Iran Did Do It..............says Trump

notobtuse · 02-07-2019 5:25pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

A site that IAEA is aware of and reported nothing. If was doing nefarious things in the past is irrelevent.

Nefarious actions in the past is quite relevant.

Cheerful Spring2 · 02-07-2019 5:49pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Nefarious actions in the past is quite relevant.

Iran declared the site and inspectors have been there. It not like Iran told them to go away and all mysterious. It just intelligence speculation this underground facility in Fordo was designed to make 1 or 2 bombs a year. Israel and US have never shown this to be true, so i not sure why you keep pushing the narrative ran was building a bomb still after the 2015 agreement was signed?

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 02-07-2019 6:08pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Obama made that terrible deal with Iran because.... Israel? Where do you come up with this stuff?

Israel has a fair amount of influence in US policy making, as does Saudi.

Israel was of course opposed to the Iranian deal but the claim was that Obama didn’t want them to attack.

Gatling · 02-07-2019 6:13pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Iran declared the site and inspectors have been there. It not like Iran told them to go away and all mysterious. It just intelligence speculation this underground facility in Fordo

So we know Iran supposedly removed nuclear materials from Fordo in 2015 but in 2016 they apparently added more defence systems and new air defences too , which would suggest something is still very valuable they want protecting.

But you cannot claim Iran don't have facilities that's are not declared you simply can't ,
Giving opinion is one thing claiming it's fact Iran don't have undeclared facilities is wrong

GooglePlus · 02-07-2019 6:54pm

What are the potential risks involved in striking an enrichment facility in terms of radioactive fallout?

Is it at a stage where it could be hazardous or no?

notobtuse · 02-07-2019 7:19pm

US VP Pence was called back to Washington for an "undisclosed emergency". At the same time Putin called an urgent meeting with defense chiefs hours after 14 sailors died in a mystery submarine blast. Reports are coming out of domestic terror attacks here on the fourth of July holiday. And it seems Israel is weighing options over Iran's increased uranium stockpiles. Something seems to be going on.

GooglePlus · 02-07-2019 7:22pm

notobtuse wrote: »

US VP Pence was called back to Washington for an "undisclosed emergency". At the same time Putin called an urgent meeting with defense chiefs hours after 14 sailors died in a mystery submarine blast. Reports are coming out of domestic terror attacks here on the fourth of July holiday. And it seems Israel is weighing options over Iran's increased uranium stockpiles. Something seems to be going on.

Any links?

notobtuse · 02-07-2019 7:27pm

GooglePlus wrote: »

Any links?

A quick few...
https://apnews.com/5bb92f50d9f64d46a0c26e78dc0eae44?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9421808/vladimir-putin-defence-mike-pence-air-force-washington/
https://abcnews.go.com/US/domestic-terrorists-target-july-holiday-events-federal-authorities/story?id=64038406
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-06-21/israel-could-strike-first-tensions-iran-flare

Cheerful Spring2 · 02-07-2019 7:43pm

notobtuse wrote: »

US VP Pence was called back to Washington for an "undisclosed emergency". At the same time Putin called an urgent meeting with defense chiefs hours after 14 sailors died in a mystery submarine blast. Reports are coming out of domestic terror attacks here on the fourth of July holiday. And it seems Israel is weighing options over Iran's increased uranium stockpiles. Something seems to be going on.

Pence asked to return to the white house is interesting. If trump is recieving new intelligence pence would have to be there. It very unlikely its minor thing they asked him to return for, we have to wait and see. You never know with Trump white house though?

It very unlikely about the incident in Russia, unless there was a radition leak or someway, highly unlikely in my opinion, there was incident with Nato forces lead to this incident?

Gatling · 02-07-2019 8:28pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It very unlikely about the incident in Russia, unless there was a radition leak or someway, highly unlikely in my opinion, there was incident with Nato forces lead to this incident?

If NATO was involved we wouldn't be talking about a fire on a submarine we would discussing the loss of another russian submarine,

But that's all conspiracy theory face it the russian navy aren't exactly known for their safety record nearly sinking their own antique carrier in dry dock recently says it all,
And the multiple fires aboard russian submarines over the last 20+ years

GooglePlus · 02-07-2019 10:32pm

Lots of speculation on Twitter.

Usually all it ever is though.

Gatling · 02-07-2019 10:45pm

GooglePlus wrote: »

Lots of speculation on Twitter.

Usually all it ever is though.

Russia and accidents aboard its naval vessels are pretty common ,too common at this point .

But that's a different thread

Jimmy Garlic · 02-07-2019 11:49pm

Gatling wrote: »

Russia and accidents aboard its naval vessels are pretty common ,too common at this point .

But that's a different thread

Have a read....

https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/us-navy-crashes-japan-cause-mccain/

I expect the British navy is in an even worse state.

InTheShadows · 02-07-2019 11:57pm

I'll be honest and say the minute i heard about that Russian sub i said to myself there is more to this than we are being told. If Pence has been called back for emergency talks it all seems a bit weird.

Kimsang · 03-07-2019 12:01am

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Have a read....
https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/us-navy-crashes-japan-cause-mccain/
I expect the British navy is in an even worse state.

British aircraft carriers removed the Harrier and since have had no planes on their carriers.
An aircraft carrier which has no planes is a metaphor for uselessness, like a pub with no beer, or a car with no wheels.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/07/peter-hitchens-an-aircraft-carrier-with-no-jobs-is-the-least-of-our-worries.html

Gatling · 03-07-2019 12:06am

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Have a read....

https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/us-navy-crashes-japan-cause-mccain/

I expect the British navy is in an even worse state.

Think I'd definitely rather board a US ,EU , British military vessel rather than risk getting on to a russian floating coffin

Gatling · 03-07-2019 12:09am

Kimsang wrote: »

British aircraft carriers removed the Harrier and since have had no planes on their carriers.

That's why they are getting the F35

At least they currently field the most modern carrier on seas

Cheerful Spring2 · 03-07-2019 12:15am

InTheShadows wrote: »

I'll be honest and say the minute i heard about that Russian sub i said to myself there is more to this than we are being told. If Pence has been called back for emergency talks it all seems a bit weird.

I seeing lot of rumors, but i think its fake news personally, internet crazy lke that.

If there was a military incident the US AWACs would be up in the air immediately, patrolling the west coast.Seeing nothing like this so i ruling out a military incident between Nato and Russia.

I have feeling he was called back for a meeting about something, best guess is Iran. It could be something else though.

Gatling · 03-07-2019 12:44am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If there was a military incident the US AWACs would be up in the air immediately, patrolling the west coast

Why

branie2 · 03-07-2019 2:08pm

Trump will say anything

ArchXStanton · 04-07-2019 12:26am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes Obama disliked Netanyahu and he signed the Iranian deal with other European powers, China and Russia to stop Israel from starting a war. If Obama listened to Israel there would be no deal in 2015.

Was not a terrible deal. All enrichment was watched closely by IAEA. They hated the deal because it allowed the Iranians to keep building missiles for defence. Israel wants Iran to be defenceless and be weak miitarily. Iran was not going allow inspections of their military sites. Israel is seeking to destroy the regime, the nuclear threat just part of the game.

You're bang on, Iran had fcuk all defenses when Sadam attacked and now Iran is making sure that will never happen again... Of course this doesn't suit Israel so it has its poodle pull out of the deal and try use sanctions and gun boat diplomacy to force Iran into a new deal that will be more favourable to them

nacho libre · 04-07-2019 6:48pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Nefarious actions in the past is quite relevant.

Does this apply to the actions of your own Government also? Or should we just blindly believe people like John Bolton?

notobtuse · 05-07-2019 1:39pm

nacho libre wrote: »

Does this apply to the actions of your own Government also? Or should we just blindly believe people like John Bolton?

It is good to review the actions of one's past, including ours. But you can't judge something on bad actions that's happened 200 years ago, or so, if most actions since those times were for the better. But, by all means, keep us on our toes.

4068ac1elhodqr · 05-07-2019 3:38pm

Iran has threatened to seize a British oil tanker if the Iranian tanker detained in Gibraltar is not immediately released, according to the tabloids.

Very strange they sailed the supertanker full of crude oil from Iran, all the way around Africa, to get to Baniyas refinery in Syria, surely they'll miss their emission targets.

cameramonkey · 05-07-2019 3:54pm

notobtuse wrote: »

It is good to review the actions of one's past, including ours. But you can't judge something on bad actions that's happened 200 years ago, or so, if most actions since those times were for the better. But, by all means, keep us on our toes.

The bul****tte meter is off the scale with this one.

The squirming nature of the reply has contributed to making your post almost unintelligible.

archer22 · 05-07-2019 4:09pm

Uriah Petite Slowpoke wrote: »

Iran has threatened to seize a British oil tanker if the Iranian tanker detained in Gibraltar is not immediately released, according to the tabloids.

Very strange they sailed the supertanker full of crude oil from Iran, all the way around Africa, to get to Baniyas refinery in Syria, surely they'll miss their emission targets.

Seized in an act of blatant piracy would be a more accurate description.

Gatling · 05-07-2019 4:24pm

Uriah Petite Slowpoke wrote: »

Iran has threatened to seize a British oil tanker if the Iranian tanker detained in Gibraltar is not immediately released, according to the tabloids.

(Iran)They played the wrong game ,they got their very public final warning from trump if they try to seize a foreign vessel they will face consequences

Cheerful Spring2 · 05-07-2019 5:22pm

Uriah Petite Slowpoke wrote: »

Iran has threatened to seize a British oil tanker if the Iranian tanker detained in Gibraltar is not immediately released, according to the tabloids.

Very strange they sailed the supertanker full of crude oil from Iran, all the way around Africa, to get to Baniyas refinery in Syria, surely they'll miss their emission targets.

Finding this explanation strange also. It was definately an Iranian tanker though.

UK military seized it, you find pictures online showing men with full combat gear onboard the ship. Its a form of piracy.

Iran tries to takeover a UK ship, there be action almost immediately from them.

Gatling · 05-07-2019 5:31pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

UK military seized it, you find pictures online showing men with full combat gear onboard the ship.

Royal marine commando's

How is it piracy when the vessel was being used to bypass international sanctions ,

Cheerful Spring2 · 05-07-2019 5:44pm

Gatling wrote: »

Royal marine commando's

How is it piracy when the vessel was being used to bypass international sanctions ,

Its ok for the UK to rob an oil tanker belonging to another country. Sorry not buying the US and UK explantation whatsoever for this seizure. Why would Iran be shipping a tanker full of oil to Syria? Syria has its own oil. I can understand if Iran shipped oil to Africa and then they boarded it to annoy Iran.

UK playing a dangerous game alongside the US.

Iranians gave the Americans a warning when they brought down a 100 million dollar drone. Iran not messing around.

America has not got the manpower or capabilities to take on the Shia population in the Middle East. War against Iran would cause serious harm to the world economy. Literally 40 per of world oil flows through the hormuz strait, just there. Never mind what happens if Saudis oil facilities are hit by Iranian missiles.

notobtuse · 05-07-2019 5:50pm

cameramonkey wrote: »

The bul****tte meter is off the scale with this one.

The squirming nature of the reply has contributed to making your post almost unintelligible.

Okay… I guess. The US is by no means perfect, but it is still considered the best. A Gallup survey notes that 1 out of 25 adults on the planet would move to the US if they could. That’s more than the next four countries combined. And we continue to try and get things right.

Gatling · 05-07-2019 5:55pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Its ok for the UK to rob an oil tanker belonging to another country. Sorry not buying the US and UK explantation whatsoever for this seizure.

Iranians gave the Americans a warning when they brought down a 100 million dollar drone. Iran not messing around.

America has not got the manpower or capabilities

It could well be weapons related ,it's not the first nor the last time an Iranian ship has been boarded usually it happens off the coast of Africa by Israeli forces .

America might not have the man power to take on all the shias in the middle East but they can strike any where in Iran 24/7 with impunity ,

I see it's been claimed Israel has breached Iranian airspace regularly the last few weeks undetected too

cameramonkey · 05-07-2019 6:08pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Okay… I guess. The US is by no means perfect, but it is still considered the best. A Gallup survey notes that 1 out of 25 adults on the planet would move to the US if they could. That’s more than the next four countries combined. And we continue to try and get things right.

In very recent history the US has destroyed many countries and killed hundreds of thousands of people, many innocent men, women and children. To get people to fall into step and support such actions the US has lied about the reasons for war, in Iraq its was WMD's in Vietnam it was the Gulf of Tolkin incident. I dont believe now that John Bolton will tell the truth about why he wants to destroy Iran. The USA is the bad guy here when it invades and destroys peoples lives.

I am sure parts of the US are great to live in but that does not mean much to a family that has lost a love one through US imperialism.

Gatling · 05-07-2019 6:41pm

BloodBath wrote: »

Trying to get things right with constant illegal wars

Iraq yes ,
Afghanistan definitely no
Yugoslavia no
Central America maybe

Remember alot of what America got involved with post ww2 was actually worth doing Russia occupied Eastern Europe and had exported their brand of communism around the world , including the south Americas

Or would be be happier having our own chairmans red handbook , something that rarely gets mentioned is other countries inventions

notobtuse · 05-07-2019 6:45pm

BloodBath wrote: »

Oh look, a brainwashed yank.

Trying to get things right with constant illegal wars resulting in the deaths of millions and the displacement of tens of millions. You haven't got a war right since WW2.

"...constant illegal wars resulting in the deaths of millions and the displacement of tens of millions."

Where in the world do you come up with this stuff?

Odhinn · 05-07-2019 6:46pm

Gatling wrote: »

Iraq maybe yes ,
Afghanistan definitely no
Yugoslavia no
Central America maybe

Remember alot of what America got involved with post ww2 was actually worth doing Russia occupied Eastern Europe and had exported their brand of communism around the world , including the south Americas

Or would be be happier having our own chairmans red handbook , something that rarely gets mentioned is other countries inventions

Have you entirely lost the run of yourself?

Gatling · 05-07-2019 6:49pm

Odhinn wrote: »

Have you entirely lost the run of yourself?

Auto correct . * Now fixed *

Maybe was only supposed to be at the end of Central America

Iraq was definitely yes

Dog Man Star · 05-07-2019 6:50pm

Christ, when your approval ratings are so low, start a war. Trump is bollixed though. The Americans are wise to this now. His military bullsh went down like a lead balloon.

Trump is seventy-odd. These voters are 30s. They're not stupid.

It won't work. He's done for.

Odhinn · 05-07-2019 6:51pm

Gatling wrote: »

Auto correct . * Now fixed *

Maybe was only supposed to be at the end of Central America

Iraq was definitely yes

Just to clarify here - yes a good thing, or yes an illegal war and bad

Dog Man Star · 05-07-2019 6:56pm

Odhinn wrote: »

Just to clarify here - yes a good thing, or yes an illegal war and bad

The invasion of Iraq was not a war, it was an invasion to steal oil. It didn't work. The US are still there now.

An attack on Iran will be an invasion, not a war. It will be the last ditch attempt to stoke support in a failed Presidency. There is zero support for it. Trump is done for.

Gatling · 05-07-2019 6:57pm

Odhinn wrote: »

yes an illegal war and bad

I've publicly stated that pre and post Iraq invasion .

Absolutely bad .

Gatling · 05-07-2019 7:00pm

Dog Man Star wrote: »

The invasion of Iraq was not a war, it was an invasion to steal oil.

No it was one man's quest to finish a job his father didn't do in the previous war .

cameramonkey · 05-07-2019 7:01pm

Gatling wrote: »

No it was one man's quest to finish a job his father didn't do in the previous war .

What will John Bolton's reason be if he allowed attack Iran?

Gatling · 05-07-2019 7:04pm

cameramonkey wrote: »

What will John Bolton's reason be if he allowed attack Iran?

Apparently revenge for the iraq insurgency (post invasion) which iran were heavily involved in.
That or people are still sore over the Iran Islamic Revolution

cameramonkey · 05-07-2019 7:09pm

Gatling wrote: »

Apparently revenge for the iraq insurgency (post invasion) which iran were heavily involved in.
That or people are still sore over the Iran Islamic Revolution

The Iraq insurgency finished many years ago, the other excuse is just that.

Odhinn · 05-07-2019 7:10pm

cameramonkey wrote: »

What will John Bolton's reason be if he allowed attack Iran?

"they posed a threat to the region", "they sponsored terrorism" - the usual guff.

archer22 · 05-07-2019 7:14pm

America is in the extraordinary position of being a huge imperial nation that is itself a slave to a small nation.

cameramonkey · 05-07-2019 7:20pm

archer22 wrote: »

America is in the extraordinary position of being a huge imperial nation that is itself a slave to a small nation.

If you have another country or a cabal within your own government running US middle east policy of behalf of that country then its a problem. There is no democratic oversight and often the policy is at odds with the interests of the US.

The Late Late Show · 06-07-2019 1:54am

John Bolton/Republic of Gilead is heading for a big fall. No one not even the Joker Trump likes him. The Penguin Mayor Giuliani may be his last resort!!! Trust who do you? None of them!!

Gatling · 06-07-2019 2:30am

The Late Late Show wrote: »

/Republic of Gilead

Maybe you should keep your tv obsessions in the television forum

Iran Did Do It..............says Trump

Comments