Aramco facilities on fire in Saudi Arabia

[Michelle]

24 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Because there are enough fools in America that will follow their 'dear leader' and his politics blindly no matter what he is, says or what his hidden agendas are.  Just read all the comments from his followers here on UM, those courageous armchair war hawk heroes and you get the idea.

If you recall, conservatives were not thrilled when he hit Syria. It was liberals who were heaping praise on him. Democrats have become the warmongers these days it seems.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/383147-conservatives-trump-supporters-slam-trump-over-syria-missile-strike

https://theliberalnetwork.com/2017/04/14/five-top-papers-praising-syria-zero-critical/

Edited September 19, 2019 by Michelle

[DarkHunter]

47 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Until now, there is no evidence Iran was responsible for the attack, only rhetoric from the usual culprits with most likely fabricated evidence and all this with full the approval from their partners in crime such as Israel and blessings by servile Govts in Australia, the UK and the West  In the end, there won't be any undeniable evidence or war, just more muscle flexing rhetoric which suits Trump and Netanyahu in the polls and more sanctions on Iran.

What evidence would be enough for you, they have identified the cruise missiles as the Ya-Ali which is an Iranian made cruise missile, the drone seems to an upgraded Toofan drone once again an Iranian made weapon, there is some video evidence circling around the internet of the drones and cruise missiles flying over Kuwait.  Would the US releasing the satelite photos they claim to be enough or the Saudis and Americans using the cruise missile/s, heard conflicting accounts of 1 or 3 being found largely intact, guidance system to find out where they were launched from.

Or have you just decides that it could never of been Iran and this is all some massive conspiracy or false flag operation and no amount of evidence will convince you.

Edited September 19, 2019 by DarkHunter

[Black Red Devil]

13 minutes ago, Michelle said:

If you recall, conservatives were not thrilled when he hit Syria. It was liberals who were heaping praise on him. Democrats have become the warmongers these days it seems.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/383147-conservatives-trump-supporters-slam-trump-over-syria-missile-strike

https://theliberalnetwork.com/2017/04/14/five-top-papers-praising-syria-zero-critical/

C'mon.  Bolton and Pompeo?  Mattis?  All Republicans.  I've yet to read a pro Republican poster here on UM saying anything against the war rhetoric these guys have carried on about without any evidence to believe their claims.  Just blind faith in their agenda.  'Alex Jones sharing tears over the bombing in Syria'? More like crocodile tears to me.

Anyway, this, shows you're wrong.

[Black Red Devil]

2 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

What evidence would be enough for you, they have identified the cruise missiles as the Ya-Ali which is an Iranian made cruise missile, the drone seems to an upgraded Toofan drone once again an Iranian made weapon, there is some video evidence circling around the internet of the drones and cruise missiles flying over Kuwait.  Would the US releasing the satelite photos they claim to be enough or the Saudis and Americans using the cruise missile/s, heard conflicting accounts of 1 or 3 being found largely intact, guidance system to find out where they were launched from.

Or have you just decides that it could never of been Iran and this is all some massive conspiracy or false flag operation and no amount of evidence will convince you.

Nothing less than video evidence showing a drone or missile being flown or fired directly out of Iran and followed all the way until it's hitting the targets in SA would convince me because I truly distrust most Govts but especially the right wing politics of Govts such as what the US has at the moment.

[DarkHunter]

Just now, Black Red Devil said:

Nothing less than video evidence showing a drone or missile being flown or fired directly out of Iran and followed all the way until it's hitting the targets in SA would convince me because I truly distrust most Govts but especially the right wing politics of Govts such as what the US has at the moment.

So basically you want virtually impossible evidence 

[Black Red Devil]

4 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

So basically you want virtually impossible evidence 

Would you prefer flimsy evidence and thousands of dead?

[Only_]

21 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

So basically you want virtually impossible evidence 

The U.S. has a history of waging war based on lies and false evidence. Distrust and skepticism should be the default position. We're talking about waging war on behalf of somebody's else too. Since even if Iran was behind the attack, it was made against another Mid-East country not ours. It all comes down to oil, of course. For you know, Saudi Arabia's human rights record and funding of radical Islamism around the globe is not something we should be fighting for.

Edited September 19, 2019 by crookedspiral

[Michelle]

20 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Anyway, this, shows you're wrong.

That has nothing to do with the attack on Syria.

One of the reasons a lot of people didn't vote for Hillary was because she was pushing a war with Iran and Russia...just like she wanted with Libya. We came, we saw, he died..."cackle".

This is the result...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24472322

 

[DarkHunter]

33 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Would you prefer flimsy evidence and thousands of dead?

The problem is you put the bar of evidence so insanely and impossibly high that anything less, even what a rational person would consider convincing you would call flimsy.

What is really interesting though is how you say you dont trust government especially right wing governments but instead of taking a neutral stance and going with claiming you dont know who did the attack you automatically believe Iran whose government would fall on the right wing of governments.

[Only_]

21 minutes ago, Michelle said:

One of the reasons a lot of people didn't vote for Hillary was because she was pushing a war with Iran and Russia...just like she wanted with Libya. We came, we saw, he died..."cackle".

This is the result...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24472322

Trump is not an interventionist. He wants to pull U.S. troops out of the mess his predecessors have created. He clearly stated that the Iraq war was a horrible mistake. I don't think he will choose to go to war against Iran. But he is indeed surrounded by Neocons and warhawks in the White House.

Edited September 19, 2019 by crookedspiral

[Only_]

10 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

The problem is you put the bar of evidence so insanely and impossibly high that anything less, even what a rational person would consider convincing you would call flimsy.

We need a third-party investigation. That's the logical thing to do. Because the U.S. gov and Saudi Arabia are BIASED against Iran.

Edited September 19, 2019 by crookedspiral

[Habitat]

The UN seems not to be in the picture with these things in recent years.

[Grim Reaper 6]

36 minutes ago, crookedspiral said:

We need a third-party investigation. That's the logical thing to do. Because the U.S. gov and Saudi Arabia are BIASED against Iran.

It is the Us Government thats supplying most of the evidence, Saudi Arabia is calling for cooler heads and for not going to war. It's kinda strange, they were attacked and it appears they don't want any retaliation at this time. I think this a wait and see situation, but I think that the US will throw the first punch. I really don't understand why Trump wants to start something, when no US Soldiers were attacked.

[RoofGardener]

3 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Because there are enough fools in America that will follow their 'dear leader' and his politics blindly no matter what he is, says or what his hidden agendas are.  Just read all the comments from his followers here on UM, those courageous armchair war hawk heroes and you get the idea.  Considering the minimum risk of these 'heroes' being affected by the devastation in a conflict where the US is overwhelmingly superior and add to that none of them would be 'suiting up' to go into battle while eating their popcorn and enjoying the spectacle from the sidelines it just shows you the disgusting mindset and lust for blood these people have.  Unsurprisingly, they all belong to the one stream, right wing nationalists and conservative fascists.

Until now, there is no evidence Iran was responsible for the attack, only rhetoric from the usual culprits with most likely fabricated evidence and all this with full the approval from their partners in crime such as Israel and blessings by servile Govts in Australia, the UK and the West  In the end, there won't be any undeniable evidence or war, just more muscle flexing rhetoric which suits Trump and Netanyahu in the polls and more sanctions on Iran.

Amazing. Just AMAZING. You manage to try and drag Israel into this ? 

The USA want's stable international trading markets. Massive disruptions to oil distillate production causes disruption. Ergo, the USA may move against any nation or group that causes such disruption. Seeemples. 

[Black Red Devil]

2 hours ago, Michelle said:

That has nothing to do with the attack on Syria.

One of the reasons a lot of people didn't vote for Hillary was because she was pushing a war with Iran and Russia...just like she wanted with Libya. We came, we saw, he died..."cackle".

This is the result...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24472322

 

You generalised to point out that Democrats are the warmongers.  My link shows otherwise and because the 'bad guys' these days seem to be Iran (they've always been apparently but there's nobody else left to fight in the ME so...) I provided you the info. 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Black Red Devil

[Black Red Devil]

double post

Edited September 19, 2019 by Black Red Devil

[Black Red Devil]

Bar so high!?  We're talking about having undeniable proof before thousands die.  What, because the US wouldn't have satellite surveillance on Iran 24 hours? They would surely have evidence showing a missile flying from Iran into SA. 

I never said I believe the Iranian Govt but until proper evidence is provided and since they're denying responsibility the onus is on the US Govt to show us the smoking gun.  Considering Trump's already asked for coalition partners in case of military intervention, which also includes my country, I believe the public has a right to know before our girls and boys are sent into dangerous territory and it shouldn't be left up to a bunch of 'obedient yes men' in our Govt to decide. 

Also, why is the US getting so involved?  You know, Iran is accused of attacking SA.  Why is the US breaking their a$$es over it?  Maybe some suspicious petrodollars have something to do with it, yes/no?

Edited September 19, 2019 by Black Red Devil

[toast]

2 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

(...), there is some video evidence circling around the internet of the drones and cruise missiles flying over Kuwait. 

From a tactical and political point of view, that makes no sense. Assuming the weapons were launched from Iran and were routed to cross Kuwait, the devises had to pass a 2nd controlled airspace, defended by advanced anti-air systems like the Patriot PAC3 and a fleet of F-18.

[Grim Reaper 6]

26 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Amazing. Just AMAZING. You manage to try and drag Israel into this ? 

The USA want's stable international trading markets. Massive disruptions to oil distillate production causes disruption. Ergo, the USA may move against any nation or group that causes such disruption. Seeemples. 

My only problem with the US calling this an Act of War, and Saudi Arabia clearly states they don't want a war. I saw this on the news this morning, when Pompeo was talking with the Saudi King. 

[DarkHunter]

1 minute ago, toast said:

From a tactical and political point of view, that makes no sense. Assuming the weapons were launched from Iran and were routed to cross Kuwait, the devises had to pass a 2nd controlled airspace, defended by advanced anti-air systems like the Patriot PAC3 and a fleet of F-18.

Tactically it does make sense, Saudi air defense is mostly pointed south towards Yemen or east towards Iran with the rest around areas Saudi Arabia seems critical like its capital, flying in north over Kuwait would allow Iran to avoid most of Saudi Arabia's air defense network as was deployed at the time. 

Of Kuwaits air defense capability it only has 14 patriot systems of which 8 are pac 3.  The significance of that is that the pac 3 only has a range of 20 km and is only suitable for use against ballistic missiles, pac 2 has a range of 96 km to 160 km and is suitable for engaging aircraft, drones, and cruise missiles.  Also its important to mention that the patriot radar system is unidirectional and not omnidirectional, the radar unit can pick up targets in a 120 degree arc but only lock on to targets in a 90 degree arc.

Depending on where the patriot sites were and what direction they were pointed it's very possible Iran would be able to fly cruise missiles and drones, especially at low altitude, around the detection arcs of the patriot missile system especially if Kuwait wasnt expecting Iran to fly anything over its airspace and did not have the radar units pointed in the right direction.

[Black Red Devil]

52 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Amazing. Just AMAZING. You manage to try and drag Israel into this ? 

The USA want's stable international trading markets. Massive disruptions to oil distillate production causes disruption. Ergo, the USA may move against any nation or group that causes such disruption. Seeemples. 

More like 'my way or the highway'.  The Europeans were pretty happy with Iranian oil before Trump found reasons to sanction Iran and bully the Europeans.  You're such a gullible creature, even with Israel.

There are a few things going on and it has all to do with the US/SA/Israeli relationship against Iran.  Oil, pipelines and political alliances is where you'll find answers.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Black Red Devil

[Grim Reaper 6]

6 minutes ago, toast said:

From a tactical and political point of view, that makes no sense. Assuming the weapons were launched from Iran and were routed to cross Kuwait, the devises had to pass a 2nd controlled airspace, defended by advanced anti-air systems like the Patriot PAC3 and a fleet of F-18.

According to the US Spy Satellites, the attack came from the North. Furthermore it states that the Satellites picked up Cruise Missile and Drones being prepared for firing at an Iranian base near Iraqs border.

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/18/761985624/saudi-arabia-says-iran-unquestionably-sponsored-attack-on-oil-facilities

[Grim Reaper 6]

25 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Tactically it does make sense, Saudi air defense is mostly pointed south towards Yemen or east towards Iran with the rest around areas Saudi Arabia seems critical like its capital, flying in north over Kuwait would allow Iran to avoid most of Saudi Arabia's air defense network as was deployed at the time. 

Of Kuwaits air defense capability it only has 14 patriot systems of which 8 are pac 3.  The significance of that is that the pac 3 only has a range of 20 km and is only suitable for use against ballistic missiles, pac 2 has a range of 96 km to 160 km and is suitable for engaging aircraft, drones, and cruise missiles.  Also its important to mention that the patriot radar system is unidirectional and not omnidirectional, the radar unit can pick up targets in a 120 degree arc but only lock on to targets in a 90 degree arc.

Depending on where the patriot sites were and what direction they were pointed it's very possible Iran would be able to fly cruise missiles and drones, especially at low altitude, around the detection arcs of the patriot missile system especially if Kuwait wasnt expecting Iran to fly anything over its airspace and did not have the radar units pointed in the right direction.

Cruise Missiles and Drones were flying in low would not be picked up by air defense units.

Missiles were to low to be picked up by the Patriot Missile defense systems and they were looking in the wrong direction.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/19/how-did-attack-breach-saudi-defences-and-what-will-happen-next

Edited September 19, 2019 by Manwon Lender

[DarkHunter]

27 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Bar so high!?  We're talking about having undeniable proof before thousands die.  What, because the US wouldn't have satellite surveillance on Iran 24 hours? They would surely have evidence showing a missile flying from Iran into SA. 

The chances of America having continoues video footage of the missile launch, flight, and impact at Saudi Arabia is essentially zero.  For a satellite to remain in geosynchronous orbit, which it would have to be to keep 24 hour surveillance, it would have to orbit at an altitude of approximately 35,786 km.  Spy satellites orbit earth between 200 km and 800 km.  What that means is that spy satellites tend to have frequent periodic episodes where they arent where you want them to be.

28 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

I never said I believe the Iranian Govt but until proper evidence is provided and since they're denying responsibility the onus is on the US Govt to show us the smoking gun.  Considering Trump's already asked for coalition partners in case of military intervention, which also includes my country, I believe the public has a right to know before our girls and boys are sent into dangerous territory and it shouldn't be left up to a bunch of 'obedient yes men' in our Govt to decide. 

They were clearly Iranian weapons that were used so either Iran used them themselves or gave them to a third party to use for them.  If Iran gave them to a third party do you honestly believe Iran would be handing out advanced and expensive weapon systems to third parties without telling them exactly what to target.  As for asking for coalition partners that isnf exactly unusual and is normally done to add legitimacy to any military action taken.

31 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Also, why is the US getting so involved?  You know, Iran is accused of attacking SA.  Why is the US breaking their a$$es over it?  Maybe some suspicious petrodollars have something to do with it, yes/no?

With the attack the world lost 5% of its total oil production ability.  Also a third of the world's oil passes through the Persian gulf which due to that attack is now highly questionable about how safe transit is which will drastically increase insurance prices on the oil tankers causing a sharp increase in the price of oil.  The US is so concerned, as a lot of other countries are, because it rather likes stable and cheap energy markets.  There are other geostrategic concerns to like limiting Iran's adventurism in the region and maintaining America's influence in the region but I have a feeling going into all the reasons will end up being a waste since you seem to already believe it's due to some conspiracy about propping up the petrodollar.

[RoofGardener]

People have raised some very interesting points in the last dozen posts. One thing puzzles me though. 

Let's assume - for the moment - that Iran DID "sponsor" these attacks. By this, I mean that they may - or may not - have launched the missiles themselves, but they provided the hardware and the training for a non-state actor to do so. They must surely have known that the missiles don't entirely disintegrate into vapour when they strike a target: they leave bits behind. Bits that can be identified. There is also a high probability that at least ONE of the missiles would malfunction, and could be captured whole, as indeed seemed to have happened in this case.  

Either their military command is a complete bunch of morons, which I doubt, or they simply didn't CARE that they would be identified as being complicit in the attack. 

And if THAT is the case, what does it tell us ? 

Edited September 19, 2019 by RoofGardener