Flying mines?

helmut · Jun 15, 2019

According to Trump and his administration, the two oil ships damaged in the Strait of Hormuz were attacked by Iran. There is even a video which should prove that. It shows a boat (allegedly from the revolutionary guard of Iran) which seems to remove something (allegedly a sea mine) from one of the oil ships.

But according to the seamen on board, the vessel was attacked by a flying device. So what should we conclude?

1. There are flying sea-mines.

2. The US navy interpreted the video in a wrong way, it does not show what they think it shows.

3. The video is a fake, the US DoD knows it does not show what is alleged. Remember the fake news that were used to charge Iraq with the nine-eleven-attack (as everybody knows, there was no real connection to Saddam Hussein).

What do you think: Which option is the true one (in Your opinion)?

Curtis.Hilliker · Jun 15, 2019

I’m not sure maybe the flying attack was a drone bomb that happened because the mine didn’t go off?

helmut · Jun 15, 2019

Curtis.Hilliker said:
I’m not sure maybe the flying attack was a drone bomb that happened because the mine didn’t go off?

Or it was a drone by someone (Saudi-Arabia, for instance) who wants Iran to be attacked by the US.

And don't forget: The US have lied to justify the second gulf war (2003), and the present president is known to be a notorious liar - so what should prevent me from taking this video as sheer fake?

W2L · Jun 15, 2019

the mine was a tracking device for the drone?

KWCrazy · Jun 15, 2019

helmut said:
Remember the fake news that were used to charge Iraq with the nine-eleven-attack (as everybody knows, there was no real connection to Saddam Hussein).

Please remove this lie.
There was no connection claimed that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack, only that Hussein was the world's largest sponsor of terrorism, which is true, and that there was a terrorist training camp at Salmon Pak with an airline fuselage to help train skyjackers. Liberal liars made accusations such as yours from the beginning, but nobody in the government ever charged Hussein with complicity in those attacks.

helmut · Jun 15, 2019

KWCrazy said:
Please remove this lie.
There was no connection claimed that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack,

Well, G.W. Bush said so. At least, he hinted at connections between Hussein and his enemy bin Laden.

KWCrazy said:
only that Hussein was the world's largest sponsor of terrorism, which is true,

Any evidence of that? Most of the money for al qa'ida came from sponsors in Saudi-Arabia and Qatar.

Did Hussein really give more than that, or more than the US gave to the "contra" terrorists?

KWCrazy · Jun 15, 2019

helmut said:
Well, G.W. Bush said so. At least, he hinted at connections between Hussein and his enemy bin Laden.

The CIA said there were connections between Hussein and bin Laden, and the CIA consisted mostly of Clinton holdovers at that point.
We know with certainty that Iraq and bin Laden's representatives met on numerous occasions over the years. The commission report, in fact, says: The panel said that bin Laden made overtures to Saddam Hussein for assistance, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army. The report said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, even though the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for “anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.”

Bin Laden ceased that support in the early 1990s, opening the way for a meeting between the al-Qaida leader and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 in Sudan, the report said. At the meeting, bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps in Iraq as well as Iraqi assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded, the staff report said.
source

Any evidence of that?

The whole world knew it. Where were you?
What kind of support has Iraq given terrorists?
Safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:

Abu Nidal, who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.
Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15.
Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI’s "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000. Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may have hoped to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq.
source

Seriously, are you misinformed about history or so blinded by leftist propaganda you can't remember what was going on 20 years ago?

Curtis.Hilliker · Jun 15, 2019

helmut said:
Or it was a drone by someone (Saudi-Arabia, for instance) who wants Iran to be attacked by the US.

And don't forget: The US have lied to justify the second gulf war (2003), and the present president is known to be a notorious liar - so what should prevent me from taking this video as sheer fake?

The video looks real to me, not sure how you could fake something that well. What is there to gain by them falsifying a video and then doing nothing about it?

helmut · Jun 15, 2019

Curtis.Hilliker said:
The video looks real to me, not sure how you could fake something that well. What is there to gain by them falsifying a video and then doing nothing about it?

There is no hint when the video was taken.

You cannot see what kind of uniform the guys are wearing.

The thing removed could be almost anything.

helmut · Jun 15, 2019

KWCrazy said:
We know with certainty that Iraq and bin Laden's representatives met on numerous occasions over the years.

"Numerous"c is an exaggeration. And there were some contacts between CIA and bin Laden's representatives, too. Meeting is not the same than supporting.

KWCrazy said:

The commission report, in fact, says: The panel said that bin Laden made overtures to Saddam Hussein for assistance,

Click to expand...

It does not tell he had any success. To the contrary, your source says:

In spite of several discussions over the space of a decade, al Qaida and Iraq did not reach any agreements or cooperate in any way.

KWCrazy said:
Seriously, are you misinformed about history or so blinded by leftist propaganda you can't remember what was going on 20 years ago?

I did not say that Iraq supported no terrorists, I pointed out that there were others (I named the USA, but could also point tom Libya) who supported terrorism. It s a difference between "supporter of terrorists" and "largest sponsor of terrorism".

Sponsor focuses on money. And largest implies a comparison.

KWCrazy · Jun 15, 2019

helmut said:
It does not tell he had any success. To the contrary, your source says:

In spite of several discussions over the space of a decade, al Qaida and Iraq did not reach any agreements or cooperate in any way.

That's directly with al Qaida.
An internal Iraqi Intelligence document reports that Iraqis have "good relations" with Hekmatyar and that his organization "relies on financial support from Iraq." At precisely the same time, Hekmatyar "worked closely" with Osama bin Laden and his Afghani Islamic Party hosted "al Qaeda's terrorist training camps" in eastern Afghanistan.

The IIS document also reveals that Saddam was funding another close ally of bin Laden, the EIJ organization of Ayman al Zawahiri. source

So Hussein was providing financial support to a group working with al Qaida and was funding another ally of bin Laden. Split hairs much?

I did not say that Iraq supported no terrorists, I pointed out that there were others (I named the USA, but could also point tom Libya) who supported terrorism. It s a difference between "supporter of terrorists" and "largest sponsor of terrorism".

Sponsor focuses on money. And largest implies a comparison.

Some may contend Iraq was the biggest sponsor of terror and some would credit Iran with that. No doubt now it's Iran.
One point that is often missed in the debate over Saddam Hussein’s terror connections is the fact that his regime was the only one to not condemn the 9/11 attacks and the only one to publicly celebrate them. It would have been grossly negligent and irresponsible for the U.S. to not focus on removing a state sponsor of terrorism that honored the 9/11 attacks, trained terrorists to commit further attacks, had a track record that gave every indication of future aggression. source

It's all a moot point. Hussein is where he belongs and so is bin Laden.

Ophiolite · Jun 16, 2019

helmut said:
What do you think: Which option is the true one (in Your opinion)?

At this point I would disregard (possibly on a permanent basis) anyone who was foolish/ignorant enough to have a declared opinion on the matter. The information available to the public at this point is wholly inadequate to form a judgement on such a critical matter.

(As an aside, I don't think the options you presented adequately represent several plausible alternatives.)

When we consider the usual trio from the TV crime drama, "means, motivation and opportunity" there are several possible players and the evidence is consistent with all of them.

helmut · Jun 18, 2019

KWCrazy said:
That's directly with al Qaida.
An internal Iraqi Intelligence document reports that Iraqis have "good relations" with Hekmatyar and that his organization "relies on financial support from Iraq." At precisely the same time, Hekmatyar "worked closely" with Osama bin Laden and his Afghani Islamic Party hosted "al Qaeda's terrorist training camps" in eastern Afghanistan.

You are using a dirty trick: When Hekmatyar joined with al-Qa'ida, Saddam Hussein was already dead. By choosing a source from 2008 which mentions Hekmatyar's turn in 2006, you try to give the impression that Hekmatyar was with bin Laden in 2001-03.

KWCrazy said:
So Hussein was providing financial support to a group working with al Qaida

No, he supported a group that worked with al Qa'ida when the support from Saddam Hussein was gone. Presumably al Qa'ida still had enough financial resources to support that group ...

KWCrazy said:
Some may contend Iraq was the biggest sponsor of terror and some would credit Iran with that. No doubt now it's Iran.

You forgot the Saudis. Whether Iran or Saudi-Arabia is bigger in financing Islamists that support terrorists (i.e. indirectly financing terrorism), is an open question. And don't forget Qatar.

Saudi Arabia is the most dangerous Islamist enemy of the West, because it masks itself as a friend.

KWCrazy said:
It's all a moot point. Hussein is where he belongs and so is bin Laden.

The point was that the US government lied. Remember the non-existent nuclear program of Saddam Hussein? If he ever had one, it ended years before with an Israeli attack on his nuclear plant (in construction, AFAIK no radioactive substances was there, the rise in radioactivity in Iraq is due to US DU-ammunition used in the wars).

mindlight · Jun 28, 2019

helmut said:
According to Trump and his administration, the two oil ships damaged in the Strait of Hormuz were attacked by Iran. There is even a video which should prove that. It shows a boat (allegedly from the revolutionary guard of Iran) which seems to remove something (allegedly a sea mine) from one of the oil ships.

But according to the seamen on board, the vessel was attacked by a flying device. So what should we conclude?

1. There are flying sea-mines.

2. The US navy interpreted the video in a wrong way, it does not show what they think it shows.

3. The video is a fake, the US DoD knows it does not show what is alleged. Remember the fake news that were used to charge Iraq with the nine-eleven-attack (as everybody knows, there was no real connection to Saddam Hussein).

What do you think: Which option is the true one (in Your opinion)?

Don't know or none of the above could also be an option. The evidence is rather scanty. There was a mine and it appears the Iranians tried to remove that evidence but were caught on camera doing so. Most people regard the video and its time/ location frame as real. The drone if it existed could have been just surveillance and misinterpreted by skittish sailors. Everyone has drones these days so who it belonged to is anyone's guess.

Point 3 reference to 911 is dubious. But I note others have already debunked the false assumptions in that.

mindlight · Jun 28, 2019

helmut said:
Saudi Arabia is the most dangerous Islamist enemy of the West, because it masks itself as a friend.

Agreed, the American alliance with a sunni Saudia Arabia worried about a Shia Iranian bomb and sponsorship of terrorism in Yemen and Syria is a definite background factor here. But both Turkey and Israel are also not that interested in an Iranian bomb.

helmut · Jul 3, 2019

mindlight said:
Don't know or none of the above could also be an option. The evidence is rather scanty. There was a mine and it appears the Iranians tried to remove that evidence but were caught on camera doing so.

This is the official version, but it is no clear whether it is correct or a fake.

And since mines don't fly, whatever the Iranians removed (if they did), it was no mine.

Robban · Jul 5, 2019

Flying mines?

Member

Now what.......

Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Member

Newbie

Now what.......

Member

Member

Newbie

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Member

See in the dark

See in the dark

Member

-----------

Similar threads