Whatever the object is in the spy film released by the Secretary of State to demonstrate Iranian guilt in the tanker bombing, it isn't a ship-killing mine.
One man handled it without straining, so it cannot have weighed more than 30 pounds or so.
No one, reasonable people would say; but there is one nation whose highest officials have been preaching violence against Iran for years. So reasonable people would start there.
There is also one nation with a long record of working against Iranian self-government, faking intelligence and staging covert attacks.
Same country each time.
I had to laugh when those warmongers 'added' to the evidence of Iranian guilt by publishing a photograph of an Iranian navy ship. Wow. Iranians have naval vessels. Who knew?
Occam's razor points at Iran -- if it wasn't Iran what did it, why the hell would an Iranian vessel approach one of the targets to remove an unexploded mine?
[Harry:] No one, reasonable people would say; but there is one nation whose highest officials have been preaching violence against Iran for years. So reasonable people would start there.
Harry, the first thing reasonable people would say is that you should correct your post. Fat chance.
The second thing reasonable people would say is that the Iranian government has preached violence against the US, and Israel, ever since it came into being.
Iran wasn't self-governed under the Shah? Really?
Oh, and Iran shot down a US drone today. Damn facts.
Unless the US publishes the drone track, immediately, we can safely assume it was violating Iranian territory.
I said 'ship-killing mine.' It's a meaningful distinction.
True, the Iranian government has preached violence, but it hasn't attacked the US or sent armies to America. The US cannot say the same with regards to Iran.
Nice to see you sticking up for the Shah, one of the most murderous despots of my time, and a man who flew to the US every few months to get instructions on what he could an couldn't do. I used to be assigned to try to get interviews with him as his plane stooped at Langley.
I do not take sides between shia and shiite but do think Iran (and other countries) should govern themselves. That has never been US policy, not under any administration except possibly Obama's.
[Harry:] Unless the US publishes the drone track, immediately, we can safely assume it was violating Iranian territory.
No, we can't. Unless, of course, you are hopelessly gulled that totalitarian regime, too. We do you know that you, like all progs, have a particular fondness for them.
I said 'ship-killing mine.' It's a meaningful distinction.
Okay. Tell us how that is meaningful. We have all day. While you are at it, how many non-ship-killing mines does it take to kill a ship loaded with naptha? If the ship is dead in the water and on fire, does that count as a kill?
I predict more goal post shifting, and not a hint of acknowledging your ignorance. In other words, I have restated the obvious.
Nice to see you sticking up for the Shah, one of the most murderous despots of my time ...
Just when I thought your reading comprehension couldn't get any worse.
... one of the most murderous despots of my time ...
The American liars claimed the attacks could only have been made by Iran, because of the sophistication of the mines (if indeed the attacks were mines, something the attacked doubt); but a small limpet mine is within the capacity of any group in the area.
we have yet to see any evidence about where the drone was. Publishing coordinates can be done by anybody, even me. We need evidence because the US military is without credibility, based on its history of constant lying since the Korean war. Nothing to do with the other side. It's the US that ruined its reputation by corruption, incompetence and stupidity
--- Harry shifts goal posts, then goes straight to the fallacy of incredulity -- no one can do anything which of which he cannot conceive. --- No, that was you reading my comment as if it was written by Harry. I understand you like your whiskey with blogging, but sometimes it does get in the way of your arguments.
--- Occam's razor points at Iran -- if it wasn't Iran what did it, why the hell would an Iranian vessel approach one of the targets to remove an unexploded mine? --- To study the mine and find out who did it? I can imagine a couple of other possibilities too, all very reasonable. Leave poor Occam out of this, please.
As for the drone, the Iraninans are showing up pieces of what they say was the drone. If true, you can offer to us how something over international waters fall down in land - I am sure your pilot credentials will be helpful here.
[Harry:] The American liars claimed the attacks could only have been made by Iran, because of the sophistication of the mines (if indeed the attacks were mines, something the attacked doubt); but a small limpet mine is within the capacity of any group in the area.
Harry, in what area? Please, by all means, point it out on a map. The attacks happened 14-ish miles from the Iranian coastline, and probably at least 10 times that far from any other country's coastline.
You are a huge fan of Occam's razor, although every time you invoke it, it appears your enthusiasm outstrips your understanding.
By all means, with Occam's razor in mind, provide an explanation that doesn't involve Iran.
I have all day.
We need evidence because the US military is without credibility, based on its history of constant lying since the Korean war. Nothing to do with the other side. It's the US that ruined its reputation by corruption, incompetence and stupidity.
You have ruined your reputation through bottomless ignorance fueled by irrational hatred. It is beyond doubt that had you been in a boat 18 miles from the Iranian coastline, and been clobbered by drone debris, you would still find a way to find the US at fault.
You have entered truther world.
By the way, you said "ship killer" was a meaningful distinction. Still waiting on an explanation for that.
[Clovis:] No, that was you reading my comment as if it was written by Harry. I understand you like your whiskey with blogging, but sometimes it does get in the way of your arguments.
The heck it was. How you got it so wrong is a real mystery.
Compounded by your failure to quote me to that effect. You really should try it some time -- it is amazing how doing so clarifies one's thinking.
To study the mine and find out who did it? I can imagine a couple of other possibilities too, all very reasonable. Leave poor Occam out of this, please.
No, because Occam requires taking account of all the evidence.
One element of which is this: One mine went off.
Yet the Iranians somehow knew there was a second mine.
Hmmm.
As for the drone, the Iraninans are showing up pieces of what they say was the drone. If true, you can offer to us how something over international waters fall down in land - I am sure your pilot credentials will be helpful here.
How do you know it fell over land? How do you know the pieces they are displaying came from the drone they shot down?
If you choose the simplest explanation that fits all the known facts, then you must conclude there is a very high likelihood Iranians have attacked 6 ships outside Iranian waters over the last month.
Which means you should at least consider the possibility that the Iranians committed an act of war by shooting down a US drone in international airspace.
I don't have to point out anything, other than to state the obvious -- the US has provided nothing of proof about what happened, and US reputation for truthfulness is near zero.
A country that brags about its covert operations can hardly object if suspicion falls on it when events are obscure.
A country that violates the air space of other countries every day for generations cannot be believed when it says it did not on Thursday. There has now been plenty of time for the US to doctor the record if the drone track, so there is no way the US government can credibly assert it was in free space.
If the track had been published immediately, that would have been persuasive, both as to the track and as to the sincerity of the American officials.
Considering the difficulty Americans have had with radar tracks in that r, it seems possible the US didn't =-- and doesn't -- know where its drone was.
The NYT has a map today of the alleged locations of all the alleged attacks. The first 4 were practically in the surf on the Arabian side, so according to Skipper's reasoning, those couldn't have been done by Iranians
The NYT has a map today of the alleged locations of all the alleged attacks. The first 4 were practically in the surf on the Arabian side, so according to Skipper's reasoning, those couldn't have been done by Iranians.
My previous explanation was clear enough, I thought, even for a journalist.
I'll type more slowly this time.
I'm assuming that the attacks were conducted using Zodiac type boats, approaching during darkness, and slapping the limpet mines on the sides of the ships.
(By the way, you said "ship killer" was a meaningful distinction. Still waiting on an explanation for that. Why do I think you will scarper, instead?)
Distance alone doesn't convict Iran; rather, it is certainly the case that the distance to the two moving vessels was a lot shorter from Iran. The distance to the four moored ships is further, but not prohibitive.
So far nothing convicts Iran. But it certainly had the means and the opportunity.
But there is a fact you are leaving out, at least with respect to the latter two attacks. Iranian boats did approach one of the attacked ships, and did remove an unexploded mine.
Which they couldn't have known was there, unless they planted them in the first place.
Anyway, there is nothing, according to my reasoning, that excludes the Iranians from any of these attacks, and a very significant reason to suspect their involvement in the latter two.
[Harry:] I don't have to point out anything, other than to state the obvious -- the US has provided nothing of proof about what happened, and US reputation for truthfulness is near zero.
I have read a number of items on this. Not one source that isn't consumed by hate — that source being you — has any doubt the drone was in international airspace.
Considering the difficulty Americans have had with radar tracks in that r, it seems possible the US didn't =-- and doesn't -- know where its drone was.
Excluding the difficulty you have with typing, radar tracks have nothing to do with know where the drone was.
Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
Which, if you weren't droolingly ignorant on the subject, as with limpet mines and IRBMs, you would have long since known.
No, you're doubling down on gullibility. The US government has an unblemished history of lying about threats in the area and of concealing the true missions of drones. Not only is the government possibly lying again but the same people who lied before are doing the talking again.
So now Bolton declares himself the epigone of prudence and discretion. It's crazytown.
My foot doctor, Stephen King, who I have mentioned before, is the only medico on the Army-Navy boot board. His interest is preventing hundreds of more Americans boys from getting their balls blown off by mines. We are asked to praise the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who learn to walk without their own legs but we are too polite to mention they won't be having children.
When RtO talks about boots on the ground, that's what I'm thinking about.
If you read the ProPublica report, you would see how it covers 4 of the 5 characteristics we associate with the US military: stupidity, incompetence, incapacity to lead and violations of other nations' sovereignty. (The only thing missing was corruption.) The relevance to subsequent US operations in the same area is self-evident.
You just don't learn, do you?
ReplyDeleteAnd to think you call others stupid.
Doesn't look very smart that Iran would bomb a Japanese tanker while the Japanese PM was visiting.
ReplyDeleteIt does fit a false flag operation though, one so obvious that makes you incredulous too.
Crazy world.
Stop the incessant goal post shifting.
ReplyDeleteYour ignorance was on prominent display, so why don't you have the integrity to own it? Oh, right. You were a journalist.
As for fitting a false flag operation, you clearly have only the most superficial -- if that -- understanding of the term.
Are you so simplistic as to to think there aren't serious fissures in the Iranian regime?
Apparently, yes.
Ah, so now the plot thickens. So it was not Iran, but rogue forces inside Iran who wanted... what?
ReplyDeleteCui bono?
ReplyDeleteNo one, reasonable people would say; but there is one nation whose highest officials have been preaching violence against Iran for years. So reasonable people would start there.
There is also one nation with a long record of working against Iranian self-government, faking intelligence and staging covert attacks.
Same country each time.
I had to laugh when those warmongers 'added' to the evidence of Iranian guilt by publishing a photograph of an Iranian navy ship. Wow. Iranians have naval vessels. Who knew?
[Clovis:] Ah, so now the plot thickens. So it was not Iran, but rogue forces inside Iran who wanted... what?
ReplyDeleteClovis, I was just pointing out the simplissime that completely plagues what passes for thinking in Harry's head.
Reality, contrary to Harry, insists that there is such a thing as an anti-ship mine that can be easily lifted by one person.
Harry shifts goal posts, then goes straight to the fallacy of incredulity -- no one can do anything which of which he cannot conceive.
Then there is this. Damn those facts.
Occam's razor points at Iran -- if it wasn't Iran what did it, why the hell would an Iranian vessel approach one of the targets to remove an unexploded mine?
[Harry:] No one, reasonable people would say; but there is one nation whose highest officials have been preaching violence against Iran for years. So reasonable people would start there.
Harry, the first thing reasonable people would say is that you should correct your post. Fat chance.
The second thing reasonable people would say is that the Iranian government has preached violence against the US, and Israel, ever since it came into being.
Iran wasn't self-governed under the Shah? Really?
Oh, and Iran shot down a US drone today. Damn facts.
Unless the US publishes the drone track, immediately, we can safely assume it was violating Iranian territory.
ReplyDeleteI said 'ship-killing mine.' It's a meaningful distinction.
True, the Iranian government has preached violence, but it hasn't attacked the US or sent armies to America. The US cannot say the same with regards to Iran.
Nice to see you sticking up for the Shah, one of the most murderous despots of my time, and a man who flew to the US every few months to get instructions on what he could an couldn't do. I used to be assigned to try to get interviews with him as his plane stooped at Langley.
I do not take sides between shia and shiite but do think Iran (and other countries) should govern themselves. That has never been US policy, not under any administration except possibly Obama's.
[Harry:] Unless the US publishes the drone track, immediately, we can safely assume it was violating Iranian territory.
ReplyDeleteNo, we can't. Unless, of course, you are hopelessly gulled that totalitarian regime, too. We do you know that you, like all progs, have a particular fondness for them.
I said 'ship-killing mine.' It's a meaningful distinction.
Okay. Tell us how that is meaningful. We have all day. While you are at it, how many non-ship-killing mines does it take to kill a ship loaded with naptha? If the ship is dead in the water and on fire, does that count as a kill?
I predict more goal post shifting, and not a hint of acknowledging your ignorance. In other words, I have restated the obvious.
Nice to see you sticking up for the Shah, one of the most murderous despots of my time ...
Just when I thought your reading comprehension couldn't get any worse.
... one of the most murderous despots of my time ...
Don't you ever get tired of covering yourself in heaping piles of wrong?
The American liars claimed the attacks could only have been made by Iran, because of the sophistication of the mines (if indeed the attacks were mines, something the attacked doubt); but a small limpet mine is within the capacity of any group in the area.
ReplyDeletewe have yet to see any evidence about where the drone was. Publishing coordinates can be done by anybody, even me. We need evidence because the US military is without credibility, based on its history of constant lying since the Korean war. Nothing to do with the other side. It's the US that ruined its reputation by corruption, incompetence and stupidity
A little something about the credibility of the US government:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/21/trump-telemundo-family-separation-policy-obama/?utm_term=.0a81559ad3fa
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
Harry shifts goal posts, then goes straight to the fallacy of incredulity -- no one can do anything which of which he cannot conceive.
---
No, that was you reading my comment as if it was written by Harry. I understand you like your whiskey with blogging, but sometimes it does get in the way of your arguments.
---
Occam's razor points at Iran -- if it wasn't Iran what did it, why the hell would an Iranian vessel approach one of the targets to remove an unexploded mine?
---
To study the mine and find out who did it? I can imagine a couple of other possibilities too, all very reasonable. Leave poor Occam out of this, please.
As for the drone, the Iraninans are showing up pieces of what they say was the drone. If true, you can offer to us how something over international waters fall down in land - I am sure your pilot credentials will be helpful here.
[Harry:] The American liars claimed the attacks could only have been made by Iran, because of the sophistication of the mines (if indeed the attacks were mines, something the attacked doubt); but a small limpet mine is within the capacity of any group in the area.
ReplyDeleteHarry, in what area? Please, by all means, point it out on a map. The attacks happened 14-ish miles from the Iranian coastline, and probably at least 10 times that far from any other country's coastline.
You are a huge fan of Occam's razor, although every time you invoke it, it appears your enthusiasm outstrips your understanding.
By all means, with Occam's razor in mind, provide an explanation that doesn't involve Iran.
I have all day.
We need evidence because the US military is without credibility, based on its history of constant lying since the Korean war. Nothing to do with the other side. It's the US that ruined its reputation by corruption, incompetence and stupidity.
You have ruined your reputation through bottomless ignorance fueled by irrational hatred. It is beyond doubt that had you been in a boat 18 miles from the Iranian coastline, and been clobbered by drone debris, you would still find a way to find the US at fault.
You have entered truther world.
By the way, you said "ship killer" was a meaningful distinction. Still waiting on an explanation for that.
I bet I wait a very, very long time.
[Clovis:] No, that was you reading my comment as if it was written by Harry. I understand you like your whiskey with blogging, but sometimes it does get in the way of your arguments.
ReplyDeleteThe heck it was. How you got it so wrong is a real mystery.
Compounded by your failure to quote me to that effect. You really should try it some time -- it is amazing how doing so clarifies one's thinking.
To study the mine and find out who did it? I can imagine a couple of other possibilities too, all very reasonable. Leave poor Occam out of this, please.
No, because Occam requires taking account of all the evidence.
One element of which is this: One mine went off.
Yet the Iranians somehow knew there was a second mine.
Hmmm.
As for the drone, the Iraninans are showing up pieces of what they say was the drone. If true, you can offer to us how something over international waters fall down in land - I am sure your pilot credentials will be helpful here.
How do you know it fell over land? How do you know the pieces they are displaying came from the drone they shot down?
If you choose the simplest explanation that fits all the known facts, then you must conclude there is a very high likelihood Iranians have attacked 6 ships outside Iranian waters over the last month.
Which means you should at least consider the possibility that the Iranians committed an act of war by shooting down a US drone in international airspace.
Instead of being a Harry.
I don't have to point out anything, other than to state the obvious -- the US has provided nothing of proof about what happened, and US reputation for truthfulness is near zero.
ReplyDeleteA country that brags about its covert operations can hardly object if suspicion falls on it when events are obscure.
A country that violates the air space of other countries every day for generations cannot be believed when it says it did not on Thursday. There has now been plenty of time for the US to doctor the record if the drone track, so there is no way the US government can credibly assert it was in free space.
If the track had been published immediately, that would have been persuasive, both as to the track and as to the sincerity of the American officials.
Considering the difficulty Americans have had with radar tracks in that r, it seems possible the US didn't =-- and doesn't -- know where its drone was.
The NYT has a map today of the alleged locations of all the alleged attacks. The first 4 were practically in the surf on the Arabian side, so according to Skipper's reasoning, those couldn't have been done by Iranians
ReplyDeleteThe NYT has a map today of the alleged locations of all the alleged attacks. The first 4 were practically in the surf on the Arabian side, so according to Skipper's reasoning, those couldn't have been done by Iranians.
ReplyDeleteMy previous explanation was clear enough, I thought, even for a journalist.
I'll type more slowly this time.
I'm assuming that the attacks were conducted using Zodiac type boats, approaching during darkness, and slapping the limpet mines on the sides of the ships.
(By the way, you said "ship killer" was a meaningful distinction. Still waiting on an explanation for that. Why do I think you will scarper, instead?)
Distance alone doesn't convict Iran; rather, it is certainly the case that the distance to the two moving vessels was a lot shorter from Iran. The distance to the four moored ships is further, but not prohibitive.
So far nothing convicts Iran. But it certainly had the means and the opportunity.
But there is a fact you are leaving out, at least with respect to the latter two attacks. Iranian boats did approach one of the attacked ships, and did remove an unexploded mine.
Which they couldn't have known was there, unless they planted them in the first place.
Anyway, there is nothing, according to my reasoning, that excludes the Iranians from any of these attacks, and a very significant reason to suspect their involvement in the latter two.
[Harry:] I don't have to point out anything, other than to state the obvious -- the US has provided nothing of proof about what happened, and US reputation for truthfulness is near zero.
ReplyDeleteI have read a number of items on this. Not one source that isn't consumed by hate — that source being you — has any doubt the drone was in international airspace.
Considering the difficulty Americans have had with radar tracks in that r, it seems possible the US didn't =-- and doesn't -- know where its drone was.
Excluding the difficulty you have with typing, radar tracks have nothing to do with know where the drone was.
Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
Which, if you weren't droolingly ignorant on the subject, as with limpet mines and IRBMs, you would have long since known.
You need to expand your reading.
ReplyDeleteYou need to be more specific.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, I'm not the one doubling down on ignorance.
ReplyDeleteNo, you're doubling down on gullibility. The US government has an unblemished history of lying about threats in the area and of concealing the true missions of drones. Not only is the government possibly lying again but the same people who lied before are doing the talking again.
ReplyDeleteWho would believe them without evidence?
So now Bolton declares himself the epigone of prudence and discretion. It's crazytown.
ReplyDeleteMy foot doctor, Stephen King, who I have mentioned before, is the only medico on the Army-Navy boot board. His interest is preventing hundreds of more Americans boys from getting their balls blown off by mines. We are asked to praise the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who learn to walk without their own legs but we are too polite to mention they won't be having children.
When RtO talks about boots on the ground, that's what I'm thinking about.
Bolton ain't risking his nuts.
Who would believe them without evidence?
ReplyDeleteThat's rich, considering how many evidence-free pronunciamentos you cough up.
I haven't seen any evidence that the drone was in Iranian airspace. What do you have to the contrary?
And the evidence points at the Iranians having carried out the tanker attacks.
Be prepared to be wrong.
(By the way, you said "ship killer" was a meaningful distinction. Still waiting on an explanation for that. Why do I think you will scarper, instead?)
ReplyDeleteOh, by the way, what is it with you and uncaused effects?
ReplyDeleteI guess you aren't going to correct this post, either.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.propublica.org/article/trump-keeps-talking-about-last-military-standoff-iran-what-really-happened-farsi-island-navy
ReplyDeleteWhich has exactly what to do with anything, save goal-post shifting?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of:
(By the way, you said "ship killer" was a meaningful distinction. Still waiting on an explanation for that. Why do I think you will scarper, instead?)
And how is it that your impenetrable ignorance means SecState Pompeo shot himself in the foot?
If you read the ProPublica report, you would see how it covers 4 of the 5 characteristics we associate with the US military: stupidity, incompetence, incapacity to lead and violations of other nations' sovereignty. (The only thing missing was corruption.) The relevance to subsequent US operations in the same area is self-evident.
ReplyDeleteIf you read the ProPublica report ...
ReplyDeleteI did.
Since it is completely irrelevant to the point at hand -- your impenetrable ignorance -- it amounts to nothing more than goal post shifting.
So how about giving that up, and focus on:
You said "ship killer" was a meaningful distinction. Still waiting on an explanation for that.
And ...
How is it that your impenetrable ignorance means SecState Pompeo shot himself in the foot?
It wouldn't be the first time.