Ships under attack in the middle east

h4rm0ny said:
Pretty much the expected reply. Which then leads directly to if it's so easy to conclusively show what happened that what didn't can be discounted as a possibility - how come the US haven't offered more proof? Can't say lack of proof from Iran is evidence they didn't and lack of proof from the US is evidence Iran did.
Click to expand...

You're operating under the assumption they need to show you proof. What makes you or I Important? Nothing. They'll show proof to those who matter.
 
But the Public do matter as they wont be wanting to send their boys into a slaughterhouse out of choice. The fact that they either haven't got the evidence or invented it means they just want Iran to look bad.

Regardless their Uranium is being enriched again so the clock is now ticking, if they have a nuclear bomb at the end of this, any conflict becomes totally impossible for the warmongers as the risk of losing Jerusalem, Riyadh or Tel Aviv will be far too high.
 
h4rm0ny said:
Pretty much the expected reply. Which then leads directly to if it's so easy to conclusively show what happened that what didn't can be discounted as a possibility - how come the US haven't offered more proof? Can't say lack of proof from Iran is evidence they didn't and lack of proof from the US is evidence Iran did.
Click to expand...

I don't think "more proof" will matter, look at all the evidence about the moon landings and 9/11, people still believe whatever non sense they read on the internet.
 
StriderX said:
Regardless their Uranium is being enriched again so the clock is now ticking, if they have a nuclear bomb at the end of this, any conflict becomes totally impossible for the warmongers as the risk of losing Jerusalem, Riyadh or Tel Aviv will be far too high.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Israel will allow it to get that far if they are able to prevent it.

On another note anyone have any idea what is going on with all the sites, RSS and twitter, etc. feed, basically anything that reports on current military affairs or civil unrest being taken offline? I know someone who just does some casual military aircraft spotting and their host have had a take down notice and it seems more widespread.

EDIT: Googling it seems to show some random stuff about Indian law and a few twitter accounts but seems quite bizarre.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
On another note anyone have any idea what is going on with all the sites, RSS and twitter, etc. feed, basically anything that reports on current military affairs or civil unrest being taken offline? I know someone who just does some casual military aircraft spotting and their host have had a take down notice and it seems more widespread.
Click to expand...

Not sure. I remember during Libya build up and attacks all these pro-war users suddenly appeared on any news paper comments sections that would bury any contrary information. Later on they all seemed to dry up. There's a bit of a purge going on with YouTube and Twitter accounts at the moment, as well.
 
h4rm0ny said:
Not sure. I remember during Libya build up and attacks all these pro-war users suddenly appeared on any news paper comments sections that would bury any contrary information. Later on they all seemed to dry up. There's a bit of a purge going on with YouTube and Twitter accounts at the moment, as well.
Click to expand...

I was just googling it and seems relatively widespread but not much rhyme or reason to it - some of the accounts are complete polar opposites in who they supposedly support and so on. Seems to be general chatter about it being Indian government or Indian Twitter behind it but all very vague.
 
Rroff said:
On another note anyone have any idea what is going on with all the sites, RSS and twitter, etc. feed, basically anything that reports on current military affairs or civil unrest being taken offline? I know someone who just does some casual military aircraft spotting and their host have had a take down notice and it seems more widespread.
Click to expand...

It's called censorship, I thought everyone was in favour of it when it was Alex Jones and a few other allegedly far right people, or people saying offensive stuff? First they came for the conspiracy theorists and I said nothing etc.... well now they're going after anti-war protestors. Besides, they're private companies and can censor you all they like so suck it up.

The whole point of free speech is to protect speech nobody likes such as so called 'hate speech', why would you need to protect politically correct opinions or speech that nobody has a problem with? we've already gone down the slippery slope of censorship and people defended it so now you cant oppose war either.
 
mmj_uk said:
It's called censorship, I thought everyone was in favour of it when it was Alex Jones and a few other allegedly far right people, or people saying offensive stuff? First they came for the conspiracy theorists and I said nothing etc.... well now they're going after anti-war protestors. Besides, they're private companies and can censor you all they like so suck it up.

The whole point of free speech is to protect speech nobody likes such as so called 'hate speech', why would you need to protect politically correct opinions or speech that nobody has a problem with? we've already gone down the slippery slope of censorship and people defended it so now you cant oppose war either.
Click to expand...

Was wondering if anyone had a bit more background on it - it doesn't seem to be specifically targetted at anti-war or even pro-war or any other specific target that I can see - the more I've googled it the more scatter shot it seems other than having a vague target of reporting on ongoing military and civil unrest.
 
I don't ascribe to 99% of conspiracy theorys

- The Americans did go to the moon.
- The Russians we behind the Salisburys attack.
- 9/11 was NOT an inside job.

but this case seems fishy... I doubt the Iranians are behind THIS attack.
 
mmj_uk said:
It's called censorship, I thought everyone was in favour of it when it was Alex Jones and a few other allegedly far right people, or people saying offensive stuff? First they came for the conspiracy theorists and I said nothing etc.... well now they're going after anti-war protestors. Besides, they're private companies and can censor you all they like so suck it up.

The whole point of free speech is to protect speech nobody likes such as so called 'hate speech', why would you need to protect politically correct opinions or speech that nobody has a problem with? we've already gone down the slippery slope of censorship and people defended it so now you cant oppose war either.
Click to expand...

First of all no, you have no idea what you're talking about as usual. Twitter deciding that THEY don't want Alex Jones in THEIR platform is not sensorship, that's the people who run Twitter not liking right wing racist nutjobs and are under zero obligation to give them a voice on their platform. Someone having their OWN website taken down when they are choosing themselves to talk about military isn't remotely comparable. Twitter is exercising their rights, the other guy is having their rights taken away, these are completely different situations.

Second the whole point of free speech is not to protect speech nobody likes, it's to prevent consequences from that speech being placed upon them from the government. It's amazing that the loudest shouters about "free speech" have no idea what it is.

No, Alex Jones isn't having his free speech encroached upon by being prevented from screaming at the top of his lungs on Twitter, yes he is allowed to have his own website and say what he wants on it and no the government hasn't shut down his websites, that is what free speech is.

Twitter removing right wing whackjobs isn't a slippery slope of anything. Again, free speech is about someone being free to voice opinions without the government jailing them for it. These don't have to be unpopular opinions or hate speech. IF someone says the government should become more socialist and becomes a powerful voice a nation without free speech laws could implement anti government speech rules and jail someone for saying those things. That is what free speech protects. Specifically free speech has never been about, nor was it even intended to force a private corporation into letting anyone say whatever they want.
 
Iran's current stance on its uranium enrichment programme is potentially a pre cursor to WW3.
Pre emptive strikes are an absolute necessity unless the Islamic dictatorship can be destabilized by it's own people.
ISIS will never win.
 
StriderX said:
But the Public do matter as they wont be wanting to send their boys into a slaughterhouse out of choice.
Click to expand...
What makes you believe this is the intention :confused: ah that's right, you don't.
StriderX said:
The fact that they either haven't got the evidence or invented it means they just want Iran to look bad.
Click to expand...

Wait, so this video we're talking about isn't evidence? :confused: hmm
 
kully1972 said:
Iran's current stance on its uranium enrichment programme is potentially a pre cursor to WW3.
Pre emptive strikes are an absolute necessity unless the Islamic dictatorship can be destabilized by it's own people.
ISIS will never win.
Click to expand...

Oh **** !
 
kully1972 said:
Iran's current stance on its uranium enrichment programme is potentially a pre cursor to WW3.
Pre emptive strikes are an absolute necessity unless the Islamic dictatorship can be destabilized by it's own people.
ISIS will never win.
Click to expand...

Nice bit of hyperbole.

Is this the same government voted in by 41 million out of 50 million registered voters?
Average 65% turnout over the years. Equivalent to the UK.

You realise that the Islamic revolution was the wish of the Iranian people?

Wiki
The revolution was unusual for the surprise it created throughout the world. it lacked many of the customary causes of revolution (defeat at war, a financial crisis, peasant rebellion, or disgruntled military),[21] occurred in a nation that was experiencing relative prosperity,[12][19] produced profound change at great speed,[22] was massively popular, resulted in the exile of many Iranians,[23] and replaced a pro-Western authoritarian monarchy[12]with an anti-Western theocracy[12][18][19][Note 1][25]based on the concept of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (or velayat-e faqih). It was a relatively non-violent revolution, and it helped to redefine the meaning and practice of modern revolutions
Click to expand...

Also what's ISIS to do with Iran?
 
You dumb loony lefties have u learnt nothing from the history of India and Islam?
Over 100 million people were slaughtered by the Mughal Empires over a 100 yr period.
Looks like history will repeat as it always does but I digress state and religion combined never works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom