asperity Posted July 20, 2019 Report Share Posted July 20, 2019 https://youtu.be/fpEdfkSWsvI Tit for tat? Or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted July 21, 2019 Report Share Posted July 21, 2019 Exactly my thought Asp: The term "hostile action" was used in relation to the Iranians; but it seems equally applicable to seizing an Iranian tanker off Gibraltar, when your not even certain it was breaking current sanctions on Syria. What makes this serious escalation amusing, is that the UK doesn't have enough ships to cover the incident, so I guess we'll have to rely on the Yanks again. So much for paying £billions for two aircraft carriers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 21, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2019 The Iranian explanation that they seized the tanker because it had been involved in an "incident" in International waters with an Iranian fishing boat doesn't hold water either. If there had been an "incident" and the Stena Impero had been identified as being involved, the legal way to go would be to leave it to the authorities at the next port of call to deal with, not send out your own navy to detain her. Any investigation would then be undertaken by agents of the Flag State i.e. the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted July 21, 2019 Report Share Posted July 21, 2019 Think they suspected (but couldn't prove) that "the next port of call" was Syria, thus breaching a sanctions regime by the US and EU. The West's strategy for regime change now appears to be economic sanctions to literally starve a population into revolting against their own Gov (EG. Venuzela; Syria, N/Korea, and even Russia), think they term it "hybrid warfare". The problem is of course that Regimes normally don't go down without a fight, so I guess we can expect a hot war at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 21, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2019 Venezuela wasn't forced into starvation by outside sanctions but rather by the corruption and incompetence of its own leadership and government. Socialism fails yet again. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted July 21, 2019 Report Share Posted July 21, 2019 Think that argument can be applied to all countries mentioned; in which case, there would be no need for "sanctions". The reality however, is that economic sanctions are now the option for destabilising non-conformist regimes, and the road to civil and hot wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted July 21, 2019 Report Share Posted July 21, 2019 34 minutes ago, Observer II said: Think that argument can be applied to all countries mentioned; in which case, there would be no need for "sanctions". The reality however, is that economic sanctions are now the option for destabilising non-conformist regimes, and the road to civil and hot wars. The sanctions were imposed by the EU because of the use of chemical weapons by Syria against its own people. The US cannot cause us to impose sanctions. Those EU sanctions were imposed by the Government of Gibraltar but they needed UK forces co-operation. The sanctions affecting the ship in Gibraltar are not against Iran. Iran's action against a UK flagged ship is unlawful and tantamount to piracy. Your comments about hybrid warfare are wrong, the use of disinformation and covert actions against a state as employed by Russia are what hybrid warfare is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted July 21, 2019 Report Share Posted July 21, 2019 So: Spain (also a member of the EU) failed to act on those EU sanctions, leaving the Brits holding the baby. Think you'd be surprised what the US can "cause us to do", especially with our current Gov. The sanctions are not against Iran, but I doubt the Iranians see it that way. OK, we'll just call it economic warfare then, where the strategy is to destabilise a Regime by impoverishing it's people into open revolt, which can include hybrid and cyber warfare. So ultimately tit for tat, until things escalate out of control. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latchford Locks Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 Lets call a spade a spade The Iranians have timed this perfectly, we have no functioning parliament at the moment until the new Prime Minister is installed and has appointed his cabinet. Once we have had time to sort this domestic reshuffle then I reckon they will back off having had their fun at tweaking The Lions Tale. This situation should act as a wake up call and make us realise in no uncertain terms we need a major defence review/overhaul before any other Nations realise we are at this moment totally unprepared for any kind of serious conflict(if they haven't already) North Korea,China,Argentina as well as Iran must realise Maggie Thatcher is no longer around and neither are our superior Armed Forces. We must treat this as a priority as at the moment a few lightly armed speedboats and one helicopter have got us scuppered !!!! Sod all this Brexit lark and the obvious distractions it has created After 31 October... The silly games can finally come to a conclusion. And then we can get down to the serious business of running our own Nation and regaining our Pride. As Solid International defence is not and never will be negotiable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 The irony in all this Latch; is that we're getting rid (hopefully) of one master (the EU) only to fall into the clutches of another (the US). The UK is no longer a world player, the only thing keeping us on the UN security council are our nukes. If we take Germany as an example, they've underpaid there contributions to NATO and sheltered under the US nuclear umbrella; whilst becoming the number one economic entity in Europe. So perhaps we need to decide precisely where our best interests lie and start putting the UK FIRST. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 The Falklands should have been the only lesson we ever needed . 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latchford Locks Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Davy51 said: The Falklands should have been the only lesson we ever needed . Let's hope The Argies don't get any fresh ideas of invading the islands. Imagine todays MP's ???? They can't agree on whether they want sugar or saccharine in their coffee !!! Maybe they would negotiate with Argentina; provided the decision followed a "democratic process", in other words, if Parliament voted for it.With multiple amendments and votes... over several months and then would follow an online petition calling for The Task Force to be halted after it hopefully gained over half a million signatures.Oh and their Brothers in Espana decided maybe........ just maybe...................... Gibraltar ???????(Naaaaaah ?????) Crazy far fetched ? History is littered with stories of Leaders putting their heads in the sand.... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latchford Locks Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 On 7/21/2019 at 2:17 AM, Observer II said: Exactly my thought Asp: The term "hostile action" was used in relation to the Iranians; but it seems equally applicable to seizing an Iranian tanker off Gibraltar, when your not even certain it was breaking current sanctions on Syria. What makes this serious escalation amusing, is that the UK doesn't have enough ships to cover the incident, so I guess we'll have to rely on the Yanks again. So much for paying £billions for two aircraft carriers. Just to clear up a few bits of misinformation. The original ship in Gibraltar is Russian owned, based in Dubai, and carries the flag of Panama. The Iranians claim it is their oil in the tanker but it sailed from Khor Fakkan anchorage, in the UAE. The Spanish will not have been able to act because it will have gone through the straits in international waters and then anchored on the East side of Gibraltar. The first minister of Gibraltar made clear that they acted with UK help because the next port of call was to be the Baniyas Oil Refinery in Syria. Oil companies in Syria are subject to EU sanctions under Council Regulation 55/2012 which applies to Gibraltar. Now the refinery at Baniyas was reported to be under Russian control in 2016. So we have a Russian owned and crewed tanker carrying Iranian Oil to a Russian controlled refinery in Syria which chose to stop at a British Overseas Territory which is part of the EU and subject to EU sanctions and deliberately declare its destination as somewhere on the sanctions list. That seems less like the notion of hybrid warfare than the old proxy warfare of the cold-war era with Iran acting for Russia. That may explain why nobody wants to adopt the gung-ho posture you would like to see don't you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 It would be interesting to know if modern warfare is subject to H &S legislation. All warring parties given safe systems of work. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 Quite the opposite Con: a "gung ho" posture is precisely what we don't want. The UK fell for the bait, if that's what it was; Spain and the EU ducked it and now we've asked the Yanks for Naval support in the Gulf, and guess what - they've told us to get our own ships - so much for the special relationship. Now, the only safe way to de-esculate this mess, will be to do a swap with Iran - we release their tanker and they release ours - sorted. The Yanks have a Carrier task force in the area, with a huge offensive capability, but it seems we don't wish to get involved and are now trying to arrange an EU (pro Iran agreement force) to protect free movement of shipping. Perhaps if we hadn't involved ourselves in international sanctions in the first place and stuck to looking after ourselves, we wouldn't get our fingers burnt. Just a post script: believe we've sent UK troops to Mali, now what's Mali got to do with us ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 The answer to your post-script is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-deploy-250-troops-to-mali-on-peacekeeping-operations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 22, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 While everyone is calling the tanker arrested off Gibraltar (Grace 1) "Iranian", in actual fact she is owned by a company called Russian Titan Shipping Lines of Dubai UAE and flies the Panamanian flag. The only connection to Iran is the alleged cargo of crude oil. Meanwhile the US has become a net exporter of oil so the Straits of Hormuz aren't that much of an interest to them. China, Japan and India are far more reliant on free movement of crude oil from the Gulf so expect pressure on Iran from that direction as regards keeping the straits open. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 2 hours ago, Confused52 said: The answer to your post-script is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-deploy-250-troops-to-mali-on-peacekeeping-operations UN - fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milky Posted August 4, 2019 Report Share Posted August 4, 2019 Can I ask a question for anyone who may know. The crew of the seized British tanker wasn't British but mostly Indian, why. If it is a British ship, it is subject to UK law and so pay or have I got it wrong? What nationality was the captain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted August 4, 2019 Report Share Posted August 4, 2019 it is owned by stena bulk and northern marine management a Swedish company but sails under a british flag.(probably to avoid higher taxes and pay rates or other finacial benefits that Britain allows and Sweden does not) The crew consists of Indian, Latvian Russian and Filipino members, although information on how many of each comprise the 23 man crew is not mentioned. As for the captains nationality then as only those 4 nationalities are mentioned as crew then i can only assume, rightly or wrongly, that it is one of those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted August 4, 2019 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2019 To be registered as a British flagged ship it is only necessary for the owner to be incorporated in an EEA country. The Master can be any nationality provided that he/she holds a UK Master's Certificate of Competency (many Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi officers study at UK colleges and sit the exams with the UK MCA) or a Certificate of Equivalent Competency (which involves holding a Master's CoC of a country recognised by the UK MCA as being equivalent to the UK Master's CoC, and also demonstrating English language competency, and may also involve an exam on UK Maritime Law). Up until sometime in the 1970's the Master had to be a UK national, but this requirement was removed for various reasons, including meeting the requirements of joining the Common Market. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.