U.S. building coalition after Saudi oil attack, Iran warns against war

[Banana7]

Here is a video explaining the "cold war" or more accurately "Proxy War" in the Middle East, which is between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and how it extends into Yemen and many other countries. It's a very complex situation. The video is very informative, truthful, and fact based. (info comes from CIA).

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

No, you are mistaken. Methods cannot be "easily scaled up". It's one thing to covertly plant a single or small size device, quite another to do so on multiple locations, with perfect timing and with greater payloads. Add a force of this size getting away undetected to the list, while strewing "fake" debris about to boot.

 

Similarly, carrying out a single drone/missile attack on a single target is relatively straightforward. Quite a different matter when it comes to an operation involving multiple targets, at a long range.

 

I kinda doubt that the sort of "evidence" you appear to expect would be made available. It's not really the norm when it comes to any of the current players of even globally. That does not imply that all assertion (such as above) are equally likely.

Evidence Morch, where is the evidence.

 

The more amazing the claims the more amazing the evidence required to back them up.

 

Where is the evidence of drones and/or cruise missiles?

 

Where is the evidence that Iran has these amazing abilities?

 

Why would Iran, a place with it’s own oil refineries be able to accurately hit multiple targets but not be able to figure out better targets to bring the whole plant to a protracted standstill?

 

All we have is unsubstantiated accusations and a bunch of people eager to believe what they are being told.

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Evidence Morch, where is the evidence.

 

The more amazing the claims the more amazing the evidence required to back them up.

 

Where is the evidence of drones and/or cruise missiles?

 

Where is the evidence that Iran has these amazing abilities?

 

Why would Iran, a place with it’s own oil refineries be able to accurately hit multiple targets but not be able to figure out better targets to bring the whole plant to a protracted standstill?

 

All we have is unsubstantiated accusations and a bunch of people eager to believe what they are being told.

 

 

Describing things as "amazing" is a choice. Not a term I used or would have used in connection to these attack or the alleged drone/cruise missile scenario. Impressive, certainly. So, by all means, go on about your nonsense "amazing" all you like - just don't associate it with my take.

 

Rather, it was you how introduced an improbable alternative scenario, to which you provided no evidence, no credible explanation as to the operational side, and no hint as to the perpetrators identity. Now, this alternative scenario could be called "amazing".

 

Discounting the standard false flag/conspiracy theory explanations, it comes down to two possible responsible parties - the Houthis (with significant Iranian backing and support) or Iran (directly or through some Iraqi based proxy). Given what's known about the attack, and taking into account past Houthi drone and missile attacks on Saudi installations - this one stands out any which way one looks at it. Seems on the improbable side that they made this huge leap in capabilities on their own.

 

As posted previously - I do not believe that the aim was to destroy or critically damage the targets. Doing so might have tipped the scales with regard to a military response. More to do with sending a message and building up the crisis situation. This would be in line with other instance where Iran used force and/or challenged rivals - for example, taking down the USA drone, but not attacking the accompanying manned aircraft.

 

Now, given past topics, I'm pretty sure you'll get into auto-repeat-mode on this one as well, replying with various chants of "evidence" regardless of what's posted. Let me ask you again - what sort of evidence do you imagine, and is presenting such evidence the norm?

[mikebike]

23 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

I hope you are correct....but never underestimate the spinelessness of politicians and leaders of the EU, Australia, Canada and Japan.

Canada? Have you been following the news? No love lost between Canada and S.A. after Khashoggi and S.A.'s withdrawal of diplomats and students... no way Canada is sending troops to help S.A.

[spidermike007]

The US has spent 32 months alienating nearly every ally they had, and now they are coming with their hands out. Please, please help us. We cannot do this alone. I know we abandoned your treaty with Iran. Yet, we still need your help. I know we started a fake war in Iraq, that has turned into one of the greatest disasters since WWII. But, since we have more or less dismantled the State Department, we need your help more than ever. Please. What, you do not want to help? But why? We do not understand. We are America. We thought the world would come running when we asked for help. 

[Banana7]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Evidence Morch, where is the evidence.

 

The more amazing the claims the more amazing the evidence required to back them up.

 

Where is the evidence of drones and/or cruise missiles?

 

Where is the evidence that Iran has these amazing abilities?

 

Why would Iran, a place with it’s own oil refineries be able to accurately hit multiple targets but not be able to figure out better targets to bring the whole plant to a protracted standstill?

 

All we have is unsubstantiated accusations and a bunch of people eager to believe what they are being told.

 

Here is the evidence

 

Also, just use google and search "evidence iran attack on Saudi"  lots more news articles and photos.

 

[Banana7]

5 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

The US has spent 32 months alienating nearly every ally they had, and now they are coming with their hands out. Please, please help us. We cannot do this alone. I know we abandoned your treaty with Iran. Yet, we still need your help. I know we started a fake war in Iraq, that has turned into one of the greatest disasters since WWII. But, since we have more or less dismantled the State Department, we need your help more than ever. Please. What, you do not want to help? But why? We do not understand. We are America. We thought the world would come running when we asked for help. 

The Middle East situation is far more complex. I recommend you look at post 31 in this thread and play the video.

[stevenl]

51 minutes ago, Banana7 said:

Here is the evidence

 

Also, just use google and search "evidence iran attack on Saudi"  lots more news articles and photos.

 

Even your'evidence' video doesn't claim Iran was behind it or fired it.

We know an attack occurred, but evidence Iran is responsible has yet to be shown.

 

Did you watch the video you linked to btw?

[stevenl]

50 minutes ago, Banana7 said:

The Middle East situation is far more complex. I recommend you look at post 31 in this thread and play the video.

Ah yes, poster Morch, well known for an unbiased view of the middle east.

[Banana7]

21 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Even your'evidence' video doesn't claim Iran was behind it or fired it.

We know an attack occurred, but evidence Iran is responsible has yet to be shown.

 

Did you watch the video you linked to btw?

Yes, I watched it. Did you google for more evidence? There is lots of other evidence. Also, all evidence is not revealed to the public because it shows the surveillance capabilities of the participants. Also, the evidence needs to be interpreted by professionals, most people don't have the skill, knowledge, experience or ability, nor do they have access to all evidence, to make such a determination.

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, Banana7 said:

Yes, I watched it. Did you google for more evidence? There is lots of other evidence. Also, all evidence is not revealed to the public because it shows the surveillance capabilities of the participants. Also, the evidence needs to interpreted by professionals, most people don't have the skill, knowledge or ability to make such a determination.

No evidence has been presented yet, only opinions. Your 'evidence'  video clearly shows no evidence, even the SA military doesn't say it was Iran. Your assertion it presents proof is simply not true.

[khunken]

2 minutes ago, Banana7 said:

Yes, I watched it. Did you google for more evidence? There is lots of other evidence. Also, all evidence is not revealed to the public because it shows the surveillance capabilities of the participants. Also, the evidence needs to be interpreted by professionals, most people don't have the skill, knowledge, experience or ability to make such a determination.

None of what you posted presented evidence that Iran attacked Saudi. Even the clip from CNN put 'evidence' in inverted commas.

No one, not even Iran, has denied that Iranian drones & missiles were used - but the strongest 'evidence' is that the Houthis fired them.

Reports from various US sources have mentioned three different launch sites. The first said WNW of Dhahran which is certainly not Iran. The second said that Iranian militias in Iraq were the source & the third said SE Iran. All deliberately excluding the south where the Houthis live.

It all has as much credibility as the WMD in Iraq lies.

 

[Banana7]

16 minutes ago, khunken said:

None of what you posted presented evidence that Iran attacked Saudi. Even the clip from CNN put 'evidence' in inverted commas.

No one, not even Iran, has denied that Iranian drones & missiles were used - but the strongest 'evidence' is that the Houthis fired them.

Reports from various US sources have mentioned three different launch sites. The first said WNW of Dhahran which is certainly not Iran. The second said that Iranian militias in Iraq were the source & the third said SE Iran. All deliberately excluding the south where the Houthis live.

It all has as much credibility as the WMD in Iraq lies.

 

The houthis said they fired 10, but the current count is up to about 25 points of impact. The missiles used don't have the range to be fired from Houtis locations in Yemen.

 

As mentioned before, not all evidence is revealed to the public or posted on the internet.

[Banana7]

48 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No evidence has been presented yet, only opinions. Your 'evidence'  video clearly shows no evidence, even the SA military doesn't say it was Iran. Your assertion it presents proof is simply not true.

All evidence is not revealed to the public. The experts will have access to all of the evidence and then render their opinion and decision. Rarely is there 100% proof that can't be challenged in matters like this.

 

There are more than a thousand people involved in interpreting the raw data from many many sources, using many tools including computer models. Not all of the data is available instantly. It takes time to gather and process all the data, and reach a highly probable conclusion.

 

[Banana7]

Put yourself in the position of US or Saudi. If you had irrefutable evidence that the attack originated from Iran, perhaps a video showing the launch of the missiles from Iran, internal communications between Iranian military officers, and orders from the Supreme Leader to military commanders, would you post that on the internet or reveal it to the Press? Perhaps the launch videos were taken from within Iran. Perhaps some of those communications are still in transit from Iran. All intelligence data is not available in real-time or instantly.

 

If all data/info was posted for public viewing, then Iran would take steps to prevent future recordings. Also it would reveal intelligence gathering capabilities. Iran and other countries would then take counter-measures to prevent future gatherings.

 

Even if all this data, video and recordings were posted on the internet, one could say they are not real, or were altered or were developed after the attack.

 

All the public will ever get is the opinions and decisions . They'll never get access to all of the original genuine data.

 

 

[stevenl]

6 hours ago, Banana7 said:

Put yourself in the position of US or Saudi. If you had irrefutable evidence that the attack originated from Iran, perhaps a video showing the launch of the missiles from Iran, internal communications between Iranian military officers, and orders from the Supreme Leader to military commanders, would you post that on the internet or reveal it to the Press? Perhaps the launch videos were taken from within Iran. Perhaps some of those communications are still in transit from Iran. All intelligence data is not available in real-time or instantly.

 

If all data/info was posted for public viewing, then Iran would take steps to prevent future recordings. Also it would reveal intelligence gathering capabilities. Iran and other countries would then take counter-measures to prevent future gatherings.

 

Even if all this data, video and recordings were posted on the internet, one could say they are not real, or were altered or were developed after the attack.

 

All the public will ever get is the opinions and decisions . They'll never get access to all of the original genuine data.

 

 

So first you say 'here is the evidence', then you say 'the evidence is there but will not be shown'. It can only be one of two, hope you see that. And if #2 were correct unless you're involved in US or SA intelligence you don't know, just as we don't know.

 

Now I hope you also realise that #2 will not be accepted anymore by the general public and hopefully other countries after the history there is with, to put it mildly, unreliable intelligence.

[Banana7]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

So first you say 'here is the evidence', then you say 'the evidence is there but will not be shown'. It can only be one of two, hope you see that. And if #2 were correct unless you're involved in US or SA intelligence you don't know, just as we don't know.

 

Now I hope you also realise that #2 will not be accepted anymore by the general public and hopefully other countries after the history there is with, to put it mildly, unreliable intelligence.

It doesn't matter what the general public thinks, accepts or rejects, they don't make decisions regarding military action.

 

Better check my posting again, never did I write "evidence is there but will not be shown". Covert intelligence will not normally be made public, it may be leaked or publicized only to obtain an objective. Things like explosion particles are generally in the public domain, as shown in my first post on evidence. It's never an all or nothing situation when targets are in public view.  Intelligence collection and analysis is extremely complex and elaborate, well beyond general public knowledge.

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Banana7 said:

The Middle East situation is far more complex. I recommend you look at post 31 in this thread and play the video.

 

10 hours ago, stevenl said:

Ah yes, poster Morch, well known for an unbiased view of the middle east.

 

Ah yes, poster stevenel, well known for lightweight "contributions" on things ME and being a failure at trolling. The post referred to isn't mine.

 

[stevenl]

23 minutes ago, Banana7 said:

It doesn't matter what the general public thinks, accepts or rejects, they don't make decisions regarding military action.

 

Better check my posting again, never did I write "evidence is there but will not be shown". Covert intelligence will not normally be made public, it may be leaked or publicized only to obtain an objective. Things like explosion particles are generally in the public domain, as shown in my first post on evidence. It's never an all or nothing situation when targets are in public view.  Intelligence collection and analysis is extremely complex and elaborate, well beyond general public knowledge.

 

 

 

 

With elections looming the opinion of the general public matters very much.

 

And yes, you did say those things. And no, evidence Iran was behind this has not been shown yet.

[Morch]

This one is for the contingent of posters making comments about "evidence" (or lack of).

 

- What evidence will you consider to be adequate, compelling, convincing, irrefutable or whatever?

 

- Given a position that anything said by the USA or SA is automatically suspect, what value is there for any evidence offered?

 

- Is full disclosure actually the norm in such instances? Does it apply all around?

 

Reading many of the posts on this topic and others, it would seem that the demand for evidence is more about set up for failure. Any evidence presented can be denied, disregarded, claimed fake or whatever. Similarly, anything said by parties could be rejected citing past instances and current interests .

 

One of the often used go to "solutions" refers to the possibility of international inquiry etc. Disregarding the practicality and viability of such, the same issues apply - evidence and credibility can be rejected on similar grounds, and it being the norm is not established.

 

I have raised these questions on this topic and others (and also on past, unrelated ones with similar issues) - still waiting for a half coherent, reasoned response.

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

This one is for the contingent of posters making comments about "evidence" (or lack of).

 

- What evidence will you consider to be adequate, compelling, convincing, irrefutable or whatever?

 

- Given a position that anything said by the USA or SA is automatically suspect, what value is there for any evidence offered?

 

- Is full disclosure actually the norm in such instances? Does it apply all around?

 

Reading many of the posts on this topic and others, it would seem that the demand for evidence is more about set up for failure. Any evidence presented can be denied, disregarded, claimed fake or whatever. Similarly, anything said by parties could be rejected citing past instances and current interests .

 

One of the often used go to "solutions" refers to the possibility of international inquiry etc. Disregarding the practicality and viability of such, the same issues apply - evidence and credibility can be rejected on similar grounds, and it being the norm is not established.

 

I have raised these questions on this topic and others (and also on past, unrelated ones with similar issues) - still waiting for a half coherent, reasoned response.

i completely agree with every single word, i remember G.W. Bush saying, in the aftermath of 9/11, that, in times of war it's ok to lie to the public, if that justifies a positive outcome.

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

This one is for the contingent of posters making comments about "evidence" (or lack of).

 

- What evidence will you consider to be adequate, compelling, convincing, irrefutable or whatever?

 

- Given a position that anything said by the USA or SA is automatically suspect, what value is there for any evidence offered?

 

- Is full disclosure actually the norm in such instances? Does it apply all around?

 

Reading many of the posts on this topic and others, it would seem that the demand for evidence is more about set up for failure. Any evidence presented can be denied, disregarded, claimed fake or whatever. Similarly, anything said by parties could be rejected citing past instances and current interests .

 

One of the often used go to "solutions" refers to the possibility of international inquiry etc. Disregarding the practicality and viability of such, the same issues apply - evidence and credibility can be rejected on similar grounds, and it being the norm is not established.

 

I have raised these questions on this topic and others (and also on past, unrelated ones with similar issues) - still waiting for a half coherent, reasoned response.

But of course any claims said by the Trump administration are going to be suspect given their animus towards Iran, their record of dubious assertions about Iran, and their responsibility for creating the present tense situation in the Gulf. The same goes for the Saudis. There's a price to be paid when you lose your credibility. And stop making it about the USA. It's about the Trump administration. Big difference.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

i completely agree with every single word, i remember G.W. Bush saying, in the aftermath of 9/11, that, in times of war it's ok to lie to the public, if that justifies a positive outcome.

 

Nice try, still failing to address the issue. While making the "obligatory" USA reference, of course.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Nice try, still failing to address the issue. While making the "obligatory" USA reference, of course.

Well, i said i agree with your analysis, no sarcasm from me, and you addressed the issue very well.

The reference to the USA is not obligatory, i just made it because , at the time, i was struck by the honesty of that statement.

I may add, having looked up at the USA, during my youth years, as a proper leader of the civilised world, i cannot expect other countries politicians to be transparent, when US politicians are not.

 

[Morch]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Well, i said i agree with your analysis, no sarcasm from me, and you addressed the issue very well.

The reference to the USA is not obligatory, i just made it because , at the time, i was struck by the honesty of that statement.

I may add, having looked up at the USA, during my youth years, as a proper leader of the civilised world, i cannot expect other countries politicians to be transparent, when US politicians are not.

 

 

Leaders worldwide are given a free pass because USA leaders sometimes lie? What level of transparency is expected, in real terms? And given this is the Middle East, why not address that lies and deception aren't strangers to other involved parties as well? regardless of supposed standards that USA leaders fail to meet.

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, i said i agree with your analysis, no sarcasm from me, and you addressed the issue very well.

The reference to the USA is not obligatory, i just made it because , at the time, i was struck by the honesty of that statement.

I may add, having looked up at the USA, during my youth years, as a proper leader of the civilised world, i cannot expect other countries politicians to be transparent, when US politicians are not.

 

The thoughts of US as a leader was hurt badly under GWB. Then it completely died under Trump.

 

Any statement provided should be presented with irrefutable evidence. The propensity for this administration to lie is insurmountable without that clear evidence.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Leaders worldwide are given a free pass because USA leaders sometimes lie? What level of transparency is expected, in real terms? And given this is the Middle East, why not address that lies and deception aren't strangers to other involved parties as well? regardless of supposed standards that USA leaders fail to meet.

Well, having much respect for your better knowledge on the subject, i very rarely disagree with you, but of course it's clear that you side with the US.

Your questions are difficult, if not impossible to answer.

From a rather impartial point of view, i have to confess that i don't trust anyone anymore, and the situation seems quite messy.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The thoughts of US as a leader was hurt badly under GWB. Then it completely died under Trump.

 

Any statement provided should be presented with irrefutable evidence. The propensity for this administration to lie is insurmountable without that clear evidence.

 

Yet another poster going on about "irrefutable evidence"  - without addressing what would constitute such evidence, and how, given the position regarding USA credibility, would such be received.

[mikebike]

11 hours ago, Banana7 said:

There is lots of other evidence. Also, all evidence is not revealed to the public because it shows the surveillance capabilities of the participants. Also, the evidence needs to be interpreted by professionals, most people don't have the skill, knowledge, experience or ability, nor do they have access to all evidence, to make such a determination.

Seems like the one lesson the majority of the USA population have learned from the Iraq war is that an administration IS going to have to show them REAL evidence of a direct threat to the USA before they back another unnecessary regime-change war whether it reveals some capabilities or not.

 

You must have missed school that day...

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, having much respect for your better knowledge on the subject, i very rarely disagree with you, but of course it's clear that you side with the US.

Your questions are difficult, if not impossible to answer.

From a rather impartial point of view, i have to confess that i don't trust anyone anymore, and the situation seems quite messy.

 

I side with the USA in general, yes. That's not because I see it as a beacon of justice and good - but simply because it's better (at the very least, on a personal level) than the alternatives. These alternatives being a world dominated by worse superpowers or a more chaotic global situation. Also, I do not see the USA's "sins" as washing away transgressions and vile practices by others.

 

Not trusting anyone goes back to the original question - what's the point of going on about evidence, then?