@puck2

 

No concrete facts? I think your posting history speaks for itself. Nothing to indicate an open mind when it comes to such matters, and no reason to believe you're curious, in any meaningful way with regard to the alleged proof.  That's not telling you what to think. That's how I think you think. IMO, no proof presented will actually convince you that it wasn't Iran. Simple as that. How that constitutes a "personal attack" is a good question.

 

 

On 5/31/2019 at 12:32 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

'To raise global oil prices'.

 

I guess someone has to dream up a reason why these 'attacks' are somehow an attack on the US.

Correct. They were a completely staged attack. Meant to drum up support for “action” in the region. I would not trust Trump, Blindfold Bolton or MBS if my life depended on it. All disingenuous liars. 

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Correct. They were a completely staged attack. Meant to drum up support for “action” in the region. I would not trust Trump, Blindfold Bolton or MBS if my life depended on it. All disingenuous liars. 

 

Of course they were, and I'm sure you can back it up. Not trusting Trump, Bolton and MBS - fine, no issues there. But seems like you're quite willing to trust Iran's rulers, because....?

14 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Of course they were, and I'm sure you can back it up. Not trusting Trump, Bolton and MBS - fine, no issues there. But seems like you're quite willing to trust Iran's rulers, because....?

You keep insisting I am some kind of fan of Iran. I am not. And I am not defending them. I am simply stating that the US needs to tread very carefully with regard to Iran. 

 

Trust Iran's rulers? Are you kidding me?

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

You keep insisting I am some kind of fan of Iran. I am not. And I am not defending them. I am simply stating that the US needs to tread very carefully with regard to Iran. 

 

Trust Iran's rulers? Are you kidding me?

 

No, I'm not insisting on that. I said you seem to be willing to accept, or trust, their narrative on these things. Same goes for portraying Iran (or Iranian leadership) as competent, fully rational and beyond engaging in any daft moves. Hyping Iran's alleged capabilities is just another aspect of that.

 

18 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Of course they were, and I'm sure you can back it up. Not trusting Trump, Bolton and MBS - fine, no issues there. But seems like you're quite willing to trust Iran's rulers, because....?

Why is it an either or issue?

 

One does not have to trust Iran to take a cynical view of the part Trump, Bolton, MBS (or any US administration) might play in this matter.

We have the past experience of the lies told and exposed as a pretext to the war in Iraq, reason enough for doubt and a healthy dose of cynicism.

 

 

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Why is it an either or issue?

 

One does not have to trust Iran to take a cynical view of the part Trump, Bolton, MBS (or any US administration) might play in this matter.

We have the past experience of the lies told and exposed as a pretext to the war in Iraq, reason enough for doubt and a healthy dose of cynicism.

 

 

 

Never said or implied anything about it being an either/or issue. If anything, that seems to be a point of view more representative of the poster I responded to.

 

I've no problems with distrusting Trump & Co., or even the other USA administrations. When this becomes an almost Pavlovian response and when it is attached to odd views regarding opponents, not so much.