Iran tries to hijack vessel British Heritage

[+and-then]

12 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Its clear what's happening, the UK detained an Iranian oil tanker in Gibraltar,  the Iranians tried to detain a British vessel. they just didnt count on the Royal Navy being there. at the right place at the right time and able to intervene. throughout the Royal Navy stayed in international waters.

 

 

Yes, they remained in international waters as defined by UNLOS but remember that our current "hate everything western" UM trolls don't recognize those limits for Iran.  Iran owns the entire Straits of Hormuz and can legally stop anyone they want to (as long as no one is there to guard them) by force.  That's cuz Iran is righteous and being picked on by the mean old Americans.

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

Dunno.  A few years ago, a Royal Navy destroyer hit an isolated submerged rock off Lord Howe Island. It almost sank. It was the only such hazard to navigation for thousands of miles. They found it !

At least they haven't run into any freighters or oil tankers, lately. Bad luck isn't quite the same as poor seamanship.

[SHaYap]

2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Third_eye, how are ya, old bud? We haven't posted each other for a while but you may not care too much for this one.

Bill Gates (Microsoft), Steven Jobs (Apple) and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) all dropped out of college.  Oopsie!  I'm-a running

I'm a Fine ol'chap, I see you're busy with the posts lately. I'm bogged down with my job and have a pup to nurse back to health.

It's been a long time since I last had to care for a pup like this, pretty stressed out to tell the truth. 

Run all you want but don't go hide, y'hear?

~

[.AKUMA.]

6 hours ago, and then said:

So ANY action purported to be by Iran is automatically suspected as a false flag, yeah?  That's a good idea, beat the CT nutters to the punch   All kidding aside, whether you despise Trump's strategy or not, it IS working.  They are increasingly isolated and their people are becoming angry - NOT at Trump, either   I realize that you may be a geopolitical expert on loan from some prestigious think tank but has it ever occurred to you that Iran's leaders consider themselves to be the smartest people in any room, despite the odd laundry choices they wear?  Aggression against those who are crippling their plans in the region may seem a perfectly suitable strategy.  

Im not suggesting it to be a false flag of any kind,  merely pointing out there was no evidence a seizure of any vessel was being attempted.

I will openly and honestly say that the UK ministry of defence jumps up and exaggerate events massively, Why??

because for years they have been pushing back against defence cuts and trying to justify the need for more cash, moments like these present them perfect scenarios ( much like the over dramatised news when russia decides to send ships past)

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, .AKUMA. said:

Im not suggesting it to be a false flag of any kind,  merely pointing out there was no evidence a seizure of any vessel was being attempted.

I will openly and honestly say that the UK ministry of defence jumps up and exaggerate events massively, Why??

because for years they have been pushing back against defence cuts and trying to justify the need for more cash, moments like these present them perfect scenarios ( much like the over dramatised news when russia decides to send ships past)

Hmm.. dunno AKUMA ... would the captain (and bridge crew) of both the British Heritage tanker, AND HMS Montrose, all have conspired to lie about this event ? (it was also confirmed by USA satellite intel). 

Iran has a track record of harassing ships in this area. 

[.AKUMA.]

31 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. dunno AKUMA ... would the captain (and bridge crew) of both the British Heritage tanker, AND HMS Montrose, all have conspired to lie about this event ? (it was also confirmed by USA satellite intel). 

Iran has a track record of harassing ships in this area. 

RoofGardener, what statements from he crew of either ships are your referring to? there isnt any, the only person any information would come from is the captain of that frigate.

and what did the US data show exactley? Iranian soldiers in pirate costumes and and eye patch? 100% proof of a hijack attempt right? no what it showed was Iranian boats close to its territorial waters monitoring ships, and possibly being a nuisance, not exactly a hijacking attempt is it.

Ironically just on writing this ive learnt the one of the new leadership candidates has already pledged a £15 billion increase in defense spending in response to this incident.

oh the irony.

Edited July 12, 2019 by .AKUMA.

[RoofGardener]

45 minutes ago, .AKUMA. said:

RoofGardener, what statements from he crew of either ships are your referring to? there isnt any, the only person any information would come from is the captain of that frigate.

and what did the US data show exactley? Iranian soldiers in pirate costumes and and eye patch? 100% proof of a hijack attempt right? no what it showed was Iranian boats close to its territorial waters monitoring ships, and possibly being a nuisance, not exactly a hijacking attempt is it.

Ironically just on writing this ive learnt the one of the new leadership candidates has already pledged a £15 billion increase in defense spending in response to this incident.

oh the irony.

Hmm..I'm not referring to ANY statements, AKUMA. However, if the MoD was attempting to lie about the attack by the Iranians, then - in the fullness of time - it would require that the Captains (and bridge officers, and perhaps others in both crews) would have to accede to the lie. This would be HIGHLY unlikely, and the MoD would KNOW this, so their attempt to lie would be RAPIDLY exposed. So they wouldn't even attempt it. Ergo, it wasn't a lie, and the Iranian's really DID harass the British Heritage tanker. 

As for the £15 billion.. that pledge massively predated this incident. There is no "cause and effect" relationship. (unless you are proposing that the Islamic Republic Guard harassed the British Heritage in reprisal for Jeremy Hunt's pledge ?  ) 

[Phaeton80]

36 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm..I'm not referring to ANY statements, AKUMA. However, if the MoD was attempting to lie about the attack by the Iranians, then - in the fullness of time - it would require that the Captains (and bridge officers, and perhaps others in both crews) would have to accede to the lie. This would be HIGHLY unlikely, and the MoD would KNOW this, so their attempt to lie would be RAPIDLY exposed. So they wouldn't even attempt it. Ergo, it wasn't a lie, and the Iranian's really DID harass the British Heritage tanker. 

As for the £15 billion.. that pledge massively predated this incident. There is no "cause and effect" relationship. (unless you are proposing that the Islamic Republic Guard harassed the British Heritage in reprisal for Jeremy Hunt's pledge ?  ) 

Ah, you mean like was done with the USS Liberty, where servicemen were silenced by their own government? Yep, hardly a plausible scenario, our resp govs just dont do that, at least our soldiers are free to say what they like..

[RoofGardener]

12 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Ah, you mean like was done with the USS Liberty, where servicemen were silenced by their own government? Yep, hardly a plausible scenario, our resp govs just dont do that, at least our soldiers are free to say what they like..

The servicemen where silenced by their own government ? Oh REALLY ? 

Would this be the same servicemen that wrote books about the event, appeared on TV and Radio to denounce the Israeli version of events, and - today - run a website about the incident ? 

Or how about Dean Rusk, who was Secretary of State at the time, and was publicly critical of the Israeli explanation ? Or how about Admiral Thomas Moorer ? He was a low-ranking member of the Navy. Oh.. wait.. no.. he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff .. the highest military rank below the president.. and HE publicly challenged the Israeli version of events, and indeed chaired an investigation into the event that was highly critical of the Israeli government and held them entirely culpable. 

Wow.. the US government REALLY clamped down on THAT one, didn't they ? Top-secret NOFORN code-word-required ULTRA-clearance stuff !

If THAT was an example of people being silenced, then I'd hate to see the US government being open and transparent. What would they do ? Flying banner airplanes ? Giant billboard adverts in Times Square ? Fireworks ? 

Anyway, we're talking Britain here, not the USA. The Navy crew can be sworn to secrecy, but that would only last as long as the individual crewmember's period of enlistment. Anyway, the Navy suffers from Leaks ! https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/11/europe/britain-aircraft-carrier-leak-intl-hnk/index.html

But nothing could stop the Captain and crew of the British Heritage from talking. 

[Phaeton80]

38 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

The servicemen where silenced by their own government ? Oh REALLY ? 

Would this be the same servicemen that wrote books about the event, appeared on TV and Radio to denounce the Israeli version of events, and - today - run a website about the incident ? 

Or how about Dean Rusk, who was Secretary of State at the time, and was publicly critical of the Israeli explanation ? Or how about Admiral Thomas Moorer ? He was a low-ranking member of the Navy. Oh.. wait.. no.. he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff .. the highest military rank below the president.. and HE publicly challenged the Israeli version of events, and indeed chaired an investigation into the event that was highly critical of the Israeli government and held them entirely culpable. 

Wow.. the US government REALLY clamped down on THAT one, didn't they ? Top-secret NOFORN code-word-required ULTRA-clearance stuff !

If THAT was an example of people being silenced, then I'd hate to see the US government being open and transparent. What would they do ? Flying banner airplanes ? Giant billboard adverts in Times Square ? Fireworks ? 

Anyway, we're talking Britain here, not the USA. The Navy crew can be sworn to secrecy, but that would only last as long as the individual crewmember's period of enlistment. Anyway, the Navy suffers from Leaks ! https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/11/europe/britain-aircraft-carrier-leak-intl-hnk/index.html

But nothing could stop the Captain and crew of the British Heritage from talking. 

Thats right, years and years AFTER the event. Are you disputing these USS Liberty servicemen got a gag order at the time?

 

[.AKUMA.]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm..I'm not referring to ANY statements, AKUMA. However, if the MoD was attempting to lie about the attack by the Iranians, then - in the fullness of time - it would require that the Captains (and bridge officers, and perhaps others in both crews) would have to accede to the lie. This would be HIGHLY unlikely, and the MoD would KNOW this, so their attempt to lie would be RAPIDLY exposed. So they wouldn't even attempt it. Ergo, it wasn't a lie, and the Iranian's really DID harass the British Heritage tanker. 

As for the £15 billion.. that pledge massively predated this incident. There is no "cause and effect" relationship. (unless you are proposing that the Islamic Republic Guard harassed the British Heritage in reprisal for Jeremy Hunt's pledge ?  ) 

RoofGardner you seem to be missing the point, no one is denying any form of harrasment by iranians took place, infact its been happening for months with various vessels.

How exactly did the UK jump onto conclusions that it was a Hijack attempt,? it was a complete fabrication of events from their part, and if and when the reality of the situation arises it will be deemed too insignificant to report.

i have no doubt this all we be used to sway public opinion against Iran, and use it to justify intervention, if the USA ever decides to launch an attack on Iran.

[RoofGardener]

4 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Thats right, years and years AFTER the event. Are you disputing these USS Liberty servicemen got a gag order at the time?

 

All sailors have virtual gag orders on ALL operational events during their period of service, unless the Navy PR office gives them permission to speak. This includes the Dutch Navy, such as it is.  ! 

Now then Phaeton80, how would you hypothesise the British Government "gagging" the civilian sailors and crew of the British Heritage tanker ? 

[RoofGardener]

4 minutes ago, .AKUMA. said:

RoofGardner you seem to be missing the point, no one is denying any form of harrasment by iranians took place, infact its been happening for months with various vessels.

How exactly did the UK jump onto conclusions that it was a Hijack attempt,? it was a complete fabrication of events from their part, and if and when the reality of the situation arises it will be deemed too insignificant to report.

i have no doubt this all we be used to sway public opinion against Iran, and use it to justify intervention, if the USA ever decides to launch an attack on Iran.

Who said anything about a Hijack attempt ? The MoD stated that the Iranian boats tried to bring the British Heritage "to a halt". They never mentioned hijacking. 

[Phaeton80]

7 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

All sailors have virtual gag orders on ALL operational events during their period of service, unless the Navy PR office gives them permission to speak. This includes the Dutch Navy, such as it is.  ! 

Now then Phaeton80, how would you hypothesise the British Government "gagging" the civilian sailors and crew of the British Heritage tanker ? 

Are you implying that is somehow unprecedented, impossible in any way? I can remember a certain Skripal incident where civilian targets of the attack were barred from the public (besides some rather void one time statements), even going so far as to issue D- notices (DMSA-Notices, as in  Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee) not to publish certain information about this case.

So not only do we have civilians being gagged, but the media as well.. All, no doubt, rationalised and readily accepted based on - there are those magic words again - 'national security'.

[RoofGardener]

39 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Are you implying that is somehow unprecedented, impossible in any way? I can remember a certain Skripal incident where civilian targets of the attack were barred from the public (besides some rather void one time statements), even going so far as to issue D- notices (DMSA-Notices, as in  Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee) not to publish certain information about this case.

So not only do we have civilians being gagged, but the media as well.. All, no doubt, rationalised and readily accepted based on - there are those magic words again - 'national security'.

You're seriously comparing a naval tiff in international waters, with an attack on UK soil using a weapon of mass destruction ? 

Phaeton80, your comments are deranged. 

[Setton]

2 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Are you implying that is somehow unprecedented, impossible in any way? I can remember a certain Skripal incident where civilian targets of the attack were barred from the public (besides some rather void one time statements), even going so far as to issue D- notices (DMSA-Notices, as in  Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee) not to publish certain information about this case.

So not only do we have civilians being gagged, but the media as well.. All, no doubt, rationalised and readily accepted based on - there are those magic words again - 'national security'.

Gosh, I wonder why the security services wouldn't want details of how to get a WMD onto the streets of Britain in the press. 

It's a real mystery. 

[Setton]

14 hours ago, Habitat said:

Dunno.  A few years ago, a Royal Navy destroyer hit an isolated submerged rock off Lord Howe Island. It almost sank. It was the only such hazard to navigation for thousands of miles. They found it !

Proving just how thorough they are. 

Bet no one ELSE found it did they?! Well?! 

[Setton]

2 hours ago, .AKUMA. said:

RoofGardner you seem to be missing the point, no one is denying any form of harrasment by iranians took place, infact its been happening for months with various vessels.

How exactly did the UK jump onto conclusions that it was a Hijack attempt,? it was a complete fabrication of events from their part, and if and when the reality of the situation arises it will be deemed too insignificant to report.

Because its exactly what the Iranians, publicly, said they were going to do? 

Also, I wouldn't be shocked if we had other information that won't be made public on it. Why do you think that one particular ship just happened to have a warship nearby?

Ask yourself this: what does the UK stand to gain from escalating tensions with Iran? 

[RAyMO]

11 minutes ago, Setton said:

Ask yourself this: what does the UK stand to gain from escalating tensions with Iran? 

alternatively, don't linger too long on that question.

[Setton]

2 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

alternatively, don't linger too long on that question.

Not sure I follow. 

The UK has consistently tried to support the JCPOA long after the US withdrew. Our preference has and is an Iran that follows international law, rather than the imperialistic goals of the US. 

Escalating tensions doesn't benefit us in any way. 

[Phaeton80]

46 minutes ago, Setton said:

Because its exactly what the Iranians, publicly, said they were going to do? 

Also, I wouldn't be shocked if we had other information that won't be made public on it. Why do you think that one particular ship just happened to have a warship nearby?

Ask yourself this: what does the UK stand to gain from escalating tensions with Iran? 

Oh, I dont know, add unto a continuous effort to demonise and criminalise Iran by the usual suspects (that includes GB, btw). Ask yourself this: what does Iran stand to gain from escalating tensions with GB, especially when so many accusations are flying around from 'British allies'?

You know its rather qaint you would stand (extremely) critical towards the paperthin accusations when hailing from the US.. But at the moment GB promotes similar shallow accusations, its suddenly solid as a rock. While she was complicit in at the very least the most proven deceit leading to a war of agression.

A wee bit nationalist, defensive in favor of your own nation vielleicht?

Edited July 12, 2019 by Phaeton80

[Phaeton80]

53 minutes ago, Setton said:

Gosh, I wonder why the security services wouldn't want details of how to get a WMD onto the streets of Britain in the press. 

It's a real mystery. 

Ah so the promoted narrative doesnt imply how such a 'WMD' has gotten onto the streets of Britain? Youre saying you dont need to know how this happened exactly, because other threats might learn how to fail miserably using 'the deadliest nerve agent known to Man' on two unsuspecting civilians.. who are, as we all know, alive and kicking. But have never been allowed to speak openly about what transpired.

Because.. (wait for it) National Security!

Swell!

[spud the mackem]

On ‎11‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 2:26 PM, and then said:

I was referring to the Iranian forces  

Like all Arab nations ,show them a little force and they crap out . I've been in the Persian Gulf many times ,and we were treated with contempt , so in retaliation we put a shoulder of ham at the gang plank entrance . That sorted them out. 

[Phaeton80]

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

You're seriously comparing a naval tiff in international waters, with an attack on UK soil using a weapon of mass destruction ? 

Phaeton80, your comments are deranged. 

You wouldnt know the effects of a WMD if it hit you in the left eye, Gardener. The mere fact you are claiming 'WMD!' in regards to a highly questionable incident that cost a single British national her life is beyond comical.

Want WMD? Take a good look at Iraq, which your nation lied into a war just like the US some of your countrymen love to lament, like your government is any different. Take a good look at the chaos, number of innocent lives lost, number of mamed children being born from the use of DU ammunition. You got a single casualty and youre crying WMD, typical utterly subjective nonsense.

 

Edited July 12, 2019 by Phaeton80

[RAyMO]

52 minutes ago, Setton said:

Not sure I follow. 

The UK has consistently tried to support the JCPOA long after the US withdrew. Our preference has and is an Iran that follows international law, rather than the imperialistic goals of the US. 

Escalating tensions doesn't benefit us in any way. 

I was being flippant, and conflating actions in the ME and our  soon to be 'great need' for  friendship with the USA.  

Edited July 12, 2019 by RAyMO