Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran.

[Bateshorn 9476]

The incompetence is breath taking.  Like, it's not that hard, guys.

[Brisketexan 103148]

6 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The incompetence is breath taking.  Like, it's not that hard, guys.

Yeah, this is all kinda baffling.  It's a chess match, with multiple players:

The Saudis/arab states

Israel

The US

Iran

It's almost certain that SOMEONE aligned with one of those players made this particular move.  But to what end?  Look at the risk/reward.  It's hard to make a case for it being Iran: if they wanted to put ships at the bottom of the gulf, they could do so in ways that DON'T involve using easily-traced pre-made mines.  And Iran knows that if it is traced to them, they are at HIGH risk for getting slapped down by vastly superior miliitaries.  I'm not saying it's impossible that it's Iran -- I'm saying that for it to be Iran, they would have to be the dumbest state actor in the past 50+ years, and I don't see it.

Who benefits by the ultimate outcome of this process (bombing tankers, leading to inevitable military reprisals)?  Iran is the LAST party on that list.  And the other three are all high on the list.

Add in the fact that this administration has earned -- I mean EARNED - the title of least-trustworthy administration in history, and this is a mess.  If someone like the Dutch come out and say "yeah, we figured out it was Iran," I would be much more inclined to believe it.

[Bateshorn 9476]

I'm inclined to rule out the Isrealis.  While they'd love to have us bomb Iran, they would be much more subtle about it than this.  I mean, this is embarrassingly bad.  OTOH, all it takes is goading Trump into action, so maybe it's being dumbed down for him.

[Brisketexan 103148]

1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

I'm inclined to rule out the Isrealis.  While they'd love to have us bomb Iran, they would be much more subtle about it than this.  I mean, this is embarrassingly bad.  OTOH, all it takes is goading Trump into action, so maybe it's being dumbed down for him.

I agree.  The Israelis would be a LOT more slick.  

[hayden_horn 11311]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, this is all kinda baffling.  It's a chess match, with multiple players:

The Saudis/arab states

Israel

The US

Iran

It's almost certain that SOMEONE aligned with one of those players made this particular move.  But to what end?  Look at the risk/reward.  It's hard to make a case for it being Iran: if they wanted to put ships at the bottom of the gulf, they could do so in ways that DON'T involve using easily-traced pre-made mines.  And Iran knows that if it is traced to them, they are at HIGH risk for getting slapped down by vastly superior miliitaries.  I'm not saying it's impossible that it's Iran -- I'm saying that for it to be Iran, they would have to be the dumbest state actor in the past 50+ years, and I don't see it.

Who benefits by the ultimate outcome of this process (bombing tankers, leading to inevitable military reprisals)?  Iran is the LAST party on that list.  And the other three are all high on the list.

Add in the fact that this administration has earned -- I mean EARNED - the title of least-trustworthy administration in history, and this is a mess.  If someone like the Dutch come out and say "yeah, we figured out it was Iran," I would be much more inclined to believe it.

they probably blew up themselves.

it's like lenin said...you look for the person who benefit, and, uh

i am the walrus

[Lagunamadre 1975]

5 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I'm inclined to rule out the Isrealis.  While they'd love to have us bomb Iran, they would be much more subtle about it than this.  I mean, this is embarrassingly bad.  OTOH, all it takes is goading Trump into action, so maybe it's being dumbed down for him.

This has all the sloppiness of the Saudis. If they get caught, they know Trump will just say "we are looking into it" in perpetuity. 

[Irwin F Fletcher 3534]

26 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

This has all the sloppiness of the Saudis. If they get caught, they know Trump will just say "we are looking into it" in perpetuity. 

This. Watching the footage it's almost aggiesque. They have what looks like at least eight people on that Boston Whaler, insert your own how many aggies does it take to unscrew a light bulb joke.

Edited June 14, 2019 by Irwin F Fletcher

[ChickenSandwich 9750]

3 out boards on that bad boy. 

Wonder how the fishing is off shore?  Needs more rods 

[Bama Chick 28595]

The plot thickens.

[ChickenSandwich 9750]

The entire 21-person crew evacuated theKokuka Courageous. Sailors reported seeing the “flying objects” from the vessel before the incident occurred, according to Mr Katada.

 

Edited June 14, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[TexArcher 36905]

1 hour ago, Lagunamadre said:

This has all the sloppiness of the Saudis. If they get caught, they know Trump will just say "we are looking into it" in perpetuity. 

Exactly.  They're the only state that could be this brazen without fear of retribution if it went sideways.

[Anastasis 23191]

The aristocrats!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23245]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, this is all kinda baffling.  It's a chess match, with multiple players:

The Saudis/arab states

Israel

The US

Iran

It's almost certain that SOMEONE aligned with one of those players made this particular move.  But to what end?  Look at the risk/reward.  It's hard to make a case for it being Iran: if they wanted to put ships at the bottom of the gulf, they could do so in ways that DON'T involve using easily-traced pre-made mines.  And Iran knows that if it is traced to them, they are at HIGH risk for getting slapped down by vastly superior miliitaries.  I'm not saying it's impossible that it's Iran -- I'm saying that for it to be Iran, they would have to be the dumbest state actor in the past 50+ years, and I don't see it.

Who benefits by the ultimate outcome of this process (bombing tankers, leading to inevitable military reprisals)?  Iran is the LAST party on that list.  And the other three are all high on the list.

Add in the fact that this administration has earned -- I mean EARNED - the title of least-trustworthy administration in history, and this is a mess.  If someone like the Dutch come out and say "yeah, we figured out it was Iran," I would be much more inclined to believe it.

Does the event increase the price of oil by creating a perception of a destabilized Middle East on the brink of war?  

If yes, then likely MBS and/or Putin

 

[horncyclist 1351]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Does the event increase the price of oil by creating a perception of a destabilized Middle East on the brink of war?  

If yes, then likely MBS and/or Putin

 

Hard to guess but this from the Dotard basically confirms that it was NOT Iran:

 

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.”

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

Sounds like he knows all about not leaving evidence behind. I'm kind of surprised he didn't give what's app a shout out there as well 

[Fozzz 152]

Iran has been very cautious, but they may be at a point where they realize trying to play nice isn't an effective strategy given the US' monomaniacal obsession with destroying their country.  You can't reason with a psychotic mafioso like the US that wants you dead.  If they don't want their people to starve then the only thing they can do is fight back and apply some pressure to Trump by attacking shipping in the Gulf.  

They will have to do so covertly, but they have plenty of friends in the region who will be glad to help and no one on the planet  believes anything from the Trump administration regarding Iran.  The planet could be invaded by Martians and Pompeo would claim Iran was behind it.  

 

Edited June 14, 2019 by Fozzz

[horncyclist 1351]

Agree with the Sloppiness suggesting the Saudis. This reminds me of the Khashoggi mess. Especially the 8 guys on the boat and attempts to crate corroborating evidence. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13336]

A Trump accusation is almost instant plausible deniability.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Iran has been very cautious, but they may be at a point where they realize trying to play nice isn't an effective strategy given the US' monomaniacal obsession with destroying their country.  You can't reason with a psychotic mafioso like the US that wants you dead.  If they don't want their people to starve then the only thing they can do is fight back and apply some pressure to Trump by attacking shipping in the Gulf.  

They will have to do so covertly, but they have plenty of friends in the region who will be glad to help and no one on the planet (excluding the US) believes anything from the Trump administration regarding Iran.  

 

Another theory, the Iranians know damn well that the US attacking them is terrible politically for Trump. And they know that Trump cares only about being liked and being re-elected, nothing else matters to him. So their backs are against the wall and now they are going to put Trump in a position to cut off his nose to spite his face. 

[Dolemite 143]

28 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Hard to guess but this from the Dotard basically confirms that it was NOT Iran:

 

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.”

[Disco Strangler 1865]

29 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Hard to guess but this from the Dotard basically confirms that it was NOT Iran:

 

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.”

Remember the Maine!  To hell with Spain!

[RomaVicta 29472]

6 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Another theory, the Iranians know damn well that the US attacking them is terrible politically for Trump. And they know that Trump cares only about being liked and being re-elected, nothing else matters to him. So their backs are against the wall and now they are going to put Trump in a position to cut off his nose to spite his face. 

Man, that's a hell of a risk. We are a bumbling giant who walks very heavily. The US could do a lot of damage and kill a lot of people without even actually invading.

Further, if Iran fights back they may sink a US Navy ship or even a carrier. Once that happens, it's on. No dumbass Americans will care that we started the conflict. We'll go to war to give meaning to the criminally meaningless deaths of the crew of the ship.

The war mongers will return to their mantra: "You want to cut and run?" The weak will bow to that pressure.

These things take on a life of their own. Iran could be mauled and the US could take a few shots it doesn't expect. And I'm not even considering if Iran decided to use ground forces against Iraq and the whole place erupted in war.

No, thanks.

[atomheartbevo 88751]

37 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Another theory, the Iranians know damn well that the US attacking them is terrible politically for Trump. And they know that Trump cares only about being liked and being re-elected, nothing else matters to him. So their backs are against the wall and now they are going to put Trump in a position to cut off his nose to spite his face. 

Iran runs a heavy risk of embarrassing Trump, and him telling the Pentagon to obliterate Iran’s military.  

[Lagunamadre 1975]

20 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Man, that's a hell of a risk. We are a bumbling giant who walks very heavily. The US could do a lot of damage and kill a lot of people without even actually invading.

Further, if Iran fights back they may sink a US Navy ship or even a carrier. Once that happens, it's on. No dumbass Americans will care that we started the conflict. We'll go to war to give meaning to the criminally meaningless deaths of the crew of the ship.

The war mongers will return to their mantra: "You want to cut and run?" The weak will bow to that pressure.

These things take on a life of their own. Iran could be mauled and the US could take a few shots it doesn't expect. And I'm not even considering if Iran decided to use ground forces against Iraq and the whole place erupted in war.

No, thanks.

I didn't say Iran wasn't going to cut off their nose to spite their face as well. But they are getting to a point where they might be fucked either way, so it might be time to force Trump to make the first move. 

I can't imagine a majority of Americans supporting a war with Iran even if they do take out a carrier. Just think back to 2007 and 2008. Thousands of American soldiers were getting killed in Iraq, our response wasn't "let's get those bastards" it was was "why the fuck are we there"? 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

2 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I didn't say Iran wasn't going to cut off their nose to spite their face as well. But they are getting to a point where they might be fucked either way, so it might be time to force Trump to make the first move. 

 I can't imagine a majority of Americans supporting a war with Iran even if they do take out a carrier. Just think back to 2007 and 2008. Thousands of American soldiers were getting killed in Iraq, our response wasn't "let's get those bastards" it was was "why the fuck are we there"? 

symbols are important, and there is no bigger symbol of US military might than the carriers.  you'd have 3000 deaths plus the loss of a huge symbol.  so . . . 9/11.  big time war.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

Just ask yourself: What would Putin want? Nothing would make him happier than to see the US in another protracted war in the ME.

There's a 0% chance Iran would do something this dumb/bungled.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

symbols are important, and there is no bigger symbol of US military might than the carriers.  you'd have 3000 deaths plus the loss of a huge symbol.  so . . . 9/11.  big time war.

Hopefully we can avoid that. We can't afford it. 

[Pescado_Rojo 19192]

1 minute ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Just ask yourself: What would Putin want? Nothing would make him happier than to see the US in another protracted war in the ME.

There's a 0% chance Iran would do something this dumb/bungled.

A war where A. The price of the one commodity he has a lot of would go up a great deal, and B. where he could make a lot of money selling munitions to our adversaries.  

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

7 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

A war where A. The price of the one commodity he has a lot of would go up a great deal, and B. where he could make a lot of money selling munitions to our adversaries.  

Yep. Their main export is chaos. Putin profits handsomely from it.

[triplehorn 2664]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Does the event increase the price of oil by creating a perception of a destabilized Middle East on the brink of war?  

If yes, then likely MBS and/or Putin

 

Definitely include Putin.  Considering Russia's economy falls out of the global top 10, and that oil revenues and the potential for (expensive) production are a primary chunk of their economy now and in the foreseeable future, higher oil prices directly benefit them.

Also ask who would risk killing Japanese civilians through an unprovoked attack.  Again definitely include Putin, though MBS has shown he's capable of similar choices.

Good or bad for Trump, it's a distraction from the sustained focus on corruption, cover-up, stonewalling, and subpoenas and impeachment talk.  All out war benefits almost no one, but maintaining enough entropy to wag benefits Trump to a point.  Anything beyond that, and I can only see that it benefits Putin and his assault on western democratic order, and for other reasons MBS, who appears to share common interests with Putin.  

This is picking a fight. Iran doesn't pick fights.  It fights.

[hpslugga 3984]

18 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Hopefully we can avoid that. We can't afford it. 

It’s not just a cost-benefit analysis; it’s fucking wrong and immoral. We’ve been drumming up the “invade Iran” horseshit for decades despite the fact that our intelligence estimates keep saying the same thing about the broad picture of Iran every year in that report they release, which say:

-Iran’s military expenditures are relatively low compared to the region (even less so compared to the world)

-Their expenditures, as well as their military doctrine, is geared towards “deterrence against a foreign invasion”

-To the extent they are pursuing nuclear weapons, it’s merely to enforce that defensive/deterrence strategy.

What’s said in contradiction to any of that is in blind servitude of jingoism for jingoism’s sake. This construct of Iran as a threat to the US is a pure fabrication. It’s a fantasy.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23245]

36 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Just ask yourself: What would Putin want? Nothing would make him happier than to see the US in another protracted war in the ME.

There's a 0% chance Iran would do something this dumb/bungled.

Putin actually wants us out of the Middle East because that’s his playground.  He wants the United States isolated both militarily and economically.  That way he has more breathing room to operate.  

Putin is all about perception management.  If he can find a way to sell guns and have oil prices go up with little cost, he will.  

Creating the perception the United States is on the verge of war in the Middle East moves the states threatened closer to him, for “pipeline reasons”.

Not saying that’s what is going on here but it’s a theory.  Either way, it’s a distraction.

Edited June 14, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Putin actually wants us out of the Middle East because that’s his playground.

Make an argument for why it can't remain his playground while we're draining trillions in another ME quagmire?

[Fozzz 152]

My God when did the Mueller conspiracy thread merge with this one. 

[Junior Miller 1502]

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Putin actually wants us out of the Middle East because that’s his playground.  He wants the United States isolated both militarily and economically.  That way he has more breathing room to operate.  

Putin is all about perception management.  If he can find a way to sell guns and have oil prices go up with little cost, he will.  

Creating the perception the United States is on the verge of war in the Middle East moves the states threatened closer to him, for “pipeline reasons”.

He doesn't want us out. He wants us there but stalemated to where it's just a major financial liability to the US. He's using the same tactics the US used to destroy the Solviet Union from within.

Goad the enemy into an untenable state where they're locked in and can't back out without major consequences then just wait it out while taking little pot shots until they collapse. 

He knew Trump's election would 1) further isolate US from allies, and 2) make it easier to increase the chances of goading the US into an even deeper hole which increases the rate at which the US becomes financially spent and moves up the timeline until major US economic collapse. 

Add in the peripheral attacks on US citizens with conflicting extremist propaganda aimed at the US's racial and cultural weakness and it's been an all out assault from multiple angles leading the US to walk right into it's own pending economic doom. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23245]

5 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Make an argument for why it can't remain his playground while we're draining trillions in another ME quagmire?

Perhaps he wants an oil pipeline through Iran, Iraq, and Syria to the Mediterranean Sea?

The United States entangled in the region kinda puts the kibosh on that shit.  

It’s all about zee moooney Lebowski. 

The United States entangled in a war funds the defense contractors which is a $200+ billion sector of the economy.   Why is that in Putin’s interest? 

[triplehorn 2664]

3 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

The plot thickens.
 

It's significant the Japanese tanker owner has come out directly contradicting conclusive statements and tweets from Pompeo and Dotard that now appear to have been made all too eagerly. 

Also, the target of the attack is not blaming Iran.  As Iran being responsible is increasingly lacking credulity, I want to see this blow up in the faces of the perps. 

[Dirk X West 771]

1 hour ago, Lagunamadre said:

I didn't say Iran wasn't going to cut off their nose to spite their face as well. But they are getting to a point where they might be fucked either way, so it might be time to force Trump to make the first move. 

I can't imagine a majority of Americans supporting a war with Iran even if they do take out a carrier. Just think back to 2007 and 2008. Thousands of American soldiers were getting killed in Iraq, our response wasn't "let's get those bastards" it was was "why the fuck are we there"? 

I think the likely very well fed political military leaders of Iran would prefer their citizenry starving over having their entire country reduced to a pile of smoldering rubble. 

[Anastasis 23191]

44 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

My God when did the Mueller conspiracy thread merge with this one. 

Hey, it’s  just a theory. 

[Chooky 13277]

50 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

My God when did the Mueller conspiracy thread merge with this one. 

"The intelligence community is biased against Trump and must not be trusted."

"Trust the intelligence community."

[triplehorn 2664]

Given events this week, now read this May 12 article from Reuters that begins:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will cancel the Moscow leg of his Russia trip, but will meet President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the Black Sea resort of Sochi as planned on Tuesday, a State Department official said.  [...]"

 

The rest of the article is a foreshadowing of the storylines we're now seeing unfold today. 

And yet there it is, exactly one month ago, Pompeo met with Putin and Lavrov in a Black Sea resort town.

[Junior Miller 1502]

Are there enough ignorant idiots to blindly sign up for the military to keep the US from a draft once this new Republican led bullshit war kicks off? 

If you are male between the ages of 14 and 35 or have make kids between those ages better get ready to clinch the butt cheeks. 

[Irwin F Fletcher 3534]

http://www.cnn.com/2019/06/14/politics/us-drone-tracked-iranian-boats/index.html

Quote

Washington (CNN)In the hours before the attack on the two tankers in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday, the Iranians spotted a US drone flying overhead and launched a surface-to-air missile at the unmanned aircraft, a US official told CNN.

The missile missed the drone and fell into the water, the official said.

Prior to taking fire, the American MQ-9 drone observed Iranian vessels closing in on the tankers, the official added, though the source did not say whether the unmanned aircraft saw the boats conducting an actual attack.

Quote

The same official also said in the days prior to the attack, a US reaper drone was shot down in the Red Sea by what is believed to be an Iranian missile fired by Houthi rebels.

How often are our drones being shot down and we don't hear about it?

[NowThis 931]

1 hour ago, Junior Miller said:

Are there enough ignorant idiots to blindly sign up for the military to keep the US from a draft once this new Republican led bullshit war kicks off? 

If you are male between the ages of 14 and 35 or have make kids between those ages better get ready to clinch the butt cheeks. 

why the need for human labor when 

1. drones, bombers and jets do all the cool 'slosions !

2. human labor takes the form of rebels on the ground (ie friendly Afghans or Shia Iraqis).  We'll put togehter a local mercenary army in no time, supported by Special Ops and Hawks.  Easy win. 

[Dirk X West 771]

24 minutes ago, NowThis said:

why the need for human labor when 

1. drones, bombers and jets do all the cool 'slosions !

2. human labor takes the form of rebels on the ground (ie friendly Afghans or Shia Iraqis).  We'll put togehter a local mercenary army in no time, supported by Special Ops and Hawks.  Easy win. 

Yeah, never mind that A. they have yet to actually attack us; and B. we'd end up slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people and turning Iran into another breeding ground for terrorists, a'la Iraq.

[Crusher 127]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-fast-boats-preventing-towing-of-damaged-altair-tanker-source/ar-AACT4JC?ocid=spartandhp

Iranian Fast Boats in standoff with tugs trying to tow one of the damaged tankers.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

All of these stories are citing a single anonymous US official.

 

[workswithseed 2012]

4 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Man, that's a hell of a risk. We are a bumbling giant who walks very heavily. The US could do a lot of damage and kill a lot of people without even actually invading.

Further, if Iran fights back they may sink a US Navy ship or even a carrier. Once that happens, it's on. No dumbass Americans will care that we started the conflict. We'll go to war to give meaning to the criminally meaningless deaths of the crew of the ship.

The war mongers will return to their mantra: "You want to cut and run?" The weak will bow to that pressure.

These things take on a life of their own. Iran could be mauled and the US could take a few shots it doesn't expect. And I'm not even considering if Iran decided to use ground forces against Iraq and the whole place erupted in war.

No, thanks.

That's what we do.

[Junior Miller 1502]

2 hours ago, NowThis said:

why the need for human labor when 

1. drones, bombers and jets do all the cool 'slosions !

2. human labor takes the form of rebels on the ground (ie friendly Afghans or Shia Iraqis).  We'll put togehter a local mercenary army in no time, supported by Special Ops and Hawks.  Easy win. 

Still need bodies for a ground invasion. You can pepper them with drones all you want but without a ground invasion they aren't going anywhere. 

[Crusher 127]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-attacks-iran-crew/iran-sends-team-to-tanker-in-gulf-to-see-if-rescued-crew-can-return-tasnim-idUSKCN1TF1D1

Iran checking on seaworthiness of one of the damaged tankers to see if rescued crew can return.

Edited June 15, 2019 by Crusher