Saudia Arabia: 'High probability' oil attack launched from Iranian base -- source - CNN
Blog post that CNN uses as justification that missiles were launched from Iran.
Meet the Quds 1
It's Iraq all over again with ‘unnamed sources’ pushing unclear ‘intelligence’ into the mainstream media. But the media are outdoing themselves - now whether we go to war or not rests on these unnamed sources mixed in with false interpretations of blog posts.
I'll try to do it in short sentences to keep it as quick as possible. It involves speculation around a particular Houthi missile.
1. CNN quotes unnamed Saudi officials as saying a particular Houthi missile (Quds 1) was used.
2. CNN quotes a blog post by a guy with a master's degree in International Relations (that usually qualifies you to work the fryer at McDonalds) saying that that particular Houthi missile couldn't travel that far.
3.Yes, seriously, that's the entirety of their 'expert' evidence.
4. CNN somehow comes to the conclusion that "if the wreckage in the desert is indeed that of Quds 1 missiles, it strengthens the assertion that the missiles did not begin their journey in Yemen."
Assuming that a Master's in International Relations makes your word gospel, let's see what blog post guy actually says:
5. Houthis do have missiles that can hit that target at that range, but doesn't believe the particular missile that Saudi Arabia says was used can
6. Saudi Arabia has misidentified particular missiles in previous press releases about attacks from the Houthis.
7. "However, so far we haven’t seen any trace of the Quds 1 in Iran proper. This riddle is not unique to the Quds 1. Beginning in 2018, several missile systems began to emerge in Yemen that while broadly similar to Iranian-designed systems have no exact Iranian equivalent." - So the Quds 1 is a Houthi variant.
8. Blog guy makes no clear assertion one way or the other on where the attack came from.
9. The blog post itself is deeply flawed, but we don't even need to go in to that.
So here we have it folks - a blog post that is inherently based on pure speculation and relies on several unreasonable assumptions that doesn't even come to the same conclusion the article does, is used as justification for blaming Iran and thus going to war.
Blog post that CNN uses as justification that missiles were launched from Iran.
Meet the Quds 1
It's Iraq all over again with ‘unnamed sources’ pushing unclear ‘intelligence’ into the mainstream media. But the media are outdoing themselves - now whether we go to war or not rests on these unnamed sources mixed in with false interpretations of blog posts.
I'll try to do it in short sentences to keep it as quick as possible. It involves speculation around a particular Houthi missile.
1. CNN quotes unnamed Saudi officials as saying a particular Houthi missile (Quds 1) was used.
2. CNN quotes a blog post by a guy with a master's degree in International Relations (that usually qualifies you to work the fryer at McDonalds) saying that that particular Houthi missile couldn't travel that far.
3.Yes, seriously, that's the entirety of their 'expert' evidence.
4. CNN somehow comes to the conclusion that "if the wreckage in the desert is indeed that of Quds 1 missiles, it strengthens the assertion that the missiles did not begin their journey in Yemen."
Assuming that a Master's in International Relations makes your word gospel, let's see what blog post guy actually says:
5. Houthis do have missiles that can hit that target at that range, but doesn't believe the particular missile that Saudi Arabia says was used can
6. Saudi Arabia has misidentified particular missiles in previous press releases about attacks from the Houthis.
7. "However, so far we haven’t seen any trace of the Quds 1 in Iran proper. This riddle is not unique to the Quds 1. Beginning in 2018, several missile systems began to emerge in Yemen that while broadly similar to Iranian-designed systems have no exact Iranian equivalent." - So the Quds 1 is a Houthi variant.
8. Blog guy makes no clear assertion one way or the other on where the attack came from.
9. The blog post itself is deeply flawed, but we don't even need to go in to that.
So here we have it folks - a blog post that is inherently based on pure speculation and relies on several unreasonable assumptions that doesn't even come to the same conclusion the article does, is used as justification for blaming Iran and thus going to war.
Last edited:
