Evidence from Saudi oil attack points to Iran, not Yemen - U.S. official

[mikebike]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

As in "forever"? As in with regard to any issue whatsoever? Does the same high standard apply all around?

Well, since the topic is about the current drone strikes and where they are from, with the U.S. admin pushing one narrative, it would seem easy for someone not being purposefully obtuse to ferret out the poster's meaning. And you ain't stupid...

[wabothai]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

My bad. Sorry. Yes possible. But if these were steerable missiles they could have come from anywhere. 

In either case Saoudi airdefense must have failed miserably.

[from the home of CC]

the Aramco IPO will have to delayed but with the higher crude price (and steadily rising) the value just went up, not a tin foil hat bleat just an observation..

[poohy]

11 hours ago, webfact said:

Evidence from Saudi oil attack points to Iran, not Yemen - U.S. official

Now thats a surprise!

The  US are really spoiling for a war must be an election looming!

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, poohy said:

Now thats a surprise!

The  US are really spoiling for a war must be an election looming!

The election makes me doubt the USA is behind this. Trump really doesn't want to be in a war with an election.

[Slain]

I need to know the difference between drones and missiles?

 

 

 

[newatthis]

2 hours ago, otherstuff1957 said:

While it is fun to speculate about conspiracies, the simplest answer is probably correct.

Yep, Israel to provoke conflict.

[jcsmith]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

The election makes me doubt the USA is behind this. Trump really doesn't want to be in a war with an election.

Given that no wartime president has ever lost an election, and that Trump winning the election is likely the only way to run out the statute of limitations on some crimes that he can not be prosecuted for while in office, I'm not sure I agree with that.

[candide]

10 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

Given that no wartime president has ever lost an election, and that Trump winning the election is likely the only way to run out the statute of limitations on some crimes that he can not be prosecuted for while in office, I'm not sure I agree with that.

However, there is currently no popular support for a war. It is very different from the case of the Irak war. The people were shocked by the 9/11 attack and were looking for revenge. I don't think the average Joe gives a damn about S.A. and Iran.

[Mavideol]

Just now, candide said:

However, there is currently no popular support for a war. It is very different from the case of the Irak war. The people were shocked by the 9/11 attack and were looking for revenge. I don't think the average Joe gives a damn about S.A. and Iran.

sorry mate but the average Joe has to give a damn because their proxy sh.. fights directly hurts us with petrol price drastic increase, we soon enough will feel it at the pump

[bangrak]

8 hours ago, BestB said:

US said it was not drones but cruise missile more likely 

And you say US is 'more likely' unable to detect cruise missiles, right?

[BestB]

14 minutes ago, bangrak said:

And you say US is 'more likely' unable to detect cruise missiles, right?

1. Why would US detect missiles not aimed at US?

2. Same could be said for drones and not one or 2 but a dozen 

 

So what exactly are you trying to say 

[bangrak]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Not a question of "up to". If a cruise missile was detected heading toward either USA naval forces or said facility they would have tried to either warn the Saudis or try to intercept it. That there was no warning and no interception is somewhat worrying given that similar attacks could be executed against different targets.

 

The systems used by Saudi Arabia are mostly of USA/Western origin. While not the top notch variations used by USA forces, it's still a thing if they fail to address threats. Could also be a personnel/training issue.

You being so well informed, was there, before the installations have been hit, an orderly evacuation of all the staff being working there at the time? Just that there seems to have been no casualties... No? Then it must have been a major miracle performed by Allah himself! Yes? Now that'd be weird then, and lead to interesting conspiracy theories...

[stevenl]

18 minutes ago, BestB said:

1. Why would US detect missiles not aimed at US?

2. Same could be said for drones and not one or 2 but a dozen 

 

So what exactly are you trying to say 

He is saying the same that I was saying: the distinction you make is totally irrelevant.

 

Oh, and US has a big presence in yarea, so yes, one would expect them to detect a drone or missile.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Slain said:

I need to know the difference between drones and missiles?

 

 

 

There may be more, but afaik the difference is that a drone is remotely controlled.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let’s see the US put their credibility to the test.

 

That's a nice deflection. Not quite answering my questions or addressing the general point made.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I can't speak for other posters, but personally "we" is people from countries who are allies, friends, and culturally similar to US.

Pardon my lack of naivety, but do you seriously think that a relatively small country like Iran has any interest to provoke a full-scale war against America and Israel and at least half of Europe ?

This incident makes me slightly suspicious, that's it.

 

Yeah, I get it that you and the other poster are into pretending to speak for the masses. That silliness of it was sort of the point made.

 

Wouldn't know about your "lack of naivety", but I would question how informed you are. Iran is not a "small country" - it's larger than most (if not all) EU countries, with a population of over 80 million and natural resources to boot. Relative to the USA, sure - but if that's the issue, let me refer you to NK's example.

 

As for "provoke a full-scale war against America and Israel" - for starters, what "full scale war"? If this was, indeed, carried out by Iran (or one of its proxies), they probably did their best to cover tracks - in order to avoid a full scale war. The attack was against SA, so while the USA might be/get involved, your tossing in of Israel to this particular mix is questionable.

 

Iran has been carrying out proxy wars for some years now - mostly vs. Saudi Arabia and Israel. If one was to follow your logic, that would be a big no no as such actions might provoke a full-scale war. And yet, this dire prospect doesn't seem to deter Iran much.

 

Suspect away.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Thaidream said:

 agree=  there is a deep state of neo cons within both the intelligency community and elsewhere that has not forgotten what Iran did to America during the Iranian Revolution and also Iran's involvement in the Iraq War.  These people want a war with Iran and they are the ones- with the help of Netanyu in Israel who want Iran destroyed.

 

There is a lot of difference between a cruise missle and a drone attack and US intelligence should be able to distinguish who and where they came from.   It may be that cooler heads will tell Trump the truth  and suggest he not fall into the war trap that  Netanayhu so wants especially since an Israeli election is this week.

 

A war between the US and Iran would be disastrous for the World economy- Since Iran is having problems with oil exports- they undoutedly would either block the Straits or  put out of commission the  Saudi oil industry for months causing oil prices to spike to $200 a barrell. The Middle East air space would be a no go zone causing major air disruption between Europe and Asia.   Remember Iran and Iraq fought an 8 year war with hundreds of thosands of casualties.

 

The only sane reaction-even if Iran is involved in this attack  would  be re=opening of US military bases in the Kingdom of SA which means a large deployment of US Aircraft and possibly ground forces. A massive strike on Iran  would be futile/ Trump needs to meet with the Iranian President at the United Nations this month and set the stage for some type of negotiation to end the sanctions and stop the Iranian nuclear and missle program. In addition- it's time for the Us to pressure the Saudis to settle the Yemen situation.

 

IMO- it is Trump and his Israeli collaborator  who coaxed Trump into breaking the US-Iran agreement and allow the Saudi's to wage war against Yemen  and it's Iranian backers in the mistaken belief that all this would force Iran to it's knees and  make  the Saudia Regime the premier power in the Middle East backed by the Americans. Trump is pliable and ignorant   but he now has the chanve to reject the  neo cons who want war and stay cool.

 

So, other than going on about the usual "deep state" nonsense you're basically down to making it all the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia's fault. As if Iran doesn't have it's own policies, and as if these policies do not involve aggression, meddling and messing about with other in the region.

 

Granted, what passes for USA foreign policy, especially in the ME, and especially under Trump, is nothing to write home about. That by itself doesn't imply other countries should not be held accountable for their own actions and policies.

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That's a nice deflection. Not quite answering my questions or addressing the general point made.

Not deflecting at all (at least not on my side).

If this US administration wishes to engage in military action against Iran, something it is cannot legally do without a UN resolution, then the credibility of US claims are a matter of significance.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, I get it that you and the other poster are into pretending to speak for the masses. That silliness of it was sort of the point made.

 

Wouldn't know about your "lack of naivety", but I would question how informed you are. Iran is not a "small country" - it's larger than most (if not all) EU countries, with a population of over 80 million and natural resources to boot. Relative to the USA, sure - but if that's the issue, let me refer you to NK's example.

 

As for "provoke a full-scale war against America and Israel" - for starters, what "full scale war"? If this was, indeed, carried out by Iran (or one of its proxies), they probably did their best to cover tracks - in order to avoid a full scale war. The attack was against SA, so while the USA might be/get involved, your tossing in of Israel to this particular mix is questionable.

 

Iran has been carrying out proxy wars for some years now - mostly vs. Saudi Arabia and Israel. If one was to follow your logic, that would be a big no no as such actions might provoke a full-scale war. And yet, this dire prospect doesn't seem to deter Iran much.

 

Suspect away.

I have no doubts that you know a thing or 2 about world politics, and it's always a pleasure to read your informed opinion, but i have to inform you that the attitude of Europeans towards US has changed a lot in the last 20 or 30 years.

That's not to say, obviously, that America or Israel are wrong and the rest of the countries are right, world politics is more complex than that.

I am not so silly to speak for the masses, i just listen to what the people say, and i stay suspicious about the power games of the big economies.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This looks like superficial damage to the insulation around these spheres. 

 

No sign of fire damage and no sign that the deluge systems were triggered. 

 

Why anyone would attack vessels and pipes when an attack on the plant's electrical systems would be far more certain of stopping the production is a question that needs answering. 

 

Perhaps somebody needed something that looked dramatic. 

 

I'd imagine the "juicer" the specific target, the harder it would be to hit. These tanks are out there, and if the guidance system for the attack is visual based, this would be much easier to execute.

 

Also I doubt if the intention was to bring Saudi Arabia down to its knees. A more serious impact might have resulted in more immediate and harsh response - and with greater legitimacy to carry it out. The dramatic angle bit works for this point of view as well.

[Chomper Higgot]

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

 

 

Show us the evidence.

[BestB]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

He is saying the same that I was saying: the distinction you make is totally irrelevant.

 

Oh, and US has a big presence in yarea, so yes, one would expect them to detect a drone or missile.

I did not make any. Simply posted what US has said . 

 

Missile was not aimed at US bases , so why you and everyone else assumes US should have seen it? Just like drones got through. 

 

But assuming it was a big cork up, US missed missile same way it missed a dozen of drones 

[BestB]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not deflecting at all (at least not on my side).

If this US administration wishes to engage in military action against Iran, something it is cannot legally do without a UN resolution, then the credibility of US claims are a matter of significance.

Why would US use this incident as a pretext to war? No mention of such intention . Iran is the only one responding with statement of readiness for full pledged war.

 

if anyone is going to respond or act it would be Saudi 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So we learn of the apparent fact that there is zero radar coverage over these strategically important facilities. Drones buzzing overhead or cruise missiles flying in at low altitude, radar and the hundreds of security personnel at these facilities evaded. 

 

Amazing stuff. 

 

I look forward to seeing evidence to back up these allegations, radar traces and of course wreckage from these 'cruise missiles' that doesn't look like camel poo. 

 

I don't know that there was "zero radar coverage". I do know that detecting cruise missiles and drones is far from trivial.

 

As for evidence or remains, yes - they are more likely to be in the form of "camel poo". Sort of happens to stuff hitting concrete and blowing up. If you need reference, look up reports regarding the remains of both USA UAV shot down by Iran recently, or the Iranian UAV shot by Israel a couple of years back.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'd imagine the "juicer" the specific target, the harder it would be to hit. These tanks are out there, and if the guidance system for the attack is visual based, this would be much easier to execute.

 

Also I doubt if the intention was to bring Saudi Arabia down to its knees. A more serious impact might have resulted in more immediate and harsh response - and with greater legitimacy to carry it out. The dramatic angle bit works for this point of view as well.

I’ve made a decades long living out of oil refineries, their control, reliability and resilience. I have a wide experience in refinery fires and fire protection systems.

 

1. Those vessels were never on fire, their deluge systems were not activated. Maybe they were empty or maybe they were never penetrated.

 

2. The power systems, switching stations and substations are a) easily identifiable, b) extremely vulnerable and c) critical to plant availability.

 

Four ‘direct hits’ no inferno, go figure.

 

Maybe the intention wasn’t to cripple the plant.

 

 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And the simplest answer is those who claimed responsibility did it. 

 

 

Those who claimed responsibility for it are heavily supported by Iran. Unless mistaken, their attack on SA facilities, up to this point, were of a lesser degree and sophistication - both in terms of means used and range involved.

 

Assuming they managed to develop the tech by themselves or upgrade existing platforms is somewhat doubtful. I don't think Iran would have supplied the means without being  aware of the intended target (or even marking it).

 

Similarly, if it was, indeed, an attack launched from Iraq, it was probably carried out by this or that proxy militia.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, mikebike said:

Well, since the topic is about the current drone strikes and where they are from, with the U.S. admin pushing one narrative, it would seem easy for someone not being purposefully obtuse to ferret out the poster's meaning. And you ain't stupid...

 

I wish I had a clue how your comment relates to mine. Or to the one I responded to. Mine was regarding about over usage of the WMD argument.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, bangrak said:

You being so well informed, was there, before the installations have been hit, an orderly evacuation of all the staff being working there at the time? Just that there seems to have been no casualties... No? Then it must have been a major miracle performed by Allah himself! Yes? Now that'd be weird then, and lead to interesting conspiracy theories...

 

I'm not "well informed" on the specifics and details - many of which weren't released. What I comment on got more to do with how military gear and military forces operate. You want to indulge in conspiracy theories, that's up to you.

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Those who claimed responsibility for it are heavily supported by Iran. Unless mistaken, their attack on SA facilities, up to this point, were of a lesser degree and sophistication - both in terms of means used and range involved.

 

Assuming they managed to develop the tech by themselves or upgrade existing platforms is somewhat doubtful. I don't think Iran would have supplied the means without being  aware of the intended target (or even marking it).

 

Similarly, if it was, indeed, an attack launched from Iraq, it was probably carried out by this or that proxy militia.

Yes I agree, Iranian supplied organisation attacks SA, completely in alignment with Iran supplying other organisations elsewhere.

 

But that’s not an Iranian attack and it’s not a policy of supplying belligerent organisations that is restricted to Iran, not by a long way its not.

 

Putting aside aversions to conspiracies.