Iran vs the US Thread

[Novus America]

Hard to explain it when the it was never proven the Iranians did it. You're asking for speculation at that point.

Wheras the MOVE bombings were definately the actions of the police dept.

Of a police department. Yes. Police do sometimes use excessive force.
So you are going to keep avoiding answering and keep up your false equivalence whataboutism.

[Salandriagado]

So what in the video definitively proves that Iran was behind the bombings?

Becuase on April 22nd Iran said they would do these things,

Iran's Revolutionary Guard are competent. If they'd planted the limpet mines, they'd have been below the waterline, and the tankers would have sunk.

only iran uses mines,

Outright lie.

and the boat is is a boghammer used by the IRGC.

The boat is removing mines, not placing them.

[Novus America]

Hezbollah openly admitted to doing it.
And there is vast evidence of Iranian involvement.

So Hezbollah, and not Iran. Just "evidence" and not proof.

Can you cite a proven example to debate rationale behind? Works better than speculation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6085768.stm
https://www.jta.org/2015/08/03/global/i ... l-in-place
Also you cannot easily separate Hezbollah from Iran as it is designed as the Lebanese Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, and is fully backed and supported by Iran.

[Salandriagado]

So what in the video definitively proves that Iran planted the bombs?

They were magnetic sea mines, and if you mean to tell me that you seriosuly think the US bought a boghammer, mined the straits of Hormuz, then used that boghammer to renove unexploded mines off these ships all on an efoort to make Iran look bad I dont know what to say to you.

Removing mines and placing mines are different things.

Also, they're absolutely not magnetic sea mines (there's no possible way such things could end up several metres above the waterline): if they are mines, then they are limpet mines, which are placed by hand, and here have been placed in such a way as to guarantee minimal damage to the ships. There are only two reasons to do that:

1. To show off your capability as a threat (in which case, we'd know who did it, because they'd have claimed responsibility).
2. To mount a false-flag operation without doing too much damage to yourself.

[Novus America]

Becuase on April 22nd Iran said they would do these things,

Iran's Revolutionary Guard are competent. If they'd planted the limpet mines, they'd have been below the waterline, and the tankers would have sunk.

only iran uses mines,

Outright lie.

and the boat is is a boghammer used by the IRGC.

The boat is removing mines, not placing them.

Maybe they were not trying to sink the tankers. Just scare them without sinking them.
Also it might have been a projectile explosive anyways.

[Salandriagado]

Saudi Arabia, the U.S, Israel. 3 major suspects who would love Iran getting invaded.

No way the US did. We suck at that type of thing. We would get caught.

The other two cannot be ruled out, but we know Iran has done this exact same shit before.

Given how abysmally implemented it was, your argument supports the "US did it" theory: seriously, who the fuck plants limpet mines above the waterline?

[Nihon koku]

So Hezbollah, and not Iran. Just "evidence" and not proof.

Can you cite a proven example to debate rationale behind? Works better than speculation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6085768.stm
https://www.jta.org/2015/08/03/global/i ... l-in-place
Also you cannot easily separate Hezbollah from Iran as it is designed as the Lebanese Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, and is fully backed and supported by Iran.

So instead of offering a case Iran was proven to be involved in, you doubledown.

Is this Hezbollah bombing the only thing Iran may have had a hand in? There has to be more.

[Novus America]

Who are the other suspects?

Saudi Arabia (given that they were planted in a Saudi port), the US, Israel (probably working in conjunction with the US). Any other random terrorist group, but not one of the competent ones, because these mines were very clearly placed in such a way as to not significantly damage the ships.

Again no way the US could pull this off without gettin caught, and it is not really our MO.
Israel and Saudi Arabia annoy be ruled out but it seems excessively risky.

[Salandriagado]

Iran's Revolutionary Guard are competent. If they'd planted the limpet mines, they'd have been below the waterline, and the tankers would have sunk.



Outright lie.



The boat is removing mines, not placing them.

Maybe they were not trying to sink the tankers. Just scare them without sinking them.

That only works if you claim responsibility.

Also it might have been a projectile explosive anyways.

You still aim for the waterline or below.

[Novus America]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6085768.stm
https://www.jta.org/2015/08/03/global/i ... l-in-place
Also you cannot easily separate Hezbollah from Iran as it is designed as the Lebanese Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, and is fully backed and supported by Iran.

So instead of offering a case Iran was proven to be involved in, you doubledown.

Is this Hezbollah bombing the only thing Iran may have had a hand in? There has to be more.

Did you read the articles? The Argentinian government charge the Iranian regime directly.
They even have the names of the Iranians involved.

But sure, Iran has done other crazy shit.
That was the most off the wall bizarre but there is more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_an ... _terrorism

[Salandriagado]

Saudi Arabia (given that they were planted in a Saudi port), the US, Israel (probably working in conjunction with the US). Any other random terrorist group, but not one of the competent ones, because these mines were very clearly placed in such a way as to not significantly damage the ships.

Again no way the US could pull this off without gettin caught, and it is not really our MO.
Israel and Saudi Arabia annoy be ruled out but it seems excessively risky.

The US doesn't appear to have gotten away with it.

And yes, it literally is the US's MO. Remember the Maine? Operation Ajax? Operation Northwoods?

[Novus America]

Maybe they were not trying to sink the tankers. Just scare them without sinking them.

That only works if you claim responsibility.

Also it might have been a projectile explosive anyways.

You still aim for the waterline or below.

No. It makes a deniable statement that is still scary.
Obviously Iran, if they did it would want to drive up oil prices and scare people (which already successfully happened) but also deny it so they can avoid retaliation and blame it on the US/Saudi Arabia/Israel.

Many projectile weapons do not work below the waterline.
And again maybe sinking the boat was not the objective.
Maybe they got exactly what the wanted. Higher oil prices, people scared, and people still rushing to defend them.

[Novus America]

Again no way the US could pull this off without gettin caught, and it is not really our MO.
Israel and Saudi Arabia annoy be ruled out but it seems excessively risky.

The US doesn't appear to have gotten away with it.

And yes, it literally is the US's MO. Remember the Maine? Operation Ajax? Operation Northwoods?

The Maine was not blown up by the US on purpose. It was a coal gas accident most likely.
Operation Ajax was entirely different. It was supporting a coup. Not a false flag.
Operation Northwoods was never executed. It was proposed by some in the government as an idea but the majority of the government obviously thought it was crazy.
But in both cases the secret was poorly kept and everyone found out.

And what proof do you have of US involvement? When did proof the US was involved come out of this?

[Salandriagado]

That only works if you claim responsibility.



You still aim for the waterline or below.

No. It makes a deniable statement that is still scary.

No, it makes you look utterly incompetent.

Obviously Iran, if they did it would want to drive up oil prices and scare people (which already successfully happened) but also deny it so they can avoid retaliation and blame it on the US/Saudi Arabia/Israel.

Except that the only thing that people are scared of is the US responding stupidly.

Many projectile weapons do not work below the waterline.

But they do work at the waterline. If you can't get your shot within a metre of the waterline in calm seas against a target that's unaware and making no effort to avoid you, you again just look incompetent.

And again maybe sinking the boat was not the objective.
Maybe they got exactly what the wanted. Higher oil prices, people scared, and people still rushing to defend them.

Which makes no sense for Iran: if it sank, there would be less evidence to tie it to them. It makes perfect sense for the US, though.

[Novus America]

No. It makes a deniable statement that is still scary.

No, it makes you look utterly incompetent.

Obviously Iran, if they did it would want to drive up oil prices and scare people (which already successfully happened) but also deny it so they can avoid retaliation and blame it on the US/Saudi Arabia/Israel.

Except that the only thing that people are scared of is the US responding stupidly.

Many projectile weapons do not work below the waterline.

But they do work at the waterline. If you can't get your shot within a metre of the waterline in calm seas against a target that's unaware and making no effort to avoid you, you again just look incompetent.

And again maybe sinking the boat was not the objective.
Maybe they got exactly what the wanted. Higher oil prices, people scared, and people still rushing to defend them.

Which makes no sense for Iran: if it sank, there would be less evidence to tie it to them. It makes perfect sense for the US, though.

People being scared of the US and blaming it falls right into US hands.
So it looks like Iran succeeded if they did this.

You cannot argue this could not be Iran because it does not benefit Iran while showing how it benefits Iran.

You are not going to sink a ship like that with a small explosive anyways.
Oil tankers are damn hard to sink. Even multiple hits with anti ship missiles will not do it.

Even if you hit it below the waterline. And actually shooting a grenade launcher from a moving boat is hard to do accurately. If you aim directly at the water line you are liable to miss entirely if your grenade falls short.

If you aim above you are much less likely to miss.

If you aim exactly at the waterline and hit a meter below you intended impact point you miss entirely. If you aim 3 meters above even if you hit 3 meters below or above you still hit.
The water line is a very narrow target. The side of the ship is not.

Also if the US was trying to blame Iran why would we not try to sink the ship? Sinking it would give us a better thing to attack Iran over, if that was our goal.

[Novus America]

If Iran did this is was perfectly rationale anyways as it clearly has worked in their favor.

And if the US did it would be irrational as it has clearly worked against us.

[The South Falls]

If Iran did this is was perfectly rationale anyways as it clearly has worked in their favor.

And if the US did it would be irrational as it has clearly worked against us.

Gulf of Tonkin, anyone? It's time to declare war and kill our troops again.

[Salandriagado]

No, it makes you look utterly incompetent.



Except that the only thing that people are scared of is the US responding stupidly.



But they do work at the waterline. If you can't get your shot within a metre of the waterline in calm seas against a target that's unaware and making no effort to avoid you, you again just look incompetent.



Which makes no sense for Iran: if it sank, there would be less evidence to tie it to them. It makes perfect sense for the US, though.

People being scared of the US and blaming it falls right into US hands.
So it looks like Iran succeeded if they did this.

Erm, no?

You cannot argue this could not be Iran because it does not benefit Iran while showing how it benefits Iran.

I didn't. The US invading Iran is not in Iran's interest.

You are not going to sink a ship like that with a small explosive anyways.
Oil tankers are damn hard to sink. Even multiple hits with anti ship missiles will not do it.

Even if you hit it below the waterline. And actually shooting a grenade launcher from a moving boat is hard to do accurately. If you aim directly at the water line you are liable to miss entirely if your grenade falls short.

It absolutely wasn't a grenade launcher, so that's utterly irrelevant.

Also if the US was trying to blame Iran why would we not try to sink the ship? Sinking it would give us a better thing to attack Iran over, if that was our goal.

Because it would be dangerous as fuck. Lightly damaging your ally's ship is something that you can paper over with lots of apologising, some trade concessions, and some bullshitting. Sinking one gets them to stop being your ally right quick.

[Salandriagado]

If Iran did this is was perfectly rationale anyways as it clearly has worked in their favor.

And if the US did it would be irrational as it has clearly worked against us.

What the fuck made you come to that conclusion? Iran is looking at a serious possibility of being invaded, and Trump is looking at a serious possibility of a massive "war-president" boost in the elections.

[Gormwood]

If Iran did this is was perfectly rationale anyways as it clearly has worked in their favor.

And if the US did it would be irrational as it has clearly worked against us.

Gulf of Tonkin, anyone? It's time to declare war and kill our troops again.

That would be meta. A Vietnam style quagmire under the watch of someone who faked bone spurs to avoid serving in Vietnam.

[The South Falls]

If Iran did this is was perfectly rationale anyways as it clearly has worked in their favor.

And if the US did it would be irrational as it has clearly worked against us.

What the fuck made you come to that conclusion? Iran is looking at a serious possibility of being invaded, and Trump is looking at a serious possibility of a massive "war-president" boost in the elections.

Or further demonization, depending on the circumstances in which he declares war.

[Novus America]

People being scared of the US and blaming it falls right into US hands.
So it looks like Iran succeeded if they did this.

Erm, no?

You cannot argue this could not be Iran because it does not benefit Iran while showing how it benefits Iran.

I didn't. The US invading Iran is not in Iran's interest.

You are not going to sink a ship like that with a small explosive anyways.
Oil tankers are damn hard to sink. Even multiple hits with anti ship missiles will not do it.

Even if you hit it below the waterline. And actually shooting a grenade launcher from a moving boat is hard to do accurately. If you aim directly at the water line you are liable to miss entirely if your grenade falls short.

It absolutely wasn't a grenade launcher, so that's utterly irrelevant.

Also if the US was trying to blame Iran why would we not try to sink the ship? Sinking it would give us a better thing to attack Iran over, if that was our goal.

Because it would be dangerous as fuck. Lightly damaging your ally's ship is something that you can paper over with lots of apologising, some trade concessions, and some bullshitting. Sinking one gets them to stop being your ally right quick.

Wait, the US invaded Iran? Please link to when that happened.
Last I checked the US has done nothing while people are shillings for Iran and blaming the US.

How do you know? It sounds like could be a grenade launcher based on the Japanese crew testimony. The same applies to most other projectile weapons anyways.

Okay you argued Iran does not want war. And you say lightly damaging makes it easier to BS your way out of war...
you just totally killed your own argument.
Lightly damaging would be less risky for Iran too.

[Novus America]

If Iran did this is was perfectly rationale anyways as it clearly has worked in their favor.

And if the US did it would be irrational as it has clearly worked against us.

What the fuck made you come to that conclusion? Iran is looking at a serious possibility of being invaded, and Trump is looking at a serious possibility of a massive "war-president" boost in the elections.

No. Iran is not seriously at risk of being invaded, your hyperbole is silly.
If I ran actually gets invaded I will concede I was wrong.
But you will have to do the same if they are not invaded.

[The South Falls]

I think it'll be expedient (if Iran perpetrated the attacks), to wait and pursue a diplomatic option.

[Novus America]

I think it'll be expedient (if Iran perpetrated the attacks), to wait and pursue a diplomatic option.

Well I agree that we should not go to war over this, diplomacy with Iran is impossible when they have absolutely said they will not negotiate.
But we should use this to try to get more countries to sanction Iran.
And to drive a wedge between Iran and countries still on good terms with Iran.