It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jeremy Corbyn challenges UK government's Iran accusations on oil tanker attacks

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
Another demonstration why Corbyn is unfit to lead the country. Not that he questions things, which I think he absolutely should do, but how he goes about it.

The Shadow Foreign Affairs spokesman on the radio earlier was defending Corbyn (as you would expect) by basically implying Iran would never do such a thing and the UK are stoking war by suggesting that the evidence points to Iran. How dare the UK take a position which points an accusing finger.


I wouldn't say they're not capable, Iran is more than capable of this. However, without calling them stylish they do tend to have a style. They're not afraid of controversy to make a point. History shows that.


To add, leadership seems a funny old concept these days. Trump's different, he's the leader of the free world... I don't like politicians but the one thing I like about Corbyn is his consistency, at least he's not wishy washy on his convictions.

Btw, nobody is fit to lead... Till a naked lass in a lake throws a sword off some poor unsuspecting fools head

edit on 15-6-2019 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990


Maybe a warning to tow a particular line at G20 Osaka?



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

So all I have to do is help someone after I attack them and I am the good guy and can't possibly have done anything wrong?



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Corbyn is an utterly spineless lefty apologist unfit to lead a red flag sing along, let alone a country.

I agree that proper evidence should be supplied when the stakes are high. However this weasel of a politician questions everything including the Salisbury poisonings with Novichok.

His loyalties are with the far left and indeed the Muslim/Arab ‘freedom’ fighters. He is an anti Semite and an abhorrent human being.

Well anyway, that’s his good points covered. a reply to: RAY1990


edit on 15-6-2019 by ARM1968 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

Think they is speculation of limpet mines being used to damage these oil tankers.

It could have been anyone really.

But with Trump wanting another 4 years to rule the playground, and Iran being on the world bank list of your nations next palaver, my bets on it being American or one of her allies that's responsible for the damage.



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

We backed the invasion of Iraq on the basis of 'Intelligence evidence' of Weapons of Mass Destruction being present.

We still haven't found any.

Nothing to do with the then PM Blair having his pecker in the pocket of the CIA of course.

All Hunt is doing is saying 'yasem boss' to his owners on the hill

As for Corbyn he is only asking the right question - where is the credible evidence?

For my money it was Putin.



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doxanoxa
a reply to: RAY1990

We backed the invasion of Iraq on the basis of 'Intelligence evidence' of Weapons of Mass Destruction being present.

We still haven't found any.

Nothing to do with the then PM Blair having his pecker in the pocket of the CIA of course.

All Hunt is doing is saying 'yasem boss' to his owners on the hill

As for Corbyn he is only asking the right question - where is the credible evidence?

For my money it was Putin.




"For my money it was Putin" - hence my link to the Japanese connection and the G20 Osaka.

Putin wants islands?????



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: CthruU



I don't know about it being Putin or Russia, i mean its rather clear who has them surrounded.

Was Japan not about to possibly play nice or at least initiate talks with Iran?

Strange time for them to be taking out tankers.



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doxanoxa
a reply to: RAY1990

We backed the invasion of Iraq on the basis of 'Intelligence evidence' of Weapons of Mass Destruction being present.


That's only partly true. They had documents proving the WMD were there. It is likely they were moved at the start of the invasion. It is believed that Syria's chemical weapons came from Iraq.

www.weeklystandard.com...



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Believed???

Some real evidence might be nice next time before we initiate Gulfwar Mark III.

There was never any significant WMD found in Iraq because there was none aside from the Scuds we took out in the first round.
edit on 15-6-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: RAY1990

So all I have to do is help someone after I attack them and I am the good guy and can't possibly have done anything wrong?


Is that a quote referencing the USS Liberty?

This stinks of a false flag operation. There are agencies from countries that would greenlight such an operation in order to spark conflict with Iran.


edit on 15-6-2019 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

We have evidence they were there. It is not known what happened to them. Obama's admin who has zero reason to support Bush acknowledged this. If I kill someone and when you get the search warrant I move the gun to my neighbor's house does that mean I never had the gun?



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990



This is simply John Bolton's wet dream really.



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Whether it is or is not saying Iraq helped them is not evidence Iraq was not involved.



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




It is likely they were moved at the start of the invasion.

I find it more likely that's an excuse for their absence from the proponents of the myth , the belief that Iraq could have moved anything while being the most watched country in the world at the time is fantasy.



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

"We have evidence they were there. It is not known what happened to them. Obama's admin who has zero reason to support Bush acknowledged this."

Can i see the evidence please or a link to such or is it a secret?


" If I kill someone and when you get the search warrant I move the gun to my neighbor's house does that mean I never had the gun?"

Evidence mates the ticket, this is speculation at best.



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake


Japan still ongoing issues with Russia re islands(xww2), out of the blue offers mediation between iran/usa.

Japan warned by putin at last meeting - on wrong side of the fence come match day. Japan still reeling at what happened to stop them ww2 it doesn't want it happening again from Russia/china/iran etc so japan cornered into believing many dogs bite harder than just one.

The deadline for japans commitment in totality to the east is G20.

To prevent both a initial first strike from usa and allies for its turncoating and their people reliving the nightmare they agree initially to swap sides but hide it till ?.

For them it's purely about survival at any cost, theres no true love for Western ways remember they never voluntarily surrendered until leveled in a manner unseen in conflict before.

Russia not convinced so sends a reminder. Hence one ship a mine and one above waterline projectile.

The mine apparently taken of by iran was a attempt to tie the two attacks to a common denominator by whoever???? is initiating the attacks on the other ships to date.

Nothing more than a very dangerous chess game where perhaps a single player from both ends thinks their playing the computer but the computer is actually someone else.

Being surrounded i think isn’t so much an issue if you've got friends with extreme capabilities. And that's friends not just friend.

Anyway my take in a broad nutshell.




edit on 15-6-2019 by CthruU because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-6-2019 by CthruU because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: CthruU

It's a theory, ile give you that.

One of many i suppose.

Further study is obviously required, but if it was Iran, and they have already said they were going to react to the situation in the straights, then why not come out and admit it?

And why become the first responders(Least that my understanding) and attempt to help the crews and injured?



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Because they gain from acting, they do not gain from admitting it. If they can hurt shipping and get away with it because it can't be tied back to them then it's perfect for them.

Rushing in to help paints them as the good guy, why wouldn't they.

They hurt shipping, which they want to do to make the US back off.
They can't be implicated and face no repercussions.
They offer aid and end up being the good guy in the situation they caused.

Now I can not say that is what happened, but it would be the absolutely perfect scenario for them.
edit on 15-6-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Agreed. Undecided at this stage but that is one of the last dots to connect.

They say after all - " A leopard can't change it's spots".



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join