Certainly your photo is of the navy escorting a boat through but the boat is not the one which the Iranians ran off with.
You 2 do realize the Iranians had a conversation with that navy escort, shown in that pic. And there was very little the ship could have done against a chopper where the marines dropped out of. That and the UK did bring this up on themselves. They denied Iran their rights to free passage.
Except the Iranians don't have the right to ship oil to Syria. The UK did nothing wrong. Iran on the other hand is engaged in piracy and hostage taking. Iran is the bad guy and not a victim. Their apologists are wrong.
No the didn’t. So the ship couldn’t of engaged the chopper at all? Think there’s a lot the ship can do to the chopper if needed
You do realize that all I commented on is that you were wrong in acting like that ship in the picture is the one that was taken. It clearly is not. So just own it. Don't try to dodge.
You have been arguing that the British had a warship there at the scene when the Irainian's took the tanker with the British Flag. This is not true. Any beliefs you have which rely on your wrong belief that there was a British warship at the scene will not be accurate due to the fact that you are wrong in what you state concerning the warship. That is all we have been arguing.
The bridge your differences, and to be accurate, there was a British frigate within a mile of the tanker in communication with both the tanker and the Iranian speedboats. While it wasn't at the scene of the incident, you can rest assured that if it was foolish and reckless enough, despite British reports suggesting it was "too far away" to do anything, it could have actually engaged the Iranian speedboats and it could have rushed to where the tanker was being taken as it moved from Omani waters to international waters into Iranian territorial waters. But that indeed would have been a foolish move. The purpose of any escort as the one now being promised by the Brits is to show the flag and rely on that being enough to deter a seizure. Of course, relying merely on the flag to deter is much more effective now that Iran has already picked up its bargaining chip and, in fact, has little interest to seize another vessel at this time (note that Iran seized 2 ships but released the 2nd one on its own). My point is this: if Iran wants to seize a ship, and is willing to risk the broader ramifications, there isn't anything a frigate or two sailing in an area swarming with Iranian anti ship missiles, submarines and naval vessels can do about it, except getting itself sunk. Otherwise, in the past there have been 2 separate incidents where Iran seized British royal navy vessels and their crew, including one where the vessel taken belonged to a navy frigate unit which was right there at the scene. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_arrest_of_Royal_Navy_personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel
Iran didn't seize the Stena Impero until after a Gibraltar court ruled that Iran's tanker would be held until at least August 15. Iran then went tit for tat the same day.
I can't quickly get information on that. However I can tell you that it was repeatedly said here that it would have been impossible for it to make it to the tanker before it was taken and that it was considerably further away than you are suggesting. That is what we were told from the beginning before people had time to make things up. Our news said repeatedly this was not so. You will remember that the previous time when Iran tried to take a tanker and there was a British warship near by the Iranians changed their mind. To engage the British in the way you are suggesting is to declare war which of course Iran can do if she wants. I expressed concerns about the British taking on this job because it heightens the tension. That remains.
OK this is the Sun but it is much the same as everyone was reporting https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/95505...rit-tanker-ignore-iran-threats-change-course/ There may have been a mistake in reporting between one mile away which Iran is apparently saying and one hour away which the British said. This will be where the nuclear submarine talk came from. Hunt said nothing about that and to the best of my knowledge this did not and is not happening.
Not that it matters much in the over all scheme of things, but: Since I recognize the UK's MOD had said the British frigate was too far away (approximately "60 minutes away", which incidentally is a strange way to measure distance), and yet I had read more specific reports suggesting the British frigate was not all that distant from the situation, I will try to see if I can find something more specific. The fact that a British warship had tried to intervene however was first reported by Iran, even if western accounts didn't dwell on it until the selected audio exchanges were released.
The first place to see how far was the British frigate is to carefully examine the video footage showing the seizure of the Stena Impero by Iran's revolutionary guards. Go to around 21 seconds into the video and you may notice a frigate sized warship at a distance:
Camera was panning so hard to tell. Probably an Iranian boat is my guess. I just don't see Iran seizing a boat right under the nose of a British warship. Iran has been careful in calibrating its responses all along. It doesn't fit for them to do something so potentially explosive.
Iran has twice taken British royal navy vessels (never mind a commercial tanker) in the past, including once right in eye sight of its mother-ship, the HMS Cornwall.
Definitely not a "boat". Watch the video carefully there are a few times you can see what is clearly a larger vessel that looks very much like the British frigate. Iran, I should add, was the first to report that there was a British warship around the area which tried unsuccessfully to intervene.
Well, I have looked at the video a few more times and I am less confident whether the vessel I was referring to could be the British frigate. Either way, it doesn't matter all that much and its possible the British version of how far the frigate was might be accurate enough. Iran hasn't officially commented on it. Separately, Sean Hanity had Trump on the phone to respond to his comment that the US would "devastate" Iran... https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-hannity-trump-iran-devastate-understatement-1451248 FOX NEWS HOST SEAN HANNITY SAYS TRUMP WILL 'DEVASTATE' IRAN WITH AMERICA'S 'MILITARY MIGHT,' PRESIDENT REPLIES THAT'S 'AN UNDERSTATEMENT'
Nothing now, but since the names were similar (Stena Impero v Stena Important) my first look at the BBC report/picture that was posted got me confused as to why you were questioning it.
Why I was questioning it? No, I have believed that the Montrose was too far away to do anything which is what I heard both straight away and later. No one has questioned that here. I guess you are saying at first look you did not notice it was a different boat. OK hopefully all sorted now
And that is where you're wrong. The UK must give Iran the same right of free passage in the straight. The EU/UK has no authority over non EU nations to demand who they can and can not do business with. It aint the UN.
I do. But you should also acknowledge that ship was there in the vicinity.... since it talked with them lil Iranian motor boats. And with the crap those ships are packing.... it wouldn't matter if they were miles our or right next to it. And it is as if you're going like,... no... no... the navy of the UK can only shoot from point blank.
