Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Oil Tanker "torpedoed" in Gulf of Oman?


Eldorado

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, and then said:

Yes, I'm aware of the rhetoric about them being pure as the driven snow, I just don't accept it. 

I don't either.  We  don't have to sit on our hands and do nothing  We said we are willing to talk.  They said they are willing to talk.  We can try that first and make the demands we think we must have to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon, and see where that goes. The seem to want sanctions removed.  The question is, do they want that more than a nuclear weapon?

Heck we even had two summits with the North Koreans, they have not disarmed and we KNOW they have nuclear weapons.  So far we have not felt the need to blow them back the short distance to the stone age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tatetopa said:

They said they are willing to talk. 

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/05/iran-nuclear-deal-jcpoa-khamenei-talks-us-trump-negotiation.html

"Khamenei added, “We will not negotiate on any topic, and ‘issues of honor and the fundamentals of the revolution,’ as well as issues of defense, cannot be topics of negotiations.” He said negotiations on topics such as defense mean "they will want something and we will say no." 

No, I read yesterday that he clearly stated there would be NO renegotiation. 

7 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Heck we even had two summits with the North Koreans, they have not disarmed and we KNOW they have nuclear weapons.  So far we have not felt the need to blow them back the short distance to the stone age.

The NORKs aren't religious fanatics, they're just an odd permutation of a crime family.  Also, even if we were willing to use nukes on them in a preemptive strike - which we NEVER would do - they still could kill millions in SK with their nukes and after effects.  Transpose that level of power to Khamenei and imagine the world response to his announcement of a 20% tariff on all ship cargoes going through the Straits...every day.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is the film of the small "boat" (allegedly shot from an American drone)  BLURRY ?!   Oh well , no matter , president Trump completely explained the situation the other day when he stated....    We know it was Iran, you can see the boat.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, Iran is interested ONLY in the proliferation of their extreme ideology.

THAT is their agenda, and can not be diplomatically resolved, because they have no desire to stop funding and arming proxy terrorism in efforts to spread Sharia law throughout the Middle East, Europe and beyond.

Point-blank.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

They've managed to keep the F-14s they inherited from the days of they Shah serviceable, and put them through a modernization programme, which is a respectable enough achievement in itself. And they still have a fair number of F-4s, and various Su-22s, Su-24s and Mig-29s seem to be the most recent.  

The F-14’s have withered down from 70 that the shah bought to little over a dozen. They have had Russian engines and radar installed and are using Russian missiles. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lightly said:

Why is the film of the small "boat" (allegedly shot from an American drone)  BLURRY ?!   Oh well , no matter , president Trump completely explained the situation the other day when he stated....    We know it was Iran, you can see the boat.

I'm not even sure what the time of day was when the image was captured.  I'm not sure that poor image quality is too indicative of a set-up since it was a photo taken OF a moving object BY a moving object but maybe it should be clearer, I don't know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lightly said:

Why is the film of the small "boat" (allegedly shot from an American drone)  BLURRY ?!

That's because they hired the same guy that filmed BigFoot   :D

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

That's because they hired the same guy that filmed BigFoot   :D

:w00t:  I didn't discover Mitch's or John Pinette's work until they'd both deceased :(  True comedic geniuses IMO.

Edited by and then
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lightly said:

Why is the film of the small "boat" (allegedly shot from an American drone)  BLURRY ?!   Oh well , no matter , president Trump completely explained the situation the other day when he stated....    We know it was Iran, you can see the boat.

Given that reaper drones have a max ceiling of 50,000 feet (approximately 9.5 miles) assuming the reaper drone was right over the tanker it would be filming from probably 9+ miles away.  Given that the footage was clearly not from directly over head it was probably filmed from 13+ miles away.  Then there is the fact it's being filmed from a moving platform, all the data transfer, and multiple other factors cause it to be blurry.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

i think that Netanyahu is pushing this too hard.

I haven't seen any evidence of this but it would make sense that he - and others in Israel - would desire help with an enemy that has a population 10X their own and which is hell-bent on exterminating them - by their own admission on multiple occasions.  I'm not bothering to rehash the same old, tired semantical disputes.  Their meanings were crystal clear to anyone not seeking cover for them.   think we will eventually fight Iran or we will ally with them to some extent.  I don't think we will have a third option if we keep waiting.  No one will ever convince me that the Ayatollahs don't want nukes or that they haven't been feverishly working toward that goal. If they ever openly tested one, I would support a counterstrike on their nuclear sites - with low-yield nukes - to take that capability away from them before they could wield control over the world economy.  THAT simply cannot be allowed, ever.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, third_eye said:

I do hope no one suspects The Prince of Whales, hoot or toot, come what may...

~

I don't know, man, those ears look pretty sketchy to me... :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Utterly tendentious

Why yes, yes I am.  I have opinions and biases and I'm open about them all.  A person of integrity should ALWAYS own their words though not the meanings ascribed to them by others with their own agendas.  That's a great word!  I'll have to remember it.  I was vaguely aware of it but wasn't sure of the definition.  Yes, it is accurate to call me tendentious :) 

5 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

What a strange Christian you are.

What constitutes a "normal" Christian to you, P80?  Genuinely curious about that if you can answer it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/adam-kinzinger-iran-strikes-tankers-gulf-oman  This guy is from Wisconsin?  I guess Madison is just an aberration of politics in the state.  Good to know!  Beautiful country up there, in summer anyway :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, and then said:

"Khamenei added, “We will not negotiate on any topic, and ‘issues of honor and the fundamentals of the revolution,’ as well as issues of defense, cannot be topics of negotiations.” He said negotiations on topics such as defense mean "they will want something and we will say no." 

No, I read yesterday that he clearly stated there would be NO renegotiation. 

Yep, I was a few days behind the times, or else the foreign minister was putting up a different story?  Are they all on the same page there in Iran?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Pompeo is putting together a coalition of nations to confront Iran.  He said the US only gets 16% of its oil through the straits of Hormuz and it really isn't a threat to our security.  Asian countries get 80% of their oil through the strait  he said and they will see the danger here.  I think he said they have a dog in this fight.

So, if we don't need the oil out of the Strait and the Asians should be all over this, why are we leading the charge?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Are they all on the same page there in Iran?

I really don't know.  There have been times IIRC, that Soleimani - the general that owns the IRGC - has made moves in Syria that Khamenei publicly rebuked in the aftermath.  Who knows how extensive it is.  The IRGC is a power base of its own but it could not peacefully exist in Iran without at least the tacit approval of the religious leaders.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to throw it out there Schiff also believes Iran is behind the attack after viewing all the evidence the military has, saying the evidence is strong and compelling.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/schiff-agrees-with-trump-no-question-iran-attacked-oil-tankers.amp

When even the some of Trump's biggest democratic critics says he is right that seems to point to something happened.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
1
2 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

I read Pompeo is putting together a coalition of nations to confront Iran.  He said the US only gets 16% of its oil through the straits of Hormuz and it really isn't a threat to our security.  Asian countries get 80% of their oil through the strait  he said and they will see the danger here.  I think he said they have a dog in this fight.

So, if we don't need the oil out of the Strait and the Asians should be all over this, why are we leading the charge?

It all boils down to our military and intel weenies actually giving credence to the information pointing to an Iranian nuclear program on the threshold of assembling a weapon in the not too distant future.  When you view the situation in that context, whether you agree with the assessment or not, it makes perfect logic to pursue a plan to stop them cold, whatever it takes.  We are the only force that can guarantee success.  Israel would benefit as much or more than we but they'd almost certainly be pushed into using nukes.  Bad situation.  If we leave Iran alone they WILL assemble a nuke at some point and they WILL threaten Israel and attempt to box her in until they can make good on their promise to end the "Zionist Entity".  I believe they will attempt this at some point and I believe it will end very badly for Iran's military and civilian population.  I HATE that we may have to alienate those young people who want our culture and ideals more than the Theocracy they are coerced into living under.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Just to throw it out there Schiff also believes Iran is behind the attack after viewing all the evidence the military has, saying the evidence is strong and compelling.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/schiff-agrees-with-trump-no-question-iran-attacked-oil-tankers.amp

When even the some of Trump's biggest democratic critics says he is right that seems to point to something happened.

If they didn't attack then they should be scrambling to mollify the international community to show they're intentions are peaceful.  It all comes back to them being in the driver's seat where the transparency of their nukes is concerned.  A purely civilian, peaceful nuclear program should welcome extensive, snap inspections by the international community INCLUDING THE U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

 

So, if we don't need the oil out of the Strait and the Asians should be all over this, why are we leading the charge?

Because Trump has Netanyahu in one ear begging him to destroy Iran, he has Bolton in the other ear begging him to destroy someone.. anyone, while his sparkling eyes are seeing Petrodollar signs in the billions coming in from Saudi Arabia. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Because Trump has Netanyahu in one ear begging him to destroy Iran

Begging, bribing, whatever.

 

Netanyahu opens Trump Heights – a non-existent settlement in illegally-occupied Golan

 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2019 at 6:44 AM, RabidMongoose said:

The Iranian super cavitating torpedo`s have a range of 6km and travel at 100 metres per second.

So a ship 6 km away has 60 seconds to detect it, to figure out what it is, and then to move the ship out of the way to avoid being hit. is that doable? At 6km probably. Is it possible at 3km? I suspect not, not even for the US navy.

No that would not be possible, however, getting a Submarine that close to one of our Navy vessels is also almost impossible. When we move ships into that area, we also move Attack Submarines with them, since we known the distance their torpedoes can travel that is where some of our Submarines will be located. In addition we have the best Submarine hunting aircraft in the world, which would certainly be very active. Last, we would also drop sonobuoys that will detect Submarines , you can bet that the waters would be saturated with them. When you add all this together Irans small deisel Submarine Fleet doesn't have much of a chance, their best bet is to just stay home. These Submarines were sold to Iran by Russia and North Korea.

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

So, if we don't need the oil out of the Strait and the Asians should be all over this, why are we leading the charge?

Great question. It is similar to why we led the charge to establish NATO.  

It is my *opinion* that the US wants war to snuff out Iran. Further opinion,,, it is at the bequest of Israel who is quite nervous over Iran Nukes.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Great question. It is similar to why we led the charge to establish NATO.  

It is my *opinion* that the US wants war to snuff out Iran. Further opinion,,, it is at the bequest of Israel who is quite nervous over Iran Nukes.

I think Hillary would have been worse, but one of Trumps early redeeming features in my book was his apparent desire to get us out of some of these foreign adventures and entanglements.  I don't want us to get tied up in this if we can talk around it.  

I understand our desire that Iran never have nuclear weapons.  If the time has come, then we could let Israel do a surgical strike on the nuclear related facilities..  I don't think Saudi Arabia despite its enthusiasm for the task has nearly the skill of the Israeli pilots.

That is a good enough reason to take out facilities and leave everything else alone.  If they come after us, we will have to respond, but we don't need to be up their nose right now.

  What we are doing now is just clouding the issue.  As far as I have heard, none of the countries that get 80% of their oil through the straits have publicly made a complaint.  Nothing is impossible, it seems awfully dumb if it turns out to be true.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.