10 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.

 

 

Bush and Cheney changed the standard with their Machiavellian Iraq propaganda.

 

Your analysis is from the 90s.

4 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Bush and Cheney changed the standard with their Machiavellian Iraq propaganda.

 

Your analysis is from the 90s.

 

Your commentary is about the 90's. How about addressing the current situation. Or, for a refreshing change, other involved parties other than the USA?

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

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

Well, as you said before, 'evidence' can be easily fabricated, but the public is still asking for it, so, offering some evidence to the public seems to me an important part of the show.

Undoubtedly, at least in my view, 'the evidence race' is likely to be 'won' by the ones who, for various reasons, can tell the most convincing story.

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, as you said before, 'evidence' can be easily fabricated, but the public is still asking for it, so, offering some evidence to the public seems to me an important part of the show.

Undoubtedly, at least in my view, 'the evidence race' is likely to be 'won' by the ones who, for various reasons, can tell the most convincing story.

 

Evidence can be fabricated or claimed to be fabricated.

If it comes down to a convincing story, then it's not really about evidence, but more about salesmanship and/or what people already subscribe to.

4 hours 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.

 

Evidence? There's lots of evidence, and analysis though MSM is generally no so useful. By now, I doubt many knowledgeable organizations believe this could have been a Houthi operation even if political statements say otherwise. Here is a more professional view from some resources that cover arms control, strategic security, and technology.

 

Not only do they suggest it was not a Houthi operation, and that the CMs used could not have come from Houthi territory, they also suggest Iran has been designing and manufacturing these Houthi like missiles and parts, although the Houthi may be able to assemble them. Note that two of the sites also correct the Saudi's missile analysis, but only to emphasis it was an Iran job. 

 

https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1208062/meet-the-quds-1/

https://t-intell.com/2019/09/21/iran-used-cruise-missiles-suicide-drones-in-saudi-attack/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/more-evidence-points-to-iranian-cruise-missiles-drones-in-attack-on-saudi-oilfield/

 

BTW, watch the video, it is excellent background.

Edited September 22, 20196 yr by rabas

2 hours ago, Morch said:

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

Any evidence presented which is vetted by 2 independent (non-aligned, non-governmental) national sources and 1 independent international source.

2 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Any evidence presented which is vetted by 2 independent (non-aligned, non-governmental) national sources and 1 independent international source.

 

Do such sources exist? Is their impartiality fully accepted by everyone involved? Is allowing full access to foreign elements in matters relating to national security an international norm?

 

 

32 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Evidence? There's lots of evidence, and analysis though MSM is generally no so useful. By now, I doubt many knowledgeable organizations believe this could have been a Houthi operation even if political statements say otherwise. Here is a more professional view from some resources that cover arms control, strategic security, and technology.

 

Not only do they suggest it was not a Houthi operation, and that the CMs used could not have come from Houthi territory, they also suggest Iran has been designing and manufacturing these Houthi like missiles and parts, although the Houthi may be able to assemble them. Note that two of the sites also correct the Saudi's missile analysis, but only to emphasis it was an Iran job. 

 

https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1208062/meet-the-quds-1/

https://t-intell.com/2019/09/21/iran-used-cruise-missiles-suicide-drones-in-saudi-attack/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/more-evidence-points-to-iranian-cruise-missiles-drones-in-attack-on-saudi-oilfield/

 

BTW, watch the video, it is excellent background.

Ah, you're the expert now.

 

There is lots of evidence, so they 'suggest'. Do you see where your reasoning is flawed?

A post in which the quoted content was not attributed to the original poster has been removed as well as the replies. 

5 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

No, but evidence suggests yours is?  Google here.   https://www.google.com/search?q=%22evidence+suggesting%22

 

Mine is what? Oh, and clinical trials can suggest something, evidence provides proof. Looking forward to proof.

Edited September 22, 20196 yr by stevenl

21 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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.

 

Why do you limit the possibilities to Houthis or Iran ?

 

 

2 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

Why do you limit the possibilities to Houthis or Iran ?

 

 

 

Because I'm not into conspiracy theories, or declaring each and every thing that happens in the ME a false flag.

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Because I'm not into conspiracy theories, or declaring each and every thing that happens in the ME a false flag.

From my point of view, blindly believing the official story, especially the USA's, is worse than believing also considering conspiracy theories for possible alternative narratives.

The US have a long history of lying to the public in order to enter wars using casus belli which were later proven to be fraudulent - I believe they are just the tip of the iceberg.

Edited September 22, 20196 yr by tgw

A baiting post has been removd

The media usually paints lran as being very arrogant and happy to show it's power. So, why is it, that they did not claim that, they did attack the facility?

This smells to me!!!!

 

Trump has more chance building a wall around iran that mexico will pay for.

50 minutes ago, Expat Brad said:

The media usually paints lran as being very arrogant and happy to show it's power. So, why is it, that they did not claim that, they did attack the facility?

This smells to me!!!!

 

 

Maybe as happy to issue threats and statements about it's power. As for actually showing it - a bit more discrete, often using proxies for deniability purposes. This one's pretty much in line.

5 hours ago, tgw said:

From my point of view, blindly believing the official story, especially the USA's, is worse than believing also considering conspiracy theories for possible alternative narratives.

The US have a long history of lying to the public in order to enter wars using casus belli which were later proven to be fraudulent - I believe they are just the tip of the iceberg.

 

Not "blindly believing" anything. Most of the conspiracy theories/false flag suggestions aired are not well supported by much than posters' long held convictions (or tendency to see anything whatsoever as such).

Alternative narratives are all very well, but that doesn't imply they do not need to be well reasoned. That's hardly the case with some of the notions tossed about.

 

The USA might have such a history. I kinda doubt it applies to each and every instance, though. Some posters on here obviously feel differently.