#41
The amerikkkan navy has released more information about the suspected bomb that they have previously released videos of one single Iranian sailor reaching up and casually plucking off the side of the ship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXCXS6gHscg

Apparently it was held on by six magnets and one of them broke off and stayed attached. That one single magnet took "a couple" imperialists and a crowbar to remove.

Based on this math it should only take around 15 million or so amerikan Troops to invade Iran.

The imperialists did not provide any evidence to support how they came by the knowledge of exactly how many magnets were attached to this bomb which they have had no opportunity to physically examine.

e:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-attacks-navy/u-s-navy-says-mine-fragments-magnet-point-to-iran-in-gulf-tanker-attack-idUSKCN1TK1DX“The limpet mine that was used in the attack is distinguishable and also strikingly bearing a resemblance to Iranian mines that have already been publicly displayed in Iranian military parades,” Sean Kido, commanding officer of an explosive ordnance dive and salvage task group in the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT), told reporters.

Small fragments said to have been removed from the Kokuka Courageous were on display alongside a magnet purportedly left by the Revolutionary Guard squad allegedly captured on video.

The Japanese company that owns the Kokuka Courageous had said its ship was damaged by two “flying objects”, but NAVCENT dismissed this account.

“The damage at the blast hole is consistent with a limpet mine attack, it is not consistent with an external flying object striking the ship,” Kido said, adding that nail holes visible in the hull indicated how the mine was attached to the ship’s hull.

Bellingcat goes mainstream. "It looks just like the picture on Wikipedia so it was made by Iran." The mine now also was held on by nails. Not sure what happened to the magnets? Magnet nails? Magnails? This seems like an extremely professionally done investigation and we can all trust the results.

Edited by MarxUltor ()

#42
let me tell u a thing or two about iranian limpet mines, kido
#43
Iran is claiming it bagged an imperialist drone (RQ-4 Global Hawk).

I'm impressed by the ability of the military techno-porn press to declare this supposed magnet bears a "striking resemblance" to Iranian limpet mines photographed at Tehran arms fairs several years ago with no context so I have no idea what I'm looking at, which by the way doesn't look anything at all like those limpet mines other than both being made of metal. I'm going to need Bellingcat to weigh in on this one. But they can say "bears a resemblance" because the U.S. military says that it does, so the story is "sourced" and loaded for the audience. Just throw some embellishment in there like "striking" to press the point home and if it turns out to be wrong, then no biggie, because when we said "striking" what we really meant was "really makes you think."

These things also weigh around 100 pounds and were placed high above the waterline, apparently, which is not how you're supposed to use these things (also apparently). Kokuka Courageous set sail from Ruwais, UAE. Front Altair from Al Jubail in Saudi Arabia.
#44
the seppos seem desperate for a pretext to launch an assault so they're trying lamer and lamer strategies to provoke Iran into lashing out and it's not working. they can try to squabble over whether the drone was over international waters but everyone knows it wasn't and Iran was perfectly justified to shoot it down. now NYT is reporting a retaliatory US strike was authorised then cancelled for reasons unknown. here's a reason for you buddy: they were never going to do it and the news story is just more attempted provocation. Iran didn't get where they are today by being dumb enough to fall for this shit. death to amerika
#45
The press has the most inane way of 'splaining why Trump "abruptly pulled back" too. Two days ago The Daily Beast ran a story saying Tucker Carlson has been "in the president's ear ... against taking military action against Iran" according to "a source familiar with the conversations." Well, thank God we have Tucker Carlson on at 9 p.m. ET to walk us back from the boogaloo just as the bombers were preparing to take off. Millions of lives saved by a fluke coincidence. But Trump is just so gosh-darn crazy and unpredictable you know. Tucker now the voice of reason? Hruh??? What a topsy-turvy world we live in. What would we do without Tucker, the morons of the world wonder
#46
of all the dumb bullshit amerikan liberals believe about trump, the idea that he actually makes any policy decisions based on the opinions of fox news talking heads is possibly the funniest
#47
I don't want to be a Trump tweet poster but this is now totally ridiculous. He's repeating West Wing plotlines where he claims he asked an unspecified general "how many will die tonight."

"One hundred fifty, sir."

Then Trump reheats Martin Sheen's speech about proportionality, and liberals on Twitter express awe that a man so crazy and fascist can also be so moral. I guess I shouldn't be surprised they believe this contrived shit but this is absurd even by the standards of the Trump WH.

Edited by trakfactri ()

#48
Finally i agree with something trump tweeted,
#49
lmao if true

According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.

#50
aahahahahhaha
#51
https://ejmagnier.com/2019/06/21/iran-and-trump-on-the-edge-of-the-abyss/

its elijah magnier who's used some sketchy sources in the past, but it makes sense
#52

kinch posted:

https://ejmagnier.com/2019/06/21/iran-and-trump-on-the-edge-of-the-abyss/its elijah magnier who's used some sketchy sources in the past, but it makes sense


#53
which part do you think makes sense, the bit where he says iran is trying to provoke the US into all out war by blowing up all the tankers, or the bit where it says their aim is to prevent a second trump term. because, lol
#54
Reuters has separately confirmed that the US warned Iran via Oman that an attack was incoming. It's real.

Magnier's account is perfectly believable from the Iranian perspective and the strength of their strategic position. It also aligns with the position Trump is in, his theatrical tendencies, and the simplicity of the american white supremacist media and population who would hoot and fist pump that we're kicking muslim ass and not really worry about the details.

It definitely seems like the kind of idea that a whole lot of white american generals would come up with to try and get out of the mess Bolton and the false flagger(s) put them in, because imperialist macho talk aside at least some of them have to understand the realities of Iran's overwhelming military superiority in the region.

On top of that, if you look back at Trump's two aggressions against Syria, you can kinda see correlation there too. First against an empty airbase which was operational within a day, second time against 2 empty bunkers and a school building, empty because it was the middle of the night and guaranteed to make impressive wreckage. There were lots of reports the second time that the Russians were consulted in advance, and no govt's account of what happened really meshes well otherwise with what was observable.
#55

Petrol posted:

which part do you think makes sense, the bit where he says iran is trying to provoke the US into all out war by blowing up all the tankers, or the bit where it says their aim is to prevent a second trump term. because, lol



I meant specifically the part that aerdil quoted, that the US tried to negotiate targets with Iran and were rebuffed.

#56
U.$.A: "Come onnnn lemme bomb."

Iran: "No."

U.$.A: "I'll be ur fren."

Iran: "No."

U.$.A: "Ur mean."
#57

kinch posted:

Petrol posted:

which part do you think makes sense, the bit where he says iran is trying to provoke the US into all out war by blowing up all the tankers, or the bit where it says their aim is to prevent a second trump term. because, lol

I meant specifically the part that aerdil quoted, that the US tried to negotiate targets with Iran and were rebuffed.


i believe that too but the reuters article would have been a better source because that blog was otherwise wall to wall bullshit. anyway i am always glad of an excuse to post the dr evil video so thank you

#58
the USA lack of credibility has reached comic extremes, maybe even to the point of being a dadaist expression. so they put 35 people on a little plane and flew a $200 million camera next to it over iranian airspace to actually get real footage of people blowing up over the ocean. and really get it right this time. so somewhere in the USA regime people are furious that 35 amerikan soldiers are still alive. and you know what, they have my sympathy.
#59
why so many people lol. the p-8 standard crew is much less than 35 so that iran seemed to be mistaken in claiming 35. but trump corrected them that it was 38! if it was a provocation I wonder if the downed drone actually contained a very expensive surveillance package.
#60

swampman posted:

the USA lack of credibility has reached comic extremes, maybe even to the point of being a dadaist expression. so they put 35 people on a little plane and flew a $200 million camera next to it over iranian airspace to actually get real footage of people blowing up over the ocean. and really get it right this time. so somewhere in the USA regime people are furious that 35 amerikan soldiers are still alive. and you know what, they have my sympathy.


#61
i wouldn't be surprised if they tried to negotiate and were rebuffed. last year the US tried to extort oil from the syrian government in exchange for a partial withdrawal from the country and were laughed out of the room.
#62
Hard to see what Iran can do at this point in the realm of peaceful political negotiations and they’ve said as much today with diplomacy being “closed forever” after trump instituted additional sanctions. US special rep for Iran says sanctions being lifted is conditional on a deal with not only Iranian nuclear material but also ballistic missiles. If the US is pursuing peace, forcing a conditional negotiation on overturning the only deterrent Iran has to avoid complete military domination is essentially an ultimatum that you have no choice but to refuse. Trumps (supposedly) against kinetic warfare but he's completely depending on collapsing the Iranians through siege warfare by means of sanctions which is a strategy that hasn’t worked whatsoever during his administration. Not sure why Elijah magniers article is controversial here, MoA also agreed, but if the sources are dubious, the logic remains sound. Reminding the US that Iran is capable of serious pain is probably the only strategy remaining.
#63
Iran knows the game - war isn't a U.S goal, they're being besieged until the "negotiations" have siezed control over their oil production to the U.S and hamstrung their ability to project power even inside their own borders
#64

dimashq posted:

Trumps (supposedly) against kinetic warfare but he's completely depending on collapsing the Iranians through siege warfare by means of sanctions which is a strategy that hasn’t worked whatsoever during his administration.


The sanctioned entity just sucks it up and does business with the rest of the world that doesn't care what Trump says. U.S. has blocked all of Iran's energy exports but a Chinese supertanker can sail into the Persabian Gulf with its transponders off or signal wrong destinations and then dock in Bandar Abbas.

Tankers carrying Iranian oil and gas are notorious for masking their journeys by turning off satellite locator beacons, a technique known as going dark, and transferring fuel between ships to hide the origin of the cargo.

In a June 6 note, Kpler detailed the journey of LPG tanker Sea Dolphin, which sailed into the Persian Gulf between Iran and Qatar with empty tanks on May 17, and then turned off its beacon. On May 26, the vessel turned the locator back on, indicating its tanks were now full, and headed toward the Maldives, where it again went dark.

Another ship, the Pacific Yantai, loaded its tanks near where the Sea Dolphin had stopped, and then set sail towards China, according to Kpler. Bloomberg ship-tracking data confirmed the movements of the two vessels and showed the Pacific Yantai appearing to drop off a partial cargo at Ningbo, in eastern China’s Zhejiang province, on June 14.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3015172/china-turns-iran-fuel-its-lpg-habit-ignoring-sanctions

#65

dimashq posted:

Not sure why Elijah magniers article is controversial here,


It starts by casting Iran as the provocateur, including blaming it for the most recent tanker attacks that I am surprised anyone thinks were plausibly Iran's doing. His position is that Trump is being reluctantly pushed towards war by Iran because they want him to lose the 2020 election. If you're ignoring all that and the takeaway is that the US is trying to avoid an actual conflagration and achieve their goals by any other means available, then, fine I guess. It's just hard for me to praise the wisdom of an article that buries that point beneath layers of cloying imperialist nonsense

#66
YANKEE GO HOME
#67
so was the navy footage filmed off the adriatic albanian coast with mek crisis actors or was it more of a hollywood studio thing. i gotsta know
#68
if you saw the full version where they break into song and dance at the end you'd realise it was more of a bollywood thing
#69
i wonder how much of these escalations are a direct result of...

1) the Pentagon/State Department/anyone involved in the empire game blaming all their bumbling recent failures (Syria, Yemen, even Venezuela, why the hell not) on dastardly Iranian meddling
2) Trump and Friends being stupid enough to take them at their word instead of seeing those career-saving excuses for what they are
#70
i think they're unsure themselves what the plan is here other than iran has been a long term target and if the US wants to start some shit they probably think they need to do it soon because of the looming election. i don't think they even know themselves if they actually want a war. anything less than an almost immediate overwhelming victory is bad for a number of reasons; another nail in the US empire's coffin, bad PR for the arms industry, another blow to trump's MAGA nonsense (altho i go back and forth on whether he's already a spent force politically), risk of spillover to regional allies, the oil trade, etc etc. apparently opinion in the white house/pentagon etc is split. seems like slow suffocation via sanctions is what they'll go with tbh.
#71

shapes posted:

i wonder how much of these escalations are a direct result of...

1) the Pentagon/State Department/anyone involved in the empire game blaming all their bumbling recent failures (Syria, Yemen, even Venezuela, why the hell not) on dastardly Iranian meddling
2) Trump and Friends being stupid enough to take them at their word instead of seeing those career-saving excuses for what they are


#72

trakfactri posted:

shapes posted:

i wonder how much of these escalations are a direct result of...

1) the Pentagon/State Department/anyone involved in the empire game blaming all their bumbling recent failures (Syria, Yemen, even Venezuela, why the hell not) on dastardly Iranian meddling
2) Trump and Friends being stupid enough to take them at their word instead of seeing those career-saving excuses for what they are



you monster, how dare you post that at the parent of a toddler without some kind of warning

#73

Petrol posted:

dimashq posted:

Not sure why Elijah magniers article is controversial here,

It starts by casting Iran as the provocateur, including blaming it for the most recent tanker attacks that I am surprised anyone thinks were plausibly Iran's doing. His position is that Trump is being reluctantly pushed towards war by Iran because they want him to lose the 2020 election. If you're ignoring all that and the takeaway is that the US is trying to avoid an actual conflagration and achieve their goals by any other means available, then, fine I guess. It's just hard for me to praise the wisdom of an article that buries that point beneath layers of cloying imperialist nonsense



I’d also add that MoA agreeing with him doesn’t really add much because while that person has turned up some interesting stuff at times, they also believe stuff like: Max Blumenthal, Rania Khalek and Ben Norton are CIA agents because they now oppose U.S. aggression in Syria, and the utter hostility and slander they face from most of the rest of the liberal press is all part of an orchestrated shadow-play by a single group, a situation about which all three of them are supposedly fully aware. Which is a position that seems to be part of a game among a tiny group of online pseudo-Reds to slowly denounce everyone around them, and eventually each other, for increasingly vague and ludicrous reasons, until the winner ascends alone to a Far Plane with 11 perfect dimensions of pure ideology.

It’s funny because they’re unwittingly demonstrating how the whole point of ideology as a tool is that it makes a lot of those sorts of conspiracy theories redundant. Like, no one needs to pay those clowns to scream at teens on Twitter about how their mufos prove they’re NSA-construct[ed] robots or to approvingly quote Qanon fascists in the same venue, a Web site in which the clowns live as their home, and if they think, say, that Norton torpedoed his budding mainstream career to double-secretly defang opposition in the U.S. to the rape of Syria, it’s probably easier, if still goofy, to argue that he privately thinks that opposition has good intentions but should be reined in than it is to argue that he’s a literal CIA employee, hired to directly oppose the CIA line, and that khamsek is his handler.

It’s one thing to be deadken and think everything the CIA does is a bumbling error and they’ve never engaged in a criminal conspiracy, it’s another to think that everything requires a memo detailing exactly what everyone will say and do and when. And I’ve asked around at Langley and it turns out we don’t even know any of those folks.

Edited by cars ()

#74
Just want to add that I've since heard the RWN take on the tanker x limpet mine incident and while I appreciate their take the idea that the revolutionary guard did it as a strategic flex still strikes me as 4D chess tier silliness. Much more likely imo it was the saudis, they have an obvious interest in maintaining US focus on iran. Happy to be proved wrong but it won't be by a miserable little pile of imperialism like magnier
#75
Yeah I dunno really. I came across this "progressive" ex-Pentagon guy saying on a pod that the U.S. government couldn't do a false flag because the U.S. couldn't keep it a secret, there would be leaks, etc. Well, sure, but the leak might be two years from now, which I think is about the time it took for the media to figure out that the girl who testified to Congress in the lead-up to the Persian Gulf War about the Republican Guard pulling babies out of incubators was the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter. Pulled out of private school in Northern Virginia by a P.R. firm and told to point at the spots where Saddam's men touched her for the nightly news.
#76
I dunno, I just see the argument being predicated on an unwillingness by the US to actually prosecute a war at this specific moment, giving Iran the upper hand in the escalation. Whether that’s true or not depends on who you think is in the steering wheel in the trump administration. Which is murky as always.
#77
That is the one thing that stands out about the current administration beyond the liberal flailing and gnashing of teeth - leadership does seem spotty and haphazard enough that there is a somewhat less stable power struggle behind the curtain over specific foreign policy decisions and actions. Whereas under obama there was a relatively united and competent team to carry out ghoulish policy, trump's team is constantly playing musical chairs and there is simmering factional discontent within state/intelligence undermining some of the attempted manoeuvres. Having said all that, it's worth keeping in mind that just because something in the middle east concerns the US and its alliances, doesn't mean they're directly involved in any particular action.
#78

trakfactri posted:

I came across this "progressive" ex-Pentagon guy saying on a pod that the U.S. government couldn't do a false flag because the U.S. couldn't keep it a secret, there would be leaks, etc.


Like I've been saying, I don't think it was the yanks that dun it necessarily in this case, but that is such an awful argument that has been parroted too many times by empire apologists. As you say, information tends to out eventually, by which time the news cycle has moved on (yellowcake is another good example from Iraq War Redux). But more fundamentally it's a cartoonish picture of kkkonspiracy, as though the entire government needs to know and approve a plan, as though all the specifics of any plan are known and understood by all participants, as though everything is always designed and approved in great detail from the highest levels of government down, as though outside contractors don't exist, as though allied forces don't exist, as though the left hand usually knows what the right hand is doing...

#79
Agreed
#80
I'm fairly convinced it was the eifher the Houthis or Iranians flexing. They really don't have much to lose - the U.S is at their doorstep and (as I think was also noted on RWN) they like to show that they will not give an inch - no spy drones, no "limited strikes", and the global oil supply is at our mercy, so don't think that once your attempts to force concessions fail that you can send the bombers in. If it were the Houthis that does explain why a Japanese and Norwegian ship were attacked - the attacks seem more indiscriminate than something the Iranians would risk. The false flag stuff is definitely not out of the question and still makes lots of sense though. The Qataris, who aren't exactly pleased with the anti-Iranian aggression seem to buy that it was a flex or Houthi attack, though they might just be going with the American flow as they are wont to do.