Iranians attempt to highjack a british fuel tanker

a reply to: thedigirati

Yeah the young In Iran are just fed up with all the cranes .

a reply to: IrateCanadian

Are you sure it's not Uranus?

originally posted by: andy06shake
Nevermind possibly generate another refugee problem heading in someone's direction.

There's already an Iranian refugee problem. Half the people trying to cross the English Channel have fled Iran. Not surprising as the Iranian theocratic dictatorship is a grim place to live, with a history of crap human rights and a downward spiral of repression.

Back to the point. Iranian belligerence is just trying to ceate a reaction, and maintain propaganda. There won't be an invasion of Iran and I doubt at this stage there will be a coalition to take military action against Iran. The worst Iran will get is a few tactical strikes if they persist with their antagonistic behaviour.

What is changing in the dynamic is Iran's taunting of the West around its nuclear programme, which is reaching all the milestones en route to a nuclear weapon. Simply put, Iran won't be allowed to reach that stage. No one wants Iran with nukes - it would be too risky for the world, and especially for countries in the Middle East.

a reply to: paraphi

I meet one of them who apparently walked the best part of the way from Iran to the U.K last year, obviously not across the channel.

Did not paint a very nice description of the place himself.

The crazy wee dude then made it up the motorway somehow to Glasgow and was proceeding to dance and jump all over cars and traffic where Police jailed him.

Bit of a language barrier involved, me not understanding any Iranian and him only broken English, but that was the gist of his story.

Don't really think he was all there to be honest, but what a fecking journey.

originally posted by: Bicent

What we are missing is why, Iran, wants a war?

North Korea has nuclear bombs. North Korean Military Leaders and Scientists visit IRAN frequently. I think IRAN already has nuclear weapons, thanks to North Korea. Maybe they're dying to surprise the world by using one, but need provocation, so they can't be blamed for "throwing the first stone".

a reply to: carewemust

Were the Soviets not missing a good few Nukes once the smoke had cleared from there regime fall and the Berlin wall coming down?

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Iran managed to accumulate a warhead or two on the black market and has somehow kept them serviceable and tucked away for a rainy day.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Would have sounded better if the British hadn't already taken one of Iran's first, just saying.

You can't kick somebody and then get upset when they hit you back.

But it does raise awkward questions about the tanker bombings. How can we be expected to believe that Iran planted bombs on then so successfuly then get failed so badly now? It's almost as if two completely different groups were responsible.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
Iran is being foolish again. Her Majesties ship, Montrose will slap them, and if that isn't enough, we have got Her Majesties back, and we will rain Hellfire on them.

Just keep it up, and give President Donald J Trump a good enough reason, and we will spank you good, and send you to bed, with no dinner

I can't wait until Iran unleashes a Carrier Killer.

The whining and reeeeing from the military bootlickers will be delicious.

a reply to: JohnS23

Think there are over 6,000 personnel, never mind billions of dollars worth of military planes and equipment on those things.

If Iran was capable of sinking one with a missile or torpedo i imagine the response may involve the use of tactical nukes.

So let's hope not for everyone's sake.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

But it does raise awkward questions about the tanker bombings. How can we be expected to believe that Iran planted bombs on then so successfuly then get failed so badly now?

HMS Montrose?

originally posted by: JohnS23

originally posted by: visitedbythem
Iran is being foolish again. Her Majesties ship, Montrose will slap them, and if that isn't enough, we have got Her Majesties back, and we will rain Hellfire on them.

Just keep it up, and give President Donald J Trump a good enough reason, and we will spank you good, and send you to bed, with no dinner

I can't wait until Iran unleashes a Carrier Killer.

The whining and reeeeing from the military bootlickers will be delicious.

What a nasty thing to say. Shame on you.

originally posted by: jd0Fengland
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

One was operating illegally shipping oil to syria which has restrictions right now and Gibraltar is part of the UK

That bulls wallop. Its illegal to those who want war. There are contries that continually operate outside international law and pay no price.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Exactly right.👍👍👍

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
Would have sounded better if the British hadn't already taken one of Iran's first, just saying.

There's legally siezing a sanctions buster in UK waters, as in the Iranian tanker en route to Syria. And there's illegally trying to take a tanker in international waters going about it's normal and legal business. Two different things.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
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.

Yea and Iran wasn't fighting proxy wars in Iraq Syria yeman Afghanistan

a reply to: oldcarpy

Do you say the same to the nuke Iran crowd.

a reply to: carewemust

Maybe they're dying to surprise the world by using one, but need provocation, so they can't be blamed for "throwing the first stone".

I don't know about the nuke part but I had a similar thought days ago. They seem to be pushing to get some strike against them and I would think that a reason. Wanting to call "not me" if the actions are not at a very similar level.

Although it might be they are acting like a pest that is mostly just annoying because that is who they are.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: face23785

Did your POTUS just not call off an imminent strike on Iran ""allegedly"" to save the lives of 150 people about 10 minutes ago?

If we are not invading Iran then why all the kerfuffle?

I mean come on "They" have to invade somewhere, its kind of there bag these days.

Were you even able to keep a straight face typing that? Because a token strike is the same as an invasion right? And even the token strike got called off.

I suggest you look up what an invasion is. You seem ill-equipped to be in this conversation.

After our strike Iran would just sit down and throw their hands up, "they got us".

No, they'd hit our assets in the region and we would retaliate.

Just like Syria, right? Before we hit Syria there were all the same doom-and-gloom predictions about how they would retaliate and drag Russia into it and OMG WWIII!

Nothing happened.

Even if they did retaliate, that doesn't equal invasion.

a reply to: roadgravel

Almost all of these incidents are by the IRGC. There's been a fight between the Moderates and the IRGC going on for years, with the IRGC holding the upper hand due to Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei being the Supreme Leader of the Iranian government. The more the IRGC pulls off incidents like this, and we don't react to them, the more it proves that God is on their side. Then they wait a little while longer, and do something a little more blatant that we don't react to, which proves God is on their side.......

The Moderates have been trying to take power from them slowly but steadily, but for every step forward they take, they get knocked back at least one if not two. The more we allow the IRGC to pull off things like this without retaliating, the more they're going to try things like this.

a reply to: face23785

Praying Mantis saw things escalate a lot. It didn't lead to invasion or war.