• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Iran threatens British shipping in retaliation for tanker seizure

sooda

Veteran Member
If I were a captain on a ship, I would have a gun on me. I might shoot at a suprise helicopter landing on my ship.

Screw "combat training"... We're talking about survival on the open seas.

I think most all private and commercial ships or boats probably have a pistol or some lethal weapon on board.. But, if the company doesn't want you to fight, you don't fight. No tanker crew is going to fight the Royal Marines. That's laughable.

If Iran wants to take on the Royal Marines... LOLOL... Oh well.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Perhaps the global economic sanctions against Iran are taking a strong toll on the Iranian economy as well as diminishing the operational capabilities of the Iranian military .

I think so.. Iran needs to capitulate and rejoin the international community. They are playing to lose. They need to be a force for peace and prosperity in Lebanon and Gaza and Yemen instead of such a stupid pain in the rear.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
I think most all private and commercial ships or boats probably have a pistol or some lethal weapon on board.. But, if the company doesn't want you to fight, you don't fight. No tanker crew is going to fight the Royal Marines. That's laughable.

If Iran wants to take on the Royal Marines... LOLOL... Oh well.

Even the captain from the movie titanic had a pistol. ;)

But no, my whole point was only to imagine the situation for personal amusement purposes only. The intensity of it all... Nobody has to I guess. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
This whole thing was started by Trump, who dishonored an agreement with Iran.
It would be reasonable for Iran to see the British committing an act of war.
This risks retaliation & escalation.
Stupid Brits.
(That last remark is for @oldbadger.)

Btw, I do admit some amusement seeing the Brits,
who excoriate Trump, now acting as his minion.
Hey, Badger...how does it feel to be our b***h?

Your *****, Rev?
Are you still trying to make up to me?

The Tanker is only being held for about one week while a judicial revue takes place.
Apparently Iran is not supposed to supply Syria with Fuel oils and so we'll have to see what an International Court decides.

So I don't know much about it all, other than to say that you'll have to go clubbing if you want a *****,... Rev.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The Tanker is only being held for about one week while a judicial revue takes place.
Apparently Iran is not supposed to supply Syria with Fuel oils and so we'll have to see what an International Court decides.
I underlined a significant part.
Passive voice doesn't address who is doing the "supposing".
Did Iran have some agreement to not do this?
Or did some other country impose this upon an unwilling Iran?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I underlined a significant part.
Passive voice doesn't address who is doing the "supposing".
Did Iran have some agreement to not do this?
Or did some other country impose this upon an unwilling Iran?
I think it was an imposition.
Syria has a rather uncivil government, as you know.
Dear President Assad is not so nice.

Letr's see what happens.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I think it was an imposition.
By whom?
Suppose Iran told USA that it couldn't send ships into the region.
But USA did.
Would that mean that Iran could seize any such ship because it
"wasn't supposed to" be there? You see the problem with making
a supposition based upon imposing it upon an unwilling country.
Our 'morality' is asymmetric...sort of a "do unto others as we damn
well please" policy.
 
Last edited:

Cooky

Veteran Member
By whom?
Suppose Iran told USA that it couldn't send ships into the region.
But USA did.
Would that mean that Iran could seize any such ship because it
"wasn't supposed to" be there? You see the problem with making
a supposition based upon imposing upon an unwilling country.
Our 'morality' is asymmetric...sort of a "do unto others as we damn
well please" policy.

I want to take this a step deeper... What causes this deep seated distrust between countries like {Israel and Palestine}, {USA and Russia}, {Western countries and Iran}?

Is there a common link to this unrepairable, deep-seated distrust? Does it all stem from dominance? If so dominance of what?

Or is it mindlessness.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I want to take this a step deeper... What causes this deep seated distrust between countries like {Israel and Palestine}, {USA and Russia}, {Western countries and Iran}?

Is there a common link to this unrepairable, deep-seated distrust? Does it all stem from dominance? If so dominance of what?

Or is it mindlessness.
A melange of those plus religion.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
There was nothing casual about this encounter.
Well, no duh. A military commandeering a vessel isnt a casual encounter, which is beyond apparently obvious. But, that does not prove or suggest they boarded anything more than a tanker, who like most other tanker crews were just in no position to fight back. And, do remember, out in the real world where there are no Hollywood cameras, people are discouraged from playing hero because it very often makes things worse, things escalate, and people needlessly get hurt and killed. Open fire on the Royal Marines? Good job on getting a bullet through your head. You most likely would have lived had you not been eager to pull a trigger.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
That's not how soldiers are trained.
They're trained to fight and die over stupid stuff.
Tom
The tanker crew was probably not military, and unlikely to have adequate time to respond, as is the typical case with night raids.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
By whom?
Suppose Iran told USA that it couldn't send ships into the region.
But USA did.
Would that mean that Iran could seize any such ship because it
"wasn't supposed to" be there? You see the problem with making
a supposition based upon imposing upon an unwilling country.
Our 'morality' is asymmetric...sort of a "do unto others as we damn
well please" policy.
Gosh. !!
Wow! We'all never thought of that.........!

Now just imagine how much smoother this world would run, if you was running things, eh?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Now just imagine how much smoother this world would run, if you was running things, eh?
I'd rule with a titanium fist.

Trivia time....
RF at one time prohibited the word, "fist".
This was because.....uh.....who knows....staff are weird.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Your *****, Rev?
Are you still trying to make up to me?

The Tanker is only being held for about one week while a judicial revue takes place.
Apparently Iran is not supposed to supply Syria with Fuel oils and so we'll have to see what an International Court decides.

So I don't know much about it all, other than to say that you'll have to go clubbing if you want a *****,... Rev.

The US has sanctions on Iran selling their oil.

The Latest: Israel calls for ‘snapback sanctions’ on Iran
... after President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the deal. Iran has repeatedly warned Europe in recent weeks that ...

The Charlotte Observer
3h
 
Top