By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 09:13 - Jun 14 by StokieBlue
Once again, we are talking nearly 40 years ago. How long can historical events be used as contemporary evidence?
All I am saying is that in this thread alone there were numerous posters who had decided it was the US doing a false flag or whatever without any evidence.
I don't think that is the way people should approach things.
SB
[Post edited 14 Jun 2019 9:14]
40 years is but a blink of the eye. Just sayin' they'd be foolish not to keep their fingers in pies, much the same as we, China, Russia and Sealand do.
And it's not evidence, just showing they've got form.
Interestingly, the crew of the ship are saying that the objects were 'flying' towards the boat. So maybe not mines after all.
footers QC - Prosecution Barrister, Hasketon Law Chambers
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 09:09 - Jun 14 by StokieBlue
Given that what is acceptable evidence in your mind? It's an interesting debate.
Because from your post you seem to indicate that nothing could ever been seen as evidence as everything can be faked. This is probably true but then surely anyone can claim anything.
SB
Unfortunately things are heading that way....it is clearly problematic to say the very least.
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 09:15 - Jun 14 by footers
40 years is but a blink of the eye. Just sayin' they'd be foolish not to keep their fingers in pies, much the same as we, China, Russia and Sealand do.
And it's not evidence, just showing they've got form.
Interestingly, the crew of the ship are saying that the objects were 'flying' towards the boat. So maybe not mines after all.
The last bit is interesting I agree. Although human memory is hugely fallible. I guess we need an analysis of the explosions to really know.
As I've said, I've not got any conclusions about the video and perhaps Debster is right that anything can be faked nowadays anyway.
SB
[Post edited 14 Jun 2019 9:19]
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 09:20 - Jun 14 with 3518 views
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 09:22 - Jun 14 by StokieBlue
I didn't say you were. Clearly at least 2 posters in this thread have though.
Of course not, I just think that people should apply the evidence fairly to both sides (including lack of evidence).
That clearly wasn't the case in the first 2 pages of this thread.
SB
My main doubts lie with whether Iran was involved. Seems bad timing for them to get embroiled in something like this when their status as an OPEC member is as it is and that they were receiving a Japanese PM yesterday for the first time in 40 years.
All this with G20 and OPEC next week. Seems to put a nice little bit of pressure on them don't it.
footers QC - Prosecution Barrister, Hasketon Law Chambers
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 09:25 - Jun 14 by footers
My main doubts lie with whether Iran was involved. Seems bad timing for them to get embroiled in something like this when their status as an OPEC member is as it is and that they were receiving a Japanese PM yesterday for the first time in 40 years.
All this with G20 and OPEC next week. Seems to put a nice little bit of pressure on them don't it.
All very good points although circumstantial.
Guthers has pointed out though that the republican guard are a rule to themselves.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
-1
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 09:30 - Jun 14 with 3491 views
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 09:30 - Jun 14 by footers
It's certainly very interesting... We shall see who is behind such shady dealings in the fullness of time. Or will we?
To be honest I don't think we will ever know.
It's clear that for some (and it's a very valid opinion) there can never be evidence that is unquestionable due to modern tech. Given that the debate can never be decisive on either side.
That's not what I have an issue with. I have an issue with some people deciding it's the US based on the own prejudice without any actual evidence. If there is evidence against the US then by all means point the finger.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 09:36 - Jun 14 with 3480 views
The United States were not the first, Britain has a decent track record here, and will not be the last but to say that 'economic annexation' does not go on is just having a blind spot.
The United States were not the first, Britain has a decent track record here, and will not be the last but to say that 'economic annexation' does not go on is just having a blind spot.
What is the specific definition though? I am sure I agree it happens but would like a definition. Do you just mean applying economic pressure to get one's own way?
Do you think that actions 65 years ago under a totally different regime, which due to the political structure of the US changes frequently can be used as contemporary evidence?
It's like using atrocities from the British Empire time period to say we might go kill a load of people somewhere. I just don't think it's valid to site as evidence when deciding categorically that someone is to blame as posters have in this thread.
SB
[Post edited 14 Jun 2019 9:42]
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 09:54 - Jun 14 with 3454 views
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 09:41 - Jun 14 by StokieBlue
What is the specific definition though? I am sure I agree it happens but would like a definition. Do you just mean applying economic pressure to get one's own way?
Do you think that actions 65 years ago under a totally different regime, which due to the political structure of the US changes frequently can be used as contemporary evidence?
It's like using atrocities from the British Empire time period to say we might go kill a load of people somewhere. I just don't think it's valid to site as evidence when deciding categorically that someone is to blame as posters have in this thread.
SB
[Post edited 14 Jun 2019 9:42]
Well, is there a specific definition of economic activity? These things develop over time, the United Fruit Company is (despite the time that has passed, which also helps clear the fog of hype that occludes the present) a 'digestible' account of how a corporation can have control over the majority of the functioning of an entire country. The ramifications are still felt in Guatemala to this day.
So consider how we are told that foreign powers use bots to undermine our communications and how that in turn blinds us to interventions in Georgia and Ukraine but the natural gas keeps being bought by Europe. How a state prevents outside social media almost totally and uses its own channels to condition and control, but the World still ships in so much produce from that state. Or stand on the border of Ratanakiri province in Cambodia and watch the endless stream of trucks trundle over the crossing point into Vietnam as raw materials drain from the former to aid the resurgent manufacturing boom in the latter. One country gets rich and the other stays poor.
[edit] added some hyperbole about 'the fog of time clearing' in the opening paragraph and added an 'are' that I had omitted in the first line of the second. Also, I forgot to say that 'cite' was spelled incorrectly in the post I replied to...
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 09:13 - Jun 14 by StokieBlue
Once again, we are talking nearly 40 years ago. How long can historical events be used as contemporary evidence?
All I am saying is that in this thread alone there were numerous posters who had decided it was the US doing a false flag or whatever without any evidence.
I don't think that is the way people should approach things.
SB
[Post edited 14 Jun 2019 9:14]
US actions 40 years ago are very relevant today and regarding recent events.
What about the victims of the 911, 7/7 and Madrid terror attacks?
The US brought in the Al-Qaeda terrorist Wahhabi extremist element from Saudi and funded, armed and supported them and we all know what happened 20 years later don't we?
The actions of a rogue nation.
[Post edited 14 Jun 2019 10:47]
1
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 10:51 - Jun 14 with 3410 views
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 10:42 - Jun 14 by Bluesquid
US actions 40 years ago are very relevant today and regarding recent events.
What about the victims of the 911, 7/7 and Madrid terror attacks?
The US brought in the Al-Qaeda terrorist Wahhabi extremist element from Saudi and funded, armed and supported them and we all know what happened 20 years later don't we?
The actions of a rogue nation.
[Post edited 14 Jun 2019 10:47]
The example you've picked is also straight out of the cold war as Clinton said - it was a totally different time as I am sure you acknowledge.
Mistakes from a previous administration having longer lasting affects does not mean a current or subsequent administration are doing something similar.
It's a false premise.
You need actual contemporary evidence to make such a conclusion. That is all I am saying. Immediately presuming guilt based on nothing contemporary isn't a valid approach in my opinion.
I am sure we will disagree on that and I don't want a huge argument about it as I am sure you don't.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 13:23 - Jun 14 with 3364 views
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 14:37 - Jun 13 by Oldsmoker
Dirty tricks? Can't be an insurance scam as acts of war aren't usually covered. Who would want to start a war with Iran and has plenty of subs patrolling the 7 seas? Perhaps the country that says they will provide "protection" for all shipping by dispatching a large navy to the Gulf might give us a clue.
This would be covered under marine war unless there was a declaration of state of war between the states involved
0
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 14:02 - Jun 14 with 3338 views
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 09:13 - Jun 14 by StokieBlue
Once again, we are talking nearly 40 years ago. How long can historical events be used as contemporary evidence?
All I am saying is that in this thread alone there were numerous posters who had decided it was the US doing a false flag or whatever without any evidence.
I don't think that is the way people should approach things.
SB
[Post edited 14 Jun 2019 9:14]
I think GB calls it "a pattern of behaviour".
They fabricated the grounds for a war 15 years ago.
If you want to use your rogue regime line, they've had a sure load of rogue regimes.
Is that another pattern of behaviour? They're totting up.
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 21:09 - Jun 14 by BackToRussia
I think GB calls it "a pattern of behaviour".
They fabricated the grounds for a war 15 years ago.
If you want to use your rogue regime line, they've had a sure load of rogue regimes.
Is that another pattern of behaviour? They're totting up.
Speaking of a Pattern of behaviour, I see Corbyn is bending over backwards to support the regime he took twenty grand from the spout their propaganda at a time they were torturing journalists, executing homosexuals and suppressing political opposition.
I love how he questions whether the government has "credible evidence" yet doesn’t apply the same standards when seeing “he hand of Israel” in one of his conspiracies.
Iranian media claiming two tankers attacked in Gulf on 08:25 - Jun 15 by GlasgowBlue
Speaking of a Pattern of behaviour, I see Corbyn is bending over backwards to support the regime he took twenty grand from the spout their propaganda at a time they were torturing journalists, executing homosexuals and suppressing political opposition.
I love how he questions whether the government has "credible evidence" yet doesn’t apply the same standards when seeing “he hand of Israel” in one of his conspiracies.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
