Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

This is a revision of a previous post of mine about the killing of Sulemani and 9 others in Iraq by the U.S. Military. Facebook did not like it, and they took it down and banned me for 24 hours. I'm rather surprised because all I did was denounce the savage killing of 10 people. I didn't threaten anyone with harm; I denounced murdering people. But, I suspect someone reported it to Facebook, and they reviewed it and banned it and me. So, I will try it again, and I dare whoever reported it to report it again because I am not advocating harm or violence to anyone. I am denouncing harm and violence by anyone. 

I am returning now to the killing of Suleimani. I have found out that he did fly to Baghdad alone. Completely alone. Doesn't it seem like a guy who was about to launch attacks on several U.S. installations would probably have someone with him, if only for protection? 

He was met at the airport by 9 Iraqis, all of whom were connected to the Iraqi government. Suleimani was invited there by the Iraqi government, by Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi, to discuss peace in the region and the prospect for improved relations with Saudi Arabia. That's according to Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi. 

It has now been over 3 weeks since Suleimani was killed, and no evidence has been provided that he was planning any violent acts against the United States. He's been accused of everything, including all the unrest in Iraq against the U.S. of late, but no evidence has been provided that he organized it.  

What would that evidence consist of? Perhaps, something in writing; a document; an intercepted phone call; a photo of him at the scene of a crime. Perhaps bringing forward credible witnesses with detailed accounts of his criminal actions. But, there hasn't been anything. Trump, Pompeo, and Esper have simply said that Suleimani was planning attacks and that they were imminent, including one against the U.S. Embassy. That's it. 

To my friends in the JFK truth movement, I'll point out that you don't accept what the government says about the death of JFK, so why should you accept what the government says about the life of Suleimani? It's the same government. 

Did Suleimani kill Americans, and was he a terrorist? We know he fought ISIS. We know that the Russians respected him for it and considered him a partner. So, are the Russians terrorists too?  

I haven't seen any evidence that Suleimani killed Americans. We know that over 5000 Americans have been killed in Iraq, and we know that the the U.S. is willing to blame some and perhaps many of those deaths on him. But, let's be realistic: the U.S. crossed the ocean to attack Iraq, and according to highly respected U.S. researchers, the U.S. has killed many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. With or without Suleimani, there was bound to be some raging. If Suleimani were never born, do you think there would have been no Americans killed in Iraq?  

I know it's hard to look at things from another's perspective, but is it that hard to grasp that to some Iraqis, the U.S. is the terrorist in this situation? 

But regardless, if Sulemani planned and executed attacks on Americans, evidence for it has not been provided to us. We've simply been told that he did. It's not that the evidence has been scanty; it's that there's been none. And even after complaints about the lack of evidence surfaced, they continued to just say that he was planning imminent attacks. 

But, what about the collateral murders that were involved in this- the other 9 people we killed? Only one has been named, Abu Mahdi Muhandis, the leader of the Populist Militia in Iraq, which is a unit within the Iraqi Military, but one that we don't like. Muhandis had also served in the Iraqi Parliament to which he was democratically elected by Iraqis. The other 8, we don't know or care who they were. Their lives were so unimportant, they didn't even deserve to be named.  

But, it was a diplomatic mission. Suleimani was there by invitation of the Iraqi Prime Minister. And the other 8 were just there by circumstance: probably, a driver, a secretary, an assistant, etc. Think about it: they named Muhandis because they had a basis to label him as being bad. It's not as though they don't know who the other 8 are. They are not naming them because they don't have a basis to justify killing them. If there were a basis, they would name them.
"We also took out So-and-So who committed such-and-such." There was nothing like that because they didn't have it on the other 8.  

Think about the whole mindset of targeting enemies and being willing to kill others in order to get those enemies. It's the very definition of "collateral damage." It happens a lot in war. During the Iraq War, which we started, we were willing to bomb and craterize a whole city block in Baghdad in order to kill Saddam Hussein at a restaurant. Except: he wasn't at the restaurant; our intelligence was faulty, but the men, women, and children we killed are still dead.

Would you please try to understand that some people view THAT as terrorism?      

But, in that case, we were at war with Iraq. We crossed the ocean to attack that country. We never officially declared war, but the U.S. hasn't officially declared war since World War II. The U.S. Constitution was bypassed in 1950 when Truman took us to war in Korea without a Congressional declaration of war.  Unofficially, the Constitution got amended from that point on, and it's been that way ever since. But, in the context of the new way that America goes to war, which is by Presidential decree, we were certainly at war with Iraq.  President George W. Bush announced the start of military operations against the Iraqi regime.  But, in this case, we weren't at war with Iran. Even by the modern standard of how we declare war, we were not at war with Iran. And neither were we at war with Iraq, and yet, we killed 9 Iraqis, all of whom were associated with the Iraqi government.  

If you are going to sanction the killing of Suleimani and the 9 Iraqis, what you're saying is that the U.S. government can kill anyone it wants, any time it wants, anywhere it wants, for any reason it wants, and with whatever amount of collateral deaths are necessary to get the job done. And you're saying that the U.S. government can do it both in times of war and peace, and that the U.S. government has complete, unbridled, unrestrained discretion to do it and has to answer to no one. 

I denounce what Trump, Pompeo, and Esper did as an act of unspeakable, savage murder and terrorism. And I denounce what the U.S. Congress is doing in letting them get away with it. And I denounce what the U.S. Media is doing in supporting it. 

I'll close by pointing out that surely you realize that the savagery practiced by Americans against each other has never been greater, that the frequency of mass killings, hate killings, school killings, church killings, etc. has never been greater. Never has it been more dangerous just to go shopping somewhere or attend a concert or go to church than it is today. BUT, IF SAVAGERY IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED AND TOLERATED AT THE STATE LEVEL, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO HAPPEN AT THE STREET LEVEL? Don't you see that the two go together, hand in hand? 

And imagine if every nation did it: went out killed the leader of some other nation by calling him and them terrorists. Iran has declared the U.S. government and its Military to be terrorists, and I agree with them because of the findings of the American Brown University in the American state of Rhode Island who have said that since 9/11, the U.S. government and its Military have directly killed 801,000 people, and have indirectly killed millions more. Read it yourself:   

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/

Now, I consider that terrorism. Savage, unspeakable, nightmarish terrorism. I really do.