Two more tankers attacked off Iran's coast

[UCFBS]

Is there actually any evidence this was even done by Iran? I mean, Saudi Arabia is at war in Yemen, and the Houthi's in Yemen are actually taking credit for it, so why are we essentially assuming it was Iran? Is there actual evidence? The Houthi's have a relationship with Iran, but they are also independent of Iran and don't need financial support or permission to do this type of thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ttack-saudi-arabia-claimed-by-yemens-houthis/

Before you label me a Republican, hear me out. Because I do not want to go to war with Iran, much less I cannot stand Trump -- who is normally non-interference -- bowing to the Saudis! Trump is non-interference ... except when it comes to the Saudis (stupid).

The problem is that Iran wants chaos in the Gulf and feeds stateless, militant and terrorist organizations. It's likes saying the US wasn't involved in Vietnam until 1965. Syria pulls the same crap. It's just like it was back in the '80s, and likely to become just as bad, until the entire world stops being selfish and tells Iran to 'stop f'ing around.'

Unfortunately China won't do that, so the point is moot. China tolerates genocides in Africa to get its resources. That's why I want the US to pull the f' out of the Middle East, period. We don't need to be there. We don't need their petroleum at all. Let Europe and Asia secure it. I'm sure China will step in, and then ... everyone else will get cut off.

Let them. Let the world see how selfish China is without us being neutral.

 

[Cubs79]

Trump didn't kill the deal, Congress didn't approve of it. Same with Paris and Kyoto.

Why is it that we teach kids that the US didn't join the League of Nations because Congress didn't approve it, instead of teaching that Harding pulled out of it? Same deal, Harding campaigned on being totally against joining, citing non-interference and somewhat isolationist history of the US.

Nope, we don't teach civics anymore, and that the POTUS is all powerful and doesn't need Congressional approval. E.g., there's a reason Clinton couldn't even get a single Democratic Senator to vote for Kyoto! It's not that W. 'pulled out'.

There was a deal in place, and he pulled out of it. You can talk civics all you want, but the reason there is no longer a deal is because of Trump's decision to pull out of the deal. And because of there is no longer a deal, then the idea Iran should cooperate with it (which is what I responded to) is ridiculous. But thank you for those 3 paragraphs that had nothing to with the point of my post.

 

[NinjaKnight]

There was a deal in place, and he pulled out of it. You can talk civics all you want, but the reason there is no longer a deal is because of Trump's decision to pull out of the deal. And because of there is no longer a deal, then the idea Iran should cooperate with it (which is what I responded to) is ridiculous. But thank you for those 3 paragraphs that had nothing to with the point of my post.

First time reading BS's posts?

 

[Cubs79]

Before you label me a Republican, hear me out. Because I do not want to go to war with Iran, much less I cannot stand Trump -- who is normally non-interference -- bowing to the Saudis! Trump is non-interference ... except when it comes to the Saudis (stupid).

The problem is that Iran wants chaos in the Gulf and feeds stateless, militant and terrorist organizations. It's likes saying the US wasn't involved in Vietnam until 1965. Syria pulls the same crap. It's just like it was back in the '80s, and likely to become just as bad, until the entire world stops being selfish and tells Iran to 'stop f'ing around.'

Unfortunately China won't do that, so the point is moot. China tolerates genocides in Africa to get its resources. That's why I want the US to pull the f' out of the Middle East, period. We don't need to be there. We don't need their petroleum at all. Let Europe and Asia secure it. I'm sure China will step in, and then ... everyone else will get cut off.

Let them. Let the world see how selfish China is without us being neutral.

Again, nothing to do with my post.

 

[UCFBS]

Shooting down the Triton does directly impact the US Navy and our national ISR capability. Just sayin ...

Yes, it was purposeful because Iran doesn't want us tracking what they do in the region.

This is a replay of the '80s. People forget it wasn't until the US flagged ships as American that it stopped. But that was the '80s. Now everyone assumes we starting crap, when we're not. So flagging ships as US would backfire. It's unpopular to side with the US because the US is allegedly the cause of everything.

All the more reason I want the US to pull out of the entire Middle East, and let 'Chinese values' run the place like they do in Darfur. Yeah, it's so f'd up how we are demonized when other countries love to use genocides to their advantage.

 

[UCFBS]

Again, nothing to do with my post.

It has everything to do with it!

"Is there actually any evidence this was even done by Iran?"​

Of course not! It was people being fed weapons, trained by and even with Iranian advisors there. Iran is one of the few nations of the country that do this, and expects everyone to say, "Oh, they're not involved."

It's exactly like saying the US 'wasn't involved' in Vietnam until 1965. There's a reason the CIA doesn't pull this nearly as much as it did in the '50s and '60s, let alone far less in South America by the mid '80s.

It breeds instability.

Here, Iran wants that. It's trying to keep the focus off of their own, piss-poor economy, internally -- as it cannot afford to bribe its industry and leaders as much, with the sanctions crippling them.

Trump -- right or wrong -- is trying to break Iran to force them to the table on the US' terms. Iran is trying to instigate the US as 'the bad guy,' and drag nation after nation into it. You literally cannot see the 'big picture.'

It's just like when people said, "We're hypocrites for saying North Korea shouldn't have nukes." It's not about us, but Japan, South Korea and ... most of all ... Taiwan, the last very much wants US nukes on its soil.

Geo-politics 101. Romney got laughed at for being aware in 2012. Kinda just tired of the utter BS and the questions you pose. Of course they were, logistically, tactically, effectively! They just didn't 'pull the trigger.'

 

[UCFWayne]

Trump killed the deal. Why would you expect Iran to cooperate with a deal that doesn't exist anymore?

yea trump killed a terrible deal and now iran wants to start a war because we arent giving them free money.

 

[Cubs79]

It has everything to do with it!

"Is there actually any evidence this was even done by Iran?"​

Of course not! It was people being fed weapons, trained by and even with Iranian advisors there. Iran is one of the few nations of the country that do this, and expects everyone to say, "Oh, they're not involved."

It's exactly like saying the US wasn't involved in Vietnam until 1965. There's a reason the CIA doesn't pull this nearly as much as it did in the '50s and '60s, let alone far less in South America by the mid '80s.

It breeds instability. Iran wants that. It's trying to keep the focus off of their own, piss-poor economy, internally. Trump is trying to break Iran to force them to the table on the US' terms. Iran is trying to instigate the US as 'the bad guy,' and drag nation after nation into it.

You literally cannot see the 'big picture.'

Nothing you are saying is evidence Iran did this, nothing. It is more than possible they were involved for sure, but being possible and actual evidence are not the same thing.

 

[UCFBS]

yea trump killed a terrible deal and now iran wants to start a war because we arent giving them free money.

It's the 1994 North Korea agreement all over again, the one where Clinton is still trying to 're-write history,' even though it was really Carter that negotiated it, not the Clinton administration.

Reading Mattis' view changed my mind for good. Appeasing has only made Iran worse. Trump -- again, right or wrong -- is trying to bankrupt Iran to the point that either ...

A) Their leadership 'caves in' and comes to the table, or ...
B) Their leadership is overthrown, as they cannot afford the bribes and state-led corruption that is keeping everyone 'in-line,' for now

It will be interesting to see what happens, but Trump needs to be true to his non-inteference policy, and stop listening to the Saudis. Yes, the Obama administration screwed a lot of allies, both NATO and Middle East, but Trump should keep up the 'you are not going to drag the US into your own, selfish issues' with the Saudis as much as Europe.

Trump's embracing the Saudis continues to scare me.

 

[UCFBS]

Nothing you are saying is evidence Iran did this, nothing. It is more than possible they were involved for sure, but being possible and actual evidence are not the same thing.

Why did Iran try to shoot down several drones in the gulf, finally knocking one out of the sky?

It's because we're f'ing tracking everything they do. It's the huge difference between the '80s and now ... we know everything they do, everything that approaches their coast, all of their logistics. It's why we are able to blow up Iranian logistical chains ... and Iran doesn't respond.

They'd be admitting where and what they were doing! Yes, it's f'ing going on!

Yes, we are killing Iranians in the Middle East. It's just not Iranian installations on their land.

Just like we don't report when we, or the South Koreans, kill North Korean soldiers! It very much happens! The info is out there too.

Syria's nuclear reactor getting blown up by the Israeli's in recent years is yet another example. It happens, it's never confirmed, but it happens.

Even Northern Ireland has shootings, bombings and deaths today, has for decades. People just decide not to start fighting again over it.

This is about posturing, so statements like yours are the conversations Iran wants people to have, instead of the reality.

Trump's not a 'smoking gun' type of guy. He'll act if he thinks it will do any good. Insert bombing Syria without warning, and only telling the Russians, "We're doing it, stay out of the way."

Right now attacking Iranian assets in Iran will give Iran exactly what it wants. The Saudis want it too, because it drags us in. No, instead, we're killing Iranians outside of Iran.

We're not disclosing this because it reveals our intelligence capabilities. It's as simple as that.

 

[UCFWayne]

It's the 1994 North Korea agreement all over again, the one where Clinton is still trying to 're-write history,' even though it was really Carter that negotiated it, not the Clinton administration.

Reading Mattis' view changed my mind for good. Appeasing has only made Iran worse. Trump -- again, right or wrong -- is trying to bankrupt Iran to the point that either ...

A) Their leadership 'caves in' and comes to the table, or ...
B) Their leadership is overthrown, as they cannot afford the bribes and state-led corruption that is keeping everyone 'in-line,' for now

It will be interesting to see what happens, but Trump needs to be true to his non-inteference policy, and stop listening to the Saudis. Yes, the Obama administration screwed a lot of allies, both NATO and Middle East, but Trump should keep up the 'you are not going to drag the US into your own, selfish issues' with the Saudis as much as Europe.

Trump's embracing the Saudis continues to scare me.

this is saudi's problem, not ours. we sold them a ton of military gear. let them handle it.

 

[NinjaKnight]

lmao BS is in a death spiral of stupidity.

 

[Cubs79]

Why did Iran try to shoot down several drones in the gulf, finally knocking one out of the sky?

It's because we're f'ing tracking everything they do. It's the huge difference between the '80s and now ... we know everything they do, everything that approaches their coast, all of their logistics. It's why we are able to blow up Iranian logistical chains ... and Iran doesn't respond.

They'd be admitting where and what they were doing! Yes, it's f'ing going on!

Yes, we are killing Iranians in the Middle East. It's just not Iranian installations on their land.

Just like we don't report when we, or the South Koreans, kill North Korean soldiers! It very much happens! The info is out there too.

Syria's nuclear reactor getting blown up by the Israeli's in recent years is yet another example. It happens, it's never confirmed, but it happens.

Even Northern Ireland has shootings, bombings and deaths today, has for decades. People just decide not to start fighting again over it.

Shooting down a drone isnt evidence of attacking oil tankers in Saudi Arabia. Do you know what the word evidence means? Anyway, have a good one, you're adhd postings are a bit much for me today.

 

[UCFBS]

Shooting down a drone isnt evidence of attacking oil tankers in Saudi Arabia. Do you know what the word evidence means?

Yes, to you it means when the Iranians admit it. Seriously, that's the problem right there!

Anyway, have a good one, you're adhd postings are a bit much for me today.

Likewise. You are literally an US Media mouthpiece.

You probably laughed when Obama made his infamous 'The '80s called' joke at Romney in 2012.

 

[Crazyhole]

Shooting down a drone isnt evidence of attacking oil tankers in Saudi Arabia. Do you know what the word evidence means? Anyway, have a good one, you're adhd postings are a bit much for me today.

What are the chances of Iran attacking oil fields and drones but not oil tankers? It should be clear that they are involved. We can argue about how or if we should respond but at this point is it rational or necessary to question who was behind those attacks?

 

[UCFBS]

What are the chances of Iran attacking oil fields and drones but not oil tankers? It should be clear that they are involved. We can argue about how or if we should respond but at this point is it rational or necessary to question who was behind those attacks?

Iran and Syria don't support stateless entities. They never have. Their weapon platforms being the exact same have nothing to do with anything. There are no Iranians in the region. They stay at home, just like the US did before 1965.

 

[Cubs79]

What are the chances of Iran attacking oil fields and drones but not oil tankers? It should be clear that they are involved. We can argue about how or if we should respond but at this point is it rational or necessary to question who was behind those attacks?

Clear based on what? Because Saudi Arabia said so? They might be involved I am not denying it is possible, but I am not going to just believe everything the Saudi's and Pompeo want us to believe without any evidence, and since there is another group taking credit. My point isnt unreasonable at all.

 

[UCFWayne]

Agreed!!! Where did I not say that?!?!?! In fact, re-read this!!!

​

Stop using Trump arguments against me!

Furthermore ...

This is what kills me about the US Media and people like yourself. Democratic party lawyers are paid by Moscow to undermine, even overthrow, elected administrations in Kiev, Nur-Sultan and others in sovereign nations to force them into the EEU (COMECON v2), away from the EU, and even the US Media received payoffs from the Russians too, back during the Georgian War.

But you only hear about Trump.

Even Mattis has f'ing just now disclosed things the Obama administration was covering up about the Iranians. You know if it came from the Trump administration, the US Media wouldn't report it. But Mattis is, and while everyone in the US Media is downplaying it, it's out there.

This one-sided, anti-Republican, anti-Trump BS Is just become this ball of lies that anything Obama and Democrats do is good and must be true, and anything the Republican or Trump say or do is wrong, and must be false.

FOIA exist. They are out there. The facts are there! Yes, some of this has all been de-classified!

Same with the public Czech BIS disclosures (since 2007). Even the Dutch are now making theirs (since 2015). Yes, foreign intelligence agencies are making select briefs public.

What they have in them will utterly showcase how misled Americans are. Yes, our US Media lies about so much, and it's why so few Americans trust it today.

You're so focused on things whether or not the US drone -- which is not stealthy at all -- was shot down in international waters or not. Even the entire Iranian press release about it preys on the utter ignorance of people, and is easily disproven for anyone familiar with the RQ series.

It's all grandstanding BS. And the information is out there, disclosed. But no, we won't believe the US government, or foreign governments that corroborate the US either.

i was agreeing with you, not arguing with you.

 

[Crazyhole]

Clear based on what? Because Saudi Arabia said so? They might be involved I am not denying it is possible, but I am not going to just believe everything the Saudi's and Pompeo want us to believe without any evidence, and since there is another group taking credit. My point isnt unreasonable at all.

This is like saying "well, we don't really know if the guys who hijacked the plane that hit the Pentagon are involved with the guys who hit the WTC". At some point, putting 2 and 2 together becomes pretty easy. There is video evidence of Iranian boats right next to one of the tankers that was bombed. This isnt rocket science.

If the tanker bombers came AFTER the strike on the oil fields you could maybe make a case that it was someone else trying to escalate things. That isn't the case. Why would Iran strike the oil fields if they weren't responsible for the prior attacks knowing that they can't win this fight?

 

[Cubs79]

This is like saying "well, we don't really know if the guys who hijacked the plane that hit the Pentagon are involved with the guys who hit the WTC". At some point, putting 2 and 2 together becomes pretty easy. There is video evidence of Iranian boats right next to one of the tankers that was bombed. This isnt rocket science.

If the tanker bombers came AFTER the strike on the oil fields you could maybe make a case that it was someone else trying to escalate things. That isn't the case. Why would Iran strike the oil fields if they weren't responsible for the prior attacks knowing that they can't win this fight?

Its not remotely saying that. A Yemen group, who Saudi Arabia is at war with, is taking credit for it. Why is it unreasonable to think the group who is taking credit for it, could have possibly been the ones who actually did it?

 

[UCFWayne]

This is like saying "well, we don't really know if the guys who hijacked the plane that hit the Pentagon are involved with the guys who hit the WTC". At some point, putting 2 and 2 together becomes pretty easy. There is video evidence of Iranian boats right next to one of the tankers that was bombed. This isnt rocket science.

If the tanker bombers came AFTER the strike on the oil fields you could maybe make a case that it was someone else trying to escalate things. That isn't the case. Why would Iran strike the oil fields if they weren't responsible for the prior attacks knowing that they can't win this fight?

up until this point, cubs has demonstrated very little ability to put 2 and 2 together. that is unless it has something to do with republicans. then hes got all kinds of theories.

 

[Cubs79]

up until this point, cubs has demonstrated very little ability to put 2 and 2 together. that is unless it has something to do with republicans. then hes got all kinds of theories.

Why dont you ever tag me when insulting me? Just curious. And what are my theories you speak of? Do tell.

 

[Cubs79]

It is funny how Republicans are the ones who now push the idea that we should trust the government, no questions asked though.

 

[NinjaKnight]

It is funny how Republicans are the ones who now push the idea that we should trust the government, no questions asked though.

This.

Just blows my mind. Trust Trump 100%, who cares that he lies about literally everything.

I brought this up during his inauguration, when Trump posted blatant lies about both the weather and the crowd size. Easily debunked, 100% falsehoods. Why should we believe him on stuff we can't prove, like this, when he lies about stuff we can easily prove?

I know, I'm debating trogledytes like @UCFWayne who are only capable of responding with "hurr Durr tds"

 

[Crazyhole]

It is funny how Republicans are the ones who now push the idea that we should trust the government, no questions asked though.

That's not totally true. I'm not a republican, but I think part of the trust that you're talking about is dependent on the response. If we had attacked Iran immediately after the ship bombings I would have questioned the validity. I would have questioned them if there was a response to the drone being shot down. We are now 3 deep in attacks on the region and have yet to start lobbing bombs, so I have to think that there are people in the Pentagon that are examining the facts and debating the response. I still hold the position that we should absolutely not spearhead a counter attack because it is not our business, but if there is one I do think it will come after careful thought. If Trump was a war-hawk, Bolton would still be on staff. Mattis left because we aren't aggressive enough. At this point it's safe to say that the US isnt going to get involved in a military action unless it's warranted.

 

[UCFWayne]

Why dont you ever tag me when insulting me? Just curious. And what are my theories you speak of? Do tell.

@Cubs79 virtually everyone is saying that iran was behind these recent attacks. this isnt a conspiracy. why do still not believe it? oh thats right, orange man bad.

 

[Cubs79]

@Cubs79 virtually everyone is saying that iran was behind these recent attacks. this isnt a conspiracy. why do still not believe it? oh thats right, orange man bad.

One group is actually taking responsibility for it though. You don't think it is possible they are telling the truth? It doesn't at least want you to see more evidence? Wanting to actually see some sort of evidence has nothing to do with a conspiracy.

Nobody said anything about "orange man bad". You think you are being clever with that type of schtick but all you are doing is avoiding the actual conversation.

 

[Cubs79]

That's not totally true. I'm not a republican, but I think part of the trust that you're talking about is dependent on the response. If we had attacked Iran immediately after the ship bombings I would have questioned the validity. I would have questioned them if there was a response to the drone being shot down. We are now 3 deep in attacks on the region and have yet to start lobbing bombs, so I have to think that there are people in the Pentagon that are examining the facts and debating the response. I still hold the position that we should absolutely not spearhead a counter attack because it is not our business, but if there is one I do think it will come after careful thought. If Trump was a war-hawk, Bolton would still be on staff. Mattis left because we aren't aggressive enough. At this point it's safe to say that the US isnt going to get involved in a military action unless it's warranted.

But there is a Saudi-Yemen war going on in the region. Why is it so implausible that the Yemeni group who is saying they did it, actually did it? Again, I am not saying it isn't Iran. I am saying we have another group in the region who is in an active war with Saudi Arabia, who is taking responsibility, yet for some reason, we are just going to run with the Iran narrative and not even pretend like it could have been the Houthi's? Asking questions isn't a bad thing.

 

[Crazyhole]

But there is a Saudi-Yemen war going on in the region. Why is it so implausible that the Yemeni group who is saying they did it, actually did it? Again, I am not saying it isn't Iran. I am saying we have another group in the region who is in an active war with Saudi Arabia, who is taking responsibility, yet for some reason, we are just going to run with the Iran narrative and not even pretend like it could have been the Houthi's? Asking questions isn't a bad thing.

It's totally possible, but the caveat to that is the question "who gave the Houthis the weapons used?". They align with and are funded by Iran. We know that Iran is second to none in proxy wars, so how can we not come to the conclusion that they are directly involved? We also know that Iranian leaders are Shiite and that they have a problem with the Sunni's.

 

[Cubs79]

It's totally possible, but the caveat to that is the question "who gave the Houthis the weapons used?". They align with and are funded by Iran. We know that Iran is second to none in proxy wars, so how can we not come to the conclusion that they are directly involved? We also know that Iranian leaders are Shiite and that they have a problem with the Sunni's.

The Houthi's are certainly friendly with Iran, but they are also completely independent of Iran and could certainly carry this type of thing out on their own.

I didn't say we should come to the conclusion that they are or are not directly involved. You are completely misconstruing my point. My point is, there are some questions here, but for some reason we are just choosing to take the government (both the US and Saudi Arabia) narrative without even blinking and at least considering that maybe they are wrong. Asking questions is not a bad thing, wanting to see more evidence is not a bad thing.

 

[UCFKnight85]

The Houthi's are certainly friendly with Iran, but they are also completely independent of Iran and could certainly carry this type of thing out on their own.

I didn't say we should come to the conclusion that they are or are not directly involved. You are completely misconstruing my point. My point is, there are some questions here, but for some reason we are just choosing to take the government (both the US and Saudi Arabia) narrative without even blinking and at least considering that maybe they are wrong. Asking questions is not a bad thing, wanting to see more evidence is not a bad thing.

Lol here we go again

The people demanding to see every bit of evidence immediately for themselves are the same people who whined when Trump released satellite imagery of that Iranian site proving we had nothing to do with it

But sure dude. I’m sure the rag tag fuking Houthis were the ones who launched advanced drones and missiles to strike at some of the best guarded infrastructure in KSA with pinpoint accuracy and precision. All while doing this 900 miles from Yemen.

Yep totally plausible. And even if you really believe that, where the hell do you think they’re getting their arms from?

 

[Cubs79]

Lol here we go again

The people demanding to see every bit of evidence immediately for themselves are the same people who whined when Trump released satellite imagery of that Iranian site proving we had nothing to do with it

But sure dude. I’m sure the rag tag fuking Houthis were the ones who launched advanced drones and missiles to strike at some of the best guarded infrastructure in KSA with pinpoint accuracy and precision. All while doing this 900 miles from Yemen.

Yep totally plausible. And even if you really believe that, where the hell do you think they’re getting their arms from?

The Houthi's have used drones to attack Saudi Arabia in the past, you are aware of this yes?


Regardless, I love this idea that wanting to see some evidence is a bad thing, but just taking the government word no questions asked is good. Republicans trust in the government sure has changed.

 

[UCFBS]

i was agreeing with you, not arguing with you.

Sorry, I mis-read who quoted me and I was responding too. My apologies.

 

[UCFBS]

The Houthi's have used drones to attack Saudi Arabia in the past, you are aware of this yes?

View embedded media

Of course. And we all know where the 'logistics' and 'operatives' come from.

Regardless, I love this idea that wanting to see some evidence is a bad thing, but just taking the government word no questions asked is good. Republicans trust in the government sure has changed.

Huh? I don't trust the government or the US Media. That's why I read many sources, including non-US disclosures made public by various organizations. Everyone knows what Iran is doing ... except the US Media who loves the blame game. International media then uses that.

All I know is that this century ...

1) The second the US pulls out of the Middle East, China will assert control, and could care less about genocides and wars. That's why Europe wants the US there, and will appease the Iranians so they don't just side with the Chinese. It's the exact same issue Europe has with Russia over Natural Gas too. The US gets to 'be the bad guy' for them in both cases.

2) The best counter-intelligence asset for China, Iran and Russia is the US Media, and the Chinese and Russians have even paid for it at times. I'm still 100% Pro-1st Amendment and letting the US Media lie, the US gov't shouldn't ever be allowed to stop that. But it does mean the US Media is completely untrusted by over 80% of Americans at this point, 90% according to some.

^ That's pretty much 90% of our problems in a nutshell.

 

[Cubs79]

Of course. And we all know where the 'logistics' and 'operatives' come from.

Huh? I don't trust the government or the US Media. That's why I read many sources, including non-US disclosures made public by various organizations. Everyone knows what Iran is doing ... except the US Media who loves the blame game. International media then uses that.

All I know is that this century ...

1) The second the US pulls out of the Middle East, China will assert control, and could care less about genocides and wars. That's why Europe wants the US there, and will appease the Iranians so they don't just side with the Chinese. It's the exact same issue Europe has with Russia over Natural Gas too. The US gets to 'be the bad guy' for them in both cases.

2) The best counter-intelligence asset for China, Iran and Russia is the US Media, and the Chinese and Russians have even paid for it at times. I'm still 100% Pro-1st Amendment and letting the US Media lie, the US gov't shouldn't ever be allowed to stop that. But it does mean the US Media is completely untrusted by over 80% of Americans at this point, 90% according to some.

^ That's pretty much 90% of our problems in a nutshell.

I didn't quote you nor was I responding to you, so I don't know why you said "huh?" as if I was confused about, or responding to something you said.

 

[sk8knight]

Our military would not need to rely on KSA to determine where this attack originated.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Here's NPR interviewing a security analyst who destroys the hilariously absurd idea that the Houthis carried out this coordinated, advanced attack from 900 miles away.

It was Iran. Period.

 

[Ucfmikes]

The Houthi's have used drones to attack Saudi Arabia in the past, you are aware of this yes?

View embedded media

Regardless, I love this idea that wanting to see some evidence is a bad thing, but just taking the government word no questions asked is good. Republicans trust in the government sure has changed.

Please don’t tell us that you think that these terrorist groups are capable of launching sophisticated and precise attacks. Especially without help

You don’t really believe that, do you?

 

[Ucfmikes]

Love these lefties who have to actually witness evidence of a terrorist group manufacturing a drone, rocket or missile,labeling it, watching it’s point of origin, trajectory, target and witnessing that it actually hit the target and exploded, before we can actually do something about it

Maybe we need to dig up the exploded wreckage and looking for a middle finger pointing towards a United States flag before we actually can lay blame.

Would THAT even be enough?

 

[Crazyhole]

Please don’t tell us that you think that these terrorist groups are capable of launching sophisticated and precise attacks. Especially without help

You don’t really believe that, do you?

You would think that from this distance it would take a guided missile to accurately hit the target. I kinda doubt that an insurgent group has that technology.

Then again, if they do then it kind of puts to bed the notion that we don't need guns because the governments military is so powerful we could never stand a chance if we had to fight back.