Iran responsible for 'blatant assault' on oil tankers in Gulf of Oman, Mike Pompeo says

Who would want a war between the US and Iran?

Without any definite evidence that Iran is behind the attacks, my bet is on the Mossad operation. They have the means and motivation and as evidence from the attack on the USS Liberty, we know their command is capable or ordering it.

a reply to: pravdaseeker

Pompeo's word for it without evidence is as good as Bolton's.

And that statement makes no sense, as it would imply it's measurable.

I won't believe it is Iran until proof is provided.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Who would want a war between the US and Iran?

Without any definite evidence that Iran is behind the attacks, my bet is on the Mossad operation. They have the means and motivation and as evidence from the attack on the USS Liberty, we know their command is capable or ordering it.

Ask John Kerry. He's been having behind-the-scenes-Logan-Act-type discussions with Iran. Ask him what they planned.

This should be a piece of cake with no issues considering our recent track record.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Yep, I'd be looking long and hard at Isreal intel agencies. They have the most to gain from a war between the US and Iran.

well. it wasn't a torpedo, it was a mine, but not a minor mine, lots of flames.

I presume a "made in Iran" stamp is somewhere, like they have on the IED's they supply, right?

Isn't this the same "intelligence" agencies that Accused Trump of colluding with Russia?

I'm not certain I can believe them.

Could this be fake news, yes and no, something exploded near these ships.

Lets see the replay from space for Origins..

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII
I cannot understand how Iran can just simply be "blamed" without sufficient evidence.

Just saying, it may have something to do with this...
www.foxnews.com...

Iranian cleric threatens U.S. Navy fleet amid warning regime could target commercial ships

They want to threaten, but then play innocent when actual attacks happen? Nah, screw that. The consequences of this should be decisive and do not need a coalition...

I was able to find one of the two ships with ship tracker, the KOKUKA COURAGEOUS is Panamanian registered.
It's a 9 year old oil tanker that delivers oil to different parts of China including Taiwan.
The ship took over a month to return from China back to Mesaieed an industrial city in Al Wakrah Municipality in the State of Qatar.
Some large gaps in the shipping history, presumably when China is not buying and shipping oil?

So its not a derelict ship on the way to being scuttled, no idea where Pompeo gets his security information.
Middle East has been trying to raise oil prices but it doesn't make sense that Chinese interests would help them by being involved in a false flag?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

They want to threaten, but then play innocent when actual attacks happen? Nah, screw that. The consequences of this should be decisive and do not need a coalition...

Good point, we should make sacrifices with our young to counter their rhetoric!

We never threaten anyone, why should they!

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: burdman30ott6

They want to threaten, but then play innocent when actual attacks happen? Nah, screw that. The consequences of this should be decisive and do not need a coalition...

Good point, we make sacrifices with our young to counter their rhetoric!

We never threaten anyone, why should they!

Sacrifices with our young aren't needed here. We have things called missiles and bombs, no need for boots on the ground... especially since Saudi Arabia seems open to the idea of slapping Iran off their little podium and can diplomatically steer most of the other Middle Eastern countries towards accepting whatever goes down. If we reach a point where more than missiles and bombs are needed, we reach down and unclip Israel's chain.

We absolutely threaten other countries... but we can back it up. Strength matters, and by strength I mean actual strength, not artificial "we're self restraining so other countries can feel like they have power" nonsense, I mean actual strength.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Who would want a war between the US and Iran?

Anyone bright enough to realize that war needs to happen now rather than waiting a year for Iran to have nukes and then start really swinging their small pair around.

Well of course it was Iran, I mean, Who else could it be?.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Who would want a war between the US and Iran?

Anyone bright enough to realize that war needs to happen now rather than waiting a year for Iran to have nukes and then start really swinging their small pair around.

Keep drinking the kool-aid!

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Sacrifices with our young aren't needed here. We have things called missiles and bombs, no need for boots on the ground... especially since Saudi Arabia seems open to the idea of slapping Iran off their little podium and can diplomatically steer most of the other Middle Eastern countries towards accepting whatever goes down. If we reach a point where more than missiles and bombs are needed, we reach down and unclip Israel's chain.

I just can't wait for one week after the swift success with minimal casualties, Trump flies a warplane onto an aircraft carrier with a big banner that says mission accomplished.

Jokes aside, I care not what Saudi Arabia and Israel do with their people and tax money, so long as ours isn't involved with something that does not concern us.

Who was the last president to not be at or go to war with someone ?

Trumps been doing pretty good at staying away from conflict so far ..

Nothing good will come from a US led military confrontation with Iran. Hopefully we have a president that fully realizes that.

To me, if the Iranians actually were behind the attacks on these tankers, it is a clear sign of desperation on their part, and shows how the sanctions and maximum pressure are working.

a reply to: odzeandennz

So, I'm drinking Kool Aid when all I am doing is accepting Iran's own words at face value? THEY have threatened to attack commercial vessels in Hormuz. THEY have said they were escalating their uranium enrichment program with the intent of weapons manufacturing. THEY have spent my entire life screaming for "death to the great American Satan." While I enjoy my "Kool Aid" pull your goddamned head out of the sand and realize that the ones who shout threats the loudest will naturally and logically be the first ones turned towards when attacks actually happen and the culprits are sought.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: pravdaseeker

Pompeo's word for it without evidence is as good as Bolton's.

And that statement makes no sense, as it would imply it's measurable.

Anything that comes out of Fox, Pompeo or Bolton should be suspect considering their fast an loose concept of the truth and their past neocon connections. Swampy as it gets!! Remember Iraq and Afghanistan? Will we never learn?

www.theatlantic.com...

a reply to: ausername

Peace at any cost, including permitting attacks because they're a sign of desperation?

Seriously? WTF alternate reality of absent testicles and empty brain pans have I stumbled into? If Iran attacked those two ships there will be and should be a direct, devastating military response targeting Iran in general and their government and government infrastructure specifically. This is how the world has always worked and it worked quite well until bleeding hearts started calling for leniency. Taking a boot off a wild animal's throat always ends in loss of a limb.