Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Stride

War with Iran Confirmed

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Just look at the course it took, they were asking for trouble. Really looks like they did it on purpose.

16261572-0-image-a-15_1563559364526.jpg

Edited by Stride
To attach a nice map

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

behind.jpg.a87df67497d880642849ddea38129b9a.jpg

Edited by zArk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Stride said:

Just look at the course it took, they were asking for trouble. Really looks like they did it on purpose.

16261572-0-image-a-15_1563559364526.jpg

 

The course it was following is in international waters and following a recognised shipping route

The abrupt change and heading to Iran is after it was intercepted.

 

But well done - you've successfully misrepresented what happened to blame the west - Facts be damned narrative achieved.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Eldnah said:

 

The course it was following is in international waters and following a recognised shipping route

The abrupt change and heading to Iran is after it was intercepted.

 

But well done - you've successfully misrepresented what happened to blame the west - Facts be damned narrative achieved.

 

You surely need your head examined dear friend, it was a provocative move and they were sure to react. Problem.. reaction solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stride said:

 

You surely need your head examined dear friend, it was a provocative move and they were sure to react. Problem.. reaction solution.

 

How is sailing in international waters to an international port provocative - bearing in mind its a commercial decision not political and in the case of Stena its swiss owned (but british flagged ) so the UK has no control over its actions.

 

You've adopted the how can events be reinterpreted so its the wests fault - this is on Iran

 

Trump cancelling the deal and ramping up tensions is on the him / the US

 

lets call it as it really is on a case by case basis and not blindly follow the good guy bad guy propaganda - o

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theresa may is desperate for a legacy.

im sure her necromancing finger is over the bomb button

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the entire story . UK tankers ? Um no . But let's whip up some real anti Iran hatred.

Someone will benefit I'm sure *sigh*

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Iranian media reported Stena Impero had been seized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

 

The Tasnim news agency quoted the Ports and Maritime Organisation of Iran as saying: "We received some reports on the British oil tanker, Stena Impero, causing problems.

"We asked the military forces to guide this tanker towards Bandar Abbas port to have the required investigations carried out."

 

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard-affiliated news agency said the tanker was seized for breaking three regulations: shutting down its GPS; going through the exit of the Strait of Hormuz rather than the entrance; and ignoring warnings."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49053383

 

"An unnamed source told Fars that "the British ship had switched off its tracking systems in violation of maritime rules and regulations and was making an entry from the exit point of the Strait of Hormuz in the south, disregarding the established procedures that require all entries be made through the northern pass." The northern portion of the strait is administered by Iran."

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/iran-seizes-two-uk-operated-tankers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hokuspokus said:

Read the entire story . UK tankers ? Um no . But let's whip up some real anti Iran hatred.

Someone will benefit I'm sure *sigh*

Stena British flagged - swiss owned - so registered in UK and therefore is UK responsibility

The other is liberian flagged and British owned - so really its the responsibility of Liberia - but the ownership is a propaganda victory for the IRGC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Eldnah said:

Stena British flagged - swiss owned - so registered in UK and therefore is UK responsibility

The other is liberian flagged and British owned - so really its the responsibility of Liberia - but the ownership is a propaganda victory for the IRGC

 

Stena is not Swiss owned according to media.  It´s Swedish owned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Eldnah said:

 

How is sailing in international waters to an international port provocative - bearing in mind its a commercial decision not political and in the case of Stena its swiss owned (but british flagged ) so the UK has no control over its actions.

 

You've adopted the how can events be reinterpreted so its the wests fault - this is on Iran

 

Trump cancelling the deal and ramping up tensions is on the him / the US

 

lets call it as it really is on a case by case basis and not blindly follow the good guy bad guy propaganda - o

 

 

 

14 hours ago, Golden Retriever said:

 

"An unnamed source told Fars that "the British ship had switched off its tracking systems in violation of maritime rules and regulations and was making an entry from the exit point of the Strait of Hormuz in the south, disregarding the established procedures that require all entries be made through the northern pass." The northern portion of the strait is administered by Iran." 

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/iran-seizes-two-uk-operated-tankers

 

 

I know there will be propaganda and downright lies by Western media and Iranian media, but if this is true, the Iranians had a case to intercept

the first ship?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Golden Retriever said:

 

 

I know there will be propaganda and downright lies by Western media and Iranian media, but if this is true, the Iranians had a case to intercept

the first ship?

 

 

 

Half truths

 

Its normal to have the tracking system on and there is a normal route

However - theres nothing illegal about not having the tracking on - although it does look suspicious and the usual route is through Iranian waters

 

So if you are a British flagged ship it would be perfectly normal and reasonable after Iran warning it will take a British ship to select a route that avoids Iranian waters

You will note it was accosted in international waters and forced into Iranian ones.

Its also not unexpected you turn off satellite tracking to help avoid the IRGCX tracking you.

 

In other words the Iranians have done as they threatened and taken a British ship and thrown a bit of mud to cloud the issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Golden Retriever said:

 

Stena is not Swiss owned according to media.  It´s Swedish owned.

 

Yes

 

I have a blind spot with those 2 countries and peoples names

10 seconds after reading it get confused which is which -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eldnah said:

 

Half truths

 

Its normal to have the tracking system on and there is a normal route

However - theres nothing illegal about not having the tracking on - although it does look suspicious and the usual route is through Iranian waters

 

So if you are a British flagged ship it would be perfectly normal and reasonable after Iran warning it will take a British ship to select a route that avoids Iranian waters

You will note it was accosted in international waters and forced into Iranian ones.

Its also not unexpected you turn off satellite tracking to help avoid the IRGCX tracking you.

 

In other words the Iranians have done as they threatened and taken a British ship and thrown a bit of mud to cloud the issue

 

 

According to the website I posted, it is in violition of martime rules and regualtions. Please give a source to claim otherwise.

 

"An unnamed source told Fars that "the British ship had switched off its tracking systems in violation of maritime rules and regulations and was making an entry from the exit point of the Strait of Hormuz in the south, disregarding the established procedures that require all entries be made through the northern pass." The northern portion of the strait is administered by Iran."

 

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/iran-seizes-two-uk-operated-tankers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If you own a vessel over 300 gross tons or a passenger ship of any size, the IMO Convention for the Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) Regulation V/19.2.4 requires that you operate AIS Class A onboard at all times – unless there are valid security reasons to turn it off, temporarily.

 

Edit to add -  To be fair as shown by the bolded text - by staying specific to the incident as opposed to broader rules - I really did word it badly and so as you were speaking generally I(accidently)  misrepresented the rules - apologies  -

 

Avoiding seizure by Pirates or the IRGC (please note I distinctly separated the 2) counts as valid security reasons

Like wise routing differently is against the norm but to avoid Iranian vessels / waters is understandable

 

As I said its a half truth - It isn't normal to do what they did and yes you can argue it breaks the rules - equally the security situation is such that the rules provision for these breaches.

Effectively this is IRGC mischief to put pressure on the UK over the tanker it seized and its using the letter of the law and disregarding exclusions as a diplomatic fig leaf.

 

The danger (despite some seeming to be desperate for it ) is not war - but that Iran will encourage others to do the same to their ships or neighbouring countries vessels - thus affecting freedom of navigation - bear in mind 1 Iranian ship has been detained - was in EU waters breaching EU rules* - nobody is harassing all Iranian shipping -

Wheras to the contrary the IRGC has done this since 1984 ish

 

The other danger is it pushes to hard and the UK stops arguing with the US about lifting sanctions and restarting the deal. Its why I say it could be a foot shooting moment - Iran could be about to upset its best friend in this dispute -  If you look you will se the tough talk is coming from the US - the UK is low key - playing it down - trying to keep the deal***

 

*The fact the EU isn't a country and shouldn't have the right to impose its will on ships transiting member countries waters is another issue - What the UK did was legal - I happen to think it shouldn't be** unless its a UN sanction or you are at war with nation x - in which case you turn the ship around or like the UK in WW2 buy the cargo yourself.

 

**Because by what authority does the EU do this.

 

*** Because its worth lots of money to the UK potentially especially post Brexit - dont think im suggesting the UK is more enlightened or innocent etc

Edited by Eldnah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Eldnah said:

If you own a vessel over 300 gross tons or a passenger ship of any size, the IMO Convention for the Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) Regulation V/19.2.4 requires that you operate AIS Class A onboard at all times – unless there are valid security reasons to turn it off, temporarily.

 

Edit to add -  To be fair as shown by the bolded text - by staying specific to the incident as opposed to broader rules - I really did word it badly and so as you were speaking generally I(accidently)  misrepresented the rules - apologies  -

 

Avoiding seizure by Pirates or the IRGC (please note I distinctly separated the 2) counts as valid security reasons

Like wise routing differently is against the norm but to avoid Iranian vessels / waters is understandable

 

As I said its a half truth - It isn't normal to do what they did and yes you can argue it breaks the rules - equally the security situation is such that the rules provision for these breaches.

Effectively this is IRGC mischief to put pressure on the UK over the tanker it seized and its using the letter of the law and disregarding exclusions as a diplomatic fig leaf.

 

The danger (despite some seeming to be desperate for it ) is not war - but that Iran will encourage others to do the same to their ships or neighbouring countries vessels - thus affecting freedom of navigation - bear in mind 1 Iranian ship has been detained - was in EU waters breaching EU rules* - nobody is harassing all Iranian shipping -

Wheras to the contrary the IRGC has done this since 1984 ish

 

The other danger is it pushes to hard and the UK stops arguing with the US about lifting sanctions and restarting the deal. Its why I say it could be a foot shooting moment - Iran could be about to upset its best friend in this dispute -  If you look you will se the tough talk is coming from the US - the UK is low key - playing it down - trying to keep the deal***

 

*The fact the EU isn't a country and shouldn't have the right to impose its will on ships transiting member countries waters is another issue - What the UK did was legal - I happen to think it shouldn't be** unless its a UN sanction or you are at war with nation x - in which case you turn the ship around or like the UK in WW2 buy the cargo yourself.

 

**Because by what authority does the EU do this.

 

*** Because its worth lots of money to the UK potentially especially post Brexit - dont think im suggesting the UK is more enlightened or innocent etc

 

Can your provide a reliable link to say it is permissible under martime regulations and rules to turn off GPS, tracking system in the Straits of Hormuz?

 

Because if Iran are telling the truth (and they not be) and the ship had disabled its GPS, then that´s against Maritime rules.

 

Also going through the exit of the Strait of Hormuz rather than the entrance; and ignoring warnings."  As claimed by Iran

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AIS isn't GPS

 

AIS is a transponder system

GPS is a navigation system  - you wouldn't know if a ship had it turned on or not (although it could feed AIS)

 

That's a Journo / politician making the announcement error

 

As for the red bolded

It probably was doing that to avoid Iranian waters and IRGC vessels - under the circumstances that's justifiable as I said its half truths

Iran made threats ships responded to the threats and took precautions - Iran has used those precautions as justification

Its why I said Iran can argue its done what its done to follow the law - the ship can argue it breached the rules to avoid being attacked - both positions have some validity -

 

I have to say at this point that as we have tracking of the ships intercept and course change I do wonder how that data exists if AIS was turned off.

It could be a radar plot - but I would like to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Eldnah said:

in the case of Stena its swiss owned

Swedish actually HQ is in Gothenburg.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm.....I imagine that if this vessel was in breach of maritime rules and regulations, someone must be able to post a source to confirm that the correct action in those circumstances, is for the vessel in question to be interdicted in international waters, boarded, and forced at gunpoint to proceed to a third-party country?

 

Imagine for a ,moment, international shipping in the English Channel or North Sea. I wonder how many vessels have committed a procedural or navigational faux pas? The armed forces of UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands, would be forever fast-roping onto ships and escorting them to Rotterdam, Zeebrugge, etc!

 

This is piracy - predictable, but piracy nonetheless. I have heard it said today that the ship's owners, or UK FCO, should have instructed their ship/UK shipping in general to avoid this area for now, which would seem sensible advice, given recent events there and in Gib, and the statements from Iran's Supreme Leader. That is what I mean by predictable, and therefore preventable.  

 

Let's find an EU pretext to release the tanker at Gib - I know for now it is to be detained for 30 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Strummer101 said:

Hmmmm.....I imagine that if this vessel was in breach of maritime rules and regulations, someone must be able to post a source to confirm that the correct action in those circumstances, is for the vessel in question to be interdicted in international waters, boarded, and forced at gunpoint to proceed to a third-party country?

 

Imagine for a ,moment, international shipping in the English Channel or North Sea. I wonder how many vessels have committed a procedural or navigational faux pas? The armed forces of UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands, would be forever fast-roping onto ships and escorting them to Rotterdam, Zeebrugge, etc!

 

This is piracy - predictable, but piracy nonetheless. I have heard it said today that the ship's owners, or UK FCO, should have instructed their ship/UK shipping in general to avoid this area for now, which would seem sensible advice, given recent events there and in Gib, and the statements from Iran's Supreme Leader. That is what I mean by predictable, and therefore preventable.  

 

Let's find an EU pretext to release the tanker at Gib - I know for now it is to be detained for 30 days.

 

Have no Fear St Jeremy of Corbyn has condemned Trump in response to the Tankers being taken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anywho.  Are we all agreed that these ships being labelled British is tenuous at best ?

Cos it seems to me our press are determined for us to fight someone else's war .

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it seems there were no Brits (or Swedes) on the 'British' (Swedish) ship! Probably a good job, I imagine the IRGC Quds were miffed to find that out. The Iranian ship is Panamanian. It's the Law of the Sea! I know Flag of Convenience were a group formed by members of Buzzcocks when they split up, if that helps. Probably not.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Strummer101 said:

Yes, it seems there were no Brits (or Swedes) on the 'British' (Swedish) ship! Probably a good job, I imagine the IRGC Quds were miffed to find that out. The Iranian ship is Panamanian. It's the Law of the Sea! I know Flag of Convenience were a group formed by members of Buzzcocks when they split up, if that helps. Probably not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×