Iranian boats attempted to seize British tanker

Sure. https://www.newsweek.com/al-quds-da...-flag-chant-death-israel-death-america-628520

 

We are not involved. As you see France and Germany as well as EU memebrship stay silent. The Uk is alone with this.

Infact we advice the UK to free the iranian ship.

 

In the long run it could be cheaper to send large tankers around the cape than through the canal. I read somewhere that it cost $435000 just for a ship to pass through the canal and the total cost of around $830,000 for a ship the size of the Iranian tanker to go via the cape from Iran.

So it depends how much more oil the larger ship can take and also the extra cost on top of the $435,000 for the smaller ship. It might also be significantly cheaper to contract one large tanker than two small tankers

 

Oh no, they burnt ISIS flags. Oh, you forgot to answer this: "In what world is Iran capable of destroying the US!"

 

It might hurt you, but we have no sanctions on Iran. Zero. Nada. We deliver evrything. Sell the aircrafts even.



We even build up INSTEX to go around american sanctions

The article here says: Shock for USA, Europe starts an alliance to counter american sanctions against Iran

https://www.businessinsider.de/eu-geht-buendnis-ein-das-trump-zum-kochen-bringt-instex-iran-2019-7

Merkel now even pulled Russia into INSTEX

INSTEX is a EU tool to trade with Iran without $. It was created by Germany and France





So you have it. We did not just drop the sanctions against Iran. We even backstab you and couteract your own.

 

You're another guy who thinks Sunni and Shia are the same!

 

Right. And that was back in 1953, 66 years ago, and they still haven't recovered. Since then the Cold War has ended, countries once under Communist rule have become free, and yet Iranians and others still moan about 1953. Democracy would never have succeeded, but it's a chance to blame the US.

 

You instaleld a tyrant there. The Shah was a monster.

Iran doesnt blame USA for ****. They just denie you to interfere there. And they do so quite sucessful.

They ruined your plans for Iraq and Syria. You toppeled Saddam and what you got was an Iraq acting as iranian vasall.

In Syria you wanted Assad out and push back iranian influence. Assad is still in power and Iran gained even influence.

Looks like Iran pushs you out of middle east completly. Which is best for all sides.

 

I'm not surprised.

 

Your problem is, that your sanctions can be evaporated when Europe doesnt follow you.

And you know what? We dont even have a chance to put sanctions on Iran. We have a deal with Iran. A deal that Trump broke without consulting us.

You are aware that we have to save face as well? That we dont want be forced to do something?

Had Trump consulted Germany and France before, we could have found a solution.

But not that way. We are not your vasalls.

The newest proposal is, that the EU buys iranian oil for 60 billion €. Then Iran would be even better off than before your sanctions.

I believe its Merkels core politics to counter evrything what Trump does. And France does that as well and with that entire EU

 

Absolute bullcrap. The guy was from the NF, and it has nothing communistic about it. They guy himself never even talked to a Russian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_(Iran)

 

Bullcrap. Iran was willing to sell their oil on their terms to the west. The UK cut the world off from Irans oil when they nationalized it with a naval blockade.

 

That's your own referral in post 270... "they're wiped out by a daisy cutter or something similar". And with your "between Muslims or Jews I'd pick the more civilized and better educated of the two."... well that's just a rather racist statement.

You mean... you pretend you forgot what you wrote, and suddenly it's my referral. All after that I argumenten that your idea's are just like the ones of Hamas. Except Hamas uses far smaller bombs. Your idea of using daisy cutters is to deliberately massacre as many as possible.

In short: you openly support the idea to use a disproportionately use of force. That's a breach of international humanitarian law. It's something Israeli's refuse to understand when attacking Arabs in order to make them stop objecting to their ethnically cleansing ways.

https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4171.pdf
Parties to an armed conflict are thus permitted, or at least are not legally barred from, attacking each other’s military objectives, including enemy personnel. By contrast, acts of violence directed against civilians or civilian objects are unlawful. Indeed, one of the main purposes of IHL is to spare them from the effects of hostilities. In elaborating the principle of distinction, IHL also prohibits inter alia indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks24 and obliges the parties to the conflict to observe a series of precautionary rules in attack, aimed at avoiding or minimizing incidental harm to civilians and civilian objects.25 This set of rules (i.e. distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack) can be described as the main part of the conduct of hostilities paradigm. They regulate the means and methods of warfare.


I hope your level of English is able to understand this.
You may need to read this a couple of times to understand.

 

Khartoum is the capital of Sudan. Its in the northern part of Sudan. The Christians and animists lived in the southern part of the country (now the nation of South Sudan after gaining independence),
then called the Bahr El Ghazal. Iran has threatened 'Death to Israel,' 'Death to America' many times. But, as I said "Rhetoric is not genocide." Wether or not Iran could carry out these threats is
beside the point.

 

You seem to have missed the point. Perhaps you can explain again how Shia Iran is responsible for events in Sunni Khartoum?

 

To quote Wikipedia, "British Prime Minister Winston Churchill suggested to the incoming Eisenhower administration that Mosaddegh, despite his open disgust with socialism, was, or would become,
dependent on the pro-Soviet Tudeh Party, resultiing in Iran 'increasingly turning towards communism' and towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high Cold War fears."

Another Wikipedia article says, "To make matters worse, the Communist Tudeh Party, which supported the Soviet Union and had attempted to kill the Shah only four years earlier, began to infiltrate
the military and sent mobs to 'support Mos
addegh' (but in reality to marginalize all non-Communist opponents). Earlier the Tudeh had denounced Mosaddegh, but by 1953 they channged tack and decided to
'support' him. The Tudah violently attacked opponents under the guise of helping the prime minister (the cousin of the future queen of Iran, Farah Pahlavi, was stabbed at the age of 13 in his school by Tudeh
activists), and unwittingly helped cause Mosaddegh's reputatiom to decline, despite the fact that he never officially endorsed them. However, by 1953 he and the Tudeh had formed an unofficial alliance of convenience with each other; the Tudeh were the 'foot soldiers' for his government, effectively replacing the Fadaiyan in that role, all the while secretly hoping that Mosaddegh would institute communism."

And, "Worried about Britain's other interests in Iran, and (thanks to the Tudeh party) believing that Iran's nationalism was really a Soviet-backed plot, Britain persuaded US Secretary of State
John Foster Dulles that Iran was falling to the Soviets - effectively exploiting the American Cold War mindset."

As can be seen from these quotes, Britain and the United States were afraid that Iran would become pro-Soviet. Those fears were probably exaggerated, but they were nonetheless real. An alliance
with the Soviet Union could have resulted in Iran cutting off the West from her oil.

 

I never said Iran was in any way responsible for events Sudan. I don't know how you came up with that idea. I simply used events in the Sudan as the most recent example of genocide.

 

The president of Iran wasn't from the Tudeh party. 3/4 of your argument is about that. The Tudeh party played no roll in it's government and in it's policies. If the Tudeh party supported the Iranian government or not is of no importance to the Iranian government. It is as if Omar would support Hamas and than claim Trump is listening to that and changes his policies.

And about Churchill. It reads that the Iranian president was "open disgust with socialism". So it's obvious that in order for the UK getting their hands on Iranian oil, they played the red-scare card to the US. I doubt you understand.

 

If you had copied my entire post it would have read "Those fears were probably exaggerated, but they were none the less real. An alliance with the Soviet Union could have resulted in Iran cutting off the West from her oil." It's pretty clear from my post that Britain "played the red-scare card to the US." Apparently you didn't read "effectively exploiting the American Cold War mindset." As for what role the Tudeh Party played,
people can read the quotes in my post and decide for themselves. Your snarky comment at the end is beneath anyone attempting a serious discussion.

 

As seems inevitable among Germans, you've been misinformed. Germans are infamous for their foreign policy blundeers. https://allthatsinteresting.com/shah-of-iran-before-1979#13

 

Do you know Savak? The Shah murdered hundredthousands, tortured and killed. A few whores in tehran with minishirts dont make good, that the tyrant tortured his people, squeezed out his country and lived in absolute corruption

 

They were fake.

As you quoted. The iranian PM hated socialism, openly. He never talked to any Russian. I told you this before. You're not responding to this.

The Tudeh party was not governing Iran, and so played no roll. I commented on this before. You're not responding.

 

The Tudeh Party didn't have to be governing Iran to have influence. I think the above quotes establish that they did have some effect on events. Can you give a source to your claim that Mosaddegh
"never talked to any Russian?" There were two major power blocks - the West and the Soviets. Since Mosaddegh's move to nationalize the oil industry was interpreted as hostility to the West (rightly
or wrongly) Great Britain and others assumed he was moving closer to the Soviets. The supposed support of Mosaddegh by the Communist Tudeh Party reinforced that view. To again quote from
Wikipedia, "The Tudeh Party of Iran is an Iranian communist party. Formed in 1941, with Soleiman Mohsen Eskandari as its head, it had considerable influence in its early years and played an
important role during Mohammad Mosaddegh's campaign to nationalize the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and his term as prime minister." That directly contradicts your statement that it "played no
roll." If you disagree with that, take it up with Wikipedia. (the article was the 'Tudeh Party of Iran.') Just because the Tudeh Party was influencing events, however, doesn't necessarily mean that
Mosaddegh would have inevitably turned to the Soviets.

 

You can see that throughout Cold War history, from Castro to Allende.

 

That's a long way from 'supporting Iran'.