It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: Iran Forces Seize US Cargo Ship With 34 People On Board

page: 15
61
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Why do I get the feeling neither story line is correct?




posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky



Has anyone else read that Iran got several billion as a signing bonus for the supposedly nuclear deal ? No link.... I think I heard that on the radio...just wondering if it might be true or if anyone else heard the same thing ?

The money Iran received was it's own money. So no they didn't get a signing bonus.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

People don't read. Sublimecraft had a ship in the area, and was able to find out what the deal was..


originally posted by: Sublimecraft
I am hearing that this is a PORT STATE CONTROL situation.

So - let me explain,

What this means is that the vessel was transiting in IRANIAN waters (WITH permission) and just like what Australia , and every other (non land-locked) country does is they have the right, under IMO (UN mandated international law) to inspect a vessel and insure it complies with that countries minimum Maritime requirements but more importantly SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea) and MLC (Maritime Labour Convention) compliance, class (certification body) and flag state (registration body).

Ie - do they carry the required # of lifejackets, will the lifeboat actually launch in an emergency, are the guys being fed and paid correctly and I can go on an on for pages.

No different to being pulled over in your caarr and the cops wanting to make sure no illegal mods etc etc.

Standby for verification...........its 0230hrs now here in Perth (Aus) so might nott be till morning.

Cheers for all the PM guys - very much appreciated.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
The OP says this is a US ship; however, this article says it is a Marshall Islands flagship.

Link


Dutch register flying Marshall Islands flag. Also was not fired a pond, but the Iran ships did shoot over its bow to get it to stop, still weird either way.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
The stopping the ship to check it out per rules may be acceptable but what about forcing it to port. Is that part of an allowable action under the circumstances?

edit:

Remember the SS Mayaguez incident.
edit on 4/28/2015 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: haman10

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: texasgirl
a reply to: haman10


Haman10- I don't reply much on ATS but you chose an interesting word to destroy US bases (in a hypothetical situation).

VAPORIZE?

Does your country, indeed, have the bomb?


And here I thought the Iranian nuke program was for peaceful purposes. LOL.


The level of IQ you guys (you and the ones who agreed with your post - also the ones who rule your country) is pretty much amazing .

A random guy on the internet - named haman10 - posted this on the internet : "we'll vaporize your bases if you attack us" and the response to that was :

"And here I thought the Iranian nuke program was for peaceful purposes. LOL."

indeed LOL . and LOL to those who agreed with you . but you know what ? this is pretty much a normal thing it seems .

I wouldn't be surprised if my post is taken to UNSC as a formidable evidence that Iran is seeking nukes .

indeed LOL . either that or average age here is no more than 14 .


Honestly....

Quite embarrassing really, not like I'm always one for showing tact but wow. If this conversation was ever an indication of what it would be like to war with one another, I'd be concerned for my well being. Besides if I'm not mistaken there is a wartime pact between Russia and Iran correct? It's not like we've been playing nice with the, either.


+7 more 
posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
The propaganda being spewed on MSM is making me sick.

FACTS:

1. Maersk Tigris is NOT American owned (verified)
2. Not American flagged. (verified)
3. NO US citizens on board.

So, read this.........U.S. planes and a destroyer were monitoring the situation after the vessel, the MV Maersk Tigris, made a distress call in the Strait of Hormuz, - multiple sources

"MONITORING" - there is your truth. IF this were an illegal act on behalf of Iran, there would be no "monitoring"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Final nuclear deal set for June.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I said earlier in this thread that IF the ship was in the Iranian waters they do have a right to stop it,but here is the thing. Snce BOTH IRAN and OMAN have intersecting claims there is a stipulation in that old geneva law that says straights cannot be claimed by either nation where it over laps SO technically its neutral.

Also SInce when is Talking about a strategy someone else wrote about attacking Iran translate to all americans being for it. Its a sound strategy and if a TOTAL WAR was declared that would be used. Also Did i call for wiping out the entire populace? Not quite. The people would toss their leaders out if they start to starve and thirst to death. sure some would die of course but a blockade is designed for that. Thats if TOTAL WAR DOCTRINE IS USED THOUGH. Its the worst case scenario.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
The propaganda being spewed on MSM is making me sick.

FACTS:

1. Maersk Tigris is NOT American owned (verified)
2. Not American flagged. (verified)
3. NO US citizens on board.

So, read this.........U.S. planes and a destroyer were monitoring the situation after the vessel, the MV Maersk Tigris, made a distress call in the Strait of Hormuz, - multiple sources

"MONITORING" - there is your truth. IF this were an illegal act on behalf of Iran, there would be no "monitoring"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Final nuclear deal set for June.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   

A T T E N T I O N



This is a hot-button topic; it's an important topic and one we can discuss with passion, but not rudeness. It's pretty simple -- debate the topic, it's ramifications, roots, whatever, BUT NOT each other. Civility, remember?

Thank you.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I apparantly cannot quote your post and have what I said to you show up on screen, so I just wanted to say THANK YOU so much for all the good information!


It is totally appreciated!

I alerted your post to request you get an applause for all you have done - because we are supposed to be able to do that..

Hopefully that was well understood to the mods!

THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN! and I do hope the mods give you an applause for your help!



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: voyger2
Route and site of detention for the vessel.

source

International waters (green) spot of interception (red)


Well, sure it hasn't late for the zionist mob came up to stir US hatred for Iranians.

Also, arrogance from few US "citizens" boiled fast, giving all the credit to the (fake) self proclaimed "mighty" defenders of righteousness.

Don't hope to be on Popcorns and sodas when a WW breaks out... there will be no winners...you know..just losers this time.

We need 10 more haman10 here at ATS to fight back against Iran bashing and lies. Don't you doubt, that, between the pollution and garbage thrown here, there will be some of us, that want to listen to other side.

Keep on Haman10, you sure have the attention around here, use it wisely. If you were not important the "hater's" would ignore you.
Welcome aboard by the way.

To be fair, the was a decent amount of us who were stating that Iran likely did what they did because that ship was off course of the transit lanes ... thanks for the updated information, if that is her actual track, Iran was in the right, I would have viewed that ship as a possible (suspected) threat in their position, and indeed, would be expected to act as such.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Strange - my post is incomplete, I think it had something to do with those arrows.

Anyway, just to confirm, Iran, under IMO Port State Compliance boarded the vessel after she refused to comply to alter course and be boarded. USCG and AMSA (google them) regularly instruct vessels within US and Aus territorial waters to do the exact same thing.

Port State Control.

But, something else is going on here BECAUSE the military (any military), under international Maritime law, is exempt from a multitude of civilian maritime laws and they are certainly exercising the "distress" call raised by the vessel - and this is where it gets interesting.

Under GMDSS (Global Maritime Distress and Safety Systems) any vessel in the vicinity is required to render assistance to any distress call if they are able to - and given the military presence there, MY SOURCE, confirms the US Navy exercised that right. The strange part is that the vessel had no reason to activate the distress call as they were not in danger - a VHF conversation, I am told, came from Iranian authorities for the Tigris to slow it's speed and prepare to be boarded for ......INSPECTION by Port State Authorities.

More info coming......standby



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft
Everything seems to have been carried out as one would expect in this situation. Called it on my first post in the thread. Thank you for the updates.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Sublimecraft

But, something else is going on here BECAUSE the military (any military), under international Maritime law, is exempt from a multitude of civilian maritime laws and they are certainly exercising the "distress" call raised by the vessel - and this is where it gets interesting.

Under GMDSS (Global Maritime Distress and Safety Systems) any vessel in the vicinity is required to render assistance to any distress call if they are able to - and given the military presence there, MY SOURCE, confirms the US Navy exercised that right. The strange part is that the vessel had no reason to activate the distress call as they were not in danger - a VHF conversation, I am told, came from Iranian authorities for the Tigris to slow it's speed and prepare to be boarded for ......INSPECTION by Port State Authorities.

More info coming......standby


Can you confirm the vessel is released, and if so, was it released due to the US destroyer response? Everything I search says it is still in Iranian captivity, thanks!

*Nevermind, rt is saying its underway and status set to "fast"
edit on 28-4-2015 by Neutrality because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Lysergic

The US Navy is off the coast of Yemen, ready to intercept any Iranian vessel trying to resupply the Houthi in Yemen. Just a few days ago The US forced an Iranian convoy to turn back.

Tit for Tat.

(And if the people in the White House weren't such propellerhead they would have seen this coming)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: dbarnhart
Could be a political tit for tat, Iran didn't necessarily have to do what they did today, or the other day, but they did. Today, as voyager2 pointed out in the track, if that is her actual track, Iran had the right to do what it did.

We would do the same thing if a ship was suppose to be going to Baltimore and turned toward Norfolk while in the Chesapeake bay, for example, it would be viewed as a possible threat.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Thank you Sublime, for your informative posts, sadly it will be ignored by most wanting/wishing this to be some sign if impending doom or war.

Look at the original source for the article, a Saudi news organization. I'm sure the Saudi's chose the words in their press release carefully to make the matter seem far more sinister on the part of the Iranians, to wit: "fired upon," and "US cargo ship," and "US sailors taken captive."

The House of Saud is playing the propaganda game big time against their arch foes and anti-Iranian Americans are eating it up.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: haman10
^^ thank you sir . and i thank all those who actually used their brains before going nuts

and to all those who went all cowboy in this thread : since i signed up here i've seen nothing but hostility from some members .

if you cannot contribute in a positive manner : Attack Iran and see what happens cowboys .



By that comment it Looks like you are also well versed in doing a little chest pounding yourself and perhaps a little baiting as well?

No I didn't jump to conclusion when I first heard the news nor did I go Cowboy on the thread, but your statement to




Attack Iran and see what happens cowboys


Is not going to get you any friends.

BTW are you in IRAN at the moment ? Out of curiosity how did you come to find out about ATS and welcome if you haven't been welcomed already?



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Thanks for the time and input you have provided.



new topics




 
61
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join