literally a video of the Iranian foreign minister addressing the UN Human Rights Council
Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I want you to try to imagine me coming in here with a twitter clip of Marco Rubio saying Iran did something, providing no evidence the event even happened, and then treating that as a reliable source.
Again, you said it was obvious that the United States "accidentally" targeted a school. Obvious.
One of those alternative reasons I gave for the invasion is starting to look quite credible.
www.theguardian.com
Brent crude hits $116 a barrel as Trump threatens to ‘blow up’ Iran’s oilwells and export hub
Investors nervous over escalation of Middle East conflict as US president says he wants to ‘take the oil in Iran’
www.theguardian.com
You really can't resent the media enough with headlines like that. He was talking about capturing Kharg Island, not physically stealing the oil from them. It was "take" in the wartime context of "capture".One of those alternative reasons I gave for the invasion is starting to look quite credible.
Brent crude hits $116 a barrel as Trump threatens to ‘blow up’ Iran’s oilwells and export hub
Investors nervous over escalation of Middle East conflict as US president says he wants to ‘take the oil in Iran’
Like the other day I was annoyed, the US licensed a gold deal between the state-owned Venezuelan mining company and US gold refineries, ultimately millions of dollars in profit for Venezuela, but one guy described it as "bringing back" gold from Venezuela, so that was every headline for a day, with half the internet deciding that meant the US military stole Venezuela's gold alongside Maduro.
Yes, he was talking about capturing Kharg Island, an oil hub, and said his preference is to take the oil.
What exactly is inaccurate about the headline? You reckon he intends to "capture" the island for the duration of the war but not "take" the oil? Even though he directly compared it to the Venezuelan operation, which involved American companies taking control even after the operation ended.
The headline reported his own exact description of what he wants to do. So what you really resent is that the media doesn't edit his statements to be more favourable than what he actually said.
Listen to your own description here. You say he compared it to Venezuela, where after the military action we began normalizing trade and international economic cooperation in ways that we haven't since Hugo Chavez took power. The headline sounds like he's planning to just physically steal all the oil from Iran, like the classic "I drink your milkshake", but if the idea is comparable to Venezuela, "we're gonna blockage your stuff until we remove the oppressors and then open up international economic channels for great mutual benefit" I don't think people are going to find that upsetting.
Isn't that just a distinction without a difference? Starting a war and then capturing the oil by force is just the same as physically stealing it.
You could say they should write he wants to capture the island but since he wants the island for the oil there that's mostly nitpicking.
That requires Iran or anyone else being able to trust Trump's definition of ''great mutual benefit''. Given it would be imposed by force and Trump famously only believing in zero sum gains that's a rather tall order.
The island doesn't have the oil, at least not most of it. It's for processing and export. Capturing that island doesn't give the US Iran's oil, it means effectively nobody does.
Lots of places have navigated the Trump presidency for mutual benefit without having anything imposed on them by force.
"Normalising trade". Is that what that's called? When a country embargoes another one, then only allows it to trade through a mechanism the embargoer themselves set up, which funnels about a third of the income to themselves?
The headline uses exactly the same terms as the President did. So that would be because the President's own description of what he wants to do sounds like he's planning to steal the oil.
Quoting 2 or 3 words out of a paragraph is not the same as using his own description. Remember when Biden said there might be some debate over US response if Russia just did a "minor incursion" into Ukraine, and all the right-wing press jumped on it claiming he said he'd let Putin do a "minor incursion"? Was that a fair and honest reading of the comments Biden made? Would you say the people writing those headlines were just trying to keep the public informed?
He already said something like that shortly after starting the war. It was always on his mind. Repeating Venezuela was always the whole plan. ( Not that he seems to pay attention to how that actually is evolving )
But no one really stopped him when he stole the oil on the tankers from Venezuela or when he proclaimed that US companies would take over the Venezuelan oil industry. In his mind this legitimized military seizure of foreign oil.
Thatis what the US is now.
Last edited:
The statement was made in a FT interview. The entirety of the contiguous section they quote is:
"To be honest with you, my favourite thing is to take the oil in Iran but some stupid people back in the US say: 'why are you doing that?' But they're stupid people".
Which part of this paragraph drastically changes the reading, exactly?
That is what Russia, US, and soon China is again. Because a harsh world demands harsh measures.
The next sentence of the FT article is, "Such a move would involve seizing Kharg Island through which most of Iran's oil is exported". As far as I can see from screenshots, anyway, since the FT is paywalled.
Still not seeing anything that changes the meaning of the words Trump said. He said take the oil. The headline correctly reported that he said that.
Last edited: