|
At this point....the latest two "attacks" have not been confirmed by any investigation or examination of the ships involved.
But please....do not let that get in the way of your allegations and declaration of the causes and culprits.:= |
So it would seem the Iranians were in close proximity to the tankers and ready to act immediately after the attacks occurred. |
Cui Bono .... ?
JAS |
Photos here appear to show that the fire has been extinguished. If so bravo to all. Not so easy to put out the fires of suspicion, though.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/...150655075.html |
This has John Bolton's name written all over it.
He has been desperate for Iranian regime change for a while now, and Trump is not a "yes man." The only way to achieve it is to set something up. Saudi?! All speculation but this is a rumour site. It makes absolutely no strategic sense for Iran to do this. Talk about cutting off their nose to spite their face - they're smarter than this. |
BVRAAM, agreed. can't wait for the next dodgy dossier. |
This has John Bolton's name written all over it. |
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 10493333)
Since when would a false flag operation bear signed autographs?
|
|
|
Background to video above. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...tanker-attacks US says video shows Iranian military removing mine from tanker The US military has released video footage it says shows an Iranian military patrol boat approach one of two tankers attacked in the Gulf of Oman, to support the Trump administration’s claims that Iran was responsible. The blurry black and white footage, taken from the air, shows a small military boat alongside the Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous, and someone standing up on the prow of the boat to remove an object from the tanker’s hull. The small boat then pulls away from the tanker. US officials were quoted as saying the boat was an Iranian Revolutionary Guard patrol boat approaching the tanker after it was attacked on Thursday, and the object removed was an unexploded limpet mine. It was unclear whether it was being alleged the Iranian sailors were detaching the mine in order to remove evidence...... The US military also released a photo it claimed showed a mine on the side of the Kokuka Courageous and some damage to the hull. https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....38353774b.jpeg |
After the first explosion the crew of the Japanese ship report seeing 'flying objects' coming in towards them, and the manager of the company is adamant from listening to their testimony that the subsequent explosion was 'definitely not a mine or a torpedo', it says.
In Japanese: https://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=2...00080-jij-soci And from NHK, in English until they take it down. A 'projectile' is the translation here: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20190614_31/ |
Intriguing why the mines (assuming this is what caused the damage) were positioned above the waterline. Intention to damage rather than sink? Also they would have been quite easy to spot from the deck, depending how long they had been in place. Peculiar stuff.
I do struggle to see how the Iranians benefit from this, assuming they or their proxies are indeed behind this. The Arab states on the other hand... |
I do struggle to see how the Iranians benefit from this, assuming they or their proxies are indeed behind this. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/w...hran-rf9b72s7m Trump and his allies given the clearest of messagesNo one has claimed responsibility for yesterday’s attacks, nor for similar attacks on May 12, but an investigation of those pointed the finger obliquely at Iran, and most western powers and their Gulf allies will be working on the assumption that Tehran is to blame. If that is the case, the speed with which Iranian media were able to announce the attacks and then post video of the resulting conflagration would suggest a brazenness that will help intelligence agencies decipher their purpose.The May incident was unprecedented and shocking, but in some ways was less dangerous, as it came at a moment when tensions between Iran and the United States were already high. The United States had boasted of sending an aircraft carrier to the Middle East, along with extra B52 bombers to the US air base at al-Udeid in Qatar. Iran had been threatening action in response to the effective US blockade of Iranian oil exports through its sanctions programme. But the warnings of an accidental drift to war had already begun to have an effect by May 12. President Trump, who was elected on a pledge not to get involved in Middle East conflicts, went out of his way to talk down the threats of the belligerent John Bolton, his national security adviser, and publicly called for talks with the Iranian regime. He was not looking for regime change, he insisted, only to talk to the regime about its nuclear programme. He then dispatched the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, to talk to the Supreme Leader. Mr Abe’s spokesman denies his current trip to Tehran is just to act as mediator for the US, but Japan has a vested interest in seeking a solution to the dispute between its most important strategic ally and Iran, previously one of its major oil suppliers. If today’s attacks are a response to this outreach by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it is then a particularly devastating one. The ayatollah has not only rejected talks with America – which he had already done, and did again when meeting Mr Abe – but done so in the most egregious way. The choice of a Japanese-owned tanker would be a particular insult to Mr Abe. The only silver lining to this threatening cloud is that this message appears so clear it must be intended to be read as such by his opponents. It is assumed Iran does not actually want a war - which would be devastating to it and, if Mr Bolton had his way at least, could well end the Islamic Republic altogether. Rather, perhaps, the ayatollah is saying that he cannot just be expected to come crawling at the request of an intermediary like Mr Abe. The tankers targeted so far have been Norwegian, Saudi and Emirati - last month - and Japanese and Norwegian this month. All are key allies but none is actually American, which might trigger an immediate military response. Iran may be saying that it wants Mr Trump, if he is so keen for a deal, to come crawling himself, or face the consequences. |
Originally Posted by Load Toad
(Post 10493360)
John Bolton is the kind of Hawk that wants his name all over a war
It was only 16 years ago. |
Bellingcat started a thread on the attack, still adding posts. |
Rather, perhaps, the ayatollah is saying that he cannot just be expected to come crawling at the request of an intermediary like Mr Abe. |
It all seems a bit too nailed on to me. Unless Iran were sending a message of course.
|
The Iranians (if indeed they are) in the boat could simply claim they were disarming / removing a device they had seen to prevent further damage.
|
The Iranians in the Patrol Boat were removing and disarming the Mine....no doubt.
Nice of them to do that at very great risk to themselves. Of course....the possibility they knew what it was....how to safely disarm it....and do so in very short order.....does make one wonder how they knew how to safely and efficiently do so. Very well trained those Iranians I would say. Now if they were genuinely innocent of any wrong doing....don't you think the Iranian government would be inviting outsiders (media, military, intelligence) to examine the mine to determine its origins? Also...none of the ships attacks with Mines in the May incidents and the most recent have sunk....and were only damaged. None were American.....which as we know from posts here and by the Iranians Public Announcements is the real enemy. Why have American Allies been attacked but not an American Vessel? The Iranians are playing the long game here.....divide and conquer....and find a way to get the Sanctions removed shy of getting into a real war. They know this for sure... President Trump, who was elected on a pledge not to get involved in Middle East conflicts, went out of his way to talk down the threats of the belligerent John Bolton, his national security adviser, and publicly called for talks with the Iranian regime. They better not overplay their hand because if they do it shall get very ugly for them because the Sanctions shall not be removed until the Ayatollah's find themselves hawking Korans in the Bazaars for a living. The Iranians are behind the attacks....either the Revolutionary Guards are doing it or some group supported by the Iranians are doing it at their bidding. If it looks like a Duck, waddles like a Duck, quacks like a Duck....it might just be a Duck! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:13. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.