Ships under attack in the middle east

[XeNoN89]

https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1152497034584363008?s=19

And we now have first images of the previous attempt which morons were saying didn't really happen.

 

[sityeuropa]

Again when did the EU become the policeman of the world. What authority do they have to stop an Iran tanker headed for Syria. They are not the United Nations.

 

[Dis86]

Again when did the EU become the policeman of the world. What authority do they have to stop an Iran tanker headed for Syria. They are not the United Nations.

Suggest you read the thread. It's explained several times.

 

[EvilSooty]

No one claimed there were no geopolitical considerations.
You've not provided any evidence of the UK previously allowing blatant breaches of EU sanctions.
No one claimed the Iranian actions today aren't in response to the UK's actions either...
The reference to EU law is in reply to your repeated claims about International law and "EU law doesn't apply to Iran" etc.. it had to be pointed out to you multiple times that Gibraltar is an EU member and EU does indeed apply there.

Try reading and replying to the actual points that have been made/what has been written in the posts you're responding to as you seem to be throwing in straw man agreements all over the place.

Your repeated arguments justifying the seizure of the Iranian ship focus entirely on EU law ignoring obvious geopolitical reasons for the seizure instead (we are America's bitch as the Spanish have helpfully pointed out) and you repeatedly ignore that EU law when it comes to prohibiting lawful trade (we aren't talking about cocaine so don't bother with that strawman again) has no effect on non-members. It's the UN's Law of the Sea that governs here, not EU law.

You place the blame on Iran yet haven't a word of criticism for our own government's unbelievable stupidity in starting this dispute with Iran that would predictably result (and has resulted) in our ships being seized and our own sailors being at risk.

Out of interest I looked up the EU sanctions in question. I think it's these unless you can find some other ones?

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32012R0036

Ignoring for a moment that EU law has no effect here and only binds members when it comes to the trade of lawful goods between nations, I find it amusing that even if they did they still don't justify what the UK did in seizing the Iranian ship. They only prohibit the IMPORT of Syrian oil to EU, not the EXPORT of oil to Syria by other states.

Laughable.

"Article 6


It shall be prohibited:


(a) to import crude oil or petroleum products into the Union if they:


(i) originate in Syria; or


(ii) have been exported from Syria;


(b) to purchase crude oil or petroleum products which are located in or which originated in Syria;


(c) to transport crude oil or petroleum products if they originate in Syria, or are being exported from Syria to any other country;


(d) to provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance, including financial derivatives, as well as insurance and re-insurance, related to the prohibitions set out in points (a), (b) and (c); and


(e) to participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities whose object or effect is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the prohibitions in point (a), (b), (c) or (d)."

 

[EvilSooty]

Suggest you read the thread. It's explained several times.

Lots of assertions, but nothing to back them up. The only EU sanctions I can find are quoted above and only prohibit the IMPORT of oil to EU members from Syria, not the EXPORT of oil to Syria.

And this is ignoring that even if they did prohibit it what legal basis is there for EU sanctions to interrupt the trade of lawful goods between two non-members? The UN is the only body that can implement such sanctions with internationally binding effect and they haven't done so.

It's the law of the jungle if you circumvent the UN and arbitrarily decide based on your own laws that X party cannot trade with Y and it will backfire as we have seen with the seizure of our own ship.

 

[RoboCod]

we are America's bitch

Sifting through the mountains of gumpf you post, it's clear that this really is your actual and only issue. Get over it.

 

[EvilSooty]

Sifting through the mountains of gumpf you post, it's clear that this really is your actual and only issue. Get over it.

Your contributions never fail to be vacuous and lightweight.

 

[Panos]

No one claimed there were no geopolitical considerations.
You've not provided any evidence of the UK previously allowing blatant breaches of EU sanctions.
No one claimed the Iranian actions today aren't in response to the UK's actions either...
The reference to EU law is in reply to your repeated claims about International law and "EU law doesn't apply to Iran" etc.. it had to be pointed out to you multiple times that Gibraltar is an EU member and EU does indeed apply there.

Try reading and replying to the actual points that have been made/what has been written in the posts you're responding to as you seem to be throwing in straw man agreements all over the place.

EU sanctions apply ONLY to EU countries and their coastal territorial waters, if are not deemed International Crossings. It doesn't apply to Syria or Iran which are sovereign nations.
Also the Gibraltar crossing is International Waters and the UN Convention for free passage applies fully. Only UN sanctions can be enforced otherwise what the UK did was piracy. Also the waters were the incident took place belong to Spain not Gibraltar. Similarly the same convention applies to the Strait of Hormuz and the English Channel.

The only reason could have stopped the Iranian ship was if it violated the UN Seafaring laws, like turning it's tracker off, polluting the sea or caused an accident. It doesn't apply to sanctions of third parties if UN doesn't apply those sanctions.
So what UK did in Gibraltar was pure and simple buccaneering, trying to find excuses is a new low for this country.
FYI too many lies have come out of Britain to be believed these days tbh. And not a single person called the previous French FM liar on this interview.
That is why I say today we have become the very evil we fought on WWII, yet you dismiss the facts like the German populace did.

As for someone mentioning EU solidarity, EU is in tight spot. They cannot support UK when have left Cyprus having it's territorial waters invaded by Turkey who's drilling gas inside Cyprus the last 3 months.
While UK & Germany are blocking the calls for sanctions to Turkey as it has violated EU sovereignty not only Cypriot one.

 

[CaptainRAVE]

This thread, and much of social media, seems more and more to be full of pro eastern paid supporters. That or they are completely thick and should move to these apparently wonderful, tolerant societies.

 

[Randomface74]

^

 

[EvilSooty]

This thread, and much of social media, seems more and more to be full of pro eastern paid supporters. That or they are completely thick and should move to these apparently wonderful, tolerant societies.

Some reading material for you:

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Some reading material for you:

No, you fall into my second category.

 

[EvilSooty]

No, you fall into my second category.

Ah OK - so by criticising the UK's moronic policy of seizing an Iranian tanker which invited retaliation it follows that I must move to Iran for some reason...

As long as that makes sense to you.

 

[Paul Goddard]

Cant see it being hit but can see aftermath

 

[Amnesia]

This thread, and much of social media, seems more and more to be full of pro eastern paid supporters. That or they are completely thick and should move to these apparently wonderful, tolerant societies.

Did you feel the same about the Iraq war, all who disagree are thick or maybe should be sent there?

 

[Dis86]

Out of interest I looked up the EU sanctions in question. I think it's these unless you can find some other ones?

Try reading these

CHAPTER II
EXPORT AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS
Article 2
1. It shall be prohibited:

(a)to sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex I, whether or not originating in the Union, to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;

(b)to participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in point (a).

2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to protective clothing, including flak jackets and helmets, temporarily exported to Syria by United Nations (UN) personnel, personnel of the Union or its Member States, representatives of the media or humanitarian and development workers and associated persons exclusively for their personal use.

3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities in the Member States as listed in Annex III may authorise the sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment which might be used for internal repression, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, if they determine that such equipment is intended solely for humanitarian or protective use.

From your very own link.

 

[EvilSooty]

Try reading these

CHAPTER II
EXPORT AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS
Article 2
1. It shall be prohibited:

(a)to sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, equipment which might be used for internal repression as listed in Annex I, whether or not originating in the Union, to any person, entity or body in Syria or for use in Syria;

(b)to participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in point (a).

2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to protective clothing, including flak jackets and helmets, temporarily exported to Syria by United Nations (UN) personnel, personnel of the Union or its Member States, representatives of the media or humanitarian and development workers and associated persons exclusively for their personal use.

3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities in the Member States as listed in Annex III may authorise the sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment which might be used for internal repression, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, if they determine that such equipment is intended solely for humanitarian or protective use.

From your very own link.

When did oil become "equipment" which is what the Article concerns? Read Annex 1 - the examples it gives are firearms, night vision goggles, explosives etc.

Irrelevant.

 

[dowie]

Your repeated arguments justifying the seizure of the Iranian ship focus entirely on EU law ignoring obvious geopolitical reasons for the seizure instead (we are America's bitch as the Spanish have helpfully pointed out) and you repeatedly ignore that EU law when it comes to prohibiting lawful trade (we aren't talking about cocaine so don't bother with that strawman again) has no effect on non-members. It's the UN's Law of the Sea that governs here, not EU law.

I'm not ignoring obvious geopolitical factors here I'm simply countering your silly argument about how seemingly the law not applying to this vessel simply because either it or the cargo is owned by Iran.

The drugs illustration isn't a straw man, I've not claimed that is your argument, I'm highlighting that your point is utterly flawed... it seems to be based on the idea that a civilian vessel ultimately owned by a non-EU state doesn't need to adhere to either EU or national rules when in the waters of an EU state.

If that is the case then why not also a Columbian owned ship smuggling drugs? If that isn't the case then why the exception for this Singaporean owned/Panamanian flagged ship smuggling oil?

You place the blame on Iran yet haven't a word of criticism for our own government's unbelievable stupidity in starting this dispute with Iran that would predictably result (and has resulted) in our ships being seized and our own sailors being at risk.

Iran was and has been for some time playing silly games in that region with regards to shipping, that they do shouldn't prevent the UK from maintaining its obligations to the EU and the enforcement of EU sanctions on Syria.

 

[dowie]

EU sanctions apply ONLY to EU countries and their coastal territorial waters, if are not deemed International Crossings. It doesn't apply to Syria or Iran which are sovereign nations.
Also the Gibraltar crossing is International Waters and the UN Convention for free passage applies fully. Only UN sanctions can be enforced otherwise what the UK did was piracy. Also the waters were the incident took place belong to Spain not Gibraltar. Similarly the same convention applies to the Strait of Hormuz and the English Channel.

Someone mentioned this previously, AFAIK that concerns the area of sea where there is no international waters and instead the waters of Morocco and Spain are immediately adjacent. There was a map posted earlier IIRC.

The ship was in Gibraltar's waters ergo they stopped. Yes Spain disputes Gibraltar's sovereignty and doesn't believe Gibraltar has any waters that doesn't make them right, their position is dubious and assumes Gibraltar has no waters at all.

As for any chip on your shoulder re: Cyprus/Greece etc.. no one cares and that has nothing to do with the thread.

 

[EvilSooty]

I'm not ignoring obvious geopolitical factors here I'm simply countering your silly argument about how seemingly the law not applying to this vessel simply because either it or the cargo is owned by Iran.

The drugs illustration isn't a straw man, I've not claimed that is your argument, I'm highlighting that your point is utterly flawed... it seems to be based on the idea that a civilian vessel ultimately owned by a non-EU state doesn't need to adhere to either EU or national rules when in the waters of an EU state.

If that is the case then why not also a Columbian owned ship smuggling drugs? If that isn't the case then why the exception for this Singaporean owned/Panamanian flagged ship smuggling oil?

Iran was and has been for some time playing silly games in that region with regards to shipping, that they do shouldn't prevent the UK from maintaining its obligations to the EU and the enforcement of EU sanctions on Syria.

Iran wasn't smuggling anything and was engaged in the lawful export of oil which, unlike narcotics, is not deemed illegal by the UN.

EU law! EU law! EU law!

I know you aren't in favour of international law and would rather the law of the jungle, but even the sanctions you rely on don't prohibit what Iran was doing. Care to comment?

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32012R0036

"Article 6


It shall be prohibited:


(a) to import crude oil or petroleum products into the Union if they:


(i) originate in Syria; or


(ii) have been exported from Syria;


(b) to purchase crude oil or petroleum products which are located in or which originated in Syria;


(c) to transport crude oil or petroleum products if they originate in Syria, or are being exported from Syria to any other country;


(d) to provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance, including financial derivatives, as well as insurance and re-insurance, related to the prohibitions set out in points (a), (b) and (c); and


(e) to participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities whose object or effect is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the prohibitions in point (a), (b), (c) or (d)."