Iran's new piracy case

a reply to: Greathouse
I have been trying Greathouse, I really have, but I will respond, civility, to those telling me I am being a bully when I am not, and everyone can see who is. But yes, we can put it past us and actually talk the case at hand. I would be glad to do that.

ETA: and I don't understand why I am having issues with my coding, it is annoying, it all looks legit ... but there is a lot in our posts.

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Do you know offhand if that casualty investigation they are talking about is for insurance purposes?

The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) on Monday (May 18) said it has requested the Iranian maritime authorities to probe the attack on Singapore-flagged vessel Alpine Eternity last Thursday.

I was referring to this statement.

MPA said: “As the Flag Administration of Alpine Eternity, MPA had immediately commenced a marine safety investigation into the incident in accordance with the International Maritime Organization’s Casualty Investigation Code, and the investigation is still in progress."

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Just curious if none of this proof is ever supplied and Iran is proven to have acted without any internationally recognized requirements.

Would you deem it legal or not?

Ambiguous? I think it would largely depend on near and longer term actions.

ETA: Sorry, I read that wrong. Proven to have acted without internationally recognized requirements. Yes, I would say illegal.

I have a lot of experience with Iran, and believe me, if these companies did not admit they owed debts, I would be alongside you. I think I mentioned in your thread I have watch the IRGCN pirate smuggled goods from smugglers.

IRIN is pretty professional for the most part though. IRGCN always closed in close to us and sometimes used Merchant shipping to hide and simulate a fast attack on us.

originally posted by: Greathouse
I was referring to this statement.

MPA said: “As the Flag Administration of Alpine Eternity, MPA had immediately commenced a marine safety investigation into the incident in accordance with the International Maritime Organization’s Casualty Investigation Code, and the investigation is still in progress."

I can't be positive but it sounds like it. It also sounds like sublimecrafts area of expertise. I do know Iran does indeed have to make sure mariners are aware of hazards, it sounds, according to them, that they did do that, and the crew knew it was there. So ... well, the rest is out of my knowledge to be honest.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

I am being a bully when I am not, and everyone can see who is.

I'm sure you see things that way. Because according to your claims you've done absolutely no wrong?

Let's see if you can go one reply without a personal attack. If you can we just might manage to get back on topic.

a reply to: Greathouse
I am pretty sure we are back on topic.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel


After looking into the question some. Looks like it has nothing to do with insurance only investigative procedures under international law.

But if your source is right the investigation isn't even over yet?

here's a link on casualty investigations

a reply to: Greathouse
I am not sure what that does to Iran's claim. Here, we would know no such claim could be made until an investigation is complete. Can't say with Iran, but I would hazard a guess that they ought to wait under international law/agreement.

If that is indeed the case, yes, it would sway my opinion.

a reply to: Greathouse
Yep, that is definitely sublimecraft's area of expertise. I skimmed through and did some keyword searches and didn't see anything in regards to maritime claims/arrests, unfortunately. Unless I missed it, I did skim.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel
Here is a Pakistani source:

The incident happened on Thursday after Iranian naval patrol boat spotted MT Alpine Eternity commercial ship in the international Persian Gulf, just off the island of Abu Musa, and demanded it to maneuver into Iranian waters.

I think that paragraph is pretty damming; however, I wish they offered a source for that. Abu Musa is Iran's island, depending on the vessels pim (points in movement) track, they could have either gone in between their islands, or stayed completely in international waters - probably the latter.

My mind might be changing Greathouse, I wish I had seen this earlier.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Things are definitely getting crazy in the gulf. Here's an article from yesterday out of United Arab Emirates.

Some Iranian marine patrols recently attacked five Emirati boats in international waters of the Arabian Gulf claiming the latter had entered the regional waters of Iran illegally. In the first of these, four fishermen, including an Emirati Nukhada or boat captain, were attacked by an Iranian marine patrol in the international waters, 30km off the coasts of Ras Al Khaimah.

source

a reply to: Greathouse
Well, this would definitely be a case where that hot pursuit thing would come into play if they were in Iran TTW, and I don't believe them to be, so their hot pursuit in the article would not hold.

This is somewhat normal behaviour for IRGCN and somewhat abnormal. As I've noted, IRGCN is infamous for pirating smugglers, usually by rouge officers, and usually in this area. We, at least when I was in the Navy, would station a DDG in that area to keep on eye on things and talk with the fishermen as they have been known to harass them from time to time like this. But these incidents, so close together, does not look good on them. Especially if that Pakistani article is correct and Alpine Eternity was close to Abu Musu but in international waters.

What I find abnormal, is it seems Iran is indeed, and this article makes me think it the most, trying to flex its regional muscle absent U.S. Naval presence since the wind down in Iraq/Afghanistan ... and ?possibly perceived triumph over our administration? Perhaps trying to legitimize itself ... illegitimately.

We are definitely going to be stationing 2 carriers in the gulf again. Guaranteed.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

I posted that because it seems things are heating up in the Gulf. These aren't Iran's normal actions towards neighboring countries are they?

a reply to: Greathouse
No, at least not to this degree. Occasionally, yes.

a reply to: haman10

Gee, there are lots of post attacking Iran lately. This seems to been going on since the Ukraine issue came long. The odd thing about these posts is that they make a big issue regarding I ran about the things that go on the US and Britain all the time but which get no coverage all.

Surely, the mods must be taking an interest in the number of such threads and wondering if they breach the site T&Cs.

a reply to: Azureblue
Since Ukraine? I think that might be true. Greathouse and I got heated in our debate earlier, at least I'd like to think it only got heated and not beyond that. But in any case, we have worked hard to get back on topic of the post and made some headway on this latest incident. Still far from perfect information, but I think the picture is a little more clear.

I am leaning more on your side now Guesthouse, maybe 55/45 ... I really want to know where the Pakistani source got its information. The fishermen incident has me concerned, many make their living that way over there ... and to be honest, in Dubai, down in the marina for dhows is often the best marketplace.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Intel.You know how arrest warrants work correct? A judge is presented with evidence/probable cause and a warrant issued.
Now according to you Iran SKIPPED that step and would get a warrant for arrest after the fact and most likely back date it to give the appeareance of legality. Anyway its illegal to seize a ship first and then get a arrest order after. Its piracy and assault with a explosive weapon. UNLESS its a declared warzone then normal laws dont apply.