Ships under attack in the middle east

[EvilSooty]

@EvilSooty im more concerned that you don't think we are capable of waging a war on Iran..

We would destroy Iran in a couple of weeks bud, what comes after is irrelevant.

Yeah good luck with that.

It took 500,000 US soliders to take on the already ruined Iraq that had its air defences switched off in advance as they were French-made.

Iranian air defence is a mixture of home-made (which shot down that fancy US drone recently) and Russian (the best in the world), has a standing army of 500,000, thousands of ballistic missiles and is in a far better state than Iraq was. Their initial target, as they have said time and time again, will be Saudi along with the other Gulf states in order to freeze the transport of oil throughout the world.

The tanker that was seized today was meant to be under Royal Navy protection. Remember all the drivel in the last couple of weeks about sending more ships? Yeah, well the Iranians were able to take it anyway in glorified speedboats. The days of the British empire are over.

Boom - the economy crashes.

Or how about we don't pick a fight with them? Just a thought.

Why is Iran our enemy again? Really struggling with that especially as Saudi is our ally, you know, you country that crucifies gays and executes sorceress's

 

[EvilSooty]

I'd take this more seriously if this was the first time Iran had done anything like this - but it isn't and they don't need any excuse to do it.

When was the last time they seized an oil tanker before one of theirs had been seized?

 

[dowie]

Yes, I am aware UK and EU law exists. Explain to me how this is different to Iranian law existing and being enforced such as we have seen today with the seizure of a British tanker?

Gibraltar is an EU member.

This is why we have the UN. If you want to ignore international law, fine, this is what happens. A British tanker has now been seized as a result of our gov's stupid actions - nice one. What a result...

You don't require the UN in order to enforce EU law within the EU!

Why not? We have done far worse under orders of the US: see Iraq. We are a vassal of the US desperate for a trade deal...at this point we will do anything even ridiculous actions like this which has left British shipping and sailors in danger.

Because we'd have no grounds to seize it.

I don't need to, it's obvious.

You made the claim yet you have nothing to back it up. Perhaps it isn't so obvious or easy to catch vessels breaking sanctions.

Are you telling me no Iranian ships carrying oil have passed through EU waters since the sanctions were introduced in 2011? This was their first attempt 8 years later? And the first EU country to take action is one that is leaving the EU shortly? Are you having a laugh? You see no connection at all with our current aggressive stance and that of the US?

No I've not said that, I'm just asking you to provide something to back up your claim.

It's obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that Iran's actions are a response to us seizing their tanker first. We are to blame for this...why is this so difficult to understand?

No one disputed that they weren't carried out in response, it doesn't make them right though. and again funny how you condemn the UK's legal seizure of a tanker while supporting Iran's recent actions because "the UK started it" - such a juvenile response. Their vessel got caught breaking the law, they then engage in acts of piracy (first attempt unsuccessful then a couple of successful attempts) in order to give themselves some leverage and you seems to think the two are equivalent.

Try presenting some proper arguments... you're all over the place here.

 

[Rroff]

When was the last time they seized an oil tanker before one of theirs had been seized?

They've seized and attacked ships with and without provocation for decades... it is a silly point. I'm not even going to debate it - it is all there in the relevant wikis, etc.

It is kind of like these people who think troubles in the Middle East started with George Bush.

More pertinently though I'm interested in whether the Iranian tanker was seized in international (straits) or territorial water - don't think I've seen that confirmed yet.

 

[dowie]

When was the last time they seized an oil tanker before one of theirs had been seized?

They've been threatening shipping in that region for some time, they sized a smaller tanker carrying out bunkering operations the other day they'd previously made an attempt on another tanker and were seen off by a RN warship and now they've seized two larger vessels and released one. Prior to that they've seemingly attacked various ships in the region too - thus the subject of this thread - if you're going to dispute that then I think it is actually you that can't see the wood for the trees.

 

[EvilSooty]

Gibraltar is an EU member.

You don't require the UN in order to enforce EU law within the EU!

You aren't getting the point. You can harp on all you want about EU law being enforced even against countries that aren't members of the EU, but if that's the case then you can throw international law out the window.

The only source of international law that is extra territorial is the UN - that's what all countries have signed up to including the UK. If you want to abandon that, fine, then you must also agree that Iranian law, no matter how arbitrary, is also extra-territorial.

You can't have your cake and eat it as you are poorly attempting here. If the UK seizure of an Iranian ship is justified on the basis of EU law then the Iranian seizure of a British ship on the basis of Iranian law is also justified.

Because we'd have no grounds to seize it.

We had no grounds to invade Iraq, but we did.

Stop pretending that this has anything to do with law. It's laughably transparent - we are the bitch of the US and we are doing silly risky actions on their behalf to start a war.

You appear to be all for that.

You made the claim yet you have nothing to back it up. Perhaps it isn't so obvious or easy to catch vessels breaking sanctions.

So it has taken 8 years to undertake the incredibly difficult operation of intercepting an Iranian ship travelling through the narrow straits of Gibraltar that are under EU control? You believe that? Or could it possibly be that we did it under US instruction? What's more likely?

No one disputed that they weren't carried out in response, it doesn't make them right though. and again funny how you condemn the UK's legal seizure of a tanker while supporting Iran's recent actions because "the UK started it" - such a juvenile response.

Try presenting some proper arguments... you're all over the place here.

You are the one all over the place here. You justify UK actions in seizing an Iranian tanker based on spurious legal arguments yet deny the Iranians the right to do the same thing.

So the Iranians have no right to retaliatory actions at all? Right, OK...

Another British and American exceptionalist I see...we can invade, pirate and destroy all over the world, but as soon as a country retaliates THEY are in the wrong.

 

[EvilSooty]

They've seized and attacked ships with and without provocation for decades... it is a silly point. I'm not even going to debate it - it is all there in the relevant wikis, etc.

It is kind of like these people who think troubles in the Middle East started with George Bush.

More pertinently though I'm interested in whether the Iranian tanker was seized in international (straits) or territorial water - don't think I've seen that confirmed yet.

No examples then, cheers.

What does it matter about waters they were in? You actually think this is about law and not geopolitics?

 

[dowie]

More pertinently though I'm interested in whether the Iranian tanker was seized in international (straits) or territorial water - don't think I've seen that confirmed yet.

Scroll up and see the screen shot.

If you want to see for yourself - got to this site:

https://www.marinetraffic.com/

type in "STENA IMPERO"

click on "past track"

and then on the layers section of the map just select "open street map" and you'll see the extent of territorial waters

 

[Rroff]

Scroll up and see the screen shot.

If you want to see for yourself - got to this site:

https://www.marinetraffic.com/

type in "STENA IMPERO"

click on "past track"

and then on the layers section of the map just select "open street map" and you'll see the extent of territorial waters

I mean the tanker (Grace 1) we seized near Gibraltar not the tankers from tonight.

What does it matter about waters they were in? You actually think this is about law and not geopolitics?

It matters in the context of your argument - whether the Grace 1 was in transit in waters designated as part of the strait or after leaving that and entering territorial waters - I've never seen it confirmed at which part of the track the actual interception happened and/or whether the direction change was intentional on the part of the crew or either in response to coercion or after being boarded.

 

[EvilSooty]

They've been threatening shipping in that region for some time, they sized a smaller tanker carrying out bunkering operations the other day they'd previously made an attempt on another tanker and were seen off by a RN warship and now they've seized two larger vessels and released one. Prior to that they've seemingly attacked various ships in the region too - thus the subject of this thread - if you're going to dispute that then I think it is actually you that can't see the wood for the trees.

No actual examples then.

The smaller tanker you mention, the Riah was it? Funny how no country is kicking up a fuss about that one (even though it's UAE flagged) which suggests that it was smuggling fuel.

The attempt on the other British tanker is interesting. The Royal Navy claim to have seen them off yet refuse to present any video evidence of this attempted seizure, why not?

'Seemingly attacked various ships in the region too'

Seemingly is the word. Nothing has been proven unless I missed something?

 

[Rroff]

No actual examples then.

The smaller tanker you mention, the Riah was it? Funny how no country is kicking up a fuss about that one (even though it's UAE flagged) which suggests that it was smuggling fuel.

The attempt on the other British tanker is interesting. The Royal Navy claim to have seen them off yet refuse to present any video evidence of this attempted seizure, why not?

'Seemingly attacked various ships in the region too'

Seemingly is the word. Nothing has been proven unless I missed something?

People really shouldn't need to be spoon feeding you these examples - some of them are well known incidents and well documented.

 

[EvilSooty]

People really shouldn't need to be spoon feeding you these examples - some of them are well known incidents and well documented.

Yet you fail to document them. Please, indulge me.

Give me an example of Iran seizing an oil tanker in recent history that hasn't been retaliatory.

 

[dowie]

You aren't getting the point. You can harp on all you want about EU law being enforced even against countries that aren't members of the EU, but if that's the case then you can throw international law out the window.

No you aren't getting the point. EU law is applicable as Gibraltar is an EU member state. We're not talking about EU law being enforced against countries here but rather EU law being enforced within the EU!

Do you think, for example, a ship should be able to say carry a big cargo of cocaine through UK waters and not be stopped because it is columbian owned... that seems to be your argument and it is a load of rubbish. EU law is applicable because Gibraltar is part of the EU - this has been explained to you already.

The only source of international law that is extra territorial is the UN - that's what all countries have signed up to including the UK. If you want to abandon that, fine, then you must also agree that Iranian law, no matter how arbitrary, is also extra-territorial.

Nope

You can't have your cake and eat it as you are poorly attempting here. If the UK seizure of an Iranian ship is justified on the basis of EU law then the Iranian seizure of a British ship on the basis of Iranian law is also justified.

No it isn't.

You are the one all over the place here. You justify UK actions in seizing an Iranian tanker based on spurious legal arguments yet deny the Iranians the right to do the same thing.

It isn't spurious and no I don't. Iran is perfectly entitled to enforce Iranian law in Iranian waters...

So the Iranians have no right to retaliatory actions at all? Right, OK...

Retaliate for being caught breaking the law? Erm no, not really...

Another British and American exceptionalist I see...we can invade, pirate and destroy all over the world, but as soon as a country retaliates THEY are in the wrong.

We seized a ship in EU waters that was breaking EU law... no one invaded anyone there, no one was hurt, a ship simply got impounded legally, a judge in Gibraltar granted permission for it to be held for 14 days and the UK was in negotiations with Iran re: the possibility of releasing it if assurances were given re: Syria.

 

[dowie]

I mean the tanker (Grace 1) we seized near Gibraltar not the tankers from tonight.

I don't think that is disputed, the whole thing was observed by the Spanish who aren't exactly happy re: Gibraltar and kicked off precisely because it was stopped in waters they claim (i.e. Gibraltar's waters).

 

[Rroff]

Yet you fail to document them. Please, indulge me.

Give me an example of Iran seizing an oil tanker in recent history that hasn't been retaliatory.

Doesn't matter what type of ship it is - take one example "MV Maersk Tigris" - we really shouldn't need to be giving you examples of this stuff. But as before you aren't here with genuine intentions or you wouldn't even be arguing points like these.

I don't think that is disputed, the whole thing was observed by the Spanish who aren't exactly happy re: Gibraltar and kicked off precisely because it was stopped in waters they claim (i.e. Gibraltar's waters).

Not so much disputed but I've not seen actual confirmation that I can recall. The closest I've seen is the helicopter track that supposedly supported the initial insertion which is well inside Gibraltar's waters but that doesn't rule out it being coerced earlier into a change of direction.

 

[dowie]

No actual examples then.

The smaller tanker you mention, the Riah was it? Funny how no country is kicking up a fuss about that one (even though it's UAE flagged) which suggests that it was smuggling fuel.

No it doesn't suggest that. It was transiting between two ports within the UAE.

The attempt on the other British tanker is interesting. The Royal Navy claim to have seen them off yet refuse to present any video evidence of this attempted seizure, why not?

Why do they need to do that? They're not a 24/7 news service.

'Seemingly attacked various ships in the region too'

Seemingly is the word. Nothing has been proven unless I missed something?

Brilliant so you're happy to make all these claims about the UK being a US stooge, irrelevant rants about international law, claims about Iranian vessels having apparently been allowed to break sanctions previously etc.. etc.. but someone points out this one and you're going to pretend it wasn't likely Iran.

 

[EvilSooty]

No you aren't getting the point. EU law is applicable as Gibraltar is an EU member state. We're not talking about EU law being enforced against countries here but rather EU law being enforced within the EU!

Do you think, for example, a ship should be able to say carry a big cargo of cocaine through UK waters and not be stopped because it is columbian owned... that seems to be your argument and it is a load of rubbish. EU law is applicable because Gibraltar is part of the EU - this has been explained to you already.

No, you still aren't getting it. Iran is not a party to the EU, nor is Syria, so how can EU sanctions have any effect on them? This is basic stuff.

You are comparing oil to cocaine? Oil is an essential product of every economy in the world and its possession is not illegal anywhere.

Look, if you can't understand the difference between national and international law I don't know what to say to you. There are no laws from the UN security council prohibiting what Iran did. It's as simple as that.

Nope

Compelling. Where did you get your law degree?

No it isn't.

Well that's convenient. We can do whatever the hell we like based on our own arbitrary laws, but they can't do the same to us.

It isn't spurious and no I don't. Iran is perfectly entitled to enforce Iranian law in Iranian waters...

Because this is really about martime law and not about geopolitics...

We seized a ship in EU waters that was breaking EU law... no one invaded anyone there, no one was hurt, a ship simply got impounded legally, a judge in Gibraltar granted permission for it to be held for 14 days and the UK was in negotiations with Iran re: the possibility of releasing it if assurances were given re: Syria.

This is a fascinating insight into the mind of a UK/US exceptionalist.

If you think this is about EU law then I have some magic beans to sell to you if you are interested?

Have you missed the US aggression towards Iran? Do you dispute we are an American vassal?

How can you be this naive?

 

[EvilSooty]

Doesn't matter what type of ship it is - take one example "MV Maersk Tigris" - we really shouldn't need to be giving you examples of this stuff. But as before you aren't here with genuine intentions or you wouldn't even be arguing points like these.

Seems founded in a commercial dispute based on Iranian court rulings.

Please given an example of what the UK did to the Iranian tanker: seized a ship based on arbitrary law that came out of nowhere.

 

[dowie]

No, you still aren't getting it. Iran is not a party to the EU, nor is Syria, so how can EU sanctions have any effect on them? This is basic stuff.

You are comparing oil to cocaine? Oil is an essential product of every economy in the world and its possession is not illegal anywhere.

I never claimed Iran was party to EU law. Please try to respond to the argument presented.

Shipping oil to Syria is illegal within the EU so that claim is false.

I'm not comparing oil to cocaine - I'm giving an example that illustrates the absurdity of your position, that you have avoided answering is telling enough.

Look, if you can't understand the difference between national and international law I don't know what to say to you. There are no laws from the UN security council prohibiting what Iran did. It's as simple as that.

What relevance do "laws from the UN security council" (I presume you're referring to security council resolutions here) have to do with this?

You're still not grasping this very well.

Gibraltar is an EU member, EU law/rules/regulations are enforced there.

Why should a Panamanian flagged civilian vessel, owned by an entity registered in Singapore be exempt from Gibraltars or the EU's rules and regulations when in Gibraltar's waters?

Well that's convenient. We can do whatever the hell we like based on our own arbitrary laws, but they can't do the same to us.

Nope, again try reading and replying to what has actually been written.

 

[EvilSooty]

No it doesn't suggest that. It was transiting between two ports within the UAE.

When Iran does anything the US, UK etc scream murder yet on this one they are muted. The UAE have been strangely silent and have downplayed it hence why it suggests to me the circumstances of its seizure are not a good propagnda tool to beat them with.

Why do they need to do that? They're not a 24/7 news service.

Fine, then why should we believe them in the absence of evidence? The word alone of the navy is clearly enough for you, but not for me.

Brilliant so you're happy to make all these claims about the UK being a US stooge, irrelevant rants about international law, claims about Iranian vessels having apparently been allowed to break sanctions previously etc.. etc.. but someone points out this one and you're going to pretend it wasn't likely Iran.

You're saying the UK isn't a US stooge? Really?

You're saying in eight years Iranian ships haven't passed through the straits and this was the first attempt, really?