This is the typical right wing side of the BBC showing through. Toeing the US Propaganda line.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There doesn't appear to be a "why" in that article. It says "Iran is under pressure", sure, ok, it then says "they have been pursuing strategic patience" ok, cool... then "but 5hey may be attacking ships now"
I’m certain that will be done at least by one of the attacked tankers. Besides the chemical residue, there will be the damage itself with mines and artillery shells leaving different signatures.Explosives are often identified by the residue. Formulations of explosives can point to a source but not to the perp necessarily.
Get those tankers to a place where a forensic investigation can be done, hopefully by a third party.
Yes, those were the Dutch and Norwegian tankers. You didn’t read far enough:What the article actually said:
The crews of both vessels were evacuated to other ships nearby. Both Iran and the US later released pictures showing rescued crew members on board their vessels.
They’re intimidating all tankers. Notice that, so far, there have been no deaths and no sinkings unlike the last tanker war. The Iranians are giving a measured message here. The message being “We own the Gulf and the Strait. Respect us”. They’d also like the sanctions to be eased.Why would Iran want to intimidate Japan? This is the crux question you're not answering
W. H. Y. would Iran want to intimidate Japan? How do they expect to materially benefit? Note also your "explanation" fails to address the fact that Iran is strongly denying responsibility. That seems counter productive if they're trying to intimidate anyone.They’re intimidating all tankers. Notice that, so far, there have been no deaths and no sinkings unlike the last tanker war. The Iranians are giving a measured message here. The message being “We own the Gulf and the Strait. Respect us”. They’d also like the sanctions to be eased.
Scroll up please: They’re hitting several tankers of several nations, not just Japan. Probably more luck than specific targeting.W. H. Y. would Iran want to intimidate Japan? How do they expect to materially benefit? Note also your "explanation" fails to address the fact that Iran is strongly denying responsibility. That seems counter productive if they're trying to intimidate anyone.
It makes you wonder where the United Nations is? You think that's why they were set up after World War II, cast in the role as an international watchdog and peacekeeping contingent.
Because the Bolton et al want a war, are on record as wanting to attack Iran, and believe they will benefit from it. I see no obvious benefit to the Iranians. The US also has a proven past record in starting wars of convenience over false pretenses... often involving false flag attacks on shipping. Fool me once...Scroll up please: They’re hitting several tankers of several nations, not just Japan. Probably more luck than specific targeting.
Why do you think it’s the Jews, the US, Saudi Arabia or whatever the conspiracy theory of the day may be?
Thank you for your highly biased, one-sided view of the situation.Because the Bolton et al want a war, are on record as wanting to attack Iran, and believe they will benefit from it. I see no obvious benefit to the Iranians. The US also has a proven past record in starting wars of convenience over false pretenses... often involving false flag attacks on shipping. Fool me once...
Basic pattern recognition and historical knowledge = bias. Sure thing.Thank you for your highly biased, one-sided view of the situation.
You are free to believe whatever you like, but I strongly doubt all of this showmanship on both sides will start a war.
Agreed. OTOH, haters gonna hate. It’s interesting to identify the anti-Americans who nitpick at everything, including throwing in false or deceptive comments, but never, ever see any wrong with Russian, Iran, China or anyone else before or after the Cold War.This thread is garbage and the title is misleading. The Japanese owner admits he is making assumptions and guessing. He knows nothing of what actually happened.
I'm pro-American. But being "pro" something doesn't mean ignoring past faults. I'm also happy to criticise Russia, Iran, China and anyone else who warrants it, when they're not being invoked as a whataboutism to avoid the topic at hand.Agreed. OTOH, haters gonna hate. It’s interesting to identify the anti-Americans who nitpick at everything, including throwing in false or deceptive comments, but never, ever see any wrong with Russian, Iran, China or anyone else before or after the Cold War.
QED my pro-British forum member.I'm pro-American. But being "pro" something doesn't mean ignoring past faults. I'm also happy to criticise Russia, Iran, China and anyone else who warrants it, when they're not being invoked as a whataboutism to avoid the topic at hand.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...O8yndM1cRqf_wccHuhQyi4&utm_term=.92b0cb00b975
Whole thing screams "Gulf of Tonkin" louder and louder.
... your point?
...okay?QED my pro-British forum member.
Why would Iran want to intimidate Japan? This is the crux question you're not answering