Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
Sign in to follow this  
Almagnus1

UK Ship gets Captured by Iran

Recommended Posts

There's them sending a fucking warship to escort tankers, but they still missed it. Twice. The fucking morons.

Edit: to be fair, they had it coming. They stole an Iranian ship for the assumption that it was going to "break EU sanctions" in Syria, as if that's any excuse. If a country doesn't want to follow EU sanctions, it's none of their business. Let them do the petty tit for tat sanctions directly on Iran instead, don't start holding shit hostage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the US stays out of it and goes "that's your problem, deal with it" I'm fine with sitting on the sidelines and laughing.  What gets me is that the comments somehow suggest that this is all Trump's fault as he saw that the Iranians were never going to uphold their nuclear deal, so just pulled us all out of a bad deal.

Edit:
Update https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7266349/Trump-says-Iran-big-trouble-seized-TWO-British-tankers-Persian-Gulf.html 

Best part of this is:

Quote

'We have no written agreement, but we have an agreement,' Trump said of Britain. 'They've been a very great ally of ours. ... We'll be working with the U.K. They'll have a new prime minister soon, which is a good thing.'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

... this is all Trump's fault as he saw that the Iranians were never going to uphold their nuclear deal, so just pulled us all out of a bad deal.

What was bad about the deal, though? I've seen Trump say that repeatedly, but he never actually bothers to explain it (in true Trump fashion). The implication being the US is somehow losing out in the deal, but there's nothing I can find to suggest that's the case. All that happens is that sanctions are lifted and Iran has to allow more inspections and scale back a lot of its nuclear programmes, which it did. The IAEA even said there was no evidence of Iran breaking the deal.

There's even the "snap back" clause in the deal where if there's proof of Iran violating any part of the agreement, any nation involved can immediately cause sanctions to be put back into place without ever needing to leave the deal. Trump didn't use that, he chucked the whole thing out, likely because it was to spite the Obama administration yet again, and also to do what his Zionist masters want. Now we've got the US increasing tensions in the gulf, and the UK stupidly joining in to escalate it.

With all the recent events, I wouldn't be surprised if half of the things the US claims Iran has done is actually a Mossad false-flag. Considering how vocal Israel has been about destroying Iran, and its continued attack on Iranian bases in Syria, it makes it fairly obvious who wants the escalation to continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Doro said:

What was bad about the deal, though? I've seen Trump say that repeatedly, but he never actually bothers to explain it (in true Trump fashion).

It was Obama's deal

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Doro said:

What was bad about the deal, though? I've seen Trump say that repeatedly, but he never actually bothers to explain it (in true Trump fashion). The implication being the US is somehow losing out in the deal, but there's nothing I can find to suggest that's the case. All that happens is that sanctions are lifted and Iran has to allow more inspections and scale back a lot of its nuclear programmes, which it did. The IAEA even said there was no evidence of Iran breaking the deal.

It's that Iran made the deal in bad faith, as they were never going to uphold their end of the bargain.  It's the same sort of shenanigans we saw with Sadaam Hussein and his inspections where Iran will show exactly what they want to show, which looks one way but is actually quite another.  I mean going by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework

Quote

Reduction in the number of installed centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,104 and only 5,060 of these enriching uranium for 10 years.

After what Obama and Bush did to Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, there's no way in hell any small country is EVER going to disarm themselves, and this is what was not happening.  Meanwhile you have idiots that believe the mainstream narrative that keep saying:

4 hours ago, cossieuk said:

It was Obama's deal

Because they're freaking clueless (like most Brits truly are apparently).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

It's that Iran made the deal in bad faith, as they were never going to uphold their end of the bargain.  It's the same sort of shenanigans we saw with Sadaam Hussein and his inspections where Iran will show exactly what they want to show, which looks one way but is actually quite another.  I mean going by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework

After what Obama and Bush did to Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, there's no way in hell any small country is EVER going to disarm themselves, and this is what was not happening.  Meanwhile you have idiots that believe the mainstream narrative that keep saying:

Because they're freaking clueless (like most Brits truly are apparently).

They were upholding it, though. There's no evidence they'd broken the deal before Trump threw it out, and making the assumption that they won't stick to it in the future is Minority Report-level bullshit. Let's not forget that the invasion of Iraq was also under the assumption that they had WMDs when they didn't.

Rightly, small countries shouldn't be disarming themselves when the US does what it does, but Iran wasn't being disarmed, they were being offered a deal to avoid armament to begin with. They were keeping to it. There was literally no reason to pull out of the deal, except that it was clearly placating Iran and Trump couldn't have that. He didn't use any snapback option, he had to go all out and provoke a reaction by fucking with their economy. The trouble in the gulf right now really is Trump's fault, and plays right into the hands of the warmongers in Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And let's not forget who was the loudest cheerleader for backing out of the Iran deal--Mr. John Bolton (who never saw a war he didn't like) and one of the architects of the I-swear-they-have-WMDs-Iraq war.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Read something today;

Gessen writes that Putin is a fool, but that is impossible – fools can not be so powerful. Well, Americans know by now, that the world's most powerful man can have spelling problems, is unable to process texts devoid of images, or concentrate on something for more than three seconds.

I have no intelligent explanation of this mechanism, but it has been proven empirically that it is possible for an idiot to acquire enormous power.”

 

Just wait until Boris joins the Iran fray. 



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Jedy2 said:

Just wait until Boris joins the Iran fray. 



 

The last time he got involved with Iran it went so well didnt it face-palm_1f926.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cossieuk said:

The last time he got involved with Iran it went so well didnt it face-palm_1f926.png

 

Yes, I have not forgotten. The world seems to be ripe for imbecilic blond bullies. 

Remember this?

 

Not saying those blond idiots are fascists, but they are sure stupid enough to plunge us in a war, and have enough support.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doro said:

They were upholding it, though. There's no evidence they'd broken the deal before Trump threw it out, and making the assumption that they won't stick to it in the future is Minority Report-level bullshit. Let's not forget that the invasion of Iraq was also under the assumption that they had WMDs when they didn't.

Rightly, small countries shouldn't be disarming themselves when the US does what it does, but Iran wasn't being disarmed, they were being offered a deal to avoid armament to begin with. They were keeping to it. There was literally no reason to pull out of the deal, except that it was clearly placating Iran and Trump couldn't have that. He didn't use any snapback option, he had to go all out and provoke a reaction by fucking with their economy. The trouble in the gulf right now really is Trump's fault, and plays right into the hands of the warmongers in Israel.

That's not how I see it, as Iran (along with Saudi Arabia) are both major funders of ISIS/ISIL which is a destabilizing factor for the entire Middle-east (at least going by what I know of the issues there).  I mean, the US should really just let Iran do it's thing and we should stop screwing with other countries since all it's doing is creating more messes than it's fixing.  In this case, I think pulling out was the right move because the last thing you want to do to a tyrant is make them feel cornered as that's when a lot of people die when the dictators strike out in fear.  To be honest, we never should have made the pact with Iran in the first place.  This also ties into the attack that Trump balked on, as I think what was going on there was Trump figuring out who the warhawks are.

Although... I think the world has forgotten the horrors of a nuked city so we may be getting a reminder of their terrible power - much to the chagrin of everyone involved.  For that matter, I'm surprised that a terrorist groups hasn't snuck a nuke through our southern border with Mexico and used it on one of the major US cities.  Once they got into a vehicle with license plates, all they'd need to do is drive normally to their destination, detonate their bomb, and the US would have a catastrophic loss of life.

Touching back on the Iraq stuff, that was primarily caused by the CIA feeding other US agencies false information which only destabilized that entire region.  Essentially, the CIA played Bush like a fiddle, so given the bad information Bush had, he made the "correct" decision that had terrible ramifications.  Most forget that point as the media painted the scenario that Bush was being a warhawk rather than Bush was looking at the bad data and UN resolutions going "if the UN isn't going to act on this, I will".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

 

Touching back on the Iraq stuff, that was primarily caused by the CIA feeding other US agencies false information which only destabilized that entire region.  Essentially, the CIA played Bush like a fiddle, so given the bad information Bush had, he made the "correct" decision that had terrible ramifications.  Most forget that point as the media painted the scenario that Bush was being a warhawk rather than Bush was looking at the bad data and UN resolutions going "if the UN isn't going to act on this, I will".

I lost a crate of red wine on that. I said - "Even the Americans are not stupid enough to invade Iraq now" - "Wanna bet?" - came the replay in a flash. Seriously, it did not take a genius to predict the outcome.   G.W. Bush was just too stupid to pick his advisers.

I just hope Trump picks Albania to invade. 

P.S. The first Iraq war is another matter.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

That's not how I see it, as Iran (along with Saudi Arabia) are both major funders of ISIS/ISIL which is a destabilizing factor for the entire Middle-east (at least going by what I know of the issues there).  I mean, the US should really just let Iran do it's thing and we should stop screwing with other countries since all it's doing is creating more messes than it's fixing.  In this case, I think pulling out was the right move because the last thing you want to do to a tyrant is make them feel cornered as that's when a lot of people die when the dictators strike out in fear.  To be honest, we never should have made the pact with Iran in the first place.  This also ties into the attack that Trump balked on, as I think what was going on there was Trump figuring out who the warhawks are.

Although... I think the world has forgotten the horrors of a nuked city so we may be getting a reminder of their terrible power - much to the chagrin of everyone involved.  For that matter, I'm surprised that a terrorist groups hasn't snuck a nuke through our southern border with Mexico and used it on one of the major US cities.  Once they got into a vehicle with license plates, all they'd need to do is drive normally to their destination, detonate their bomb, and the US would have a catastrophic loss of life.

Touching back on the Iraq stuff, that was primarily caused by the CIA feeding other US agencies false information which only destabilized that entire region.  Essentially, the CIA played Bush like a fiddle, so given the bad information Bush had, he made the "correct" decision that had terrible ramifications.  Most forget that point as the media painted the scenario that Bush was being a warhawk rather than Bush was looking at the bad data and UN resolutions going "if the UN isn't going to act on this, I will".

Wait, what? Iran didn't fund ISIS at all, they actively opposed them (Saudi Arabia... well, I wouldn't put it passed them). They sent troops to both Syria and Iraq to fight them.

A nuke isn't the most convenient or even effective way of mass killing people now, considering the risk/cost of it, which is probably one reason it hasn't happened. I've been very sceptical of all terrorist attacks in the last decade, since they don't seem to be about loss of life or even long-term impacts, they're really quite shit if you think about it. A dozen, maybe two dozen people? Out of millions in one country? All those other ways they could fairly easily kill a lot of people, like derailing busy trains, mass poisoning, trucks along busy streets, etc. They don't seem to focus on them. It's just short, low-casualty attacks. If I were so inclined, I'd suggest a conspiracy that they're not all they seem.

When the CIA is the one still feeding the information, whatever claims they have about Iran that no other country seems to be able to verify should really be taken in a fuckload of salt. Trump is likely falling for the same shit, and it doesn't help that his ego is running the show when it comes to decisions. His stance on Iran is flawed as fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jedy2 said:

I lost a crate of red wine on that. I said - "Even the Americans are not stupid enough to invade Iraq now" - "Wanna bet?" - came the replay in a flash. Seriously, it did not take a genius to predict the outcome.   G.W. Bush was just too stupid to pick his advisers.

I just hope Trump picks Albania to invade. 

P.S. The first Iraq war is another matter.

Yeah, I was scratching my head on that one as well as Afghanistan made sense at the time (as we were going after Al Queada) - but it wasn't until later that I learned that we basically created the group that attacked us (cause we're skilled like that).  Iraq felt like it came out of the blue, and I saw it as mostly finishing up what Bush Sr had started, and also with the info that was used for the attack as "ah, that makes sense".  Later on I learned about how the CIA had basically played Bush and the entire thing was BS, but by that point... well... you get the point...

As far as Desert Storm goes, yes I know, my Dad was almost deployed over there, and helped to train many that went over to help clean up that mess.

6 hours ago, Doro said:

Wait, what? Iran didn't fund ISIS at all, they actively opposed them (Saudi Arabia... well, I wouldn't put it passed them). They sent troops to both Syria and Iraq to fight them.

A nuke isn't the most convenient or even effective way of mass killing people now, considering the risk/cost of it, which is probably one reason it hasn't happened. I've been very sceptical of all terrorist attacks in the last decade, since they don't seem to be about loss of life or even long-term impacts, they're really quite shit if you think about it. A dozen, maybe two dozen people? Out of millions in one country? All those other ways they could fairly easily kill a lot of people, like derailing busy trains, mass poisoning, trucks along busy streets, etc. They don't seem to focus on them. It's just short, low-casualty attacks. If I were so inclined, I'd suggest a conspiracy that they're not all they seem.

When the CIA is the one still feeding the information, whatever claims they have about Iran that no other country seems to be able to verify should really be taken in a fuckload of salt. Trump is likely falling for the same shit, and it doesn't help that his ego is running the show when it comes to decisions. His stance on Iran is flawed as fuck.

So please explain to me why the US should be the world's police force, rather than the UN or the EU.

IMO we should be leaving other countries alone, and let Europe and the Middle East sort out their neighbor.  If the US wants to embargo Iran, that doesn't mean the EU should follow suit.  I mean, I'm all for having our military assets over there to defend our trade ships as that's one of the reasons why the US Navy exists.

That said, your ship, your problem - and if the UK can't deal with the issue, they need to rethink their priorities because if Iran can show the UK incapable of defending themselves, you're opening yourself up for pirates to start capturing your trade ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

So please explain to me why the US should be the world's police force, rather than the UN or the EU.

IMO we should be leaving other countries alone, and let Europe and the Middle East sort out their neighbor.  If the US wants to embargo Iran, that doesn't mean the EU should follow suit.  I mean, I'm all for having our military assets over there to defend our trade ships as that's one of the reasons why the US Navy exists.

That said, your ship, your problem - and if the UK can't deal with the issue, they need to rethink their priorities because if Iran can show the UK incapable of defending themselves, you're opening yourself up for pirates to start capturing your trade ships.

I don't think the US should be the world's police force, and there's nothing in my post that would suggest I do. In fact, your response seems fairly disconnected to what I said entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Doro said:

I don't think the US should be the world's police force, and there's nothing in my post that would suggest I do. In fact, your response seems fairly disconnected to what I said entirely.

Cause you missed the point about terrorist attacks - it's not about lethality, it's about spectacle.  Look at the September 11th attacks - spectacle.  Bombing the subways - spectacle.  Releasing biological warfare into the subways - enriching the environment =P

I mean, you're saying taking the CIA info with a grain of salt is like saying you shouldn't trust MI6 (or whatever the UK equivalent is).  Either way, unless you're completely ignoring the propaganda factories (like BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc) your view of the world is going to be heavily skewed towards the war hawks.  Essentially, if you're only getting your news off of the TV, you're completely clueless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

Cause you missed the point about terrorist attacks - it's not about lethality, it's about spectacle.  Look at the September 11th attacks - spectacle.  Bombing the subways - spectacle.  Releasing biological warfare into the subways - enriching the environment =P

I mean, you're saying taking the CIA info with a grain of salt is like saying you shouldn't trust MI6 (or whatever the UK equivalent is).  Either way, unless you're completely ignoring the propaganda factories (like BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc) your view of the world is going to be heavily skewed towards the war hawks.  Essentially, if you're only getting your news off of the TV, you're completely clueless.

Which is why I said I'm sceptical of the motive behind terrorist attacks. The focus seems to be on attention, but with low casualties. A nuke wouldn't work in that regard.

Yes, you should also take what MI6 says with a grain of salt. Take what everyone says with a grain of salt. People will lie or make mistakes, it's just good practice to not take everything said as gospel. Which is why I don't just use the TV for news. I don't just use one source, or accept just one side, or listen to one kind of political-leaning. I take in what I can and find the more likely middle ground based on track records. However, I don't know what source you saw that said Iran was funding ISIS.

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  

×