Britain says Iran attempted to block its oil tanker

[Rimmer]

Off topic baiting post and replies removed

[jany123]

20 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

This is getting ridiculous. You're posting stuff, and a couple of posts later deny that you did. Yet another example:

 

 

Right here:

 

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1111216-britain-says-iran-attempted-to-block-its-oil-tanker/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-14342691

 

It doesn't matter what Iran "really" intended. Given current tensions, taking risks is not much of a prescription.

 

 

 

 

C’mon.... I say that I’m accepting of the UK version, then outline what the UK version is. That’s their words, not mine... I did not make the statement, as was posted, I agreed with the UK version that it was not an attempt to seize the vessel, but harassment.

 

you use semantics to confuse

 

i clearly stated....

“I'm accepting of the UK version, wherein they state it appears as though the Iranian vessels were trying to divert the heritage.”

 

“they state”... and “appears”.

so again... wherein did I state that they did?

no... I didn’t... I am saying that they harassed.

 

 

[Ozman52]

1 hour ago, jany123 said:

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?

To answer your question, YES I do, it was bloody obvious enough for most people.

 

And yes it would be really stupid to accuse others of lying when they are supplying quotations of what you posted such as 

4 hours ago, jany123 said:

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.

Now tell me that you are "accepting" and not "stating" because I would love to hear your tortured version of the semantics.

 

Oh, I see you've already done it. I was right, the defence of what you stated and what you accepted to be true is hilarious.

[jany123]

21 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

To answer your question, YES I do, it was bloody obvious enough for most people.

 

And yes it would be really stupid to accuse others of lying when they are supplying quotations of what you posted such as 

Now tell me that you are "accepting" and not "stating" because I would love to hear your tortured version of the semantics.

I did not state it... I repeated another sources statement, and agreed with it.... I stated that Iran was harassing, and that’s about all that I have stated of my own accord

 

That said, I agreed with the other source, because at day’s end, attempting to divert, as was claimed by the other source, falls under harassment, so I have no real issue with the comment per se... I simply did not make it, and do not own it.

 

that was an easy contortion.... now... you still fail to point out where I state it directly, as you claimed, in bold, if I recall.

 

meanwhile, what you call bloody obvious to most people, does not appear to be what the British MoD see as obvious, nor what a score of other sources see as obvious.... and I have posted these sources already.

 

But if you believe that Iran was truly attempting to hijack a British vessel in clear view of the world, vs deliberate harassment (for political purpose and leverage perhaps)... well... ok... I fail to understand the reasoning behind this (and you fail to provide reasoning), but your entitled to your opinion.

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, jany123 said:

C’mon.... I say that I’m accepting of the UK version, then outline what the UK version is. That’s their words, not mine... I did not make the statement, as was posted, I agreed with the UK version that it was not an attempt to seize the vessel, but harassment.

 

you use semantics to confuse

 

i clearly stated....

“I'm accepting of the UK version, wherein they state it appears as though the Iranian vessels were trying to divert the heritage.”

 

“they state”... and “appears”.

so again... wherein did I state that they did?

no... I didn’t... I am saying that they harassed.

 

 

 

So back to inane semantics games, then? That the best you can come up with?

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, jany123 said:

I did not state it... I repeated another sources statement, and agreed with it.... I stated that Iran was harassing, and that’s about all that I have stated of my own accord

 

That said, I agreed with the other source, because at day’s end, attempting to divert, as was claimed by the other source, falls under harassment, so I have no real issue with the comment per se... I simply did not make it, and do not own it.

 

that was an easy contortion.... now... you still fail to point out where I state it directly, as you claimed, in bold, if I recall.

 

meanwhile, what you call bloody obvious to most people, does not appear to be what the British MoD see as obvious, nor what a score of other sources see as obvious.... and I have posted these sources already.

 

But if you believe that Iran was truly attempting to hijack a British vessel in clear view of the world, vs deliberate harassment (for political purpose and leverage perhaps)... well... ok... I fail to understand the reasoning behind this (and you fail to provide reasoning), but your entitled to your opinion.

 

 

 

What you fail in, other than making a coherent point, is addressing what difference it makes whether Iran (supposedly) meant this or that. But seeing as your "position" is that Iran can do whatever, not surprising.

[Ozman52]

16 minutes ago, jany123 said:

I did not state it... I repeated another sources statement, and agreed with it.... I stated that Iran was harassing, and that’s about all that I have stated of my own accord

 

That said, I agreed with the other source, because at day’s end, attempting to divert, as was claimed by the other source, falls under harassment, so I have no real issue with the comment per se... I simply did not make it, and do not own it.

 

that was an easy contortion.... now... you still fail to point out where I state it directly, as you claimed, in bold, if I recall.

 

meanwhile, what you call bloody obvious to most people, does not appear to be what the British MoD see as obvious, nor what a score of other sources see as obvious.... and I have posted these sources already.

 

But if you believe that Iran was truly attempting to hijack a British vessel in clear view of the world, vs deliberate harassment (for political purpose and leverage perhaps)... well... ok... I fail to understand the reasoning behind this (and you fail to provide reasoning), but your entitled to your opinion.

 

 

So let me very clear about this. You accept that the Iranians attempted to divert a British tanker, but that is merely harassment.

 

Now, if the diversion was successful once illegally in Iranian waters the vessel could be seized, unless the diversion was an invitation  to watch the submarine races or some other harmless prank.

 

Which led a RN frigate to threaten mayhem on the diverters, in fact, starting a shooting war.

 

But you believe, and think the MoD believes, this was not a serious attempt to seize a British vessel as retribution. Because...........

[jany123]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

What you fail in, other than making a coherent point, is addressing what difference it makes whether Iran (supposedly) meant this or that. But seeing as your "position" is that Iran can do whatever, not surprising.

Where did I suggest Iran could do whatever?

where did I say that was my position?

why are you making things up?

 

all I said was that retaliation was expected and that this “act” by Iran was reactive....  I do not condone it, but I do understand it.

 

semantics... failing to make a point...  get real. On this topic, I have maintained that Iran was harassing, vs genuinely attempting to hijack a British tanker out from under the nose of a British frigate.

 

thats it... that’s all... and I have provided links and sources that agree, to make that point... whereas you have provided little of anything, other than criticism.... lots of criticism

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Where did I suggest Iran could do whatever?

where did I say that was my position?

why are you making things up?

 

all I said was that retaliation was expected and that this “act” by Iran was reactive....  I do not condone it, but I do understand it.

 

semantics... failing to make a point...  get real. On this topic, I have maintained that Iran was harassing, vs genuinely attempting to hijack a British tanker out from under the nose of a British frigate.

 

thats it... that’s all... and I have provided links and sources that agree, to make that point... whereas you have provided little of anything, other than criticism.... lots of criticism

 

Not making anything up. You're quite willing to "understand" Iran, no criticism offered with regard to Iran's actions, and all Iranian actions are defined as "reactions" - the bottom line is pretty much what I asserted. If you wish to play your semantics games, go right ahead.

 

You've failed to explain what difference it makes, even if your claim was well established (and it isn't). As for using terms like "hijack" - that's your own thing, again. The sources you have "provided" do not make your point, rather your foist your interpretation and semantics on them. 

 

[jany123]

1 minute ago, Ozman52 said:

So let me very clear about this. You accept that the Iranians attempted to divert a British tanker, but that is merely harassment.

 

Now, if the diversion was successful once illegally in Iranian waters the vessel could be seized, unless the diversion was an invitation  to watch the submarine races or some other harmless prank.

 

Which led a RN frigate to threaten mayhem on the diverters, in fact, starting a shooting war.

 

But you believe, and think the MoD believes, this was not a serious attempt to seize a British vessel as retribution. Because...........

I accept the British claim that the Iran’s tried to divert the tanker

 

i believe this attempt was verbal harassment

 

I do not accept the premise that any attempted diversion of the

tanker would actually succeed... further, I find it amazing that anyone would, given the presence of an escorting British frigate, so entering into a “what if” discussion is rather pointless... but as you persist, following an illegal act of piracy (or illegal military action, if you prefer) seizing / boarding the ship would still be illegal (my earlier comment included that national and international laws exist)

 

what shooting war?... the Iranians verbally harassed, and the British frigate moved up and told the Iranians to rack off... thats what happened... more pointless hypotheticals... but as you persist, a shooting war would be detrimental to Iran, so whilst pushing the boundaries in harassment, they intentionally withdrew to avoid a shooting match, as they don’t want to start one.

 

i believe it was not a serious attempt to seize the tanker because... once again... the tanker was being escorted by a British frigate, during daylight, with the world watching, and success in any hijacking would stand absolutely zero chance of succeeding, whilst putting Iran in the position of primary aggressor, which it cannot afford to be.

 

quid pro quo....

you believe this was a genuine attempt to hijack a British vessel because.... 

 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, jany123 said:

I accept the British claim that the Iran’s tried to divert the tanker

 

i believe this attempt was verbal harassment

 

I do not accept the premise that any attempted diversion of the

tanker would actually succeed... further, I find it amazing that anyone would, given the presence of an escorting British frigate, so entering into a “what if” discussion is rather pointless... but as you persist, following an illegal act of piracy (or illegal military action, if you prefer) seizing / boarding the ship would still be illegal (my earlier comment included that national and international laws exist)

 

what shooting war?... the Iranians verbally harassed, and the British frigate moved up and told the Iranians to rack off... thats what happened... more pointless hypotheticals... but as you persist, a shooting war would be detrimental to Iran, so whilst pushing the boundaries in harassment, they intentionally withdrew to avoid a shooting match, as they don’t want to start one.

 

i believe it was not a serious attempt to seize the tanker because... once again... the tanker was being escorted by a British frigate, during daylight, with the world watching, and success in any hijacking would stand absolutely zero chance of succeeding, whilst putting Iran in the position of primary aggressor, which it cannot afford to be.

 

quid pro quo....

you believe this was a genuine attempt to hijack a British vessel because.... 

 

 

It doesn't matter if it was "serious" or not.

[jany123]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It doesn't matter if it was "serious" or not.

Be that as it may... once again, my position throughout is that this was harassment.

[Morch]

Just now, jany123 said:

Be that as it may... once again, my position throughout is that this was harassment.

Your "position" is irrelevant to the point made.

[jany123]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

Not making anything up. You're quite willing to "understand" Iran, no criticism offered with regard to Iran's actions, and all Iranian actions are defined as "reactions" - the bottom line is pretty much what I asserted. If you wish to play your semantics games, go right ahead.

We are on a thread relating to the heritage... the action taken by Iran was reactive... that’s not my fault. Bad Iran for reacting... there ya go... happy?

[jany123]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

Your "position" is irrelevant to the point made.

Your statement is irrelevant to the point that I have been maintaining... that’s a narrative your driving, not me

 

what do you want? Could this have been much worse?... sure... was it? No... ifs and buts, candy and nuts... yet again, I am maintaining that the Iranians set out to harass vs hijack, and I have not commented on the hypothetical potential outcomes of the reactive harassment until a couple of posts ago.

 

 

[mogandave]

We are on a thread relating to the heritage... the action taken by Iran was reactive... that’s not my fault. Bad Iran for reacting... there ya go... happy?

What did the Heritage do that warranted a reaction?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, jany123 said:

We are on a thread relating to the heritage... the action taken by Iran was reactive... that’s not my fault. Bad Iran for reacting... there ya go... happy?

 

1 hour ago, jany123 said:

Your statement is irrelevant to the point that I have been maintaining... that’s a narrative your driving, not me

 

what do you want? Could this have been much worse?... sure... was it? No... ifs and buts, candy and nuts... yet again, I am maintaining that the Iranians set out to harass vs hijack, and I have not commented on the hypothetical potential outcomes of the reactive harassment until a couple of posts ago.

 

 

 

We're on a topic focusing on Iran's action, rather than the Heritage itself. You are trying to minimize Iran's role, hence the ongoing deflections and obfuscations. Iran's action was "reactive"? Oh, that's alright then. Nothing to see here. Move along. Repeatedly saying Iran "reacted" (regardless if one accepts the notion) is not contributing a whole lot to the discussion.

 

You can "maintain" whatever you like. No one but you uses terms like "hijack". And the value of arguing on and on that Iran wasn't serious about it is less than clear. Given current circumstances, "if and buts" need to be addressed. Maybe go back and revisit earlier posts regarding regional stability and such.

 

Still irrelevant.

 

 

 

[jany123]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

 

We're on a topic focusing on Iran's action, rather than the Heritage itself. You are trying to minimize Iran's role, hence the ongoing deflections and obfuscations. Iran's action was "reactive"? Oh, that's alright then. Nothing to see here. Move along. Repeatedly saying Iran "reacted" (regardless if one accepts the notion) is not contributing a whole lot to the discussion.

 

You can "maintain" whatever you like. No one but you uses terms like "hijack". And the value of arguing on and on that Iran wasn't serious about it is less than clear. Given current circumstances, "if and buts" need to be addressed. Maybe go back and revisit earlier posts regarding regional stability and such.

 

Still irrelevant.

 

 

 

And you still offer nothing but criticism. That my reasoning does not meet your standard is your problem. Your ongoing attacks, that add nothing to the discussion (that followed my saying that it was harassment), are all about your narrative.

 

my narrative is that this incident occurred as a reaction, and was harassment.... and further... it was an expected reaction, and as such, had no possibility of bearing fruit.

 

“An oil tanker run by BP Plc is being kept inside the Persian Gulf in fear it could be seized by Iran in a tit-for-tat response to the arrest by Gibraltar last week of a vessel hauling the Islamic Republic's crude.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-08/bp-oil-tanker-shelters-in-persian-gulf-on-fear-of-iran-seizure

 

Anyway.... now your really getting hung up on semantics.... I correctly used the term “hijack”, and provided a definition to support that.... that you take issue over the use of a word doesn’t really matter, unless your prepared to demonstrate how it’s an incorrect use of the word.... yet more criticism alone, does not satisfy that

 

Suggesting that  I think that there’s nothing to see, and that we should move along, is also something that your driving.... and incorrect.... which is funny, because your talking about tensions being a constant, whilst Ive countered that they are rising, and again... I'm the one supporting my position with links, adding value, unlike you.

 

These rising tensions, which you deny, are most certainly a concern, and need addressing before moving forward. Unlike you, I have also given my opinion on how to move forward, as you know, because you criticized that as well, without offering any other alternatives, which is lame. (Please excuse me if you have offered an opinion in this matter, which I have missed, and indulge me by repeating it)

 

Lol... maybe it’s me who should respond... heya @Morch to your posts.

 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, jany123 said:

And you still offer nothing but criticism. That my reasoning does not meet your standard is your problem. Your ongoing attacks, that add nothing to the discussion (that followed my saying that it was harassment), are all about your narrative.

 

my narrative is that this incident occurred as a reaction, and was harassment.... and further... it was an expected reaction, and as such, had no possibility of bearing fruit.

 

“An oil tanker run by BP Plc is being kept inside the Persian Gulf in fear it could be seized by Iran in a tit-for-tat response to the arrest by Gibraltar last week of a vessel hauling the Islamic Republic's crude.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-08/bp-oil-tanker-shelters-in-persian-gulf-on-fear-of-iran-seizure

 

Anyway.... now your really getting hung up on semantics.... I correctly used the term “hijack”, and provided a definition to support that.... that you take issue over the use of a word doesn’t really matter, unless your prepared to demonstrate how it’s an incorrect use of the word.... yet more criticism alone, does not satisfy that

 

Suggesting that  I think that there’s nothing to see, and that we should move along, is also something that your driving.... and incorrect.... which is funny, because your talking about tensions being a constant, whilst Ive countered that they are rising, and again... I'm the one supporting my position with links, adding value, unlike you.

 

These rising tensions, which you deny, are most certainly a concern, and need addressing before moving forward. Unlike you, I have also given my opinion on how to move forward, as you know, because you criticized that as well, without offering any other alternatives, which is lame. (Please excuse me if you have offered an opinion in this matter, which I have missed, and indulge me by repeating it)

 

Lol... maybe it’s me who should respond... heya @Morch to your posts.

 

 

Not quite sure what it is you imagine I"m supposed to "offer". Pointing out that your "point of view", such as it is, lacks merit and doesn't make a whole lot of sense, is legit. You don't like it? Tough. Considering your "take" on Iran's aggressive action, allow me to doubt you'd recognize an "attack" anyway.  

 

Your narrative is irrelevant. Giving Iran the "reaction" carte blanche doesn't hold water. Saying something was "expected" despite being futile and potentially harmful for regional stability doesn't really reflect all that well on the Iranian regime.

 

Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, "hijack" is a more negatively loaded term than "intercept", "detain", "divert". Your choice of words, which you keep insinuating as other posters'.

 

Tensions in the region are a constant. Intensity and object change, but there's always something. That you either can't comprehend this, or more likely, pretending not to, is immaterial. The links provided do not negate this point of view. There was no denial of rising tensions at present. Again, either comprehension issues or fabricating lies.

 

You have not "offered" anything half-way realistic with regard to "moving forward". My take on the current situation was aired on many recent topics, quite a few of them including exchanges with yourself. If you wish to pretend otherwise, that's your choice. Not feeling a particular need to indulge you.

 

As for your last line, oh well....guess it's back to the ignore list where your previous iteration resides.

 

[Morch]

There are still some posters out there who sometimes air views regarding Iran's "right" to have nuclear arms. IMO, the OP,  demonstrating Iran's willingness to defy conventions, and play with fire at the midst of a regional crisis, is a good indication as to why preventing Iran from having such is a far more reasonable approach.

[mogandave]

It’s nice that Iran wouldn’t dare.....uhhh, never-mind

[bristolboy]

On 7/14/2019 at 6:59 AM, Morch said:

There are still some posters out there who sometimes air views regarding Iran's "right" to have nuclear arms. IMO, the OP,  demonstrating Iran's willingness to defy conventions, and play with fire at the midst of a regional crisis, is a good indication as to why preventing Iran from having such is a far more reasonable approach.

A conveniently oblivious post. Iran has been purposely backed into a corner by the USA. Not surprising that it or any nation would take desperate measures to battle its way out.

And it's clear most other nations recognize this. Not a lot of support being offered to the US flotilla.

[sanemax]

On 7/13/2019 at 6:40 PM, Morch said:

 

 

We're on a topic focusing on Iran's action, rather than the Heritage itself. You are trying to minimize Iran's role, hence the ongoing deflections and obfuscations. Iran's action was "reactive"? Oh, that's alright then. Nothing to see here. Move along. Repeatedly saying Iran "reacted" (regardless if one accepts the notion) is not contributing a whole lot to the discussion.

 

You can "maintain" whatever you like. No one but you uses terms like "hijack". And the value of arguing on and on that Iran wasn't serious about it is less than clear. Given current circumstances, "if and buts" need to be addressed. Maybe go back and revisit earlier posts regarding regional stability and such.

 

Still irrelevant.

 

 

 

What have Iran done wrong ?

[mogandave]

What have Iran done wrong ?

You mean aside from sponsoring terror, executing homosexuals and violating any number of other human right violations?

[sanemax]

Just now, mogandave said:

 

You mean aside from sponsoring terror, executing homosexuals and violating any number of other human right violations?

 

I did mean in relation to this story

[overherebc]

Do you guys keep up with breaking news.

Just askin'

[mogandave]

I did mean in relation to this story

You mean besides blocking a British oil tanker and later seizing one?

[sanemax]

10 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

You mean besides blocking a British oil tanker and later seizing one?

 

Its been reported that the UK oil tanker acted illegally and therefore Iran rightfully intervened 

[Sujo]

I dont blame Iran at all for what they are doing.

 

there was an agreement. Iran was fully complying. The US unilaterally decided to pull out and institute sanctions then pressures other nations to follow.

 

Iran has every reason to be pissed. All of this simply because Trump doesnt like Obama.

 

I hope Iran does get nuclear weapons, they would be treated with more respect.

[mogandave]

Its been reported that the UK oil tanker acted illegally and therefore Iran rightfully intervened 

And it’s been reported the CIA bombed the World Trade Center.