Ops-Normal.org

Remembering an article several decades back (late 80's) I remember reading that this route is vital to Iran since the other countries in the area have other means to export oil. I understand times have change (for instance pipe-lines through Syria may not work any longer) but the main argument is still valid. It would be interesting to see how the attacks took place. Torpedo or mine?

Very odd.

Both incidents took place at nearly the same place and nearly the same time. Both vessels were doing about 14 knots.

The photo of one shows fire on the Stbd side midships. That's not indicative of a mine. At least one report says that at least one hit was above the waterline. That doesn't suggest a torpedo.

False flag attacks are the modus operandi of the usual suspect, but this series doesn't quite fit the pattern.

Qui bono?

The Empire, for sure. More likely though, are the Houthi.

One ship ,allegedly, reported that it was torpedoed..One ship has ,again allegedly, sunk.. One ship was carrying Naptha which should evaporate and not cause much pollution, not sure about the other. One was Norwegian owned. Wouldn't fancy being an Iranian submariner in that area just now!

Thanks for the update - I shall go fill my gas tanks today; they use any excuse to put the price up round here.

A good conundrum - was it the Iranians, was it SA or Israel trying to provoke the US into an Iranian war, or was it John Bolton on his yacht?

More details here
https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-new ... index.html

One of the tankers was Japan-related. The Japanese PM is currently meeting the Iranian Supreme Leader in Iran to try to ease US-Iran tensions. Almost everybody has an interest in derailing peacemaking there, though not the same ultimate objectives. direct black action, false flag, terrorist sponsors, double- and triple-bluffs; 4.5 billion suspects

I would guess RPG-7s are being used. Lack of traceability by whoever is sponsoring these attacks will be important, and more sophisticated weapons will be easier to trace.

First video

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:01 pm

Thanks for the update - I shall go fill my gas tanks today; they use any excuse to put the price up round here.

I did buy a decent amount - not full tanks but plenty about half an hour after the news.

The latest nonsense is the US claiming 'proof' it was Iran that placed the 'mines' on the tankers. Where was this supposed to happen, do we/they know? The last port of call, I assume - which was? - since running alongside a motoring tanker to place mines on the side is a fantastic feat of seamanship. Then we see this grainy video of some happy-go-lucky crew removing a 'live' mine from the tanker from a bobbing boat?

Bolton-poop/Chump-poop again, I fear. Let's hope this lot does not hit the fan.

Running alongside a motoring tanker is what the Somali pirates do all the time, so I don't think that's a disqualifier. However, the Japanese crew specifically reported seeing flying objects.
Both mines and projectiles may have been used (or tried) of course.
I still stand by my original premise, which is that traceability is very important to avoid, and mines sometimes don't go off and are much more traceable than RPG 7 rounds.
Not that any of the above helps determine whether this is a real video of a genuine mine placed by the real attackers or not. Nor does it help determine who the backers of the real attackers were.

Running alongside a motoring tanker is what the Somali pirates do all the time,

- indeed, Fox, but even they have not perfected the 'flying f**k at a tanker with a mine while underway' yet? A brave move, and finding someone to pull the arming pin from a bobbing boat.................

They aren't short of suicidal idiots. Switch the timers on and pull the arming pin before placement. And keep muttering "Insh'Allah". Maybe chuck in a couple of "Alloa Snackbars" too.

.........and do you seriously suggest no-one would bother to look over the side?

Yes. In fact, absolutely.
I've spent 7 months sailing the Atlantic. Not one commercial ship looks over the side. They don't look at the damn radar either. I strongly suspect half of them don't even know how to turn it on, and several accident reports have shown this. I nearly got run down by an Italian cruiseship in broad daylight, and my yacht was a lot bigger than a RiB.

Video, I'm guessing FLIR, taken of an Iranian gunboat removing an unexploded mine from the Japanese tanker. Together with the still daylight picture showing the 'mine' beforehand, it seems convincing. The position is exactly correct.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-us-t ... -1.5175368

Rwy in Sight wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:40 pm

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:01 pm

Thanks for the update - I shall go fill my gas tanks today; they use any excuse to put the price up round here.

I did buy a decent amount - not full tanks but plenty about half an hour after the news.

I filled up on my way back from the airport yesterday because Asda had just taken 3p off a litre of diseasel and the news of the hike in oil prices had just been on the radio. Expecting the grabbin bastids to hike their prices, I filled up at 128.7 a litre. Drove past Asda this morning and their price had changed to.......124.7 a litre. Buggah!!

PN, get thee self up the road before they change their mind.

4M, thank you going into town tomorrow.

BTW, didn't get a response from ULHT, but then with an FOIA fail. CEO replied with the hour.

If one is looking for a Cui Bono? then the US Senate has just voted down Bills to ban arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Qatar. Apparently these Bills were rushed to the floor today, and were previously expected to pass.
The supposition is from an anti-war site, so treat that appropriately.
Trump was expected to veto the Bills anyway.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06- ... er-attacks

The FLIR footage seems plausible, but the fact that the Pasdaran removed a limpet mine does not at all indicate that they had placed it. I'm sure that the USCG would do exactly the same if that tanker had been in the Gulf of Mexico 14 miles off the US coast.

As the Houthi are the de facto government of large swathes of Yemen, I suppose it is valid to claim that they are a "state actor". They are effectively at a state of war with Saudi and the UAE. Not a war of their choosing, that's for sure, but war nonetheless. By attacking tankers exporting product from Saudi and the Emirates they are imposing a financial cost on those countries for their belligerence against Yemen. It's called 'taking the war to the enemy'.

Already, freight rates and insurance premiums have gone up, so these attacks by the Houthis are achieving what I presume to be the desired effect.

There is zero evidence in the public domain that Iran perpetrated the attacks. I greatly doubt that they did it.