Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Teneb]

It was unmarked? Hm. You know, I'm also wondering how the tanker crew didn't notice a possibly unidentified boat coming alongside them. Sure, they could have taken advantage of chaos when the explosion happened but an unidentified boat coming alongside them would be pretty suspicious just about anywhere.

The fact that it's in black and white is odd also, unless maybe it's thermal, but no mention was made of it being a thermal nighttime image, which could also explain how they didn't notice the ship coming alongside them.

Ok, not to argue against the case, because I'm all for this conspiracy theory, but most security footage is black and white and low resolution because storage is an issue. Cameras are cheap, you can look at anything you want in great quality. But storing it for any length of time is going to be an issue if you've got even a couple of high quality cameras recording 24/7.

As for unmarked boats approaching without being seen. It was just two years ago that we had a freighter ram a US Navy destroyer off the coast of Japan and never even realize it until roughly 20 minutes later. Commercial shipping is notoriously understaffed and they're very large. Depending on size perhaps only a single person on the bridge at any given time. That's assuming they're strict enough to even do that and not just rely on autopilot and radar to warn them of anything big enough to bother them...

It's all plausable. But so is a conspiracy.

The area also is the hunting grounds of Somali pirates, so small unmarked ships aren't exactly rare (though they are always a source of worry).


Might've been the Saudis that did it instead of US proper, though.

It's on the other side of the Arabian penninsula from Somalia, if they were expecting pirates, they wouldn't be from Somalia. Also, pirates tend to not try and sink their targets, or at least blow a hole in it and attract attention. No idea if Iran meant to sink those two tanker ships, but if the intent was to sink them, then they clearly failed.

You're right. I got crazy confused.

Didn't Iran also rescue the crews? Kind of weird for someone who allegedly attacked in the first place. Pretty much screams of false flag to create a casus belli.

[Lord Shonus]

It was unmarked? Hm. You know, I'm also wondering how the tanker crew didn't notice a possibly unidentified boat coming alongside them. Sure, they could have taken advantage of chaos when the explosion happened but an unidentified boat coming alongside them would be pretty suspicious just about anywhere.

The fact that it's in black and white is odd also, unless maybe it's thermal, but no mention was made of it being a thermal nighttime image, which could also explain how they didn't notice the ship coming alongside them.

Ok, not to argue against the case, because I'm all for this conspiracy theory, but most security footage is black and white and low resolution because storage is an issue. Cameras are cheap, you can look at anything you want in great quality. But storing it for any length of time is going to be an issue if you've got even a couple of high quality cameras recording 24/7.

As for unmarked boats approaching without being seen. It was just two years ago that we had a freighter ram a US Navy destroyer off the coast of Japan and never even realize it until roughly 20 minutes later. Commercial shipping is notoriously understaffed and they're very large. Depending on size perhaps only a single person on the bridge at any given time. That's assuming they're strict enough to even do that and not just rely on autopilot and radar to warn them of anything big enough to bother them...

It's all plausable. But so is a conspiracy.

The area also is the hunting grounds of Somali pirates, so small unmarked ships aren't exactly rare (though they are always a source of worry).


Might've been the Saudis that did it instead of US proper, though.

It's on the other side of the Arabian penninsula from Somalia, if they were expecting pirates, they wouldn't be from Somalia. Also, pirates tend to not try and sink their targets, or at least blow a hole in it and attract attention. No idea if Iran meant to sink those two tanker ships, but if the intent was to sink them, then they clearly failed.

You're right. I got crazy confused.

Didn't Iran also rescue the crews? Kind of weird for someone who allegedly attacked in the first place. Pretty much screams of false flag to create a casus belli.

The mines (if there were any, which the damage pattern seems to support) were placed much too high to sink the ship. This means that whoever planted them (almost certainly not a uS false flag - if nothing else, the current administration is much too leaky to hide it) intended this as a show of force. If it was Iran, rescuing or "rescuing" the crews would tie into that.

At this point, blaming Iran is premature at best - besides other state actors that stand to gain by sowing discord, there are literally dozens of non-state actors that can get ahold of a boat and a couple of mines.

[smjjames]

I didn't really hear anything about who rescued the crews, I think there was an US ship that was in the area that did come and help. If it was civillian Iranian ships, that'd make sense as it's close to the Iranian coast and the civillians would be in the dark about their military being behind the attack. edit: Actually, both the US and Iran took part in the rescues https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48648788

Anyways, if the US is behind the false flag attack, that's EVEN MORE brazen than the whole Iraq WMD stuff, and even on people who are our allies. It'd be like, nothing short of betrayal really. The fact that they'd be risking A LOT on doing this and having it not getting out at some point kind of forces occams razor to activate.

-quote pyramid snip-

The mines (if there were any, which the damage pattern seems to support) were placed much too high to sink the ship. This means that whoever planted them (almost certainly not a uS false flag - if nothing else, the current administration is much too leaky to hide it) intended this as a show of force. If it was Iran, rescuing or "rescuing" the crews would tie into that.

At this point, blaming Iran is premature at best - besides other state actors that stand to gain by sowing discord, there are literally dozens of non-state actors that can get ahold of a boat and a couple of mines.

You have a point on the admin being leaky, but even they have managed to keep top secret stuff, well, top secret.

As for non-state actors, you'd think they'd be trying to claim responsibility by now.

[Culise]

It's on the other side of the Arabian penninsula from Somalia, if they were expecting pirates, they wouldn't be from Somalia. Also, pirates tend to not try and sink their targets, or at least blow a hole in it and attract attention. No idea if Iran meant to sink those two tanker ships, but if the intent was to sink them, then they clearly failed.

It is worth noting that piracy by Somali ships and crews has occurred as far away as the Persian Gulf and the Laccadives (off the Indian coast).  Past precedent thus suggests that the attack being near the Hormuz Strait is not in itself enough to rule out Somali pirates, though it's rather unlikely to be them for other reasons.  For instance, setting aside the MO of the attack that you also mention, the fact that the last successful attack by Somali pirates took place in 2017 and only two attacks took place in 2018 that I could find, both failed, is another more likely reason to search for other possible culprits. 

[smjjames]

It's on the other side of the Arabian penninsula from Somalia, if they were expecting pirates, they wouldn't be from Somalia. Also, pirates tend to not try and sink their targets, or at least blow a hole in it and attract attention. No idea if Iran meant to sink those two tanker ships, but if the intent was to sink them, then they clearly failed.

It is worth noting that piracy by Somali ships and crews has occurred as far away as the Persian Gulf and the Laccadives (off the Indian coast).  Past precedent thus suggests that the attack being near the Hormuz Strait is not in itself enough to rule out Somali pirates, though it's rather unlikely to be them for other reasons.  For instance, setting aside the MO of the attack that you also mention, the fact that the last successful attack by Somali pirates took place in 2017 and only two attacks took place in 2018 that I could find, both failed, is another more likely reason to search for other possible culprits. 

True, however, blowing a hole in a ships hull stlll isn't typically part of pirates SOP (not modern pirates anyway).

[Culise]

Yes. I didn't elaborate further on the curious MO since, as I said, you said it already. ^_^

[Teneb]

Japan ain't sold on the US' version of how the attack went down. For instance, they say eyewitnesses saw a flying object hit the ship, not a mine or torpedo.

EDIT: here's another source

[hector13]

This is getting to be somewhat ridiculous.

[smjjames]

Japan ain't sold on the US' version of how the attack went down. For instance, they say eyewitnesses saw a flying object hit the ship, not a mine or torpedo.

EDIT: here's another source

Which is why when combined with the fact that an Iranian ship fired at least one missile at an US drone in the area, it being an accident is plausible to me. However, having both ships on the same day be hit by a missle by accident is stretching coincidence pretty hard.

Also, all the focus seems to be on the Japanese ship, there doesn't seem to be anything from the Norwegian one, no notes of observation or much else. I'm wondering what information is coming from the Norwegian one.

I know it seems a good deal like a false flag because of contradictions and vagueness and just from the Trump admins own credibility issues, but the negatives from this sort of action are just too high for it to be even considered.

[Karnewarrior]

Japan ain't sold on the US' version of how the attack went down. For instance, they say eyewitnesses saw a flying object hit the ship, not a mine or torpedo.

EDIT: here's another source

Thank god the Japanese aren't clinically retarded.

[Lord Shonus]

Japan ain't sold on the US' version of how the attack went down. For instance, they say eyewitnesses saw a flying object hit the ship, not a mine or torpedo.

EDIT: here's another source

Thank god the Japanese aren't clinically retarded.

If, however, the Japanese account is correct, whoever carried out the attack on their ship IS "clinically retarded". Their claim is that "somebody shot us with a big bullet! Then they shot us again hours later!". It is one thing for the motives for an attack to be a mystery - it is quite another for the methodology to do so. There is no plausible reason to delay that long before shooting again.

Never mind that "we saw something flying in one of the busiest water areas on the planet, then there was an explosion" is hardly conclusive proof.

[smjjames]

Hm, I kind of doubt this, but do they record radar data on those ships? Obviously commercial radar wouldn't be tuned to be able to quickly spot incoming missiles, but theres a chance it saw something. I'd also look at whatever cameras the ship has, assuming that they keep data records which probably again, isn't likely. I'd likely also ask them whether they actually saw or heard said flying projectile. Seems like there is much investigative work to be done there.

It also goes back to what I said about the Norwegian ship, nobody from there seems to be claiming something flew at their ship.

[Reelya]

The timing is weird. It was during a diplomatic visit from Japan to Iran. Someone mentioned a false-flag accusations and rightly said the USA had no reason to do that. However, there is another regional power who might have a reason to do that, and have actively tried to sabotage the Iranian diplomatic visit, who we haven't considered. Saudi Arabia has the most to gain from embroiling Iran in something like this. And, check military spending, Saudi Arabia has geared itself up as the third-largest military spender on the planet topping even Russia on military spending. Saudi Arabia would be clear beneficiaries of any outright hostilities as they'd get to take the gloves off and flex their new military might. And they have any number of regional proxies they could use to pull something like this off with plausible deniability.

Note, that this follows a string of similar attacks right of the UAE coast last month, and there's no evidence for Iran having any involvement in any of those. Read this article and note how the UAE are ostensibly Saudi allies, but they're major backstabbers in the Yemeni conflict. The UAE might be the nation with the most to gain by fostering a feud between the Saudis and Iran.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/21/yemen-uae-united-arab-emirates-profiting-from-chaos-of-civil-war

[Lord Shonus]

Those would be the other "state actors" i mentioned. Pretty much every regional power except Iran profits from US-Iranian hostility.

[nenjin]

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/15/733084351/crew-of-norwegian-owned-oil-tanker-arrives-in-dubai-after-hostile-attack?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr&fbclid=IwAR01HUwURzsd1cqiFdkjU7K7_vejUYFVQLCB301pUQsM_TmsVMmTd3IzGvc

Sorry for the link, I’m on my phone.

Take away is that crude is up to $64 a barrel, after increased insurance costs, security costs and possible shortage fears. If you’re unhappy about the low price of oil, I suppose this would be one way to artificially and suddenly increase the price...