Iran

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:00 pm

tjg_marantz wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:24 pm Pompeo is blaming Iran for at least one...

Of course he is. This smells like total bullshit to me. They need to answer an important question. Why is Iran attacking oil tankers?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:34 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:00 pm
tjg_marantz wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:24 pm Pompeo is blaming Iran for at least one...
Of course he is. This smells like total bullshit to me. They need to answer an important question. Why is Iran attacking oil tankers?

Because they hate our freedoms. Duh.

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:39 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:34 pm
malchior wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:00 pm
tjg_marantz wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:24 pm Pompeo is blaming Iran for at least one...
Of course he is. This smells like total bullshit to me. They need to answer an important question. Why is Iran attacking oil tankers?
Because they hate our freedoms. Duh.

God I wish the US would stop trying to go to war with ME countries to feed our stupid military industrial complex.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:56 am

Flying mines

President Trump rejected Iran’s denials Friday that it attacked two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, insisting in a television interview that “Iran did do it” and pointing to a video released by the U.S. Central Command purporting to show Iranian vessels retrieving an unexploded mine from one of the damaged ships.

However, the head of the Japanese shipping company that owns one of the targeted tankers challenged the U.S. assertion that the vessel was attacked with limpet mines. He said Friday that the crew reported it was hit by “a flying object.”
...
In an interview on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends” program, Trump said, referring to the Central Command video: “Well, Iran did do it, and you know they did it because you saw the boat.”

He added: “I guess one of the mines didn’t explode, and it’s probably got essentially Iran written all over it. And you saw the boat at night, trying to take the mine off and successfully took the mine off the boat. And that was exposed. That was their boat. That was them, and they didn’t want the evidence left behind.”
...
Yutaka Katada, president of the Kokuka Sangyo shipping firm that owns the Kokuka Courageous tanker, told reporters Friday in Tokyo: “The crew are saying it was hit with a flying object. They say something come flying toward them, then there was an explosion, then there was a hole in the vessel. Then some crew witnessed a second shot.”
...
“When the shell hit, it was above the water surface by quite a lot,” Katada said. “Because of that, there is no doubt that it wasn’t a torpedo.”

He said the ship’s crew saw an Iranian military ship in the vicinity on Thursday night Japan time, Reuters news agency reported.
...
The U.S. Central Command late Thursday made public a dark, grainy video and corresponding timeline suggesting that U.S. military assets in the region observed the Iranian vessels approaching the tanker and removing the device.

“At 4:10 p.m. local time an IRGC Gashti Class patrol boat approached the M/T Kokuka Courageous and was observed and recorded removing the unexploded limpet mine” from the Courageous, said Capt. Bill Urban, a Central Command spokesman.

Senior U.S. officials showed photographs to reporters of the damaged tanker Kokuka Courageous with what the Navy identified as a suspected magnetic mine attached to its hull.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:08 pm

Wait. They "saw" a flying object? Seriously? If it were a missile. Maybe. Depending on the missile. Scratch that. If it were a missile it would be between 1500 and 4000 miles per hour. If it were a shell? They travel in the vicinity of 2,500 feet/s. That's around 1/2 a mile per second, or around 1800 miles per hour.

What are the chances that crew with no reason to suspect an attack was incoming were looking in the exact right direction at the exact right time to see this split second event? What are the chances multiple crew members were doing so?

I don't know what happened, and I hope we find out in the near future, with irrefutable evidence and independent corroboration. I know that a company spokesperson relaying information second or third hand from crew members with no specialized knowledge of naval combat is not going to convince me of anything, in and of itself.

For the record, American sources are suggesting the mine was put in place, by hand, not floating in the water/tracking torpedoed at the ship, so I don't see any inconsistency between statements from American sources and the Japanese corporate president's statement that the explosions were above the water line.

If it turns out that the crew did indeed witness the attack as it was in the air, I would love to find out the details of such an attack.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:47 pm

So this is the course of action John Kerry recommended to Iran for dealing with President Trump. Whatever it takes to win 2020!

If it were true it would be brilliant in an evil genius sort of way.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:01 am

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:00 pm
tjg_marantz wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:24 pm Pompeo is blaming Iran for at least one...
Of course he is. This smells like total bullshit to me. They need to answer an important question. Why is Iran attacking oil tankers?

Why did Iran attack oil tankers of third party nations back in the 1990’s (I think that was when it happened)? The fact is, they have done it before, and the purpose is to show that they can interdict the flow of oil to the rest of the world, and because of that they shouldn’t be messed with. I’ll also note that Iran has publicly threatened to do this in the past when they have felt threatened. So this isn’t necessarily something that is being made up.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:43 am

It isn't surely out of their character but the timing makes little sense. Abe is in town to try to bridge the gap between Iran and the US and the Iranians attack a Japanese-flagged ship? It just strains credulity. That said, Iran has some fairly fragmented elements and it is possible one of them wanted to scuttle talks. However Pompeo is blaming it on Iran - and by that he means the national leadership. I think we need to understand that leap because they'll need a whole lot more than a grainy video if they want to lead us into another idiotic war.

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:23 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:43 am It isn't surely out of their character but the timing makes little sense. Abe is in town to try to bridge the gap between Iran and the US and the Iranians attack a Japanese-flagged ship? It just strains credulity. That said, Iran has some fairly fragmented elements and it is possible one of them wanted to scuttle talks. However Pompeo is blaming it on Iran - and by that he means the national leadership. I think we need to understand that leap because they'll need a whole lot more than a grainy video if they want to lead us into another idiotic war.

With all the profoundly stupid conflicts we have gotten into for oil, we could be at zero emissions power an electric car for everyone and sparkling new infrastructure if we just spent the money on that instead. But we as a country would rather feed the military industrial complex and the oil lobby.

I feel terribly ashamed at the stupidity of our populace, politicians and my country. We need to collapse.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:13 pm

Grifman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:01 am and the purpose is to show that they can interdict the flow of oil to the rest of the world, and because of that they shouldn’t be messed with. I’ll also note that Iran has publicly threatened to do this in the past when they have felt threatened.

They have disavowed the attacks, which is a strange way to publicly threaten people. That said, they (should) know the relevant players will figure it out whatever their public face, so it could still be them.

Inviting a foreign leader to repair relationship damage then blowing holes in one of their tankers is a very drumpfian thing to do. I don't know Iran's leadership well enough to know if this is a (not so) veiled threat for Japan, but it seems stupid and shortsighted (which doesn't make it impossible).

Without more information I'd be grasping at straws, but malchior's suggestion of an Iranian faction is plausible to me.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:26 pm

Now we know there's an alarmingly high number of young people roaming around in your country with nothing to do but stir up trouble for the police and damage private property. It doesn't look like they'll ever get a job.

It's about time we did something constructive with these people. We've got thousands of 'em here too. They're crawling all over.

The companies think it's time we all sit down, have a serious get-together - and start another war.

The President? He loves the idea! All those missiles streaming overhead to and fro! Napalm! People running down the road, skin on fire! The Soviets seem up for it: The Kremlin's been itching for the real thing for years. Hell, Afghanistan's no fun.

So, whadya say? We don't even have to win this war. We just want to cut down on some of this excess population!

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:12 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:13 pm
Grifman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:01 am and the purpose is to show that they can interdict the flow of oil to the rest of the world, and because of that they shouldn’t be messed with. I’ll also note that Iran has publicly threatened to do this in the past when they have felt threatened.
They have disavowed the attacks, which is a strange way to publicly threaten people. That said, they (should) know the relevant players will figure it out whatever their public face, so it could still be them.

Inviting a foreign leader to repair relationship damage then blowing holes in one of their tankers is a very drumpfian thing to do. I don't know Iran's leadership well enough to know if this is a (not so) veiled threat for Japan, but it seems stupid and shortsighted (which doesn't make it impossible).

Without more information I'd be grasping at straws, but malchior's suggestion of an Iranian faction is plausible to me.

Jesus... What if it was us?

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:39 pm

My money is on Canada.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:46 pm

Have they checked the site for bone saws?

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:07 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:39 pm My money is on Canada.

So you're saying that Mr. Trump would be above having someone put a bomb on a tanker to move the ball a few yards down the field with the goal being war with Iran?

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:28 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:13 pm
Grifman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:01 am and the purpose is to show that they can interdict the flow of oil to the rest of the world, and because of that they shouldn’t be messed with. I’ll also note that Iran has publicly threatened to do this in the past when they have felt threatened.
They have disavowed the attacks, which is a strange way to publicly threaten people. That said, they (should) know the relevant players will figure it out whatever their public face, so it could still be them.

Inviting a foreign leader to repair relationship damage then blowing holes in one of their tankers is a very drumpfian thing to do. I don't know Iran's leadership well enough to know if this is a (not so) veiled threat for Japan, but it seems stupid and shortsighted (which doesn't make it impossible).

Without more information I'd be grasping at straws, but malchior's suggestion of an Iranian faction is plausible to me.

Uh, the question wasn't whether Iran did this but why Iran might do this. I gave an example of Iran's past actions and explanations for those actions. I did not say that I thought Iran did do this = that's an entirely separate question.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:18 pm

Purely considering who has the most to gain/lose, it's murky...I'd put my money on Saudi Arabia, but not very much money.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:22 am

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:46 pm Have they checked the site for bone saws?

I think they took that guy's submarine away from him. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40922750

Spoiler:

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:20 am

Strait of Hormuz: US confirms drone was shot down by Iranian missile

A US military surveillance drone has been shot down by Iranian forces while flying over the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) said the drone had violated Iranian airspace. But US military said it had been over international waters.

The IRGC said its air force shot down a US "spy" drone in the early hours of Thursday after the unmanned aircraft violated Iranian airspace near Kuhmobarak in the southern province of Hormozgan.

The drone was identified by the IRGC as a RQ-4 Global Hawk, but the US military official told Reuters news agency the drone was a US Navy MQ-4C Triton, a maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft based on the RQ-4B Global Hawk.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:24 am

Max Peck wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:20 am Strait of Hormuz: US confirms drone was shot down by Iranian missile
A US military surveillance drone has been shot down by Iranian forces while flying over the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) said the drone had violated Iranian airspace. But US military said it had been over international waters.
The IRGC said its air force shot down a US "spy" drone in the early hours of Thursday after the unmanned aircraft violated Iranian airspace near Kuhmobarak in the southern province of Hormozgan.

The drone was identified by the IRGC as a RQ-4 Global Hawk, but the US military official told Reuters news agency the drone was a US Navy MQ-4C Triton, a maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft based on the RQ-4B Global Hawk.

REMEMBER THE MAINE GLOBAL HAWK no. XP118462!!

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:46 am

Freaking Iran is going to get this shithead reelected if they give us a good reason to actually start a war. Shooting down a drone?

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:22 pm

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but it seems to me one of the easiest ways to provoke Iran into actions leading to a war you want would be to fly an unmanned drone into their airspace and then become outraged when they shoot it down over "international waters."

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:36 pm

FUUUUUUUCCCCCCKKK!!!!

Edit for: Watching this live on NBC and Trump is sounding far more reasonable then I would give him credit for.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:44 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:46 am Freaking Iran is going to get this shithead reelected if they give us a good reason to actually start a war. Shooting down a drone?

Good reason? Shooting down a drone (a drone's drone if you believe the source quoted above) in Iranian air space is far from a good reason. It does demonstrate Iran's desperation.

Certain elements in the Administration want a war with Iran and are whispering provocations in Trump's ear. The backdoor arms deal with the Saudis, backing out of the nuclear treaty that paves the way for economic pressures, etc. The US is backing Iran into a corner. IMO it's intentionally forcing a conflict. I honestly believe Trump is isolationist but we all know that his stance is the most recent one he's been told to have.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:29 pm

This is another issue I would take to the streets on personally. The Global Hawk is extremely high altitude generally and shooting one down either involves Russian arms or the drone flying low. Either way, this just feels insanely manufactured to me.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:42 pm

Global Hawk

Ceiling: 60,000 feet (18,288 meters)

Iranian Air Defenses

Sayyad-1, Islamic Republic of Iran first indigenous-produced Sayyad-1 Anti Aircraft Missile which was Upgraded copy of HQ-2, Sayyad-1 has IR tracking.

S-75

The S-75 (Russian: С-75; NATO reporting name SA-2 Guideline) is a Soviet-designed, high-altitude air defence system, built around a surface-to-air missile with command guidance. Following its first deployment in 1957 it became one of the most widely deployed air defence systems in history.
...
It has also been locally produced in the People's Republic of China under the names HQ-1 and HQ-2.
...
Flight altitude 25,000 m (82,000 ft)

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:57 pm

I'm sure the shoot-down was traumatic for the drone pilot. He's probably just now recovering from his hangover.

I really hope we're not going to war to avenge an expensive appliance.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:02 pm

Trump is already backpedaling and trying to cuddle up in Iran's lap over this. He likes to talk big, but the moment someone calls his bluff instead of just sending a bad tweet about him, he backs down fast. He's a coward who doesn't want people to know he is. He'll declare his love for the leaders soon enough, then claim it was all part of some master plan. Then they'll walk all over him like the little wuss he really is.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:57 pm

Word on the street is that Trump now suspects he's being manipulated by John Bolton into things that have nothing to do with TrumpCo cashflow.

This will not stand!

EDIT: Oh, and this...

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:16 pm

If you want to goad Trump into doing something, tell him he can't.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 7:01 pm

Unless your name is Putin.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 7:10 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:16 pm If you want to goad Trump into doing something, tell him he can't.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:47 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:16 pm If you want to goad Trump into doing something, tell him he can't.

It didn’t work for math...or grammar...or...well, you get the gist.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:35 pm

If the ghost of John McCain can sing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran..." at Trump, maybe he'll be so angry at either how people laughed or the general suggestion that he just won't do it? Sorry...is it too soon?

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:24 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:57 pm Word on the street is that Trump now suspects he's being manipulated by John Bolton into things that have nothing to do with TrumpCo cashflow.

This will not stand!

EDIT: Oh, and this...

I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but it seems to me that when Trump was talking tough on Iran, he was being led to war by the neo cons, but now that he's backing off he's being called a spineless weakling.

Which is it? I think Trump is a corrupt, lying dumpster fire of a President and I really don't want to defend him and I would love to hate him for this too... But isin't NOT going to war a good thing?

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:34 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:57 pm I'm sure the shoot-down was traumatic for the drone pilot. He's probably just now recovering from his hangover.

I really hope we're not going to war to avenge an expensive appliance.

If Iran did shoot down one of our drones, in international waters [I know, a mighty big IF] I'd love to see the US yank on their chain a bit. Mess with their infrastructure or something for a few days, just in the areas where the leadership live. Something completely deniable. Bonus points for manufacturing evidence that an ally did it... Say Russia.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:00 am

Trump ordered an attack on Iran, then changed his mind.

WTF

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:13 am

Exodor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:00 am Trump ordered an attack on Iran, then changed his mind.

WTF

Yeah. Prolly Putin told him not to...

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:16 am

Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:24 pm
Holman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:57 pm Word on the street is that Trump now suspects he's being manipulated by John Bolton into things that have nothing to do with TrumpCo cashflow.

This will not stand!

EDIT: Oh, and this...

I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but it seems to me that when Trump was talking tough on Iran, he was being led to war by the neo cons, but now that he's backing off he's being called a spineless weakling.

Which is it? I think Trump is a corrupt, lying dumpster fire of a President and I really don't want to defend him and I would love to hate him for this too... But isin't NOT going to war a good thing?

Not going to war is good. I'd never call him spineless. I'd call him erratic, unreliable, and dangerous.

Posturing and sending every signal that you are going to war without a truly good reason--including ordering an attack before calling it off--and then suddenly shifting course is better than actually going to war but worse than doing none of this at all.

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:43 am

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:16 am
Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:24 pm
Holman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:57 pm Word on the street is that Trump now suspects he's being manipulated by John Bolton into things that have nothing to do with TrumpCo cashflow.

This will not stand!

EDIT: Oh, and this...

I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but it seems to me that when Trump was talking tough on Iran, he was being led to war by the neo cons, but now that he's backing off he's being called a spineless weakling.

Which is it? I think Trump is a corrupt, lying dumpster fire of a President and I really don't want to defend him and I would love to hate him for this too... But isin't NOT going to war a good thing?
Not going to war is good. I'd never call him spineless. I'd call him erratic, unreliable, and dangerous.

Posturing and sending every signal that you are going to war without a truly good reason--including ordering an attack before calling it off--and then suddenly shifting course is better than actually going to war but worse than doing none of this at all.

Yep.