Let me try on that tinfoil hat for a second. Not just oil prices, but any excuse to attack Iran is the goal of members of the US, and other governments in my view.
Let me try on that tinfoil hat for a second. Not just oil prices, but any excuse to attack Iran is the goal of members of the US, and other governments in my view.
I have to say, with a Norwegian vessel being hit last time with the sabotaged hulls, and a Norwegian-owned vessel being one of the two attacked today (the other being Panamanian), the theory that...
I have to say, with a Norwegian vessel being hit last time with the sabotaged hulls, and a Norwegian-owned vessel being one of the two attacked today (the other being Panamanian), the theory that countries who won't retaliate militarily are being targeted by Iran seems slightly more plausible.
Is whoever's attacking these ships trying to push up oil prices? Obviously. But there are a number of countries who could be responsible, singly or in conjunction with others. Oil props up a lot of governments that shouldn't be in power and gain their support from throwing money at things.
Not at all suspicious, given the large number of "Iranian" submarines in those waters, right? /s Would not for a second, doubt that this is a false flag. The warmongers are getting restless. You...
Not at all suspicious, given the large number of "Iranian" submarines in those waters, right? /s
Would not for a second, doubt that this is a false flag. The warmongers are getting restless. You can't sell arms to countries if they don't get to use up the old ones and you can't use up arms if you don't have an enemy. Sometimes 'follow the money' is indeed the simplest explanation.
At least there is still some sanity. Senator Tulsi Gabbard is arguing hard against going to war with Iran and managed to include it in the Armed Services bill. She's done an awesome job:...
Let me try on that tinfoil hat for a second. Not just oil prices, but any excuse to attack Iran is the goal of members of the US, and other governments in my view.
I have to say, with a Norwegian vessel being hit last time with the sabotaged hulls, and a Norwegian-owned vessel being one of the two attacked today (the other being Panamanian), the theory that countries who won't retaliate militarily are being targeted by Iran seems slightly more plausible.
Is whoever's attacking these ships trying to push up oil prices? Obviously. But there are a number of countries who could be responsible, singly or in conjunction with others. Oil props up a lot of governments that shouldn't be in power and gain their support from throwing money at things.
Not at all suspicious, given the large number of "Iranian" submarines in those waters, right? /s
Would not for a second, doubt that this is a false flag. The warmongers are getting restless. You can't sell arms to countries if they don't get to use up the old ones and you can't use up arms if you don't have an enemy. Sometimes 'follow the money' is indeed the simplest explanation.
At least there is still some sanity. Senator Tulsi Gabbard is arguing hard against going to war with Iran and managed to include it in the Armed Services bill. She's done an awesome job: https://www.facebook.com/TulsiGabbard/videos/2429372647349842/?t=158