• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Japanese ship owner contradicts U.S. account of how tanker was attacked

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
There doesn't appear to be a "why" in that article. It says "Iran is under pressure", sure, ok, it then says "they have been pursuing strategic patience" ok, cool... then "but 5hey may be attacking ships now"

To paraphrase Southpark;
1. Attack Japanese merchant ships
2.
3. Profit!

No one is providing a compelling step 2.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
Explosives are often identified by the residue. Formulations of explosives can point to a source but not to the perp necessarily.

Get those tankers to a place where a forensic investigation can be done, hopefully by a third party.
I’m certain that will be done at least by one of the attacked tankers. Besides the chemical residue, there will be the damage itself with mines and artillery shells leaving different signatures.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
What the article actually said:

The crews of both vessels were evacuated to other ships nearby. Both Iran and the US later released pictures showing rescued crew members on board their vessels.
Yes, those were the Dutch and Norwegian tankers. You didn’t read far enough:

The owner of the Japanese tanker instructed the crew not to get on the Iranian ship, so they boarded the Bainbridge instead, the Pentagon report said.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
Why would Iran want to intimidate Japan? This is the crux question you're not answering
They’re intimidating all tankers. Notice that, so far, there have been no deaths and no sinkings unlike the last tanker war. The Iranians are giving a measured message here. The message being “We own the Gulf and the Strait. Respect us”. They’d also like the sanctions to be eased.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
They’re intimidating all tankers. Notice that, so far, there have been no deaths and no sinkings unlike the last tanker war. The Iranians are giving a measured message here. The message being “We own the Gulf and the Strait. Respect us”. They’d also like the sanctions to be eased.
W. H. Y. would Iran want to intimidate Japan? How do they expect to materially benefit? Note also your "explanation" fails to address the fact that Iran is strongly denying responsibility. That seems counter productive if they're trying to intimidate anyone.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
W. H. Y. would Iran want to intimidate Japan? How do they expect to materially benefit? Note also your "explanation" fails to address the fact that Iran is strongly denying responsibility. That seems counter productive if they're trying to intimidate anyone.
Scroll up please: They’re hitting several tankers of several nations, not just Japan. Probably more luck than specific targeting.

Why do you think it’s the Jews, the US, Saudi Arabia or whatever the conspiracy theory of the day may be?
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Scroll up please: They’re hitting several tankers of several nations, not just Japan. Probably more luck than specific targeting.

Why do you think it’s the Jews, the US, Saudi Arabia or whatever the conspiracy theory of the day may be?
Because the Bolton et al want a war, are on record as wanting to attack Iran, and believe they will benefit from it. I see no obvious benefit to the Iranians. The US also has a proven past record in starting wars of convenience over false pretenses... often involving false flag attacks on shipping. Fool me once...
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
Because the Bolton et al want a war, are on record as wanting to attack Iran, and believe they will benefit from it. I see no obvious benefit to the Iranians. The US also has a proven past record in starting wars of convenience over false pretenses... often involving false flag attacks on shipping. Fool me once...
Thank you for your highly biased, one-sided view of the situation.

You are free to believe whatever you like, but I strongly doubt all of this showmanship on both sides will start a war.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Thank you for your highly biased, one-sided view of the situation.

You are free to believe whatever you like, but I strongly doubt all of this showmanship on both sides will start a war.
Basic pattern recognition and historical knowledge = bias. Sure thing.

I hope you're right that there isn't a war. But ignoring the machinations of the various chickenhawks at play is naiive. Wars have started over less. There are several major players who are known to want war with Iran. It seems silly to stand by and say nothing and just hope Bolton et al will act in good faith for everyone's benefit. Let them know you don't want a war. Better to protest a war that was never going to happen rather than do nothing and let a war that might bave been stopped, happen.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This thread is garbage and the title is misleading. The Japanese owner admits he is making assumptions and guessing. He knows nothing of what actually happened.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
This thread is garbage and the title is misleading. The Japanese owner admits he is making assumptions and guessing. He knows nothing of what actually happened.
Agreed. OTOH, haters gonna hate. It’s interesting to identify the anti-Americans who nitpick at everything, including throwing in false or deceptive comments, but never, ever see any wrong with Russian, Iran, China or anyone else before or after the Cold War.

It makes me wonder if they are just ignorant, ideological, rebellious teenagers in their first year of college or if they are foreign agents seeking to turn weak minds, like teenagers, against the US.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Agreed. OTOH, haters gonna hate. It’s interesting to identify the anti-Americans who nitpick at everything, including throwing in false or deceptive comments, but never, ever see any wrong with Russian, Iran, China or anyone else before or after the Cold War.
I'm pro-American. But being "pro" something doesn't mean ignoring past faults. I'm also happy to criticise Russia, Iran, China and anyone else who warrants it, when they're not being invoked as a whataboutism to avoid the topic at hand.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
All we have to do is look at USAs history of starting or getting involved in wars to know that we are in really dangerous territory.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
I'm pro-American. But being "pro" something doesn't mean ignoring past faults. I'm also happy to criticise Russia, Iran, China and anyone else who warrants it, when they're not being invoked as a whataboutism to avoid the topic at hand.
QED my pro-British forum member.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Why would Iran want to intimidate Japan? This is the crux question you're not answering

excerpt:

The latest incident comes after the U.S. alleged that Iran used mines to attack four oil tankers off the nearby Emirati port of Fujairah last month. Iran has denied being involved, but it comes as Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen also have launched missile and drone attacks on Saudi Arabia.

Cmdr. Joshua Frey, a 5th Fleet spokesman, said the U.S. Navy was assisting the two vessels that he described as being hit in a “reported attack.” He did not say how the ships were attacked or who was suspected of being behind the assault.

Dryad Global, a maritime intelligence firm, preliminarily identified one of the vessels involved as the MT Front Altair, a Marshall Islands-flagged crude oil tanker. The vessel was “on fire and adrift,” Dryad added. It did not offer a cause for the incident or mention the second ship.

The firm that operates the Front Altair told The Associated Press that an explosion was the cause of the fire onboard. International Tanker Management declined to comment further saying they are still investigating what caused the explosion. Its crew of 23 is safe after being evacuated by the nearby Hyundai Dubai vessel, it said.

The second vessel was identified as the Kokuka Courageous. BSM Ship Management said it sustained hull damage and 21 sailors had been evacuated, with one suffering minor injuries. Iranian state television said 44 sailors from the two tankers have been transferred to an Iranian port in the southern province of Hormozgan.

The timing of Thursday’s reported attack was especially sensitive as Abe’s high-stakes diplomacy mission was underway in Iran. On Wednesday, after talks with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Abe warned that any “accidental conflict” that could be sparked amid the heightened U.S.-Iran tensions must be avoided.

His message came just hours after Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthi rebels attacked a Saudi airport, striking its arrivals hall before dawn and wounding 26 people Wednesday.

Abe met with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Thursday, the second and final day of his visit. There were no immediate details about what they discussed.

Meanwhile, in Tokyo, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga, a top government spokesman, told reporters that Abe’s trip was intended to help de-escalate tensions in the Mideast — but not specifically mediate between Tehran and Washington.

His remarks were apparently meant to downplay and lower expectations amid uncertain prospects for Abe’s mission.

Tensions have escalated in the Mideast as Iran appears poised to break the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, an accord that the Trump administration pulled out of last year.

Iran’s nuclear deal, reached in 2015 by China, Russia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the U.S., saw Tehran agree to limit its enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of crippling sanctions. Western powers feared Iran’s atomic program could allow it to build nuclear weapons, although Iran long has insisted its program was for peaceful purposes.

In withdrawing from the deal last year, Trump pointed to the accord not limiting Iran’s ballistic missile program and not addressing what American officials describe as Tehran’s malign influence across the wider Middle East. Those who struck the deal at the time described it as a building block toward further negotiations with Iran, whose Islamic government has had a tense relationship with America since the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and subsequent hostage crisis.

Already, Iran says it quadrupled its production of low-enriched uranium. Meanwhile, U.S. sanctions have cut off opportunities for Iran to trade its excess uranium and heavy water abroad, putting Tehran on course to violate terms of the nuclear deal regardless.
 
Top