Ships under attack in the middle east

Caporegime
Joined
11 Mar 2005
Posts
32,197
Location
Leafy Cheshire
Yes and, why the **** would the tanker be stopped during normal operations and costing money for doing nothing, if it was in Gibraltar waters it doesn't matter if the ship was going forwards, backwards, sideways, or about to sink they are allowed to board it.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,171
If you guys are fine with that sort of behaviour, then don't complain when Iran starts pulling the same ****

Iran has already pulled the same kind of **** and worse multiple times - so in terms of lead Iran's behaviour we are well past setting an example - though I still think we need to maintain the integrity of global law and order.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,453
Yes and, why the **** would the tanker be stopped during normal operations and costing money for doing nothing, if it was in Gibraltar waters it doesn't matter if the ship was going forwards, backwards, sideways, or about to sink they are allowed to board it.

Why would it be in Gibraltar waters when it's nowhere near the strait and certainly not on the way to Syria, all evidence points to the tanker being seized in international strait and being forced into Gib waters

If it was legit in Gib waters and not forced there then fine, but I've seen zero evidence to show whether it was or wasn't, important details we all really should know have not been reported, like how it was boarded, where it was when it was boarded or even why it was in Gib waters freely without any force (yes it's a possibility that might be true, but it doesn't seem likely given what we know about all the ******* effort they went to hide its origins, contents and intended route)

You can say it doesn't matter, but it would matter in a court of law and it should matter on the international stage and whether you rightfully or wrongly back your nations actions

Iran has already pulled the same kind of **** and worse multiple times - so in terms of lead Iran's behaviour we are well past setting an example - though I still think we need to maintain the global law and order.

The problem is, we're supposed to be better than them, we're supposed to be setting examples of how to conduct as a nation, not brazenly ignore international law when it suits us yet attempt to condemn others who do similar, this whole attitude of "Do as I say, not as I do" on the global stage is a ******* joke and will end up making more enemies than friends as more nations get sick of the crap we try to pull with the left hand and condemn with our right hand
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,171
Why would it be in Gibraltar waters when it's nowhere near the strait and certainly not on the way to Syria, all evidence points to the tanker being seized in international strait and being forced into Gib waters

If it was legit in Gib waters and not forced there then fine, but I've seen zero evidence to show whether it was or wasn't, important details we all really should know have not been reported, like how it was boarded, where it was when it was boarded or even why it was in Gib waters freely without any force (yes it's a possibility that might be true, but it doesn't seem likely given what we know about all the ******* effort they went to hide its origins, contents and intended route)

You can say it doesn't matter, but it would matter in a court of law and it should matter on the international stage and whether you rightfully or wrongly back your nations actions

We need more information really on this aspect - it is unclear what actually happened.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,912
Both comments suggest it was moving while the Marines boarded it, why else would you need the marines if it was docked the port authorities wouldn't have needed the marines for a civilian vessel

Of course it was moving, they boarded it with a helicopter and fast boats... apply some common sense here please!

If it was moving while boarded, it stands to reason it was forced into waters where it could be legally detained

No it doesn't. Why does the fact it was moving mean it couldn't have been in Gibraltar's waters?

All the reports so far indicate it was boarded in Gibraltars waters (the fact the Spanish are complaining would seem to back this up too as they claim those same waters at their own), if you have reports to show otherwise then go ahead and post them. Thats all that I'm asking for?
 
Permabanned
Joined
1 Apr 2010
Posts
370
Location
Nowhere
The problem is, we're supposed to be better than them, we're supposed to be setting examples of how to conduct as a nation, not brazenly ignore international law when it suits us yet attempt to condemn others who do similar, this whole attitude of "Do as I say, not as I do" on the global stage is a ******* joke and will end up making more enemies than friends as more nations get sick of the crap we try to pull with the left hand and condemn with our right hand

For the sake of your stress levels I would call it a day. It's really not worth arguing with these people (I have experience with these brick walls, believe me - see the ISIS thread).

They are UK & US exceptionalists through and through who see zero problems with UK & US actions throughout the world and just parrot whatever drivel they have read on the BBC, Independent, Guardian et cetera.

Forget all the legalese rubbish that they are talking: this is a blatant act of piracy that now gives Iran a precedent to seize a UK ship in return. That they can't see that speaks volumes about their mental abilities.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,912
For the sake of your stress levels I would call it a day. It's really not worth arguing with these people (I have experience with these brick walls, believe me).

Really my position has been clear, the reports claim it was stopped in Gibraltar's waters, Gibraltar is a member of the EU, Gibraltar was enforcing EU sanctions.

If you believe otherwise then please do provide credible sources indicating this wasn't the case?

Forget all the legalese rubbish that they are talking: this is a blatant act of piracy that now gives Iran a precedent to seize a UK ship in return. That they can't see that speaks volumes about their mental abilities.

How it is a blatant act of piracy? Gibraltar is allowed to police it's own waters.

Iran would need some legal grounds to seize a UK ship, they can't just do so(legally) because they're upset.
 
Permabanned
Joined
1 Apr 2010
Posts
370
Location
Nowhere
Really my position has been clear, the reports claim it was stopped in Gibraltar's waters, Gibraltar is a member of the EU, Gibraltar was enforcing EU sanctions.

If you believe otherwise then please do provide credible sources indicating this wasn't the case?

How it is a blatant act of piracy? Gibraltar is allowed to police it's own waters.

Iran would need some legal grounds to seize a UK ship, they can't just do so(legally) because they're upset.

Is Iran a member of the EU?
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,912
Is Iran a member of the EU?

Gibraltar is a member of the EU, the Panamanian registered ship, owned by a company based in Singapore was stopped in Gibraltar's waters as far as the reports on this claim. The Spanish seem to concur with this - they're kicking off about Sovereignty as they claim Gibraltar's waters as their own.

What relevance does Irans's lack of EU membership have?
 
Permabanned
Joined
1 Apr 2010
Posts
370
Location
Nowhere
Gibraltar is a member of the EU, the Panamanian registered ship, owned by a company based in Singapore was stopped in Gibraltar's waters as far as the reports on this claim. The Spanish seem to concur with his as they're kicking off about Sovereignty as they claim Gibraltar's waters as their own.

What relevance does Irans's lack of EU membership have?

So it isn't a member of the EU, correct? Then how are EU sanctions legally enforceable against a non-member?
 
Permabanned
Joined
1 Apr 2010
Posts
370
Location
Nowhere
Let me put this another way: let's say Iran just decides one day to sanction the UK and that they have the right to seize any ships carrying oil to here. Is that alright?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,171
I'm still playing catchup on this so my information might be behind current or already posted but supposedly this is the helicopter track:

https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee/status/1146797553087930368

but nothing to determine whether the ship had been redirected via fast boat interception, etc. first before it reached that point.

Let's just call a spade a spade shall we? Seizing ships carrying oil to another country is piracy.

Depends what happens to the ship and oil anyhow - just because it was stopped doesn't mean it has been confiscated [permanently].
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,912
OK, but Iran isn't

So please explain how EU sanctions have any power over them, a non-member.

I never claimed that EU sanctions did have any power over them. What relevance does that have here? Again Gibraltar is an EU member, the ship was stopped in Gibraltar's waters not Iran's.

You seem rather confused, just because a ship's cargo is owned by a country doesn't mean that country's laws apply wherever that cargo goes - if that was the case then any number of companies say based in Amsterdam could transit say recreational drugs all through whatever territorial water's they liked.

Back to the point the other poster was making questioning whether this occurred in Gibraltar's waters - the Spanish don't seem to be disputing where it occurred (just who owns the waters, they apparently even sent one of their own vessels to observe)

https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/07/05/inenglish/1562310818_569487.html

Gibraltarian authorities issued a release detailing the operation, which was apparently triggered by intelligence information that the US relayed to Britain, implying that the tanker was in British territorial waters.

Madrid will formally complain to London over what it considers to be an incursion into Spanish waters, said a source at the Foreign Ministry. Spain does not recognize any Gibraltarian territorial waters, based on the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht by which Spain ceded the territory during the War of Spanish Succession.

“We are analyzing the circumstances and seeing how they affect our sovereignty,” said Josep Borrell, the acting Spanish foreign minister and the EU’s official nominee to be the next High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

According to the official version of events, London alerted Madrid about the presence of the supertanker and warned that “there was going to be an intervention by British forces to detain it in the port of Gibraltar.”

But the seizure did not take place in the port, which is part of Gibraltar’s territory, but further out in waters that Spain considers its own. In spite of it, Madrid made no attempt at halting the boarding operation.

“Spain did not want to interfere because this was about upholding EU sanctions,” said a ministry source. A Civil Guard patrol boat was sent out to monitor the operation.
 
Permabanned
Joined
1 Apr 2010
Posts
370
Location
Nowhere
I'm still playing catchup on this so my information might be behind current or already posted but supposedly this is the helicopter track:

https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee/status/1146797553087930368

but nothing to determine whether the ship had been redirected via fast boat interception, etc. first before it reached that point.

Depends what happens to the ship and oil anyhow - just because it was stopped doesn't mean it has been confiscated [permanently].

Well, we have a history of theft. Look at Libya's assets that we are still hanging onto or Venezuela's gold that the Bank of England refused to give over.

Depends on Iran's actions. If they seize a British tanker, as they have a right to now given we have set the precedent, we might return it.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,912
Let me put this another way: let's say Iran just decides one day to sanction the UK and that they have the right to seize any ships carrying oil to here. Is that alright?

Not necessarily, it depends on the context, they'd potentially have a bit of an argument in the Strait of Hormuz but elsewhere, if a civilian ship was to enter their waters and was carrying something that broke their laws then yes the Iranian authorities could potentially detain the ship and investigate/enforce any laws that may have been broken.

I don't see what you're having trouble with here - are you really asking can a country enforce its own laws within it's own territory... well yes, yes it generally can!
 
Back
Top Bottom