the Nazi descendants of the same people who stole the Polish lands by killing them off.




I'll say what I want whenever I want,
no matter how stupid I sound.

Because I believe
there'll always be fools around.

Who'll take the absurd
and thus my word,
ridiculous as it may be.

And never think that maybe it's time
they started to question me.

- Jeannette

​

 

I don't know either - it hasn't hit our info-sphere yet. Can I get a reference link from you?
P.S.In Russia, there are no rallies at all: neither for the war, nor against the war. This issue is not even on the agenda and we must try to find out something on this issue. Foreign media give more information occasions.

 

Btw, which government is your government? Just curious.

 

Haven't the neo liberal/cons been pushing for a war between Russia and Ukraine all along? They know of course it won't happen, unless the Kiev junta starts their genocidal attack on the Russians in the Donbas. So what are they waiting for?

I mean they can always say that the Russians are killing their own people to make Ukraine look bad. Wasn't that what they were saying a few years back?

​

We're here, we're there

we're everywhere,​

no matter what the area.

We never shirk to do our work,

to further our criteria ​

We lie, we cheat, we play the game,

and flip it saying you're to blame;​

that it's not us, it's what you do

for lying isn't me, it's you.

- Jeannette


​

 

One can ask you the same question. I'm quite old and was born, raised and lived in the US all my life, so what country exactly is your country? Your mentality is no more that of the American people than that of the neo liberal/cons in Washington?

 

The State of Texas. You can have the Feds.

So you tell me, why would the Russians have to fake anything when there's plenty of real evidence of genocide? I dare you to click this link, you may see some truth for a change: (you've been warned)

https://images.says.com/uploads/story_source/source_image/373028/bb4a.jpg

https://www-62-ua.translate.goog/ne...tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

(Note the original video was scrubbed by Youtube)

 

Bill Carson... твою мать! Предупреждать надо. Моя нежная психика не готова к такому.

 

It’s morning here on the west coast of the US, so I bid you “Good evening, Comrade Jeanette!”

 

Ukies specialize in assassinations?

Gee...I wonder where they learned that from....could be three things....KGB?

There's no Russian separatists.....or any kind of separatists....it's all drivel....everyone knows it.

 

Your false premise is that the Russians need a video for anything. They don't.

You're confused. A False Flag is a pretext for an action to be taken.

Again, Russia doesn't need a video of anything to do anything they want.

 

The reason why the Russians might want to fake an attack by Ukraine is to create a facade of legitimacy for their own planned aggression. That’s what a false flag attack is for.

There is no rational reason why the Ukrainian government would want to conduct an attack or provocation while there are 100,000 combat ready Russian troops positioned just across the border. So the only way the Russians can say they are responding to an attack is to create it themselves.

Apparently, a decision was reached in the US government to reveal this Russian planning to undercut the propaganda before the Russians have a chance to put it out publicly.

I think this is logical.

The US and Russia have a long history of using intelligence information against each other. They both do it all the time. It’s just that most of the time this is all done quietly, out of the public eye. This was one of the exceptions.

I love Texas.

 

That is nothing but Kremlin propaganda.

 

You're sadly mistaken.

The people who pen Puki articles are not necessarily experts or even knowledgeable about the subject matter on which they are writing and one should never assume they are. Case in point, this is a great example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_74

The Task force was to be headed by USS Enterprise, at the time and still the largest aircraft carrier in the world. In addition, it consisted of amphibious assault carrier USS Tripoli (LPH-10), carrying a 200 strong Marine battalion and twenty five assault helicopters; The three guided missile escorts USS King (DDG-41), USS Decatur (DDG-31), and USS Parsons (DDG-33); four gun destroyers USS Bausell (DD-845), USS Orleck (DD-886), USS McKean (DD-784) and USS Anderson; one ammo ship USS Haleakala (AE-25);one auxiliary fleet supply ship from Subic Bay Naval Base in the Philippines USS White Plains (AFS-4), who loaded over 60 Tons of Mail and Christmas Packages for the Task Force before leaving Subic Bay to join Task Force 74 on 19 December and a nuclear attack submarine.[22] The Enterprise was assigned by the Central authority, while the other ships were assigned by local commanders.[23] Enterprise was at this time at the Tonkin Gulf area. Recovering her airborne aircraft and transferring personnel who were required to stay to the USS Constellation (CVA-64), she prepared to head off. The task force was delayed while the support ships refueled, it held off East of Singapore, and was ordered into the Indian ocean on 14 December.[23] crossed Malacca straits on the nights of 13–14 December and entered the Bay of Bengal on the morning of 15 December.[22] The group was required to proceed slowly, averaging a speed of 15 knots, both to conserve fuel as well as to allow advance information on its heading.

The writer of that article is not an expert, has no understanding of the subject matter, and is totally clueless, having no idea what s/he's talking about, and worse, made numerous false statements.

On the other hand, I am an expert on Southwest Asia and in particular on the 1971 Pakistani-Indian War.

Do you want to know which Indian units rolled which Pakistani units? Or do you just want the names of the commanders for those units? Because I know them. I can also tell you the names of ~90% of the Soviet army officers who commanded the Group of Soviet Forces Germany, including the Northern, Central and Southern Fronts, plus the all the combined arms armies and tank armies down to battalion level in 1989. While I did have access to classified documents which may or may not still be classified, there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for the author of that article to outright lie and spread propaganda, disinformation and misinformation.

In 1971, a Marine company was 197 men, while a Marine battalion was 940 men. Irrefutable proof the author is totally clueless and did no research on the subject matter.

Task Force 74 consisted of:
USS Enterprise (CVA-65)
USS Tripoli (LPH-10)
USS Decatur (DDG-31)
USS Parsons (DDG-33)
USS McKean (DD-784)
USS Richard B Anderson (DD-786)
USS Orleck (DD-886)
USS John King (DDG-3)
USS Waddell (DDG-24)
USS Wichita (AOR-1)
USS Kilauea (AE-26)
USS Gurnard (SSN-662)
USS Bluefish (SSN-675)

Contrary to the author's claim, there were 2, not 3 "guided missile escorts" (USS Decatur and USS Parsons).

Both were Decatur-class and the so-called "guided missile" (snicker) was the RIM-24 Tartar surface-to-air missile system, which had a range of 20 nautical miles (later replaced by the RIM-66 surface-to-air missile system). They were effectively anti-aircraft platforms.

The author totally botched the USS Anderson (DD-441). It was decommissioned and then sold as scrap metal in 1971, so it couldn't be part of the task force.

The ignorant author misidentified the ship, which was actually the USS Richard B Anderson, two totally different ships, so how stupid and incompetent is the author not to know that?

The USS McKean, USS Richard B Anderson, and USS Orleck were all Gearing-class destroyers. Their primary function is surface vessel screening.

The USS Bausell was not part of the task force in spite of the author's claims.

The idiot author is confused between the USS King and the USS John King which are two totally different ships. Yeah, there's a reason why ships are numbered and how dumb is the author not to know that?

The author is so ill-informed on the subject matter, that he omits the USS Waddell. The USS Waddell and USS John King were both Charles F Adams-class destroyers, and while they were designated as "guided missile" destroyers (snicker), the only guided missile they carried was the ASROC for anti-submarine warfare. Both ships were basically anti-sub platforms.

The author confuses the USS Haleakala with the USS Kilauea and completely omits the USS Wichita and the attack submarines USS Bluefish and USS Gurnard.

Again, contrary to the author's claims, cruising at 15 knots does not conserve fuel, and the task force knew exactly where they were headed, which was up the Indian west coast to the Pakistani port at Karachi.

The Task Force did initially cruise at very slow speeds, as slow as 5 knots, but that was due to the fact that the US Navy did not have accurate maps of the Straits of Malacca -- remember, this is 1971 -- and due to the fact that there is an extremely high volume of merchant vessel traffic in the Strait. At the time, there were also a large number of recently built oil rig platforms that weren't marked on any maps. The Task Force did not want to ground any ships, and it did not want to collide with any merchant vessels, and it did not want to run into an oil platform, and that was especially true during night-time operations when visibility is reduced and surface radar is cluttered.

The logs of the USS Enterprise have been published on the internet for more than a decade. Rear Admiral Cooper states: Further navigational hazards “flourishing in the waters surrounding and between” the six straits and passages–Singapore, Malacca, Sunda, Gaspar, San Bernadino and Palawan–transited during this WestPac deployment included oil rigs, many not noted on charts. In addition, navigation lights were often erroneously marked on charts or missing altogether, small unlighted vessels also becoming quite numerous. “Extreme vigilance at night in these waters,” Captain Tissot advised, “is mandatory.”

And, why, yes, those are verbatim quotes by Cooper and Tissot.That's why Task Force 74 proceeded slowly, and not to conserve fuel or because they didn't have a mission as the author falsely claims.

The US Task Force 74 was a US Navy task force of the United States Seventh Fleet that was deployed to the Bay of Bengal by Nixon administration in December 1971, at the height of the Bangladesh War of Independence. Led by the Aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, the deployment of the task force was seen as a show of force by USA in support of Pakistan, and was claimed by India as an indication of US "tilt" towards Pakistan at a time that Bangladesh guerilla forces were close to capturing Dhaka.The Task Force number is now used by the Seventh Fleet's Submarine Force.

Task Force 74 was not an existing US Navy task force. It was created specifically for that situation by pulling the USS Enterprise away from her duties in the Gulf of Tonkin and combining her with DESRON 31 based in the Philippines (Destroyer Squadron 31), plus culling other ships from other units to throw it together.

The Indians were not the only ones to see it as a Show of Force. Had the author been competent and knowledgeable in the subject matter, he would have included the fact that Canadian High Commissioner George and many other European leaders also saw it as a Show of Force (See Document 501 State Department Telegram dated December 7, 1971).

The US recognized East Pakistan and maintained diplomatic relations. It had no interest in the outcome of the conflict. Document 501 State Department Telegram dated December 7, 1971 and India-Pakistan Working Group documents make it crystal clear that the Task Force deployed in support of West Pakistan President Yahya, not East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).

The Task Force was never deployed to the Bay of Bengal, and the Task Force never entered the Bay of Bengal, because that was not the mission of the Task Force.

With intelligence reports indicating the Indian cabinet was discussing the scopes of offensive into West Pakistan, on 10 December, the decision was taken by US to assemble a task force at Malacca strait, spearheaded by USS Enterprise.

That is factually incorrect.

The US assembled Task Force 74 on December 2nd, not December 10th, and the US announced it on December 5th, five days before the idiot author claims.

Here’s an excerpt from a cable sent by the US Ambassador to India on December 8th:

Subject: deployment carrier task force in indian [sic] ocean
1. Up until last few days I have felt able to defend U.S. policy on the basis of our over-riding concern to bring a halt to hostilities. I am now troubled by fact that a number of my diplomatic colleagues view deployment of carrier task force as military escalation by U.S.
2. this [sic] was forcefully brought to my attention by Canadian High Commissioner George who believes that our decision to deploy carrier task force at this time has served as encouragement to president yahya [sic] to continue pak [sic] military effort. In this regard George believes Yahya’s disavowal of initial farman ali [sic] message and subsequent message from governer malik [sic] was directly related to word of carrier task force deployment.

Not only does it prove the author is wrong about when the Task Force was assigned, the cable contradicts the author's claims that the Task Force was sent in support of East Pakistan.

The author is also totally ignorant of Soviet involvement. The author gets it wrong when he says Soviet ships came from Vladivostok.

INDRON 10 was already in the Bay of Bengal, led by the Varyag (Kynda-class), Dimitriy Pozharskiy (Sverdlov-class), Vladivostok (Kresta I-class), Admiral Isakov (Kara II-class), Odarenny and Sposobny (Kashin I-class), Neuderzhimy (Kildin-class), and the Veskiy, Vdokhnovenny and Burlivyy (Kotlin-class).

INDRON 12 was in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Mumbai (Bombay), led by the Admiral Fokin (Kynda-class), Alexandr Suvorov (Sverdlov-class), Sevastopl (Kresta I-class), Otvazhny and Strogiy (Kashin I-class), Svirepy (Krivak I-class) and the Vliyatelnyy, Blagorodnyy, Naporistiy and Vyderzhannnyy (all Kotlin-class).

Each surface group was accompanied by two Echo-class submarines each with 6 Shaddock surface-to-surface anti-ship missiles and at least one Victor- or November-class attack submarine. The author is too damn stupid to know that.

Granted, I had access to classified information, so I know the exact composition of Soviet naval forces (but not submarine forces), but damn, newspapers around the world published the names of the Soviet Kynda- and Sverdlov-class ships. That just goes to show you how poorly researched and written many Pukipedia articles are, and why you cannot rely on them. I can show you thousands and thousands of false or flawed Puki articles.

To avoid confusion, I should point out that INDRON is the US designation for Soviet surface groups operating in the Indian Ocean Region. I do not know how the Soviets actually identified them.

The point of this exercise is to prove that Puki articles are not well-searched and the authors rarely have any knowledge of the subject matter.

The "sources" are suspect because they're often out-dated or cherry-picked, and even when the source docs are recent, they often contradict the author's claims.