Oil Tanker "torpedoed" in Gulf of Oman?

[+and-then]

9 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Why would they want to bomb tankers,spill oil and disrupt such a vital route?

Because blackmail is their last weapon to obtain any leverage on the world stage?  Threatening a major disruption of the flow of oil might seem pretty attractive to them when they realize they have no other weapons.  The only chance we could stumble into a war would be as a result of a hardliner in Tehran miscalculating.

[Setton]

26 minutes ago, and then said:

You realize that we ALL are here to share opinions, right? 

Yes, and that includes the opinion that you have no grounding in reality. 

Quote

FTM, you have no idea who I might influence any more than I could know who you might influence. 

I think I have a pretty good idea. 

Quote

The difference, I think, is that I'm perfectly content to speak my mind and let others decide.  It's only fair since they'll be held responsible for their actions.

Unless those speaking their mind point out your support for targeting civilians, right? 

[Black Red Devil]

45 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Why would they do it? To stop the majority of oil from leaving the Middle East, which in turn would deprive many nations throughout the world including the US from getting the oil they need. Now believe it not that is a major bargaining chip, which only leaves two options, go to war or find a diplomatic solution. Remember these people do not think rationally and they will not hesitate to die for their beliefs. All in all it is a bad situation, and it looks like with these provocations war is on the horizon. 

Hope I am wrong.

I think you are wrong.  Look at the map below.  Iran would never be able to block the Strait and your last two sentences just proves where you get your info from.  There is no evidence to suggest they are provoking a war and how irrational do you think they are to get into a war where millions of their people would die.  They will fight if attacked but I don't see any signs they are provoking a war.  None.

[+and-then]

3 minutes ago, Setton said:

Yes, and that includes the opinion that you have no grounding in reality. 

What do you base this statement on?  What is your proof?

[Grim Reaper 6]

7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

One can hope. All the current players are quite seasoned veterans however so we may be waving goodbye to our sons without every finding out why for sure.

 

I was one of those sons for 23 years, I hate war . I also hope it doesn't happen, but unless something vastly changes its going happen. We can only hope for best. If mines were not used, and it was torpedos, I can't even imagine what kind were used because damage done to all four ships that were attacked doesn't appear to be from a torpedo. 

[Setton]

2 minutes ago, and then said:

What do you base this statement on?  What is your proof?

1. That you can believe, without evidence, that Iran continues building nuclear weapons. 

2. That you believe, without evidence, that Iran is determined to start a war it can't win. 

3. That you support targeting civilians to give an excuse for an unjustified war. 

3 for starters but plenty more evidence across the forum. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

4 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

I think you are wrong.  Look at the map below.  Iran would never be able to block the Strait and your last two sentences just proves where you get your info from.  There is no evidence to suggest they are provoking a war and how irrational do you think they are to get into a war where millions of their people would die.  They will fight if attacked but I don't see any signs they are provoking a war.  None.

Well time will tell, remember these are the same people who had hundreds of children without weapons run straight at Iraqs front line during the Iraq, Iran war back in the 80s. 

[RAyMO]

I seem to remember a long time ago, that people on this board thought it was great Hilary wasn't elected as she was a war monger looking for an excuse for War. Trump apparently wouldn't adopt such an aggressive foreign policy.

Many of those same people who claimed Hilary was pro war therefore bad, are now supporting Trump as he gears up for war (even the dogs in the street know it). 

Are Trump's ratings so bad he needs war, is Trump beholden to others who want war?, why is Trump following the path many of his supporters said they were against just before and for a short period after the election? What happened to the anti war anti Hilary brigade  why aren't they calling for calm?

[toast]

53 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Germany dismisses these allegations as there is no evidence. Voice of reason. Based on statements coming form UK and USA they also admit that there is no evidence.

Reminds me of:

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

4 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

I seem to remember a long time ago, that people on this board thought it was great Hilary wasn't elected as she was a war monger looking for an excuse for War. Trump apparently wouldn't adopt such an aggressive foreign policy.

Many of those same people who claimed Hilary was pro war therefore bad, are now supporting Trump as he gears up for war (even the dogs in the street know it). 

Are Trump's ratings so bad he needs war, is Trump beholden to others who want war?, why is Trump following the path many of his supporters said they were against just before and for a short period after the election? What happened to the anti war anti Hilary brigade  why aren't they calling for calm?

Are you taking about the same Hilary Clinton, who was responsible for the death of a US Ambassador in Benghazi?

[RAyMO]

10 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Are you taking about the same Hilary Clinton, who was responsible for the death of a US Ambassador in Benghazi?

she probably was - but what is the relevance to the point - Pro War Hilary bad - Anti War Trump good.

Hilary might have been bad for a multitude of reasons and Trump good for a multitude of reasons, but what I am driving at is that, in discussing Trump's win - many said it was because he was not Pro War in the way Hilary was. Now that Trump is edging towards a war, I am asking how do his supporters reconcile their once held view, which led to a 'not pro war' president being elected whose administration  is doing its best intentionally or otherwise to create a war.  

Edited June 15, 2019 by RAyMO

[Grim Reaper 6]

19 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Are you taking about the same Hilary Clinton, who was responsible for the death of a US Ambassador in Benghazi? No I don't think she is or ever was a war monger, however I do think she did a poor job in every position held under President Obama. Oh and by the way I am neither a Republican or a Democrat I think that being beholding to any party doesn't allow you to choose the best person for the job. I didn't vote for President Trump.

 

Edited June 15, 2019 by Manwon Lender

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

Then please educate me why are oil tankers being attached in the strait.  I am very open minded, and intelligent enough to learn something new.

Well, nobody really knows. 

Personally, I have two theories. 

1) Iran is having it's oil embargoed, and therefore is having great difficulty selling it to anyone. Their attitude has become "if WE can't sell oil, then we're going to stop everyone ELSE from trading in oil by closing down the Straights". 

2) Saudi, UAE and the USA are attacking the tankers in order to blame it on Iran, in order to have en excuse for attacking Iran. (Saudi and the UAE regard Iran as a theological opponent, as well as a possible military threat, and a rival in world oil markets). 

I agree with you when you said "sooner or later they will make a mistake and reveal themselves". 

[toast]

9 hours ago, pallidin said:

The U.S. doesn't strap bombs on individuals and walk into, or onto, a public venue and blow people up.

But radical Islam does this, regularly.

Thats correct but the Vegas/Orlando/Columbine events, and a lot of others, dont let the US look that peaceful as you want it to be.

 

Edited June 15, 2019 by toast

[Grim Reaper 6]

Just now, RoofGardener said:

Well, nobody really knows. 

Personally, I have two theories. 

1) Iran is having it's oil embargoed, and therefore is having great difficulty selling it to anyone. Their attitude has become "if WE can't sell oil, then we're going to stop everyone ELSE from trading in oil by closing down the Straights". 

2) Saudi, UAE and the USA are attacking the tankers in order to blame it on Iran, in order to have en excuse for attacking Iran. (Saudi and the UAE regard Iran as a theological opponent, as well as a possible military threat, and a rival in world oil markets). 

I agree with you when you said "sooner or later they will make a mistake and reveal themselves". 

Thank for having an open mind, it is getting rare these days.

[Grim Reaper 6]

30 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

 

Thanks for having an open mind, it is getting rare these days

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Enough with the personal attacks and bickering please.

[Phaeton80]

Someone seems to have reported this thread.. wonder who that was.

Anyway, heres an article from Craig Murray - who's input / blog I often frequent - about the subject at hand.. pointing out some essential inconsistencies in a few paragraphs.
 

Quote

The Gulf of Credibility

I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in Tehran on economic cooperation that can help Iran survive the effects of US economic sanctions.

The Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous was holed above the water line. That rules out a torpedo attack, which is the explanation being touted by the neo-cons.

The second vessel, the Front Altair, is Norwegian owned and 50% Russian crewed (the others being Filipinos). It is owned by Frontline, a massive tanker leasing company that also has a specific record of being helpful to Iran in continuing to ship oil despite sanctions.

It was Iran that rescued the crews and helped bring the damaged vessels under control.

That Iran would target a Japanese ship and a friendly Russian crewed ship is a ludicrous allegation. They are however very much the targets that the USA allies in the region – the Saudis, their Gulf Cooperation Council colleagues, and Israel – would target for a false flag. It is worth noting that John Bolton was meeting with United Arab Emirates ministers two weeks ago – both ships had just left the UAE.

The USA and their UK stooges have both immediately leapt in to blame Iran. The media is amplifying this with almost none of the scepticism which is required. I cannot think of a single reason why anybody would believe this particular false flag. It is notable that neither Norway nor Japan has joined in with this ridiculous assertion.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/06/the-gulf-of-credibility/

 

[Farmer77]

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

If mines were not used, and it was torpedos, I can't even imagine what kind were used because damage done to all four ships that were attacked doesn't appear to be from a torpedo. 

I went and looked it up and I was wrong with the term projectiles I think

Operator of tanker says sailors saw 'flying objects' just before attack

[Black Red Devil]

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Well time will tell, remember these are the same people who had hundreds of children without weapons run straight at Iraqs front line during the Iraq, Iran war back in the 80s. 

The same war where Rumsfeld gave WMD to Saddam Hussein because he was losing the war and thanks to the chemical weapons he managed to push back the Iranians who were about to invade Basra, Iraq's only port.  Those same chemical weapons that Saddam used to kill thousands of Kurds and the same ones that GW Bush (and Rumsfeld) went after as an excuse to invade Iraq. 

I wouldn't live in the Middle East if they gave me a beachfront mansion for free (although I would rent it out and cash in ), but sometimes I wonder which Govts are the worse because our 'western democracies' have a lot to answer to as well.

[Black Red Devil]

3 hours ago, and then said:

Because blackmail is their last weapon to obtain any leverage on the world stage?  Threatening a major disruption of the flow of oil might seem pretty attractive to them when they realize they have no other weapons.  The only chance we could stumble into a war would be as a result of a hardliner in Tehran miscalculating.

No, your theory isn't plausible at all IMO.  Then again, believe what you want to believe or rather, what you're obliged to believe.

[Phaeton80]

Hmm.. interesting possible connection:

Quote

Senators Switched Key Votes On Gulf Arms Ban Hours After Tanker Attacks

A brief report from AntiWar.com's Eric Garris suggests Thursday's tanker attack incident in the Gulf of Oman which the United States promptly blamed on Iran has directly impacted bills placed before the Senate which would ban US arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Qatar.

Garris wrote of the vote which came hours after the Gulf tankers incident: "Both votes were considered highly likely to pass up until they were rushed to the floor today. The timing appears almost certainly to have been related to Thursday tanker bombings in the Gulf of Oman, and shifted a number of Senators’ votes in favor of continuing the arms sales." He noted that "some senators switched sides to kill the bills" following news of the tanker attacks.

The vote, according to Defense News, indeed came very close:

The U.S. Senate on Thursday rejected Sen. Rand Paul’s measures to block sales of munitions to Bahrain and Boeing AH–64E Apache helicopters to Qatar.

The vote on Bahrain was 43-56 and Qatar 42-57, after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., announced their opposition Thursday. The White House earlier this week threatened to veto the measures.

The Kentucky Republican and prominent Libertarian argued passionately that the US should not be supporting authoritarian governments who are known backers of extremists and who are conducting mass atrocities in Yemen. Sen. Paul has repeatedly called on Congress and the White House to "stop arming radical jihadism".

“Dumping more weapons into the Middle East won’t get us any closer to peace,” Paul said. “A ‘yes’ vote today is a vote for sanity. A ‘yes’ vote is a vote to quit sending arms to people who abuse human rights.”

Paul especially targeted Saudi Arabia in his floor remarks, according to Defense News:

“What are they doing with all the weapons we give them? They’re bombing civilians in Yemen,” he said. “They have been using our bombs and up until recently they were refueling their bombers with our planes. We’ve got no business in the war in Yemen. Congress never voted on it. It is unauthorized, it is unconstitutional and we have no business aiding the Saudis in this massacre.”

The idea of a block on US arms sales to Saudi Arabia — though long a little noted project of libertarians and non-interventionists — gained unprecedented momentum and visibility following last year's brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by a Saudi hit team at Saudi Arabia's consulate in Istanbul. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-14/senators-switched-key-votes-bill-gulf-arms-ban-hours-after-tanker-attacks

 

[Phaeton80]

Wow.. coming from 'The Independent' no less.. Things must really be untenable.
 

Quote

Outrage on Capitol Hill over ‘completely unacceptable’ US-funded scheme to shape Iran debate

United States officials say they are outraged by a government-funded troll campaign that has targeted American citizens critical of the administration’s hardline Iran policy and accused critics of being loyal to the Tehran regime. State Department officials admitted to Congressional staff in a closed-door meeting on Monday that a project they had funded to counter Iranian propaganda had gone off the rails. Critics in Washington have gone further, saying that the programme resembled the type of troll farms used by autocratic regimes abroad.

"It's completely unacceptable that American taxpayer dollars supported a project that attacked Americans and others who are critical of the Trump administration's policy of escalation and conflict with Iran,” a senior Congressional aide told The Independent, on condition of anonymity. This is something that happens in authoritarian regimes, not democracies.”

The campaign relentlessly attacked critics of the Iran policy on social media, including Twitter and Telegram messaging app, accusing them without evidence of being paid operatives of the regime in Tehran.  A spokeswoman for the State Department told reporters on Monday that funding for the “Iran Disinformation Project” had been suspended and is under review after it was reported that it went beyond the scope of its mandate by veering from countering propaganda from Iran to smearing domestic critics of White House policy.

State Department officials disclosed to lawmakers they had granted $1.5 million for Iran Disinfo, which repeatedly targeted, harassed and smeared critics of Trump’s tough stance against Iran on social media. Among those targeted were American activists, scholars, and journalists who challenged the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure campaign” against Iran. The revelation that US taxpayer money was being used to attack administration critics has now sparked a flurry of queries.

[..]

Some have said the harassment campaign resembles those launched by the Iranian regime against its critics, as well as clandestine troll farms run by Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other autocracies in attempts to shape online debate and intimidate critics. In a twist, Iran Disinfo has even attacked journalists deemed insufficiently supportive of the Trump administration’s policies at US-funded news outlets including Voice of America, Radio Farda, and RFE/RL. The harassment campaign is one aspect of an Iran policy that critics have warned was overly politicised, incoherent and risky.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-iran-congress-meeting-money-trump-conflict-a8954191.html

 

[Black Red Devil]

1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:

Someone seems to have reported this thread.. wonder who that was.

 

Who knows, a phantom, bigfoot, a honey badger, a dolphin.....

[Phaeton80]

Or.. or a badger- dolphin hybrid!

Who in the **** knows.