True. But it's the US officials talking to the media about this. Why do you think this is?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US officials: Iranian boats attempted to seize British tanker
- Thread starter poklane
- Start date
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.
Because the kind of people who make comments to the media weren't awake...
So BBC reporters are getting this information from US officials because all the UK officials are asleep except when they woke up to confirm to these reporters, when asked, that yes, what the Americans are telling them is correct? Ok then.
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?
Is there anything to suggest that the intentions of the Iranians was to commandeer the boat?
It should be noted that shortly after this event the Iranian foreign minister made a bizarre statement mocking the British, basically calling them pussies for sending escorts with their tankers, despite threatening British interests previously and seemingly attempting to seize the tanker in question.
People need to be more nuanced in how they think about this situation. Just because Trump is fucking Iran unfairly, doesn't necessarily exonerate Iran for all her actions.
People need to be more nuanced in how they think about this situation. Just because Trump is fucking Iran unfairly, doesn't necessarily exonerate Iran for all her actions.
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.
In what scenario do you order a commercial vessel to stray away from its path in international waters to inside your maritime border in a group of gunboats?
Other than the fact they threatened to do so earlier in the week?
British MoD confirms Iranian boats tried to impede British oil tanker
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
You fool. It was a perfectly normal state hijacking of British ships in international waters done for reasonable reasons. Possibly the ship had a defective headlight. Who knows? The point is that the Iranian threats to take revenge on British interests a few days ago in response to the British seizure of an ostensibly Panamanian ship have nothing whatsoever to do with Iran appearing to attempt to take revenge on British interests because that's not what they were doing. It was something else.
are you serious? what else would they do with a boat in international waters?
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?
i feel we're this close to having people here call him a champion of anti-imperialism or some crap like that with some of the narrative going around here.
So there are no international waters around Gibraltar?
lmao. Do you have any idea how tankers work? 90% of tankers on earth are listed under a third country's flag.
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?
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
"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.
"heading east through Gibraltarian waters" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/04/royal-marines-gibraltar-tanker-oil-syria-eu-sanctions
Sources state it was passing through Gibraltarian territorial waters and as such fell under their purview.
You wanna maybe show your work here? I don't follow. Doesn't seem fabricated at all.
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 a reason that The UK won't return Gibraltar to Spain. It's a literal choke point in to The Mediterranean. If Britain or the US wanted to they could blockade it easily
It has massive strategic and military importance
Yes and how did that turn out? You think the US can do that in Iran when doing it in Iraq was such a failure? I meant they tried to get rid of Saddam for years before the Iraq war.
I still think trump starting a war with Iran now would actually destroy his reelection chances.
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.
.
Yeah, I'm sure the Iranians were just hoping to play a nice game of bingo with the tanker crew. Run them a hot bath and make them sandwiches for their troubles.
...You know it's a good thing that you're all against the US government's intents to go to invade Iran but that doesn't mean that Iran is some patrent Saint that can do know wrong.
It tried to steal a Tanker and was driven off by threat of gunfire.
The BBC covered it in a few hours just as I said they would.
Are you still of the belief that this was fabricated?
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.
Yes it does. You think this would have happened if Trump didn't break the Iran nuclear deal and put sanctions on them?
Yes it does. You think this would have happened if Trump didn't break the Iran nuclear deal and put sanctions on them?
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 :).
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!
Hit the cornered animal until he bites, then pull out your gun, America.
I'm not disagreeing with you exactly. I just think there is some responsibility on Iran here, regardless of the sanctions and their desperation. A different example, I don't think one could justify what North Korea has done with its nuclear program just because of their sanctions and getting desperate themselves. I know the situations are not the same by any means as I don't have the enmity towards Iran that I do towards North Korea.
I don't think I've read many posts on this board that would defend Trump's actions to pull out of that deal. The players seemed to be on a path of communication and collaboration and it was destroyed for political reasons. Which is myopic and gross.
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.
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
Last edited:
It's wider than the minimum in parts (between the thicker white lines where the red line doesn't touch):
Last edited: