Iranian boats attempted to seize British tanker

When you deliberately are killing children by the 10.000's... than that is genocide. I sourced that the US is causing that.

 

Rather typical of the pro Jewish crowed to support the idea of genocide.

 

The US did not remove some Ayatollah, but an elected president. The US deliberately destroyed the Iranian democracy to install fascism. It's pushed Iran decades into the past. You really do not seem to know what you're talking about at all. lol

 

Still makes the US complicit of genocide. And Iran is the country that does something against it. True story.

 

In fact genocide was not mentioned; that's a fantasy inside your head. And between Muslims or Jews I'd pick the more civilized and better educated of the two.

 

Didn't you claim that Iran is a democracy today? So where's the beef?

Without western help, and the Shah, Iran would still be in the eighth century. As it is they're only approaching the 18th century.

 

I would as well because I am white and more Jewish people are white.....but as far as civilized.....Israel is an apartheid state that segregates people along ethnic lines. I get it. They are protecting themselves. But they are WAY to happy with the protection we give them and they need to back off.

They want us to attack Iran. Iran is a very progressive nation. This would be a huge mistake by the U.S. and cost us terribly.

 

This iis why so much of the Middle east is not worthy of respect. They can't take responsibility for their own actions and, like children, try to blame their faults on others. It's a culture that never reached adulthood.

 

You've been misinformed. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/orde...s-palestinian-arab-citizens-turn-out-to-vote/

 

Thanks for the 'like', James.

 

Come to think of it, if all an army is allowed to do would be limited to reaction equal in every aspect to the enemy's action, wars will never end. Justice and fairness, yay...?

 

Most Israeli Jews are MENA natives. Israel is not a white nation by any possible standards.

Nobody wants to attack the Iranian nation. What most countries in the Middle East want is to see the theocratic, threatening regime of the Ayatollahs gone.

 

The U.S. is riding a nationalistic wave...….it will pass

 

Trump is the (predictable) reaction to eight years of left leaning, America-you-must-love-thy-enemy kind of administration. Nationalism looks better. It is better, in small quantities. The wave US is riding right now is ultra-nationalism, combined with traditionalism. It will pass.

 

Not behind on the rent....I just wish the scrappers would contain themselves.

Go to the body.

 

The British were enforcing an EU sanction against Syria when it seized an Iranian tanker disguised as a foreign vessel trying to deliver fuel to Syria. It is an EU sanction so where is the EU on this? Germany, France, etc. why aren't you supporting the Brits? Nothing but crickets on this so far from the other EU members.

 

Apparently the Brits are trying to back out of this, so why should the EU jump in the middle of it now?

It has been reported the UK acted on America's behest in seizing the tanker. I have not read of any consultation with the entire EU. They're probably pissed that the UK invoked EU sanctions to do the US's bidding.

Anyway.......

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said the Iranian tanker detained by Royal Marines near Gibraltar could be released, if the UK is guaranteed the oil is not bound for Syria.

The tanker, seized on 4 July, was suspected of breaking EU sanctions.

Iran claimed the seizure was "piracy". Iranian ships later tried to impede a British tanker, the UK claimed .

After "constructive" talks with Tehran, Mr Hunt said he was encouraged Iran has no desire to escalate the situation.

He said he reassured Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif that "our concern has always been destination, not origin of the oil" and that the UK would facilitate release "if we received sufficient guarantees that it would not be going to Syria".

He added that Mr Zarif wants to resolve the issue and was "not seeking to escalate".

However, the Iranian foreign minister insisted his country would continue its oil exports under any conditions.

In a statement issued after the phone conversation with Mr Hunt, Mr Zarif said the destination of the oil tanker was a legal one in the eastern Mediterranean, adding that Britain should quickly release the vessel.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/48977093

 

It's odd that the same countries that support the ban on Syria importing oil are the ones who complain about refugees from Syria entering their country. How can Syria be rebuilt without access to oil. The west, in particular the US and Israel, favour constant turmoil in the middle east. Who benefits most from this oil ban? Israel

 

Syria cannot be rebuilt until the civil war ends and security is re-established.

 

There is no desire from the west, Saudi Arabia and Israel for the civil war to end. Judging by the total lack of news, one would have thought that the civil war ended months ago, but as you are aware, that is not the case

 

"Mr Hunt said he reassured Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif that "our concern has always been destination, not origin of the oil" and that the UK would facilitate release "if we received sufficient guarantees that it would not be going to Syria".

"However, the Iranian foreign minister insisted his country would continue its oil exports under any conditions.

What part of Mr Hunt's statement about destination and not origin did Mr. Zarif not understand? Britain is not backing down and said it would release Iran's vessel, which by the way was registered and flagged under another country, if Iran does not send the oil to Syria. So again, this is an EU sanction against Syria so where is the EU on this?

 

Iran maintains that EU sanctions on Syria do not apply to Iran. Perhaps other EU countries agree with Iran. Syria does import oil, so where does that oil come from and why aren't those same conditions applied to that exporting country? Dare I say that it is Russia that is exporting oil to Syria and other countries including the US are too scared to interfere but the UK was happy to interfere with Iran's exports since the UK will be backed up by the US. And this is the point. The UK are being a poodle to the US which is what Iran maintains and little doubt, other EU countries agree with Iran

 

Assad won't stop killing until all his opponents are dead and the cities and towns that supported the civil war against him are detroyed.

 

The EU sanctioned Syria from getting oil in the hopes it would stop Assad's military from creating more refugees which are flooding the EU. If Iran thinks they are exempt from the EU's sanction they are sadly mistaken.

 

A better question might be why did the UK act unilaterally on EU sanctions. To date, I haven't seen any comments from these other countries. I don't think it's assuming too much to think that, had the EU endorsed the seizure, that some public statements would have been made.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thecon...-telling-glimpse-of-post-brexit-future-120437

It’s rare to experience silence in this age of political anger and loudness, of bombastic tweets, insulting truths and incredible lies. It’s so unfashionable for a politician to not immediately respond to an event with lightening praise or withering cynicism, that when we hear nothing, it seems as though something technical has gone wrong. To be silent, we are told, is to be apolitical; to not have an opinion, to be neutral or perhaps simply to be oblivious.

But when it comes to diplomacy, perhaps we underestimate the impact of silence. A case in point was the lack of response from the EU over the UK’s strange role in the arrest of an Iranian supertanker in the Mediterranean Sea in early July. As the action was taken to uphold EU sanctions, the silence was all the more remarkable. And it offers a stark forewarning of the foreign policy tensions the UK will face after it leaves the EU.