Japanese tanker owner claims crew saw ‘flying objects’ before attack, denies ship struck mine


…from Russia Today, Moscow

[ Editor’s Note: This fake government news jihad continues on unabated. By that I mean governments going Twitter crazy, with instant conclusions on who the aggressor was in these ship-bombing incidents, before even the most cursory investigation has taken place.

And what makes it worse, media and even those inside the various country Intel agencies do not speak out against it, but quite the opposite. In a world of massive signal intelligence, we never see any intercepts provided by them to support the usual “Iran did it” again mantra.

What is the point of having an Iran analysis Intel section when Iran is automatically blamed for anything in the region, which includes the biggest lie of all, that Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism, when anyone with half a brain knows who that really is.

The professional, taxpayer-paid Intel people need to step forward and exert some control over this “blame Iran” circus. The Intel orgs are losing credibility themselves, which is never a good thing, as the public will tend not believe them when something really is trueJim W. Dean ]

– First published … June 14, 2019

The Japanese company that owns the ‘Kokuka Courageous’ tanker has said its crew spotted “flying objects” before the attack in the Gulf of Oman, contradicting US claims that the vessel was damaged by a naval mine.


Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo, told reporters on Friday that sailors on board the ill-fated oil tanker observed “flying objects” just before the incident in which the ship caught fire and was badly damaged. The giant vessel was hit twice, first near the engine room and then on its starboard side.

He suggested that those flying objects could have been bullets, and called reports of striking a mine “false.” Both points at which the ship was damaged were above her waterline, which couldn’t be so if it had struck an underwater mine.

The tanker was carrying petroleum products to Singapore and Thailand when it was attacked while sailing through the Gulf of Oman on Thursday. All 21 crew members abandoned the ship and were reportedly rescued by an Iranian vessel. While many details of the incident are still shrouded in mystery, the US was quick to blame Iran.

Later that day, the US military released a blurry video showing what they claimed were Iranian sailors removing an “unexploded limpet mine” from the ‘Kokuka Courageous.’ The poor quality of the video made it especially challenging to independently verify the claims.

Katada’s account partly contradicted American allegations of a mine attack, but did mention that the crew had spotted an Iranian Navy ship nearby. However, the president failed to specify whether it was there before or after the attack.

U.S. Navy


Video recorded by U.S aircraft of an IRGC Gashti-class patrol boat removing an unexploded limpet mine from M/T Kokuka Courageous. Courageous suffered an explosion while in . Her 21 crew members were rescued by destroyer . https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=109911&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=100000760787118&utm_campaign=Fight 

Another tanker, the Norwegian-owned ‘Front Altair,’ also suffered some damage while passing through the Gulf of Oman at around the same time. There have been reports of a torpedo attack on the vessel, but it is not yet clear from the firm’s statement whether it was attacked.

It is unknown who would benefit from targeting the ships, but the timing of the incidents is especially sensitive. The attack on the tankers that were carrying “Japan-related” cargo notably came during a rare visit to Tehran by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

ALSO ON RT.COMBURNING tanker filmed by Iran after ‘attacks’ in Gulf of Oman (VIDEO)

“Suspicious doesn’t begin to describe what likely transpired this morning,” said Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

As the day progressed, he hit back at the US accusations, saying Washington is trying to set up a false-flag attack in order to “sabotage diplomacy” and cover up their own “economic terrorism” against Tehran.

SOURCERussia Today

Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy


  1. Who and why of the attack on the tankers in the Arabian Sea is clear, though the how remains uncertain. The who is the United States; the why is to intimidate the Japanese. It’s no coincidence the Japanese PM was in Iran at the time, no doubt negotiating the delivery of Iranian oil to Japan. The first visit ever of a Japanese PM to Iran while we are trying to sanction Iran and cut off their exporting of oil would not sit well with our Great Gamers. We needed to show the Japanese who it is that controls shipping out of the Persian Gulf (it’s not the Iranians… yet). Japan’s importing of much more than just Iranian oil could be cut off in a heartbeat (we’ve done it before). Whether the Japanese were sufficiently intimidated to mind their manners remains to be seen.

    P.S. It’s interesting that the tankers were carrying oil products, not crude oil. The Japanese, ironically, may be forced to turn to us as the world’s largest exporter of oil products to replace the lost cargoes. It’s also interesting that one of the tankers was supposedly destined for Taiwan according to its manifest but was in fact headed for Japan. Were the Japanese compounding their affront by trying to sneak around our sanctions?

  2. In keeping with fake news, the next big event, which is probably not to far over the horizon, I wonder how long before they are saying “THE ALIENS DID IT”. And 3/4 of the world will believe them.

  3. Intentionally blurred video, makes identification of the ships crew members and Capt impossible, that was the removal of the crew/rescue assistance. Does it look like a EOD mine removal team, or survivors being removed.

    BDS 2019

  4. It’s actually incredible what they are proposing. One mine exploded above the water line, and then another mine climbed into the hole ?
    Or was it recently released rogue Russian trained Beluga whales playing basketball with mines ? I’m not familiar with current capabilities, or armaments, but the whole story seems purposefully flawed. And if thinking in that direction , then the subtlety of sending a message by way of thinly veiled impossibility is understandable if sending it to Japan and Iran simultaneously. How dare you engage in diplomacy ? I guess Japan has to question their sovereignty or limits of free will.

  5. The genie that has been out of the bottle for while now, is “deep fakes”. Validity of video is no longer taken for granted. You need two to corroborate. And this paltry offering is no proof whatsoever. It wouldn’t matter what country came to rescue the ships crew, they would have pulled up to the hole and grabbed anything that might provide evidence in any case. That would be the simple order from any commander. In fact, the only reason to NOT inspect and remove, would be to intentionally leave evidence for the next guy.
    With all the ammo laying around, anyone could use anyone else’s ammo and leave it there. To openly suggest the water is mined, has a whole separate set of causations. Insurance wins. Oil wins. And the 40 % who take things at face value, will not question any of it. Best quote ” the B team implementing plan B”.

    • A large sea mine, as used in the world wars is quite capable of sinking a battleship. HMS Audacious was sunk in 1914 off Ireland by a single mine, as was the armoured cruiser HMS Hampshire in 1916, taking with it the infamous Lord Kitchener. Those were heavily armoured warships with belt armour a foot thick, so a thin hulled tanker, even with their double bottoms, should be ripped apart by such a mine. Clearly, whatever ‘mine’ exploded and damaged these tankers, was a much smaller device, perhaps a small limpet mine attached by frogmen?

Comments are closed.