Jump to content


Photo

Torpedoed Tankers

false flag or real?

  • Please log in to reply
605 replies to this topic

#61 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,865 posts

Posted 15 June 2019 - 1023 AM

Its as simple as saying here is what we are doing and here are the reasons we are doing it.  If NATO and the supporting governments are still willing to defend Iran's actions then President Trump will call them out on it.  If Europe is lucky then President Biden will forgive Iran for its actions.

Before you say that I am too hard on Europe keep in mind that it was the US government that willingly paid Iran to engage in their current activities (in cash, no less)

 

The Iranians will go looking for Chinese help much as the Venezuelans have.  China is vast and wealthy but right this second has other issues on its plate.

 

The release of the second tanker's crew is key on what happens next


  • 0

#62 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,973 posts

Posted 15 June 2019 - 1124 AM

It Iran and Iranians are responsible, they should prepare themselves for the consequences of stupidity.

 

If they are, it would be a slap in the face for Abe as well, erasing news of his visit to Tehran off the front pages. 


  • 0

#63 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,865 posts

Posted 15 June 2019 - 1239 PM

the fact that Iran forced one ship to hand over the rescued crew and tried to get the Dutch ship to do the same (they refused) is a completely damning piece of evidence that is not in dispute at any level.


  • 0

#64 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,865 posts

Posted 15 June 2019 - 1253 PM

latest reports indicate the crew that was being held has been released and flown to Dubai.

Iranian intelligence probably has enough information on the crew to be able to credibly threaten their families if need be.

At least the crew members are out of Iran.  That is a good step.


  • 0

#65 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,439 posts

Posted 15 June 2019 - 1332 PM

the fact that Iran forced one ship to hand over the rescued crew and tried to get the Dutch ship to do the same (they refused) is a completely damning piece of evidence that is not in dispute at any level.

 

Not necessarily. Under the hypothesis that Iran has not done it, they would have wanted access to the witnesses, because having people in the area bombing ships is not really comforting. 

 

 

latest reports indicate the crew that was being held has been released and flown to Dubai.

Iranian intelligence probably has enough information on the crew to be able to credibly threaten their families if need be.

At least the crew members are out of Iran.  That is a good step.

 

Well we need to see what the crews say, what the iranian officials have asked them. this might tell us what  Iran is up to.


  • 0

#66 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,681 posts

Posted 15 June 2019 - 1946 PM

NATO won't want to know. Nobody was interested in Europe's opinion over the nuclear deal, it's a bit late to snap fingers and expect so allies to fall into line. After all, America doesn't need allies, right?

All that said, I'd be delighted to see the regime fall. All we need do is sit back and watch it happen. Piracy or maritime interdiction will change nothing.

Not a NATO issue.  Beyond that, Europe doesn't want to know just like they didn't want to know 30 some years ago when Iran was targeting Kuwaiti tankers.  Best to let the knuckle draggers form the west side of the Atlantic take care of it.


  • 0

#67 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,988 posts

Posted 15 June 2019 - 1956 PM

The Japanese shipping firm is saying the ship was attacked by a 'flying object':

https://www.nytimes....-gulf-oman.html


  • 0

#68 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,973 posts

Posted 15 June 2019 - 2115 PM

The plot thickens. Katada's account is based on eyewitness reports of Filipino crewmembers, for what they are worth.


  • 0

#69 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,988 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 0200 AM

Suicide drone ?


  • 0

#70 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,497 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 0208 AM

Reports on CNN that Iran tried to shoot down a drone tracking it's boats, before the attack on the tankers.
 

How common is this drone presence? Drone is hardly  ideal tool for naval reconnaissance task - at least US is regularly sending recon planes to waters around Crimea, but i do not remember US drone flights   (unlike their regular "tours" to Donbass) Was the drone "tracking Iranian  boats" in Iranian waters?


  • 0

#71 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,497 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 0214 AM

latest reports indicate the crew that was being held has been released and flown to Dubai.

Iranian intelligence probably has enough information on the crew to be able to credibly threaten their families if need be.

 

Taking into account majority of crew members are reportedly Russian citizens, it is unlikely. They are reported by Rus media on the way home https://tass.ru/mezh...anorama/6554789

   

Interesting all this was predicted by art


Edited by Roman Alymov, 16 June 2019 - 0215 AM.

  • 0

#72 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,585 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 0224 AM

 

NATO won't want to know. Nobody was interested in Europe's opinion over the nuclear deal, it's a bit late to snap fingers and expect so allies to fall into line. After all, America doesn't need allies, right?

All that said, I'd be delighted to see the regime fall. All we need do is sit back and watch it happen. Piracy or maritime interdiction will change nothing.

Not a NATO issue.  Beyond that, Europe doesn't want to know just like they didn't want to know 30 some years ago when Iran was targeting Kuwaiti tankers.  Best to let the knuckle draggers form the west side of the Atlantic take care of it.

 

 

 

And once again, completely and totally untrue.

 

https://en.wikipedia.../Armilla_patrol

The Royal Navy withdrew its forces from the Persian Gulf in 1971 in line with the United Kingdom's general retreat from imperial commitments. However, tensions in the area remained high and Royal Navy ships were still a frequent sight in the area. In 1980, war broke out between Iraq and Iran. In response to the increased danger to British shipping and other British interests, a Royal Navy escort vessel was sent to the Persian Gulf and at least one has remained there ever since. In addition to the surface combatant, the Royal Navy has also maintained an auxiliary of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) in the Persian Gulf.

During the Falklands war, the Royal New Zealand Navy dispatched frigates to carry out the Armilla patrol duties, freeing the British ships on station for service with the Royal Navy task force tasked with freeing the Falkland Islands from the Argentine invasion.

The Armilla patrol was praised by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and a call was made in parliament for an Armilla Patrol Medal to go to those serving in the Patrol at the time in 1989.[1] Ships Companies were subsequently awarded the General Service Medal (Gulf) for patrol and escort duties between 17 November 1986 and 31 October 31 October 1988. Mine countermeasures ships were awarded the GSM for service between 1 November 1988 until 28 February 1989.

 
Typical Armilla patrol deployments lasted for six months or so, with the supporting RFA vessel sometimes spending an aggregate total of over a year in the area. The patrol was reinforced with an aircraft carrier or task group in times of high tension or British involvement in wartime operations or by frigates or destroyers transiting the area for other operations in the Far East or Pacific.

 

 

https://www.csmonito...0825/oholl.html

August 25, 1987

The surprising Dutch pledge to send ships to the Gulf to join American, British, and French ships there in defending oil tankers came late last week after the British publicly had criticized earlier Dutch refusal to do so.

Last Thursday in the Hague, the current WEU chairman, the Netherlands, conducted a one-day meeting on the Gulf of senior diplomats from the member nations of Britain, France, West Germany, Italy, and the Benelux countries.

After the meeting Minister of Foreign Affairs Hans van den Broek said the Netherlands will send naval vessels to the Gulf. Western diplomats see the move in part as a desire by the Dutch to use their WEU chairmanship to reassert the prominent role in Western alliance planning the Netherlands once played, despite its small size.

The Dutch move increases pressure on the reluctant Italians to join the Western flotilla in the Gulf. It does not increase pressure on the West Germans, since the allies are resigned to Bonn's plea of constitutional constraint on use of West German forces outside the immediate NATO area. While the West German Constitution says only that armed forces must be used exclusively for defense, the West German Navy would gladly define as ``defense'' participation in allied excursions outside NATO's immediate waters.

 

 

There is a difference between then and now. Now, none of us really need the oil from the region. There are plenty of places we can get it from. The US is also largely self sufficient in oil. Secondly, its a manufactured crisis. Whilst you can make a convincing case that the original tanker wars were an offshoot of the Iran/Iraq war and thus we were all equally innocent victims of it, this is a much harder sell. The present crisis, which yes, I still place entirely on the Iranian hands, initiated with the US decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal. A decision they took without deciding to consult allies over what would happen next. It was not hard to determine what would happen next. You only have to study a textbook on the history of the region in 1987-88.

 

America first. Quite right. So you go first then.


  • 0

#73 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,254 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 0520 AM

Yeah, the WEU deployed a total of 29 vessels in "Operation Cleansweep" in from 1987 to 1990, half of them minesweepers, and continued coordinating mine-clearing operations in the Persian Gulf after the end of the Iran-Iraq War up to 1991, in part with the total of 45 ships enforcing the embargo against Iraq in the runup to Desert Storm.

 

Majority opinion on current events seems to be they are deliberate Iranian government moves to send a signal to the West, making use of the Trump administration's paralyzis due to its contradictory policies of non-interventionism and military threats against Iran, quitting the JCPOA while offering talks, etc.; but not just aimed at the US but also the Europeans, which they have accused of not doing enough to keep the agreement working, recently announcing that Iran would resume uranium enrichment. They're probably betting that they could suck up anything the West could throw at them with its lead power constricted by Trump's base, like some Syrian-style cruise missile barrages.

 

Regarding economic effects - sure, neither the US nor Europe are as dependent upon Gulf oil anymore as they used to be, but trouble in the Strait of Hormuz would result in price hikes for everybody as main receivers would seek compensation from other sources.


Edited by BansheeOne, 16 June 2019 - 0544 AM.

  • 0

#74 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,439 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 0548 AM

The plot thickens. Katada's account is based on eyewitness reports of Filipino crewmembers, for what they are worth.

 
Can I read that somewhere?
 
 
 
 

Yeah, the WEU deployed a total of 29 vessels in "Operation Cleansweep" in from 1987 to 1990, half of them minesweepers, and continued coordinating mine-clearing operations in the Persian Gulf after the end of the Iran-Iraq War up to 1991, in part with the total of 45 ships enforcing the embargo against Iraq in the runup to Desert Storm.
 
Majority opinion on current events seems to be they are deliberate Iranian government moves to send a signal to the West, making use of the Trump administration's paralyzis due to its contradictory policies of non-interventionism and military threats against Iran, quitting the JCPOA while offering talks, etc.; but not just aimed at the US but also the Europeans, which they have accused of not doing enough to keep the agreement working, recently announcing that Iran would resume uranium enrichment. They're probably betting that they could suck up anything the West could throw at them with its lead power constricted by Trump's base, like some Syrian-style cruise missile barrages.

 
Certainly looks like a motive for Iran.
 

Regarding economic effects - sure, neither the US nor Europe are as dependent upon Gulf oil anymore as they used to be, but trouble in the Strait of Hormuz would result in price hikes for everybody as main receivers would seek compensation from other sources.

 
Yup, I have just filled up my car and a few jerry cans to buffer the expected price hike. Will not last long, but still.


  • 0

#75 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,988 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 0753 AM

'Trump administration providing ‘false’ information about Gulf of Oman attack, says Japanese tanker owner'

https://www.independ...z-a8958916.html


  • 0

#76 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,923 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 0949 AM

 

 

NATO won't want to know. Nobody was interested in Europe's opinion over the nuclear deal, it's a bit late to snap fingers and expect so allies to fall into line. After all, America doesn't need allies, right?

All that said, I'd be delighted to see the regime fall. All we need do is sit back and watch it happen. Piracy or maritime interdiction will change nothing.

Not a NATO issue.  Beyond that, Europe doesn't want to know just like they didn't want to know 30 some years ago when Iran was targeting Kuwaiti tankers.  Best to let the knuckle draggers form the west side of the Atlantic take care of it.

 

 

 

And once again, completely and totally untrue.

 

https://en.wikipedia.../Armilla_patrol

The Royal Navy withdrew its forces from the Persian Gulf in 1971 in line with the United Kingdom's general retreat from imperial commitments. However, tensions in the area remained high and Royal Navy ships were still a frequent sight in the area. In 1980, war broke out between Iraq and Iran. In response to the increased danger to British shipping and other British interests, a Royal Navy escort vessel was sent to the Persian Gulf and at least one has remained there ever since. In addition to the surface combatant, the Royal Navy has also maintained an auxiliary of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) in the Persian Gulf.

During the Falklands war, the Royal New Zealand Navy dispatched frigates to carry out the Armilla patrol duties, freeing the British ships on station for service with the Royal Navy task force tasked with freeing the Falkland Islands from the Argentine invasion.

The Armilla patrol was praised by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and a call was made in parliament for an Armilla Patrol Medal to go to those serving in the Patrol at the time in 1989.[1] Ships Companies were subsequently awarded the General Service Medal (Gulf) for patrol and escort duties between 17 November 1986 and 31 October 31 October 1988. Mine countermeasures ships were awarded the GSM for service between 1 November 1988 until 28 February 1989.

 
Typical Armilla patrol deployments lasted for six months or so, with the supporting RFA vessel sometimes spending an aggregate total of over a year in the area. The patrol was reinforced with an aircraft carrier or task group in times of high tension or British involvement in wartime operations or by frigates or destroyers transiting the area for other operations in the Far East or Pacific.

 

 

https://www.csmonito...0825/oholl.html

August 25, 1987

The surprising Dutch pledge to send ships to the Gulf to join American, British, and French ships there in defending oil tankers came late last week after the British publicly had criticized earlier Dutch refusal to do so.

Last Thursday in the Hague, the current WEU chairman, the Netherlands, conducted a one-day meeting on the Gulf of senior diplomats from the member nations of Britain, France, West Germany, Italy, and the Benelux countries.

After the meeting Minister of Foreign Affairs Hans van den Broek said the Netherlands will send naval vessels to the Gulf. Western diplomats see the move in part as a desire by the Dutch to use their WEU chairmanship to reassert the prominent role in Western alliance planning the Netherlands once played, despite its small size.

The Dutch move increases pressure on the reluctant Italians to join the Western flotilla in the Gulf. It does not increase pressure on the West Germans, since the allies are resigned to Bonn's plea of constitutional constraint on use of West German forces outside the immediate NATO area. While the West German Constitution says only that armed forces must be used exclusively for defense, the West German Navy would gladly define as ``defense'' participation in allied excursions outside NATO's immediate waters.

 

 

There is a difference between then and now. Now, none of us really need the oil from the region. There are plenty of places we can get it from. The US is also largely self sufficient in oil. Secondly, its a manufactured crisis. Whilst you can make a convincing case that the original tanker wars were an offshoot of the Iran/Iraq war and thus we were all equally innocent victims of it, this is a much harder sell. The present crisis, which yes, I still place entirely on the Iranian hands, initiated with the US decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal. A decision they took without deciding to consult allies over what would happen next. It was not hard to determine what would happen next. You only have to study a textbook on the history of the region in 1987-88.

 

America first. Quite right. So you go first then.

 

 

Stuart, I don't think King is interested in inconvenient things like facts or reality generally. You're wasting your time. 


  • 0

#77 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,745 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 1045 AM

So far we know nothing of relevance about who is the perpetrator.

 

What little we know are inconclusive claims, many of them from a party that's KNOWN to be led by serial liars and has been lying relentlessly and extremely about Iran for more than thirty years.

 

 

My personal favourite suspect is Prince Bonesaw in conspiracy with the one trick walrus. They're the one whose intents get advanced by such events.


  • 0

#78 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,039 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 1101 AM

Interesting that the general sentiment is reflected in the sources that Stuart posted? Citations about the UK under Lady Thatcher aren't very reflective of European sentiments. Citations about New Zealand being involved is right out (Are the Kiwi's part of the EU now? :rolleyes:  )

"The surprising Dutch pledge.."

"The Dutch move increases pressure on the reluctant Italians to join the Western flotilla in the Gulf"

Why was it surprising? Perhaps it's because generally, Europe doesn't generally want to get involved in such actions outside of their own waters. 

Banshee's point about 30 mine sweepers is interesting. Ok, yeah, they sent mine sweepers. Any combat ships? Were those mine sweepers armed? Did they engage any Iranian Naval Forces? 
 

Lastly, "manufactured crisis" Seriously?  


Edited by rmgill, 16 June 2019 - 1104 AM.

  • 0

#79 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,923 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 1150 AM

To be honest, I think this is the money quote "There is a difference between then and now. Now, none of us really need the oil from the region. There are plenty of places we can get it from. The US is also largely self sufficient in oil."  Although Stuart side-stepped the issue of our dependence on Qatari LNG. However, we are already having to diversify our LNG sourcing as Qatar has started to ship to robust energy markets in Asia instead.

 

I think the majority of voters here (the UK and US Western European allies) have had enough of having to go along with various ill-conceived military operations dreamt up by the US. I also think it's reasonable to think that, with their immense wealth and massive and technologically superior arsenals, the Saudis and UAE ought to be able to handle defending shipping in that area from the Iranians. it's equally reasonable for an American to think that Europe could pay for its own defence vs a vastly poorer Russia. Of course we can - especially if we stop wasting our budgets on defending areas of little and decreasing strategic importance to us. 


  • 0

#80 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,585 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 1224 PM

To be honest, I think this is the money quote "There is a difference between then and now. Now, none of us really need the oil from the region. There are plenty of places we can get it from. The US is also largely self sufficient in oil."  Although Stuart side-stepped the issue of our dependence on Qatari LNG. However, we are already having to diversify our LNG sourcing as Qatar has started to ship to robust energy markets in Asia instead.
 
I think the majority of voters here (the UK and US Western European allies) have had enough of having to go along with various ill-conceived military operations dreamt up by the US. I also think it's reasonable to think that, with their immense wealth and massive and technologically superior arsenals, the Saudis and UAE ought to be able to handle defending shipping in that area from the Iranians. it's equally reasonable for an American to think that Europe could pay for its own defence vs a vastly poorer Russia. Of course we can - especially if we stop wasting our budgets on defending areas of little and decreasing strategic importance to us.

There is a book in my collection called 'Fighting WW3 from the middle east'. Written by an Israeli historian, it identified British foreign policy in the middle East as trying to maintain imperial influence, long past the point where it had relevence. He identified the Suez canal as part of this policy. Now, since we lost india, we didn't need it anymore. It was wholly irrelevant to our requirements, as Dennis Potter Brilliantly portrayed in 'Lipstick on your collar'.

My point is for the the Americans, the Gulf is irrelevant. It Might become relevant if Iran gets nuclear weapons. But we already had a deal for that. Kicking that over led directly to this mess. This is why I cannot embrace this as a vital interest for us, just as the nuclear deal wasn't for America.

I don't know why the US feels the need to fight Israeli and Saudis wars for them. But if you want to continue imperial overstretch, you will end up where Britain is. Ridiculed and irrelevant.
So if there is no gain, why do it?

Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 16 June 2019 - 1225 PM.

  • 0