Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Mon Aug 19 16:19:11 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Iran confiscates British tanker
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Fri Jul 19 13:28:10
Iran confiscates British tanker in Strait of Hormuz – IRGC

http://www...an-confiscates-british-tanker/
Rugian
Member
Fri Jul 19 13:28:38
Bombing time.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jul 19 13:33:49
Yup. Hit em. All iranian military facilities along the straights are fair game now.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jul 19 13:43:45
Also one must ask where was the royal navy? Watching sebs mandated transgender inclusiveness training?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jul 19 13:50:06
"UK authorities said the tanker had ‘veered off course’ before capture"

did they actually say that or is RT being Foxy?


also... could all be part of a Top Gun:Maverick publicity stunt, the trailer just came out... Tom may be flying over the Gulf soon
Forwyn
Member
Fri Jul 19 13:51:56
Let the Britcucks deal with it. Hopefully Iran nukes them.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jul 19 13:56:02
A second tanker "mesdar" uk owned may also have been hit.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jul 19 14:06:57
A third british tanker "star osprey" is also sailing towards iran now.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jul 19 14:52:22
4th tanker "poseidon" - hong kong owned attacked
Rugian
Member
Fri Jul 19 14:54:08
Jergul is probably furiously masturbating in his igloo right now.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jul 19 14:59:52
Seb is crying.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jul 19 15:05:57
Meanwhile trump is tweeting about kanye west and other rappers in sweden.

Sebs royal navy got gangfucked by a third world mud hut state.

Its a clown world bro.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 19 15:21:40
But thankfully the BBC is on the ground in Iran to report on this.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jul 19 15:23:01
Sounds like the crews were the typical third world seaman motley and did not care to resist.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 19 15:28:43
The west has lost the narrative entirely and it started with the support for head chopper, continued by Trump pulling out of the deal. Made even worse by seizing the Iranian tanker. Losing that drone (in Iranian waters otherwise you would supplied evidence of the contrary) and apparently from what I am reading lying about shooting down the Iranian drone?

YOU ONLY HAD ONE JOB YOU FUCKING IDIOTS! BE THE GOOD GUYS!
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jul 19 15:34:59
British airways is still sending planes over iran so they must be intending to puss out.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 19 15:40:18
Well Sam the British have a proven track record of taking a pounding like men and not lose their fucking minds every time someone farts too loudly.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jul 19 15:53:30
If this was a time period other than now, a british battleship would steam into bandar abas and blow up everything in sight.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 19 15:57:30
It isn't, stop living in the past.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jul 19 16:05:54
CNN only reporting 2 ships still, and that one supposedly already back on track
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jul 19 16:33:57
Mesdar and star osprey do appear to be released and at cruise steam. Or recaptured? Poseidon is still stationary transmitting "armed guards aboard". Impero is still missing.

Maersk Chicago now has a "well armed escort"
Paramount
Member
Fri Jul 19 17:05:09
I heard the USA shot down one of its own drones.
jergul
large member
Fri Jul 19 17:09:05
What a surprise.
Forwyn
Member
Fri Jul 19 17:30:21
"We will respond in a way that is considered but robust," Hunt said. "We are not looking at military options, we are looking at a diplomatic way to resolve the situation but we are very clear that it must be resolved."

Lol
Rugian
Member
Fri Jul 19 17:38:45
When Boris enters office, his first act should be to nuke the fuckers back into the Stone Age.


Well, second act. First act would of course be prorogation.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jul 19 18:05:45
Lol the UK is so cucked.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 19 20:37:27
Much less than the US, you got a very expensive piece of equipment blown out of the sky and the most crazy and unpredictable president you have elected to date, only managed to huff and puff. No better than Obama in that regard who also lost a drone to Iran. They just don't make American men like they used to anymore.
jergul
large member
Sat Jul 20 10:13:30
"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."

Seb
Feel free to jump in at any time and explain how this is completely different from what Gibraltar is doing.
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 21 11:42:18
http://www...k-confrontation-as-ship-seized

Sort of lulzy.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jul 21 11:52:28
It is fun to make fun of the uk for being so cucked
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 21 12:21:21
jergul:

For a start, the vessel was boarded outside of Iranian territorial waters, and Iran has stated that actually they had no good reason to capture it other than "reciprococity".

But hey, I guess that means we should look for an Iranian tanker on the high seas and capture that?

jergul
large member
Sun Jul 21 12:34:08
Seb
Did you listen to the audio? The Iranians were very clear on this being a security inspection. They clearly found something that may be awry of Iranian or international law, so the vessel may be held for a while.

We will see what their judge orders.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Jul 21 12:34:17
Maybe not pass unilateral sanctions to defend terrorists, cuck. Kill yourself
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 21 12:45:08
Forwyn
Carl Bildt made the interesting point that EU sanctions are not meant for 3rd parties like Iran or Pamana in the case in question.

Gilbraltar is misapplying the sanction regulation.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Jul 21 12:46:59
How a sane person views sanctions:

Country A places Country B under sanctions. Actors of Country A cannot trade with Country B.

How insane fucking idiots view sanctions:

Country A places Country B under sanctions.

Country A raids countries C, D, E, and F if they attempt to trade with country B.

B-b-but you also have to allow Country A to freely trade on your doorstep!

Lulz
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 21 12:56:06
jergul:

Yes, jergul, on the other hand it is highly likely they are lying - not least they do not have jurisdiction on the Oman side of the straight.

Forwyn:

By contracting with the port of gibrlatar, that's what will have brought them into scope of EU sanctions.

If Iranian flagged tankers don't want to fall foul of the sanctions, they shouldn't use union facilities. Traversing the waterway would be ok.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 21 12:56:44
Compare this to how EU companies are caught up in US sanctions laws if they trade with Iran if they also do business with the US.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Jul 21 12:57:56
Were the goods offloaded in Gibraltar?

No?

Then you're inventing shit to justify Bolton-esque chickenhawk brinksmanship.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Jul 21 13:01:01
> Semi carrying liquor briefly stops to fuel at Muslim-owned gas station

> Muslim seizes truck because religious beliefs conflict with transporting liquor

Seb: "This is okay"
Forwyn
Member
Sun Jul 21 13:05:02
Actually it's worse than that, the semi is carrying material aid to anti-terror forces

The storeowner, being a terror sympathizer, seizes the truck

Seb: "This is okay"
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 21 13:06:44
Forwyn:

"Were the goods offloaded in Gibraltar?"

When HSBC was fined billions for sanctions violations with Iran, was it any American goods or money that went to Iran? Nope.

"> Semi carrying liquor briefly stops to fuel at Muslim-owned gas station

> Muslim seizes truck because religious beliefs conflict with transporting liquor"

Er, no, because owning a gas station doesn't give the Muslim sovereignty over it, does it.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 21 13:07:09
Gosh, you are terrible at this Forwyn.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Jul 21 13:10:29
"Er, no, because owning a gas station doesn't give the Muslim sovereignty over it, does it."

Just like owning a port doesn't give you sovereignty of goods passing through it, you incorrigible retard
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 21 13:12:25
Forwyn:

"Just like owning a port doesn't give you sovereignty of goods passing through it"

Er, actually yes, you do retain sovereign rights over territorial water. This is why we can intercept and arrest drug smugglers and confiscate their cargos - for example.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Jul 21 13:13:48
Comparing individual smugglers to internationally flagged merchant vessels - still dosing your Boltonism with retardation, I see
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 21 13:20:07
Forwyn:

"Comparing individual smugglers to internationally flagged merchant vessel"

You made the ridiculous argument of principle - that states have no sovereignty over goods or vessels in their port.

If that was true, then it would follow that the smugglers aren't smuggling as long as they do not unload the cargo, and the police have no right to seize them or their vessels.

Idiot.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Jul 21 13:22:38
Yes, goods passing through does not automatically bestow ownership, despite your retardation. Police powers granted any sovereign state allow them to stop smuggling.

Where you and Bolton-ilk get wrong and start international affairs is where you unilaterally pass sanctions and then conflate your police powers to include other sovereign powers.

Idiot.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 21 14:13:28
Forwyn:

I don't think the UK or Gibraltar has suggested they "own" the ship. They have asserted that by contracting with a union entity in order to facilitate the action of taking oil to Syria, the ships owners and captain have breached the union's sanctions law; and that within the territorial waters of Gibraltar and as the competent authority for the union, they have the right to arrest the captain and detain the ship for breaching this law.

This is identical to how US financial sanctions work, only US financial sanctions are much wider.

Seb
Member
Sun Jul 21 14:16:19
I don't know where you got the idea I'm supporting Bolton here.
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 21 14:34:43
Seb
Iran did board other vessels that are currently underway. Its the thing about shipping. Inspections will find things quite regularly. One ship passed inspection. Another ship did not.

Anyway, the vessel is certainly within Iranian jurisdiction now. We will just have to await decisions from its court system.

The Iranian ship is Pamana flagged btw. The ship itself cannot possibly be in violation of EU sanctions as it is not an EU entity.

The port of Gibraltar might be if it knowingly acted in a way that violates the sanctions.

The ship is being held for 90 days now. No doubt awaiting the US and its argument for why it is subject to US seizure for some reason or another.

The UK and Gibraltar do not have seizure as a penalty for violating EU sanctions in any event.

Individuals can be charged and convicted. Thats it.
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 21 14:35:19
Seb
You have no idea of what argument was made. It was done in a closed session.
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 21 14:48:29
“Act on the Marine Areas of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Persian Gulf and the
Oman Sea of 2 May 1993”

Interesting. It turns out that the vessel was in contested waters claimed by Iran.

Grace I was boarded in contested waters off Gibraltar too, was it not?
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 21 15:10:24
This case illustrates one of the reasons for why status quo is such a stabilizing geo-political factor.

Iran thinks it has jurisdiction over those waters, but has refrained from acting on it earlier.

Its justice system does have to rule according to the Iranian legal code. In the same way Gibraltar is supposed to rule according to its legal code (no matter how newly written to entrap a specific vessel).

There are tons of disagreements that have no practical effects because a functioning status quo.

I am not sure a governor and his cronies in some tiny post colonial shit hole should be allowed to change that.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 21 17:16:58
jergul:

It is fairly indisputable that the tanker was "inspected" outside Iran's waters (even the contested waters, see below), and Iran's explanation of what happened has changed three times and the latest statement is that it is being held reciprocally - something they have said repeatedly they intended to do.

So I would submit this is different. If we were to behave reciprocally, we would be able to take a tanker on the high seas, and escort it to UK waters.

"Anyway, the vessel is certainly within Iranian jurisdiction now"

Which is besides the point. Iran has now developed a habit of stealing ships hasn't it.

"The ship itself cannot possibly be in violation of EU sanctions as it is not an EU entity"

I think I've explained the point above - likely the thing it did which broke the law was to contract services from the union to support the trade in oil to Syria. Like it or not, a financial transaction does put you in the jurisdiction of where the services are to be carried out. The ship as an asset/evidence can be held.

"The UK and Gibraltar do not have seizure as a penalty for violating EU sanctions in any event."

Actually, they do, we quoted the law at length.

"Interesting. It turns out that the vessel was in contested waters claimed by Iran."

Not correct, the disputed waters are around Abu Musa, the ship was seized on the Gulf of Oman side of the straight in Oman's waters.
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 21 18:13:29
Seb
I provided you with the name of the legislature that grants Iran the legal framework to arrest the ship.

The law was written in 1993, not mashed out less than 24 hours before a ship was arrested. There is that.

What UK law are you referring to that would allow you to sieze ships in the high seas?

It is hardly beside the point that an Iranian judge has obligations to follow Iranian law within his jurisdiction.

The port of Gibraltar, or some other contract signee broke the law you mean. Who are you claiming illegally entered a contract with the Iranian owned tanker?

Those people should certainly be punished if they did it knowingly.

We do not know the reason for why the ship is being held for 90 days. The session was closed.

I provided you the name of the bill that provides Iran with legal jurisdiction over the waters where the ship was arrested. Interesting that you claim that jurisdiction is undisputed.

You are sure you do not want to release the Iranian ship, but would rather prefer to continue to embarrass youself?
jergul
large member
Sun Jul 21 18:35:50
Also

"Iran's explanation of what happened has changed three times and the latest statement is that it is being held reciprocally - something they have said repeatedly they intended to do."

We heard the radio broadcast why the ship was boarded.

Of course, Iran is a diverse and rich country with a huge number of people voicing opinions.

We should probably just stick with the relevant ones.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 22 02:32:27


LONDON, July 20. /TASS/. Birtish transport company Norbulk Shipping UK has confirmed that the Liberian registered tanker Mesdar was allowed to continue its voyage after being "boarded by armed personnel" when crossing through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranian news agency Tasnim earlier reported that Mesdar was allowed to continue its voyage after receiving warnings over security and water pollution.

The IRNA agency reported on Friday that Iran's elite forces Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) detained British tanker Stena Impero over the vessel's "violation of international rules." According to the IRGC, the tanker was escorted to the shore for inspections.

UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said that the Liberain registered Mesdar tanker was also detained by the Iranian authorities.

================

The thing is. A rigidly enforced inspection regime will find grounds for further investigations in a certain number of cases.

Iran can detain ships with cause if it wants to. The main complaint would then have to be that that Iran is targeting specific ships for rigerous inspections.

You can argue that Iran did not have jurisdiction. Iran claims it does. You can argue that Iran is targeting British shipping interests. That may very well be true.

The assumption that all UK shipping is at all times in full compliance with all shipping regulations would simply denote that you know nothing about international shipping at all.

PS: 3 Russian crew members are confined to the vessel with the rest of the international crew.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jul 22 13:11:00
"3 Russian crew members are confined to the vessel with the rest of the international crew."

Ya, its common to see lots of third worlders in the crew of bulk carriers. Russians, eastern euros, philippino whores, etc.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 22 14:02:16
jergul:

I'm sorry, which law is it that allows Iran to seize a ship in another countries territorial water for (colliding with a fishing boat / security reasons / reciprocal action - delete depending which day it is) again? I must have missed that.

And no, the law was not drafted a day earlier, it was drafted three months earlier as I pointed out.

"The port of Gibraltar, or some other contract signee broke the law you mean."

No, the ships owner/manager broke the law. They are the ones using union facilities to transport oil to Syria. It is an offence within the union to trade with Syria. It doesn't matter where you are from, it matters that you are doing it within the EU territory. Now, innocent passage would probably trump that had they not contracted with a party in the union to do so.
They should not have contracted within the EU and should instead.. cf. US wire fraud laws.

"We heard the radio broadcast why the ship was boarded."

And we have had two conflicting statements from Iran on the matter, plus the fact they have been announcing for days their intent to seize a British ship.

"Of course, Iran is a diverse and rich country with a huge number of people voicing opinions.

We should probably just stick with the relevant ones."

I believe what you meant to say is Iran is an autocratic regime with a long history of belligerence and we can probably assume they are lying.

"Iran can detain ships with cause if it wants to. The main complaint would then have to be that that Iran is targeting specific ships for rigerous inspections."

Not outside it's waters it cannot.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 22 14:20:56
Seb
This law “Act on the Marine Areas of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Persian Gulf and the
Oman Sea of 2 May 1993”.

I have posted and referred to it repeatedly.

The regulation was drafted and passed less than 24 hours earlier. A regulation is part of a legal code.

We heard from the radio broadcast on why it was boarded. The issue is not in the hands of investigators and an Iranian judge.

I really feel we should respect their process.

There is no reason for Iran to lie. If you examine shipping, you will find violations quite regularly.

It can actually actually detain shipping according to its domestic laws. We really should respect domestic laws.

But the owners could certainly challenge that in Iranian courts if they disagree.

But lets wait for the ruling once the investigation is done.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 22 14:22:04
now in the hands of*
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 22 14:25:41
Unclos does have an arbitration procedure if you feel that code should be used.

I take it you feel Iran's code is not entirely streamlined to match UNCLOS principles.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 22 14:29:55
Jergul:

Said law refers to the marine waters of the Iranian republic.

Iran does not claim the area where the ship was stopped as can be seen by it's course.

"The regulation was drafted and passed less than 24 hours earlier. A regulation is part of a legal code. "

It specifies how the the chief executive should exercise his powers, but not the powers themselves. It would still have been an offence and the CM would still have been empowered to detain the ship, however the legal basis of the process would have been up for challenge. Regulations being drafted at short notice is not unusual.

"There is no reason for Iran to lie"
Yes there is, they've been saying for over a week they would seize a British ship in retaliation, and of course they would want a sound legal basis to do so.

"We really should respect domestic laws."
Of course, but only when in Rome do we do as the Romans and it is very clear that the ship wasn't in Iranian waters at the time.



Seb
Member
Mon Jul 22 14:35:08
Interesting regarding Iran's law you cited.

"
Article 11: Civil jurisdiction

The authoritative officials of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran can take necessary measures in the following cases, in order to execute remedial abatement and orders of condemnation, to ban, divert the direction or attack the ship and arrest its......

A) While the ship is moving in the territorial; waters, out of the inland waters of Iran.

B) When the ship has stopped in the territorial waters of Iran.

C) When the ship is passing from the territorial waters on the condition that the same ship is the source of remedy of abatement or the order of condemnation and or the obligations arising from its civil responsibility."

Seems Iran reserves the right to pursue civil (similar provisions for criminal) claims against transiting ships in it's territorial water.


jergul
large member
Mon Jul 22 14:35:08
You are mixing up two issues.

Why was the boat arrested: Because rigerous inspection found suspected violations.

Why were there rigerous inspections of "specific" ships: Because a "specific" Iranian owned ship was arrested.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 22 14:35:54
Seb
Why yes. The Iranian code does allow for forfeiture.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 22 14:38:04
Jergul:

No, I'm not mixing up issues. I'm saying that the there was no legitimate inspection. Said "inspection" took the form of a forced boarding outside of Iran's waters for no other reason than to seize the ship. The whole thing is a very clear pretext for seizing a ship because one of their ships was detained for it's crew sanction breaking.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jul 22 14:45:25
This is actually very simple and can be described in the language of children. Iran did something the UK doesn't like so they took their boat. Iran didn't like something the UK did (taking their boat) so they took one of their boats. Now we all have a boat and everyone is unhappy.

The moral of the story, don't take other peoples boats.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 22 14:50:38
Seb
Article 18 is probably the one you are looking for. It authorized the action.

You are mixing up issues.

UK shipping is not under a sharp inspection regime because it arrested an Iranian vessel.

Here is something you have to grasp: British ships will quite often fail to meet various standards if an inspection really looks for violations.

Not every ship will of course. The Iranians did release one british owned ship they boarded with warnings on safety violations a few days ago.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 22 14:52:09
now under*
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jul 22 14:59:17
You have to admire the length to which Iran has gone to make this fair. Days prior to this incident they seized a Panama flagged ship smuggling oil. This British boat was just one boat among the several boats to be caught in the rigorous application of Iranian law. Two can play this game, I believe is the message.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jul 22 14:59:35
*look fair.
Paramount
Member
Mon Jul 22 15:08:59
I heard that Britain wants a European navy force to patrol the Persian gulf. So it looks like Britain now thinks that a European cooperation is good after all. But maybe Boris et al. will say no to this proposition, because Britain should take control of itself by itself, etc.
Paramount
Member
Mon Jul 22 15:18:48
Or maybe it is the Trump who wants Britain to want Europe to send boats to the Persian gulf. And if this idea was communicated to the Brits by Trump, then I think we all know from who the idea originates from.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 22 16:40:19
Jergul:

And Iran would be perfectly within its rights to inspect the ship, had it been in their waters, which it was not.

A fact you don't seem to want to engage with.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 22 18:52:11
Seb
Article 18 clearly provides the legal basis for inspections and arrests.

I take it you dislike that law? Amnesty International may have a standard letter you can send to Iran in protest.

We really should respect domestic law and the legal process Seb.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 23 01:16:04
A country can not board and inspect a ship suspected of breaking maritime laws in international waters?
jergul
large member
Tue Jul 23 01:55:43
Nimi
That depends on what laws that country (or post colonial outpost as the case may be) has passed and what jurisdiction it is laying claim to.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 23 02:33:51
There are no areas where this right exists without specific laws being passed? Like if you suspect a ship is violating environmental laws or smuggling drugs, the captain has murdered someone etc.?
Rugian
Member
Tue Jul 23 06:47:06
"Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole

Here’s a curious thing that emerged late last night. Government have so declined an American offer to run a joint navel security operation to beef up security in the Gulf amid fears of looking too close to Donald Trump.... 1

Pentagon proposal last week was a joint UK/US op in Strait of Hormuz, but sources say it was rejected despite repeated overtures...amid fears it would look like the UK backed Washington’s wider hardline stance on Iran... 2

Told Foreign Office warned that such action with just two countries would imply the UK backed America’s decision to pull out of the Iran Nuclear Deal - wanted to ‘internationalise it’. But not everyone happy... 3

A Whitehall source said: ‘May and Hunt declined an offer the America last week to join them in a maritime coalition for security in the strait...they wanted to build an international effort’... 4

Added: ‘It’s a major fuck up when it was blindingly obvious we were vulnerable. Weak politics. In light of the threat it was an act of folly, just pathetic.’ 5

Government source does not deny the offer was made by US *before* uk-flagged tanker seized but insists no final decision has been made on action: ‘we are still weighing it up as are other countries and stakeholders.’ 6

So politics and looks came before protecting tankers... security could have been increased but it was not. Someone should be willing to explain why and publicly justify that... Don’t hold your breath.... end"

http://mob...ole/status/1152876189058514944
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 23 07:09:58
Jergul:

Only in the waters claimed by Iran. The law is explicit about that. The waters where the event occurred are not claimed by Iran. So no legal basis.
jergul
large member
Tue Jul 23 07:46:12
Seb
Incorrect. The law defines a security area that includes where the ship was arrested. This is compatible with the TSS the ship was in.

Ruggy
Relax. The ship is safe! This is literally a case of a flag being captured. Could it possibly be more political?

Nimi
Its an interesting question. But countries generally do need to pass laws. There are principles and obligations, but they are legally founded.
jergul
large member
Tue Jul 23 07:51:00
Seb
But ultimately, it remains a question for the courts to decide. We should respect the Iranian legal process with the same dignity we afford the process in a tiny post colonial tax haven.
Paramount
Member
Tue Jul 23 08:50:40
”Ruggy
Relax”


Yup, relax. At least Iran didn’t shoot and kill people on the boat.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 23 11:35:35
You know (((who))) did kill people on a boat right?
Rugian
Member
Tue Jul 23 11:46:49
Of course that's what he's referring to. Because he's...not...a rabid anti-Semite who is singularly obsessed with the Jews.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 23 13:08:19
Jergul:

So here you are in the odd position of supporting Iran's rights to seize ships in international waters but condemn the UK for seizing ships in national waters.

Funny, isn't it, I believe you were remarking, how what is right and wrong depends on which country is doing it.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 23 14:16:26
That is not fair, jergul warned that acting like a colonial backwater outpost would give us a tit for tat. I don’t really see him providing an unreasonable defence for Iran, on this issue. i.e if you behave like pirates, then expect in kind. This is silly, this whole thing is silly and perfectly avoidable.

The plot has been lost, it isn’t entirelt your fault, just make sure you don’t get sucked into the whirlwind of shit and fire that House Bolton is trying to start, you will be fine.
jergul
large member
Tue Jul 23 22:51:06
Seb
The ship was not in international waters. I am mirroring your defence of Gibraltar. Funny that you missed that.

My position is the same. Release the goddamned ships already.l
jergul
large member
Tue Jul 23 23:59:46
Seb
Do you disagree:

1. The ship was told to divert in Omani waters.
2. The ship was boarded in Iranian waters.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 24 01:11:32
Jergul:

Yes, a lack of consistency and integrity on your part. Never a good idea. Further the situations are not mirrored. The UK flagged ship was in international waters, the Iranian ship was in territorial waters it's management having committed a crime.

The Iranians have simply attempted to confabulate a mirror situation even though it is transparent the situations are not mirrored; and you'd have to be a complete fool to accept it as such.

The ship was boarded outside Iranian territorial waters.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Jul 24 01:19:08
"crime"

> UK funnels sniper rifles and anti-tank missiles to Syria

> Whines about oil

lulz
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 24 02:51:40
Seb
The mirror is referencing domestic and international law to arrest ships.

Oman can certainly make the argument that the arrest was in violation of bilateral agreements it has with Iran. If indeed it is in violation of bilateral agreements it has with Iran:

"In 2009, Iran and Oman agreed to cooperate against smuggling across the Gulf of Oman, which separates the two countries. On August 4, 2010, Oman signed a security pact with Iran to cooperate in patrolling the Strait of Hormuz, an agreement that reportedly committed the two to hold joint military exercises.13 The two countries expanded that agreement by signing a Memorandum of Understanding on military cooperation in 2013. The two countries have held five joint exercises under these agreements,"

But that is a bit beside the point for as long as you believe that ships can be targeted if in territorial waters.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 24 07:31:44
Jergul:

Except the ship was taken outside of the jurisdiction of Iran's domestic law, so the situations are not comparable.

Have the Iranians accused the ship of smuggling? Hard to see how as it wasn't going into Iranian waters.

What happened about that imaginary fishing boat?

jergul
large member
Wed Jul 24 10:48:00
I already provided the law that gives jurisdiction. Additionally, security agreements are legally binding. The latest MoU is from April 2019.

The ship was boarded due to security concerns. We heard the radio trasmission.

The Royal Marines did not board the Iranian tanker in UK territorial waters you know. I rather imagine there must have been some security agreement in play that authorized their use in contested territorial waters.

Mirror, mirror on the wall :-).

Seb
Member
Wed Jul 24 12:55:05
Jergul:
Except the law does not extend to the area the ship was boarded. Nor indeed would to of the reasons offered for the boarding and seizing of the ship be consistent with their law.

Yes, yes, you want to make a point. Only you are abandoning consistency to do so (bad practice) and abandoning integrity by promulgating falsehoods in order to force the situation into symmetry.

It's quite sad really.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 24 13:52:02
Seb
I am sure the judge will release the ship if it was impounded on grounds not covered by law, regulation and/or security agreements with Oman.

I would advise simply resolving the matter diplomatically and see both ships released.

Court procedures can take a long time.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 24 14:24:10
Jergul:

It's sweet how you pretend Iran has an independent judiciary. Bless.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 24 14:56:09
Its sweet that you pretend Gilbratar does. Never has the term crony post colonialism been more apt.

Though you do raise an interesting point. Iran could also just use executive orders to impound ships. The Guardian Council could certainly advice the Leader if nessesary.

You can check up on the separation of powers in Iran's written Constitution. They have one of those you see.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 24 16:59:21
You realise Gibraltar has a written constitution?
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share