Saudi Arabia oil facilities ablaze after drone strikes

  
Via:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  77 comments

Saudi Arabia oil facilities ablaze after drone strikes
He said Saturday's attack was one of the biggest operations the Houthi forces had undertaken inside Saudi Arabia and was carried out in "co-operation with the honourable people inside the kingdom". Saudi Arabia is said to be shutting down around half of its oil output, the Wall Street Journal reports.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Drone attacks have set alight two major oil facilities run by the state-owned company Aramco in Saudi Arabia, state media say.

Footage showed a huge blaze at Abqaiq, site of Aramco's largest oil processing plant, while a second drone attack started fires in the Khurais oilfield.

The fires are now under control at both facilities, state media said.

A spokesman for the Iran-aligned Houthi group in Yemen said it had deployed 10 drones in the attacks.

The military spokesman, Yahya Sarea, told al-Masirah TV, which is owned by the Houthi movement and is based in Beirut, that further attacks could be expected in the future.

He said Saturday's attack was one of the biggest operations the Houthi forces had undertaken inside Saudi Arabia and was carried out in "co-operation with the honourable people inside the kingdom".

Saudi Arabia is said to be shutting down around half of its oil output,   the Wall Street Journal reports .

Officials have not yet commented on who they think is behind the attacks.

"At 04:00 (01:00 GMT), the industrial security teams of Aramco started dealing with fires at two of its facilities in Abqaiq and Khurais as a result of... drones," the official Saudi Press Agency reported.
"The two fires have been controlled."
_108807926_saudiabqaiq29760919.png

There have been no details on the damage but Agence France-Presse quoted interior ministry spokesman Mansour al-Turki as saying there were no casualties.

Abqaiq is about 60km (37 miles) south-west of Dhahran in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, while Khurais, some 200km further south-west, has the country's second largest oilfield.

Saudi security forces foiled an attempt by al-Qaeda to attack the Abqaiq facility with suicide bombers in 2006.


An attack method open to all


Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence and diplomatic correspondent

This latest attack underlines the strategic threat posed by the Houthis to Saudi Arabia's oil installations.

The growing sophistication of the Houthis' drone operations is bound to renew the debate as to where this capability comes from. Have the Houthis simply weaponised commercial civilian drones or have they had significant assistance from Iran?

The Trump administration is likely to point the finger squarely at Tehran, but experts vary in the extent to which they think Iran is facilitating the drone campaign.

The Saudi Air Force has been pummelling targets in Yemen for years. Now the Houthis have a capable, if much more limited, ability to strike back. It shows that the era of armed drone operations being restricted to a handful of major nations is now over.

Drone technology - albeit of varying degrees of sophistication - is available to all; from the US to China, Israel and Iran... and from the Houthis to Hezbolllah.

Markets await news from key facilities


Analysis by BBC business correspondent Katie Prescott

Aramco ranks as the world's largest oil business and these facilities are significant.

The Khurais oilfield produces about 1% of the world's oil and Abqaiq is the company's largest facility - with the capacity to process 7% of the global supply. Even a brief or partial disruption could affect the company, and the oil supply, given their size.

But whether this will have an impact on the oil price come Monday will depend on just how extensive the damage is. Markets now have the weekend to digest information from Aramco and assess the long-term impact.

According to Richard Mallinson, geopolitical analyst at Energy Aspects, any reaction on Monday morning is likely to be muted, as markets are less worried about supply than demand at the moment, due to slower global economic growth and the ongoing trade war between the US and China.

However, there are concerns that escalating tensions in the region could pose a broader risk, potentially threatening the fifth of the world's oil supply that goes through the critical Strait of Hormuz.


Who are the Houthis?


The Iran-aligned Houthi rebel movement has been fighting the Yemeni government and a Saudi-led coalition.

Yemen has been at war since 2015, when President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi was forced to flee the capital Sanaa by the Houthis. Saudi Arabia backs President Hadi, and has led a coalition of regional countries against the rebels.

The coalition launches air strikes almost every day, while the Houthis often fire missiles into Saudi Arabia.

Mr Sarea, the Houthi group's military spokesman, told al-Masirah that operations against Saudi targets would "only grow wider and will be more painful than before, so long as their aggression and blockade continues".
_108808391_056189078-1.jpg

Houthi fighters were blamed for drone attacks on the Shaybah natural gas liquefaction facility last month and on other oil facilities in May.

There have been other sources of tension in the region, often stemming from the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Saudi Arabia and the US both blamed Iran for attacks in the Gulf on two oil tankers in June and July, allegations Tehran denied.

In May, four tankers, two of them Saudi-flagged, were damaged by explosions within the UAE's territorial waters in the Gulf of Oman.

Saudi Arabia and then US National Security Adviser John Bolton blamed Iran. Tehran said the accusations were "ridiculous".

Tension in the vital shipping lanes worsened when Iran shot down a US surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz in June, leading a month later to   the Pentagon announcing the deployment of US troops to Saudi Arabia .


Article is Locked

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

President Donald Trump said in a tweet on Sunday that America was "locked and loaded" in response to attacks on two of Saudi Arabia's oil facilities.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-us-locked-and-loaded-saudi-aramco-oil-attack-2019-9

5b858ab9e199f327008b56fa-750-375.jpg


"Remember when Iran shot down a drone, saying knowingly that it was in their “airspace” when, in fact, it was nowhere close. They stuck strongly to that story knowing that it was a very big lie. Now they say that they had nothing to do with the attack on Saudi Arabia. We’ll see?".....Donald Trump

 
 
 
katrix
1.1  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

Yep. How irresponsible of him. Managing foreign policy by tweet is NOT a good idea. Now the administration is backing down from what many people consider to have been a direct threat of military force.  Is it a negotiating tactic? Is it a threat? Nobody knows, including everyone who works for Trump.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @1.1    one month ago

I hear ya, Kat. If John Bolton was still giving advice the President would have some strong options! Strange how this bold action took place right after the "Stache" was fired.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  katrix @1.1    one month ago
Managing foreign policy by tweet is NOT a good idea.

I'm going with this.

I'm going to upgrade it a bit to say that even though he needs to stop tweeting instantly and permanently, good decisions will eventually be made.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago
President Donald Trump said in a tweet on Sunday that America was "locked and loaded"

Let's hope trump doesn't get us into another shooting war (isn't Afghanistan enuf?)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Krishna @1.2    one month ago

I'm with you on that - especially between now and election day!

 
 
 
TTGA
1.2.2  TTGA  replied to  Krishna @1.2    one month ago
Let's hope trump doesn't get us into another shooting war (isn't Afghanistan enuf?)

As I recall, it was President Bush that got us into Afghanistan.  Something about giving sanctuary to some people who did something (flying airliners into buildings is not a friendly act).  But, of course, Trump did it, even though it was almost fifteen years before he became President.  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.2.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TTGA @1.2.2    one month ago

reading (comprehension) is fundamental

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TTGA @1.2.2    one month ago

I guess any politician who ever got criticized for anything is probably thinking "I'm sure glad Trump came along!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.2.3    one month ago

The way it was put is open to interpretation. TTGA is fine with that.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.6  MUVA  replied to  Krishna @1.2    one month ago

He didn’t get us into Afghanistan.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.7  Krishna  replied to  TTGA @1.2.2    one month ago
As I recall, it was President Bush that got us into Afghanistan.

And it was president Trump, amongst  others, who chose not to end it.

The fact is, its ongoing. Every so often an American kid gets killed there-- or maimed for life.

Sure, every previous president since the war started chose not to end it-- but my comment was not aimed at blaming past presidents because currently they don't have the power to end it.

Only the current Commander-in-Chief can make that decision. (And if the next president is a Democrat, then he/she would have that power).

Getting into another typically stupid NT discussion trying to figure out whether more Democrats or more Republicans supported the war is IMO a waste of time-- the point is we should end this ridiculous war ASAP! (The big corporations  can find another source of rare earth metals...)

And in terms of Iran..is going to war with them really the smartest move?

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.8  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @1.2.7    one month ago
And in terms of Iran..is going to war with them really the smartest move?

Although Trump, to his credit, did say on more than one occasion that  that he is willing to meet with Iran for discusssions...and without any pre-conditions :-)

(That comment starts at 29:00 into video)

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.2.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Krishna @1.2.8    one month ago

He's said it multiple times.

His Administration leaders just said it last week

.

What a FCKN JOKE

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago
President Donald Trump said in a tweet on Sunday that America was "locked and loaded" in response to attacks on two of Saudi Arabia's oil facilities.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.  Why is Trump willing to go to war, to help one of the countries responsible for 9/11?  Could it be because of all the Saudi money he and Jared have gotten???

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3    one month ago
Why is Trump willing to go to war, to help one of the countries responsible for 9/11? 

Because so many of our allies depend on Saudi Arabia for their oil needs. You know, the allies the left claims were so dissed by the President. They are also the regional counter balance to Iran. Unless you would rather we handle it?

 
 
 
loki12
1.3.2  loki12  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.1    one month ago

Of course it would be better if our European allies had to turn to Russia and Iran to fill their oil needs. If you are a complete dumbass that is!

 
 
 
Kavika
1.3.3  Kavika   replied to  loki12 @1.3.2    one month ago

Russia is currently one of the largest suppliers of oil and natural gas to the EU. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.3.4  loki12  replied to  Kavika @1.3.3    one month ago

Sigh.............

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.3.5  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3    one month ago

Perhaps instead of going to war, we can just get all the climate-change folks to deal with those responsible for setting the fires. That would show 'em!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.1    one month ago
Because so many of our allies depend on Saudi Arabia for their oil needs.

So you feel Trump puts money (oil) above national security?  He's willing to deal with the devil?

Especially since Trump seems so intent on destroying renewable energy research and options.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.3.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @1.3.2    one month ago
If you are a complete dumbass that is!

i thought you and Vic were on the same side...

somebody oughta flag that, cause that's what you guys seem to live for

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.3.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.6    one month ago

Of course puts money above national security.  He puts money above everything.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.6    one month ago
So you feel Trump puts money (oil) above national security? 

That's a convenient interpretation of what I said. He is thinking of our allies.

He's willing to deal with the devil?

The devil being Iran, which is obviously buckling under Trump's sanctions. Whatever he decides he will be doing something to defeat the evil state of Iran. I'm hoping the Saudi's take on Iran for now. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.9    one month ago
The devil being Iran, which is obviously buckling under Trump's sanctions. Whatever he decides he will be doing something to defeat the evil state of Iran. I'm hoping the Saudi's take on Iran for now. 

Are you saying Saudi Arabia is less "evil"?  9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, not Iran.  But of course since Saudi Arabia has given millions to Trump and Kushner....

That's a convenient interpretation of what I said. He is thinking of our allies.

Suuuurrreee he is...

 
 
 
katrix
1.3.11  katrix  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.10    one month ago
Are you saying Saudi Arabia is less "evil"?  9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, not Iran.  But of course since Saudi Arabia has given millions to Trump and Kushner....

Yep, that's why they weren't on Trump's Muslim ban list. He didn't actually ban the countries whose terrorists have killed Americans.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.10    one month ago
Are you saying Saudi Arabia is less "evil"?  9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, not Iran.

I am. Although the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, there is only so much blame the Saudi's get for Al-queda.


But of course since Saudi Arabia has given millions to Trump and Kushner....

Saudi Arabia has been a strategic ally of the US long before Trump.


Suuuurrreee he is...

There are times when our allies need constructive criticism.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.13  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @1.3.11    one month ago
Yep, that's why they weren't on Trump's Muslim ban list. He didn't actually ban the countries whose terrorists have killed Americans.

I'm hoping he resurrects the ban. We need to improve vetting!

 
 
 
TTGA
1.3.14  TTGA  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.10    one month ago
Are you saying Saudi Arabia is less "evil"? 

Where did you ever get the ridiculous idea that international politics deals in emotional nonsense like the use of terms like "evil"  Those practicing international politics deal in the concepts of power and force (both being measurable and realistic).  Terms like "evil" and justice are indefinable in any terms except that of "my side wins and your side loses".  We're not dealing with choir boys here.  ALL governments, including ours, have blood on their hands.  That results from the fact that government is simply a mechanism for applying force.  Force is neither "good" nor "evil", it is just a means for controlling people.  In international politics, it is used to gain benefits for your side and for no other purpose.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.16  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.12    one month ago
I am. Although the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, there is only so much blame the Saudi's get for Al-queda.

Okay, what actions has Iran taken, to conflict with America, that gives it a higher threat level than Saudi Arabia?  Has Iran dismembered any American Journalists?

Saudi Arabia has been a strategic ally of the US long before Trump.

You're actually calling Saudi Arabia an ally?  Have you forgotten 9/11 already???  You just mentioned it in the above post.

There are times when our allies need constructive criticism.

What Trump said was neither constructive or criticism, it was equivalent to a 5 year old calling another child a doodoo face.  Which is as close as Trump has ever gotten to diplomacy with our allies. 

He DOES LOVE to praise our enemies though doesn't he?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.17  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.13    one month ago
We need to improve vetting!

Please outline the specifics of our current vetting process and how you would like to see it changed.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.18  Ozzwald  replied to  TTGA @1.3.14    one month ago
Where did you ever get the ridiculous idea that international politics deals in emotional nonsense like the use of terms like "evil"

I was responding directly to a comment that used that term, hence the quotation marks.  If you have an issue with the term, address Vic Eldred since he's the one that used it. 

Otherwise please read the entire string before jumping to conclusions and accusations.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.19  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.16    one month ago
Okay, what actions has Iran taken, to conflict with America, that gives it a higher threat level than Saudi Arabia? 

Iran has been responsible either directly or through it's proxies for many American deaths:

Here is a complete history:

https://www.aipac.org/-/media/publications/policy-and-politics/aipac-analyses/one-pagers/a-history-of-iranian-attacks-on-americans.pdf

But I do like the way you crafted that question. It only matters what Iran did to the US. With that kind of reasoning, we would have only fought the Japanese during WWII since they were the only ones who attacked us. I'm sure you would have been in favor of that.


Has Iran dismembered any American Journalists? 

Not sure I get it? Are you implying that the Journalist who was killed by the Saudi's was American?

You're actually calling Saudi Arabia an ally?  

Yes I am. 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-saudi-arabia-relations


Have you forgotten 9/11 already???  You just mentioned it in the above post.

Not at all, but you clearly ignored what I said.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.17    one month ago
Please outline the specifics of our current vetting process

Multiple agencies systems and databases complete checks against various U.S. security databases and conduct interviews.

how you would like to see it changed.



1) The U.S. should remain selective with refugees it accepts, focusing on applicants that the U.S. has an acceptable amount of intelligence on.

2) All citizens from any state sponsor of terror shall be denied entry (A ban)  Exhibit A - Iran

3) Any country which cannot verify the identity & status of it's citizens shall be denied entry (A ban)


 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.21  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.19    one month ago
ran has been responsible either directly or through it's proxies for many American deaths: Here is a complete history: https://www.aipac.org/-/media/publications/policy-and-politics/aipac-analyses/one-pagers/a-history-of-iranian-attacks-on-americans.pdf

Which still puts it well below Saudi Arabia in sheer numbers.

But I do like the way you crafted that question. It only matters what Iran did to the US.

Because we're talking about why Saudi Arabia is a US ally even though they are responsible for more terrorism than Iran.  Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?

Not sure I get it? Are you implying that the Journalist who was killed by the Saudi's was American?

You don't get it, because it does not fit within your narrow ideology.  READ WHAT I SAID!!   He was an AMERICAN JOURNALIST, I NEVER said American Citizen.  ( note to self, use smaller words )

Not at all, but you clearly ignored what I said.

That's because what you said makes no sense.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.22  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.20    one month ago
Multiple agencies systems and databases complete checks against various U.S. security databases and conduct interviews.

Already done.  Next time look it up before replying.

1) The U.S. should remain selective with refugees it accepts, focusing on applicants that the U.S. has an acceptable amount of intelligence on.

That has nothing to do with vetting.  Have you forgotten what we're talking about?  Vetting, not immigration.

2) All citizens from any state sponsor of terror shall be denied entry (A ban)  Exhibit A - Iran

Exhibit B - Saudi Arabia.  But they aren't on Trump's banned list, the number 1 terrorist exporter in the world.

Exhibit C - Russia, they have overtly struck at the heart of American democracy, yet no action against them, shouldn't they also be included???

3) Any country which cannot verify the identity & status of it's citizens shall be denied entry (A ban)

So you want other countries to do the work for us?  Remember, the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi citizens, yet were here legally.  Trump's ban and increased vetting (that he has yet to implement) would not have stopped them.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.23  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.21    one month ago
Which still puts it well below Saudi Arabia in sheer numbers.

Which is a far cry from Saudi Arabia being a bigger threat to the US than radical Iran!

Because we're talking about why Saudi Arabia is a US ally 

And I know you are having a tough time with that. In WWII we were allied to the Soviet Union. Why? Because the entire world needed the Soviet Union in order to defeat the Wehrmacht!

 He was an AMERICAN JOURNALIST,

He wrote anti-Saudi government stories for an American newspaper. We know. (here's another note for yourself - grow up)


That's because what you said makes no sense.

Not to you.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.24  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.22    one month ago
Already done.  Next time look it up before replying.

You asked what we were doing already, right? Maybe you should look up what you asked.

That has nothing to do with vetting. 

It absolutely does. Especially for refugees.

Exhibit B - Saudi Arabia.  But they aren't on Trump's banned list, the number 1 terrorist exporter in the world.

Exhibit C - Russia, they have overtly struck at the heart of American democracy, yet no action against them, shouldn't they also be included???

If they fit my criteria, they are denied.

So you want other countries to do the work for us?  

Only a failed state can't identify it's own people. They have to do at least that - even Obama wanted that!

 Remember, the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi citizens, yet were here legally. 

I recall

Trump's ban and increased vetting (that he has yet to implement) would not have stopped them.

Trump's ban was wrongfully obstructed by liberal judges. Time ran out on the ban as the question of it's legality slowly made it's way to the Supreme Court, where the Court confirmed what most of us already knew - Trump had the right to do it. I happen to think that since the issue is now settled, the President should issue a permanent ban on the original 7 nations plus Saudi Arabia.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2  1stwarrior    one month ago

The U. S. does not need to get involved.  This "battle" is between two very strong religious idealistic countries and our dog ain't in this fight.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @2    one month ago

I'll bet all our allies who are so dependent on Saudi oil are pleading with us to do something (off the record, of course).

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago

Well, "supposedly", the U.S. is now producing more oil than the ME - betcha we could do some selling, eh?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.1    one month ago

We could sell all of the surplus

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago
I'll bet all our allies who are so dependent on Saudi oil are pleading with us to do something (off the record, of course).

As we are now the world's largest producer, that "something" could easily be "sell more oil".

 
 
 
katrix
2.1.4  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    one month ago
We could sell all of the surplus

That would be a very bad idea. Then we wouldn't have any of it if we need it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @2.1.4    one month ago
That would be a very bad idea. Then we wouldn't have any of it if we need it.

Kat, with all due respect, surplus would mean (by definition) that which is leftover after we satisfy our own needs. We do hold a certain amount in reserve.

 
 
 
squiggy
2.2  squiggy  replied to  1stwarrior @2    one month ago

... and that's why Saudi Arabia should get US arms - let them spill some of their blood and money.

 
 
 
Krishna
2.2.1  Krishna  replied to  squiggy @2.2    one month ago

... and that's why Saudi Arabia should get US arms - let them spill some of their blood and money.

Actually they ahve been YUGE purchasers of advanced American weapons-- and they have been for years. 

Currently we are continuing that policy:

Saudi Arabia is America's No. 1 weapons customer

And BTW, with all their weapons-- for the most part they usually try to get other countries to do the fighting for them!

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.2  katrix  replied to  squiggy @2.2    one month ago
and that's why Saudi Arabia should get US arms - let them spill some of their blood and money.

Why do you think we should provide arms to the country whose terrorists killed thousands of US citizens on 9/11?

 
 
 
squiggy
2.2.3  squiggy  replied to  katrix @2.2.2    one month ago

Atta originated there like McVeigh did the US - they have nothing to do with national relations.

 
 
 
loki12
2.3  loki12  replied to  1stwarrior @2    one month ago

This exactly! This is more a religious war than political. We have no dog in this fight. 

The question is, will China allow the Saudi's to interrupt their oil flow? The only country that seems to be the winner here is Russia.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.3.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @2.3    one month ago
Russia

thought they had nothing to do with anything...

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.3.2  r.t..b...  replied to  loki12 @2.3    one month ago
The only country that seems to be the winner here is Russia.

Their slugging percentage is over 1.000 under the auspices of this administration. Coincidence, collusion or co-dependency aside...not an adversary you want celebrating our lack of consistency in relations, foreign or domestic. And certainly not one you want calling signals from the dugout. 

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.3  loki12  replied to  r.t..b... @2.3.2    one month ago

Of course they are, they annexed Crimea, bombed Americans in Syria and screwed with an election.....oh wait, that was the last administration , other than saving the salary of a 100 soldiers that trump bombed and killed in Syria, exactly what have they gained under this administration? They did balls out good under Barry.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.3.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @2.3.3    one month ago

One Qeustion then:

y does Trump consistently fail to not stop kissing Putin's ass ? 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.3.5  r.t..b...  replied to  loki12 @2.3.3    one month ago
exactly what have they gained under this administration?

Not so implicit acceptance of everything Putin says and does. Not excusing the Obama administration, as it was a lesson we should have learned from and not compounded.

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.6  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.3.4    one month ago

In your opinion, only, Obama sucks Putin off and does nothing.... but Trump!

How quickly did Barry back off once Putin shoved his red line up his ass?

please list anything like that, that has happened under Trump.

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.7  loki12  replied to  r.t..b... @2.3.5    one month ago

So....You have nothing, you just don’t like how trump talks about Russia, even though he has kept them on a tight leash AND he has gotten all our NATO allies to increase their defense spending. How happy do you think that makes Putin? Knowing that NATO is spending more on defense.

no opinion, just facts.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.3.8  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @2.3.6    one month ago
How quickly did Barry back off once Putin shoved his red line up his ass?

Obama put it to our Congress, you know, the ones who ACTUALLY HAVE THE POWER TO AUTHORIZE WAR, and theGOP pussy'd out!

.

Do you realize that it took till this summer to implement sanctions against Russia for their poisoning of ex Russia agents in Britain, again i'll ask, WHY ?

Did you actually READ the FCKN Mueller Report ? 

Cause F U Did, N still see nothing WRONG with Trumpp an Russia, my condolences !

.

Did you not see , side by side, Trump side with PUTIN over our OWN DAMN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES  ???

again i'll ask        WHY ?

If you want, i can go on and on and on,

Y waste my time on one so blind....   WHY ?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.3.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @2.3.7    one month ago
he has kept them on a tight leash AND he has gotten all our NATO allies to increase their defense spending.

WHY was Obama lambasted when HE DEMANDED nato countries put in the agreed upon % of GDP....WHY ?

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.10  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.3.8    one month ago

Holy fuck, can you show me where that worthless fuck Obama went to Congress to bomb Libya? Yemen? Or Syria in the first place? FFS you are completely ate up with the conspiracy theories.

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.11  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.3.9    one month ago

So what you are saying, even NATO has no respect for Barry the daft? That’s sad!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.3.12  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @2.3.10    one month ago
Holy fuck

I'll leave you with one of my responses i wrote a few months back.

Please do inform me where i got it wrong.

i impatiently await your reply!

non- opposition to Trump is support for Trump.
Speaking of absurd. Out of curiosity is this bizarre attempt to disallow indifference universal or just Trump related? 

When you see an incompetence of the tremendous gargantuan proportions that Trump has displayed, when you see a serial liar setting the Truth meter on fire, an adoration who can adore and hold himself no higher, tweet out policy confused with collusion to conspire against all he dowst desire to end and expire, because he can't hide his guilt torturing his inside, as he feigns over the little mind fuck who placed him where he sits, throws the kitchen sink at all walls that Mexico will build and pay for, while paying off our multi trillion China debt, just for good measure, do you ever not see that one who has played so many with his lies that stretch further than an elastic band can be elongated without snapping back and eyeballing an eye socket currently conducive with the 'best and the brightest' he said he would surround himself with, well, until they called him a 'fucken idiot', resigned in disgrace for abusing their offices they were most likely the least likely qualified to oversee, and were closer to the antithesis of a truly qualified appointtee with an errant moral compass arrow, shot into an ethical barrel of fish food, starving for thought, as

Trumps' incessant withchunt tweets, hoax, fake news assertions lobbed at one, that both agreed was a good choice to investigate alleged allegations, that has had hundreds of charges brought, concluded some convictions sought, multiple indictments, and an unforeseen amount of yet to be divulged further findings, being professionally handled by an adult, that any innocent Pol would welcome as to clear their name if that were a true claim, has by many, already convicted himself of obstruction, but because those that prefer Trumps Lies over and over, instead of what's real, and cannot admit they were taken, our Country has lost its moral high ground and has begun to concede its world leadership status, and unfortunately, rightfully so.

How can NATO and or any of our Allies not be concerned about his always lying, while insulting our most adamant supporters, he praises tyrants, he has been unable to say a negative word about Putin, while all the while attempting to reduce, and or drag feet, in even implementing the sanctions he was forced to bring about, after completely insulting intelligence, and our intelligence agencies by publically, side by side, asserting Putin's denial was all he needed to know Putin wasn't involved, in 'rigging' the election Trump swore was rigged.

yea, why should those who fail to see this behavior as nothing wrong, need to oppose

such a role model, that all of our children should be coerced to emulate, going on 10,000 lies, whatever could be wrong with accepting this, as opposed to calling it out for what it is ?

Think on that Jack.

Americans have not a duty to hold our highest elected official, to standards we ourselves could never accept from our own family members ?

I'd dismember them, but you are failing in your duty as an American Citizen, and that is just my humble opinion, 

that i, at this point in this beyond comedic joke, will not relinquish.

So many fought and died, lost life and limb, for an unstable inferior insecure little man,

to desecrate their sacrifices, is just plain UN AMERICAN  again, just my opine

 

Again, i impatiently await your response!

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.13  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.3.12    one month ago

Your screed isn’t worth my time to respond. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.3.14  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @2.3.13    one month ago

awwwwwh     whats the matter loki ?

WHY ????? can't you debunk and or rebuke my Response ?

Again i'll inquire  WHY ?

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.15  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.3.14    one month ago

Because it’s all opinions based on talking points. You hate trump would have been shorter and saved me the time.

Russia bombed Americans, Barry gave Putin head.

trump killed Russians, nothing from Putin.

Putin shoves Barry’s redline up his ass, Barry blames Congress for giving him a Crayon.

putin try’s to interfere in the election, Barry has Michelle give him head because his lips were still chapped after Crimea.

Trump says he can shoot someone, and the left loses their mind, Barry actually does, and then whacks his 15 year old son 3 weeks later and the left still sucks his dick.

So excuse me if I don’t give a fuck what your opinion is on trump. 

By the way? How’s Libya after Barry’s little adventure there? And how much land does ISIS control now?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.3.16  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @2.3.15    one month ago

"Because it;s all opinions based on talking points."

is it an opinion, or FACT Trump tweets out his desires? one being that he wanted Muellers investigation to expire ?

Fact or opinion about Mexico paying for that wall he just robbed billions(well is attempting ) to rob billions from our military to pay for  ?

In Hellsinki, did you not see Trump say he believed PUTIN OVER our own INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES ???????????????????

Putin 'wasn't involved' in rigging our system, Trumpp SWORE WAS RIGGED !

or are you going to lie, and imply Trump never stated as much.

.

i'm done with YOU

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.17  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.3.16    one month ago

Awwww, how many Americans has trump murdered in cold blood? That shithead Obama has multiple kills, but trump said something mean. 

Hahahahahahahaha.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.3.18  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @2.3.17    one month ago

Face it 

Your just too damn intelligent for one such as i, so if you want to awwwwww me, 

think you are going to survive ??

last time we played this little game, you requsted i know longer converse with you, which i did honor for about a year until you began again conversing with me.

I'm game if u wish to play, but

i can assure YOU

gonna turn out th SAME DAMN WAY

your call 

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.19  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.3.18    one month ago

Awwwwww. Show us on the doll where trump hurt you.

you have opinion and words.

barry the Putin cockholster has actions, and actions are louder than whines.

plus only a pathetic loser “wins” on the internet.

feel free to bleat away, just try to do it in English because your 15 year old girl texts will be ignored.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.3.20  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @2.3.19    one month ago

How would you know to spot them...does your daughter do your editing ?

I'll do as i please, and you'll request i stop corresponding with you,   again.

Whatever, you feel you must do, for whomever, as it makes no difference to eye, seeing how you make me always cry

with laughter from my belly full of beer, like a keg, i can roll right on out of here, or over any tier, as you will not keep up, sorry little pup, cause the bitch is back, but i won't tell if you won't give me HELL, cause you can't, as i can't say uncle, Bin  too long and far gone to be anti

N e N N E ONE, cause once i get rolling, i do bowling till you be a pin, and no, not a king queenie, cause if the shoe fits (and they are so fasionable), or doesn't, you'll still be in certain tit, till i pass a fire, cause i'll go as high as many and as low as N E

cause inserting it till i pacify her, is what i do to pass time, and passing you, 

is just passing gas    fires burnin in SArabia, just like those campfire girl Saudi Arabian Nights tossin cookies into the fights that leave em in a daze

and thats only da beginnin of watt i gots to says

so Carrie on

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.21  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.3.20    one month ago

Ignored, try to be less opinion more fact. Try again

 
 
 
squiggy
2.4  squiggy  replied to  1stwarrior @2    one month ago

'countries' is a key word. Those attacks weren't a rag-tag operation by hooligans. Each hole in the four tanks was surgery.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

US hints at military response to Saudi attacks as oil prices surge

It is the first time the president has hinted at a potential American military response to the drone attacks, which slashed Saudi oil production by half and led both the kingdom and the United States to announce they may tap their strategic reserves.

 
 
 
Kavika
3.1  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @3    one month ago

At this time I hope it's only a ''hint''....An attack on Iran, IMO, will lead to a much wider war and Iran will turn loose all it's proxy's and there will be a lot of bloodletting and American blood will be part of it. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @3.1    one month ago

I don't think we need to intervene, but the Saudi's should. As I said before Iran is feeling the sanctions. I believe the President may have a statement any minute

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Kavika @3.1    one month ago
At this time I hope it's only a ''hint'

If it follows the normal course of action, the comment will be walked back with no concrete nor cogent explanation. And I agree, escalation of tensions would not be in our best interest. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    one month ago

The Sanctions are working, the mullahs are lashing out. Help Saudi Arabia as needed but just let the Iranian economy collapse and hopefully the Islamic republic will be no more. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



Tacos!
FLYNAVY1


25 visitors