Tanker attacks!

[Nimrod103]

I don't understand the desire to defend the Iranians by some people here. They are ruled by a murderous evil tyranny, with a crazy well armed wing in the Revolutionary Guards. They have survived this long mainly because they have killed or intimidated all the moderates that used to be in that country. Their boat was caught on camera (night vision AIUI) removing evidence. Whether these bombings were directed by the Iranian Govt or not, there is no need to defend the Iranian regime. It would be better destroyed and replaced by a better democracy.

I am not defending the Iranians I am pointing out the facts are not certain it is Iran that did it even the UK government with all the evidence you suggest the US is hiding from us which has presumably been made available to its strongest ally has not said categorically it is Iran how do you know for certain those were Iranians in that boat? As for a murderous evil tyranny I thought you were referring to the US lol their last excursion to Iraq killed a few and for no reason. They have interfered in many other countries around the world for their own aims as well and are happy to back murderous regimes around the world when it suits their purposes, I don't see much difference to other countries pursuing their aims.
I don't support Iran but am tired of all the biased Western propaganda we get fed constantly which conveniently misses out important facts or blatantly lies, sometimes you have to start thinking at it from the other side.

Like all conflicts and potential conflicts in which we have a vested interest*, we will all have to take sides, if not now, but eventually. Your viewpoint clearly puts you on the side of the Mullahs. My conscience will not allow me to take that stance, so I must go with the UK and US governments.

*By vested interest, I mean the UK wants stability in the Middle East, a fair oil price, and freedom to export and move cargoes, a safe Israel, by and large secular democratic Govts, a region free of nuclear weapon proliferation and above all Peace. Iran under the mullahs is opposed to all these things.

[PeterGray]

Your viewpoint clearly puts you on the side of the Mullahs.

That's clearly nonsense! People are urging caution, and saying that jumping to conclusions is not in our, or many people's, interests. "Taking sides" in the Iraq war didn't help anyone, it didn't stop it being a disaster. The UK had the sense not to takes sides in the VN war, though there was pressure at the time, that didn't mean that the govt supported Ho Chi Minh, but that it didn't see getting involved as being in our, or anyone's, interests.

You seem to be implying that we must obediently follow what the US wants. That hardly represents reclaiming sovereignty from our partners in Europe, or anywhere else.

[youfoolishboy]

Like all conflicts and potential conflicts in which we have a vested interest*, we will all have to take sides, if not now, but eventually. Your viewpoint clearly puts you on the side of the Mullahs. My conscience will not allow me to take that stance, so I must go with the UK and US governments.

*By vested interest, I mean the UK wants stability in the Middle East, a fair oil price, and freedom to export and move cargoes, a safe Israel, by and large secular democratic Govts, a region free of nuclear weapon proliferation and above all Peace. Iran under the mullahs is opposed to all these things.

wow next you will tell me the BBC is not biased and UK politicians only want whats best for the UK.
Iran is ruled by a religious sect and Saudi Arabia is under sharia law both countries exhibit the same traits suppression of free speech, torture, religious intolerance, capital punishment, murdering political opponents, interfering in other countries etc etc are you therefore against Saudi Arabia or do you take the UK government view and the US's that anything Saudi does is clearly for the good? When is a bad country a good one, when it sells us oil?

[Nimrod103]

Like all conflicts and potential conflicts in which we have a vested interest*, we will all have to take sides, if not now, but eventually. Your viewpoint clearly puts you on the side of the Mullahs. My conscience will not allow me to take that stance, so I must go with the UK and US governments.

*By vested interest, I mean the UK wants stability in the Middle East, a fair oil price, and freedom to export and move cargoes, a safe Israel, by and large secular democratic Govts, a region free of nuclear weapon proliferation and above all Peace. Iran under the mullahs is opposed to all these things.

wow next you will tell me the BBC is not biased and UK politicians only want whats best for the UK.
Iran is ruled by a religious sect and Saudi Arabia is under sharia law both countries exhibit the same traits suppression of free speech, torture, religious intolerance, capital punishment, murdering political opponents, interfering in other countries etc etc are you therefore against Saudi Arabia or do you take the UK government view and the US's that anything Saudi does is clearly for the good? When is a bad country a good one, when it sells us oil?

No, Saudi and Iran have many of the same unpleasant traits. They are theocratic states, with very limited human rights. Iran is probably the more aggressive with its Revolutionary Guard causing trouble throughout the region, propping up Basha Al-Assad and supporting Hizbollah. The Saudis cause trouble with their brand of Wahabism. In many ways it would be better if the two countries could fight it out between themselves till they are both completely destroyed, with no involvement from the West.
But other things are not always equal. Currently Iran is the bigger threat to Isreal, with nuclear ambitions, and thus the bigger threat to ME peace. I think Iran is also very brittle, and it would not take a lot of pressure to overthrow the mullahs and establish a more liberal outgoing country (because I suspect the young of Iran are getting increasingly frustrated). Saudi Arabia is the declared ally of the West, and I think is more open to international persuasion.

[youfoolishboy]

No, Saudi and Iran have many of the same unpleasant traits. They are theocratic states, with very limited human rights. Iran is probably the more aggressive with its Revolutionary Guard causing trouble throughout the region, propping up Basha Al-Assad and supporting Hizbollah. The Saudis cause trouble with their brand of Wahabism. In many ways it would be better if the two countries could fight it out between themselves till they are both completely destroyed, with no involvement from the West.
But other things are not always equal. Currently Iran is the bigger threat to Isreal, with nuclear ambitions, and thus the bigger threat to ME peace. I think Iran is also very brittle, and it would not take a lot of pressure to overthrow the mullahs and establish a more liberal outgoing country (because I suspect the young of Iran are getting increasingly frustrated). Saudi Arabia is the declared ally of the West, and I think is more open to international persuasion.

Perhaps Iran is being aggressive as ever since the US puppet, the Shah, was removed the US, and the West to a lesser extent, has tried to bring down its elected government? We allow Saudi to happily attack Yemen and cause massive human suffering but complain if Iran uses proxies to further its ambitions. Perhaps actually continuing the agreement Obama had would have led to a more relaxed Iran. Painting Iran as a country led by mad mullahs does not do it justice it is a democracy unlike Saudi. Western propaganda continually focuses on Iranians religious fervor, which is nowhere near as bad as the utter conservatism of the Saudis who if you look closely at Wahhabism is completely against the modern world created by the West. If the West can be friends with Saudi Iran is not a big shift but instead the US just wants regime change as Iran took out their puppet control a few decades ago. If we are to condemn countries as enemies due to their conservative religious beliefs and their interfering in other countries then why are we talking to the Americans let alone the Saudis?

[dspp]

"Iranian personnel attempted to disrupt US surveillance of one of the two tankers that was attacked in the Gulf of Oman on 13 June by firing a man-portable air defence system (MANPADS) at an MQ-9 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), US Central Command (CENTCOM) said in a 16 June statement."

etc https://www.janes.com/article/89306/cen ... red-at-uav

====== also ========

"U.S. Central Command Statement on June 13 Limpet Mine Attack in the Gulf of Oman
USCENTCOM


June 13, 2019 —
U.S. Naval Forces in the region received two separate distress calls at 6:12 a.m. local time from the motor tanker (M/T) Altair and a second one at 7a.m. local time from the M/T Kokuka Courageous.

Link to Images

Both vessels were in international waters in the Gulf of Oman approximately 10 nautical miles apart at the time of the distress calls. USS Bainbridge was approximately 40 nautical miles away from the M/T Altair at the time of the attack, and immediately began closing the distance.

At 8:09 a.m. local time a U.S. aircraft observed an IRGC Hendijan class patrol boat and multiple IRGC fast attack craft/fast inshore attack craft (FAC/FIAC) in the vicinity of the M/T Altair.

At 9:12 a.m. local time a U.S. aircraft observes the FAC/FIAC pull a raft from the M/T Altair from the water.

At 9:26 a.m. local time the Iranians requested that the motor vessel Hyundai Dubai, which had rescued the sailors from the M/T Altair, to turn the crew over to the Iranian FIACs. The motor vessel Hyundai Dubai complied with the request and transferred the crew of the M/T Altair to the Iranian FIACs.

At 11:05 a.m. local time USS Bainbridge approaches the Dutch tug Coastal Ace, which had rescued the crew of twenty-one sailors from the M/T Kokuka Courageous who had abandoned their ship after discovering a probable unexploded limpet mine on their hull following an initial explosion.

While the Hendijan patrol boat appeared to attempt to get to the tug Coastal Ace before USS Bainbridge, the mariners were rescued by USS Bainbridge at the request of the master of the M/T Kokuka Courageous. The rescued sailors are currently aboard USS Bainbridge.

At 4:10 p.m. local time an IRGC Gashti Class patrol boat approached the M/T Kokuka Courageous and was observed and recorded removing the unexploded limpet mine from the M/T Kokuka Courageous."

etc https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/STATEMENT ... f-of-oman/

- dspp

[richfool]

At 9:26 a.m. local time the Iranians requested that the motor vessel Hyundai Dubai, which had rescued the sailors from the M/T Altair, to turn the crew over to the Iranian FIACs. The motor vessel Hyundai Dubai complied with the request and transferred the crew of the M/T Altair to the Iranian FIACs.

Hmm. I had been trying to give the benefit of the doubt here and thus had been pondering whether the attacks might have been carried out by extreme factions from within Iran, (or others trying to stir up hostilities) without the involvement of the Iranian Government, but that now seems doubtful, and more so because there seems to have been several IRGC boats involved. Unless of course they were acting purely in a rescue capacity, but if the latter, would they really have been trying to remove unexploded limpet mines from the ship's hull or firing missiles at surveillance drones (UAV's).

So do we know where the crew of the Altair are now then?

[PinkDalek]

So do we know where the crew of the Altair are now then?

Oil tanker crew from MT Front Altair leaves Iran for Dubai
Members of the Norwegian-owned oil tanker that was attacked in the Gulf of Oman have landed safely in Dubai after two days in Iran. ...

See https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-ea ... 7a64b61a39

[youfoolishboy]

At 9:26 a.m. local time the Iranians requested that the motor vessel Hyundai Dubai, which had rescued the sailors from the M/T Altair, to turn the crew over to the Iranian FIACs. The motor vessel Hyundai Dubai complied with the request and transferred the crew of the M/T Altair to the Iranian FIACs.

Hmm. I had been trying to give the benefit of the doubt here and thus had been pondering whether the attacks might have been carried out by extreme factions from within Iran, (or others trying to stir up hostilities) without the involvement of the Iranian Government, but that now seems doubtful, and more so because there seems to have been several IRGC boats involved. Unless of course they were acting purely in a rescue capacity, but if the latter, would they really have been trying to remove unexploded limpet mines from the ship's hull or firing missiles at surveillance drones (UAV's).

So do we know where the crew of the Altair are now then?

So Iranians attack a drone and then later go in a boat, in broad daylight, and take a 'mine' off the ship and think they would not be spotted or tracked? If the evidence is that clear why is the UK government still not saying for definite it was Iran? The Iranians are either incredibly stupid, add in the Japanese PM being in country at time of attack, or there is an elaborate hoax going on. I still think this is a set up too many things don't make sense also there is the report by the owner of the Japanese vessel which directly contradicts US claims that it was limpet mines.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-eas ... 51xzz.html
Tokyo: The owner of a Japanese tanker attacked in the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday has offered a different account of the nature of the attack than that provided by the United States.

Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo, said the Filipino crew of the Kokuka Courageous thought their vessel had been hit by flying objects rather than a mine......
"To put a bomb on the side is not something we are thinking," he said. "If it's between an explosion and a penetrating bullet, I have a feeling it is a penetrating bullet. If it was an explosion, there would be damage in different places, but this is just an assumption or a guess."

On Thursday, company officials said the vessel, which had been carrying methanol from Saudi Arabia to Singapore, had first been hit by what appeared to be an artillery shell toward the stern, causing a fire in the engine room which they had been able to extinguish.

Three hours later, the ship was again attacked on the same side in the center of the hull, at which point the captain felt it was no longer safe and ordered the crew to take to the life boats, officials said.

"When the shell hit, it was above the water surface by quite a lot," Katada said on Friday. "Because of that there is no doubt that it wasn't a torpedo."

[dspp]

None of the public evidence is clear.

It apparently took quite a lot of effort to get the crew freed from the custody of the Iranians. The other tanker's crew refused to go with the Iranians and managed to resist the persuasion long enough for a US naval vessel to take them.

If I was going to take a limpet mine off a vessel, and I didn't know exactly how to deal with the mine, I sure as heck would not have as many people on the boat with me as are in evidence in the photos.

But then again I probably wouldn't even know to look there in the first place.

There are many factions within Iran, seeking to create different outcomes. It is fairly normal for Iranian hardliners to use violent action to foreclose pathways for Iranian moderates.

So far none of the public evidence is clear.

My personal view remains the ICRG.

regards, dspp

[youfoolishboy]

None of the public evidence is clear.

It apparently took quite a lot of effort to get the crew freed from the custody of the Iranians. The other tanker's crew refused to go with the Iranians and managed to resist the persuasion long enough for a US naval vessel to take them.

If I was going to take a limpet mine off a vessel, and I didn't know exactly how to deal with the mine, I sure as heck would not have as many people on the boat with me as are in evidence in the photos.

But then again I probably wouldn't even know to look there in the first place.

There are many factions within Iran, seeking to create different outcomes. It is fairly normal for Iranian hardliners to use violent action to foreclose pathways for Iranian moderates.

So far none of the public evidence is clear.

My personal view remains the ICRG.

regards, dspp

Totally agree nothing is clear and everything is supposition and trying to fit what few facts we know to different theories I don't believe any of the actors out there as there are so many differing fractions within each country I only go with what seems more likely.
ps I should have thrown Israel into the mix earlier as they are very capable of trying to start a US/Iranian war as they have been desperate to hit Iran's nuclear facilities as Iran has promised to wipe out Israel at some point and nukes is a quick way to do it.

[youfoolishboy]

Found this at lunchtime when looking up what the Israelis are thinking about, maybe it was them that attacked the tankers, looks like its party time for them if this report is true. The fact the PoO has gone down today however suggests no one is believing it.

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran- ... ran-592832

Diplomatic sources at the UN headquarters in New York revealed to Maariv that they are assessing the United States' plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response to the tanker attack in the Persian Gulf on Thursday.
According to the officials, since Friday, the White House has been holding incessant discussions involving senior military commanders, Pentagon representatives and advisers to President Donald Trump.
The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed......
The sources added that President Trump himself was not enthusiastic about a military move against Iran, but lost his patience on the matter and would grant Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is pushing for action, what he wants.

[richfool]

It's a good job I topped up on gold earlier this year.