Iran vs the US Thread

[North German Realm]

Yeah, it doesn't really make sense for Iran to knowingly jeopardize it's own trade through the Gulf. But elements within Iran stupidly picking a fight is totally plausible.

The IRGC actually has a long history of maverick terrorist actions and generally stupidly jumping into situations without much proper planning, in wartime or not. It was Iran because like it or not, the Sepaah is a military branch of Iran with constitutional recognition, but it might not have been ordered by the administration, though I find that unlikely. GoebbelsZarif's almost immediate attempts at diverting attention (Added to the fact Abe was in Iran at that point) might paint that picture.

Maryam Rajavi, is that you? And how did your exiled band of cultists manage to rent John Bolton? https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/bolton-and-the-mek/

I'd thank you not to compare me to the Mujahideen, of all people. You could at least suggest I was Bakhtiar or someone like that, do I look like an Islamist-syndicalist to you?

[Flawless Walruses]

doublepost

[Flawless Walruses]

Yeah, it doesn't really make sense for Iran to knowingly jeopardize it's own trade through the Gulf. But elements within Iran stupidly picking a fight is totally plausible.

The IRGC actually has a long history of maverick terrorist actions and generally stupidly jumping into situations without much proper planning, in wartime or not. It was Iran because like it or not, the Sepaah is a military branch of Iran with constitutional recognition, but it might not have been ordered by the administration, though I find that unlikely. GoebbelsZarif's almost immediate attempts at diverting attention (Added to the fact Abe was in Iran at that point) might paint that picture.

Source on IRGC conducting terrorist actions against their political leadership's will? Like, ever?

I'm baffled that people can pretend that Iran is a demonic Persian/Shi'a hive mind in one breath, and that Iran's government doesn't know what its own weapons are doing in the next.

Maryam Rajavi, is that you? And how did your exiled band of cultists manage to rent John Bolton? https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/bolton-and-the-mek/

I'd thank you not to compare me to the Mujahideen, of all people. You could at least suggest I was Bakhtiar or someone like that, do I look like an Islamist-syndicalist to you?

The MEK are very inclusive - they'll take bombs and money from anyone who might help them slither into power over Iran - http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/02/08/10354553-israel-teams-with-terror-group-to-kill-irans-nuclear-scientists-us-officials-tell-nbc-news. Genderfluid isn't just an identity, its a political program!

[Luziyca]

I am more willing to believe that either the Yanks attacked the oil tankers, or the Saudis did it, than Iran actually doing it, especially when the Yanks are just looking for an excuse to invade Iran and take their oil.

And considering they've done the same shit in the past with the Gulf of Tonkin, Havana, the WMDs in Iraq, and many many more, forgive me for assuming that the US or the Saudis staged this attack so they have an excuse to invade Iran.

[Vassenor]

So to all the Trumpists in the thread: what do you think of Trump abandoning his promise to not drag America into another war in the Middle East?

[Gig em Aggies]

So to all the Trumpists in the thread: what do you think of Trump abandoning his promise to not drag America into another war in the Middle East?

Is there a anither war last i checked were not in another one. So

[North German Realm]

So to all the Trumpists in the thread: what do you think of Trump abandoning his promise to not drag America into another war in the Middle East?

That promise was stupid and honestly so is anyone who actually voted for Trump based on that promise.

[Scomagia]

I am more willing to believe that either the Yanks attacked the oil tankers, or the Saudis did it, than Iran actually doing it, especially when the Yanks are just looking for an excuse to invade Iran and take their oil.

And considering they've done the same shit in the past with the Gulf of Tonkin, Havana, the WMDs in Iraq, and many many more, forgive me for assuming that the US or the Saudis staged this attack so they have an excuse to invade Iran.

Blah blah oil blah blah Tonkin...

Can you conspiracy theorists get some new material?

[Caracasus]

I am more willing to believe that either the Yanks attacked the oil tankers, or the Saudis did it, than Iran actually doing it, especially when the Yanks are just looking for an excuse to invade Iran and take their oil.

And considering they've done the same shit in the past with the Gulf of Tonkin, Havana, the WMDs in Iraq, and many many more, forgive me for assuming that the US or the Saudis staged this attack so they have an excuse to invade Iran.

Blah blah oil blah blah Tonkin...

Can you conspiracy theorists get some new material?

The gulf of Tonkin happened, we were lied to about WMD's in Iraq.

It's not unreasonable to suspect that something very similar is happening here.

[Scomagia]

Blah blah oil blah blah Tonkin...

Can you conspiracy theorists get some new material?

The gulf of Tonkin happened, we were lied to about WMD's in Iraq.

It's not unreasonable to suspect that something very similar is happening here.

Thid is nothing like Tonkin.

Yes, but not over oil. That's its own conspiracy theory, ffs.

It is unreasonable to suggest that a false flag occurred because there is no evidence that a false flag occurred. The most reasonable explanation is the IRGC going rogue and doing shit without permission. Or, you know, one of the many terrorist groups in the region who would love to stoke conflict did it. When you hear hoofbeats...

[Washington Resistance Army]

The gulf of Tonkin happened, we were lied to about WMD's in Iraq.

It's not unreasonable to suspect that something very similar is happening here.

Thid is nothing like Tonkin.

Yes, but not over oil. That's its own conspiracy theory, ffs.

It is unreasonable to suggest that a false flag occurred because there is no evidence that a false flag occurred. The most reasonable explanation is the IRGC going rogue and doing shit without permission. Or, you know, one of the many terrorist groups in the region who would love to stoke conflict did it. When you hear hoofbeats...

While my money is on the IRGC just doing its own thing a false flag isn't too insane of an idea. Our political establishment, Israel and the Saudis have been gunning for Iran for years. What better way to try and bring that to fruition than to make it seem like Iran is getting up to things it shouldn't?

[Scomagia]

Thid is nothing like Tonkin.

Yes, but not over oil. That's its own conspiracy theory, ffs.

It is unreasonable to suggest that a false flag occurred because there is no evidence that a false flag occurred. The most reasonable explanation is the IRGC going rogue and doing shit without permission. Or, you know, one of the many terrorist groups in the region who would love to stoke conflict did it. When you hear hoofbeats...

While my money is on the IRGC just doing its own thing a false flag isn't too insane of an idea. Our political establishment, Israel and the Saudis have been gunning for Iran for years. What better way to try and bring that to fruition than to make it seem like Iran is getting up to things it shouldn't?

That kind of thinking could be applied to pretty much any attack on America, though. It's the reasoning behind 9/11 conspiracy theories, for example. That kind of claim, by virtue of its outlandishness, requires a pretty high bar of proof, particularly when the established explanations already have more evidence in their favor. I'm not saying it isn't a possibility but it is far from likely.

[Vassenor]

So where did the IRGC get torpedoes then? Given that's what US intel originally said the attack was done with.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So where did the IRGC get torpedoes then? Given that's what US intel originally said the attack was done with.

Literally anywhere lol, it's not like that's some ultra advanced piece of tech. Iran probably buys em in bulk from the DPRK to go with all the other weaponry they buy.

[Visionary Union]

I'll never understand why people are always jumping to defend backwards nations who have a rich history of terrorism and supporting terrorist groups. Like, what makes you think that fanatical people are driven by logic?

[Vassenor]

I'll never understand why people are always jumping to defend backwards nations who have a rich history of terrorism and supporting terrorist groups. Like, what makes you think that fanatical people are driven by logic?

So who in this thread has done said defending?

[North German Realm]

I'll never understand why people are always jumping to defend backwards nations who have a rich history of terrorism and supporting terrorist groups. Like, what makes you think that fanatical people are driven by logic?

So who in this thread has done said defending?

Literally anyone that pretends it is more likely for the US to "stage" an attack than it is for the regime that's been saying it will do this and that has done this before this very year. As in, most of the people in this thread.

[Caracasus]

I'll never understand why people are always jumping to defend backwards nations who have a rich history of terrorism and supporting terrorist groups. Like, what makes you think that fanatical people are driven by logic?

Hey, I'm not seeing that many people defending the US in this thread.

[Visionary Union]

I'll never understand why people are always jumping to defend backwards nations who have a rich history of terrorism and supporting terrorist groups. Like, what makes you think that fanatical people are driven by logic?

Hey, I'm not seeing that many people defending the US in this thread.

False equivalency at its finest. The US, despite it's current dumb administration is a first world democracy, while Iran is a radical theocracy, and could generously be described as a second world nation due to the sanctions that it had brought upon itself.

[North German Realm]

I'll never understand why people are always jumping to defend backwards nations who have a rich history of terrorism and supporting terrorist groups. Like, what makes you think that fanatical people are driven by logic?

Hey, I'm not seeing that many people defending the US in this thread.

Like a pizza cutter. All edge, no point.

[Duhon]

So who in this thread has done said defending?

Literally anyone that pretends it is more likely for the US to "stage" an attack than it is for the regime that's been saying it will do this and that has done this before this very year. As in, most of the people in this thread.

I for one am not pretending. See the Gulf of Tonkin. See Iraq. Manufacturing a pretext for war is something the US has done before -- that and the fact that Bolton is gaga for war. You have not provided anything beyond "yeah well everyone knows Iran is capable of this" for your reasoning.

[North German Realm]

Literally anyone that pretends it is more likely for the US to "stage" an attack than it is for the regime that's been saying it will do this and that has done this before this very year. As in, most of the people in this thread.

I for one am not pretending. See the Gulf of Tonkin. See Iraq. Manufacturing a pretext for war is something the US has done before -- that and the fact that Bolton is gaga for war. You have not provided anything beyond "yeah well everyone knows Iran is capable of this" for your reasoning.

Except that all official reports that put blame on someone in the first place have said it is most likely Iran that's done this. The ones that don't have said "We can't know for sure, but a state actor in the region was responsible". Your irrational hatred for the US -and the pretense that Bolton would need a reason to actually declare war in the first place if he actually wanted to- does not negate that many reports.

[Caracasus]

Hey, I'm not seeing that many people defending the US in this thread.

False equivalency at its finest. The US, despite it's current dumb administration is a first world democracy, while Iran is a radical theocracy, and could generously be described as a second world nation due to the sanctions that it had brought upon itself.

Not entirely sure you understand what 2nd world means but hey, whatever.

The thing is a hell of a lot of those criticisms (a degree of fundamentalism in its outlook, a history of supporting and funding terrorist movements etc.) Could be applied with ease to the US. Of course that describes Iran quite nicely too, which means that you can't hold it up as evidence it must be Iran, especially given the US's habit of making up justifications for war.

Fact is, we have no idea who did it and probably won't for quite some time. It might be an Iranian sponsored group acting either with instruction from Iran or way outside those instructions. It could equally be some proxy force or ally of the US. I seriously doubt actual US troops or what have you did the attack, and I seriously doubt Iranian forces did either. Far too much risk of getting caught. To say that it is Iran cos they're crazy is a really fucking lazy argument, even lazier than my joke was.

[Duhon]

I for one am not pretending. See the Gulf of Tonkin. See Iraq. Manufacturing a pretext for war is something the US has done before -- that and the fact that Bolton is gaga for war. You have not provided anything beyond "yeah well everyone knows Iran is capable of this" for your reasoning.

Except that all official reports that put blame on someone in the first place have said it is most likely Iran that's done this. The ones that don't have said "We can't know for sure, but a state actor in the region was responsible". Your irrational hatred for the US -and the pretense that Bolton would need a reason to actually declare war in the first place if he actually wanted to- does not negate that many reports.

Irrational? Hatred? Dude, I like the US far more than Iran. It's only that 1) America has historically been capable of such chicanery, 2) this is the 21st century, even Trump can't start a war on his own, and 3) what about the Japanese owner's statement regarding the US government spreading false info?

I'm not putting out the possibility that elements within Iran want a fight as much as Bolton does, that with the attack irrationality reared its ugly head. It's just that even irrational actions must be explainable.

[North German Realm]

Except that all official reports that put blame on someone in the first place have said it is most likely Iran that's done this. The ones that don't have said "We can't know for sure, but a state actor in the region was responsible". Your irrational hatred for the US -and the pretense that Bolton would need a reason to actually declare war in the first place if he actually wanted to- does not negate that many reports.

Irrational? Hatred? Dude, I like the US far more than Iran. It's only that 1) America has historically been capable of such chicanery, 2) this is the 21st century, even Trump can't start a war on his own, and 3) what about the Japanese owner's statement regarding the US government spreading false info?

I'm not putting out the possibility that elements within Iran want a fight as much as Bolton does, that with the attack irrationality reared its ugly head. It's just that even irrational actions must be explainable.

Pompeo's primary statement was bull -and it should be considered bull- because he is no authority in this matter. Its assumption that "Iran was probably responsible" is correct, but he is not an authority in this regard. The ones who are (the ones giving official reports) have either said "Iran/some Iranian proxy did it because X" or "We can't know who did it but X proves it was a state actor from the region" (the latter includes Germany's reports, as well as the Japanese ship owners'. The former is from The UK and the US, mostly)