24 thoughts on “BREAKING: Israel Sabotaged Iranian Ship, Caused Massive Oil Spill on Own Shores – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. Your report leaks bilge.

    First, assuming the reports of Israeli sabotage is true, these sabotages was carried out in the Red Sea, or close enough to Iran that damaged ships could return to Iranian waters.

    The Emerald would have had to have been targeted within miles of her port of call in Syria, thus allowing her to offload her cargo.

    How does Israel accomplish her mission when she allows a contraband laden ship sock in Syria? Answer: She doesn’t. Makes no sense.

    Here’s where it gets good.

    To quote you, Richard, “In an episode last month, suspected Israeli operatives attached a limpet mine to attack an Iranian vessel as it anchored near Lebanon to deliver Iran oil to Syria, according to the first shipping professional. ”

    According to a single, “shipping professional” (who could well be an Iranian).
    Maybe this “shipping professional” is IRGC.

    To be clear, this “shipping professional”, is not the U.S. official who leaked this story.

    The only confirmation, comes from Richard’s “source”, who is standing by his libel that Israel caused he Beirut port explosion. Absolutely no one, other than Richard’s “source” has made that claim, must less backed it up with a shred of evidence.

    Where’s the secret, underground port city your “source” claimed Israel had targeted. The one ran by Hezbollah.

    1. @ Alice:

      these sabotages was carried out in the Red Sea, or close enough to Iran that damaged ships could return to Iranian waters.

      How do you know where the mines were attached? They could have been attached by naval commandos anywhere within reach of Israeli naval vessels including the Red Sea or Mediterranean itself. And why would the commandos have cared where they attacked? And what does returning to Iran have to do with where it occurred?

      The Emerald would have had to have been targeted within miles of her port of call in Syria, thus allowing her to offload her cargo.

      Not at all. The damage to the Emerald occurred just outside Israeli waters 30 miles off its coast. Confirmed by Israeli media reports. Nowhere near Syria.

      The Wall Street Journal used a source it characterized as a maritime professional. It’s not in the habit of using IRG commanders as maritime professional sources. If you don’t trust WSJ’s sources that’s your problem. Not mine or my own sources.

      As for no other source confirming my own source, you haven’ been paying attention. Anshel Pfeiffer published a new story in the Times all but confirming my own source. Why did he publish in the Times instead of Haaretz? Military censorship. Why is there such censorship on this story? Because it’s as my source reported: a major Israeli intelligence fuck-up. Now go fight with City Hall and Anshel Pfeiffer (quoted now in my post).

      Absolutely no one, other than Richard’s “source” has made that claim,

      False. In the 10 posts I wrote about the Beirut disaster each one contained either direct or circumstantial evidence of Israeli involvement AND the statements by Hezbollah, Lebanese officials and Israelis as well pointing to Israeli involvement.

      I never claimed there was an “underground city” in Beirut. My source said there was an underground Hezbollah missile storage site at the Port.

      Do not mischaracterize my words. Quote them carefully and accurately. If you don’t you will disappear here so fast your head will spin.

  2. Another considerable problem with this article is that it flies in the face of Science.

    Everyone knows that the water currents off Israel’s coast travel northwards.

    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Regional-bottle-distribution-on-a-map-of-the-eastern-Mediterranean-Sea-with-major_fig1_325247523

    In an episode last month, suspected Israeli operatives attached a limpet mine to attack an Iranian vessel as it anchored near Lebanon to deliver Iran oil to Syria, according to the first shipping professional.”

    The Emerald was anchored North of Israel, near Lebanon, to deliver oil to Syria.
    If Israeli had detonated limpets and caused an oil spill, than how could the oil have traveled south to Israel’s coasts?

    Now, taking this quote at face value, Israel may have launched a revenge attack on the Emerald AFTER she deliberately dumped oil on Israel’s beaches. This would better explain why the Emerald was already anchored near Lebanon when the alleged limpet mine attack occurred.

    1. @ Alice: Again, the oil was dumped nowhere near Syria or even the Lebanese coast. It was dumped off the Israeli coast south of those locations. So yes, the Currents would have washed the oil northward towards Lebanon, precisely what happened.

      And again, the explosion and damage did not happen near Syria.

      You have had your 2 comments in this thread. Do not publish any further comments in this thread. You may publish in other threads if you choose.

      1. “…the oil was dumped nowhere near Syria or even the Lebanese coast.”

        But it was reported that, “..suspected Israeli operatives attached a limpet mine to attack an Iranian vessel as it anchored near Lebanon to deliver Iran oil to Syria.”

        Maybe the limpet mine was attached ‘near Lebanon’, but detonated after the tanker off-loaded her oil and was returning home near the Israeli coast.

         

        1. Okay, thanks, Richard.

          So where exactly was the Emerald when the limpet mines detonated?

          All I can figure, is that if the mines were attached near Lebanon, and the oil spilled near Israel, than the Emerald would have to have been sailing southward.

  3. Last time someone sent me to read your article, it was when you claimed that Israel is responsible for bombing the Hezbollah’s weapon storage. No serious news channel followed that, and not even the Lebanese people believed that story…
    Stop spreading hate without proof, and hiding behind a source you can’t reveal doesn’t count for proof.

    1. @ George: No serious news Channel? Except for Al Jadeed, Lebanon’s most popular TV channel which interviewed me. So I guess your claim that not even Lebanese believed me is bullshit. Ah well.

      And except for the Lebanese former interior minister who blamed Israel; and except for Moshe Yaalon who suggested Israeli responsibility; and except for an almost exactly identical attack on a Hezbollah missile storage facility in another part of Lebanon a week later. All of which I reported in my blog & which you appear to have missed. You mean except for all that, right?

      BTW, both Anshel Pfeiffer writing in the Times of London and other sources now confirm 12 Israeli commando attacks on Iranian ships. The same source who reported Israeli responsibility for the Beirut attack also reported the same regarding the Emerald. He was right about the Emerald and he was right about Beirut.

      I have a source, what do you have? Bupkes.

  4. This week: A part of the ship’s hull was damaged after an explosive device hit the Iranian container ship Shahrekord in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea.

  5. Where are all the pictures?
    If your story was true, all the world was
    ” bomb” with tens of pictures of the event. But even no one picture especially at your article? It sound so mistorical and strange.

    1. @ Roie: So you’re claiming that Israeli naval commandos would have taken pictures of the attack? Or that news media would have known of the attack and taken pictures themselves when no one has identified that the commandos perpetrated it till now, a month after it happened? Or that the Iranians on board the Emerald would have taken pictures and given them to the media? Or that Iran would have wanted the world to know Israel was attacking its oil tankers and endangering its oil shipments and exports? Gee I wonder why none of these groups publicized such pictures?

      1. Iran would have wanted the world to know except for these shipments are illegal under international law which you are so fond of. \

        1. @ Dan: No, Iranian oil shipments are NOT “illegal under international law.” They violate sanctions, not international law. But the only two parties to these oil deals are Iran and Syria. Frankly, I don’t think either one cares a fig about sanctions supported by Israel and the US. Not to mention that if Iran has a choice between dying and living, I think they’d choose to violate sanctions and live as a country. You may wish for Iran to lay down and die, but I think they have other ideas.

          1. These are not US sanctions but UN sanctions, and they worth as much as international law.
            IMO, neither worth much, and are mechanisms invented by humans to try and settle things. But like every human institution, it is more political above all.

            It is incredible to watch people who consider themselves moral and humanitarian, weaponize morals against one group while giving other groups a complete pass.

            חכמינו אמרו – כל המרחם על אכזרים, סופו שיתאכזר אל רחמנים.

          2. @ Dan: It doesn’t matter whether the sanctions are US or UN, they’re not international law. And there is no such thing as being “worth international law.” They either are or they aren’t, and they aren’t.

            And if we want to talk about violating international law, let’s focus on the far more frequent & flagrant Israeli violations of such. Which may result in a full-fledged international war crimes prosecution against Israeli leaders and generals. You might want to offer such attention to that before casting stones at Iran.

        2. There are today no international sanctions against Iran to sell its oil. The UN sanctions against Iran do not include oil exports from Iran. There are no international UN sanctions against Syria, only those US and EU sanctions.

          US sanctions are not international sanctions. US sanctions’ “legality” are based only on the CLAIMED use of US dollar in trade. Only a total nut believes that Syria would (or could) pay in US dollars the oil it purchased from Iran or Iran accepting the payment to be made in USD. The effect of these US sanctions are based purely on cruel economical blackmail and US ability to control/follow the international banking system.

          Finnish companies buy most of the raw oil from Russia. Nowadays Russia demands trades to be made using anything else except USD. USA is fast destroying with all these sanctions against numerous countries and organisations its position having the world reserve currency. And then USA can not any more finance its huge trade deficit and debts simply using printing machines.

          What is hilarious is that one of US slogans against China is the Freedom of Navigation (especially on South China sea) and Israel is fiercely resisting any boycotts, divestment and sanctions towards Israel. Behave as we say, not as we do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *