Trump says 'Iran did do it,' as U.S. seeks support on Gulf oil tanker attacks

[billd766]

3 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

The US have been organising false flags and outright lies since the battleship Maine, the gulf of Tonkin, gas attacks in Syria, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a pretext for war. This strategy is getting very stale indeed. Every member of the administration is a known serial liar, especially Pompeo, and the 'intelligence' services provide unsupported nonsense to suit the political purpose.

I for one no leg believe anything that comes from the administration in DC, the Pentagon, the CIA or the FBI. If they told be it was sunny outside, I'd have to run outside to see for myself, that's how much faith I have in US leadership.

I agree with you 100%.

[Srikcir]

Japanese owner denies mine attack.

Says 'Flying Object' Likely Caused Explosions

• "I do not think there was a time bomb or an object attached to the side of the ship," said Yutaka Katada
• "That created the hole, is the report I've received," Katada said. "It seems there was a high chance they were attacked by a flying object. The impact was well above the water. I don't think it was a torpedo."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/14/contradicting-trump-claim-iranian-mine-attack-owner-japanese-oil-tanker-says-flying

 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

I guess video tape of Iran trying to hide the mines plastered to the side of the boat isn't enough for some people. They are also making more interference with tug boats today. For all the criticism Trump isn't quick to go to war. Iran is literally begging for an airstrike.

 

Never mind it now seems that Iran has taken the Norwegian crew hostage. This is how Iran has always been.

 

4 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

So who did it? If the Norwegian crew is in fact hold hostage in Iran will you accept the reality?

 

Curious as to where you got the "hostage" notion from. And why keep going on about it without providing any shred of support for the claim.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, animalmagic said:

Iran did it = port and refinery in ashes (to quote you), economic disaster and possible Armageddon for them.

Somebody else did it = economic benefits for US and Saudi, and relief for Israel.

 

 

The first part holds only in case Iran did it and gets caught (preferably red handed). 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

If choking one's self to death is the goal Iran is a winner. Let's see what happens with the Norwegian crew.

 

Iran is already choked, economically at least. But so far, it's mostly Iran's problem. If it's an international issue, and the crisis is hyped, then likelier that interested parties will pressure toward sorting things out, even without the Trump administration getting all the stuff on Pompeo's list.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Iran might be. They are a wildcard for sure. I can't see it going any direction other than a quagmire and Iran becoming another Libya, Iraq, Syria... Lots of bombs being sold though, ka-ching!

 

Iran is nothing like the countries cited in your example. There is no strongman, and there far more national cohesion and sentiment. It's worth remembering that despite similar "takes", the last crisis ended up with the Iran Deal - rather than war. I think that's what both sides want, at this point, and that what we see is leveraging and posturing in preparation for negotiations. A recent example would be how things panned out with NK.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, poohy said:

America and Trump want war and are doing their damnedest to start one, by legal or now illegal means.

i am surprised we did not find a Iranian passport attached to a mine bit like the "911" one the only intact piece of paper found at the site!.for sure i believe 911 was nothing to to do with bunch of part time incompetent Muslim wannabe pilots, 

 

The "found passport" thing is a convention (or rather, substitute) for divulging either classified information or exposing details regarding ongoing investigations. Your conspiracy theory bit is dully noted. 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Kasane said:

War drums. Economic sanctions that strangle countries. Unhinged twitter tirades against other countries leaders. Why is America becoming a rogue nation?

 

Kinda doubt the three "points" listed make a nation "rogue".

 

3 hours ago, RobbyXNorway said:

If you look back on history you will find that America has pretty much always been a rogue nation since they escaped the collars of the British Empire. The only difference is that its becoming more and more obvious and more countries seem to step away from the mad dog. Obama, Trump or Hillary Clinton...its the same shitshow. This is not a matter of american presidents but the "exceptionalist" american attitude. The day the US dollar hegemony ends will be a great day. No more free ride on other countries resources. I put the tag on that day as the day OPEC says oil can be traded in other currencies than the US dollar. Poof! goes the magic credit card.

That gap between being anti-USA, and having a firm grasp on reality.

 

 

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

One big problem with your assertion: it's not at all clear the Iran is responsible. The crew of the boat say the ship was hit by a projectile, not  damaged by a limpet mine. And the damage is centered on a point way above where a limpet mine could be attached.

In addition, when Pompeo made his accusation, there was something curiously missing: the confidence level of intelligence agencies in assigning the blame to Iran.

 

I wouldn't know that the crew can tell exactly what damaged the tanker, what the assertion it was a projectile relies on, and whether the reasoning is sound.

 

Not aware that intelligence agencies confidence levels are always present when politicians convey these to the public.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

This is very fishy.

First and foremost, after uttering over 10,000 lies Trump has a credibility factor of less than zero. So, both Americans and our allies should be very skeptical of anything and everything he says.

 

Second, Bolton is behind this accusation, as he wants war more than anything. He is a warmonger, and even though he was badly burned in Iraq, and Afghanistan, he never learns.

 

Third, it is in the interest of the US to declare war. They are a nation of war, there is much money to be made from a war, and the defense industry lobbyists are probably visiting him frequently. He never, ever says no to a lobbyist. The corporations own this administration. Bought and paid for.

 

Fourth, what interest does Iran have in a war with the US? At this moment of heightened awareness and warlike rhetoric, would they be stupid enough to sabotage oil tankers? I really doubt it. 

 

Fifth, the ones who gain the most from this, are either the Saudis or the Israelis. It is just American blood. Why would they care? Think about it, before accepting this man of dishonesty at his word.

 

"Points" one through three are your usual rant stuff. Been addressed numerous times, and guess some just need to vent, regardless of what they are posting on.

 

As for your fourth and fifth "points" - Iran is not interested in an all out war with the USA. But Iran is very much interested in sanctions going away. If the status quo remains, so do the sanctions - no motivation for the USA to remove them. If, on the other hand, things escalate a bit, to the degree where it becomes an international crisis or threat, then other interested parties may influence the USA to compromise or relent,  in order to find a solution. 

 

I think that your "analysis" ignores numerous bellicose, aggressive and threatening statements by Iranian officials. Or the fact that Iran got its own warmongers. Or that Iran got a history when it comes to attacks on tankers. Similarly, it glosses over the USA making several comments about being open to negotiate. Or Pompeo's 12-point paper apparently gathering dust somewhere. Or the absence of a massive troop movement, required for an effective offensive.

 

And one needs to be uninformed or totally biased in order to ignore that any offensive against Iran is very likely to result in Israel being targeted by massive rocket fire from both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, on Iran's behalf. Kinda doubt that's not a consideration as far as Israel goes, or that either instance will result in American casualties.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

I think it is highly likely that either the Saudis or the Israelis were behind these attacks. 

 

I doubt you invested a whole lot of thought in the above. More like a knee-jerk reaction.

[RobbyXNorway]

26 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Kinda doubt the three "points" listed make a nation "rogue".

 

That gap between being anti-USA, and having a firm grasp on reality.

 

 

 

Really? Does the USA "make international policy" or does it break international conventions? I would say the latter. There is a long series of wars that would fall in under the "war of aggression" standard set by the Nuremberg trials.

 

It seems to me there is most a gap in pro-USA and having a firm grasp on reality in your case.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

Japanese owner denies mine attack.

Says 'Flying Object' Likely Caused Explosions

• "I do not think there was a time bomb or an object attached to the side of the ship," said Yutaka Katada
• "That created the hole, is the report I've received," Katada said. "It seems there was a high chance they were attacked by a flying object. The impact was well above the water. I don't think it was a torpedo."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/14/contradicting-trump-claim-iranian-mine-attack-owner-japanese-oil-tanker-says-flying

 

 

Not much there to explain how they came to the conclusion.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, RobbyXNorway said:

Really? Does the USA "make international policy" or does it break international conventions? I would say the latter. There is a long series of wars that would fall in under the "war of aggression" standard set by the Nuremberg trials.

 

It seems to me there is most a gap in pro-USA and having a firm grasp on reality in your case.

 

I would guess that what you define as "rogue nation" would amount to countries-I-don't-like. The Trump administration certainly got issues when it comes to international treaties, but that's a break from the USA's traditional policies. And I'm not the one running around labeling countries as this or that based on my views - you are.

[from the home of CC]

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

I think it is highly likely that either the Saudis or the Israelis were behind these attacks. 

I lean towards the Saudis who obviously have a green light from the U.S. no matter what they do...

[tlandtday]

I would bet money this is a cia/mossad operation.  Not the first and certainly not the last.  The neocons are salivating for another mideast war to further destabalize the region.

[tlandtday]

48 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I wouldn't know that the crew can tell exactly what damaged the tanker, what the assertion it was a projectile relies on, and whether the reasoning is sound.

 

Not aware that intelligence agencies confidence levels are always present when politicians convey these to the public.

gee in an age of 4k video we get 240 grainy video... more bs

[Longcut]

2 hours ago, RobbyXNorway said:

Pumping gas at a gas station does not an expert make.

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-13/trump-thinks-us-oil-his-strength-when-its-his-achilles-heel

 

But go on, live in fantasyland until the illusion breaks.

That just proves my point two ways. First, there is such a volume of oil that the cost per barrel is too low for some companies without extra capital to stay afloat.

 Second, the fact that Venezuela is not exporting oil is a plus for American oil companies. (Can you say supply and demand?). Iran not exporting is a plus also.

 The only part the U.S. suffers on is, the refineries. U.S. refineries are capable of refining heavy crude. Whereas most others cannot. That is why the U.S. buys heavy crude from places like Mexico.

WTI, crude is low sulphur already. Low sulphur diesel fuel is the only one allowed in most U.S. states. 

 Stop acting like you know what you are talking about. Your looking foolish.

[AJBangkok]

6 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Iran attacking ships could be construed as an act of war. We haven''t done anything other than be the adults in the room and have begun to escort ships. If Iran wishes to escalate this any further they can look forward to a port and a refinery in ashes. 

Yeah ok, then it’s an attack against Panama and the Marshall Islands as these ships fly under their flags. Let Panama and the Marshall Islands send in their Army’s and Navy’s to deal with it. If they are going to get rich offering ships flags of convenience then they should deal with the problems their ships get into. It’s an outrage that the owners of these ships use these structures to avoid taxes in their own countries then expect the world to spend billions of dollars bailing them out when they get in trouble for entering an area where every government has a travel advisory on saying don’t go there.

[Longcut]

5 hours ago, RobbyXNorway said:

 

"Awash in oil"? LOL...its not. You might think so, but its not. Your shale oil will run dry in a few short years, and you are already in trouble because the shale oil is extremely light and needs to be mixed with heavy crude oil. Why did you think the US wanted to "regime change" Venezuela? A hint: Venezuelan oil is very heavy crude oil. Perfect to mix with US light shale oil.

 

As for this episode, its just another Gulf of Tonkin attempt. Disgusting warmongering. And not by Iran.

The US has added close to 50 billion barrels over the last year and now holds an estimated 310 billion barrels of recoverable oil with current technologies, equal to 79 years of US oil production at present output levels.Jun 2018

[losworld]

Trump needs to stop listening to the war mongering neocons on this one.  Sounds like a repeat of "weapons of mass destruction".

[rabas]

27 minutes ago, tlandtday said:

gee in an age of 4k video we get 240 grainy video... more bs

The images were taken from an MQ-9 drone most likely with infra-red enhanced cameras from a few miles off. Try you phone at 3 or 4 km and see how blurry it is in IR mode.

[Rimmer]

A couple of troll posts have been removed also replies

[RobbyXNorway]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I would guess that what you define as "rogue nation" would amount to countries-I-don't-like. The Trump administration certainly got issues when it comes to international treaties, but that's a break from the USA's traditional policies. And I'm not the one running around labeling countries as this or that based on my views - you are.

Yes I am labeling the USA as a rogue nation, because it doesnt adhere to treaties it has signed and international law in general whenever it is deemed "not in US interests". Who is throwing around sanctions and tariffs unilateraly these days? The USA. Who is blocking the WTO and has effectively paralyzed the WTO (World Trade Organization)? The USA   https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-wto/wto-chief-sees-no-end-in-sight-to-us-blockage-idUSKCN1QA2IW

 

The USA is certainly not making many new friends these days.

[RobbyXNorway]

53 minutes ago, Longcut said:

That just proves my point two ways. First, there is such a volume of oil that the cost per barrel is too low for some companies without extra capital to stay afloat.

 Second, the fact that Venezuela is not exporting oil is a plus for American oil companies. (Can you say supply and demand?). Iran not exporting is a plus also.

 The only part the U.S. suffers on is, the refineries. U.S. refineries are capable of refining heavy crude. Whereas most others cannot. That is why the U.S. buys heavy crude from places like Mexico.

WTI, crude is low sulphur already. Low sulphur diesel fuel is the only one allowed in most U.S. states. 

 Stop acting like you know what you are talking about. Your looking foolish.

Really? You obviously didnt read this;

Quote

Second, and more importantly, US shale oil has an upper limit on demand since it’s too light for most refineries and requires blending with heavier feedstock. This is why, for example, US imports of Russian oil are rising rapidly to feed Gulf coast refineries starved of Venezuelan oil thanks to Trump trying to take it off the market.

 

But like I say, keep on dreaming. The US shale oil fantasty will end in a few years.

[Longcut]

15 minutes ago, RobbyXNorway said:

Really? You obviously didnt read this;

 

But like I say, keep on dreaming. The US shale oil fantasty will end in a few years.

You haven't a clue.

The U.S. has only ever gotten 8% of its heavy crude from Venezuela. 

[RobbyXNorway]

1 minute ago, Longcut said:

You haven't a clue.

I have lots of clues, and I find more every day. Contrary to you it seems.

[rabas]

11 minutes ago, RobbyXNorway said:

Really? You obviously didnt read this;

Quote

Second, and more importantly, US shale oil has an upper limit on demand since it’s too light for most refineries and requires blending with heavier feedstock. This is why, for example, US imports of Russian oil are rising rapidly to feed Gulf coast refineries starved of Venezuelan oil thanks to Trump trying to take it off the market.

But like I say, keep on dreaming. The US shale oil fantasty will end in a few years.

 

You ought to know about Canada's huge reserves of thick crude ideal for mixing with US light crude. More than all of Russia's reserves. Mixing is a convenience to help refine thick oil. Without any heavy oil, refineries would adjust to use light oil just fine.

 

Canada's oil reserves total more than 170 billion barrels, of which 164 billion barrels (or 96 per cent) can be recovered from the oil sands using today's technology. Canada has the world's third-largest oil reserves, [ahead of Russia]

Source: AER, 2017 and Oil & Gas Journal, 2017).

 

[manarak]

the situation is highly dangerous.

 

I don't really see Iran's benefits in escalating this into a war, but I can clearly see who would like the US to be dragged into one against Iran:

- Israel

- Saudis and cronies

 

There are also *many* very clear benefits for the US government to start a war:

- an economic crisis looms, a war can reseat the system

- the next election is up soon, Trump must be sensible to the political impact

- next step of "bringing democracy" to the middle east

- end the Iranian nuclear threat

- bring Iranian resources (oil) under Western political control, this is not so much to get the oil than to make it unavailable for countries dependent on Iran (Syria).

- reaffirm waning US power

- destroy as much Iranian infrastructure as possible to have it rebuilt by Western companies

 

I don't think Iran is looking forward to be attacked by the US. So it's not quite clear to me what they would achieve by mining tankers above the line of water and especially operating a IRGC boat in broad daylight, especially as these tankers certainly have cameras on board.

 

Speaking of which, the Japanese prime minister was meeting the Iranian government as the tankers, among which one Japanese ship, were attacked.

Incidentially, the Japanese ship's crew denied having been hit by a bomb or mine. coincidence?

or did Japan instruct their people to make that statement to defuse tension?

 

considering how many parties are involved and their interests, I wouldn't say it's certain that Iran attacked those tankers.

on the other hand, Iran also knows that the US nowadays probably need a little bit more than wiggling a lab tube in front of the UN to start a war, so they might play on that.

[Longcut]

2 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

You ought to know about Canada's huge reserves of thick crude ideal for mixing with US light crude. More than all of Russia's reserves. Mixing is a convenience to help refine thick oil. Without any heavy oil, refineries would adjust to use light oil just fine.

 

Canada's oil reserves total more than 170 billion barrels, of which 164 billion barrels (or 96 per cent) can be recovered from the oil sands using today's technology. Canada has the world's third-largest oil reserves, [ahead of Russia]

Source: AER, 2017 and Oil & Gas Journal, 2017).

 

• According to the most recent data, the top five oil-producing nations are the United States, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Canada.

United States

The United States is the top oil-producing country in the world, with an average of 14.86 million b/d, which accounts for 15.3% of the world's production. This is down from 15.12 million b/d in 2015, but it was enough to land the United States in the top spot, which it has held for the past four prior years. The United States overtook Russia in 2012 for the No. 2 spot, and surpassed former leader Saudi Arabia in 2013, to become the world's top oil producer. Much of the increased U.S. production is attributable to fracking in the shale formations in Texas and North Dakota. The United States has been a net exporter of oil (i.e., exports exceeded imports)