Two more tankers attacked off Iran's coast

[UCFKnight85]

I don't know what Adam is in on, or if there is anything to be "in on": What I know is that you and I have not seen any evidence that it was Iran, and until we do, I will at least remain open to the possibility it might not have been Iran.

lol ok. You do that. It's surely classified intel right now but you keep insisting it could be someone else while everyone who has seen the evidence says it's out of question that it could be someone else.

Schiff wakes up obsessed with how to hate the President today and even he had to admit that it's irrefutable that Iran was behind this at the Admin's assertion is correct.

 

[UCFWayne]

i admit that im skeptical about the whole situation, but if schiff is saying its iran then im more likely to believe it. that guy would do anything to bring trump down.

 

[Cubs79]

lol ok. You do that. It's surely classified intel right now but you keep insisting it could be someone else while everyone who has seen the evidence says it's out of question that it could be someone else.

Schiff wakes up obsessed with how to hate the President today and even he had to admit that it's irrefutable that Iran was behind this at the Admin's assertion is correct.

I will do that, thanks. I am not sure why you seem to find it so questionable that someone actually wants to see more evidence before believing something, but believe everything you hear if you wish. that's up to you.

I don't keep insisting anything. I just want to see more information, which as much as you are trying to make that out to be unreasonable, it isn't.

Not everyone agrees the evidence indicates it was Iran. I have already said that both Japan and Germany, and some in the UK government, have stated they need to see more evidence before determining it was Iran.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I will do that, thanks. I am not sure why you seem to find it so questionable that someone actually wants to see more evidence before believing something, but believe everything you hear if you wish. that's up to you.

I don't keep insisting anything. I just want to see more information, which as much as you are trying to make that out to be unreasonable, it isn't.

Not everyone agrees the evidence indicates it was Iran. I have already said that both Japan and Germany, and some in the UK government, have stated they need to see more evidence before determining it was Iran.

And Pompeo already said he'll show them whatever they want in proper settings. You know, like the evidence they showed Schiff who led him to declare that without question this was Iran.

All of this "skepticism" may be justified it didn't smell like typical anti-Trump hysteria and an insistence to simply go against anything that comes out of the Admin.

 

[Cubs79]

And Pompeo already said he'll show them whatever they want in proper settings. You know, like the evidence they showed Schiff who led him to declare that without question this was Iran.

All of this "skepticism" may be justified it didn't smell like typical anti-Trump hysteria and an insistence to simply go against anything that comes out of the Admin.

Ok. Then when/if he shows it to them and we will see their response and take it from there. Again, I am not sure why you find that unreasonable.

 

[sk8knight]

And Pompeo already said he'll show them whatever they want in proper settings. You know, like the evidence they showed Schiff who led him to declare that without question this was Iran.

All of this "skepticism" may be justified it didn't smell like typical anti-Trump hysteria and an insistence to simply go against anything that comes out of the Admin.

The current public attitude towards the trustworthiness of government is both extremely interesting and also very concerning. Couple the loss of trust in the Intel community, both deserved or not, with the growing attitude that everyone should have access to everything no matter what, and I'm not sure what is going to happen to our Republic.

What should happen, and has happened for decades, is that you elect representatives that have oversight of classified operations. You then trust those elected officials to be the check and balance for the hidden communities in the cases where public dissemination of the information would greatly reduce your country's ability to operate or defend. If you don't trust your representative, elect a new, more trustworthy one.

But now, we just assume they're all corrupt and also assume that we are all empowered and knowledgeable enough to make better decisions that they are. So we all deserve to know and we are going to exert our public will until we get answers. I'm not sure I want to know what will end up happening when the system doesn't change to accommodate their wishes.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Ok. Then when/if he shows it to them and we will see their response and take it from there. Again, I am not sure why you find that unreasonable.

lol so every corner of our own government saying it was Iran is not good enough for you, but the Germans joining in would be enough.

 

[UCFKnight85]

The current public attitude towards the trustworthiness of government is both extremely interesting and also very concerning. Couple the loss of trust in the Intel community, both deserved or not, with the growing attitude that everyone should have access to everything no matter what, and I'm not sure what is going to happen to our Republic.

What should happen, and has happened for decades, is that you elect representatives that have oversight of classified operations. You then trust those elected officials to be the check and balance for the hidden communities in the cases where public dissemination of the information would greatly reduce your country's ability to operate or defend. If you don't trust your representative, elect a new, more trustworthy one.

But now, we just assume they're all corrupt and also assume that we are all empowered and knowledgeable enough to make better decisions that they are. So we all deserve to know and we are going to exert our public will until we get answers. I'm not sure I want to know what will end up happening when the system doesn't change to accommodate their wishes.

It's not even about elected officials here though. The frigging US Navy has video of Iran literally carrying this out and then going to get a mine that didn't explode, they watched them do it and said "yea, these guys definitely did it", and yet we have people like those in this thread still throwing out the spectre of conspiracy or meanie Trump Admin even being behind what happened.

It's insanity.

 

[Cubs79]

The current public attitude towards the trustworthiness of government is both extremely interesting and also very concerning. Couple the loss of trust in the Intel community, both deserved or not, with the growing attitude that everyone should have access to everything no matter what, and I'm not sure what is going to happen to our Republic.

What should happen, and has happened for decades, is that you elect representatives that have oversight of classified operations. You then trust those elected officials to be the check and balance for the hidden communities in the cases where public dissemination of the information would greatly reduce your country's ability to operate or defend. If you don't trust your representative, elect a new, more trustworthy one.

But now, we just assume they're all corrupt and also assume that we are all empowered and knowledgeable enough to make better decisions that they are. So we all deserve to know and we are going to exert our public will until we get answers. I'm not sure I want to know what will end up happening when the system doesn't change to accommodate their wishes.

I don't think it is a new thing to be skeptical of the government. From the Gulf of Tonkin where we know our government lied about the details, to no WMDs in Iraq, etc etc, it isn't as if we don't know that we have been lied to, and in some situations maybe they didn't lie, but were just wrong.

 

[Crazyhole]

I don't think it is a new thing to be skeptical of the government. From the Gulf of Tonkin where we know our government lied about the details, to no WMDs in Iraq, etc etc, it isn't as if we don't know that we have been lied to, and in some situations maybe they didn't lie, but were just wrong.

And the only way we ever find out is after the response, which sucks because war is expensive.

That being said, Trump hasn't engaged in any new wars or military actions yet. Let's examine his predecessors:

Obama:. Libya, Syria.
Bush:. Iraq, Afghanistan
Clinton:. Bosnia, Iraq
Bush: Iraq
Reagan: Grenada
Carter: Iran


I'm sure that isn't a full list either, but the fact that you have to go back over 40 years to find the last president that hasn't engaged in new military combat is somewhat stunning. Trump is the dove that the left has been clammoring for. Irony level: expert.

 

[sk8knight]

I don't think it is a new thing to be skeptical of the government. From the Gulf of Tonkin where we know our government lied about the details, to no WMDs in Iraq, etc etc, it isn't as if we don't know that we have been lied to, and in some situations maybe they didn't lie, but were just wrong.

I'm not saying that it's new to be skeptical. The new part is the emerging demand to be fed all information and to have a direct voice in all issues. Social media has enabled a number of things; one of which is the ability to random individuals to stir up a storm of emotion and affect policy.

 

[Cubs79]

And the only way we ever find out is after the response, which sucks because war is expensive.

That being said, Trump hasn't engaged in any new wars or military actions yet. Let's examine his predecessors:

Obama:. Libya, Syria.
Bush:. Iraq, Afghanistan
Clinton:. Bosnia, Iraq
Bush: Iraq
Reagan: Grenada
Carter: Iran


I'm sure that isn't a full list either, but the fact that you have to go back over 40 years to find the last president that hasn't engaged in new military combat is somewhat stunning. Trump is the dove that the left has been clammoring for. Irony level: expert.

Trump has been beating the war drum with Iran for months, and this certainly does nothing to diffuse that. And Trump is by no means a dove. Just because he hasn't started a major war, doesn't mean he hasn't continued and even amped up wars, most specifically Yemen.

 

[Cubs79]

I'm not saying that it's new to be skeptical. The new part is the emerging demand to be fed all information and to have a direct voice in all issues. Social media has enabled a number of things; one of which is the ability to random individuals to stir up a storm of emotion and affect policy.

I don't think we have to have all the information. I think everyone understands there is going to be classified information that the public wont have access to. At the same time, I don't think the public should be expected to believe our government when they provide little to no evidence. We just did that with Iraq and it was a disaster.

 

[ucfversusbcs]

Trump has been beating the war drum with Iran for months, and this certainly does nothing to diffuse that. And Trump is by no means a dove. Just because he hasn't started a major war, doesn't mean he hasn't continued and even amped up wars, most specifically Yemen.

Only right wingers can split hairs when it comes to US intervention, involvement, etc...so Yemen never happened.

 

[NinjaKnight]

The current public attitude towards the trustworthiness of government is both extremely interesting and also very concerning. .

Crazy idea: maybe if this administration didn't tell 10,000+ documented lies, including such insanely easy things to debunk like the crowd size or weather at Trump's inauguration, we would be inclined to believe them a little more?

Why should we trust him on this stuff that requires faith, when they have proven to be 100% willing to lie about petty pointless stuff that we can observe to be absolutely untrue?

 

[Crazyhole]

Trump has been beating the war drum with Iran for months, and this certainly does nothing to diffuse that. And Trump is by no means a dove. Just because he hasn't started a major war, doesn't mean he hasn't continued and even amped up wars, most specifically Yemen.

Actually, you are right. He's a dove carrying a machine gun and nobody wants to mess with him because they all know that he'll beat their asses if they start shit.

 

[Crazyhole]

Crazy idea: maybe if this administration didn't tell 10,000+ documented lies, including such insanely easy things to debunk like the crowd size or weather at Trump's inauguration, we would be inclined to believe them a little more?

Why should we trust him on this stuff that requires faith, when they have proven to be 100% willing to lie about petty pointless stuff that we can observe to be absolutely untrue?

Simple answer:. Going on 3 full years of peace and prosperity that his predecessors couldn't produce. He can lie about the weather all he wants or exaggerate how tall the stack of cheeseburgers was, if he doesn't start any new wars or crash the economy I'll accept his lies.

TRUMP 2024!

 

[NinjaKnight]

Simple answer:. Going on 3 full years of peace and prosperity that his predecessors couldn't produce. He can lie about the weather all he wants or exaggerate how tall the stack of cheeseburgers was, if he doesn't start any new wars or crash the economy I'll accept his lies.

TRUMP 2024!

I'm really hoping this was supposed to be obvious sarcasm, but I can't tell with you anymore.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Trump has been beating the war drum with Iran for months, and this certainly does nothing to diffuse that. And Trump is by no means a dove. Just because he hasn't started a major war, doesn't mean he hasn't continued and even amped up wars, most specifically Yemen.

No, you're just inventing stuff now. Imposing sanctions and rightfully calling out Iran for their terrorism and support of proxies across the region is not "beating a war drum". This is now the 6th tanker that we've blamed Iran for attacking and we're no closer to "war" with Iran than we were ever, because we haven't been close to war with Iran with Trump as President.

As I said earlier, people bitched about Trump when he wanted to remove troops from Syria since they were demanding we stay there and kill Iranians to curb their influence. You can't have it both ways. You can't tell me he's too soft when trying to remove troops from Syria and then tell me he's a war-crazed maniac hellbent on fighting a war that he has vowed NOT to wage.

 

[Crazyhole]

I'm really hoping this was supposed to be obvious sarcasm, but I can't tell with you anymore.

Fun fact:. Nobody cares what you hope for.

 

[Crazyhole]

No, you're just inventing stuff now. Imposing sanctions and rightfully calling out Iran for their terrorism and support of proxies across the region is not "beating a war drum". This is now the 6th tanker that we've blamed Iran for attacking and we're no closer to "war" with Iran than we were ever, because we haven't been close to war with Iran with Trump as President.

As I said earlier, people bitched about Trump when he wanted to remove troops from Syria since they were demanding we stay there and kill Iranians to curb their influence. You can't have it both ways. You can't tell me he's too soft when trying to remove troops from Syria and then tell me he's a war-crazed maniac hellbent on fighting a war that he has vowed NOT to wage.

We should reexamine all of the predictions made about a trump presidency sometime. War with China, war with North Korea, war with Iran, stock market crashes, rise of fascism, rise of Naziism, widespread loss of bladder control, increased gun violence, Russia invading eastern Europe, Israel attacking Iran, Apple relocating their headquarters to Europe, Mama Cass coming back from the dead as a sandwich crazed zombie, California seceding, abortion doctors being imprisoned, our credit rating being downgraded, global warming causing the entire panhandle of Florida to be lost to flooding or hurricanes, the internet will be shutdown.


The American left should just refocus their attention on writing fiction novels that become underperforming movies because that's pretty much all they are good at.

 

[Cubs79]

No, you're just inventing stuff now. Imposing sanctions and rightfully calling out Iran for their terrorism and support of proxies across the region is not "beating a war drum". This is now the 6th tanker that we've blamed Iran for attacking and we're no closer to "war" with Iran than we were ever, because we haven't been close to war with Iran with Trump as President.

As I said earlier, people bitched about Trump when he wanted to remove troops from Syria since they were demanding we stay there and kill Iranians to curb their influence. You can't have it both ways. You can't tell me he's too soft when trying to remove troops from Syria and then tell me he's a war-crazed maniac hellbent on fighting a war that he has vowed NOT to wage.

I didn't tell you he was too was soft when trying to remove troops from Syria, that would have mostly been the military brass who you are referring to. I am all for getting out of the ME as much as we can. So not sure why you are telling me I am trying to have it both ways.

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/20/18632247/trump-iran-end-threat-twitter-north-korea
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/world/middleeast/trump-threatens-iran-twitter.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/19/politics/trump-iran-threat-tweet/index.html

He has been threatening Iran for almost a year.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I didn't tell you he was too was soft when trying to remove troops from Syria, that would have mostly been the military brass who you are referring to. I am all for getting out of the ME as much as we can. So not sure why you are telling me I am trying to have it both ways.

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/20/18632247/trump-iran-end-threat-twitter-north-korea
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/world/middleeast/trump-threatens-iran-twitter.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/19/politics/trump-iran-threat-tweet/index.html

He has been threatening Iran for almost a year.

No, that would have been 100% of the lefties on this board who assured me that Mattis leaving was a sign that the Trump presidency was on the verge of collapse and he was too soft for trying to pull out of that place. Maybe you weren't around then but everything you've posted since arriving has been left leaning too.

Reminding Iran that we'll impose horrible costs on them IF they attack our forces or allies in the region is different than WANTING war which, as the NYT pointed out last month, Trump absolutely does not want. You are again confusing pressure and bolstering our regional allies to deter Iran as Trump actually wanting a war with them. Very lazy analysis here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/world/middleeast/iran-war-donald-trump.html

 

[sk8knight]

I don't think we have to have all the information. I think everyone understands there is going to be classified information that the public wont have access to. At the same time, I don't think the public should be expected to believe our government when they provide little to no evidence. We just did that with Iraq and it was a disaster.

I really wish all of the intel from Iraq was declassified. There’s a reason that senators from both sides of the aisle voted for action after seeing it.

The no evidence narrative is bullshit. Aside from the elaborate case that Sec. Powell presented to the UN Sec Council in the open, there were numerous classified meeting held on the Hill, amongst NATO, and at the UN. You don’t just violate international treaties and laws on a whim or to settle your daddy’s score. There’s so much that goes into it that everyone went in with open eyes and all of the information we had. That media narrative was always garbage. I could give you facts but I’m not going to federal prison.

It’s proving my point though. They laid out a measured, clear, and convincing case and it didn’t matter. You didn’t accept it. I was frustrated then and am now that Bush took the tact of letting the media cycle pass by and hoping it would go away rather than correcting the bullshit. None of it matters though because you wouldn’t believe any of it anyways.

 

[Cubs79]

I really wish all of the intel from Iraq was declassified. There’s a reason that senators from both sides of the aisle voted for action after seeing it.

The no evidence narrative is bullshit. Aside from the elaborate case that Sec. Powell presented to the UN Sec Council in the open, there were numerous classified meeting held on the Hill, amongst NATO, and at the UN. You don’t just violate international treaties and laws on a whim or to settle your daddy’s score. There’s so much that goes into it that everyone went in with open eyes and all of the information we had. That media narrative was always garbage. I could give you facts but I’m not going to federal prison.

It’s proving my point though. They laid out a measured, clear, and convincing case and it didn’t matter. You didn’t accept it. I was frustrated then and am now that Bush took the tact of letting the media cycle pass by and hoping it would go away rather than correcting the bullshit. None of it matters though because you wouldn’t believe any of it anyways.

They laid out a clear and convincing case for what?

What is your point? That we should just accept whatever our government tells us? That seems to be your point, and sorry, I reject that. Not only is it ridiculous that we should just automatically believe things with no evidence, it would also be bad for America if our citizens became that disengaged.

 

[sk8knight]

They laid out a clear and convincing case for what?

What is your point? That we should just accept whatever our government tells us? That seems to be your point, and sorry, I reject that. Not only is it ridiculous that we should just automatically believe things with no evidence, it would also be bad for America if our citizens became that disengaged.

My point is that our government methodically presented a case for enforcing the numerous security resolutions against Iraq. Yet you said there was “little no evidence”. You also act like you have a reasonable amount of skepticism when in actuality you pick and choose what you’re going to believe and what you’re going to wholesale dismiss and I’m guessing it falls largely around what the Democrats want you to believe. That is partisanship not skepticism.

 

[Ucfmikes]

They laid out a clear and convincing case for what?

What is your point? That we should just accept whatever our government tells us? That seems to be your point, and sorry, I reject that. Not only is it ridiculous that we should just automatically believe things with no evidence, it would also be bad for America if our citizens became that disengaged.

Just because the evidence isn’t immediately available to us, does not mean that there is not convincing evidence. In this day and age, If news isn’t readily available to the public, it’s like it doesn’t exist You don’t have access, so that is your problem. You aren’t being made to believe anything

Case in point is what Mexico is doing since Trump threatened tariffs. That was called made up until facts started to emerge

 

[Cubs79]

My point is that our government methodically presented a case for enforcing the numerous security resolutions against Iraq. Yet you said there was “little no evidence”. You also act like you have a reasonable amount of skepticism when in actuality you pick and choose what you’re going to believe and what you’re going to wholesale dismiss and I’m guessing it falls largely around what the Democrats want you to believe. That is partisanship not skepticism.

THey presented a case that was BS.

I pick and choose what I am going to believe? What do you base that on? I havent been on this board or posted here nearly long enough for you to know what I believe or dont believe, so I reject that premise that you laid out based on nothing. I have plenty of problems with Democrats, especially their foreign policy, Libya, drones, etc etc etc.

 

[Crazyhole]

THey presented a case that was BS.

I pick and choose what I am going to believe? What do you base that on? I havent been on this board or posted here nearly long enough for you to know what I believe or dont believe, so I reject that premise that you laid out based on nothing. I have plenty of problems with Democrats, especially their foreign policy, Libya, drones, etc etc etc.

Typical red hat wearing idiot.

 

[Cubs79]

Just because the evidence isn’t immediately available to us, does not mean that there is not convincing evidence. In this day and age, If news isn’t readily available to the public, it’s like it doesn’t exist You don’t have access, so that is your problem. You aren’t being made to believe anything

Case in point is what Mexico is doing since Trump threatened tariffs. That was called made up until facts started to emerge

Huh? THe Iraq war started in 2003. How in the world are you trying to put something that started 16 years ago in the context of "not immediately available to us".

What you are also seem to be implying, is that you believe what the government tells you, no questions asked. I think that is a dangerous attitude. We know the government has lied to us over the years, that simply isnt debatable.

 

[Cubs79]

Typical red hat wearing idiot.

I have no clue what this means.

 

[Crazyhole]

I have no clue what this means.

Not surprising for a trump supporter. Your parents were probably siblings. Does Mike need to get the crayons out for you?

 

[Cubs79]

Not surprising for a trump supporter. Your parents were probably siblings. Does Mike need to get the crayons out for you?

Huh? Where do you get the idea I am a Trump supporter? And nobody cares about your stupid insults on a rivals forum, do better and actually have a point every now and then.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Huh? Where do you get the idea I am a Trump supporter? And nobody cares about your stupid insults on a rivals forum, do better and actually have a point every now and then.

Crazy is suuuuuuuper butthurt about getting called out for his asinine viewpoints, so instead of fixing them he's shitting all over this board in a further embarrassment to himself and his shitty state.

 

[Cubs79]

Crazy is suuuuuuuper butthurt about getting called out for his asinine viewpoints, so instead of fixing them he's shitting all over this board in a further embarrassment to himself and his shitty state.

I have no clue how he can read my posts and come away with the idea I am a Trump supporter.

 

[sk8knight]

THey presented a case that was BS.

I pick and choose what I am going to believe? What do you base that on? I havent been on this board or posted here nearly long enough for you to know what I believe or dont believe, so I reject that premise that you laid out based on nothing. I have plenty of problems with Democrats, especially their foreign policy, Libya, drones, etc etc etc.

Like I said, you’re picking what you want to believe. That’s fine. Just acknowledge it.

 

[NinjaKnight]

I have no clue how he can read my posts and come away with the idea I am a Trump supporter.

I'm fairly certain the original crazy has been abducted and replaced by a brain dead house salad. He has been posting nothing but straight up insane shit or 100% lies non stop for the last 72 hours. We might need DS to do a wellness check to see what happened.

 

[Cubs79]

Like I said, you’re picking what you want to believe. That’s fine. Just acknowledge it.

I dont know what this means. Everyone picks whats they want to believe. You could choose to believe that clouds are made of marshmallows if you wanted to, but you wouldnt have any evidence to base your belief on. I dont base my beliefs on partisan politics, Democrats mostly suck too, I based my beliefs on actual evidence, which is reasonable and rational.

 

[NinjaKnight]

I dont know what this means. Everyone picks whats they want to believe. You could choose to believe that clouds are made of marshmallows if you wanted to, but you wouldnt have any evidence to base your belief on. I dont base my beliefs on partisan politics, Democrats mostly suck too, I based my beliefs on actual evidence, which is reasonable and rational.

I feel like you should know that you are attempting to debate with someone (@sk8knight ) who has said on here that he doesn't believe Trump has told 5k lies.

You are trying to use logic and facts to sway someone out of their belief system that they did not arrive at using logic and facts. So it's really not going to work.

 

[Crazyhole]

I have no clue how he can read my posts and come away with the idea I am a Trump supporter.

Typical inbred redhat idiot. SAD!!!