• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Remember the Maine!!

 
 
 
Ford said:
The US using anything as a pretext to war? That fits.
Click to expand...
That is correct. That is why the video matters, at least to me.

When Colin Powell was flashing his pictures of Saddam's WMDs that were all years old, when there was no new intel from overhead satellites, when inspectors on the ground were saying there are no WMDs, and joe sixpack was screaming, "Invade, Invade, WMDs! only a special kind of moron believed all the propaganda. This video is propaganda until its provenance can be demonstrated.

Iran can disrupt shipping without causing a war, and likely - if it did this - that is the message it is sending to US allies and the world generally. Russia would do the same thing and I'm certain Russia has Iran's ear.
 
The Iranian navy helped to extinguish the fires on these damaged tankers.

That seems like strange behaviour for an organisation that was allegedly trying to sink them.

My gut feeling is that this could be the work of Yemeni rebels, using Iranian munitions (without the direct support of the Iranians) as part of a guerrilla campaign against Saudi interests. Iran's actions are consistent with wanting to avoid blame for the (unauthorised) actions of their less stable allies.

When you arm guerrillas, it isn't particularly unusual for them to get out of control. A war between the US and Iran would be disastrous for both countries, but would likely also harm Saudi Arabia, and reduce both Saudi and American influence in Yemen.

The American insistence that this could not be the work of non-state actors is pure, premium-grade, class A bullshit. Mining an oil tanker using a small boat from Yemen at night - and making a half-arsed job of it - is something you could easily imagine a bunch of hooray-heros taking on as part of a guerrilla campaign. Those waters are warm, calm, and shallow. They are not a major challenge to navigate.

And mines that don't go off when they are supposed to scream 'improvised device' rather than 'professional munitions'.

If the Iranian Navy wanted to attack those tankers, then they would be on the bottom of the sea. They're not the world's greatest Navy, but they're not a bunch of amateurs, either. And the Iranian Navy wouldn't be helping to put out the fires if they had started them.
 
bilby said:
The Iranian navy helped to extinguish the fires on these damaged tankers.

That seems like strange behaviour for an organisation that was allegedly trying to sink them.

My gut feeling is that this could be the work of Yemeni rebels, using Iranian munitions (without the direct support of the Iranians) as part of a guerrilla campaign against Saudi interests. Iran's actions are consistent with wanting to avoid blame for the (unauthorised) actions of their less stable allies.

When you arm guerrillas, it isn't particularly unusual for them to get out of control. A war between the US and Iran would be disastrous for both countries, but would likely also harm Saudi Arabia, and reduce both Saudi and American influence in Yemen.

The American insistence that this could not be the work of non-state actors is pure, premium-grade, class A bullshit. Mining an oil tanker using a small boat from Yemen at night - and making a half-arsed job of it - is something you could easily imagine a bunch of hooray-heros taking on as part of a guerrilla campaign. Those waters are warm, calm, and shallow. They are not a major challenge to navigate.

And mines that don't go off when they are supposed to scream 'improvised device' rather than 'professional munitions'.

If the Iranian Navy wanted to attack those tankers, then they would be on the bottom of the sea. They're not the world's greatest Navy, but they're not a bunch of amateurs, either. And the Iranian Navy wouldn't be helping to put out the fires if they had started them.
Click to expand...

So how do you account for the video? What's your explanation? Is it an Iranian vessel?
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
bilby said:
The Iranian navy helped to extinguish the fires on these damaged tankers.

That seems like strange behaviour for an organisation that was allegedly trying to sink them.

My gut feeling is that this could be the work of Yemeni rebels, using Iranian munitions (without the direct support of the Iranians) as part of a guerrilla campaign against Saudi interests. Iran's actions are consistent with wanting to avoid blame for the (unauthorised) actions of their less stable allies.

When you arm guerrillas, it isn't particularly unusual for them to get out of control. A war between the US and Iran would be disastrous for both countries, but would likely also harm Saudi Arabia, and reduce both Saudi and American influence in Yemen.

The American insistence that this could not be the work of non-state actors is pure, premium-grade, class A bullshit. Mining an oil tanker using a small boat from Yemen at night - and making a half-arsed job of it - is something you could easily imagine a bunch of hooray-heros taking on as part of a guerrilla campaign. Those waters are warm, calm, and shallow. They are not a major challenge to navigate.

And mines that don't go off when they are supposed to scream 'improvised device' rather than 'professional munitions'.

If the Iranian Navy wanted to attack those tankers, then they would be on the bottom of the sea. They're not the world's greatest Navy, but they're not a bunch of amateurs, either. And the Iranian Navy wouldn't be helping to put out the fires if they had started them.
Click to expand...

So how do you account for the video? What's your explanation? Is it an Iranian vessel?
Click to expand...


I think it is very unlikely that Iran - meaning the regime itself - attacked the ships. Again, what did they have to gain?

Iran does their aggression through proxies, not directly. For example, they support rebels in Yemen opposed to Saudi Arabia. They try to advance their agenda regionally by supporting groups that are aligned with their anti-Arab and anti-Sunni goals.

How does attacking a Japanese tanker fit into that? The simple answer is, it doesn't. It's so far out of the realm of what they're known for that it raises questions.

One very important question is, what's Japan's response? Is it "oh dear, Iran attacked us, please help America?" Not as far as I can tell. The owners of the ship seem skeptical that it was Iran.
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
bilby said:
The Iranian navy helped to extinguish the fires on these damaged tankers.

That seems like strange behaviour for an organisation that was allegedly trying to sink them.

My gut feeling is that this could be the work of Yemeni rebels, using Iranian munitions (without the direct support of the Iranians) as part of a guerrilla campaign against Saudi interests. Iran's actions are consistent with wanting to avoid blame for the (unauthorised) actions of their less stable allies.

When you arm guerrillas, it isn't particularly unusual for them to get out of control. A war between the US and Iran would be disastrous for both countries, but would likely also harm Saudi Arabia, and reduce both Saudi and American influence in Yemen.

The American insistence that this could not be the work of non-state actors is pure, premium-grade, class A bullshit. Mining an oil tanker using a small boat from Yemen at night - and making a half-arsed job of it - is something you could easily imagine a bunch of hooray-heros taking on as part of a guerrilla campaign. Those waters are warm, calm, and shallow. They are not a major challenge to navigate.

And mines that don't go off when they are supposed to scream 'improvised device' rather than 'professional munitions'.

If the Iranian Navy wanted to attack those tankers, then they would be on the bottom of the sea. They're not the world's greatest Navy, but they're not a bunch of amateurs, either. And the Iranian Navy wouldn't be helping to put out the fires if they had started them.
Click to expand...

So how do you account for the video? What's your explanation? Is it an Iranian vessel?
Click to expand...

I suspect that the Yemeni cell bragged to their Iranian handler, who was all 'Oh shit, what the fuck have you done'. Why else would Iranians be taking limpet mines OFF the targeted ships?

The Iranians provide the Yemenis with the materials needed to make IEDs, with the intent that they use them against Saudi and Saudi-backed targets onshore. The Yemenis realise that Saudi tankers are in reach, and decide to target those instead. (Four tankers were attacked in a similar way last week on the Oman side of the gulf; two of those were Saudi, one UAE, and one IIRC Norwegian).

The Iranians know that the US will have a cow if they find Iranian explosives and detonators were used to attack oil tankers. So they are trying to tidy up the mess made by their over enthusiastic friends in Yemen, before their cowboy tactics get Tehran bombarded with Tomahawk missiles and JDAM guided bombs.

It's probably not exactly what happened, but it's the simplest narrative I can find that fits the few known facts, without assuming out-of-character actions by anyone involved.
 
bilby said:
I suspect that the Yemeni cell bragged to their Iranian handler, who was all 'Oh shit, what the fuck have you done'. Why else would Iranians be taking limpet mines OFF the targeted ships?

The Iranians provide the Yemenis with the materials needed to make IEDs, with the intent that they use them against Saudi and Saudi-backed targets onshore. The Yemenis realise that Saudi tankers are in reach, and decide to target those instead. (Four tankers were attacked in a similar way last week on the Oman side of the gulf; two of those were Saudi, one UAE, and one IIRC Norwegian).

The Iranians know that the US will have a cow if they find Iranian explosives and detonators were used to attack oil tankers. So they are trying to tidy up the mess made by their over enthusiastic friends in Yemen, before their cowboy tactics get Tehran bombarded with Tomahawk missiles and JDAM guided bombs.

It's probably not exactly what happened, but it's the simplest narrative I can find that fits the few known facts, without assuming out-of-character actions by anyone involved.
Click to expand...
That actually makes the most sense, all things considered. Iran does want to disrupt the flow of oil that is not coming from Iran, that much is certain, but they don't want to over escalate. They're probably getting the best game-theory outcome they could hope for at this point.
 
Also the Reichstag fire. When it happened, Nazi leaders howled that the Communists were on the march, and they demanded emergency powers -- and got them.

Also, when Adolf Hitler wanted to attack Poland, he claimed that it was Poland that attacked Germany.
 
And so today, Iran indicates that it will start to enrich Uranium above the ceiling of 10% within 10 days. The sanctions have a bite. Both sides are stumbling towards a conflict of their own making. The only hope is European powers putting their foot down. Along with several other Gulf powers that the US relies on. Without a staging ground, it’s hard to wage a war.

The funny thing is, I don’t think Trump is the one gunning for war. He’s more of an isolationist type. America first! But he has no control over elements in his administration. He'll fire them only after they embarrass him. It’s just insanity.

SLD
 
SLD said:
And so today, Iran indicates that it will start to enrich Uranium above the ceiling of 10% within 10 days. The sanctions have a bite. Both sides are stumbling towards a conflict of their own making. The only hope is European powers putting their foot down. Along with several other Gulf powers that the US relies on. Without a staging ground, it’s hard to wage a war.

The funny thing is, I don’t think Trump is the one gunning for war. He’s more of an isolationist type. America first! But he has no control over elements in his administration. He'll fire them only after they embarrass him. It’s just insanity.

SLD
Click to expand...

Don't believe that Trump is an Isolationist! Trump is enforcing a embargo on Iran. An embargo is an act of war.
 
SLD said:
And so today, Iran indicates that it will start to enrich Uranium above the ceiling of 10% within 10 days. The sanctions have a bite. Both sides are stumbling towards a conflict of their own making. The only hope is European powers putting their foot down. Along with several other Gulf powers that the US relies on. Without a staging ground, it’s hard to wage a war.

The funny thing is, I don’t think Trump is the one gunning for war. He’s more of an isolationist type. America first! But he has no control over elements in his administration. He'll fire them only after they embarrass him. It’s just insanity.

SLD
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between isolationism, and simply not having a clue about anything outside the USofA. Trump would have no problem with bombing foreign countries, but the effort of distinguishing between them is too much work, so he leaves it to the likes of Bolton to pick who to bomb.

A good president knows how to delegate everything except the tough questions - so that he has time to address those tough questions. Trump delegates anything that doesn't interest him - so that he has time to watch Fox News, tweet inanities, and play golf.

Iran can see how this is going to play out - sooner or later, the US will attack them. They're already doing so in imposing sanctions; So the only escalation left is a military action. And looking around the world (in particular at the example of the DPRK), they can see that the only way to prevent US military action, and to get the Americans to start talking instead of shooting, is to have nuclear weapons.

Nuclear deterrence works. Why wouldn't Iran want to get the same protection against a US invasion that the North Koreans have? Their only incentive not to make a bomb was the treaty that the USA tore up for internal party political reasons. If they can't trust America (and clearly they can't), then they need to be able to threaten her. And the only effective way to do that is to own nuclear weapons.

The US has no moral right to restrict ownership of nuclear weapons by other nations. Development of WMDs is not, in itself, a just reason for war (although the use of them is).

When you have the world's largest nuclear arsenal, it's incredibly hypocritical to tell other nations that they aren't allowed one at all.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdtAFIl2jhc[/youtube]
 
Oh fuck. Iran just shot down a US Drone. Bolton will undoubtedly call this an act of war. Earlier though tRump said he wasn’t considering military action against them. In fact for weeks he’s been expressing doubts about how it would go.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/18/politics/donald-trump-iran-tanker/index.html

But I’m not sure tRump cares to get involved in the policy details. He lets others make the decisions while he just goes around tweeting and firing up the base. This is exactly what I feared. We are blundering towards a war. Much like the start of WWI.

SLD
 
The question all the pundits are asking is 'Was it in Iranian airspace at the time?' - under international law, if it was, the Iranians had every right to shoot it down.

Perhaps a more salient question, when considering not the minutiae of international law, but the specific question 'Should this lead to war?' would be 'Was the drone closer to Iranian airspace than it was to US airspace?'. It's a military drone. It has no need to be flirting with the Iranian national border to begin with.

And shooting down an unmanned aircraft is hardly a big deal - it's not like anyone was killed. If they'd shot down an airliner, that would be a big deal. But apparently Iran managed to restrain itself from bombing the USA when they did that, so maybe similar restraint is called for now.

Or are expensive US machines worth more than 290 Iranian civilian lives?
 
Patooka said:
US announces more troops for Middle East and releases new images of oil tanker attacks it blames on Iran

This is an top of the 1,800 troops being deployed last month. Not brigade strength (I think), but certainly measurable. I'm very ignorant in this area, so I have to ask; has there been an instance since WWII, where the redeployment of thousands of troops not escalated into conflict? And if so, where is the cutoff point?
Click to expand...

Of course. Troops, even large bodies of, are deployed all the time. There’s no particular cut off point that I’m aware of.

SLD
 
bilby said:
Perhaps a more salient question, when considering not the minutiae of international law, but the specific question 'Should this lead to war?' would be 'Was the drone closer to Iranian airspace than it was to US airspace?'. It's a military drone. It has no need to be flirting with the Iranian national border to begin with.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that, during the Cold War, Soviet aircraft routinely breached US airspace. US aircraft did the same (Francis Gary Powers, anyone?) but none of these incursions led to war. They were basically accepted as part of the game.

Now, the Soviet Union had - at one point - north of ten thousand nuclear warheads pointed at the United States. Somehow, we managed to avoid a shooting war with them.

Yet the current administration is telling us that we might need to get involved in a shooting war over the downing of one unmanned drone by a country that doesn't have a single nuclear weapon?
 
US drone: Trump say Iran make 'very big mistake'

President Donald Trump say Iran don "make very big mistake "as dem shoot down US military surveillance drone over di Strait of Hormuz.

Im tell tori pipo say e possible say pesin fit don make mistake, e say: "I no fit believe say dem use clear eye do am."

"I imagine say na one general or one pesin na im do mistake shoot our drone down"

"E fit be pesin wey no get sense," na so Trump tok.
Click to expand...

Iran Foreign Minister Javad Zarif say Iran go carry di mata go UN say US "enta dia territory".

We no want war but we go defend our sky, land and water na wetin im tok for Twitter.

Russia President Putin say war between US and Iran go be big wahala with unpredictable consequences".

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres don tell all of di party dem to cool temper.

US, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi say US no want war with Iran, meanwhile di leading candidate for di Democratic presidential nomination, Joe Biden, say oga Trump Iran strategy na "disaster wey im use im own hand cause"
Click to expand...

There'll be no war.
 
The New York Times: Trump Approves Strikes on Iran, but Then Abruptly Pulls Back

WASHINGTON — President Trump approved military strikes against Iran in retaliation for downing an American surveillance drone, but pulled back from launching them on Thursday night after a day of escalating tensions.

As late as 7 p.m., military and diplomatic officials were expecting a strike, after intense discussions and debate at the White House among the president’s top national security officials and congressional leaders, according to multiple senior administration officials involved in or briefed on the deliberations.

Officials said the president had initially approved attacks on a handful of Iranian targets, like radar and missile batteries.

The operation was underway in its early stages when it was called off, a senior administration official said. Planes were in the air and ships were in position, but no missiles had been fired when word came to stand down, the official said.

The abrupt reversal put a halt to what would have been the president’s third military action against targets in the Middle East. Mr. Trump had struck twice at targets in Syria, in 2017 and 2018.

It was not clear whether Mr. Trump simply changed his mind on the strikes or whether the administration altered course because of logistics or strategy. It was also not clear whether the attacks might still go forward.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom