Right so had this been the US who went to collect it stating they did it for analysis it would have been ok?
Several posters including myself have suggested reasonable motives. So far only US and its allies seek to gain from this.
Ships under attack in the middle east
- Thread starter XeNoN89
- Start date
Right so had this been the US who went to collect it stating they did it for analysis it would have been ok?
Several posters including myself have suggested reasonable motives. So far only US and its allies seek to gain from this.
Iran (or the US): "Hey everyone we found a mine on one of the ships, come and look at it to see if it has any useful evidence." <-- This would be normal when finding a bomb.
Iran (or the US): <silence while removing unexploded mine> <-- This is suspicious.
Me included. But you asked a question which had a very simple answer.
Yes except we have a picture of men on a boat removing a device. That's all.
Let me try:
"Hi we are Iran, we have absolutely no reason to bomb a Japanese ship on the day when the Japanese minister is visiting to create new trade deals so we can struggle through our crippled economy. We will also pick up the mine afterwards when the world is watching"
Have I done it right ?
I agree. I can't see an obvious reason for them to do it.
But if (and it needs to be proved) it was Iran removing a mine thrn it is suspicious.
Let's see. It's been days. I'll happily be corrected. However, everything about this stinks.
Everybody loves a good conspiracy theory don't they 
It's extremely unlikely that this is a 'false flag' or whatever attack, because the Iranians have already threatened to do this. Back in February Ali Shamkhani (Iranian Admiral) said;
By attacking tankers in the Strair of Hormuz, it basically causes enough upset and cancelled orders in the oil market, that Iran can benefit and essentially work around the US sanctions on it's oil market, which to me makes perfect sense, and seems like the most likely explanation - especially when you consider that less than 4 months ago they threatened to do this.
It's just a game of cat and mouse, Iran will basically try and push the boundary as far as it dares, to the point where there's a carrier strike group breathing down its neck, then retreat.
It's extremely unlikely that this is a 'false flag' or whatever attack, because the Iranians have already threatened to do this. Back in February Ali Shamkhani (Iranian Admiral) said;
By attacking tankers in the Strair of Hormuz, it basically causes enough upset and cancelled orders in the oil market, that Iran can benefit and essentially work around the US sanctions on it's oil market, which to me makes perfect sense, and seems like the most likely explanation - especially when you consider that less than 4 months ago they threatened to do this.
It's just a game of cat and mouse, Iran will basically try and push the boundary as far as it dares, to the point where there's a carrier strike group breathing down its neck, then retreat.
Not even close
How about this as an alternative:
"Hi we are Iran, we have targeted a Japanese ship to threaten Japan into reducing sanctions and giving us a trade deal to boost our crippled economy, plus show the US (who Japan is playing middle-man for in negotiations) that we're happy to escalate things to get our way. We will also try to hide the evidence of our involvement by picking up the failed mine but we didn't realise until after than there was a drone watching (because our speedboat has no air-search radar) and no-one wanted to radio us from Iran which would have confirmed our identity if we'd replied."
I'd suggest that neither of our two fanciful stories are accurate but I like the fan fiction anyway!
Lol
"If Japan doesn't offer us an improved deal or reduce sanctions, well with all the tension here at the moment we can't guarantee the safety of your ships and no-one wants to see your economy, which imports 95% of all it's oil from the Middle East via the Gulf of Oman, take a down turn due to a lack of oil do they? However, if you give us a decent trade deal your ships will be perfectly safe, we proud Iranians will guarantee it by protecting them ourselves"
Again, all fan fiction where life isn't black/white but instead realpolitik is various shades of grey, which I'm sure you'll find just as funny as my last reply
Increasingly censorship is being done by algorithms without human intervention. Hence YouTube taking down history channels that talk about Nazi germany and similar the last few weeks. So expect some random collateral damage in attempts to censor unwanted information and views.
There may be some element of that i.e. social media sites using an algorithmic approach to match a certain complaint or something but seems to be more than that with a variety of platforms from bigger organised entities through to smaller hosting, etc. involved.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
haha, further to my previous post on what the Iran deal meant, and how it could have progressed, and how it was the first step towards building a better deal and Trump unilaterally pulled out of it rather than building on it because he's an idiot. He's now basically begging everyone else who stayed in on the deal to hold Iran to it. Guy is a complete moron and those who said he was right for pulling out are being made a fool of by the very man they defend blindly.
Trump gave up power by pulling out of that deal and now he's unable to himself demand that Iran stick to the deal. This is why no other leader in the same position would have done the same thing, it was amongst the stupidest things he's done in his life and that is saying something.
Trump gave up power by pulling out of that deal and now he's unable to himself demand that Iran stick to the deal. This is why no other leader in the same position would have done the same thing, it was amongst the stupidest things he's done in his life and that is saying something.
Not particularly, you're just trying to rationalise their motives from your own pov/values etc...
The evidence so far doesn't really stink. Iran has been making noises about disrupting shipping in that area, ships were previously attacked, ships attacked again, Iranians seen removing what looks like a mine, rather suspiciously they don't bother mentioning this but rather the US captures video of it, US releases photos of where the removed mine was placed on the ship...
So far it just looks like Iran attacked some ships, placed some mines above the waterline so as to not necessarily intend to sink them.
erm I think your hearing might be a bit off on that one...
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 4,377
I don't think they're deploying them to Iran, at least not just yet, that would be quite an escalation and they'd need a few more than 1000 if they fancy staying there for long
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 4,377
I don't think they're deploying them to Iran, at least not just yet, that would be quite an escalation and they'd need a few more than 1000 if they fancy staying there for long
This is a good point, I meant more as in Jasoncmor had heard it right, but I think I overlooked the 'in Iran' part
That's just a far too boringly sensible deduction there dowie, I much prefer the ISIS frogmen theory!
Sure in the same way you are doing. Nothing about what I and others have said is irrational considering the allies US has in the region.
Even Germany a Western ally has not accepted the video as proof.