Jump to content

Britain says Iran attempted to block its oil tanker


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 hours ago, jany123 said:

“.... but we will continue to force our ships thru Iranian territorial waters, under military escort, with complete disregard for regional stability.”

as it always was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2019 at 10:36 PM, baboon said:

Nice Brexit distraction, but I hope that after the Iraq fiasco, the British will not be fooled again by those ready and willing to fight to the last drop of other people's blood to secure right-wing American interests.

Probably a forlorn hope, mind you. I suppose we will continue to pose and grandstand on the world stage as though we matter that much in the grand scheme of things.

 

       Nice Brexit distraction , more on the way 

       UK , must remain united , blah blah ...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jany123 said:

C’mon... the three Iranian boats might as well have been canoes, compared to a British naval frigate. 

 

And... A British naval frigate just doesn’t appear magically... it was there already.

 

sure... a misrepresentation.. just as is trying to maintain (the new axis of evil... not you) that the Iranian interception of a British vessel was actually ever going to happen.... was ever actually a thing.

 

speak truth to truth... speak BS to BS

 

 

What's interesting about many a Trump ardent opposer is how they embrace the President's penchant for catchy, if fact-light catchphrases and descriptions, while having little time for detail.

 

May want to read a bit on Iran's naval forces. Or how small missile boats fare against larger targets (and especially threat represented to civilian vessels). Canoes they are not.

 

Nothing said about the frigate appearing magically, other than by yourself. It was definitely in the area, but as far as I understand it wasn't right along the tanker all along.

 

You keep claiming there was no interception - anything whatsoever to support this? Was the Iranian threats just on par with Trump's, then?

 

As for your last line - I'd rather try truth to BS, useless as it may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Diplomacy and abiding by previously negotiated deals might be an alternative.

 

Yes. It's quite amazing people forget how and why the JCPOA (which, yes, the Trump administration bailed out of) came about, or how Iran played it then. Guess abiding by "previously negotiated deals" includes only what fits the agenda.

 

Diplomacy being an alternative would apply to Iran's latest action as well. Blocking the Strait of Hormuz is not very diplomatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jany123 said:

 

 

as you are oft want to point out... I did not make the claim that your response/questions of me suggest

 

if BP is truly interested in the security of its crews, it would not send its crews into a disputed waterway during increased tensions between various nations, one of whom is regional, and the others which are far from home, in the formers front yard.

 

US economic terrorism directed at Iran is responsible for the increased tension and destabilization of regional security.... British war ships in the region, also heighten tensions, and add to destabilization of regional security (esp after seizing the grace)

 

But... as to your question about what would potentially reduce regional tension and improve stability... The US returning to the non proliferation agreement would probably be the most effective way to achieve that (as the simplest of a bunch of really hard solutions) ... and I know that you know that this is my position vs any action by Iran itself

 

You made up a bogus comment. Now you're whining about it not being fairly addressed. Whatever.

 

As for the rest of your high spirited post -

 

Tensions running high in the ME is pretty much a constant. If it wasn't this, than it would be that. Maybe more to Iran's favor or liking, but tensions all the same. Even if you want to make the USA the sole factor here, it would be hard to see how Iran's "responses" help to calm things down. If anything, they appear happy enough to fan the flames up to a point, then back up until the next instance.

 

British "war ships" were in the region before the Grace 1 was seized. And had they not been there and a British tanker would have been seized "in response", things would have been much worse relative to the current OP's outcome.

 

And I did not actually ask a "question about what would potentially reduce regional tensions and improve stability". I commented that Iran's actions weren't helpful either, in response to your made up "quote". Not really sure what you meant by "this is my position vs. any action by Iran itself", sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What's interesting about many a Trump ardent opposer is how they embrace the President's penchant for catchy, if fact-light catchphrases and descriptions, while having little time for detail.

 

May want to read a bit on Iran's naval forces. Or how small missile boats fare against larger targets (and especially threat represented to civilian vessels). Canoes they are not.

 

Nothing said about the frigate appearing magically, other than by yourself. It was definitely in the area, but as far as I understand it wasn't right along the tanker all along.

 

You keep claiming there was no interception - anything whatsoever to support this? Was the Iranian threats just on par with Trump's, then?

 

As for your last line - I'd rather try truth to BS, useless as it may be.

I’m not claiming anything  much about interception.. what  I’m claiming is that the Iranians where creating mischief.... as far as reports go, the frigate came up from astern, and inserted itself between the ship, and three fast interceptors. But... Did the Iranians actually intercept the ship? not according to any reports I saw... the British ship was not stopped, not obstructed from getting where it was going, so not intercepted.

 

im sorry... but if you really think that the Iranians really posed a threat to that British ship, your deluding yourself.... they were harassing, nothing more,

 

it was you who claimed the frigate had to be summoned... I reject that... it was there already... it would have had state of the art radar... it would have seen the Iranians approach... it would have acted accordingly... did act accordingly.... the interception was done by the British frigate.

 

i could be completely mistaken, and I welcome your input in pointing me toward anything that would clear that up... such as an article saying that the frigate had to be summoned.... failing that... it was blatant harassment.... bark, no bite.... and no intention to bite.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

From a totalitarian regime that imprisons foreign nationals on a whim and publicly hangs homosexuals from crane jibs, I guess the UK was expecting "games to be played". Especially as this regime likes to huff and puff and threaten everyone.

 

Their comic pantomime, I suspect, is a diversion, while they continue funding terrorism against the West and regional allies, and seek ways to undermine and destroy Israel.

If Only Iraq had been as stable/wise as iran,but no it took uncle Sam's money/arms only later to fire them back at US/UK and and some others,fast forward 10 /20 years and Isis do the same,does the US ever get it right? Answer = not very often,and that's when they had presidents with half a brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jany123 said:

I’m not claiming anything  much about interception.. what  I’m claiming is that the Iranians where creating mischief.... as far as reports go, the frigate came up from astern, and inserted itself between the ship, and three fast interceptors. But... Did the Iranians actually intercept the ship? not according to any reports I saw... the British ship was not stopped, not obstructed from getting where it was going, so not intercepted.

 

im sorry... but if you really think that the Iranians really posed a threat to that British ship, your deluding yourself.... they were harassing, nothing more,

 

it was you who claimed the frigate had to be summoned... I reject that... it was there already... it would have had state of the art radar... it would have seen the Iranians approach... it would have acted accordingly... did act accordingly.... the interception was done by the British frigate.

 

i could be completely mistaken, and I welcome your input in pointing me toward anything that would clear that up... such as an article saying that the frigate had to be summoned.... failing that... it was blatant harassment.... bark, no bite.... and no intention to bite.

 

 

 

 

Are you for real? You've made several comments suggesting the whole things was pretty much a nothing burger. How's that "not claiming anything"?

 

But anyway, I see we're down to semantics. Great. Another one. Ok, so would "attempted interception" would be better, then? Nowhere did anyone claim that the Iranians managed to stop the ship, but that they tried, or tried to look like they're trying.

 

I think that if Iran wanted, it could easily sink any British tanker, and probably "war ships" as well (not so easy, but still). Given the current state of things, it was prudent to stop their "harassment" before it could turn into something else, by accident or design. That you see such actions as acceptable, does not mean they are.

 

You can "reject" all you like, but you haven't provided something concrete to support that. I think that if the frigate was "there" to begin with, less chances this would have occurred. Not to take away from your apparent naval expertise, but if said Iranian boats were "canoes" etc., then they'd also be harder to detect, and of course, the Iranians got their own radars - and they'd know the frigate's location.

 

Even if your claim that it was "just harassment" was true, it doesn't make Iran's actions acceptable or cast them as contributing an iota to stability - rather the opposite.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You made up a bogus comment. Now you're whining about it not being fairly addressed. Whatever.

 

As for the rest of your high spirited post -

 

Tensions running high in the ME is pretty much a constant. If it wasn't this, than it would be that. Maybe more to Iran's favor or liking, but tensions all the same. Even if you want to make the USA the sole factor here, it would be hard to see how Iran's "responses" help to calm things down. If anything, they appear happy enough to fan the flames up to a point, then back up until the next instance.

 

British "war ships" were in the region before the Grace 1 was seized. And had they not been there and a British tanker would have been seized "in response", things would have been much worse relative to the current OP's outcome.

 

And I did not actually ask a "question about what would potentially reduce regional tensions and improve stability". I commented that Iran's actions weren't helpful either, in response to your made up "quote". Not really sure what you meant by "this is my position vs. any action by Iran itself", sorry.

What bogus statement did I make up? how was I whining? 

 

As to your claims about regional tensions being a constant... you must have missed the universal reporting about increased tensions and instability in the region arising from the trumps withdrawal from the non proliferation deal

 

you would have to be naive to believe Iran would not respond to provocation in some way... call their response whatever, I don’t care. Me, I call it expected.

 

Did I claim that British warships where not in the area prior to last week?... no I did not.

 

As to you not asking a question....

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Whereas Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz will do wonders for regional stability? Or World economy?

Looks like there’s actually two questions there... but yes... clever... I replied

4 hours ago, jany123 said:

But... as to your question about what would potentially reduce regional tension and improve stability....

My mistake.

 

and what I meant by the comment lastly in your post was that my position is, and has always been, that America should return to the conditions of the pact vs Iran having to do anything. We have had this discussion before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Are you for real? You've made several comments suggesting the whole things was pretty much a nothing burger. How's that "not claiming anything"?

 

But anyway, I see we're down to semantics. Great. Another one. Ok, so would "attempted interception" would be better, then? Nowhere did anyone claim that the Iranians managed to stop the ship, but that they tried, or tried to look like they're trying.

 

I think that if Iran wanted, it could easily sink any British tanker, and probably "war ships" as well (not so easy, but still). Given the current state of things, it was prudent to stop their "harassment" before it could turn into something else, by accident or design. That you see such actions as acceptable, does not mean they are.

 

You can "reject" all you like, but you haven't provided something concrete to support that. I think that if the frigate was "there" to begin with, less chances this would have occurred. Not to take away from your apparent naval expertise, but if said Iranian boats were "canoes" etc., then they'd also be harder to detect, and of course, the Iranians got their own radars - and they'd know the frigate's location.

 

Even if your claim that it was "just harassment" was true, it doesn't make Iran's actions acceptable or cast them as contributing an iota to stability - rather the opposite.

 

Yes... a nothing burger... that’s what I’m claiming... your claiming I’m claiming no interception, which is what I claimed you claimed.

 

with you, it always comes down to semantics

 

In admitting Iran could sink a ship, but did not, reinforces the deliberate harassment theory... thanks... and yes, it was 100% right to stop the harassment... I never suggested otherwise... are you saying that I did?

 

and yes... I can reject your semantics all I want... and you can correct me with a link, if you wish, but you don’t appear to wish to do that. You “think” it was not there, but provide nothing to back that up, much as I have provided nothing to back up my statement that the frigate was astern of the tanker. I read it somewhere, but no matter.

 

you trivialize my trivializing post ( about rubber duckies and canoes)... no problems... that’s cool... but surely your not suggesting that either party had no knowledge of the other.

 

and I’m not sure if I said that the harassment was “just”. I certainly said it was expected... and naive not to expect.... and nor did I say it contribute to stability or regional safety. 

 

The bogus stuff is coming from you, in my opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Morch said:

You can "reject" all you like, but you haven't provided something concrete to support that. I think that if the frigate was "there" to begin with, less chances this would have occurred.

 

 

there ya go.... exactly per my postings.... the Montrose was escorting the tanker from astern. I hope that’s concrete enough support for you

http://hr.n1info.com/English/NEWS/a418312/Iranian-boats-attempted-to-seize-a-British-tanker-in-the-Strait-of-Hormuz.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jany123 said:

What bogus statement did I make up? how was I whining? 

 

As to your claims about regional tensions being a constant... you must have missed the universal reporting about increased tensions and instability in the region arising from the trumps withdrawal from the non proliferation deal

 

you would have to be naive to believe Iran would not respond to provocation in some way... call their response whatever, I don’t care. Me, I call it expected.

 

Did I claim that British warships where not in the area prior to last week?... no I did not.

 

As to you not asking a question....

Looks like there’s actually two questions there... but yes... clever... I replied

My mistake.

 

and what I meant by the comment lastly in your post was that my position is, and has always been, that America should return to the conditions of the pact vs Iran having to do anything. We have had this discussion before.

 

If you can't follow your own posts, maybe you should post less. The one I was referring to (and that's not saying I think much of the rest) is this - https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1111216-britain-says-iran-attempted-to-block-its-oil-tanker/?tab=comments#comment-14339946

and complaint (aka whining) about response appear here - https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1111216-britain-says-iran-attempted-to-block-its-oil-tanker/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-14340957

 

Regional tensions are a constant. That's a fact, not a claim. The current iteration is much to do with the Trump administration withdrawal from the JCPOA. The point made was that even had the USA stuck with the agreement, another issue would have undoubtedly become the flavor of the day with regard to regional tensions.

 

I do not think Iranian leadership is naive. Never said that. As for responses - they're choices seem a bit dodgy. I can see the logic of it, but still playing with fire.

 

Still at a loss as to how your "position", even as stated above relates to this bit (from a previous post of yours) - "this is my position vs. any action by Iran itself". What you have outlined above relates to actions by the USA, not Iran.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jany123 said:

Yes... a nothing burger... that’s what I’m claiming... your claiming I’m claiming no interception, which is what I claimed you claimed.

 

with you, it always comes down to semantics

 

In admitting Iran could sink a ship, but did not, reinforces the deliberate harassment theory... thanks... and yes, it was 100% right to stop the harassment... I never suggested otherwise... are you saying that I did?

 

and yes... I can reject your semantics all I want... and you can correct me with a link, if you wish, but you don’t appear to wish to do that. You “think” it was not there, but provide nothing to back that up, much as I have provided nothing to back up my statement that the frigate was astern of the tanker. I read it somewhere, but no matter.

 

you trivialize my trivializing post ( about rubber duckies and canoes)... no problems... that’s cool... but surely your not suggesting that either party had no knowledge of the other.

 

and I’m not sure if I said that the harassment was “just”. I certainly said it was expected... and naive not to expect.... and nor did I say it contribute to stability or regional safety. 

 

The bogus stuff is coming from you, in my opinion

 

Getting hard to tell if you're trying to obfuscate or actually having trouble following your own posts and replies to them.

 

Iran could sink most ships in the Gulf. Not doing so does not "reinforce" any of your ideas. Nowhere was it claimed that Iran aimed to sink this British tanker.

 

The Montrose was, apparently, escorting the tanker. There's that, fair enough. Given that the British Navy got a single frigate in the Gulf, and far more British ships in need of protection, it wasn't off mark to assume not all would be escorted in this manner. Still unsure as to why this makes a huge difference either way, but eh.

 

You want to go on about "rubber duckies" and "canoes", don't expect your posts to be taken seriously.

 

As for Iranian actions and regional stability - you seem all too willing to criticize anyone but Iran on this score. If one idiot starts a fire and another idiot pours gasoline on it, both are still idiots.

 

A few more of them ..... which keep cropping back and I'll say heya @farcanell

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jany123 said:

Lmao..... thanks.... now that I’m educated, I see that Iran mobilized a large portion of its naval vessels to harass the British.

 

From your link.... the Iranian navy, complete with armed dinghies and inflatables.... there’s a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock, ol mate.

 

2BC75889-EBFA-4D97-BF85-D103C01B2BA6.jpeg

Well clearly that attempt and failed, and you are not educated, most likely because of the deficiencies highlighted on other threads. Did you really not read the very first line?The philosophy (that means thinking) is that small armed vessels are cheap to produce and their crews expendable, but deployed in sufficient numbers they can defeat much larger and more expensive warships.

 

How you fail to recognise that a small boat armed with a missile or torpedo could be a threat to a frigate is amazing. For further education, I suggest you go kick a wasp's nest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mogandave said:

 


So Iran did try to seize the ship and was not just harassing it.

 

LOL.... now your reading what want to see..... the US version says one thing, whilst the UK version says another. It was a UK ship/ incident, so for right or wrong, I’m accepting of the UK version, wherein they state it appears as though the Iranian vessels were trying to divert the heritage.... no seizing... no intercepting.

 

But hey, if y’all wish to believe three Iranian vessels where genuinely attempting to seize a British supertanker, during daylight hours, when it was being closely escorted by a British naval frigate, and observed by overhead reconnaissance planes, then have at it

 

http://hr.n1info.com/English/NEWS/a418312/Iranian-boats-attempted-to-seize-a-British-tanker-in-the-Strait-of-Hormuz.html

US reporting:

“Armed Iranian boats unsuccessfully tried to seize a British oil tanker in the Persian Gulf Wednesday, according to two US officials with direct knowledge of the incident.”

 

“US officials said five Iranian ships approached the UK vessels.” 

 

Brit reporting:

“However, British officials said that three Iranian vessels were involved in the incident.”

 

A British Ministry of Defense source told CNN that it "appeared that the Iranian vessels were trying to divert the Heritage from international to Iranian waters" before the British Navy ship HMS Montrose "got between them and issued a verbal warning to withdraw."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL.... now your reading what want to see..... the US version says one thing, whilst the UK version says another. It was a UK ship/ incident, so for right or wrong, I’m accepting of the UK version, wherein they state it appears as though the Iranian vessels were trying to divert the heritage.... no seizing... no intercepting.

 

But hey, if y’all wish to believe three Iranian vessels where genuinely attempting to seize a British supertanker, during daylight hours, when it was being closely escorted by a British naval frigate, and observed by overhead reconnaissance planes, then have at it

 

http://hr.n1info.com/English/NEWS/a418312/Iranian-boats-attempted-to-seize-a-British-tanker-in-the-Strait-of-Hormuz.html

US reporting:

“Armed Iranian boats unsuccessfully tried to seize a British oil tanker in the Persian Gulf Wednesday, according to two US officials with direct knowledge of the incident.”

 

“US officials said five Iranian ships approached the UK vessels.” 

 

Brit reporting:

“However, British officials said that three Iranian vessels were involved in the incident.”

 

A British Ministry of Defense source told CNN that it "appeared that the Iranian vessels were trying to divert the Heritage from international to Iranian waters" before the British Navy ship HMS Montrose "got between them and issued a verbal warning to withdraw."

 

I was reading the article you linked to.

 

And I remember it saying escorted, not closely escorted, I assume you just threw that in for effect.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the Brits - particularly the Tories - can be too happy about this turn of events. It's extremely politically unpalatable in the UK to be possibly getting involved in another conflict in the Mideast. Especially when it's due to the malfeasance of the US government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

If you can't follow your own posts, maybe you should post less. The one I was referring to (and that's not saying I think much of the rest) is this - https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1111216-britain-says-iran-attempted-to-block-its-oil-tanker/?tab=comments#comment-14339946

and complaint (aka whining) about response appear here - https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1111216-britain-says-iran-attempted-to-block-its-oil-tanker/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-14340957

 

Regional tensions are a constant. That's a fact, not a claim. The current iteration is much to do with the Trump administration withdrawal from the JCPOA. The point made was that even had the USA stuck with the agreement, another issue would have undoubtedly become the flavor of the day with regard to regional tensions.

 

I do not think Iranian leadership is naive. Never said that. As for responses - they're choices seem a bit dodgy. I can see the logic of it, but still playing with fire.

 

Still at a loss as to how your "position", even as stated above relates to this bit (from a previous post of yours) - "this is my position vs. any action by Iran itself". What you have outlined above relates to actions by the USA, not Iran.   

 

You seem to be making a case on a completely fabricated comment... a thought that amused me at the time.. a moment in consideration of hypocrisy.... but as you like.

 

I'm still not at all sure how you can say that this (below) is whining.... lol... another observation in hypocrisy more like... but.. as you like

16 hours ago, jany123 said:

as you are oft want to point out... I did not make the claim that your response/questions of me suggest

 

That said, it amazes me that you still maintain that the tensions in the area are a constant... constants don’t change.... but if you firmly believe that tensions in the area are unchanged.... then.. as you like

 

https://www.crisisgroup.org/trigger-list/iran-us-trigger-list/flashpoints/hormuz

 

and once again.... my position is indeed in regards to actions by the US and not Iran. In this current situation, I see Iran as reactive.  We have discussed this on other threads, and my position during those outings is the same as now.... and you need not attempt to imply that I have blinkers on regards Iran's capability or its arguably despicable behavior in general.

 

You can lead a horse to water....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I don't think the Brits - particularly the Tories - can be too happy about this turn of events. It's extremely politically unpalatable in the UK to be possibly getting involved in another conflict in the Mideast. Especially when it's due to the malfeasance of the US government.

That might be why the accounts provided by the US and the British MoD differ... one is fanning the flames, whilst the other is pouring water over them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I was reading the article you linked to.

 

And I remember it saying escorted, not closely escorted, I assume you just threw that in for effect.

 

 

“Close escort”.... “shadowing”... same same, different spelling. It has been mentioned so many times in so many places that I failed to see it was omitted in the earlier link.... so...  my apologies that the wording wasn’t in the link supplied.... here’s a sample.

 

“HMS Montrose, a British frigate shadowing the BP-owned tanker, was forced to move between the three boats and the tanker, a spokesman said.”

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48946051

 

 

4A48E809-CF29-4045-A738-899F6C961F5E.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jany123 said:

they state it appears as though the Iranian vessels were trying to divert the heritage.... no seizing... no intercepting.

I would love to hear your explanation of WHY Iranian boats were trying to divert a British tanker into Iranian waters, if not to intercept or seize? Take into account recent events and see if you can up with something even remotely credible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

I would love to hear your explanation of WHY Iranian boats were trying to divert a British tanker into Iranian waters, if not to intercept or seize? Take into account recent events and see if you can up with something even remotely credible.

Your reading and comprehension skills match the quality of your links.

 

i have given my reason multiple times already. To wit... harassment... strewth ruth... harassment because of recent events.

 

you don’t have to agree with me that it was harassment... but others do.... hopefully there’s enough credibility in this for you to pause for a wee moment.

 

“The Royal Navy HMS Montrose, which was also there, pointed its guns at the boats and warned them over radio, at which point they dispersed,” one of the officials said.

“It was harassment and an attempt to interfere with the passage,” the other official said.

 

https://www.israelhayom.com/2019/07/11/iranian-boats-harass-british-tanker-in-the-persian-gulf/

 

do you really believe that Iran was intent on hijacking the heritage at sea, in front of the entire world?

 

those Roos are still running amuck in the top paddock, ol chap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jany123 said:

Your reading and comprehension skills match the quality of your links.

 

i have given my reason multiple times already. To wit... harassment... strewth ruth... harassment because of recent events.

 

you don’t have to agree with me that it was harassment... but others do.... hopefully there’s enough credibility in this for you to pause for a wee moment.

 

“The Royal Navy HMS Montrose, which was also there, pointed its guns at the boats and warned them over radio, at which point they dispersed,” one of the officials said.

“It was harassment and an attempt to interfere with the passage,” the other official said.

 

https://www.israelhayom.com/2019/07/11/iranian-boats-harass-british-tanker-in-the-persian-gulf/

 

do you really believe that Iran was intent on hijacking the heritage at sea, in front of the entire world?

 

those Roos are still running amuck in the top paddock, ol chap.

They could harass the tanker by forcing to to slow or stop. You have stated they were attempting to divert into Iranian waters, WHY?

Do you not agree that a ship which leaves recognised shipping lanes and enters territorial waters would be subject to applicable laws regarding stop, search and seizure?

 

At least try to be credible. Any positive change would be a major improvement from such a low base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

They could harass the tanker by forcing to to slow or stop. You have stated they were attempting to divert into Iranian waters, WHY?

Do you not agree that a ship which leaves recognised shipping lanes and enters territorial waters would be subject to applicable laws regarding stop, search and seizure?

 

At least try to be credible. Any positive change would be a major improvement from such a low base.

I prefer not to accuse others of lying, so instead I would ask... where did I ever state that the Iranians were attempting to divert the heritage? 

 

yes... I agree that vessels in another countries waters are subject to applicable laws. National laws and international laws, would be applicable. 

 

i gave you a credible answer to your last question, with a link whereby officials call it harassment as well, but note that you avoid answering my questions in response, so I fail to see how you can attempt to claim some kind of high ground on credibility...

 

none the less.... again.... do you believe Iran was genuinely attempting an act of piracy at sea, on a British tanker, in front of a British frigate and the entire world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Close escort”.... “shadowing”... same same, different spelling. It has been mentioned so many times in so many places that I failed to see it was omitted in the earlier link.... so...  my apologies that the wording wasn’t in the link supplied...


You provided a link and I commented on it, now your whining that your link did not contain the information you intended.

Does not shadowing imply some level of secrecy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jany123 said:

LOL.... now your reading what want to see..... the US version says one thing, whilst the UK version says another. It was a UK ship/ incident, so for right or wrong, I’m accepting of the UK version, wherein they state it appears as though the Iranian vessels were trying to divert the heritage.... no seizing... no intercepting.

 

But hey, if y’all wish to believe three Iranian vessels where genuinely attempting to seize a British supertanker, during daylight hours, when it was being closely escorted by a British naval frigate, and observed by overhead reconnaissance planes, then have at it

 

http://hr.n1info.com/English/NEWS/a418312/Iranian-boats-attempted-to-seize-a-British-tanker-in-the-Strait-of-Hormuz.html

US reporting:

“Armed Iranian boats unsuccessfully tried to seize a British oil tanker in the Persian Gulf Wednesday, according to two US officials with direct knowledge of the incident.”

 

“US officials said five Iranian ships approached the UK vessels.” 

 

Brit reporting:

“However, British officials said that three Iranian vessels were involved in the incident.”

 

A British Ministry of Defense source told CNN that it "appeared that the Iranian vessels were trying to divert the Heritage from international to Iranian waters" before the British Navy ship HMS Montrose "got between them and issued a verbal warning to withdraw."

 

You're just waffling. Call it "interception", "harassment", "divert" or whatever. It comes down to the same thing - an Iranian provocation.

 

I've no idea whether the Iranians were "serious" about it, or if things would have been different had the frigate wouldn't have been there to protect the tanker. Given that it's an already volatile situation, even a simple misunderstanding, or a bad decision by someone on either ship got the potential to make things much worse. As such, the Iranian action was irresponsible, and yet again, "playing with fire".

 

You seem to be focused on petty details, now the difference between the UK and USA version regarding number of Iranian vessels involved. Here are two easy explanations - 3 main vessels, 2 away teams on smaller boats, or a total of five with two hanging back. I'm not saying either happened, just demonstrating that there are easy ways to explain things that seem "suspicious".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...