Ships under attack in the middle east

[dowie]

It's an Iranian oil tanker no matter what it says on the paper work.

Not necessarily - on what basis is it Iranian? The cargo apparently is, The tanker is owned by a company in Singapore, whether the owners of that company are Iranian or not we don't know unless you've got some additional information you'd like to share?

If you are all for this then great, then I expect your support of Iran's actions when they seize British tankers based on their own arbitrary legally unenforceable sanctions.

That depends on the situation, I'm not sure why you'd automatically expect that. I've explained this already and pointed out that if you have trouble understanding part of the explanation then you only need to ask.

Oh, the 'bloody' Assad regime...please. Have you arrived in a Delorean from 2011? Assad has been fighting our pet jihadis and winning hence the hatred of him.

Yes the Assad regime, that is the reason for the EU sanctions! The UK doesn't currently support the US sanctions on Iran (in fact the EU is about to go live with a trading mechanism designed to explicitly undermine them), the reason/legal basis for stopping this vessel was in relation to EU sanctions against Syria!

 

[dowie]

Good to see we agree then. I look forward to your posts here when Iran seizes our own ships fully supporting their actions due to being in accordance with their laws.

Again it depends on the situation, why assume otherwise? Especially when it has been explained to you already? Other than passing through the Strait of Hormuz if Iran were to pass some laws affecting UK flagged vessels then I'd suspect they'd avoid Iranian waters in the first place. On the other hand Iran has a past history of seizing vessels outside of it's waters and indeed have very likely been involved in some recent terrorist actions against vessels outside of its waters.

 

[Rroff]

The US that hasn't gone against a peer adversary since Japan in the 40s and got beaten by Vietnam? And Israel that got kicked out of Lebanon by Hezbollah despite being in receipt of billions of military aid from the US? Impressive.

If they are mad enough to go against Iran they will shut down the Strait of Hormuz and the world economy crashes.

Do you want that?

There is no way Iran could close the Straits in the face of counter US, Israel and UK military action - not a chance.

 

[EvilSooty]

Not necessarily - on what basis is it Iranian? The cargo apparently is, The tanker is owned by a company in Singapore, whether the owners of that company are Iranian or not we don't know unless you've got some additional information you'd like to share?

Based on the Iranians themselves saying it is Iranian cargo perhaps? They are under sanctions so have tried to conceal it which is understandable.

That depends on the situation, I'm not sure why you'd automatically expect that. I've explained this already and pointed out that if you have trouble understanding part of the explanation then you only need to ask.

How does it depend on the situation? You argue Gibraltar's actions are justified due to EU law, right? Well if there is a similar Iranian law sanctioning all UK oil refineries then surely you should be in full support of Iran seizing all UK-flagged (or owned directly, or indirectly) destined for the UK?

 

[Dis86]

The US that hasn't gone against a peer adversary since Japan in the 40s and got beaten by Vietnam? And Israel that got kicked out of Lebanon by Hezbollah despite being in receipt of billions of military aid from the US? Impressive.

If they are mad enough to go against Iran they will shut down the Strait of Hormuz and the world economy crashes.


Do you want that?

Iran isn't a peer adversary to the US. Beaten by Vietnam, you mean lost support of the public at home and was forced to withdraw due to political interference?

As for Israel, they were fighting a terrorist organisation in a foreign country - conservative estimates put Hezbollah losses at 5x those of Israel. Lebanon came out of it the worst. Large areas destroyed. Oil refineries damaged. Ecological disasters.

Israel lost some trees.

It's not a question of what I want, it's a question of probable outcomes.

 

[EvilSooty]

Again it depends on the situation, why assume otherwise? Especially when it has been explained to you already? Other than passing through the Strait of Hormuz if Iran were to pass some laws affecting UK flagged vessels then I'd suspect they'd avoid Iranian waters in the first place. On the other hand Iran has a past history of seizing vessels outside of it's waters and indeed have very likely been involved in some recent terrorist actions against vessels outside of its waters.

So you agree if they go through Iranian waters they have every right to seize UK ships based on their own uniliateral sanctions?

 

[dowie]

Based on the Iranians themselves saying it is Iranian cargo perhaps? They are under sanctions so have tried to conceal it which is understandable.

Ownership of the cargo doesn't necessarily imply ownership of the ship.

How does it depend on the situation?

See the post I've referred you to several times already and re-quoted for you. Again, if you don't understand part of it then just ask, as already pointed out, several times:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...he-middle-east.18857101/page-28#post-32845920

You argue Gibraltar's actions are justified due to EU law, right?

Right

Well if there is a similar Iranian law sanctioning all UK oil refineries then surely you should be in full support of Iran seizing all UK-flagged (or owned directly, or indirectly) destined for the UK?

See the post already mentioned a few times - what don't you understand about the answer?

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...he-middle-east.18857101/page-28#post-32845920

 

[EvilSooty]

Iran isn't a peer adversary to the US. Beaten by Vietnam, you mean lost support of the public at home and was forced to withdraw due to political interference?

As for Israel, they were fighting a terrorist organisation in a foreign country - conservative estimates put Hezbollah losses at 5x those of Israel. Lebanon came out of it the worst. Large areas destroyed. Oil refineries damaged. Ecological disasters.

Israel lost some trees.

It's not a question of what I want, it's a question of probable outcomes.

Just pointing out the US military is overrated.

How long were they in Vietnam and couldn't defeat them before being forced out due to 'lack of public support'? That was at the height of them being a superpower. Iran would give them a bloody nose hence why I don't think they will attack.

Israel is a joke.

 

[dowie]

So you agree if they go through Iranian waters they have every right to seize UK ships based on their own uniliateral sanctions?

That depends, again see this post, if you don't understand then as for clarification - I don't know why you keep on asking the same question when I've already answered it:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...he-middle-east.18857101/page-28#post-32845920

 

[Dis86]

Just pointing out the US military is overrated.

How long were they in Vietnam and couldn't defeat them before being forced out due to 'lack of public support'? That was at the height of them being a superpower. Iran would give them a bloody nose hence why I don't think they will attack.

Israel is a joke.

You do realise Vietnam was 60 years ago, right?

 

[EvilSooty]

Ownership of the cargo doesn't necessarily imply ownership of the ship.

See the post I've referred you to several times already and re-quoted for you. Again, if you don't understand part of it then just ask, as already pointed out, several times:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...he-middle-east.18857101/page-28#post-32845920

Right

See the post already mentioned a few times - what don't you understand about the answer?

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...he-middle-east.18857101/page-28#post-32845920

I just want you to say clearly that you have no problem with Iran seizing UK ships under a similar law that we did to them. What's so hard about that?

 

[EvilSooty]

You do realise Vietnam was 60 years ago, right?

Yep, and the US has declined since then. They can't even conquer Syria or stage a successful coup in Venezuela.

 

[dowie]

I just want you to say clearly that you have no problem with Iran seizing UK ships under a similar law that we did to them. What's so hard about that?

Well I don't necessarily have no problem with it, it depends, as I've already said. What don't you understand about that?

 

[Dis86]

Yep, and the US has declined since then.

Citation needed.

Last I saw they reduced Saddam's Iraqi regime to dust.

This is the same Iran that just 30 years ago couldn't beat Iraq.

 

[EvilSooty]

Well I don't necessarily have no problem with it, it depends, as I've already said. What don't you understand about that?

Great. As I said I look forward to your defence of Iran's actions if they seize UK ships in accordance with their own arbitrary internationally unenforceable laws.

Good to see we are on the same page.

 

[EvilSooty]

Citation needed.

Last I saw they reduced Saddam's Iraqi regime to dust.

This is the same Iran that just 30 years ago couldn't beat Iraq.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

You are using Iraq as an example of US might? A country with a second-rate military destroyed by genocidal sanctions and whom they backstabbed. What a joke.

They haven't gone against a country that can hit them back since Japan.

 

[dowie]

Great. As I said I look forward to your defence of Iran's actions if they seize UK ships in accordance with their own arbitrary internationally unenforceable laws.

Good to see we are on the same page.

Again, that depends on the context as already explained. I suspect, given the number of times you've asked about this and your apparent inability to understand the response that we're probably not on the same page, I have offered to clarify anything you're unsure about re: my POV here.

 

[EvilSooty]

Again, that depends on the context as already explained.

You keep qualifying hence why I keep repeating myself. If the Iranians sanction the UK in accordance with their own arbitrary laws and then seize a British oil tanker on that basis what's the difference?

 

[dowie]

You keep qualifying hence why I keep repeating myself. If the Iranians sanction the UK in accordance with their own arbitrary laws and then seize a British oil tanker on that basis what's the difference?

Like I said I've already answered your question here, if you're unsure about my answer then please explain what you don't understand?

 

[Dis86]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

You are using Iraq as an example of US might? A country destroyed by genocidal sanctions and whom they backstabbed. What a joke.

They haven't gone against a country that can hit them back since Japan.

Genocide sanctions? Lol. Hyperbole much? Also...is this whole topic not over the point that Iran is heavily crippled by sanctions?

So again...back to your made up top trumps...why don't you post some details of Iran's military vs that of the US and its strategic allies in the region?