Japan Suggests Israel Could be Behind Tanker Attack, as President of Company Calls US Claims Fake

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wouldn't it be pretty easy to figure out if it was a mine or not? Go through the area and look for any other mines... I seriously doubt Iran sat out ONE mine.

They weren't like these, floating in the water...….

 

[Lewdog]

Wouldn't it be pretty easy to figure out if it was a mine or not? Go through the area and look for any other mines... I seriously doubt Iran sat out ONE mine.

View attachment 265918

They weren't like these, floating in the water...….

Well that makes it even less likely, being the kind that divers would have to swim up to a moving vessel, somehow reach 10 feet out of the water and attach them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wouldn't it be pretty easy to figure out if it was a mine or not? Go through the area and look for any other mines... I seriously doubt Iran sat out ONE mine.

View attachment 265918

They weren't like these, floating in the water...….

Well that makes it even less likely, being the kind that divers would have to swim up to a moving vessel, somehow reach 10 feet out of the water and attach them.

How tall is the Iranian boat?
If it pulled alongside, how high up could they reach to attach a magnetic mine to the side?
10 feet up doesn't seem difficult at all.
Not divers, not attaching below the waterline.

 

[Lewdog]

Wouldn't it be pretty easy to figure out if it was a mine or not? Go through the area and look for any other mines... I seriously doubt Iran sat out ONE mine.

View attachment 265918

They weren't like these, floating in the water...….

Well that makes it even less likely, being the kind that divers would have to swim up to a moving vessel, somehow reach 10 feet out of the water and attach them.

How tall is the Iranian boat?
If it pulled alongside, how high up could they reach to attach a magnetic mine to the side?
10 feet up doesn't seem difficult at all.
Not divers, not attaching below the waterline.

The pictures that were taken was supposed to be of an Iranian boat that came up alongside to take off an unexploded mine. I don't think they said a boat was there when one went off, in fact the sailors said they saw what appeared as gun fire instead.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wouldn't it be pretty easy to figure out if it was a mine or not? Go through the area and look for any other mines... I seriously doubt Iran sat out ONE mine.

View attachment 265918

They weren't like these, floating in the water...….

Well that makes it even less likely, being the kind that divers would have to swim up to a moving vessel, somehow reach 10 feet out of the water and attach them.

How tall is the Iranian boat?
If it pulled alongside, how high up could they reach to attach a magnetic mine to the side?
10 feet up doesn't seem difficult at all.
Not divers, not attaching below the waterline.

The pictures that were taken was supposed to be of an Iranian boat that came up alongside to take off an unexploded mine. I don't think they said a boat was there when one went off, in fact the sailors said they saw what appeared as gun fire instead.

It'd be stupid to attach the mine and then sit there when it went off.

 

[Lewdog]

Wouldn't it be pretty easy to figure out if it was a mine or not? Go through the area and look for any other mines... I seriously doubt Iran sat out ONE mine.

View attachment 265918

They weren't like these, floating in the water...….

Well that makes it even less likely, being the kind that divers would have to swim up to a moving vessel, somehow reach 10 feet out of the water and attach them.

How tall is the Iranian boat?
If it pulled alongside, how high up could they reach to attach a magnetic mine to the side?
10 feet up doesn't seem difficult at all.
Not divers, not attaching below the waterline.

The pictures that were taken was supposed to be of an Iranian boat that came up alongside to take off an unexploded mine. I don't think they said a boat was there when one went off, in fact the sailors said they saw what appeared as gun fire instead.

It'd be stupid to attach the mine and then sit there when it went off.

As much that has been going on in the area, it would take some seriously great work by Iran to attach those mines from a boat without the tanker or even the U.S. with their eyes in the area not to catch it. Not impossible, but why would they send another boat to come take off the unexploded one? The US was somehow able to catch them taking it off in a video.

 

[FA_Q2]

View attachment 265918

They weren't like these, floating in the water...….

Well that makes it even less likely, being the kind that divers would have to swim up to a moving vessel, somehow reach 10 feet out of the water and attach them.

How tall is the Iranian boat?
If it pulled alongside, how high up could they reach to attach a magnetic mine to the side?
10 feet up doesn't seem difficult at all.
Not divers, not attaching below the waterline.

The pictures that were taken was supposed to be of an Iranian boat that came up alongside to take off an unexploded mine. I don't think they said a boat was there when one went off, in fact the sailors said they saw what appeared as gun fire instead.

It'd be stupid to attach the mine and then sit there when it went off.

As much that has been going on in the area, it would take some seriously great work by Iran to attach those mines from a boat without the tanker or even the U.S. with their eyes in the area not to catch it. Not impossible, but why would they send another boat to come take off the unexploded one? The US was somehow able to catch them taking it off in a video.

I would assume that the instant a ship is attacked in those waters that every surveillance asset that we, and others, have in the area would be pointed right at those incidents.

How is that even remotely unreasonable?

They take off the one that failed because with that in hand there is zero question who placed it.

 

[Lewdog]

Well that makes it even less likely, being the kind that divers would have to swim up to a moving vessel, somehow reach 10 feet out of the water and attach them.

How tall is the Iranian boat?
If it pulled alongside, how high up could they reach to attach a magnetic mine to the side?
10 feet up doesn't seem difficult at all.
Not divers, not attaching below the waterline.

The pictures that were taken was supposed to be of an Iranian boat that came up alongside to take off an unexploded mine. I don't think they said a boat was there when one went off, in fact the sailors said they saw what appeared as gun fire instead.

It'd be stupid to attach the mine and then sit there when it went off.

As much that has been going on in the area, it would take some seriously great work by Iran to attach those mines from a boat without the tanker or even the U.S. with their eyes in the area not to catch it. Not impossible, but why would they send another boat to come take off the unexploded one? The US was somehow able to catch them taking it off in a video.

I would assume that the instant a ship is attacked in those waters that every surveillance asset that we, and others, have in the area would be pointed right at those incidents.

How is that even remotely unreasonable?

They take off the one that failed because with that in hand there is zero question who placed it.

That sounds like a good reason and all... except how in the hell would they NOT think that after the first one exploded that there wouldn't be eyes all over the tanker, and that they would be caught on film coming back to take off the unexploded one or do a second attack to make sure the tanker sinks.

Was the tanker that had the unexploded mine taken off of it the first or second tanker that was attacked?

 

[FA_Q2]

How tall is the Iranian boat?
If it pulled alongside, how high up could they reach to attach a magnetic mine to the side?
10 feet up doesn't seem difficult at all.
Not divers, not attaching below the waterline.

The pictures that were taken was supposed to be of an Iranian boat that came up alongside to take off an unexploded mine. I don't think they said a boat was there when one went off, in fact the sailors said they saw what appeared as gun fire instead.

It'd be stupid to attach the mine and then sit there when it went off.

As much that has been going on in the area, it would take some seriously great work by Iran to attach those mines from a boat without the tanker or even the U.S. with their eyes in the area not to catch it. Not impossible, but why would they send another boat to come take off the unexploded one? The US was somehow able to catch them taking it off in a video.

I would assume that the instant a ship is attacked in those waters that every surveillance asset that we, and others, have in the area would be pointed right at those incidents.

How is that even remotely unreasonable?

They take off the one that failed because with that in hand there is zero question who placed it.

That sounds like a good reason and all... except how in the hell would they NOT think that after the first one exploded that there wouldn't be eyes all over the tanker, and that they would be caught on film coming back to take off the unexploded one or do a second attack to make sure the tanker sinks.

Was the tanker that had the unexploded mine taken off of it the first or second tanker that was attacked?

Rock and hard place.

It is easier to deny a photo (particularly one that you can not be sure exists) - as they have done - than it is to refute material evidence.

Not sure about the order.

 

[Lewdog]

The pictures that were taken was supposed to be of an Iranian boat that came up alongside to take off an unexploded mine. I don't think they said a boat was there when one went off, in fact the sailors said they saw what appeared as gun fire instead.

It'd be stupid to attach the mine and then sit there when it went off.

As much that has been going on in the area, it would take some seriously great work by Iran to attach those mines from a boat without the tanker or even the U.S. with their eyes in the area not to catch it. Not impossible, but why would they send another boat to come take off the unexploded one? The US was somehow able to catch them taking it off in a video.

I would assume that the instant a ship is attacked in those waters that every surveillance asset that we, and others, have in the area would be pointed right at those incidents.

How is that even remotely unreasonable?

They take off the one that failed because with that in hand there is zero question who placed it.

That sounds like a good reason and all... except how in the hell would they NOT think that after the first one exploded that there wouldn't be eyes all over the tanker, and that they would be caught on film coming back to take off the unexploded one or do a second attack to make sure the tanker sinks.

Was the tanker that had the unexploded mine taken off of it the first or second tanker that was attacked?

Rock and hard place.

It is easier to deny a photo (particularly one that you can not be sure exists) - as they have done - than it is to refute material evidence.

Not sure about the order.

Even if they left the unexploded one on there, they could have said they had sold mines to other countries or had some stolen, and it could have been them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 265918

They weren't like these, floating in the water...….

Well that makes it even less likely, being the kind that divers would have to swim up to a moving vessel, somehow reach 10 feet out of the water and attach them.

How tall is the Iranian boat?
If it pulled alongside, how high up could they reach to attach a magnetic mine to the side?
10 feet up doesn't seem difficult at all.
Not divers, not attaching below the waterline.

The pictures that were taken was supposed to be of an Iranian boat that came up alongside to take off an unexploded mine. I don't think they said a boat was there when one went off, in fact the sailors said they saw what appeared as gun fire instead.

It'd be stupid to attach the mine and then sit there when it went off.

As much that has been going on in the area, it would take some seriously great work by Iran to attach those mines from a boat without the tanker or even the U.S. with their eyes in the area not to catch it. Not impossible, but why would they send another boat to come take off the unexploded one? The US was somehow able to catch them taking it off in a video.

As much that has been going on in the area, it would take some seriously great work by Iran to attach those mines from a boat without the tanker or even the U.S. with their eyes in the area not to catch it.

We caught them trying to take one off. So what?
Maybe they attached it before dawn?

Not impossible, but why would they send another boat to come take off the unexploded one?

Maybe it had incriminating parts?

 

[FA_Q2]

It'd be stupid to attach the mine and then sit there when it went off.

As much that has been going on in the area, it would take some seriously great work by Iran to attach those mines from a boat without the tanker or even the U.S. with their eyes in the area not to catch it. Not impossible, but why would they send another boat to come take off the unexploded one? The US was somehow able to catch them taking it off in a video.

I would assume that the instant a ship is attacked in those waters that every surveillance asset that we, and others, have in the area would be pointed right at those incidents.

How is that even remotely unreasonable?

They take off the one that failed because with that in hand there is zero question who placed it.

That sounds like a good reason and all... except how in the hell would they NOT think that after the first one exploded that there wouldn't be eyes all over the tanker, and that they would be caught on film coming back to take off the unexploded one or do a second attack to make sure the tanker sinks.

Was the tanker that had the unexploded mine taken off of it the first or second tanker that was attacked?

Rock and hard place.

It is easier to deny a photo (particularly one that you can not be sure exists) - as they have done - than it is to refute material evidence.

Not sure about the order.

Even if they left the unexploded one on there, they could have said they had sold mines to other countries or had some stolen, and it could have been them.

And it would have been a weaker position.

It is irrelevant anyway - opining on what the beast method to cover up the bombs is not relevant. The crux of this thread is a blatant falsehood, as already pointed out, and I cannot see a single reason here to disbelieve virtually every national intelligence agency minus the one that has the most to lose (Japan) that this bombing was perpetrated by someone else.

And Japan did not even make that claim - they just want more proof.

 

[Lewdog]

As much that has been going on in the area, it would take some seriously great work by Iran to attach those mines from a boat without the tanker or even the U.S. with their eyes in the area not to catch it. Not impossible, but why would they send another boat to come take off the unexploded one? The US was somehow able to catch them taking it off in a video.

I would assume that the instant a ship is attacked in those waters that every surveillance asset that we, and others, have in the area would be pointed right at those incidents.

How is that even remotely unreasonable?

They take off the one that failed because with that in hand there is zero question who placed it.

That sounds like a good reason and all... except how in the hell would they NOT think that after the first one exploded that there wouldn't be eyes all over the tanker, and that they would be caught on film coming back to take off the unexploded one or do a second attack to make sure the tanker sinks.

Was the tanker that had the unexploded mine taken off of it the first or second tanker that was attacked?

Rock and hard place.

It is easier to deny a photo (particularly one that you can not be sure exists) - as they have done - than it is to refute material evidence.

Not sure about the order.

Even if they left the unexploded one on there, they could have said they had sold mines to other countries or had some stolen, and it could have been them.

And it would have been a weaker position.

It is irrelevant anyway - opining on what the beast method to cover up the bombs is not relevant. The crux of this thread is a blatant falsehood, as already pointed out, and I cannot see a single reason here to disbelieve virtually every national intelligence agency minus the one that has the most to lose (Japan) that this bombing was perpetrated by someone else.

And Japan did not even make that claim - they just want more proof.

Is it likely that a country pulled it off in an attempt to frame Iran to escalate tensions? No. Is it possible? Yes it has been done before. You can't automatically right it off as a falsehood. Israel has proven that they would do almost anything to have Iran get destroyed short of doing it on their own. They won't attack others unless the ones they are attacking is armed with just rocks and bottles.

 

[Lewdog]

Well that makes it even less likely, being the kind that divers would have to swim up to a moving vessel, somehow reach 10 feet out of the water and attach them.

How tall is the Iranian boat?
If it pulled alongside, how high up could they reach to attach a magnetic mine to the side?
10 feet up doesn't seem difficult at all.
Not divers, not attaching below the waterline.

The pictures that were taken was supposed to be of an Iranian boat that came up alongside to take off an unexploded mine. I don't think they said a boat was there when one went off, in fact the sailors said they saw what appeared as gun fire instead.

It'd be stupid to attach the mine and then sit there when it went off.

As much that has been going on in the area, it would take some seriously great work by Iran to attach those mines from a boat without the tanker or even the U.S. with their eyes in the area not to catch it. Not impossible, but why would they send another boat to come take off the unexploded one? The US was somehow able to catch them taking it off in a video.

As much that has been going on in the area, it would take some seriously great work by Iran to attach those mines from a boat without the tanker or even the U.S. with their eyes in the area not to catch it.

We caught them trying to take one off. So what?
Maybe they attached it before dawn?

Not impossible, but why would they send another boat to come take off the unexploded one?

Maybe it had incriminating parts?

Iran could easily say that just because the mine is Iranian made, doesn't mean they put it there. They sell them to other countries and groups, and have had some stolen by militant groups.

 

[FA_Q2]

I would assume that the instant a ship is attacked in those waters that every surveillance asset that we, and others, have in the area would be pointed right at those incidents.

How is that even remotely unreasonable?

They take off the one that failed because with that in hand there is zero question who placed it.

That sounds like a good reason and all... except how in the hell would they NOT think that after the first one exploded that there wouldn't be eyes all over the tanker, and that they would be caught on film coming back to take off the unexploded one or do a second attack to make sure the tanker sinks.

Was the tanker that had the unexploded mine taken off of it the first or second tanker that was attacked?

Rock and hard place.

It is easier to deny a photo (particularly one that you can not be sure exists) - as they have done - than it is to refute material evidence.

Not sure about the order.

Even if they left the unexploded one on there, they could have said they had sold mines to other countries or had some stolen, and it could have been them.

And it would have been a weaker position.

It is irrelevant anyway - opining on what the beast method to cover up the bombs is not relevant. The crux of this thread is a blatant falsehood, as already pointed out, and I cannot see a single reason here to disbelieve virtually every national intelligence agency minus the one that has the most to lose (Japan) that this bombing was perpetrated by someone else.

And Japan did not even make that claim - they just want more proof.

Is it likely that a country pulled it off in an attempt to frame Iran to escalate tensions? No. Is it possible? Yes it has been done before. You can't automatically right it off as a falsehood. Israel has proven that they would do almost anything to have Iran get destroyed short of doing it on their own. They won't attack others unless the ones they are attacking is armed with just rocks and bottles.

No one automatically wrote it off. US INTELLIGENCE MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS IRAN. Other intelligence agencies agreed. One that I know of wants more proof.

Why are you purposefully misstating the facts here?

 

[Lewdog]

That sounds like a good reason and all... except how in the hell would they NOT think that after the first one exploded that there wouldn't be eyes all over the tanker, and that they would be caught on film coming back to take off the unexploded one or do a second attack to make sure the tanker sinks.

Was the tanker that had the unexploded mine taken off of it the first or second tanker that was attacked?

Rock and hard place.

It is easier to deny a photo (particularly one that you can not be sure exists) - as they have done - than it is to refute material evidence.

Not sure about the order.

Even if they left the unexploded one on there, they could have said they had sold mines to other countries or had some stolen, and it could have been them.

And it would have been a weaker position.

It is irrelevant anyway - opining on what the beast method to cover up the bombs is not relevant. The crux of this thread is a blatant falsehood, as already pointed out, and I cannot see a single reason here to disbelieve virtually every national intelligence agency minus the one that has the most to lose (Japan) that this bombing was perpetrated by someone else.

And Japan did not even make that claim - they just want more proof.

Is it likely that a country pulled it off in an attempt to frame Iran to escalate tensions? No. Is it possible? Yes it has been done before. You can't automatically right it off as a falsehood. Israel has proven that they would do almost anything to have Iran get destroyed short of doing it on their own. They won't attack others unless the ones they are attacking is armed with just rocks and bottles.

No one automatically wrote it off. US INTELLIGENCE MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS IRAN. Other intelligence agencies agreed. One that I know of wants more proof.

Why are you purposefully misstating the facts here?

And the U.S. government has never been wrong? If you want to believe what other country's care about... well many other country's don't trust the U.S. government RIGHT NOW, because of Trump, Bolton, and others poor record of telling the truth.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Israel has the most to gain from war with Iran.....

Or Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Russia...

That was NOT a mine.. It was 6 to 10 feet ABOVE the water line... That's all I know about the deceptions going on here...

You don't know shit about mines do you?

You didn't comment on my recent post asking YOU how those mines were placed above the water while that ship was underway.. I gave you a plausible explanation.. You read it.. You had no CLUE how to answer it so you went back to one of my first posts to deflect...

You don't know that the mines were placed on the ship while underway. I don't assume. I state facts.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Israel has the most to gain from war with Iran.....

Or Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Russia...

That was NOT a mine.. It was 6 to 10 feet ABOVE the water line... That's all I know about the deceptions going on here...

You don't know shit about mines do you?

You didn't comment on my recent post asking YOU how those mines were placed above the water while that ship was underway.. I gave you a plausible explanation.. You read it.. You had no CLUE how to answer it so you went back to one of my first posts to deflect...

OK Adm.. Owe you an apology.. Just logged on and realized this site had to shed about 3 days of content for some reason.. Pretty sure about 3 or 4 days of content have just vanished.. Admiral Rockwell Tory

Thank you!

 

[FA_Q2]

Rock and hard place.

It is easier to deny a photo (particularly one that you can not be sure exists) - as they have done - than it is to refute material evidence.

Not sure about the order.

Even if they left the unexploded one on there, they could have said they had sold mines to other countries or had some stolen, and it could have been them.

And it would have been a weaker position.

It is irrelevant anyway - opining on what the beast method to cover up the bombs is not relevant. The crux of this thread is a blatant falsehood, as already pointed out, and I cannot see a single reason here to disbelieve virtually every national intelligence agency minus the one that has the most to lose (Japan) that this bombing was perpetrated by someone else.

And Japan did not even make that claim - they just want more proof.

Is it likely that a country pulled it off in an attempt to frame Iran to escalate tensions? No. Is it possible? Yes it has been done before. You can't automatically right it off as a falsehood. Israel has proven that they would do almost anything to have Iran get destroyed short of doing it on their own. They won't attack others unless the ones they are attacking is armed with just rocks and bottles.

No one automatically wrote it off. US INTELLIGENCE MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS IRAN. Other intelligence agencies agreed. One that I know of wants more proof.

Why are you purposefully misstating the facts here?

And the U.S. government has never been wrong? If you want to believe what other country's care about... well many other country's don't trust the U.S. government RIGHT NOW, because of Trump, Bolton, and others poor record of telling the truth.

This has nothing to do with anything being discussed. I have never stated they cant get it wrong - something you have decided to avoid is stating WHY you even think they got it wrong here. At this point I have to assume that it is nothing more than partisan blindness.

Further, stating most intelligence agencies don't trust us really undermines your point anyway because in this they agree with us in this except Japan - once again the single actor with much to protect here.

 

[Lewdog]

Even if they left the unexploded one on there, they could have said they had sold mines to other countries or had some stolen, and it could have been them.

And it would have been a weaker position.

It is irrelevant anyway - opining on what the beast method to cover up the bombs is not relevant. The crux of this thread is a blatant falsehood, as already pointed out, and I cannot see a single reason here to disbelieve virtually every national intelligence agency minus the one that has the most to lose (Japan) that this bombing was perpetrated by someone else.

And Japan did not even make that claim - they just want more proof.

Is it likely that a country pulled it off in an attempt to frame Iran to escalate tensions? No. Is it possible? Yes it has been done before. You can't automatically right it off as a falsehood. Israel has proven that they would do almost anything to have Iran get destroyed short of doing it on their own. They won't attack others unless the ones they are attacking is armed with just rocks and bottles.

No one automatically wrote it off. US INTELLIGENCE MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS IRAN. Other intelligence agencies agreed. One that I know of wants more proof.

Why are you purposefully misstating the facts here?

And the U.S. government has never been wrong? If you want to believe what other country's care about... well many other country's don't trust the U.S. government RIGHT NOW, because of Trump, Bolton, and others poor record of telling the truth.

This has nothing to do with anything being discussed. I have never stated they cant get it wrong - something you have decided to avoid is stating WHY you even think they got it wrong here. At this point I have to assume that it is nothing more than partisan blindness.

Further, stating most intelligence agencies don't trust us really undermines your point anyway because in this they agree with us in this except Japan - once again the single actor with much to protect here.

It's pretty obvious why they would get it wrong, they are not going to go against anything Israel says or does.