Iran's new piracy case

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

In international waters + no hot pursuit = legal? Sorry, I am a little confused here, I am not sure if you meant to use that many negatives? You mean the opposite correct?

It surprises me that you would be confused. Because all that information was supplied in your links.

I am confused because your use of grammar in that sentence is extremely poor, and I tried giving you an out on that.

I must say that when you quoted this source as a link. That was the most fantastic job of cherry picking I have ever seen in my life bravo!!!!!

Anyone that doubts me please read this source. I would try to stay away from quoting sources that throw your entire position in check. Maybe that's just me?

wow just wow

^^^^^^^ By the way this also replies to your comment about how your sources verify my Positions.


Honestly I cannot believe you are leaning on this course of defense. For your position to be correct. That would make every nation in the world eligible to attack any other nations shipping over a debt dispute.

What's more your position would claim there is absolutely no recourse it was all perfectly legal.


I can see this conversation is going nowhere with you so I am done.

That is not cherry picking data, that is walking you through a process that would be followed.

Again, I think everyone would agree, you cannot say you are verified when you do not illustrate how you are. The news link was used as a determination of the time the incident occurred. I am not disputing the incident raises tensions, or that companies are concerned. They should be, especially if they owe debt.

Again, attacking is not the appropriate language to be using, especially in maritime speak.

The term "international waters" can be a matter of perspective, and if she was in the transit lane near Jask, she would be in Iranian TTW outside of the SOH, allowing them leeway.

I am asking you simply, to show me, with citation, why you are correct. It is simple to do if you can back your side of the debate instead of the typical ATS ad hominem attack.

a reply to: Greathouse
I want specific examples of how my sources prove your side of the debate Greathouse, cite to me the words that do this, for the sake of your credibility.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Why? I have cited them throughout the thread you just ignore it and ask for more sources. While changing the subject and refusing to answer direct questions.

I'm beginning to find you pretty amusing though.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

am confused because your use of grammar in that sentence is extremely poor, and I tried giving you an

What a surprise.

The same ad-hom grammar attacks. I clearly missed judge your maturity level.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Why? I have cited them throughout the thread you just ignore it and ask for more sources. While changing the subject and refusing to answer direct questions.

I'm beginning to find you pretty amusing though.

No, you have referred to them, you have not cited anything really but your own, initial source and a wiki page. This is citing.

The only thing you cited (absent wiki) was here in a misguided belief that U.S. procedure applied internationally and to Iran as I pointed out here that the entire text has U.S. and Marshal(s) written within it throughout.

Other than that, all you have done is throw out ad hominem attacks and claim my own sources prove your point without stating how as shown below:

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: Greathouse

You even want to deny my sources are real, when, they are the legal documents themselves.

originally posted by: Greathouse

Still, when asked to illustrate your position, you ignored such requests to do so and continued with the ad hominem attacks and denial.

I want you to put words, from my sources, inside "bracket ex bracket - bracket /ex bracket" and prove me wrong.

If you are wrong and know so I want you to concede and admit to that.

If you can prove me wrong, I shall concede and admit to that.

But you are not even trying Greathouse. I can sit here and throw insults all day, but I am never going to prove my point, nor establish credibility by doing so. Facts, respect, and integrity establishes credibility.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Yep that's what you been saying over and over and over and over and over and over.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Yep that's what you been saying over and over and over and over and over and over.

Yes, I do keep asking you to cite, over and over and over and over.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Yet you don't even read your own links and recognize their content.


By the way my statements are linked to your content and already posted. I'm not bothering looking them up again you do it. Because when I do you'll only ask for more that has been your only argument.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Yet you don't even read your own links and recognize their content.

Then enlighten a soul so I may not make the same mistake, so that I can better myself and ATS.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Already did that with the hot pursuit comment but you ignored it.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Already did that with the hot pursuit comment but you ignored it.

You mean this:

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

If it occurred in international waters and did not include hot pursuit no it was not illegal. Why do you keep asking for me to supply the sources when I am using your sources?

I didn't ignore it, I replied to it directly and asked you to clarify it:

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
In international waters + no hot pursuit = legal? Sorry, I am a little confused here, I am not sure if you meant to use that many negatives? You mean the opposite correct?

Because it makes no sense due to a double negative.

Yet, instead of clarifying, you used the ad hominem, again, here

So, I shall ask, what issue to you see with hot pursuit?

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Rotf

international waters + no hot pursuit = legal? Sorry, I am a little confused here, I am not sure if you meant to use

Yep that's the one!!!

You do remember my reply don't you?

" It surprises me you are confused, those came from your link"


Which is exactly what I have been saying for the last 10 post or so. Lol

a reply to: Greathouse
You need to clarify what you mean Greathouse, no one understands. Your use of double negative actually states Iran was in the right.

I do not know what of the hot pursuit you are taking issue with, because you have not pointed that out. Simply saying, hot pursuit and international waters does not address anything in a citation that is several paragraphs long.

But to clarify for you, a hot pursuit must begin within the TTW of the one who is to pursue, and, can only be done if there is good reason that a law or regulation was violated (not responding to, and ignoring communications is violating standard international regulation I believe by the way), and so long as that pursuit is constant, they can pursue the vessel to the point it reaches its own, or another nations TTW. That is it in a nutshell.

But if you are referring to this:

7. The release of a ship arrested within the jurisdiction of a State and escorted to a port of that State for the purposes of an inquiry before the competent authorities may not be claimed solely on the ground that the ship, in the course of its voyage, was escorted across a portion of the exclusive economic zone or the high seas, if the circumstances rendered this necessary.

It is not necessary to transit Iranian TTW in the Gulf of Oman near Jask, where this incident likely occurred, it is just the quickest and surest route. And, to be honest, as a Captain, I would have avoided doing that knowing I owed money, and Iran just laid claim 2 weeks prior.

8. Where a ship has been stopped or arrested outside the territorial sea in circumstances which do not justify the exercise of the right of hot pursuit, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been thereby sustained.

I am operating under the assumption she was stopped in Iranian TTW that she necessarily did not have to travel through until shown otherwise by the shipping company or other entity. I want a datum to show me she was in international water.

Lastly, I mentioned hot pursuit as an option, not as an excuse.

Did I address what you trying to get me to?

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Double negatives rotf


That was a good one.


Weren't you the same guy that was a lawyer on the Freddy gray thread ? Sorry if I'm wrong I really don't pay attention to names without a avatars .....,,,,,,my fault.

a reply to: Greathouse
No, and I have never claimed to be a lawyer. My law knowledge in this area is limited to what I have posted and discussed, as I stated in your thread. I am not pretending to know more than I do, what I know, is in this thread, and that is it.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Fair enough


Okay your position as stands is that as long as I ran followed international procedures the interdiction was perfectly legal.

We both read the links under arrest of vessel. This argument will be over if you can show me documented proof that Iran followed all the procedures prior to the interdiction.

Here's your chance prove me wrong. Show me that they made all the international declarations required.

a reply to: Greathouse
I can't. But neither can you prove or provide documentation that they violated international and maritime law.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

I made no claims to any such statement. I believe somehow or another you must have missed the question marks in my original reply. I guess I can understand how could happen with all the time you spent studying double negatives spelling errors improper punctuation and poor sentence structure from me.

Your source said it happened in March?

So there has been no litigation over this or even a court case brought?

This is the question from my original post. Yet you took the stance that it was legal that implies yes answer to that question.

Seems totally justifiable to me??????

I wonder what your opinion would be if Saudi Arabia did the same thing to a Chinese vessel?

This is still from the first reply I had. I have asked for a reply to this question several times would you kindly indulge me?


edit on 17-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

I made no claims to any such statement. I believe somehow or another you must have missed the question marks in my original reply. I guess I can understand how it could happen with all the time you spent studying the double negatives spelling errors improper punctuation poor sentence structure and what not from me.

Your source said it happened in March?

So there has been no litigation over this or even a court case brought?

This is the question from my original post. Yet you took the stance that it was legal that implies yes answer to that question.

Seems totally justifiable to me??????

I wonder what your opinion would be if Saudi Arabia did the same thing to a Chinese vessel?

This is still from the first reply I had. I have asked for a reply to this question several times would you kindly indulge me?


edit on 17-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

I made no claims to any such statement. I believe somehow or another you must have missed the question marks in my original reply. I guess I can understand how it could happen with all the time you spent studying the double negatives spelling errors improper punctuation poor sentence structure and what not from me.

More disrespectful, undeserved insults. And I have enough spelling and grammar mistakes myself, but if someone didn't understand what I said, I would clarify if they asked.

I never said you maid the claim, I was pointing out we are in the same bubble of having a lack of definitive, documented proof.

Your source said it happened in March?

So there has been no litigation over this or even a court case brought?

This is the question from my original post. Yet you took the stance that it was legal that implies yes answer to that question.

It sounds like they have been attempting to negotiate (not litigation) and negotiations have broken down. The court case and litigation starts with the arrest of the vessel, getting a court order to arrest, and arresting the vessel is the start of that process.

Seems totally justifiable to me??????

I wonder what your opinion would be if Saudi Arabia did the same thing to a Chinese vessel?

This is still from the first reply I had. I have asked for a reply to this question several times would you kindly indulge me?

Same exact stance, especially if Saudi Arabia arrested a Brazalian vessel two weeks prior and the case panned out in court. Rationally, absent obvious and definitive violation, I must presume actions are justified, the courts will determine. And if the shipping company gets a ruling it does not like and disagrees with, it can appeal there, and in Saudi, as they can here.

I don't play geopolitical favorites, I play it how it is.