Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Jul 19 23:02:20 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Iran torpedos or mines tankers
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jun 13 08:37:21
In the straights. Can you believe those fucking retards. Now we need to kill some of them.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jun 13 09:20:59
It was neither in the straits, nor do I Believe it was "those fucking retards". 100% it was the one of the Gulf arabs.

Even during the time of heigtened revolutionary ferver and escalation of the Iran-Iraq war, Iran only started attacking oil tankers after Iraq did the same. It is thus unlikely.

Think about it sambicille my friend, why would Iran be in a hurry, when in 1 years time Trump may be replaced by a bridgebuilding democrat? You know who wont be replaced in 2020, right? So what is the hurry friend? None that requires torpedoes and mines. Iran will just sit this Trump guy out :)
Allahuakbar
Member
Thu Jun 13 09:28:51
False flag attack by Isrel no doubt. Netanyahoo wants to provoke war so he wins next election.
Paramount
Member
Thu Jun 13 09:33:55
Iran, lol. Try Israel, Saudi Barbaria or USA.
Paramount
Member
Thu Jun 13 09:37:08
Everyone who knows this region knows that Israel and Saudi Barbaria are the biggest terrorists. Terrorism is what feeds them.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 13 10:06:34
Sammy
Who gains?
Rugian
Member
Thu Jun 13 10:11:31
Jergul,

Who stood to gain the most from the Archduke of Austria's death? Sometimes acts are not fully rational.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 13 10:34:40
Ruggy
What a horrible example.

The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was pretty much mission accomplished for the assassin. It worked out very well for him. Except the part about dying of TB. His museum was finally demolished after the German invasion.

But if we are going with not fully rational, then my best guess would be Trudeau. No doubt connected to the garbage war with Manila.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 13 10:34:57
Sammy
Who gains?
Rugian
Member
Thu Jun 13 10:38:50
Jergul,

Thats results-oriented thinking. In 1914, the answer of who was most likely to benefit was clearly "not Serbia."
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 13 10:49:05
Ruggy
Thats results-orientated thinking. In 1914, the assassination could easily have resulted in a deeply humilating situation for Austria-Hungary and become a firm stepping stone towards what became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia anyway a few years later.

But glad to see that you have not changed since 2003 and would have supported invading Iraq all over again.

We have thoughts in our heads! Iraq must be invaded.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 13 10:50:33
Sammy
Who gains?
hood
Member
Thu Jun 13 10:53:35
Someone delete this spammer.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 13 11:05:41
Hood
Just keeping things on track. Good to see your butt still hurts. You and CC should really have safe words.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 13 11:20:41
Not normally one for false flag 11 d chess stuff, but this seems rather odd for Iran to do.

hood
Member
Thu Jun 13 11:27:08
Ok hot rod, whatever rationalization you need.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 13 11:40:52
Seb
It seems like an odd thing for anyone to do except Yemen.

http://the...l-shift-seen-omans-role-yemen.

Rugian
Member
Thu Jun 13 11:45:11
You know you're winning an argument with jergul when it takes him less than two posts to resort to making up literally anything he can to keep the debate going.

Yes, the assassination succeeded in humiliating Austria-Hungary. And blowing up tankers succeeds in humiliating the West and potentially shutting the Gulf down for transport. The offending parties' actions do look to have a lot of upside when you ignore the threat of military retaliation by the aggrieved stronger country.

"and become a firm stepping stone towards what became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia anyway a few years later." -This has zero basis in fact, which means jergul is guaranteed to repeat it verbatim for the next hundred posts.

I dont know WTF the Iraq invasion has to do with any of this.

Not all arguments need to be perpetuated you know jergul.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jun 13 11:53:44
Ya, it was probably iran backed terror groups in yemen rather then iran officially.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 13 12:25:59
Ruggy
Its your willingness to accept figments that remains constant. In 2003 Iraq, in 2019 Iran?

You really embrace the whole post truth concept.

Your analogy sucks donkey balls. I do not feel humiliated at all. Do you?

Sammy
By Iran backed terror groups, you mean Houthis that have been fighting Saudia Arabia since that coalition invaded Yemen, right?

You would think they would want to interdict Saudi economy for their own reasons, not Irans.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 13 12:30:36
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48608213
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 13 12:43:04
One of the vessels was crewed by Russians.

TCE increases is the only real impact (mostly due to insurance costs increasing).

It becomes more expensive to ship oil out of the gulf.
Rugian
Member
Thu Jun 13 12:43:45
Jergul,

A more perceptive person might have realized that I was not opining on Irans involvement in the incident, only the logical fallacy of using cui bono to dismiss the likelihood of their involvement.

Your lack of humiliation is noted, but it's rather unrecommended in this case. Humility is required to be able to learn from our mistakes after all.

jergul
large member
Thu Jun 13 12:48:07
Ruggy
A more percepting writer might realize that he indeed was opining on Iran's involvement when he chose to dismiss a main pillar for motive in any analysis.

Leaving that writer to simply accept whatever figments might come from the executive office he worships like a God.

Which we all know will blame Iran.

Idiot.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 13 12:48:26
perceptive*
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 13 12:57:13
"iran backed terror groups in yemen"

You mean the ruling party in Yemen? I think you might have the Houthis confused with CIA-armed Zl Zenki headchoppers.
Rugian
Member
Thu Jun 13 12:57:41
Jergul,

I made no representation of my thoughts on Iran's involvement. To be clear.

Asking who benefits from a situation is indeed a logical consideration when conducting an analysis. It is also hardly the only or most important one.

If we were to ask who benefitted from September 11 for example, the answer would be the Northern Alliance. And also Iran.

I am sorry your derangement over the current occupant of that executive office referenced has destroyed what little ability you previously had to coherently argue a point. I do consider it to be unfortunate.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Jun 13 13:18:05
"Iran, lol. Try Israel, Saudi Barbaria or USA. "

agreed
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Jun 13 13:24:21
"In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran."
~ Trump - Nov 2011

"Don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected--be careful Republicans!"
~ Trump - Oct 2012
CrownRoyal
Member
Thu Jun 13 13:24:42
"If we were to ask who benefitted from September 11 for example, the answer would be the Northern Alliance. And also Iran. "

Why Iran? Because they wanted Saddam Hussein gone?
Rugian
Member
Thu Jun 13 14:14:34
CR,

The Taliban as well. Irans influence on both its eastern and western fronts has done remakredly well ever since the United States sperged out on the Middle East.
CrownRoyal
Member
Thu Jun 13 14:17:40
"as well"

As well as taking out Saddam Hussein, I take it. That was some 20d chess move by ayatollahs, you have to admit. To envision the US blaming AQ for 9/11 and subsequently invading Iraq and toppling Saddam. Maybe Iran was behind the Florida 2000 recount, cause they weren't sure Al Gore would follow their diabolically clever plot?
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 13 14:24:30
...I think that was his point, giving an example that the notion of "he who benefits must be responsible" is not always apt.
Rugian
Member
Thu Jun 13 14:25:16
It was 20D chess to anticipate that the US might look to what was then our Public Enemy #1 for blame? In the world of 2001, you didnt exactly need a gigantic catalyst to get the US to want to attack Iraq.
Rugian
Member
Thu Jun 13 14:27:19
Seriously, it makes as much sense as arguing that Saudi Arabia nuking a tanker is going to cause the US to sperg out on Iran.
CrownRoyal
Member
Thu Jun 13 14:30:12
The degrees of plausibility. Khamenei predicting that GWB and Cheney would attack and actually remove Saddam in 2001, is not nearly as plausible as predicting that Donald and Bolton itching to bomb the fuck out of Iran today. I didn't argue with Northern Alliagnce benefitting, as you can see
Rugian
Member
Thu Jun 13 14:34:08
Well then what are we arguing about, exactly?
CrownRoyal
Member
Thu Jun 13 14:44:03
To me, your post with the theory about Iran benefitting from 9/11 was implausible, in part at least. The saddam removal part, to be specific. So I commented on it.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 13 15:01:04
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48630374

We could review the issue by considering which of the usual suspects have the means and opportunity.

But motive remains most important.

Who would want to impose a cost on shipping through the gulf?

Alternately

Who would want to increase tensions with Iran (if we assume that the US would automatically blame Iran for any incidents)?

Paramount
Member
Thu Jun 13 15:16:40
"If we were to ask who benefitted from September 11 for example, the answer would be the Northern Alliance. And also Iran. "


Well, Netanyahu already admitted that 9/11 is/was good for Israel.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jun 13 17:29:38
Who gains is a terrible standard. Pearl harbor fucked japan hard, and their leading admiral new it.

They still did it.

Most humans are dumb.
Hrothgar
Member
Thu Jun 13 23:16:33
It's not like Iran hasn't threatened this very type of act if embargoes were placed on Iranian oil - is that not correct?

http://www...hormuz-if-it-can-t-use-it-fars
Hrothgar
Member
Thu Jun 13 23:19:19
“If we are prevented from using it, we will close it,” the state-run Fars news agency reported, citing Alireza Tangsiri, head of the Revolutionary Guard Corps navy force. “In the event of any threats, we will not have the slightest hesitation to protect and defend Iran’s waterway.”
Dukhat
Member
Fri Jun 14 02:51:22
Always stupid shit caused by Republicans. We let the deal stay in place and we can wait Iran out and let it liberalize over 30 years as the supporters of clerics die and a younger generation takes over. As it is, we gave hardliners in Iran an excuse.

Who knows if they even had the full government's backing.

Fucking idiot neo-cons.
Seb
Member
Fri Jun 14 02:53:33
Yes but what's changed to prompt this?

Admittedly I've been distracted with more exciting local events, so it's entirely possible I've missed something, but essentially there's been no change in the status quo for months now. I can see a deniable attack like this being perceived (wrongly) as being useful in either the run up to or after a major decision point, but in can't see the rationale for doing it now.


jergul
large member
Fri Jun 14 04:58:05
Sammy
The oil embargo. The Japanese navy was running on fumes (it had 4 months peacetime fuel reserves left when it attacked).

Means, motive, opportunity.

The motive does not have to be a good one, but establishing one is a cornerstone of most judicial systems.

Hrothgar
Has Iran been prevented from using the straights? Have the straights been closed? Do the attacks represent in any way "protecting and defending"? Did the attacks take place in Iran's waterway?

Seb
It fits with what the Houthis are generally trying to achieve - to inflict costs on Saudi Arabia for its invasion of Yemen.

The Houthis are pretty actively supported by Oman.
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 14 05:00:00
Houthis fit the means motive opportunity best.

The attacks would not even be terrorism in that case, but rather a response to say the Saudi led blockade of Houthi held territories.
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 14 05:35:01
Most likely cause of explosions - ATGMs.

Above waterline precludes most other things bar explosive charges (which are possible if both ships had anchored before crossing the straight - doable to find out by checking the vessels against ship monitoring websites).
Seb
Member
Fri Jun 14 05:59:00
The first ships had substantial damage below the waterline. There was some footage from a diver I remember.

Haven't seen anything on the latest two.
State Department
Member
Fri Jun 14 06:20:23
The pitch is too high...the torpedo's Russian.
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 14 07:35:12
Seb
I was talking about the latest, but in the first, I strongly suspect explosives were attached before the boats loaded. Explosives in the 100ds of grams range. So very small packages.


Google any transit loading location to see scores of ships at anchor.

Its the easiest explanation.

SD
The damage is incosistent with torpedoes. Seeing as the boats are not completely ablaze and sinking.
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 14 07:42:32
Paint the package zink gray for perfect camoflage.

http://cit...ver-aluminum-anodes-on-a-boat/
Seb
Member
Fri Jun 14 08:46:12
If not explosives (which I think more likely), it works need to be something quite shaped.

Tankers have quite wide double hull - it needs to have enough oopmh to go through both hulls without carving a massive hole that would likely go below the waterline.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Fri Jun 14 08:47:37
Japanese tanker owner claims crew saw ‘flying objects’ before attack, denies ship struck mine

http://www...uka-owner-rejects-mine-attack/
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Fri Jun 14 08:54:34
13 June 2019



"A US government assesment" Not an intellligence assesment?

"Intelligence reports are normally released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and labelled an "Intelligence Assessment." This report was described as a "Government Assessment" and the unclassified version was released by the White House Press Secretary. One former intelligence official told Inter Press Service that the description as a "Government" rather than an "Intelligence" assessment "means that this is not an intelligence community document"; another said that the White House had apparently "decided on a position and cherry-picked the intelligence to fit
it".[3]

A 29 August article from the Associated Press describes an unreleased report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that outlined the evidence against Syria that included "a few key caveats — including acknowledging that the U.S. intelligence community no longer has the certainty it did six months ago of where the regime's chemical weapons are stored, nor does it have proof Assad ordered chemical weapons use." wiki

--------------

Pompeo described the judgment of Iranian guilt in the Gulf of Oman burnings as "a US Government Assessment." In light of the chicanery involved in the "US Government Assessment" after the Ghouta "attack" in 2013 I would like to know how many agencies of the USIC concur in the present judgment . pl

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/
Dukhat
Member
Fri Jun 14 09:01:06
"a US Government Assessment" ... more like a Trump assessment.

We need to get the fuck out of the middle east and lose our dependency on fossil fuels.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jun 14 10:25:31
Too bad cuckhat is voting to take fusion research money and distribute it to homeless transgenders
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 14 10:57:08
Seb
ATGMs are quite shaped. I am not discounting explosives, but am weighing reports that one of the crew saw "something" flying towards the boat.

I am not getting a "sophisticated attack" vibe.

swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Fri Jun 14 11:03:54
"I am not getting a "sophisticated attack" vibe."

so not novichok?
Forwyn
Member
Fri Jun 14 11:06:49
FWIW, the tanker owner reports crew saw flying objects and damage is above water line, and disbelieves mine damage
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jun 14 11:33:50
It sounds like one had a small boat come up and attach explosives on its side at the waterline, and the other was hit with antitank rockets?
Seb
Member
Fri Jun 14 12:09:55
Jergul:

Yes, that's what I was getting at.

US had released photos where you can see something attached to the side and allegedly video of Iranians removing it.

jergul
large member
Fri Jun 14 19:18:39
Sammy
If mines attached, then done while ship was at anchor.

Forwyn
That is why I am weighing in on ATGMs

Seb
I have crewed and steered small vessels maneuvering to large ones (I was zodiac master for small cruise ships off Spitzbergen).

If you wanted contact to disconnect something, then you would not lie abreast. You would keep an angle and butt the bow against the ship side. You keep steerage speed and and steerage way doing it like so.

That looks most of all like a steerage line snaged on something and untangled.

I would love to see the full video.

A conspiracy reaching to the deck crew of some minor boat seems a stretch.
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 14 19:27:09
What counts towards mines (or rather - small packages with magnetic connectors) would be that the impact was directly above the painted waterline.

So someone with a black package would want to place it against a black, and not a red surface.

Meaning if the person was in a small craft, he would still have to stand up and reach to get it to the black surface, but it would have been doable and required, as black against red sort of stands out.

Equipment list - small black explosive package. Hard hat. Coveralls. Zodiac. Nothing says "I have business being here" like coveralls and a hard hat.

Fouled was incidentally the word I was looking for, not tangled*
Paramount
Member
Sat Jun 15 02:45:47
U.N. chief calls for independent probe into Gulf tanker attacks

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on Friday for an independent investigation to establish the facts and who was responsible for attacks on two oil tankers this week in the Gulf of Oman.

http://www...ker-attacks-idUSKCN1TF24W?il=0


While they are at it they should also call for an independent probe on every attack that has happened in Yemen, Syria and Iraq, etc.
Average Ameriacn
Member
Sat Jun 15 06:45:51
Still true allies:

http://www...r-tanker-attacks-idUSKCN1TF0Q8

Britain backs U.S. in blaming Iran for tanker attacks


LONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said there was no reason not to believe the United States’ assessment that Iran was responsible for attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday.

“We are going to make our own independent assessment, we have our processes to do that, (but) we have no reason not to believe the American assessment and our instinct is to believe it because they are our closest ally,” Hunt told BBC radio on Friday, echoing comments he made late on Thursday.
Paramount
Member
Sat Jun 15 11:12:53
"(but) we have no reason not to believe the American assessment"


I think there is at least one reason not to believe the US. They lie all the time. Remember "Iraq has WMD".

Also, the US is best friend with Saudi Barbaria. So okay, two reasons to not believe the US.

And... John Bolton and his gangsters. So three reasons.
Average Ameriacn
Member
Sun Jun 16 07:19:10
Hugh Hewitt and Lindsey Graham. Graham has some good ideas:

http://www...connection-time-for-an-embarg/


HH: Let’s turn to Iran. Earlier this morning, moments ago, the President of the United States said “Iran did it;” the mine that didn’t explode “Had Iran written all over it.” He didn’t say what he is going to do, what do you think he ought to do about attacks on Gulf shipping Lindsey Graham?

LG: Make sure that the Iranians will never do it again because it hurt too much. If he doesn’t send a clear, unequivocal signal with pain attached, they will keep doing it. They are testing him. The president got out of the agreement, he’s put sanctions on Iran, he’s breaking he back of the Iranian government economically, they are pushing back, hey are testing his will. One of the great minds of our time, General Keane, said there are a couple of options. One is start sending naval escorts for commercial shipping in the Straights of Hormuz, that’s one thing to do —I don’t know how sustainable that is— the other thing is just basically sink their navy. Now, put them on notice, start escorting ships, and if there is another attack on commercial shipping in the Straights of Hormuz, just sink all these fast boats, just sink their navy.

HH: That’s what President Reagan did in 1988, with Operation Praying Mantis. I’d like to hear Lindsey Graham’s assessment of this: They have a couple of major refinery complexes, maybe only two. They are attacking oil. Ought we to attack their refinery complexes because if you want to talk about bringing that country to a halt, that’s the way to do it.

LG: Well this is why I like your show, you put options on the table that really hurt. The bottom line really here is that they are pushing back on multiple fronts now against President Trump —rocket man is still shooting rockets, Maduro is still in power, the Iranians are attacking ships in the Straight of Hormuz. I like the foreign policy of President Trump. He’s been the anti-Obama. But he’s got to get Iran put back in a box. This is a time of testing. They have hit four ships. They have attacked land-based pipelines, they haven’t felt anything yet, so if I were the president, attacking a refinery or sinking their navy would be an unequivocal signal: “I don’t want a war with Iran but I don’t want Iran disrupting international navigation and freedom of the seas, and continue to be, you know, wrecking havoc, so, he’s got some options in the table.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Sun Jun 16 08:27:41
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9JIWhfUcAAKOHN.png:large
Paramount
Member
Sun Jun 16 09:50:18
^lol
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Sun Jun 16 10:30:11
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9J9zyRWsAA3BC1.jpg:large
Seb
Member
Sun Jun 16 11:46:48
I've always found it odd that people think passport and ID docs found near suicide bombers is ridiculous.

Of course they load themselves up on it. They are martyrs, proud of it, want the credit and the objective is to demonstrate that organisation that claimed the attack did the attack in order that their threats be listened to.

People who go "oh, but why would they leave the evidence" seem to be profoundly missing the whole point of terrorism as a strategy and martyrdom as an ideology.
jergul
large member
Sun Jun 16 12:05:50
Seb
You are overthinking it. Martyrs expect to be remembered by their organization and expect the organization to make whatever hay it likes from an attack.

Otherwise, its just a question of leaving home with a wallet (and passport if abroad).

The thing I find rediculous is thinking ID documents prove the attack was done by the State or organization that issued the documents.

Seb
Member
Sun Jun 16 15:26:38
When has that been asserted?
jergul
large member
Sun Jun 16 15:37:10
The thing I will find rediculous?
Dukhat
Member
Sun Jun 16 23:16:18
I wonder what the political implications of a war or even limited engagement will be.

Oil prices will go up which will piss off consumers. But huge chunks of the MAGA crowd will be fervent.

But I think a small part of the MAGA crowd were the ones who thought Hillary would take us to war and that Trump would be less interventionist and they will turn on Trump.

What is true though is that it's fucking ridiculous that these idiot neo-cons are somehow back in power after the Iraq debacle. Fucking Trump helping cuckservatives cuck themselves again.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jun 20 10:37:25
Iran is retarded
obaminated
Member
Thu Jun 20 11:56:13
Shooting down an American drone is the best thing iran could've done for trump who just started his reelection campaign.
Allahuakbar
Member
Thu Jun 20 12:05:47
A great victory for Iran:

http://www.../598942/Iran-IRGC-US-spy-drone

According to the statement, the Global Hawk had flown from one of the American bases in the southern parts of the Persian Gulf region at 00:14 a.m. local time, with its identification transponders off in breach of all international aviation rules.

It also went on to say that the drone had stealthily continued on the route from the Strait of Hormuz towards Iran’s port city of Chabahar.

While returning towards west of the Strait of Hormuz, the drone violated Iran’s territorial airspace and began gathering intelligence and spying, the statement said.

The drone had been targeted and shot down by the IRGC at 04: 05 a.m. local time, it added.

An informed IRGC source in Hormozgan province said the drone had been targeted near the Kouh-e Mobarak region and fell down in the area of Ras al-Shir in Iran’s territorial waters.

He told the IRNA news agency that the downing came after repeated violations of Iran’s airspace by US reconnaissance drones in the Persian Gulf region.



The RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system (UAS) can fly at high altitudes for more than 30 hours, gathering near-real-time, high-resolution imagery of large areas of land in all types of weather, maker Northrop Grumman says on its website.

The Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton is a maritime derivative of the RQ-4B Global Hawk and the airborne element of the US Navy’s Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System (BAMS UAS).

Hours after the incident, the U.S. military confirmed that one of its drones had been shot
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 20 14:02:55
'member when the USN lied and said the Vincennes was in international waters when they shot at a civilian jetliner in an international air corridor in Iranian airspace because they couldn't tell up from down?

Pepperidge Farms 'members
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jun 20 16:54:36
>>Iran "made a very big mistake" in shooting down a US military surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz, President Donald Trump says.

However, he told reporters it could have been the result of human error, saying: "I find it hard to believe it was intentional."<<

So, according to Trump narrative Iran has attacked several oil tankers and now shot down a US intelligence asset in international waters. His reponse, "they probably didn't mean to".

lulz@pussy Trump surrendering to Iran after one drone loss.
Average Ameriacn
Member
Thu Jun 20 16:58:21
Nimatzo: 4d chess!
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Jun 20 17:41:40
while de-escalation might be nice, just lying to the public is one more example of Trump's unfitness for office

and supporters might want to question if he had equally zero evidence when he declared MBS innocent over Khashoggi (which i'm sure is the case)

or when he defends Russia...

he is so unfit we need a new word
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 20 18:30:19
Erdogan should have been arrested in the airport by the National Guard after his goons attacked US citizens in the capital, we're well-used to kissing Muzzie ass
obaminated
Member
Thu Jun 20 21:30:42
i mean, nim, do you really want iran to get destroyed by america? trump trying to calm down everyone is an incredibly noble and risky (politically) decision. the easy choice would be to start lobbing missiles into iran and starting another war that lasts 20 years.
Dukhat
Member
Thu Jun 20 23:08:25
So apparently Trump ordered air-strikes in retaliation and then pulled back at the last second.

Iran is his fuck-up anyways for pulling out of the deal and he was only barely pulled back from the brink by probably Bolton of all people.

Oh, James Mattis where art though?
Dukhat
Member
Thu Jun 20 23:22:33
Fucking auto-correct. thou*
Arab
Member
Fri Jun 21 00:22:20
Iranian government is going to collapse. They desperately want to get bombed a little to shore up support.
Allahuakbar
Member
Fri Jun 21 02:18:44
Video of the great victory against the Usanians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5opvZamCgE
patom
Member
Fri Jun 21 04:43:31
Makes one wonder which throne Trump was sitting on when he made the order to bomb. Did he make the order on Twitter?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jun 21 09:03:36
Obaminated
Of course not, but then this stupid mother fucker should have shut up, what do you think the story is in Iran? Look at Trump he can only talk. We had fueled the planes and ready, but I decided against it. lol what??? You just validated the Iranian government narrative.

In the 40 years since the revolution Iran hasn’t been this strong. It practically owns Iraq and has a military force of allies stronger than the Iraqi military. Iran has a land route all the way to the med. The last time this was the lay of the land was in 620. Of course about 10 years later the entire Empire collapsed and the ruling politi transformed, so there is that look out for. ”Interesting” times ahead friends...
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 21 10:10:26
I will be very upset if these things interfer with my supply of dates from Bam.

Nimi
It may actually have the capability to lob ballistic missiles down the proverbial funnels of USN carriers.

We (well, me) projected such things back in 2005.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jun 21 12:05:13
Trump claims they were ready to strike, then he asked about casualties, the general left & returned & said 150 & he said to cancel it as not proportional.

According to an admiral, mentioning the casualties would've been the first thing they discussed when briefing the mission.

So Trump is probably LYING yet again to the public (no big shocker to anyone paying attention)

He needs removed ASAP. Constant lying & dumbing down the public is a clear & present danger

"
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."
"~wikipedia

he's qualifies... daily
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 21 12:26:42
The Iranians are claiming they chose not to shoot down a trespassing ELINT aircraft as it might have had as many as 35 people on board.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Fri Jun 21 17:03:10
ben shapiro ain't happy
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 21 17:28:03
It is becoming more plausible that Iran prefers a low intensity conflict to go along with the sanction regime it is under.

It may very well percieve leverage in an adhoc kingmaking role (its actions determines who is the next president in the US).

Unless the great negotiator is willing to negotiate.

Allahuakbar
Member
Fri Jun 21 17:29:33
Trump cucked out!
Rugian
Member
Fri Jun 21 17:32:29
My guess is he's playing chicken on the angle of military strikes.

In reality, the sanctions by themselves are working just fine in undermining Iran.
Forwyn
Member
Fri Jun 21 17:35:02
"Iran is his fuck-up anyways for pulling out of the deal and he was only barely pulled back from the brink by probably Bolton of all people."

lulz Cuckhat

"Mr. Trump’s national security advisers split about whether to respond militarily. Senior administration officials said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; John R. Bolton, the national security adviser; and Gina Haspel, the C.I.A. director, had favored a military response."

http://www.../middleeast/iran-us-drone.html

Dukhat
Member
Fri Jun 21 20:54:04
Yeah it was even worse. FOx News pulled him from the Brink.
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share