web analytics

OF COURSE WE CAN TRUST THE IRANIANS

By Pete Moore On August 15th, 2019

Gibraltar has freed an Iranian oil tanker detained last month on suspicion of sanctions-busting, despite a last-minute plea by the US authorities.

The UK territory received written assurances from Iran that the ship would not discharge its cargo in Syria.

No doubt Tehran is telling the truth. What the Grace 1 will do is transfer its load to another tanker, which will discharge it in Syria.

40 Responses to “OF COURSE WE CAN TRUST THE IRANIANS”

  1. The UK had no moral right to seize that tanker, the US had no right to try to do so either.

  2. The UK didn’t seize it, Gibraltar did. It was seized on the suspicion that it was breaking sanctions. Whether or not you like it, that’s the law.

  3. Gib is British.

    That tanker wasn’t harming the UK or Gibralatar, or the apes on Gibraltar.

  4. Phantom

    //or the apes on Gibraltar.//

    Gibraltarians aren’t all bad mate. 😁

  5. Phantom –

    It’s not about harm, it’s about the law. EU states are legally obliged to apply the EU sanctions on Iran. The vessel was suspected of breaking the sanctions. That’s why it was held.

    That’s where a British aspect of Gibraltar comes in, which is that an independent and impartial judiciary examined the matter and found that, on balance, sanctions have not been broken. So the tanker is free to go.

    I know, the British Empire is truly the best thing that ever happened to an undeserving world.

  6. Ah, so the EU laws should be obeyed!

  7. These sanctions are EU sanctions applicable to the EU members and nobody else. The vessel impounded belongs to a country which is not a member of the EU, and said vessel was travelling in international waters of free passage

  8. This was piracy, which led to reciprocal piracy ( the seizure of the British boat by the Ayatollah lovers )

    If the UK didn’t want that ship in Gibraltar waters, they should have asked it to leave.

    Piracy invites more piracy.

  9. The EU sanctions were valid under iteration all law.

  10. Not so – they only apply to EU members. There is no right of seizure of vessels belonging to non-members

  11. I oppose all such actions, other than in time of war, and this was not a war situation.

    The UN and EU should have no jurisdiction at all.

    The only thing the EU should be able to do is to deny Iranian ships the use of its ports.

  12. The failure to impose real sanctions can lead to war. The UN and the EU certainly have jurisdiction.

    There are multiple international and maritime laws supporting this detention.

  13. What the Grace 1 will do is transfer its load to another tanker, which will discharge it in Syria.

    I doubt that Pete. All ships have transponders and are monitored just like planes. If this tanker stops alongside another tanker in the Med we will all know about it. Check out this webiste which monitors all marine traffic across the planet 24-7:

    https://www.marinetraffic.com/

  14. Here is where the Grace 1 is now:

    https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/shipid:416354/zoom:5

  15. We are at war with Iran…. it was specifically named as part of the axis of evil in the formation of the declared War on Terror…. we are still at War and have been since sept of 2001.

  16. We are at war with Iran

    You wish. For the record, would you support a pre-emptive attack, like now?

  17. We aren’t at war with Iran.

  18. We are at war with ALL nation states that give aid and comfort to Terrorists….

    I do believe Iran fits that description.

  19. SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force”.

    SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

    (a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

  20. It ain’t war, and the Iranians weren’t responsible for 9/11.

  21. or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    We are at War and that section applies….

  22. Then you don’t know what war means or that the Iranians had nothing to do with 9/11. They are certainly a rogue regime and an enemy nation, but that isn’t war.

  23. The US is not in an official state of war with Iran. Continuing to falsely claim it is does not make it so even if you repeat it a thousand times Patrick.

  24. The War on Terror resolution voted on by both Houses of Congress is still the Law of the Land. It has not been repealed, rescinded, or canceled in any way.

    the second part of that Law that I highlight stresses ANY nation that Harbors terrorists. in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    Congress even authorized first strikes to apply in those circumstances.

    All that is still active Law.

  25. Anyway my brain may not sleep but my body does. I am going back to bed. Good night Patrick, hope your police friends in Philly all make a speedy recovery ,

  26. Thanks Colm, goodnight

  27. goodnight also to you Mahons…. if you’re still there

  28. I’m awake again, but I have nothing new to say for the moment, except Good morning all. 😉

  29. We are at war with ALL nation states that give aid and comfort to Terrorists….

    Four words,

    The Contras

    Saudi Arabia

  30. Patrick Van Roy,
    //We are at war with Iran…//

    You’re not at war with Iran Patrick. Why do you insist on making these ridiculous claims?

  31. Criminals are only a part of the gun problem

    Significantly higher rate of suicide and gun suicide in homes where loaded guns are kept.

    But let’s not talk about that. Let’s pretend it’s not an issue. Because guns keep you safe

  32. Paul McMahon,

    Four words,

    The Contras

    Saudi Arabia

    good point poll but don’t forget the United Kingdom and United States when it comes to countries that have supported state-sponsored terrorism.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism

  33. Wow Dave, from your link:

    Israel provides medical assistance to wounded Syrian rebels crossing the border of “the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights”; most of this assistance has gone to Al-Nusra Front (now Tahrir al-Sham)

    Israel assisting islamist Jihadi Al-Qaeda fighters wounded in a foreign conflict. Wouldn’t this make Israel a rogue state?

    We are at war with ALL nation states that give aid and comfort to Terrorists….

    Just watch the pedantry and logical somersaults that follow.

  34. When the US or UK a state sponsor of terror it’s ok

    When Iran does it, it’s bad

  35. Well said Paul and Phantom.

    I do love the amazing double standard some people show. When it’s countries on ‘our side’ that are financing terrorist organisations who murder innocent people, that’s somehow okay.

  36. Phantom, on August 16th, 2019 at 1:49 PM Said:
    When the US or UK a state sponsor of terror it’s ok

    When Iran does it, it’s bad

    Hey he got something right……

  37. Hey he got something right……

    Would you like some stones for that glass house Pat? At least you’re being honest in your hypocrisy.

  38. So we agree that the US and UK have been state sponsors of terror

    That’s progress.

  39. Would you like some stones for that glass house Pat? At least you’re being honest in your hypocrisy.

    What hypocrisy…. ? America can do no wrong…. when we sponsored terrorists in the past it was the right thing to do…..

  40. As I said, glass stones for that house. The principle isn’t that terrorism is wrong but rather wheither the terrorism in question is in America’s interests or not.

    Like I said, at least you’re now being honest in your hypocrisy