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 -
DarkHunter

Aramco facilities on fire in Saudi Arabia

384 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Manwon Lender
2 hours ago, and then said:

If we decline to act at all, again, and they strike yet another target to apply pressure to world markets they'll be doing it to bring pressure to drop the sanctions.  My guess is they'll continue to escalate until they either get a war to distract their people or they get a U.S. government to cave to them and their nuclear ambitions.  Those who deny they have such ambitions are ignoring clear evidence and they can be ignored IMO.  A nuclear Iran that starts making demands in that region will not be someone that can be argued with.  We'll either bow to them or risk a nuclear confrontation.  

If you don't believe that then that's your choice.  It doesn't make it any more accurate than mine.

I think you are right, that is certainly the way it appears.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
5 hours ago, Setton said:

ally undermining our position and supporting a country that is actively attacking Iran.

Who are you speaking of here?  Who is "actively attacking" Iran?  Israel?  Do you believe that Iran has a RIGHT to hold GB held liable for actions taken by third party governments?  Is it okay with you that Iran simply lies and ignores its freely given agreements?  

If neither America nor S.A. take action against Iran for this attack and they attack again, targeting global energy assets in SA or other places in the region, should they be held accountable?  Or do you think anything they do is justifiable?  Try being honest, if you're capable of it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 9/18/2019 at 10:32 PM, crookedspiral said:

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.

I agree that the nations who actually DEPEND on Saudi oil should be the ones up front and in Iran's face but they don't have the assets or ability to hold them accountable.  Still, public pressure would be nice.  I don't care how much oil capacity Iran restricts or destroys, the sanctions should stay and even be tightened.

The reason we are seeing these attacks is that Iran is desperate now.  They can't wait to see if Trump is going to lose in 14 more months.  Their people will likely begin rising up before then and they'll have to crush them brutally.  Even the milksops in the EU won't be able to stomach that and keep up their rhetoric on human rights.

I believe that Iran will continue ratcheting up the pressure on global energy supplies through various uses of force until they are struck by the U.S. or Israel and no matter how "proportionate" Trump attempts to make his answer to the mullahs, all hell is going to break loose.  It's all they have left before they sink.   If you trust an IslamoNazi regime more than the U.S. then your screen name should be "crooked cross"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
8 hours ago, Setton said:

Could have something to do with our closest ally undermining our position and supporting a country that is actively attacking Iran. 

Huh ? 

Who is "actively attacking Iran" ? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
12 hours ago, and then said:

I agree that the nations who actually DEPEND on Saudi oil should be the ones up front and in Iran's face but they don't have the assets or ability to hold them accountable.  Still, public pressure would be nice.  I don't care how much oil capacity Iran restricts or destroys, the sanctions should stay and even be tightened.

The reason we are seeing these attacks is that Iran is desperate now.  They can't wait to see if Trump is going to lose in 14 more months.  Their people will likely begin rising up before then and they'll have to crush them brutally.  Even the milksops in the EU won't be able to stomach that and keep up their rhetoric on human rights.

I believe that Iran will continue ratcheting up the pressure on global energy supplies through various uses of force until they are struck by the U.S. or Israel and no matter how "proportionate" Trump attempts to make his answer to the mullahs, all hell is going to break loose.  It's all they have left before they sink.   If you trust an IslamoNazi regime more than the U.S. then your screen name should be "crooked cross"

So you're suggesting that America has to protect Saudi Arabia because of our oil and gas dependency? Okay, i have no problem with that but do you really think that your republican hero has the fortitude to do anything more than an angry tweet? 

Iran will get away with this,too. 

Trump is joke. For all his tough talk on "sanctions" Trump has embolden Iran with not responding to its drone being shot down and his foreign policy weaknesses are being exploited by America's competitors and enemies from Iran, Russia, North Korea, Turkey etc. It really wouldn't kill you to be a little reflective at this point and just admit that Trump is a foreign policy failure. You need to stop defending him just because he's a republican, advocate of gun rights and has a Jewish son in law.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

Trump is joke. For all his tough talk on "sanctions" Trump has embolden Iran with not responding to its drone being shot down and his foreign policy weaknesses are being exploited by America's competitors and enemies from Iran, Russia, North Korea, Turkey etc.

I see.  So you would prefer that Trump had launched military action against Iran after they shot down an unmanned drone?  You also believe that the sanctions aren't effective?  Those sanctions are the catalyst for Iran's lashing out.  They cannot survive economically for 14 more months to see if Trump may lose the election.  They kicked a tiger in the ass without making a plan on how to handle the teeth.  My belief is that they WILL continue to strike SA or another gulf state trying to get us to go to war with them.  

Their people would rally to the government in such a situation and the mullahs are gambling that the outcry from the global community will force Trump to give in.  It will be interesting to see how you spin the next attack by Iran in the region.  I have no doubt that the moment we finally take military action you'll be cursing him for THAT as well.  You don't even try to hide the inanity.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
11 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Huh ? 

Who is "actively attacking Iran" ? 

Israel. Read the news. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
14 hours ago, and then said:

Who are you speaking of here?  Who is "actively attacking" Iran?  Israel?  Do you believe that Iran has a RIGHT to hold GB held liable for actions taken by third party governments?  Is it okay with you that Iran simply lies and ignores its freely given agreements?  

No, I'm not OK with any country that just decides to ignore its agreements and let everyone else suffer for it. Whether that's Iran or the US. 

However, I always have less sympathy for whoever fired the first metaphorical shot. Which would be you. 

Quote

If neither America nor S.A. take action against Iran for this attack and they attack again, targeting global energy assets in SA or other places in the region, should they be held accountable?  Or do you think anything they do is justifiable?  Try being honest, if you're capable of it.

Absolutely they should be held accountable. That is, of course, that you can control your pet project in the middle east and stop them carrying out more attacks. 

If Israel continues these attacks, the Iranians will continue retaliating. Perhaps if you would actually disavow their unprovoked attacks, they would just retaliate against those responsible. 

As long as you blindly back an aggressive regime in the middle east, expect its enemies to target you and, by extension, us. Again, I question what we're getting from this 'special relationship' at this point. A whole lot of danger and nothing else, it seems. 

Edited by Setton
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
1 minute ago, and then said:

I see.  So you would prefer that Trump had launched military action against Iran after they shot down an unmanned drone?  You also believe that the sanctions aren't effective?  Those sanctions are the catalyst for Iran's lashing out.  They cannot survive economically for 14 more months to see if Trump may lose the election.  They kicked a tiger in the ass without making a plan on how to handle the teeth.  My belief is that they WILL continue to strike SA or another gulf state trying to get us to go to war with them.  

Their people would rally to the government in such a situation and the mullahs are gambling that the outcry from the global community will force Trump to give in.  It will be interesting to see how you spin the next attack by Iran in the region.  I have no doubt that the moment we finally take military action you'll be cursing him for THAT as well.  You don't even try to hide the inanity.  

Yes in hind sight it would have seemed the best way to contain Iran. As for sanctions, whats the point in taking punitive actions if Trump won't escalate accordingly. If you're going to poke a tiger then you better do it from outside the cage or with a gun. Trump is soft and weak. 

Iran is being protected by Russia, China and Turkey. If Trump won't take measures against Iran's buddies then what is the point in sanctions? The sanctions are a light weight response thats not intended to do anything more than garner support at home. 

Trump needs to finish what he started or admit he was wrong with poking Iran and back off. Otherwise America is going to lose alot of respect and friends that won't be easily replaced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 minute ago, Setton said:

Israel. Read the news. 

Iran has been threatening them for decades and is positioning tens of thousands of trained Shia militia in Syria.  Since the Syrian conflict is basically over, why would the mullahs spend their scarce resources to keep an army in the field outside their own borders?  Maybe because the plan is to take Israel down at some point?  There is no other reason for them to be staging and maintaining that size of a force on israel's border.  You'll note that those militia are very careful not to be overly aggressive.  They understand the stakes and what the IDF is capable of doing if they push too far.  

Let the sanctions continue to BITE.  Trump doesn't need to initiate a war.  Let Iran make that move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
Just now, and then said:

Iran has been threatening them for decades and is positioning tens of thousands of trained Shia militia in Syria.  Since the Syrian conflict is basically over, why would the mullahs spend their scarce resources to keep an army in the field outside their own borders?  Maybe because the plan is to take Israel down at some point?  There is no other reason for them to be staging and maintaining that size of a force on israel's border.  You'll note that those militia are very careful not to be overly aggressive.  They understand the stakes and what the IDF is capable of doing if they push too far.  

Let the sanctions continue to BITE.  Trump doesn't need to initiate a war.  Let Iran make that move.

Trump already has initiated a war. He started this, not Iran. There is nothing to suggest they were not abiding by the JCPoA. 

As for the war in Syria being over, you're clueless of you think so. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 minute ago, Setton said:

However, I always have less sympathy for whoever fired the first metaphorical shot. Which would be you

It may come as a surprise to you but Obama's actions on this so-called agreement - that was never signed by either side - did not have the force of a treaty or even strong bipartisan support.  IOW, it was HIS deal, not America's.  He put Iran on a smooth path to legal nuclear weapons in less than a decade.  Iran, a nation that has made its hegemonic ambitions crystal clear.  That's the disconnect with those who tacitly support Iran here.  They ignore the plain statements coming out of that Theocratic government and seem to believe that Iran is a peaceful player who will use nukes the same way all other nations have.  What if you are wrong and they begin making demands on nations who depend on the oil coming through the straits?  WE can get along quite well without a drop of it.  How bout you?  

What response do you imagine countries being able to make under direct threat of nuclear weapons?  As to blaming the U.S. for your government's humiliation over releasing that tanker, whatever.  The Iranians have a lot of attitude and like to use their power to humiliate.  It was easy with Obama, he was and is an empty suit.  If they keep pushing Trump and especially if they engage in any action that takes U.S. servicemen's lives, they are going to really regret that they did not make a plan for the tiger's teeth.  Their huge investment in nuclear infrastructure will become smoking ruins and if they lash out at Americans in America they will have full employment for decades for rebuilding their broke-ass country.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crookedspiral
15 hours ago, and then said:

I agree that the nations who actually DEPEND on Saudi oil should be the ones up front and in Iran's face but they don't have the assets or ability to hold them accountable.  Still, public pressure would be nice.  I don't care how much oil capacity Iran restricts or destroys, the sanctions should stay and even be tightened.

The reason we are seeing these attacks is that Iran is desperate now.  They can't wait to see if Trump is going to lose in 14 more months.  Their people will likely begin rising up before then and they'll have to crush them brutally.  Even the milksops in the EU won't be able to stomach that and keep up their rhetoric on human rights.

I believe that Iran will continue ratcheting up the pressure on global energy supplies through various uses of force until they are struck by the U.S. or Israel and no matter how "proportionate" Trump attempts to make his answer to the mullahs, all hell is going to break loose.  It's all they have left before they sink.   If you trust an IslamoNazi regime more than the U.S. then your screen name should be "crooked cross"

The U.S cannot win an all-out war with Iran. The price is just too high. Also, if you take out the Iranian regime you will see a resurgence of Islamist groups like ISIS all cross the Middle Est since they are Saudi-funded. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

*If* I had  a say in the matter, I would say to let Saudi Arabi fight the war that they started with the Houthi. 

But the reality is, this Houthi attack on SA oil refineries is a perfect segue right into the war with Iran that the American war mongers have wanted for a long while.

This is NOT America's war!

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
24 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

*If* I had  a say in the matter, I would say to let Saudi Arabi fight the war that they started with the Houthi. 

But the reality is, this Houthi attack on SA oil refineries is a perfect segue right into the war with Iran that the American war mongers have wanted for a long while.

This is NOT America's war!

It wasn't. Until the US decided to abandon its agreements without cause. 

Whether you see it the same way or not, we all know the Iranians see unjustified sanctions as economic terrorism. In other words, the US struck first here. Then Israel struck, repeatedly. 

Now Iran has had enough of being on the receiving end and is striking back to weaken and discourage the US's regional and global allies before what they see as the inevitable war. 

Why else would the US have carried out unprovoked 'terrorism' on Iran if not as a prelude to war? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
1 hour ago, and then said:

It may come as a surprise to you but Obama's actions on this so-called agreement - that was never signed by either side - did not have the force of a treaty or even strong bipartisan support.  IOW, it was HIS deal, not America's.  He put Iran on a smooth path to legal nuclear weapons in less than a decade.  Iran, a nation that has made its hegemonic ambitions crystal clear.  That's the disconnect with those who tacitly support Iran here.  They ignore the plain statements coming out of that Theocratic government and seem to believe that Iran is a peaceful player who will use nukes the same way all other nations have.  What if you are wrong and they begin making demands on nations who depend on the oil coming through the straits?  WE can get along quite well without a drop of it.  How bout you?  

What response do you imagine countries being able to make under direct threat of nuclear weapons?  As to blaming the U.S. for your government's humiliation over releasing that tanker, whatever.  The Iranians have a lot of attitude and like to use their power to humiliate.  It was easy with Obama, he was and is an empty suit.  If they keep pushing Trump and especially if they engage in any action that takes U.S. servicemen's lives, they are going to really regret that they did not make a plan for the tiger's teeth.  Their huge investment in nuclear infrastructure will become smoking ruins and if they lash out at Americans in America they will have full employment for decades for rebuilding their broke-ass country.

As usual, Jo response but a rant about your internal politics. 

It may surprise you to know that the rest of the world is getting tired of its security depending on whichever d******* 300 million other d********s  (minus the handful of tolerable Americans) vote into power. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
4 minutes ago, crookedspiral said:

The price is just too high.

Any death is one too many but I disagree on our capability to "win".  It just depends on how you frame your goals.  No need whatever for divisions of troops in that morasse.  They can be set back many years by the precision application of LOTS of high explosives.  Victory would be the destruction of their nuclear infrastructure and the crippling of their IRGC command and control nodes and the absolute deracination of as many of the guardsmen as possible.  Further, it's my opinion that sometimes fighting is required regardless of the ability to have a clear-cut victory.  Iran has the fuel and the know how to assemble a nuke now and interrupting that ability, even if only for a few years gives more time for other methods to be brought to bear.  IMO, those leaders are true fanatics.  They do not work from a goal set that other nations prioritize.  They want power and domination in that region but it isn't for wealth or simply to subjugate others.  They have a Revolution to spread.  That has been their prime motivator since old creepin Judas took over in 1978.

IOW, they are the ultimate wild card regime and if it takes the limited use of low yield nukes to destroy their program then the world's butcher's bill would be far less than the alternative we face.

30 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

*If* I had  a say in the matter, I would say to let Saudi Arabi fight the war that they started with the Houthi. 

But the reality is, this Houthi attack on SA oil refineries is a perfect segue right into the war with Iran that the American war mongers have wanted for a long while.

This is NOT America's war!

Of course it isn't our war.  It's the same old song and dance from centuries back.  Shia and Sunni.  I'm not certain who attacked who in Yemen and SA but your choice is a preeminent Iran on the Arabian peninsula or it's SA controlling it.  What will be will be.  And for a warmonger, Trump doesn't seem to be too eager.  The sanctions will crush them and I believe they will grow more desperate in the weeks ahead.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
5 minutes ago, Setton said:

As usual, Jo response but a rant about your internal politics. 

It may surprise you to know that the rest of the world is getting tired of its security depending on whichever d******* 300 million other d********s  (minus the handful of tolerable Americans) vote into power. 

Well, old cod sack... I expect they'll learn to get over it...or not.  It makes no difference to most of us.  There was a day when YOUR country was the one meeting out their justice and plans for the world order.  That day is gone just like America's day will be gone, eventually.  But that day isn't today.  Oh, and BTW, what makes you believe that my or anyone else's internal politics have less value than yours?  We see this world differently and adults learn how to accept it without b****ing and moaning so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter

Not sure if the national security meeting with Trump is still ongoing or not but if it is then it has been going on for hours.

Also it seems Iran is currently undergoing a large cyber attack, from what is being talked about online seems oil facilities and financial systems are being attacked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter

DoD also did a press conference not too long ago, additional troops and military equipment to be sent to Saudi Arabia, mostly focused on missile and aircraft defense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter

Read the whole thread. One thing that sets off my spidey sense is that no deaths or injuries occured as a result of these attacks. Fifty percent reduction in production without casualties? No maintenance workers injured? Or did I miss it somewhere. If so, I apologize. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
16 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Read the whole thread. One thing that sets off my spidey sense is that no deaths or injuries occured as a result of these attacks. Fifty percent reduction in production without casualties? No maintenance workers injured? Or did I miss it somewhere. If so, I apologize. 

The attack was done at about 4 am or so local time and targeted stuff that would stop production entirely but also would have minimal to no chance of anyone being in the immediate area.  Not a lot of reason to be on top of a lng storage unit at 4 am and it's not really possible to be in let alone half way up a stabilization tower.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
13 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

The attack was done at about 4 am or so local time and targeted stuff that would stop production entirely but also would have minimal to no chance of anyone being in the immediate area.  Not a lot of reason to be on top of a lng storage unit at 4 am and it's not really possible to be in let alone half way up a stabilization tower.

Anywhere there is pressure gauges, and flow meters, there will be maintenance workers with clip boards recording readings and flow rates 24 hrs. a day. If if the workers were on the ground, that much fire power should have injured someone just from the blast debris and concussions field. Also I'm curious as to why more explosives weapons weren't used. Why are these tanks still standing?

Edited by Hankenhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
30 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Why are these tanks still standing?

Liquified natural gas is under pressure so the tanks themselves are very sturdy.  OTOH, if they get ruptured, they bleed off gas quickly.  Think of an LNG tank as a thermos bottle.

 

32 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Anywhere there is pressure gauges, and flow meters, there will be maintenance workers with clip boards recording readings and flow rates 24 hrs. a day.

Wouldn't such monitoring be handled by computers and sensors with remote reading?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
1 hour ago, Hankenhunter said:

Read the whole thread. One thing that sets off my spidey sense is that no deaths or injuries occured as a result of these attacks. Fifty percent reduction in production without casualties? No maintenance workers injured? Or did I miss it somewhere. If so, I apologize. 

It is an interesting point.  You would think at least the Houthis would be out for maximum damage and blood as some sort of revenge for the decimation of their country.

So how do we respond?  Originally I heard something about a measured strike.  Does that mean a precision strike with minor damage and no loss of life?  Or do we bomb the cr** out of their facilities?  Or do we target other things?  If the world is worried about oil supply, taking out more refineries seems counterproductive.

Unfortunately, in our hemisphere, Venezuela can't be counted on to fill in the supply gap.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.