Britain calls ship seizure 'hostile act' as Iran releases video of capture

[maximillian]

6 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

That is the explanation .

" We do not seek confrontation with Iran '" -- > 555

 

" But it is unacceptable and highly escalatory to threaten shipping going about its legitimate business through internationally recognized transit corridors. " ---> BUT THAT IS exactly what the British did in Gibraltar .

 

But... they are entitled to do so.

Just like the Yanks are entitled to do just about anything; right or wrong.

Oh, what a wonderful world we live in.

[EVENKEEL]

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

Could you explain as to why you are so sure that all that happened AFTER the tanker was seized , as I would like to be sure as well

Because as one who has conned ships thru that very body of water, there would have been no reason for the Brits to stop transmitting on their AIS or veer off course unless they had a loss of steering which I haven't heard mentioned. But even if that happened their aft steering (emergency steering) should have taken over. 

 

This has been going on for years, with the Iranian's trying to push US ships into territorial waters. It's not a new trick.

[jany123]

2 hours ago, Snow Leopard said:

Where is Gibralter then? Its in the EU you muppet. The EU sanctions are against Syria and this tanker was breaking an EU ruling by heading to the Baniyas refinery. The UK has agreed to release the tanker if Iran guarantees that the ship does not head to Syria. 

Oh la la... it’s turned into a muppet show then, has it?

 

iran and Syria are not EU countries, so are not constrained by EU rulings. The destination of the Grace was/ is undisclosed, but its business was interfered with by a proxy organization (UK) acting on the instructions of the US.... because of suspicions.

 

if Released, it can offload at sea, in international waters, as it has that ability, due to the fact that it’s too big to enter a lot of ports. It doesn’t have to go to Baniyas, it just needs to sell its oil, to buy medical aid for Iranians, which the access of evil is hindering.

 

[sanemax]

53 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Because as one who has conned ships thru that very body of water, there would have been no reason for the Brits to stop transmitting on their AIS or veer off course unless they had a loss of steering which I haven't heard mentioned. But even if that happened their aft steering (emergency steering) should have taken over. 

 

This has been going on for years, with the Iranian's trying to push US ships into territorial waters. It's not a new trick.

One reason could be that the UK wanted an escalation and deliberately provoked Iran into seizing the tanker ?

Iran has claimed that the tanker didnt stay on route and put other vessels in danger 

[Thainesss]

6 minutes ago, sanemax said:

One reason could be that the UK wanted an escalation and deliberately provoked Iran into seizing the tanker ?

Iran has claimed that the tanker didnt stay on route and put other vessels in danger 

 

Highly unlikely that the UK would do such a thing considering their ongoing political problems and economy, and its kind of ridiculous to take Iran it its word about simply policing the waters for 'safety' considering how insanely busy that shipping lane is and THATS the ship they singled out as 'putting other vessels in danger' when there's ships from all over the planet operating there and UK sailors reputation as professionals. 

[EVENKEEL]

13 minutes ago, sanemax said:

One reason could be that the UK wanted an escalation and deliberately provoked Iran into seizing the tanker ?

Iran has claimed that the tanker didnt stay on route and put other vessels in danger 

You so want to believe the US and the UK are bad, Iran good. Destruction will rain down on them if they don't toe the line. Bombs will fall continuously. 

[sanemax]

10 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Highly unlikely that the UK would do such a thing considering their ongoing political problems and economy, and its kind of ridiculous to take Iran it its word about simply policing the waters for 'safety' considering how insanely busy that shipping lane is and THATS the ship they singled out as 'putting other vessels in danger' when there's ships from all over the planet operating there and UK sailors reputation as professionals. 

Ever thought that there could be something going on behind the scene ?

Iran developing Nukes , USA selling arms to Saudi , Israel vowing never to allow Iran to have nukes .

Ever considered that some countries want a war with Iran ?

Yes, that shipping lane is busy , thats why all ships must follow a set course .................and it was a UK ship............with an Indian crew 

[sanemax]

4 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

You so want to believe the US and the UK are bad, Iran good. Destruction will rain down on them if they don't toe the line. Bombs will fall continuously. 

I do not want to believe that .

Yes, do what the USA says or end up like Saddam, Gaddafi and numerous other heads of state , after all, the USA are the good guys and those Arabs are bad guys 

[jany123]

12 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

You so want to believe the US and the UK are bad, Iran good. Destruction will rain down on them if they don't toe the line. Bombs will fall continuously. 

It’s a really hard sell, when trying to discuss others believes, by mirroring your believes on them. (Mirror being reversed)

 

i have spent my life believing that the US and the UK were good, and that Iran and Iraq were bad.... but much as the trump has pushed lefty liberals way way to the left of left leaning liberalism, the trump has pushed me way way away from believing that anything good can come from the present US administration and its intervention in what was otherwise a fairly stable situation in the SoH. 

 

Further, without changing its constitution to enable proper congressional control of a rogue leader, those divided states will forever lack credibility, and it’s just plain unfortunate that the Brits, usually a dependable backstop, are licking the trumps boots, whilst attempting to extricate themselves from the EU

 

It (regional stability) may not have been great to start with, but it was essentially a workable passage for merchant shipping.... and then along came the trump, and now the entire world needs to have a serious look at how it responds to what are oftentimes demonstrable lies, that come from the WH, and it’s proxies in the region, who benefit from the largess of the Divided States.

 

meanwhile, The trump rhetoric of “destruction as the world has never seen before”, oft repeated by his fan club, is such a stupid statement as to make one wonder if the originator of those comments, and his fan club, have ever read a book, or watched anything more educational that a commercial advertising  Hamburder and fried chicken prices.

 

if the US persist, there will be blood, no doubt, but the US is incapable of absorbing that cost, as Vietnam proved, whereas Persia will withstand whatever comes its way, just as it always has.

[BestB]

5 hours ago, sanemax said:

Just the one sentence this time 

Does your internet service provider charge you by how many  letters you write  ?

I do not entertain kids or challenged for free

[BestB]

9 hours ago, sanemax said:

The USA drone entered Iranian airspace  , giving the Iranians a legitimate reason to destroy it 

The UK tanker acted erratically , thus giving the Iranians a legitimate reason the apprehend .

According to whom ? Iran? 

 

In that case all must be true

[Catoni]

20 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

Well that last part is only alleged. No proof only spoof videos put out by ? yes youv'e guessed it, the Americans. The same ones that just killed a large sea bird claiming it was an Iranian drone.

Funny...not. Spoof videos? We’re the NASA moon landing videos also spoof fake videos filmed on a secret Hollywood back lot?

 

1. I saw the videos of the bombed tankers. If they are spoof fake videos..then they’re the best ever produced in the world and deserve an Oscar. 

2.    Not to mention...it isn’t just the U.S. claiming Iran bombed the Norwegian and Japanese tankers. 

    It’s also the Norwegians and Japanese claiming their tankers were bombed by the Iranians. 

   Weird huh ?? 

   

[Catoni]

10 hours ago, BestB said:

According to whom ? Iran? 

 

In that case all must be true

Yes.. if our Iranian Muslim brothers and sisters claim the U.S. drone entered their airspace, and that the British tanker was moving erratically.... then those are the facts. We can believe our Iranian Muslim brethren. 

    Why should we believe the lying British and Americans???

   Allahu Akbar   Inshallah 

   555555 ????????????

[bristolboy]

12 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

You so want to believe the US and the UK are bad, Iran good. Destruction will rain down on them if they don't toe the line. Bombs will fall continuously. 

Or Trump's bluff is being called. Really doubt Trump wants to endanger his reelection by starting a war in the mideast.

[geoffbezoz]

9 minutes ago, Catoni said:

Funny...not. Spoof videos? We’re the NASA moon landing videos also spoof fake videos filmed on a secret Hollywood back lot?

 

1. I saw the videos of the bombed tankers. If they are spoof fake videos..then they’re the best ever produced in the world and deserve an Oscar. 

2.    Not to mention...it isn’t just the U.S. claiming Iran bombed the Norwegian and Japanese tankers. 

    It’s also the Norwegians and Japanese claiming their tankers were bombed by the Iranians. 

   Weird huh ?? 

   

Claiming they were Iranians is a long way off proving it. The Americans have a track record of telling blatant lies about countries in that part of the world to suit their own ends.

[bristolboy]

12 hours ago, sanemax said:

Ever thought that there could be something going on behind the scene ?

Iran developing Nukes , USA selling arms to Saudi , Israel vowing never to allow Iran to have nukes .

Ever considered that some countries want a war with Iran ?

Yes, that shipping lane is busy , thats why all ships must follow a set course .................and it was a UK ship............with an Indian crew 

Not just arms. Trump wants to sell nuclear enrichment technology to the Saudis. Given that MbS is the current defacto ruler, his possession of a nuclear weapon would be a far greater threat to peace than Iran having one.

[marcusarelus]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Or Trump's bluff is being called. Really doubt Trump wants to endanger his reelection by starting a war in the mideast.

That would guarantee his reelection.  FDR served 4 terms because of the war.  

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

That would guarantee his reelection.  FDR served 4 terms because of the war.  

Really? After the Iraq war you think Americans want another one in the mideast. It took an attack on American soil to turn around public opinion on Iran.. Trump made it a big part of his campaign to reduce American involvement in the Mideast. America First and all that And it's way too obvious that Trump created this mess. 

[Morch]

21 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

Well that last part is only alleged. No proof only spoof videos put out by ? yes youv'e guessed it, the Americans. The same ones that just killed a large sea bird claiming it was an Iranian drone.

 

Apparently, you've got issues with "alleged" only when it serves. No problems taking up Iran's party line and statements as being true, though. Same goes for treatment of unverified reports regarding backdrop of Iran's tanker being detained.

[Morch]

21 hours ago, sanemax said:

It just seems such a coincidence that a UK registered oil tanker  , with "LONDON" written on the back of it , (not the usual Panama registered tanker) , sails in the gulf of Iran and takes action (switching off its tracker, not responding to Iranian radio contact and sails erratically ) that will cause Iran to take responsive measures .

  You could believe that the Uk deliberately wanted Iran to seize the tanker 

 

No, you could believe such nonsense. And apparently you do.

Accepting Iran's version of events and related details as true is a choice.

[Morch]

20 hours ago, sanemax said:

I cannot see how Iran is pushing anything .

It legitimately shot down the USA drone and legitimately seized the UK ship 

 

That you pronounce Iran's actions as legit doesn't make them so.

 

[Morch]

20 hours ago, sanemax said:

The USA drone entered Iranian airspace  , giving the Iranians a legitimate reason to destroy it 

The UK tanker acted erratically , thus giving the Iranians a legitimate reason the apprehend .

 

The USA drone entering Iranian airspace is Iran's version.

The UK tanker acting erratically is Iran's version.

Citing either as indisputable fact is a choice.

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

The USA drone entering Iranian airspace is Iran's version.

The UK tanker acting erratically is Iran's version.

Citing either as indisputable fact is a choice.

You or anyone else  is/are quite free to dispute what I stated in my post 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, sanemax said:

You or anyone else  is/are quite free to dispute what I stated in my post 

 

Thanks for stating the obvious. Your views were, in fact disputed. That you deflect or fail to reply in any meaningful way is entirely expected.

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

No, you could believe such nonsense. And apparently you do.

Accepting Iran's version of events and related details as true is a choice.

Although in the post that you quoted, I didnt accept Irans version of events  , I did actually make up a possible scenario

It was my own personal opinion about what may have happened

[Morch]

Just now, sanemax said:

Although in the post that you quoted, I didnt accept Irans version of events  , I did actually make up a possible scenario

It was my own personal opinion about what may have happened

 

Read your own post again. Your description of events related to the ship being detained is pretty much the Iranian version. The scenario you made up hardly makes sense, and that's on a good day. Your own personal views, as they appear on this topic, are mostly contrived nonsense.

 

[sanemax]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Thanks for stating the obvious. Your views were, in fact disputed. That you deflect or fail to reply in any meaningful way is entirely expected.

I was just pointing that that your claims of my view being "indisputable" were incorrect and you are welcome to dispute them and I wasnt citing my opinion as being "indisputable"

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Read your own post again. Your description of events related to the ship being detained is pretty much the Iranian version. The scenario you made up hardly makes sense, and that's on a good day. Your own personal views, as they appear on this topic, are mostly contrived nonsense.

 

Its not beyond the realms of possibilities that the USA/UK/Saudi/Israel  could try and cause a war with Iran 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I was just pointing that that your claims of my view being "indisputable" were incorrect and you are welcome to dispute them and I wasnt citing my opinion as being "indisputable"

 

Your claims were disputed. On this topic and others. You wish to pretend otherwise, or troll, that's your choice. Same goes for getting hung up on petty semantics.

 

2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Its not beyond the realms of possibilities that the USA/UK/Saudi/Israel  could try and cause a war with Iran 

 

It is highly unlikely that the UK got an interest instigating war in the Gulf. It is a fact that the UK does not have enough military assets to maintain or support such a war. UK interests aren't really served much by this as well. Israel connection to the current OP or the Gibraltar incident is something which you'll need dream up. And lastly, if the USA wished for war with Iran, there's be more troops pouring in. More hardware on its way. And less diplomatic overtures. But don't let facts distract you from making up stuff.

 

[sanemax]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Your claims were disputed. On this topic and others. You wish to pretend otherwise, or troll, that's your choice. Same goes for getting hung up on petty semantics.

 

 

It is highly unlikely that the UK got an interest instigating war in the Gulf. It is a fact that the UK does not have enough military assets to maintain or support such a war. UK interests aren't really served much by this as well. Israel connection to the current OP or the Gibraltar incident is something which you'll need dream up. And lastly, if the USA wished for war with Iran, there's be more troops pouring in. More hardware on its way. And less diplomatic overtures. But don't let facts distract you from making up stuff.

 

It was the USA that played the UK into this spat with Iran  , by requesting that the UK seize Irans tanker in Gibraltar .

USA/Israel/Saudi are all hostile towards  Iran and all would like a regime change .

This incident could be part of the plan to wage war against Iran and get the regime change .

Or maybe it isnt , who knows ?

Watch Iran go the same way that Iraq went