Ships under attack in the middle east

Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,729
There is always a conspiracy loon or loons attracted to this stuff, the mental gymnastics they go through are ridiculous.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
82,537
Quite.

The fact Iran tried to shoot the drone down that was watching is telling.

Looks like that part of the Middle East is fast turning into a drone war LOL - I guess somewhat inevitable as the technology progresses and it means putting less manpower in harms way.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
8,198
Location
Leeds
Quite.

The fact Iran tried to shoot the drone down that was watching is telling.

Hang on, we know for a fact that the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war was false, but people are conspiracy theorists for not taking it as gospel when we're told Iran are up to no good?
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2011
Posts
5,468
Location
Yorkshire and proud of it!
Hang on, we know for a fact that the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war was false, but people are conspiracy theorists for not taking it as gospel when we're told Iran are up to no good?

It's just the usual methodology. I got called a conspiracy theorist for saying Qatar was sending soldiers into Libya to bolster the rebels numbers, got called a conspiracy theorist for saying the Iraq WMD claims were false, got called a conspiracy theorist for saying the USA would try to extradite Assange (here on these forums, in fact). A conspiracy theorist for saying the US was trying to stop the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline or that we have supported Nazis in the Ukraine. It really doesn't matter what it is so long as it meets two criteria: contrary to what people want to believe and not known to the person you're telling. Tick both those boxes and it's a "Conspiracy Theory". And if it becomes known or is proven, the other party immediately either drops it entirely or claims everyone knew it all along. Either way, they instantly move on without pausing to reflect. The goal is not to establish truth, but to dismiss unwanted information. They don't care about being proven wrong because that was never what mattered to them.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jun 2004
Posts
19,423
Location
On the Amiga500
It's just the usual methodology. I got called a conspiracy theorist for saying Qatar was sending soldiers into Libya to bolster the rebels numbers, got called a conspiracy theorist for saying the Iraq WMD claims were false, got called a conspiracy theorist for saying the USA would try to extradite Assange (here on these forums, in fact). A conspiracy theorist for saying the US was trying to stop the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline or that we have supported Nazis in the Ukraine. It really doesn't matter what it is so long as it meets two criteria: contrary to what people want to believe and not known to the person you're telling. Tick both those boxes and it's a "Conspiracy Theory". And if it becomes known or is proven, the other party immediately either drops it entirely or claims everyone knew it all along. Either way, they instantly move on without pausing to reflect. The goal is not to establish truth, but to dismiss unwanted information. They don't care about being proven wrong because that was never what mattered to them.
Negative. Your goal is to push your agenda. Just like the other shills. You once had credibility as a poster of reason, but recently your alterior motives became clear, just like EvilShill. Apologies but, no one cares about agendabots.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jun 2004
Posts
19,423
Location
On the Amiga500
Hang on, we know for a fact that the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war was false, but people are conspiracy theorists for not taking it as gospel when we're told Iran are up to no good?
What you're doing is conflating two completely different things. It's usual, you want to identify a trend and state it is so and therefore a truth.

I'm telling you Iran attacked the tanker. If you want to believe otherwise, I don't care. Your opinion doesn't change anything. We can debate the matter, again, it doesn't change a thing. Post some ******** from a site that holds an agenda and put up an argument that you see fit... Again, like the rest of others above.. It doesn't matter.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
29,619
why wouldn't they anyway?

Tbh if i was told to hate a military/country my entire life because they attempted to overthrow a democratic government they didn't agree with, i'd probably shoot at them every chance i got, especially drones as they're rather low on the scales of reasons to go to war.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jun 2004
Posts
19,423
Location
On the Amiga500
drones as they're rather low on the scales of reasons to go to war.
It's still a sovereign state asset and a pretty high echelon one in terms of strategy and task. It's an act of war to shoot one down, but you're right, they're pretty expendable. Like when the US first went into Iraq, they essentially sent all their oldest drones over the country, pretty much on a suicide mission in a straight line to show up their air defence locations.

why wouldn't they anyway?
Over international waters, without being a threat to their homeland? Should they just shoot at any old aircraft then, like the Russians do? We all know how that can go terribly wrong.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
22,132
Hang on, we know for a fact that the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war was false, but people are conspiracy theorists for not taking it as gospel when we're told Iran are up to no good?

Do we? They never found anything, but that doeant mean the weapons didnt exist. Some say they may have moved them out of the country before the invasion started. We know for a fact Saddam used chemical weapons in the past.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
8,198
Location
Leeds
Do we? They never found anything, but that doeant mean the weapons didnt exist. Some say they may have moved them out of the country before the invasion started. We know for a fact Saddam used chemical weapons in the past.

The Sun literally carried the headline "Brits 45 minutes from doom", the entire thing was a complete lie and a joke. Yet we're being called conspiracy theorists because we aren't blindly believing that Iran is sabotaging oil tankers? Come on. Iran may be doing it, but they're both as bad as each other, so it's not ridiculous to question things we're told. There's clearly a lot of influence being put on America to target Iran at the minute, probably the same influence that ensures Israel receives billions towards their defence budget from the US.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2011
Posts
5,468
Location
Yorkshire and proud of it!
What you're doing is conflating two completely different things. It's usual, you want to identify a trend and state it is so and therefore a truth.

No. What they are doing is demonstrating a simple of logical sequence: The USA has lied in the past in order to provide a justification for war. Therefore we require more than just their say so in order to believe them now.

Do we? They never found anything, but that doeant mean the weapons didnt exist. Some say they may have moved them out of the country before the invasion started. We know for a fact Saddam used chemical weapons in the past.

Well yes - we probably still have the receipts from when we sold them to him. But that wasn't the justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq when we did it. The legal fiction for that was that he had active and viable WMD at the time. And he didn't. You can invoke a Russell's Teapot argument that we've never proved he didn't. But that's not how logic nor International Law work. If someone accused you of being a terrorist it's on them to show that you were, not on you to somehow prove you're not or else they'll break into your house and live there. Additionally, the UN weapons inspectors were asking for more time to investigate and Saddam was granting them the access they wanted. But the USA already had its forces in position by that point and wanted war and wanted it now.
 
Associate
Joined
7 Sep 2009
Posts
2,335
Location
London
Do we? They never found anything, but that doeant mean the weapons didnt exist. Some say they may have moved them out of the country before the invasion started. We know for a fact Saddam used chemical weapons in the past.

You mean the time we the West gave chemical weapons to our then ally Saddam to use on Iran?

So we've done the above.

Overthrown a democratically elected leader because he nationalised Iran's oil. Oh by the way this involved hiring thugs via CIA operations- I know "CT" rubbish. Fortunately, we like to boast about how we do things afterwards (operation ajax and boot).

As a result applied decades of sanctions on Iran and its people after the population of Iran took back control.

More recently pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal so we can reapply sanctions then blame Iran for war mongering.

Several attempts to bait Iran into a war including blowning up a passenger plane over their air space (never apologised for it).

I fully support Iran in defending itself against our blatant aggression.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,609
Location
Northern England
Woah! Didn't know anything about that.

The Russian bit or the American bit? The difference with the Americans is at least they acknowledged they'd done it and provided logical explanations as to why it happened. Little comfort, I know, to the nearly 300 victims and their families however.
It's worth pointing out as well that the Americans made multiple attempts to contact the Iranian jet which failed to respond. These attempts are recorded by the international aviation authority.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
7 Sep 2009
Posts
2,335
Location
London
The Russian bit or the American bit? The difference with the Americans is at least they acknowledged they'd done it and provided logical explanations as to why it happened. Little comfort, I know, to the nearly 300 victims and their families however.
It's worth pointing out as well that the Americans made multiple attempts to contact the Iranian jet which failed to respond. These attempts are recorded by the international aviation authority.

Well their explanation is laughable. Even if they had mixed it up with an Iranian fighter jet (a third its size btw) it was within it's own territorial waters. So what exactly was the Vincennes trying to do? Initiate war?

What's scarier is if you apply this level of incompetence on a global scale how many "mistakes" have the US made?

You could bet that had this been a fighter you would get : " The USS vincennes has shot down an Iranian F14 that had targeted the ship". Time to go to war.

Still no apology btw.
 
Top Bottom