Iranians attempt to highjack a british fuel tanker

a reply to: jd0Fengland

"Tehran claimed the detention was an "illegal interception" and have demanded the tanker's release."

From the OP's article referenced. If Tehran is not claiming responsibility then why not? And how do they know the attack was by Iranian ships? It sounds very false flaggy to me.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: DBCowboy

My goodness, we aren't involved in this not so subtle lead up at all?

Did you type that with a straight face?

No.

I used my fingers.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: jd0Fengland

It's a hijacking when the Iranians attempt a detainment off their own coast, yet it's a seizure when Britain does it at Gibraltar, the double standards of this dumb crap are astonishing.

No it's an illegal seizure/act of state sponsored piracy/hijacking when a rogue nation in breach of sanctions try's to take revenge on a nation that upheld those sanctions when they were breaking them, Iran is under sanctions remember and they were attempting to break them by shipping there crude to a Syrian refinery right past the rock of Gibraltar (which by the way has been British territory for hundreds of years despite Spain also having hundreds of years -1713- of moaning about the fact that the rock was ceded to the British in perpetuity an act that was ratified not by one but three treatise.

The fact is that Britain acted Lawfully and in fact was upholding international LAW while Iran was acting illegally in an attempt to seize a British tanker enacting it's internationally agreed and right of passage in that important strait and which was in no way breaking any law's, agreement's or sanctions that would have given the Iranian's any excuse to act as they were attempting to do so.


As to Spain's argument it is about Gibralter they really have no actual problem with us seizing the Iranian vessel just that we acted in waters they are trying to call there own - were it so happen's we also have a legal right and indeed international responsibility to act and to enforce international law and sanction's.

www.historic-uk.com...

a reply to: dfnj2015

Maybe because its 5am in Iran and when i posted it, it had literally just happened they hardly had any details im not ruling out false flag and i dont want to have a war with iran this could to iran what weapons of mass of destruction was in iraq but the Iranians did say they would do this exact thing

I bet Iran really misses Ronald Reagan and his merry men. Sanctions didn't stop much back then.

wait until we find out it was the Iranians that leaked the UK ambassadors misives to government.

DB I gave you another star.

I was in Marine Boot camp when the embassy in Iran was taken.

we played ACDC's "If you want blood, you got it" for a week!!

(some one embed it for me please)

I was ready...

Gosh, just a couple weeks ago the Iranians in Boats were being so humanitarian as to remove bombs from
Japanese boats.

Now they just want to help the skipper of a British boats get through the shoals of the straight of hormuz, it's not like the

brits are reknowed for boating in their history, right?

Man, those Persians and their humanitarian efforts. 😁🤣😉🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

a reply to: thedigirati



This the one you're after?

originally posted by: roadgravel
I bet Iran really misses Ronald Reagan and his merry men. Sanctions didn't stop much back then.

Whether they're goading us or someone else is.... We'll spend some of that sweet tax money from all of us in a region that doesn't concern us.

Let the place burn, let the straight become barron, frankly, I don't give a sh##, and I don't see why anyone else does since we don't need that oil right now anyways. 🤷‍♂️

a reply to: roadgravel

Sanctions have always been an excuse for back room deal's and vastly profitable illegal transactions, look at that Erdogan guy over in Turkey and his son (or at least he was definitely linked to it so Erdogan was) buying the stolen crude from Isis in huge convoy's of tankers and getting very rich off of the deal's that were going down there while simultaneously funding the terrorist's.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Is it not more ultimately about them developing nukes that can do what they say on the tin rather than simply Oil?

Think that's the main point of contention.

a reply to: thedigirati

Thank you for your service !

a reply to: andy06shake

yes, star for you and Love your Avatar

it's near impossible to embed on an xbox

thank you as well m5axz and a star

So a US administration can ignore sanction to deal arms for favors twice yet we are calling the Iranians on their issues with sanctions.

Any wonder the world is so screwed up.

One thing the Iranian navy has to worry about is cluster bombs.

One bomb dropped from 5000 feet will cover 6 football fields with small bomblets.
www.youtube.com...

President Trump called deal off with the Iranians so why is the US even dealing with this stuff. I guess it is fun to bully the world.

a reply to: roadgravel

I find myself having to agree, Saudi is acting in breach of international convention but as it is not an enemy of the US (Though they definitely had some form of financial link to Isis) and are a very profitable customer for the US (and our British) arm's manufacturers, well the US is led by a business man and money talk's but in fact they really should also be holding Saudi to account on that issue.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Is it not more ultimately about them developing nukes that can do what they say on the tin rather than simply Oil?

Think that's the main point of contention.

Maybe.

Perhaps the US shouldn't have started their nuclear program in the 60's.

When are we going to learn to spend our money and efforts at home? What failed experiment will finally wake us up and say screw it, we're isolationists now with plenty of resources we'll use for our nation's growth.

Because the only thing any recent admin has grown is debt.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Something is amiss with the Saudis but I think it has to do with energy companies and government making money and having access to the ME.

Reagan used Iran to get elected and fund terrorists yet that was OK. I suppose it is all about which team a person is on, then and now.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I am afraid that is a problem for much of the western world and for the US in particular, international spending and military action is not always on behalf of your nation and there are definite link's to corporate and globalist agenda's BUT isolationism may actually be the worse of the two evil's, we can always (Eventually) recover control of our institutions and government's if we ever have the ball's to vote people whom will do so into office but isolationism weaken's a nations international presence and run's the risk of outside wars in the vacuum such a policy could create becoming a rather more serious problem.

a reply to: roadgravel

If that's there attempt at bullying the world, Trump could probably teach them a thing or two. LoL

What this is about is the coming invasion of Iran.

And at the end of the day, no matter what way "They" care to spell it, this kind of crap, just like the mine incident, or whatever the feck it was, has the World Bank Stamp all over it.



I mean who's got who surrounded really?