True. But it's the US officials talking to the media about this. Why do you think this is?
True. But it's the US officials talking to the media about this. Why do you think this is?
True. But it's the US officials talking to the media about this. Why do you think this is?
Because US officials were awake and UK officials weren't? I got no particular love for the US government at the moment but not everything is a conspiracy. Are we also going to ignore the fact that the Iranian president mocked the UK for shadowing their frighters? This was a dick waving move by the Iranians, nothing more.
What a strange post. Like, I don't know the specifics of this situation, there might be more to this story, but if you described happened, the headline is accurate, no?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!!!!
Is there anything to suggest that the intentions of the Iranians was to commandeer the boat?What a strange post. Like, I don't know the specifics of this situation, there might be more to this story, but if you described happened, the headline is accurate, no?
Like, if some one shows up and tries to rob me, and I show then I'm armed, and then they back away - that is attempted robbery, you know that right?
They wanted them to do what they wanted them to do. Going by the article, what they did was not according to international law. What I was refering to in my post, however, was just the quoted post and how that post characterized the interaction - and how the headline in that post related to the post itself.Is there anything to suggest that the intentions of the Iranians was to commandeer the boat?
Is there anything to suggest that the intentions of the Iranians was to commandeer the boat?
Is there anything to suggest that the intentions of the Iranians was to commandeer the boat?
From the BBC:
All the information on this going to the media is coming from US officials. Not the British.
And we know why it's coming from the Americans.
Iranian boats tried to impede a British oil tanker near the Gulf - before being driven off by a Royal Navy ship, the Ministry of Defence has said.
HMS Montrose, a British frigate escorting the tanker British Heritage, was forced to move between the three boats and the tanker, a spokesman said.
A UK government spokesman said: "Contrary to international law, three Iranian vessels attempted to impede the passage of a commercial vessel, British Heritage, through the Strait of Hormuz.
"We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region."
If Brits can play the pirates in 2019, why can't Iran? Britain's seizure of Iranian tanker has no basis in any international law.
Other than the fact they threatened to do so earlier in the week?
Is there anything to suggest that the intentions of the Iranians was to commandeer the boat?
If Brits can play the pirates in 2019, why can't Iran? Britain's seizure of Iranian tanker has no basis in any international law.
The Panamanian authority added that Grace 1 had been de-listed after receiving an alert indicating that the ship had participated in or was linked to terrorism financing. Although the tanker flies a Panama flag, Iran claimed ownership and objected to the seizure of its ship.
How dare the British seize an Iranian vessel flying under a literal false flag on a sanction-busting mission to poor misunderstood Assad?
It was a violating EU sanctions against Syria and seized in Gibraltar. Last time I checked Britain is still member of the EU and Gibraltar is British territory
I thought it was a Panamanian tanker? oh hang on what's this...?
Oh that's OK, It wasn't Panamanian anymore because they de-listed it due to links with terrorism. Not my words, Anomander, the words of Reuters.com https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-registry-after-terrorism-alert-idUSKCN1TZ24G
How dare the British seize an Iranian vessel flying under a literal false flag on a sanction-busting mission to poor misunderstood Assad?
lmao. Do you have any idea how tankers work? 90% of tankers on earth are listed under a third country's flag.
"Terrorist activity" is just the US putting pressure on Panama to delist the tanker. Don't be naive.This one was flying under a third-countries flag despite being de-listed two months by that third country ago for terrorist activity.
Probably just an admin error. Totally fine to go ahead and break EU Sanctions in that case.
Apparently it was in port at Gibraltar. Presumably those are not international waters?
Sources state it was passing through Gibraltarian territorial waters and as such fell under their purview."Terrorist activity" is just the US putting pressure on Panama to delist the tanker. Don't be naive.
It wasn't in a port. It was boarded by the British commandos from a chopper in the middle of sea.
You wanna maybe show your work here? I don't follow. Doesn't seem fabricated at all.
So wait no attention to british capturing Iranian freighter but this gets attention instantly?
Apparently it was in port at Gibraltar. Presumably those are not international waters?
edit: Apols it was not at port but "heading east through Gibraltarian waters" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/04/royal-marines-gibraltar-tanker-oil-syria-eu-sanctions
Didn't Iraq get invaded in 2003? Or are we in a different timeline
If I was the pragmatic sort I might be inclined to believe America and its allies are trying to plant evidence and stir up trouble they'll use later as justification for war with Iran before the 2020 American elections.
There's no way to pass through the Strait of Gibraltar without being under EU jurisdiction for a portion of the journey. If they can prove that it was taking crude oil to a sanctioned refinery then impounding the ship while in Spanish or Gibraltan waters is a valid enforcement action.
hmm... I doubt this is how it works, otherwise how can there be international waters in Strait of Hormuz?There's no way to pass through the Strait of Gibraltar without being under EU jurisdiction for a portion of the journey. If they can prove that it was taking crude oil to a sanctioned refinery then impounding the ship while in Spanish or Gibraltan waters is a valid enforcement action.
.
Surprise bitches!
But seriously, attempting to board in international waters is a big no no
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!!!!
Is there anything to suggest that the intentions of the Iranians was to commandeer the boat?
The BBC covered it in a few hours just as I said they would.You think press does not have round the clock reporters to cover another country attacking British ships?
CNN uses the word 'alleged' - what does this mean? Are they not sure this happened?
hmm... I doubt this is how it works, otherwise how can there be international waters in Strait of Hormuz?
I'm just pointing it out because this thread is dominated by discussion of the US and its goals with Iran, when this situation, for a change, has nothing to do with the US.
Yes it does. You think this would have happened if Trump didn't break the Iran nuclear deal and put sanctions on them?
ranian boats tried to impede a British oil tanker near the Gulf - before being driven off by a Royal Navy ship, the Ministry of Defence has said.
Trump breaking the Iran nuclear deal was stupid af, but Iran doing stupid things isn't justified because of it. I know that poster was basically complaining that the thread is about the US (silly that they bring up the US if their goal is to turn the thread more towards the topic of the UK and Iran) so I understand why you said it, I just feel like it's worth stating :).
Oh wow, didn't know it was narrower. Thanks.The Strait of Gibraltar is narrower at 7.7 nautical miles wide compared to the Strait of Hormuz which is 21 nautical miles wide at the narrowest.
What I mean is shitty things happening was predictable. Trump did it out of spite for Obama, but guys like Pompeo and Bolton use it for their own goals (regime change, conflict, Israel / Saudi Arabia ass licking).
When you back a government into a corner, with their economy crumbling and their survival put in jeopardy, they will act aggressively and sometimes illogically. Wars get started like this!
Iran has been playing a dangerous, stupid game, but they do not want war with the West. They're basically playing from the North Korean playbook of knowing the US/NATO isn't going to invade, so they're being a dangerous pain in the ass until the US gives it what it wants. In this case, a return to the deal and the sanctions dropped.
hmm... I doubt this is how it works, otherwise how can there be international waters in Strait of Hormuz?
21 is still less than 24, which is the minimum width for true international waters to form between the halves of a strait. So there may be an aspect of international shipping law I'm misunderstanding hereThe Strait of Gibraltar is narrower at 7.7 nautical miles wide compared to the Strait of Hormuz which is 21 nautical miles wide at the narrowest.
21 is still less than 24, which is the minimum width for true international waters to form between the halves of a strait. So there may be an aspect of international shipping law I'm misunderstanding here.