US officials: Iranian boats attempted to seize British tanker

Atisha

Member
Nov 28, 2017
916
"tried unsuccesfully to seize" and a US aircraft just so happened to be flying directly over head. ( our tax dollars hard at work )

I don't believe the Hot Take Spin from US sources with direct knowledge of the incident.
I believe it's possible an Iranian Uboat rolled up on a british tanker, but i do not believe they attempted to overtake the vessel, all the while a US spyplane is conviently located in the theatre to get a birds eye.
Come on JB - TRY HARDERzzzzzzz.
 

Westbahnhof

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
4,912
Austria
"tried unsuccesfully to seize" and a US aircraft just so happened to be flying directly over head. ( our tax dollars hard at work )

I don't believe the Hot Take Spin from US sources with direct knowledge of the incident.
I believe it's possible an Iranian Uboat rolled up on a british tanker, but i do not believe they attempted to overtake the vessel, all the while a US spyplane is conviently located in the theatre to get a birds eye.
Come on JB - TRY HARDERzzzzzzz.
U-boat? You sure you read the story? And do you think the BBC is lying for the US?
 

DrewFu

Member
Apr 19, 2018
4,713
"tried unsuccesfully to seize" and a US aircraft just so happened to be flying directly over head. ( our tax dollars hard at work )

I don't believe the Hot Take Spin from US sources with direct knowledge of the incident.
I believe it's possible an Iranian Uboat rolled up on a british tanker, but i do not believe they attempted to overtake the vessel, all the while a US spyplane is conviently located in the theatre to get a birds eye.
Come on JB - TRY HARDERzzzzzzz.
What in the hell are you talking about? One, US aircraft regularly survey the area. It isn't "just so happened". Two, British officials have confirmed the account. Three, it wasn't a submarine (it was several boats surrounding the tanker).
 
Last edited:

Westbahnhof

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
4,912
Austria
Saudi Arabia + Good ol USA + Great Britian are the cohorts in cahoots. The prime movers. Come on . . .
You were talking about u-boats, man. Jumping to conclusions without the basic facts of the story that are in the OP.
And now this?

I don't get why so many people jump the shark and slide from healthy scepticism into full blown conspiracy theories.
You sound 2 posts away from mentioning the world government.
 

Atisha

Member
Nov 28, 2017
916
Are you being serious right now, or trolling? Because from your previous post it sounds like you don't even have a clue about the situation.
Those three have been up to no good in IRAN since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, and well before, and whenever Saudia Arabia decided to partner up with the UK and the USA. In 1941 there was a CIA led effort to engineer a coup in IRAN, overthrow the peoples leader, and install a puppet sha favorable to the US and UK oil interests. That puppet Sha ruled over Iran for the next forty or so years until the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Once the 79 Revolution toppled the regime and ousted the puppet Sha, those two ( or three ) - the aforementioned - have been after it ever since trying take control of the region and re-install a puppet Sha.

I thought all that was common knowledge? Like everybody knew? You can easily find the information on the world wide web. I even watched a documentary program on it. Shameful really.

So yes, those three - Great Britain, The United States, and Saudi Arabia have been working together for some time now, regarding many things. So as it stands to reason, yes Great Britain would lie . . . or tow the line.

But really, when regime change is on the boards, you can't really trust anything.
 
Last edited:

Atisha

Member
Nov 28, 2017
916
You were talking about u-boats, man. Jumping to conclusions without the basic facts of the story that are in the OP.
And now this?

I don't get why so many people jump the shark and slide from healthy scepticism into full blown conspiracy theories.
You sound 2 posts away from mentioning the world government.

Uboats was a slip of the tongue, my vision, was of some fabricated story in which 5 Praterorian guards in a dingy brave the waves and roll up on a British tanker demanding to see the captain, like the tom hanks movie. Replace Uboat with inflatable dingy with outboard motor.

Oh, and I read 'the facts'.

What was the last factual story before this one? That Iran is thumbing it's nose at the entire western world and is now going full bore, enriching the ever-loving- hell out of some uranium? Remember that one? It was just a few days ago.
 
Last edited:

thepotatoman

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,644
Denver
are you serious? what else would they do with a boat in international waters?
What the fuck do they need with a British merchant boat?

That straight is extremely important both economically and militarily, and I'd imagine there's a lot to be gained and lost with simply controlling who gets to go where and when. Asking what's on board and where it's going and just not ever letting them through if they don't like the answer is also possible. Isn't that basically what the british did to the Iran vessel last week?

I'm no expert on international waterways, but to assume they're planning to just take the boat for themselves by force seems incredibly stupid to me.
 

Z-Beat

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,384
So pretty much the Iranians were like - 'Yo, come this way please'
The British were like - 'No. Look at these big guns we have'.
The Iranians were like - 'Ok.'

Headlines - IRANIANS ATTEMPT TO SEIZE BRITISH BOATS!!!!
Nothing sketchy about trying order a tanker to change course and come into your jurisdiction at all
 

DrewFu

Member
Apr 19, 2018
4,713
What the fuck do they need with a British merchant boat?

That straight is extremely important both economically and militarily, and I'd imagine there's a lot to be gained and lost with simply controlling who gets to go where and when. Asking what's on board and where it's going and just not ever letting them through if they don't like the answer is also possible. Isn't that basically what the british did to the Iran vessel last week?

I'm no expert on international waterways, but to assume they're planning to just take the boat for themselves by force seems incredibly stupid to me.
Do people not follow this situation at all or read the article in the OP? The British military seized an Iran ship that was in violation of EU sanctions. Iran vowed to retaliate. Here we are. It's really not a complicated chain of events.
 

thepotatoman

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,644
Denver
Do people not follow this situation at all or read the article in the OP? The British military seized an Iran ship that was in violation of EU sanctions. Iran vowed to retaliate. Here we are. It's really not a complicated chain of events.
And retaliation doesn't mean taking over the boat for themselves, which started from someone making a wierd analogy to it, and then multiple others saying "what else could it mean".

That's all I've been saying, there's plenty of reasons just impeding movements meets other goals. It's not a great move, but it's far less threatening than the catastrophization that people imagine should the seizing had been successful.
 

DrewFu

Member
Apr 19, 2018
4,713
And retaliation doesn't mean taking over the boat for themselves, which started from someone making a wierd analogy to it, and then multiple others saying "what else could it mean".

That's all I've been saying, there's plenty of reasons just impeding movements meets other goals. It's not a great move, but it's far less threatening than the catastrophization that people imagine should the seizing had been successful.
Wut? After the UK seized the boat, Iran said they would do the same to them. Now we have Iran's military attempting to make a British ship enter their territorial waters. C'mon man.
 

spineduke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,735
What the fuck do they need with a British merchant boat?

That straight is extremely important both economically and militarily, and I'd imagine there's a lot to be gained and lost with simply controlling who gets to go where and when. Asking what's on board and where it's going and just not ever letting them through if they don't like the answer is also possible. Isn't that basically what the british did to the Iran vessel last week?

I'm no expert on international waterways, but to assume they're planning to just take the boat for themselves by force seems incredibly stupid to me.
yeah, so you can't come up with any alternatives. enough said.
 

Burbank

Member
Sep 9, 2018
281
From events that have transpired in the ME since 2001, I trust fucking none of the actors mentioned in the OP (including BBC, CNN or WSJ) and await hard evidence corrabborated by multiple sources.

Hope cooler heads prevail.
 

Cas

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
3,337
From events that have transpired in the ME since 2001, I trust fucking none of the actors mentioned in the OP (including BBC, CNN or WSJ) and await hard evidence corrabborated by multiple sources.

Hope cooler heads prevail.
I mean, Iran themselves came out and called the British pussies for trailing the tanker with a warship? And Iran threatened they would do this exact thing in retaliation???

This thread is full of bizarre tinfoil hat responses. Like wtf. You can hate Trump and also think Iran is being stupid at the same time. Some of y'all are reaching so so hard.
 

Burbank

Member
Sep 9, 2018
281
I mean, Iran themselves came out and called the British pussies for trailing the tanker with a warship? And Iran threatened they would do this exact thing in retaliation???

This thread is full of bizarre tinfoil hat responses. Like wtf. You can hate Trump and also think Iran is being stupid at the same time. Some of y'all are reaching so so hard.
Iran has absolutely nothing to gain by retaliating in such a dumb way that only shows their weakness in front of the whole world.
i) Iran had less than 0% chance of actually seizing this ship and they knew it
ii) Had the brits "taken they bait" (as some here suggested was the Iranian intent) and fired things would have ended up exponentially worse for Iran.

You think the idea that US+UK does shady decoy shit to start a war in the ME is a conspiracy tinfoil idea? Lol how old are you?

Edit: Also, please don't presume my political opinions.
 

Cas

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
3,337
Iran has absolutely nothing to gain by retaliating in such a dumb way that only shows their weakness in front of the whole world.
i) Iran had less than 0% chance of actually seizing this ship and they knew it
ii) Had the brits "taken they bait" (as some here suggested was the Iranian intent) and fired things would have ended up exponentially worse for Iran.

You think the idea that US+UK does shady decoy shit to start a war in the ME is a conspiracy tinfoil idea? Lol how old are you?

Edit: Also, please don't presume my political opinions.
Lol, how old I am? Nice insult. I call out how illogical you are for decrying this incident as fake news when Iran themselves are commenting on it and you resort to attacks. Figures.
 

DrewFu

Member
Apr 19, 2018
4,713
Iran has absolutely nothing to gain by retaliating in such a dumb way that only shows their weakness in front of the whole world.
i) Iran had less than 0% chance of actually seizing this ship and they knew it
ii) Had the brits "taken they bait" (as some here suggested was the Iranian intent) and fired things would have ended up exponentially worse for Iran.

You think the idea that US+UK does shady decoy shit to start a war in the ME is a conspiracy tinfoil idea? Lol how old are you?

Edit: Also, please don't presume my political opinions.
So in your opinion this entire situation was make up by the UK/US? Am I understanding that right?
 

Burbank

Member
Sep 9, 2018
281
So in your opinion this entire situation was make up by the UK/US? Am I understanding that right?
No and that's not what I said. I said I didn't trust the sources in the original post completely (based on the info in the linked articles and my experiences from the shitstorm of FUD after 9/11 and Iraq) and would await more information/clearification.
 

Burbank

Member
Sep 9, 2018
281
Lol, how old I am? Nice insult. I call out how illogical you are for decrying this incident as fake news when Iran themselves are commenting on it and you resort to attacks. Figures.
It would be illogical to call it fake news. Lucky me I didn't do that and instead underlined the need for more information from trustworthy sources.

Maybe I shouldn't have asked about age but reading comprehension?
 

DrewFu

Member
Apr 19, 2018
4,713
No and that's not what I said. I said I didn't trust the sources in the original post completely (based on the info in the linked articles and my experiences from the shitstorm of FUD after 9/11 and Iraq) and would await more information/clearification.
The British Ministry of Defense has confirmed the situation. I'm not sure what source beyond that would satisfy you.
 

Burbank

Member
Sep 9, 2018
281
The British Ministry of Defense has confirmed the situation. I'm not sure what source beyond that would satisfy you.
How about objective evidence of the attack like the supposed video?
Instead of a freaking government "we say so" from the UK, that has already lied once to go to war in the ME together with Bolton & friends on fabricated pretenses.

Not saying what did or didn't happen. I'm saying I don't trust this ministry on this subject without hard evidence. At all. To do so is naive, not logical.
 

game-biz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,061
Iran is really playing a stupid game here. They must not think Trump is dumb enough to go to war with them...
 

Typhon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,084
Iran is really playing a stupid game here. They must not think Trump is dumb enough to go to war with them...
I'm honestly shocked Trump hasn't managed to stumble into a war over the past 2 and a half years. Still, he did run his campaign on anti-interventionalism. He supporters freaked when he attacked Syria last year.
 

Cas

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
3,337
It would be illogical to call it fake news. Lucky me I didn't do that and instead underlined the need for more information from trustworthy sources.

Maybe I shouldn't have asked about age but reading comprehension?
Stop being so childish and insulting. You straight up said that BBC, CNN and WSJ were "untrustworthy" (aka, fake news). I only expect more insults for your next response though, so I'm not going to waste my time anymore.
 

Daverytimes

Member
Oct 25, 2017
559
We are already at war with Iran whether people want to belive it or not. Economic warfare is a form of warfare and should Iran act out no one should be surprised.
On them trying to take a UK flagged ship, they did threaten they would do so, and there lack of comment on the issue shows it was most likely true. Is it dumb to do? Absolutely, but at this point I think the UK will have to escort all UK flagged ships. I don't know what they thought would happen if they siezed an Iranian ship, it was always going to be like this, maybe that was the plan.
 

Maneil99

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
5,043
We are already at war with Iran whether people want to belive it or not. Economic warfare is a form of warfare and should Iran act out no one should be surprised.
On them trying to take a UK flagged ship, they did threaten they would do so, and there lack of comment on the issue shows it was most likely true. Is it dumb to do? Absolutely, but at this point I think the UK will have to escort all UK flagged ships. I don't know what they thought would happen if they siezed an Iranian ship, it was always going to be like this, maybe that was the plan.
Stop using the term war lol
 

Burbank

Member
Sep 9, 2018
281
Stop being so childish and insulting. You straight up said that BBC, CNN and WSJ were "untrustworthy" (aka, fake news). I only expect more insults for your next response though, so I'm not going to waste my time anymore.
Then stop making assumptions (about my political leanings for example) and stop making weak connections in support of your arguments.

That eg CNN is an untrustrustworthy source does not automatically make CNN "fake news" (they are a corporation, not a piece of news).
It means I will take their ME war reporting with skeptisicsm unless they present solid, hard evidence to back up their claims.
 

Burbank

Member
Sep 9, 2018
281
Both Iran and the Rev. Guard are now officially denying they were there at all so it's word against word.

Might be a good time to release that overhead direct video footage US claimed they had of the incident.

"Iran has rejected the claims. Foreign minister Javad Zarif called the British allegations “worthless” in remarks to the semi-official Fars news agency. “Apparently the British tanker has passed. What [the British] have said themselves and the claims that have been made are for creating tension and these claims have no value,” Zarif said.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps also issued a statement denying involvement."
 

Git

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,001
The language used by our media for this incident has been slowly scaled back over the last 24 hours. There's now no mention of Iran attempting to seize the vessel.
 

Afrikan

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,776
The language used by our media for this incident has been slowly scaled back over the last 24 hours. There's now no mention of Iran attempting to seize the vessel.
I'm outside the country right now, and when this first happened, it was reported MUCH differently. No mention of any seize attempt by the Iranians.
 

Maneil99

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
5,043
This seems like a very insecure comment, like you're trying to convince yourself of your own opinion.

Do you want to flesh this out a bit, or nah?
This seems like a very insecure comment, like you're trying to convince yourself of your own opinion.

Do you want to flesh this out a bit, or nah?
is the US at war with Mexico? Is Canada at war with Saudi Arabia?


seriously lmao.
Say it to yourself. We are at war with Iran. Does that make a lick of sense atm?


war
/wôr/
Learn to pronounce
noun
  1. 1.
    a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.
    "Japan declared war on Germany"
    [TABLE]
    [TR]
    [TD]synonyms:[/TD]
    [TD]conflict, warfare, combat, fighting, struggle, armed conflict, action, military action, bloodshed, contest, tussle; More



    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
 

Git

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,001
Love it when people copy and paste a word definition Google search as if they've done some heavy research.
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,755
is the US at war with Mexico? Is Canada at war with Saudi Arabia?


seriously lmao.
Say it to yourself. We are at war with Iran. Does that make a lick of sense atm?


war
/wôr/
Learn to pronounce
noun
  1. 1.
    a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.
    "Japan declared war on Germany"
    [TABLE]
    [TR]
    [TD]synonyms:[/TD]
    [TD]conflict, warfare, combat, fighting, struggle, armed conflict, action, military action, bloodshed, contest, tussle; More



    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
We already have definitions for this kind of activity

Economic warfare, the use of, or the threat to use, economic means against a country in order to weaken its economy and thereby reduce its political and military power. Economic warfare also includes the use of economic means to compel an adversary to change its policies or behaviour or to undermine its ability to conduct normal relations with other countries. Some common means of economic warfare are trade embargoes, boycotts, sanctions, tariff discrimination, the freezing of capital assets, the suspension of aid, the prohibition of investment and other capital flows, and expropriation.
Is it a war only when it's declared as such? Give me a little insight to your POV because at this point your definition seems to indicate that anything short of armed violence between state actors isn't war. Yet, we have an entire history of things people define as war which were relatively bloodless