What's new

British oil tanker in Strait of Hormuz taken into custody by Iran

KingKhanWC

World Star
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Runs
50,744
Absolutely KKWC.

Britain needs to stay completely away from this.

This is a US problem, let them deal with it.
 
Absolutely KKWC.

Britain needs to stay completely away from this.

This is a US problem, let them deal with it.

We have sitting duck lame PM, issues with Brexit, yet some in the UK feel it should get involved in foriegn affairs with no benefit to the nation.

Tbh Iran should just quickly and quietly aqquire nuclear weapons, they will leave her alone then.
 
We have sitting duck lame PM, issues with Brexit, yet some in the UK feel it should get involved in foriegn affairs with no benefit to the nation.

Tbh Iran should just quickly and quietly aqquire nuclear weapons, they will leave her alone then.

They won’t get to that point. . Any attempt to produce weapons grade fissiles will result in attack. Remember the Iraqi reactor bombed by the IAF’s brand new F-16s?

As for the seized tanker something has to be done. The Iranian tanker is not held by HM Armed Forces but under EU law. The sailors on the British-registered tanker are from many countries. This is really complex. Will the EU release the sanctions-busting Iranian tanker?
 
Iran is punching way above its weight. US and allies could easily destroy Iran's whole navy in few strikes as it did in Operation praying mantis.
 
They won’t get to that point. . Any attempt to produce weapons grade fissiles will result in attack. Remember the Iraqi reactor bombed by the IAF’s brand new F-16s?

As for the seized tanker something has to be done. The Iranian tanker is not held by HM Armed Forces but under EU law. The sailors on the British-registered tanker are from many countries. This is really complex. Will the EU release the sanctions-busting Iranian tanker?

There is some probability that Iran already has nukes anyway.

And i gotta say its pretty stupid and cowardly of British leadership to be seizing another sovereign nation's tankers just because their daddies sitting in US told them to.

On one hand Britain and EU are begging Iran to not violate the nuclear deal and on the other hand they have done nothing about the unjust sanctions on Iran. Infact the hypocrisy is such that they are seizing Irani Tankers. Fall from grace for Brits.
 
There is some probability that Iran already has nukes anyway.

And i gotta say its pretty stupid and cowardly of British leadership to be seizing another sovereign nation's tankers just because their daddies sitting in US told them to.

On one hand Britain and EU are begging Iran to not violate the nuclear deal and on the other hand they have done nothing about the unjust sanctions on Iran. Infact the hypocrisy is such that they are seizing Irani Tankers. Fall from grace for Brits.

Let’s tease that out a bit.

Firstly the British military was acting for the EU, not the USA. The EU has imposed sanctions on Syria, which was where the Iranian tanker appeared to be bound for. Therefore the EU has the right to detain the tanker in port.

Iran has responded with an act of piracy in international waters against a British-registered ship.

The EU s trying to stick to the Iran nuclear deal, which is a separate issue. The US under Trump pulled out of that deal, merely as an act of spite against Obama in my belief.
 
Let’s tease that out a bit.

Firstly the British military was acting for the EU, not the USA. The EU has imposed sanctions on Syria, which was where the Iranian tanker appeared to be bound for. Therefore the EU has the right to detain the tanker in port.

First of all everyone knows whose orders the EU and Britain are following. Secondly, even if the sanctions were put by EU alone, Iran is not part of the EU and Syria is one of the allies to Iran. Iran doesnt come under jurisdiction of EU so seizing the Irani vessel is an act of piracy.

Iran has responded with an act of piracy in international waters against a British-registered ship.

Bullocks. Its retaliation to the piracy which Britain did earlier. Like EU can seize Irani tanker by placed sanctions on Syria, Iran can also seize British vessel by making some outlandish rules. It doesnt make sense but EU and Britain started it.

[/QUOTE]The EU s trying to stick to the Iran nuclear deal, which is a separate issue. The US under Trump pulled out of that deal, merely as an act of spite against Obama in my belief.[/QUOTE]
EU isnt doing jack squat to uphold the JCPOA. Just lip service.
 
Why should the whole World have to follow sanctions imposed by EU and USA? If Iran was to pass sanctions against Israel, will the EU and USA abide by them?
 
Iran is punching way above its weight. US and allies could easily destroy Iran's whole navy in few strikes as it did in Operation praying mantis.

Why can't the US go by itself instead of dragging others in?
 
First of all everyone knows whose orders the EU and Britain are following. Secondly, even if the sanctions were put by EU alone, Iran is not part of the EU and Syria is one of the allies to Iran. Iran doesnt come under jurisdiction of EU so seizing the Irani vessel is an act of piracy.

Firstly, please provide evidence that the EU "follows orders" or you are making an assumption based on prejudice.

Secondly, a ship in port has to adhere to the rules of that nation. Any ship can be detained or forced to leave if the rules are breached or suspected to have been breached. That's international maritime law.

Bullocks. Its retaliation to the piracy which Britain did earlier. Like EU can seize Irani tanker by placed sanctions on Syria, Iran can also seize British vessel by making some outlandish rules. It doesnt make sense but EU and Britain started it.

Applying maritime law in detaining a ship in port on suspicion of sanctions-busting is not piracy. The court in Gibraltar wil decide what to do according to law.

Seizing a ship in international water is piracy.

EU isnt doing jack squat to uphold the JCPOA. Just lip service.

Even if that were true, the JCPOA is a separate issue, irrelevant to the issue of the detained ship.
 
Firstly, please provide evidence that the EU "follows orders" or you are making an assumption based on prejudice.

Secondly, a ship in port has to adhere to the rules of that nation. Any ship can be detained or forced to leave if the rules are breached or suspected to have been breached. That's international maritime law.



Applying maritime law in detaining a ship in port on suspicion of sanctions-busting is not piracy. The court in Gibraltar wil decide what to do according to law.

Seizing a ship in international water is piracy.



Even if that were true, the JCPOA is a separate issue, irrelevant to the issue of the detained ship.

Aren't Iran applying Maritime law too? The vessel was accused of leaving through an entrance and entering through an exit, that's a serious no-no at your local super market, let alone in international waters. Lets follow your example and allow Iranian courts to decide how these joy-riding possibly drunk thugs should be treated.

And for an organisation on behalf of whom this Iranian vessel has allegedly been captured, the EU are terribly silent. Possibly still waiting for your Brexit party colleagues to face forwards
 
Firstly, please provide evidence that the EU "follows orders" or you are making an assumption based on prejudice.

I have no prejudice against Britain or EU. I am not from any of the nations involved. Anyway,

"Britain seizes Iran oil tanker at US request – Tehran summons UK envoy"

A spokesman for British Prime Minister Theresa May welcomed Gibraltar’s move, though the incident could also signal some tensions within Europe. Spain, which challenges British ownership of Gibraltar, said the action was prompted by a US request to Britain and appeared to have taken place in Spanish waters.

https://www.arabtimesonline.com/new...tanker-at-us-request-tehran-summons-uk-envoy/

Secondly, a ship in port has to adhere to the rules of that nation. Any ship can be detained or forced to leave if the rules are breached or suspected to have been breached. That's international maritime law.


Applying maritime law in detaining a ship in port on suspicion of sanctions-busting is not piracy. The court in Gibraltar wil decide what to do according to law.

Seizing a ship in international water is piracy.

Exactly. And thats what Britain did. They seized Irani tanker in international waters.

"Iran said an oil tanker that was seized by British forces near Gibraltar wasn’t destined for Syria."

The ship “was navigating in international waters,” Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said at a press conference in Tehran. He said the tanker wasn’t heading toward Syria, without saying where the vessel was going. “We consider this an act of piracy.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bl...l-tanker-in-gibraltar-wasn-t-sailing-to-syria

Seizing a ship in international water is piracy.

Iran was protecting its own interests anyway. The British ship collided with Iranian boat ignoring its distress calls. Ask your Jack sparrows to be careful.

"Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards took control of the Stena Impero in the Strait of Hormuz on Friday after it collided with an Iranian fishing boat whose distress call it ignored, the Fars news agency reported."

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1UF03G

Even if that were true, the JCPOA is a separate issue, irrelevant to the issue of the detained ship.

Yes i mentioned it as a supplementary point to showcase the hypocisy of Britain and EU. I mean looking at your history in last 400 years, who can trust you guys? The wars that you have started based on pure greed. If you guys had any shame, you would just shut up in a corner and not utter a word in international relations. But i guess old habits die hard.
 
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has expressed his "extreme disappointment" in a phone call with his Iranian counterpart following the seizure of a British-flagged tanker in the Gulf.

It comes after Mr Hunt warned Iran may be choosing a "dangerous path" of "illegal and destabilising" behaviour.

The Stena Impero's owners have been unable to contact the ship, which was surrounded in the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran said the vessel was "violating international maritime rules".

In the call, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told Mr Hunt the ship must now go through a legal process, according to the Iranian news agency ISNA.

A second British-owned Liberian-flagged tanker, the MV Mesdar, was also boarded by armed guards but was released on Friday.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49054586
 
I have no prejudice against Britain or EU. I am not from any of the nations involved. Anyway,

"Britain seizes Iran oil tanker at US request – Tehran summons UK envoy"

A spokesman for British Prime Minister Theresa May welcomed Gibraltar’s move, though the incident could also signal some tensions within Europe. Spain, which challenges British ownership of Gibraltar, said the action was prompted by a US request to Britain and appeared to have taken place in Spanish waters.

https://www.arabtimesonline.com/new...tanker-at-us-request-tehran-summons-uk-envoy/

OK, that's a link from one news agency. It says that Grace 1 was seized in Spanish waters, not international waters so EU jurisdiction applies. And UK policy is at odds with Trump policy on this issue.


Exactly. And thats what Britain did. They seized Irani tanker in international waters.

Spanish waters.

"Iran said an oil tanker that was seized by British forces near Gibraltar wasn’t destined for Syria."

The ship “was navigating in international waters,” Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said at a press conference in Tehran. He said the tanker wasn’t heading toward Syria, without saying where the vessel was going. “We consider this an act of piracy.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bl...l-tanker-in-gibraltar-wasn-t-sailing-to-syria

OK but according to The Guardian article I posted above, the Iranian Foreign Minister won't say where Grace 1 was/is going, which is suspicious.


Yes i mentioned it as a supplementary point to showcase the hypocisy of Britain and EU. I mean looking at your history in last 400 years, who can trust you guys? The wars that you have started based on pure greed. If you guys had any shame, you would just shut up in a corner and not utter a word in international relations. But i guess old habits die hard.

Irrelevant to this issue. That's what I mean by your prejudice.
 
Why should the whole World have to follow sanctions imposed by EU and USA? If Iran was to pass sanctions against Israel, will the EU and USA abide by them?

Because the EU and USA decide the rules. Unless you have the power to defy them, you fall in line. This is how it has always been.
 
Already Indian govt has asked Iran to release the Indian sailors on board that ship.
 
OK, that's a link from one news agency. It says that Grace 1 was seized in Spanish waters, not international waters so EU jurisdiction applies. And UK policy is at odds with Trump policy on this issue.

What a joke! John bolton immediately congratulated UK for seizing Irani vessel. Read up on that if you havent. UK policy is a bit confused on this but in this particular case they did obey their masters in US as is acknowledged in the article i mentioned.


Spanish waters.

Let me correct you again. They seized the ship in Spanish waters without permission of Spain. The Spanish minister mentioned that they will hold a meeting about this attack on Spain's sovereignty.

Again, you can't go around capturing ships without any basis or proof of your claims. Especially in foreign waters.

OK but according to The Guardian article I posted above, the Iranian Foreign Minister won't say where Grace 1 was/is going, which is suspicious.

Doesnt matter if they didnt mention its destination. They said it wasnt going to Syria. Its UK's word against Iran's. And like i said, looking at Britain's history of past 400 years and especially how your leaders like Blair lied their way into wars, any sane person would take Iran's word over you guys.

Irrelevant to this issue. That's what I mean by your prejudice.

I mentioned it to supplement what i was saying. The JCPOA is indirectly relevant to the topic because its all about EU's hypocisy. I have no prejudice. I can also say you have a prejudice against muslims but that would be wrong.
 
What a joke! John bolton immediately congratulated UK for seizing Irani vessel. Read up on that if you havent. UK policy is a bit confused on this but in this particular case they did obey their masters in US as is acknowledged in the article i mentioned.

That John Bolton congratulated UK does not signify a connection, merely that US interests have been served, I believe coincidentally. UK is at odds with USA on the issue of Iran. The US fleet is far larger than the Royal Navy and if they wanted the ship seized would have done it themselves.

Let me correct you again. They seized the ship in Spanish waters without permission of Spain. The Spanish minister mentioned that they will hold a meeting about this attack on Spain's sovereignty.

Again, you can't go around capturing ships without any basis or proof of your claims. Especially in foreign waters.

Spain is part of the EU so Spanish waters are EU territory. They can refer the issue to the Council of Ministers.

Doesnt matter if they didnt mention its destination. They said it wasnt going to Syria. Its UK's word against Iran's. And like i said, looking at Britain's history of past 400 years and especially how your leaders like Blair lied their way into wars, any sane person would take Ir CEan's word over you guys.

While I accept that you have a point about one word vs. another, the Gibraltarian court will decide where Grace 1 was heading.

And there's your prejudice again. You're making an assumption about the behaviour of a group based on generalisation - this is the very essense of racism. Following your line of thought, I take it you assume that any given black person can sing and dance because of historical black entertainers.

I mentioned it to supplement what i was saying. The JCPOA is indirectly relevant to the topic because its all about EU's hypocisy. I have no prejudice. I can also say you have a prejudice against muslims but that would be wrong.

An EU policy regarding one country is relevant to a separate EU policy regarding another country because "hipocisy". Just think about what you posted.

While you believe that current Britons cannot be trusted because of things done by Britons who are long dead. I am a Briton so you must distrust me, according your own line of thought. Do you distrust my word becauise of the Drogheda Massacre of 1649 CE, perhaps? Or more recently the Amritsar Massacre of 1919? I might be 119 years old after all. Maybe I was there. If not, which specific incident of 400 years ago do you distrust my word for, and how was I involved in it?
 
That John Bolton congratulated UK does not signify a connection, merely that US interests have been served, I believe coincidentally. UK is at odds with USA on the issue of Iran. The US fleet is far larger than the Royal Navy and if they wanted the ship seized would have done it themselves.

I think you should go back to what i said earlier. I said everybody knows that in this particular case, UK has followed orders of US as was mentioned by the Spanish minister. John Bolton is a significant figure in US politics and his words cannot be brushed aside as easily as you are trying to do it.



Spain is part of the EU so Spanish waters are EU territory. They can refer the issue to the Council of Ministers

So you are saying EU can order the navy of one country to capture boats in the waters of another country without taking them on board? Okay say that to the Spanish ministers who saw this as an attack on Spanish sovereignty.


While I accept that you have a point about one word vs. another, the Gibraltarian court will decide where Grace 1 was heading.

And same will happen the Irani courts with respect to the British ship.

And there's your prejudice again. You're making an assumption about the behaviour of a group based on generalisation - this is the very essense of racism. Following your line of thought, I take it you assume that any given black person can sing and dance because of historical black entertainers.

Saying that i would take Iran's word (a nation who hasnt invaded any country since last 400 years) over Britian with a documented past of colonialism/racism/white supremacy etc as recent as in the Iraq war makes me a racist??? I dont think so. I think it makes me logical and someone who learns from history.



An EU policy regarding one country is relevant to a separate EU policy regarding another country because "hipocisy". Just think about what you posted.

I said it is indirectly related. I assume you know what indirectly means. It shows the general attitude of the EU which isnt serious when it comes to upholding the treaties it has signed. As we speak, Britain is contemplating putting more sanctions on Iran for seizing the ship.

While you believe that current Britons cannot be trusted because of things done by Britons who are long dead. I am a Briton so you must distrust me, according your own line of thought. Do you distrust my word becauise of the Drogheda Massacre of 1649 CE, perhaps? Or more recently the Amritsar Massacre of 1919? I might be 119 years old after all. Maybe I was there. If not, which specific incident of 400 years ago do you distrust my word for, and how was I involved in it?

I dont hold you responsible personally. The hsitory of your nation is there for all to see. But a system where the likes of Tony Blair are still relevant political figures TODAY, even after mass murdering millions of people, i know who to trust. And i am not even saying Brits shouldnt be trusted totally. Its about a comparison with another nation.
 
Iran took this Ship from international waters. While Iranian ship was taken from EU waters, which has sanctions on Iran. Now every Iranian vessel anywhere is fair game for others.
 
Tehran, Iran (CNN)Iran has detained 17 Iranian citizens accused of acting as spies for the United States Central Intelligence Agency, according to the country's Ministry of Intelligence.

An Intelligence Ministry document sent to CNN claims Iran had broken up a CIA spying ring and captured 17 suspects, all of whom confessed to acting as spies for the CIA.

"Defendants serving their sentences in prison mentioning tempting promises of CIA officers including emigration to USA, a proper job in America, and money," the Intelligence Ministry document said. It added that the spy mission was to collect classified information "from substantial centers as well as intelligence/technical operations."

The ministry said some of the 17 will be executed.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urged caution in response to the announcement. Speaking on the Fox & Friends morning news show, he said: "The Iranian regime has a long history of lying ... I would take with a significant grain of salt any Iranian assertion about actions they've taken."

The announcement comes amid a standoff between Tehran and Western powers following President Donald Trump's 2018 decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal and reimpose sanctions on Iran, and an accelerating series of recent maritime episodes, including Iran's seizure of a UK-flagged oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz on Friday.

Under the heading "Destiny of Spies," Iran's Intelligence Ministry said in the document: "Individuals who consciously and deliberately betrayed the country and refused to compensate for the losses have been handed over to the judiciary system. Others, who honestly cooperated with the security system and their remorsefulness have been proved, have been managed with intelligence direction against Americans."

Tensions in the Strait of Hormuz
MAY 8, 2018

Trump announces he is pulling out of the nuclear deal with Iran, adding he will initiate new sanctions. "Any nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States," Trump says.

NOVEMBER 5, 2018
The United States officially reimposes all sanctions lifted under 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Rouhani vowed to continue oil exports, saying Iran will "proudly break the unjust sanctions."

APRIL 8, 2019
Trump announces the United States will formally designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, a move some in the administration had opposed over concerns about potential risks to US troops in the Middle East.

JUNE 2019
According to US officials, the US launches two cyber attacks on Iran. One attack was a retaliatory cyberstrike against an Iranian spy group. The other attack was on an Iranian proxy group with forces in Iraq, Syria and inside Iran in the days after Iran shot down a US drone.

JUNE 20, 2019
Iran shoots down a United States military drone. Iran's Revolutionary Guard claims that the drone was shot down after it entered the country's territory, while the US claims the drone was shot down in international airspace.

JUNE 24, 2019
Trump announces new sanctions against Iran in part to retaliate after the downing of a US drone the previous week, with the punitive measures set to target Iran's Supreme Leader, military officials and its top diplomat, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.

JULY 1, 2019
Zarif announces that Iran's stockpiles of enriched low-grade uranium have exceeded the 300-kilogram limit set in a landmark 2015 nuclear deal.

JULY 4, 2019
The Iranian oil-carrying vessel Grace 1 is seized by British authorities near Gibralter. Gibraltar's territorial authorities had reason to believe the ship was "carrying its shipment of crude oil to the Baniyas Refinery in Syria" in violation of European Union sanctions, it said in a statement. Iran called the act "piracy."

JULY 10, 2019
Armed Iranian boats try unsuccessfully to impede the passage of a British oil tanker in the Persian Gulf, according to two US officials with direct knowledge of the incident.

JULY 14, 2019
Over the weekend, Iran seizes an oil tanker that it claimed was carrying 1 million liters of "smuggled fuel," according to state news agency Press TV.

JULY 18, 2019
US officials say the US Navy has destroyed an Iranian drone using electronic jamming, in a defensive action after it came too close to naval ship USS Boxer took. However, Iranian officials deny that any of their drones have been downed.

JULY 19, 2019
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announces that its navy has captured the British-flagged oil tanker, Stena Impero. It accuses the British tanker of "violating international regulations."

A second tanker, the Liberian flagged MV Mesdar, was also seized, one US official tells CNN.

As well as the official announcement, Iran has also released a 20-minute video describing how authorities identified and broke up the alleged spy ring.

The film, which was widely played in Iranian media on Monday, featured Iran's intelligence minister, Mahmoud Alavi, claiming that Iranian authorities identified CIA agents attempting to recruit Iranians.

Alavi did not provide any evidence to back up the claims, nor any details about those arrested.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/22/middleeast/iran-cia-spies-detention-intl-hnk/index.html
 
Iran took this Ship from international waters. While Iranian ship was taken from EU waters, which has sanctions on Iran. Now every Iranian vessel anywhere is fair game for others.

Who decides what constitutes 'international waters' as opposed to EU waters?
 
Who decides what constitutes 'international waters' as opposed to EU waters?

Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state.
 
Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state.

So what is the difference between Strait of Hormuz and EU waters, that is what I was trying to ascertain.
 
They won’t get to that point. . Any attempt to produce weapons grade fissiles will result in attack. Remember the Iraqi reactor bombed by the IAF’s brand new F-16s?

As for the seized tanker something has to be done. The Iranian tanker is not held by HM Armed Forces but under EU law. The sailors on the British-registered tanker are from many countries. This is really complex. Will the EU release the sanctions-busting Iranian tanker?

Robert and others in thread, please do a bit of research.

There are no sanctions on crude oil to Syria, only avaiation oil. Therefore the British illegally in the form of piracy abudcted the Iranian tanker.
 
Strait of Hormuz is international waters.

EU waters are territorial waters of the European countries.

Did you not read what I wrote above?

Regardless, EU laws are made by them. These imperialist sanctions are not accepted by Iran and other nations.
 
Did you not read what I wrote above?

Regardless, EU laws are made by them. These imperialist sanctions are not accepted by Iran and other nations.

There is a difference, when you are in a countries territorial waters you are subject to their laws. If Iran do not accept these sanctions then they shouldent go into territorial waters.

Just like I cant go to Sweden and say I dont accept your laws and do what I want.
 
There is a difference, when you are in a countries territorial waters you are subject to their laws. If Iran do not accept these sanctions then they shouldent go into territorial waters.

Just like I cant go to Sweden and say I dont accept your laws and do what I want.

Knock knock,anybody there down under?

Under their own sanctions, there are NO sanctions for crude oil to Syria only avaiation oil. Would you like me to write this a few more times or would you like to discuss this with Trump first? :)
 
Knock knock,anybody there down under?

Under their own sanctions, there are NO sanctions for crude oil to Syria only avaiation oil. Would you like me to write this a few more times or would you like to discuss this with Trump first? :)

Hello this is down under, there are sanctions on the refineries in Syria, anything else you dont know.
 
Hello this is down under, there are sanctions on the refineries in Syria, anything else you dont know.

I just knew it, you want me to write this again. There are NO SANCTIONS in delivering crude oil to Syria which was the case. Nothing else matters.

As for Syria, a nation where people of different faiths lived in harmony and a land where civilisation is thousands of years older than America or Australia has been destoryed by state terrorism and where terrorists were funded, trained and supported against the Syrian government. The whole thing is digusting but of course you would defend harm against brown people.
 
I just knew it, you want me to write this again. There are NO SANCTIONS in delivering crude oil to Syria which was the case. Nothing else matters.

As for Syria, a nation where people of different faiths lived in harmony and a land where civilisation is thousands of years older than America or Australia has been destoryed by state terrorism and where terrorists were funded, trained and supported against the Syrian government. The whole thing is digusting but of course you would defend harm against brown people.

The Gibraltar government said it had reasonable grounds to believe that the Grace 1 was carrying crude oil to the Baniyas refinery in Syria. “That refinery is the property of an entity that is subject to European Union sanctions against Syria,” Gibraltar Chief Minister Fabian Picardo said.

I dont think brown skin has much to do with it unless you are a few sheep short in the top paddock.
 
I just knew it, you want me to write this again. There are NO SANCTIONS in delivering crude oil to Syria which was the case. Nothing else matters.

As for Syria, a nation where people of different faiths lived in harmony and a land where civilisation is thousands of years older than America or Australia has been destoryed by state terrorism and where terrorists were funded, trained and supported against the Syrian government. The whole thing is digusting but of course you would defend harm against brown people.

More complex than that - the Syrian civil war includes freedom fighters who rose up a tyrannical regime.
 
More complex than that - the Syrian civil war includes freedom fighters who rose up a tyrannical regime.

Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, ISIS are freedom fighters? I though the US and it's lapdogs were fighting these people? All very confusing to me Robert, please explain?
 
Did you not read what I wrote above?

Regardless, EU laws are made by them. These imperialist sanctions are not accepted by Iran and other nations.

Iran cannot enter EU waters. Thats international law. If EU countries decide any XYZ country is forbidden from their territorial waters then that country has to obey it.

Iran is free to use international waters.
 
Knock knock,anybody there down under?

Under their own sanctions, there are NO sanctions for crude oil to Syria only avaiation oil. Would you like me to write this a few more times or would you like to discuss this with Trump first? :)

A country cannot enter territorial watera of another country if its not allowed to.
 
Iran cannot enter EU waters. Thats international law. If EU countries decide any XYZ country is forbidden from their territorial waters then that country has to obey it.

Iran is free to use international waters.

A country cannot enter territorial watera of another country if its not allowed to.

yes this was a mistake but doesn't justify detaining the ship based on the reasons provided by the UK. It could have simply been escorted out of the waters but US wanted it siezed for their own agendas.

Here is a good detailed link which proves UK made up lies about Iran breaking EU sanctions.

https://twitter.com/TomWlost/status/1147264313821999104
 
Read above those sanctions apply to EU companies.

Besides who are the EU to tell Iran what it can export or not? Are they the world police? Oh yeah destroying Iraq was great police work.

I have agree with you that the invasion of Iraq was a terrible idea, but that was USA/UK not EU who stayed well out of it.

Iran is free to send oil to Syria as they did not sign the EU embargo but cannot pass through EU waters to do so. They could go up the Red Sea and through the Suez Canal.
 
Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, ISIS are freedom fighters? I though the US and it's lapdogs were fighting these people? All very confusing to me Robert, please explain?

Dont fall for it Robert.

I’ll bite [MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION].

KKWC knows I said the situation was and is complex. He knows it originated in the Arab Spring where citizens protested against the authoritarian regime. This protest became the Free Syrian Army which U.K. has bombed in support of.

Of course there are also ISIL and Salafist jihadi groups and of course KKWC knows I didn’t call them freedom fighters.
 
Last edited:
I have agree with you that the invasion of Iraq was a terrible idea, but that was USA/UK not EU who stayed well out of it.

Iran is free to send oil to Syria as they did not sign the EU embargo but cannot pass through EU waters to do so. They could go up the Red Sea and through the Suez Canal.

I agree it was poor on Irans part to enter these waters. Now *** for tat they have taken in a British registered ship, it's actually not British owned or neither are the crew British. Remember when Iran caputred British Navy personnell? They were treated very well and released. Not sure who many times Iran can show good will but only to see it not reciprocated. Iran is not Iraq, they will hit back hard. If Iran goes down it will take down the whole region with them which will result in a global economic collapse and many people dying for no reason.

In your opinion what is the problem with Iran?
 
Iran tanker seizure: Images of captured British-flagged crew released

Iranian state media has released images of crew members on a British-flagged tanker that was seized in the Gulf.

Video footage and a photo appear to show cooks preparing meals and crew members being briefed by an Iranian official onboard the Stena Impero.

A meeting of the government's emergency Cobra committee has been held after Downing Street called the seizure "unacceptable and highly escalatory".

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt told MPs it was an act of "state piracy".

It comes amid reports that ministers are considering freezing Iranian assets.

The images, published by Fars and Irib news agencies, appear to show some of the 23 crew members - who are Indian, Russian, Latvian and Filipino - holding meetings and monitoring their computer systems.

During one "meeting" a uniformed crew member tells others: "Don't look at the camera."

Making a statement to MPs in the Commons, the foreign secretary announced plans for the UK to help to develop a maritime protection mission in the Gulf.

Mr Hunt said he spoke with a "heavy heart" but if Iran continued to act as it had, it would have to accept a "larger Western military presence" along its coastline.

The protection force to be created by European countries would not include the US because, Mr Hunt insisted, Britain was not part of President Trump's policy of "maximum pressure" on Tehran.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News the "responsibility" fell to the UK "to take care of their ships".

Earlier, Downing Street had repeated its calls for Iran immediately to release the tanker that was seized on Friday. Theresa May had chaired a Cobra meeting to receive updates, discuss security in the area and consider how to react.

On Sunday, ministers denied domestic politics meant the government had taken its "eye off the ball" .

The detainment of the Stena Impero marks escalating tensions between the UK and Iran, coming weeks after Britain helped seize a tanker carrying Iranian oil.

What happened?

On Friday, the Stena Impero was seized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in the key shipping route of the Strait of Hormuz after Tehran said it was "violating international maritime rules".

Video released by Iran's Revolutionary Guard-affiliated Fars news agency appeared to show the moment the tanker was raided.

A recording emerged of radio exchanges between HMS Montrose and Iranian armed forces vessels moments before the tanker was seized.

The Iranian vessel can be heard telling the British frigate it wants to inspect the Stena Impero for security reasons.

Iran's state-run IRNA news agency said the tanker was captured after it collided with a fishing boat and failed to respond to calls from the smaller craft.

Mr Hunt said it was illegally seized in Omani waters and forced to sail into Bandar Abbas port in Iran.

The seizure of the Stena Impero comes two weeks after Royal Marines helped seize tanker Grace 1 off Gibraltar, because of evidence it was carrying Iranian oil to Syria in breach of EU sanctions.

Mr Hunt said the Grace 1 was detained legally, but Iran said it was "piracy" and threatened to seize a British oil tanker in retaliation.

Could the Royal Navy have done more?

Former Cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith told the BBC there were legitimate questions over the British government's actions, after HMS Montrose was too far away to stop the ship's seizure.

He said the detention of the Grace 1 tanker carrying Iranian oil two weeks earlier ought to have served as a warning that British vessels in the Gulf needed protection.

US Central Command said it was developing a multinational maritime effort in response to the situation.

Defence minister Tobias Ellwood said it was "impossible" to escort each individual vessel.

He said the situation required "international co-operation" and suggested more money should be invested in the Navy if Britain wanted to continue to play a role on the international stage.

What happened to the tanker and its crew?

The Stena Impero is still being held in the port of Bandar Abbas, in southern Iran.

The tanker's Swedish owner, Stena Bulk, has made a formal request to visit the crew members.

They had all been taken off the ship for "questioning", Iran's Press TV reported.

On Monday, the Iranian embassy in India told Reuters news agency that the crew, including 18 Indian nationals, were in "good health" and remained onboard the tanker.

A relative of one Indian crew member, who did not want to be identified, told the BBC on Sunday the family was concerned and had not received any messages from him since the vessel was detained.

But they said the family was being kept well informed by the Swedish company and felt reassured about diplomatic efforts to free the ship after meeting company officials on Sunday.

Although the crew and owners are not British, the Stena Impero carries the UK flag.

"Historically speaking it means that the UK owes protection to the vessel," explained Richard Meade, from maritime publication Lloyds List.

What about other UK ships in the area?

Maritime analysts said as many as eight UK-flagged tankers are currently stranded in the Gulf, inside the Strait.

Richard Meade, editor of Lloyd's List, said other British ships have been diverted and can no longer pick up cargo within the Gulf because of a warning from the government.

The longer the advice stays in place, the more likely it is that ships will decide to reflag - adding to a 30% drop in UK flagging over the past 12 months, Mr Meade said.

Most ship owners cite Brexit uncertainties as the main reason for reflagging, he added.

What has Iran said?

Iran's foreign minister Javad Zarif tweeted on Saturday that the UK "must cease being an accessory to #EconomicTerrorism of the US".

He said Iran guarantees the security of the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and insisted its action was to "uphold international maritime rules".

Iran's ambassador to London has warned the UK against escalating tensions, tweeting : "This is quite dangerous and unwise at a sensitive time in the region."

What's the background to tensions in the Gulf?

Relations have been deteriorating between Iran and the UK and US.

In April, the US tightened sanctions it had re-imposed on Iran after withdrawing from a 2015 nuclear deal.

The US blamed Iran for attacks on tankers since May, which Tehran denies. On Friday, the US claimed to have destroyed an Iranian drone in the Gulf .

The UK government has remained committed to the deal, which curbs Iran's nuclear activities in return for the lifting of sanctions.

However, the UK's help in seizing the Iranian tanker Grace 1 infuriated Iran.

Last week, the UK said Iranian boats also attempted to impede a British oil tanker in the region before being warned off by HMS Montrose. Iran denied any attempted seizure.

International reaction

The White House said Friday's incident was the second time in more than a week the UK had been "the target of escalatory violence" by Iran.

On Sunday, the Foreign Office confirmed Mr Hunt spoke with his French and German counterparts, who have both condemned Iran's actions.

France's Jean-Yves Le Drian and Germany's Heiko Maas agreed that safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz is a top priority for European nations, while avoiding any possible escalation.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-49074032
 
Why is no one talking about the audio transcript that has been released? Let me guess, Iran followed protocol and international law, but such acts are not worthy of the news?
 
I’ll bite [MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION].

KKWC knows I said the situation was and is complex. He knows it originated in the Arab Spring where citizens protested against the authoritarian regime. This protest became the Free Syrian Army which U.K. has bombed in support of.

Of course there are also ISIL and Salafist jihadi groups and of course KKWC knows I didn’t call them freedom fighters.

The Arab spring was mostly in Egpyt not Syria or Libya. Now years on we can see Egpyt forced out a dicator, elected a party and then was forced by the same people to install the dicator again. lol.

The free Syrian army is made up of terrorist Robert. Would you like me to go into detial?
[MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION] Robert and I might disagree but I have a lot of respect for him as his views are not based hatred for Muslims or foriegners but what he genuinely believes.
 
yes this was a mistake but doesn't justify detaining the ship based on the reasons provided by the UK. It could have simply been escorted out of the waters but US wanted it siezed for their own agendas.

Here is a good detailed link which proves UK made up lies about Iran breaking EU sanctions.

https://twitter.com/TomWlost/status/1147264313821999104

Once you enter anyones territorial waters its upto the country to decide the course of action.
 
I agree it was poor on Irans part to enter these waters. Now *** for tat they have taken in a British registered ship, it's actually not British owned or neither are the crew British. Remember when Iran caputred British Navy personnell? They were treated very well and released. Not sure who many times Iran can show good will but only to see it not reciprocated. Iran is not Iraq, they will hit back hard. If Iran goes down it will take down the whole region with them which will result in a global economic collapse and many people dying for no reason.

In your opinion what is the problem with Iran?

Thing is that the Ship was in international waters and outside the Iranian territory. It has no right to seize any vessel outside its territories.
 
Once you enter anyones territorial waters its upto the country to decide the course of action.

Thing is that the Ship was in international waters and outside the Iranian territory. It has no right to seize any vessel outside its territories.

Sure but dont lie reg sanctions.

US has no right with its lapdogs to put sanctions on Iran and tell others not to buy their oil. This is as stated economic terrorism.
 
The Arab spring was mostly in Egpyt not Syria or Libya. Now years on we can see Egpyt forced out a dicator, elected a party and then was forced by the same people to install the dicator again. lol.

The free Syrian army is made up of terrorist Robert. Would you like me to go into detial?
[MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION] Robert and I might disagree but I have a lot of respect for him as his views are not based hatred for Muslims or foriegners but what he genuinely believes.

Crack on then. My understanding is that the Arab Spring protestors were joined by Army dissidents to form the FSA. It operates closely with Turkish forces and is supported by the RAF.
 
Sure but dont lie reg sanctions.

US has no right with its lapdogs to put sanctions on Iran and tell others not to buy their oil. This is as stated economic terrorism.

They have every right to tell others to not buy oil. Its for the others to decide.

EU has put sanctions on Syria. So Iran cannot use EU waters to deliver oil to Syria.

Iran is free to use international waters.
 
They have every right to tell others to not buy oil. Its for the others to decide.

EU has put sanctions on Syria. So Iran cannot use EU waters to deliver oil to Syria.

Iran is free to use international waters.

Please explain what their issue is with Iran?
 
Crack on then. My understanding is that the Arab Spring protestors were joined by Army dissidents to form the FSA. It operates closely with Turkish forces and is supported by the RAF.

Turkey was buying oil from ISIS.

Free Syrian army openly worked with Al Nusra. Who is Al Nusra, it was started by Baghdadi who is the leader of ISIS. I could give you names of other terrorist groups working with the FSA such as Jaysh al-Islam but I am assuming you wont have heard of these groups because they are not mentioned on the BBC.

Read this, just the summary is enough.

http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/JN Final.pdf

]
 
Whatever may be the issue, but they have the right to tell others. Others are free to decide their course.

China gave them two fingers as any self respecting state should do. :)

The point is the demonsiation of Iran is a Zionist plan to destroy another nation, nothing more than this.
 
I
Turkey was buying oil from ISIS.

Free Syrian army openly worked with Al Nusra. Who is Al Nusra, it was started by Baghdadi who is the leader of ISIS. I could give you names of other terrorist groups working with the FSA such as Jaysh al-Islam but I am assuming you wont have heard of these groups because they are not mentioned on the BBC.

Read this, just the summary is enough.

http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/JN Final.pdf

]

To be fair, the enemy if my enemy principle applies. In 1941 UK was allied to the USSR, but that didn’t make UK a communist dictatorship, it was based on mutual survival.

But ta for the link, it’s always useful to look from other perspectives.
 
Looking more like [MENTION=131678]Madplayer[/MENTION] was right in that someone in the US asked the UK to intern Grace 1.

I think the coque-up theory applies here. Nobody in the Pentagon thought to tell Trump, either by accident, or purposely given his erratic decision making.

Then nobody in the UK Foreign Office thought to tell the EU of the impending sanction-enforcing action on their behalf.

Now UK is in a bad position because the RN alone cannot protect British-flagged tankers. And Trump is refusing to send the USN, so in supreme irony UK has asked the EU to help!

It would be farcical if lives were not at risk.
 
Strait of Hormuz is international waters.

EU waters are territorial waters of the European countries.

So why isn't Strait of Hormuz considered territorial waters of Iran? Sorry if this seems a bit dim, I really am not clued up on how these things are decided.
 
So why isn't Strait of Hormuz considered territorial waters of Iran? Sorry if this seems a bit dim, I really am not clued up on how these things are decided.

Part of the straight is territorial waters of Iran but only up to 12km from the shoreline of Iran. Boats that enter within 12km (thereabouts) of a countries shoreline then are entering the territorial waters of that country. Outside of that range is international waters.
 
So why isn't Strait of Hormuz considered territorial waters of Iran? Sorry if this seems a bit dim, I really am not clued up on how these things are decided.

Not if you sail right down the middle of the Strait, it’s an international shipping route and nobody owns it. A bit port or starboard and a ship is in Omani or Iranian waters.
 
Part of the straight is territorial waters of Iran but only up to 12km from the shoreline of Iran. Boats that enter within 12km (thereabouts) of a countries shoreline then are entering the territorial waters of that country. Outside of that range is international waters.

I see. So I assume these same restrictions probably apply to EU countries, a certain area will belong to each individual country, the rest will be international waters open to all international shipping.
 
I see. So I assume these same restrictions probably apply to EU countries, a certain area will belong to each individual country, the rest will be international waters open to all international shipping.

Yes.Applies to all countries.
 
I see. So I assume these same restrictions probably apply to EU countries, a certain area will belong to each individual country, the rest will be international waters open to all international shipping.

Yes that is correct. So any coast line that a country has its sovereignty extends around 12km out to sea.

The straights of Gibralter is only about 15km wide so passing through there almost guarantees that you have to enter the territorial waters of Gibralter (Spain).

The straights of Hormuz is 50km wide so you can pass through without entering the territorial waters of Iran which is what tankers do.

What that all means is Gibralter had every right to stop and inspect the Iranian tanker and demand the manifest to see what cargo and destination.

Iran had no right to enter international waters and do the same, in international waters it is considered piracy.
 
Yes that is correct. So any coast line that a country has its sovereignty extends around 12km out to sea.

The straights of Gibralter is only about 15km wide so passing through there almost guarantees that you have to enter the territorial waters of Gibralter (Spain).

The straights of Hormuz is 50km wide so you can pass through without entering the territorial waters of Iran which is what tankers do.

What that all means is Gibralter had every right to stop and inspect the Iranian tanker and demand the manifest to see what cargo and destination.

Iran had no right to enter international waters and do the same, in international waters it is considered piracy.

Isn't Gibraltar a British territory? I believe the Law of the Seas allows for passage through straits even if it is through territorial waters as long as you are transiting and not have hostile intentions. I will have to dig up the actual Law but I remember it from somewhere.
 
Isn't Gibraltar a British territory? I believe the Law of the Seas allows for passage through straits even if it is through territorial waters as long as you are transiting and not have hostile intentions. I will have to dig up the actual Law but I remember it from somewhere.

This is disputed by Spain, but thats another story.
 
Iran has seized another foreign tanker in the Gulf, Iranian state media say.

State TV quoted by Reuters said the Revolutionary Guard Corps' naval forces had "seized a foreign tanker in the Persian Gulf that was smuggling fuel for some Arab countries".

It said the tanker was carrying 700,000l of fuel, adding that seven sailors had been detained.

The reported incident comes amid high tension after the US tightened sanctions on Iran's oil sector.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49225916
 
The Gibraltar court has released Grace 1, despite pleas by the Americans to keep her in custody.
 
The Gibraltar court has released Grace 1, despite pleas by the Americans to keep her in custody.

Im glad they have accepted their mistake and I hope they dont try to detain any more tankers which dont belong to them.
 
More like Police stop and search of a suspicious vehicle.

Let’s see if the Iranians reciprocate.

You mean will they release the Swedish Ship?

Having been in shipping for twenty years I really don't see how this is any way connected to Britain/UK.
Flags of ships are for convenience.

Malta, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Panama, Liberian Flags for tax purposes and British Flags mainly for the ability to avoid port state control measures at ports in various countries and of course paying dues in the UK.

However, a ship owner can be sitting in Sweden, Singapore or anywhere else and have a British registered Flag.

This Stena Line ship is as much British as an Iranian Coastguard Vessel.
 
You mean will they release the Swedish Ship?

Having been in shipping for twenty years I really don't see how this is any way connected to Britain/UK.
Flags of ships are for convenience.

Malta, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Panama, Liberian Flags for tax purposes and British Flags mainly for the ability to avoid port state control measures at ports in various countries and of course paying dues in the UK.

However, a ship owner can be sitting in Sweden, Singapore or anywhere else and have a British registered Flag.

This Stena Line ship is as much British as an Iranian Coastguard Vessel.

It was seized in a tot for tat move so I think Iran disagrees with you.
 
Now the US Justice Department has issued a warrant for the arrest of Grace 1.

I guess a USN warship in the Med will intercept and board it. I wonder what port it will be taken to.
 
Grace 1 was release and went to Syria anyway! So the intel was right.

Has the ship seized by the Iranians been released?
 
Back
Top