Iran summons UK ambassador over 'seizure' of super tanker Grace-1 Watch

Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#61
Report 1 week ago
#61
(Original post by Napp)
Actually its a quote from the Spanish foreign minister. Again, you should probably read these articles before running your mouth off.

Yes heaven forbid I ask for a source :rolleyes:

Question though, why are you getting so frightfully upset with my comment? I mean its touching and all that but slightly strange.
It's an uncorroborated quote from a biased source (they hate us having anything to do with Gibraltar and will use any excuse to denigrate us and that context is important when talking about it).
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#62
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#62
(Original post by Drewski)
It's an uncorroborated quote from a biased source (they hate us having anything to do with Gibraltar and will use any excuse to denigrate us).



Not upset. Bemused is more accurate. You present yourself here as some kind of pseudo-current affairs intellect and only succeed in coming across as some glorified gossip merchant pushing your own agenda. Was more wondering if you're aware of your hypocrisy and childish approach. Evidently not. That's fine. Back to the unwatched list.
Okay kiddo :lol:
0
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#63
Report 1 week ago
#63
(Original post by Napp)
What treaty?

Harsher punishments for what exactly? They haven't actually done anything yet.
The EU sanctions on Syria.

Iran has already stated that they are going to breach the nuclear treaty and that is something wholly unacceptable.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#64
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#64
(Original post by AperfectBalance)
The EU sanctions on Syria.

Iran has already stated that they are going to breach the nuclear treaty and that is something wholly unacceptable.
That isn’t a treaty?

You mean the treaty that has already been rendered null and void? I mean which everside of the aisle you come down on with respect to the jcpoa being good or bad you can’t blame Tehran for breaking that.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#65
Report 1 week ago
#65
(Original post by Napp)
That isn’t a treaty?

You mean the treaty that has already been rendered null and void? I mean which everside of the aisle you come down on with respect to the jcpoa being good or bad you can’t blame Tehran for breaking that.
Ok sorry my wording was bad, the sanctions, and yes the sanctions still hold. Regardless Iran deserves even harsher punishments for their breaking of the nuclear treaty, and yes I can blame them for breaking it, letting countries like Iran get hold of nuclear weapons is unacceptable.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#66
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#66
(Original post by AperfectBalance)
Ok sorry my wording was bad, the sanctions, and yes the sanctions still hold. Regardless Iran deserves even harsher punishments for their breaking of the nuclear treaty, and yes I can blame them for breaking it, letting countries like Iran get hold of nuclear weapons is unacceptable.
You make it sound like they’ve made a dash for a bomb? Something that is simply not true in any regard. Going above the (already very low) limit on Partially enriched uranium is little more than a token gesture, and one that can be reversed quickly and easily.
Either way america was the one who broke the deal... why should the Iranians hold to it when the other party has ripped it up?

Just to reiterate a point though, there is literally not a shred of evidence to say Iran has had a military nuclear program since ‘03.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#67
Report 1 week ago
#67
(Original post by Napp)
You make it sound like they’ve made a dash for a bomb? Something that is simply not true in any regard. Going above the (already very low) limit on Partially enriched uranium is little more than a token gesture, and one that can be reversed quickly and easily.
Either way america was the one who broke the deal... why should the Iranians hold to it when the other party has ripped it up?

Just to reiterate a point though, there is literally not a shred of evidence to say Iran has had a military nuclear program since ‘03.
Never said they were beelining a bomb but its pretty obvious what they are eventually going to be doing with this.

America withdrew, we are still part of it and so is Iran.
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#68
Report 1 week ago
#68
(Original post by Palmyra)
Already known that the UK acted upon a US request and that John Bolton celebrated it as "excellent news" and linked it directly to his decades-long quest for an illegal war with Iran.
If Iran is stupid enough to try to export oil to a nation embargoed by the EU via EU nations' waters then that's their own fault. Regardless of where the information came from, the UK/Gib operated within accordance with the rules in effect due to the sanctions on Syria.
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 19
#69
Report 1 week ago
#69
(Original post by Tempest II)
If Iran is stupid enough to try to export oil to a nation embargoed by the EU via EU nations' waters then that's their own fault. Regardless of where the information came from, the UK/Gib operated within accordance with the rules in effect due to the sanctions on Syria.
Iran has a moral duty to fulfil the energy needs of Syria and the Syrian people and will continue to do so.

Economic terrorism of the EU and US will be resisted.
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#70
Report 1 week ago
#70
(Original post by Napp)
Indeed, but from the articles it was at the err encouragement of Bolton and his cronies. Either way, sending a detachment of Marines is serious overkill...
Actually, using 30 RMs is quite a small amount considering the size of the tanker - 330m according to the BBC (roughly the same length as a Nimitz class aircraft carrier). I'm certainly no expert on boarding operations but I'd expect the amount of Marines used was proportional to the number of crew expected on board the vessel. For conventional offensive operations, at least a 3 to 1 ratio is stated to be necessary but I'm not sure if that was the case here.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#71
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#71
(Original post by AperfectBalance)
Never said they were beelining a bomb but its pretty obvious what they are eventually going to be doing with this.

America withdrew, we are still part of it and so is Iran.
You implied... either way, not really.

We aren’t holding up our obligations as part of the agreement, in case you hadn’t noticed
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#72
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#72
(Original post by Tempest II)
Actually, using 30 RMs is quite a small amount considering the size of the tanker - 330m according to the BBC (roughly the same length as a Nimitz class aircraft carrier). I'm certainly no expert on boarding operations but I'd expect the amount of Marines used was proportional to the number of crew expected on board the vessel. For conventional offensive operations, at least a 3 to 1 ratio is stated to be necessary but I'm not sure if that was the case here.
I was more getting at I’d assume this would usually be an operation for the cost guard or whatnot. Flying at a detachment from the mainland seemed a touch excessive
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Onde
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#73
Report 1 week ago
#73
It would be more supporting to let the Iranians have the opportunity to blow up their own tankers rather than taking theirs.
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#74
Report 1 week ago
#74
(Original post by Napp)
I was more getting at I’d assume this would usually be an operation for the cost guard or whatnot. Flying at a detachment from the mainland seemed a touch excessive
It's usually wise to use forces who regularly train for this kind of thing.

https://www.forces.net/news/services...vital-training
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#75
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#75
(Original post by Tempest II)
It's usually wise to use forces who regularly train for this kind of thing.

https://www.forces.net/news/services...vital-training
Indeed.
Ha the name of that link gave me cause for a start just now :lol: Now that would be quite something to behold, if somewhat unsettling if you werent aware it was a drill.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#76
Report 1 week ago
#76
There may be another issue. Whose flag was the ship flying? Panama announced yesterday that it had delisted the vessel in May because of concerns about its actions. Was this ship flying a false Panamanian flag, no flag or whose flag? If the ship was flying a false or no flag that would be reason enough to continue to detain it in Gibraltar.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by nulli tertius; 1 week ago
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#77
Report 1 week ago
#77
(Original post by Napp)
Indeed.
Ha the name of that link gave me cause for a start just now :lol: Now that would be quite something to behold, if somewhat unsettling if you werent aware it was a drill.
I did wonder that myself. I'd like to think that at the very least the owner and captain are informed. Whether all the crew and passengers are I don't know.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#78
Report 1 week ago
#78
(Original post by Tempest II)
I did wonder that myself. I'd like to think that at the very least the owner and captain are informed. Whether all the crew and passengers are I don't know.
Noticeably it was a French vessel.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#79
Report 4 days ago
#79
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...anker-persian/

"The Royal Navy has reportedly fended off the attempted seizure of a British oil tanker by Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the Persian Gulf, in an apparent tit-for-tit response to the arrest of one of Iran's own vessels.

The British Heritage, owned by BP Shipping and registered to the Isle of Man, was crossing into the Strait of Hormuz area when it was approached by five armed Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps boats, US media reported.

The Iranians ordered the vessel to stop in nearby Iranian territorial waters, CNN reported, citing two US officials with direct knowledge of the incident. A US aircraft flying overhead filmed the incident, the broadcaster said.

The Guards boats withdrew after HMS Montrose, a Royal Navy frigate which had been escorting the tanker, aimed its guns on the Iranians and warned them to move away, according to CNN.

It was reported earlier that HMS Montrose, a Type-23 frigate, was in the region to safeguard another British oil tanker in the region, the Pacific Voyager."
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 19
#80
Report 4 days ago
#80
Tick tock for the UK, about 1 week left, I hope they choose wisely...
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice now or on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (122)
19.55%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (58)
9.29%
No I am happy with my course choice (352)
56.41%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (92)
14.74%

Watched Threads

View All