Pretty much this. Trump has escalated the situation from the start by pulling out of the peace deal and imposing sanctions soon after.
-
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
"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.
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?
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:
Saudi Arabia + Good ol USA + Great Britian are the cohorts in cahoots. The prime movers. Come on . . .
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.
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.
OP
OP
Nice to see the usual quality of contributions in threads like this being maintained.
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:
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:
You're right. They could have made a case for boarding in international waters. Instead, they attempted to seize the ship by directing it to Iranian Port under threat.
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.
Nothing sketchy about trying order a tanker to change course and come into your jurisdiction at all
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.
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.
yeah, so you can't come up with any alternatives. enough said.
What the fuck are we even talking about? Is commendeer and steal synonyms of seize?
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.
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.
Maybe I am just confused. So is that Iran ship the British seized just the property of the UK now? I'd have assumed they would be less aggressive than that.
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.
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?
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.
Iran is run by extremists, their provoking moves are not surprising
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Might be a good time to release that overhead direct video footage US claimed they had of the incident.
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?
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.
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.
a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.
"Japan declared war on Germany"
synonyms: conflict, warfare, combat, fighting, struggle, armed conflict, action, military action, bloodshed, contest, tussle; More
Love it when people copy and paste a word definition Google search as if they've done some heavy research.
We already have definitions for this kind of activity
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