Officials are accusing five Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps boats of having tried to capture
the British Heritage, an oil tanker that was sailing in the Persian
Gulf at the time. The tanker was escorted by the HMS Montrose, a British
frigate who ordered the Iranian boats off.
After British Royal Marines seized an Iranian tanker near Gibraltar, BP was concerned that this particular oil tanker was going to be targeted. The tanker ad been waiting in Saudi waters for fear it was going to be targeted.
Officials say that the Iranian boats ordered the British Heritage into
Iranian waters. It didn’t go, and the HMS Montrose, which was following
behind the tanker, told the boats to go away, which they did. No shots
were fired.
Iranian officials did not address the specific incident, though
President Hassan Rouhani had warned Britain about “consequences” for
having captured their tanker, and there was a lot of expectation it
would be a tit-for-tat move like this.
US officials claimed to have captured “video footage” of the incident,
though so far this has not been released. British officials have not
officially commented on what happened, though in practice it seems that
nothing ended up happening, with no shots fired and no ships actually
captured.
Oh no! Something almost maybe happened again. Better hurry up and bomb the shit out of somebody, right Bolton.
If someone pulled a gun on you and demanded your wallet, then a police car pulled up and he ran away, would you say “nothing happened”?
Depends … Did I just steal a wallet from that “someone” last week in Gibralter and they are trying to get it back and to discourage me from stealing more? Do I have a looooong history of stealing wallets in this neighborhood? See, it all depends.
It doesn’t matter. I’m not even saying Iran did anything wrong, but don’t tell me that this was a non-event.
Dont forget about the unseen cause. The character that made a law that the “alleged robber” is not allowed to have a job, or any money. That is what the sanctions do.
And how do you know that something did happen ?
True. But it’s hard to ignore that I robbed that guy last week
To the extent that we distant observers are “the police,” we did not pull up while the guy with the gun was there. We just have a supposed victim, who already admitted to robbing the supposed robber last week, walking into the police station and claiming that the guy he robbed just unsuccessfully tried to rob him.
I’m referring to the British frigate that was on the scene, not “distant observers”. Nor am I trying to justify the seizure of the Iranian tanker.
The British government claims that there was a British frigate on the scene.
The Iranian government claims there wasn’t a scene.
The Iranian government isn’t always believable.
The British government almost never is.
No, you’re trying to justify following Trumpism into the murky waters of maritime interventionism, and pretty shittily I might add.
*facepalm*
It depends on whether or not I robbed the same motherf**ker last week. Seeing as I don’t have the cash to pay off the cops, I’d probably keep my mouth shut and bide my time like an Iranian.
As far as Bonkers Bolton’s concerned, Comrade Hermit, he’s both a lunatic and a pathological liar not worth believing. On top of that, he’s a traitor.
Every so often Bonkers Bolton flies over to Israel to discuss America’s tensions with Iran with PM Bibzy Nutty&Yahoo – without knowledge and/or permission from DJT. That’s a form of treason since he’s been undercutting his boss’s agenda for over a year now.
DJT should’ve fired Bonkers Bolton (and Pompous Pompeo) last December for sabotaging the pullout of ALL US troops from Syria .. Had he done so, we wouldn’t be in this mess. He showed us and the world just how weak a POTUS he truly is.
Iran needs to settle down. Negotiate. Don’t get us in another war Iran.
Nah, we need to cool it. Chill.
We did cool it. We did nothing when they attacked two oil tankers, shot down a drone, and now an attack on Britain.
If you are against war, then the hostile party, in this case Iran needs to cool it.
And nothing happened before any of those alleged events? Just out of the blue Iran decided to commit suicide?
How is it suicide if we did nothing?They get support from their people who don’t like the regime, but are nationalistic if attacked. Yes, they get a benefit.
Let me guess…iraqs wmd’s were on those Iranian attack boats…….
I checked out PressTV, Iranian controlled news organization – actually I don’t think they have a free press. They are not denying it. Had they not attacked and were falsely accused, they would have said so. So straw man arguments won’t work.
“I checked out PressTV, Iranian controlled news organization – actually I don’t think they have a free press. They are not denying it.”
O RLY?
PressTV: IRGC rejects US claim of Iran attempt to seize UK tanker in Persian Gulf
“Patrols by the IRGC’s Navy vessels have been underway in the Persian Gulf based on current procedures and missions assigned to them with vigilance, precision and strength,”
Then they say this…
The statement further noted that the IRGC Navy’s fifth zone has the power to act “decisively and swiftly” and seize foreign vessels
…”
Why the extra verbiage? Oh we were just carry out normal functions, you misinterpreted.
This came out when? Nothing on the website when all the world was talking about it. I’ll take the Brits, if you were fair you should take their wishy-washy response as suspicious.
Your claim wasn’t that there was “extra verbiage” or that their response was “wishy-washy.” Your claim was that the Iranian regime “didn’t deny it,” and your evidence for the claim was that PressTV hadn’t carried a story of a denial.
They did deny it, and PressTV carried the story of the denial.
As for the “extra” and “wishy-washy” verbiage, you’ll find it in any similar statement by the US, Russia, China, or any other country claiming a right to operate in given waters but denying that a particular incident occurred.
PressTV was not covering the story when the rest of the International media was making it a top story. That evening I went to their website to see their side of the story. It was suspiciously absent. I would at least say something like, Britain is claiming an attempt to capture a ship, we are waiting for the IRGC for comment. Nothing, not a word. Obviously they delayed the story.
After reading the link you provided, I am even more suspicious. We were doing something, but that something wasn’t what the British said we were trying to do, but we have the right to do what the British said we were trying to do if we had been doing it.
It would have been better had they not reported anything.
OK, so reading comprehension and news cycle aren’t strong points of yours. Understood.
Being able to read between the lines shows superior comprehension skills.
Pardon me, for expecting an expedient report on a serious military accusation about an alleged incident right in your back door.
From this anti-war article it says:
“Rouhani had warned Britain about “consequences” for having captured their tanker, and there was a lot of expectation it would be a tit-for-tat move like this. ”
If you were being fair, you would admit there is more to support the British side. Otherwise, critical thinking is not your strong suit.
“If you were being fair, you would admit there is more to support the British side.”
The only thing to support either side, other than the word of two untrustworthy regimes, is the actual , admitted piratical seizure of the Iranian tanker. Other than than, it’s all, “he said, he said.”
I call it enforcing EU law.
Neither Iran nor Syria are members of the EU, and the strait at Gibraltar is a “transit passage” (rather than merely “Innocent passage”) under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Neither the EU in general nor the UK in particular had any jurisdiction whatsoever over the tanker. The seizure was just plain piracy.
I believe Iran said today they were not trying to capture that oil tanker. So that is denying it . they also said they did not blow those holes in the other two tankers . I agree with Thomas that Iran may be lying , but is almost a 100 percent certainty that the U.S. is lying . Don’t you think that is a real bummer ? We have to get rid of this CIA or we will all go to hell .
I believe Iran said today they were not trying to capture that oil tanker. So that is denying it . they also said they did not blow those holes in the other two tankers . I agree with Thomas that Iran may be lying , but is almost a 100 percent certainty that the U.S. is lying . Don’t you think that is a real bummer ? We have to get rid of this CIA or we will all go to hell .
It’s suicide based on our past history of turning middle eastern countries into rubble. Where you been?
Countries? Just Iraq. Which by the way we did Iran a favor since Saddam was their enemy.
Sure, I guess if we get technical on what constitutes the ME we look less barbaric. So lets ignore Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Somalia.
you forgot Egypt . Didn’t we try to bring democracy to them too .
I was talking about countries we have bombed.
Helping Afghanistan fight the brutal Taliban is barbaric? Didn’t know the Taliban were saints. Libya was a no fly zone instituted by UN Security Council, not one permanent member voted against it, not Russia, not China. In Yemen we attack jihadists, maybe you mean Saudi Arabia. Syria was already a civil war started by Assad before we got involved much later. Mostly focusing ISIS. I think Russia is much more involved, something tells me you are a criticizer of the West and would avoid criticism of Russia. Somalia was a mess, is a mess, will be a mess. All these countries were messes, America didn’t make them a mess.
Just Iraq as I said before.
The “brutal” Taliban was in a civil war with the “Taliban Lite”, the Northern Alliance and was none of our damn business. We bombed the shit out of Afghanistan because we had to bomb the shit out of somebody after 9/11.
The UN would never had instituted any “no fly zone” in Libya without the urging of the US. The witch wanted Gaddafi gone and she got her way. Libya had(as in past tense)the highest standard of living in Northern Africa and now it’s a failed state.
In Yemen we have enabled Saudi Arabia to create one of the worst humanitarian disasters of our time. The Saudi’s couldn’t do it without us.
Now why would Assad start a civil war? That’s ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as saying we got involved “much later”. No US, no civil war. No US, No ISIS.
I criticize the US because my tax dollars are used to carry out these atrocities. If I lived in Russia, I would be just as critical.
And whether all these countries were messes or not, that doesn’t justify anything we do.
Hardly “just Iraq”.
The bombing of Afghanistan had widespread support domestically and internationally, no complaints from the UN. Even isolationist Ron Paul voted for war.
Unfortunately for you I have a good memory. I remember Obama was hesitant to get involved in Libya. I remember he was getting lots of criticism because he was allowing a humanitarian crisis take place. I remember Wesley Clark defending Obama not getting involved initially. There’s a video on YT of Clark being interviewed about it. I remember France and Italy being particularly critical of Obama.
Assad started cracking down on Sunnis, in the beginning mostly student activists calling for more democratic say. The protests began expanding beyond Damascus to other cities and the crackdowns became very violent. Many of Assad’s own Generals and senior advisers got fed up and defected and all out civil war was the result.
I see this all the time. America gets involved and you have every right to complain about that. I agree we get involved to much. But it always gets twisted as America being the cause. And then the narrative changes about what is was like before the war, as though Gaddafi and Assad were beloved leaders.
America does not cause most of these conflicts. And if America does get involved, it is usually on the right side. You are only right to say we shouldn’t be sticking our nose in other people’s business in the first place. But you let your biases cloud what really happened. You are a blame America firster.
Not an unreasonable viewpoint.
But Ron Paul is more “non-interventionist” than “isolationist.” There’s a difference between the two things.
Yes, non-interventionist is the word I was looking for.
My views are sound. America gets bashed as being causal when all they did was get involved. I see this all the time, from the right and left.
The Iraq war had widespread support also, so what? We bombed the shit out of Afghanistan because we had to bomb somebody for running planes into our buildings. Omar volunteered to give up bin Laden but Bush said he didn’t negotiate with terrorists. But lo and behold, we’re negotiating with those same “terrorists”. 18 years later!
Your take on Syria resembles those of the neocons. In fact your take on everything resembles the neocons. Syria, along with Iran, was on the hit list from the beginning but I guess that little tidbit you ignore.
I don’t defend Assad or Gaddafi but the condition of both of those countries AFTER our involvement speaks for itself. Tell me which faction of al Qaeda or ISIS was a better alternative than Assad? Or how is that slave trade working out in Libya? Or maybe we can talk about being on the “right side” in Yemen where an estimated 80,000 people have starved to death. The idea that we even care which side is right is ridiculous.
“you are a blame America firster”
Geez, I wonder why.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051
More on Gaddafi.
https://www.africanexponent.com/post/ten-reasons-libya-under-gaddafi-was-a-great-place-to-live-2746
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/20/libya-from-africas-wealthiest-democracy-under-gaddafi-to-terrorist-haven-after-us-intervention/
I don’t think Iraq had widespread support. Afghanistan was one No vote. There were dozens of no votes in Congress. Many of our key allies did not support us. We had to change the name of French fries to freedom fries.
My take on Afghanistan is we
should have focused on al-Qaeda, and I would have bombed Taliban interests,but would have stopped short of a ground war. Afghanistan was a legitimate antagonist against the US, I don’t put them in the same category as the others you claim we messed up.
I am not taking a Neocon position. I am simply defending accusations against America being responsible or starting the mess. Your view is we did started it, I disagree.
We want the Taliban to be a political party only within a democracy, not a military dictatorship, big difference.
Syria was a three front war. It wasn’t just Assad vs ISIS/al-Qaeda, we supported non-Jihadist rebels. Militarily we focused on ISIS. Assad and Russian forces made the biggest mess.
In Yemen we target al-Qaeda. The Saudis target the Houthis.
We didn’t cause the slave trade.
“United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, on the situation in Libya, is a measure that was adopted on 17 March 2011. The Security Council resolution was proposed by France, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom”
US did not even propose it.
Why not blame those engaging in the slave trade? Why blame America? Because you are a blame America firster.
As for your links, they are one-sided, their purpose is not to inform but to convince. I am familiar with two of them. You live in an echo chamber only hearing one perspective. And then you see everything in black and white.
Who or who didn’t support our wars isn’t relevant to my original point. And that was Afghanistan is in a group of countries that we have bombed into rubble or near rubble.
“Assad and Russian forces made the biggest mess” Assad was/is the recognized leader of Syria and Russia was an invited ally. The US, on the other hand, was/is an uninvited intruder who was responsible for the very formation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. In Yemen we enable the Saudi’s to target the Houthis which in turn enables the ongoing humanitarian disaster. We could end it, but we don’t.
My links are one sided? We haven’t killed between 20 and 30 million since WW2? And I stated earlier that I wasn’t defending either Assad or Gaddafi and that both countries were much better off than before we got involved.
Libya doesn’t happen without US support. My links were only to prove that Gaddafi’s Libya was much better that what happened after “We came, we saw, he died(chuckle,chuckle).”
Like most sane people, I was all for a military response against Afghanistan, just not a ground war. I blame the Taliban for the mess. Only you, Cynthia McKinney and some other fringe were against involvement apparently.
You are very naive. I think the creators of South Park can help you understand America’s role in securing global security. This is a very short video.
https://youtu.be/E7Sr-cpFwUc
We were welcomed by the FSA, and Russia was not against us fighting ISIS. They didn’t want us backing the rebels. But they were happy we were there.
Of course Syria would be a mess had we not got involved. They eventually would have won with Russia’s help, but it would have taken longer. ISIS had already made huge gains, it took Russia and the US a long time to push them back. Assad is in control technically, but for now Syria is still a failed state, many Syrians are refugees. I believe had Gadaffi survived, I don’t see Libya being stable either. The jihadists come in when the government is weak. Gaddafi’s government was in trouble before the terrorists were the main threat. It would be another failed state. Point is, both these countries were firmly failed before we got involved.
We didn’t create al-Qaeda, we supported the mujahedeen fight against the marxist regime.
No one ever heard of ISIS, it was an obscure insurgent group mostly fighting in Iraq. It was Assad’s civil war that caused jihadists literally from around the world to come to Syria to fight.
EU, Russia,China could stop the Saudis but you don’t blame them do you?
The problem with you blame America Firsters is you take weak correlations and twist them into causations.
My god, you’re like that Navy commercial, “A global force for good”. Our benevolence knows no bounds. We even put Gaddafi down since Libya was on the verge of being a failed state anyway. And we were welcomed in Syria, just not by the sovereign government of Syria. I’m with you now.
Of course do provide lots of humanitarian work all over the world. But you just keep hanging around with your pals at Code Pink and sing Kumbaya.
And you continue on with your misguided belief that we are “on the right side”. 20 to 30 million dead people since WW2 proves your point.
About 20% of Americans opposed the US invasion of Afghanistan. Almost 20 years, thousands of American dead, and tens of thousands of American wounded later, only you, John Bolton, and some other fringe are still pretending we weren’t right to oppose it.
The claim that they attacked two oil tankers is sketchy at best.
The claim that the drone was not in their airspace is likewise highly suspect.
The problem is that betting on the Iranian regime to be honest is a long shot, but betting on the US regime to be dishonest is as close to a sure thing as it’s possible to get in this world.
At least one of the two regimes is lying. Maybe both. But if it’s one, the smart money is on the US.
Based completely on your personal bias. Iran said they would attack. And they did.
Why is Iran not denying it if it was false allegation that they attacked.
they have denied it
They waited some time, that evening, it still was not being reported.
Are you forgetting Britain took a Iranian tanker the week before
Yes, it was doing something against European Union law so they seized it.
Who said Iran attacked 2 oil tankers ? The same guy that said Assad as gassing his own people ?
The rebel forces in Syria and human rights organizations are making the Iranian claim?
They already negotiated and we backed out of the negotiated deal.
On the condition Congress voted in favor which they hadn’t done yet. Trump wants to negotiate, so negotiate, better than attacking the Brits.
That wasn’t a condition Iran negotiated on. Iran negotiated in good faith, with US representation present, and has no reason to negotiate again. Keep the same deal and call it the JCPOA + Trump and the egocentric ass clown should be happy.
They got their money, no need to cry for them. But Trump was right, it was a bad deal. As soon as the time period is over, they are close to nukes. We need a long term plan. Look how quick they went over the limit. They need to come back to the table.
They got their billions, they owe us billions by the way.
Make peace, not war Iran.
Yes, they got THEIR money. So if they would have been close to nukes by the time the deal expired in 15 years, what’s the difference if the deal was for 100 years? And they went over the limit as a response to our actions. They were in complete compliance before that and it wasn’t a “bad deal”. It was the NPT on steroids.
In 100 years I won’t be here.
Hopefully Iran will be more enlightened and so will the world in general.
Actually they were not in compliance. From yesterday…
“The UN has discovered evidence of illicit nuclear activity at a site Iranian officials claimed was an innocuous carpet factory…”
Again, Iran is being belligerent, make a deal.
Any links?
The NWO assumed Iran would have new leadership in a few years and JCPOA would be fine If Iran had new leadership with different goals . The entire western Christian world seems to be willing to accept Islam on a equal bases believing all religions are equal . True Islam does evolve when they need too . But Islam has not changed its domination religious goals in 1400 years . So Trump is right nuclear bombs are not appropriate for a religion that worships death
The clown won’t be happy until overturns very one of the great impostors accomplishments and sets the new world order up side down .
On the condition Congress voted in favor which they hadn’t done yet. Trump wants to negotiate, so negotiate, better than attacking the Brits.
But that deal would have given a nuclear bomb in 5 to 10 years . That’s was a bad deal for anybody that doesn’t want Iran to have a bomb . Why not drop the sanctions and trust Iran to not work on a bomb they are not working on and say they don’t want anyway . if we ever find out they are lying bomb the place they are working on a bomb . Just like Israel did to Iraq it only took a few hours
“But in my imagination, that deal would have given a nuclear bomb in 5 to 10 years .”
Fixed, no charge.
Oh my, “mushroom cloud” rerun. …guess if you put it on, someone will watch it.
I think Bibi only claimed they’d break out after 15 years. You’re outdoing Bibi.
Well if they’d succeded, we’d probably be escalating further. Fuck the UK tbh.
Brits just trying to show they are our uber poodle. Good doggiy, sit.
More like a pug, cant even tell when it rolls over….
More lies, more fake news….show the proof.
theofhttps://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/07/11/600654/Iran-IRGC-Britain-oil-tanker
So the bottom line is: we have only the US and British word that something happened. And the Brits contradict the US version by saying only 3 Iranian boats involved, not 5.
And a US aircraft just happened to be flying overhead taking video.
Yeah, right… At best, it’s possible that Iranian boats came out to harass the British ship in retaliation for the Brits seizing their tanker (and Egypt seizing another one, don’t forget.) There’s no proof Iran “tried to seize it.”
How likely is it that some Iranian gun boats tried to “seize” a ship being escorted by a British frigate armed with 30mm cannon? I say zero chance.
More proof that the goal here is to provoke Iran into doing something while at the same time ramping up the idea that there needs to be a blockade of Iranian oil shipments enforced by the US and allied navies.
We’re heading straight for war with Iran. And no one can stop it (except possibly Russia and China, and I wouldn’t count on either.)
This from Moon of Alabama…
“Of interest is also that the ship turned off its AIS signal, see the dotted line, during its passage through the Hormuz Strait. Turning of the AIS in a high traffic area and especially at night is quite dangerous. The AIS signals a ships type, speed and course and other ships use that data to plan their own course. But even without AIS the ship will still be visible on the Iranian surveillance radars that control the Hormuz Strait. A ship on the radar screen without AIS information would be suspicious.
So why would the British ship do that? Was that an attempt to draw special attention to it from the Iranian coast guard or military?
To me it seems that the empty British crude carrier, which was shadowed by a British frigate, was used as bait. There were probably Royal Marines on board waiting for an Iranian attempt to seize the ship. Iran did not fall for it.”
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/07/iran-keeps-calm-while-us-and-britain-continue-their-provocations-.html#more
I can see this happening….
False Flag….again.