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.

 

Report states Maersk ship will be sold by Iran

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
A surprisingly little media attention given to the seized ship and it's crew in the U.S.

Reports that Maersk officials are meeting with Iranian people over the issue but no participation by the U.S.? Even with U.S. citizens aboard?

This report is 5 hours old at the time of the thread.

www.presstv.ir... ommander

Iran claims it's a financial dispute between Maersk and an Iranian company and will release the ship, cargo and when paid 10 million dollars. Failing that payment, Iran will sell the ship and it's cargo.

Who'd buy it?

This is how one handles financial dis[putes? While it might spike the price of oil and make a little more on their oil exports, it does nothing to enhance their reputation as leaders that can be trusted with a nuclear weapons program...


If you don't pay your mortgage .. what does the bank do to your house ..?
Exactly .. repossess and sell off .. it's common practice everywhere ..from the lowest to the highest levels ..
Do you complain about the bank owner's reputation at that point ..or does life go on ..?




posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
First the media is dumb.

The Iranian company that did not get there cargo is a Iranian government front company.
The cargo not delivered was illegal under UN sanction and was sized before it got to Iran when it was learned that it was a sanctioned materiel for there nuke program. It was under a fake bill of lading and the listed contents were not what was in the shipping container.
cargo with a fake bill of lading can be sized by any port at any time.
My understanding was that the cargo was X-ray scanned in Singapore during a transshipping between two Maersk ships after the government there was ask to inspect the containers.

This put the Iranian government out a lot of money.

The Iranian government will never be able to sell the ship or cargo outside of Iran as it will be sized at the first port out side of Iran and the world court will return it to its rightful owners.

Obama and the other countries in negotiations with Iran do not want to mess up the nuclear deal and are not making waves about the ship knowing Iran can not do anything with the ship without putting new sanctions on iran not for there nuclear program but for illegally taking the ship.

After Obama gets the nuclear deal Iran will have to release the ship or the UN and other countries that are not part of the deal will be free to put new sanctions on Iran.
edit on 5-5-2015 by ANNED because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Circumstantial evidence. Ok. Apply that same logic to N.K.. They haven't 'done' anything. Certainly less than iran.

Besides it's not a court of law that needs to be convinced one way or the other.

I 100% agree about war. I am also 100% convinced a strong stance against Iran and any potential development of nukes decreases the possibility of nuclear war. No matter how much effort/force is required it is worth it. Failure (again) destroys utterly the non-proliferation agreement, starts an arms race in the ME. and virtually assures some nuclear event down the road.

Any evidence in developing nukes can be called circumstantial until they have that nuke. Then you'd have your 'evidence'.

I believe your argument increases the chance of that event happening.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

That's an interesting post. What's your source for this information? (I'm not doubting it in the slightest, it makes sense.) Yet if there's data available to the readers of the thread, it would help.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Grasping at straws again, I see.

I "trust' the Saudis, and the other five ME countries, do not trust Iran.

I 'trust" Netanyahu has better control on the Mossad than any President has had on the CIA.....



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: DeathSlayer

International sanctions trump Maritime Law...



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

You are right its not a court of law. But the sheer repocussions of war should mean the standard is as high or even higher.

As for north korea? Well there is hard evidence :
1) witness reports from defectors
2) nuclear tests


The world should have gone in after the first nuclear test before they made anything meaningfull .

If Iran wants nukes it will have to test them.
You cant build a defence policy round a weapon that may not work.

Bush and blair #ed up in 2003. I never want to see that happen. Thousands dead on both sides and the POS politicians thst caused walked away with millions in profit.

If im wrong? If Iran develop a nuke and use it before anyone notices (and il bet my repuation that wont happen) then blood is on bush, blair and chenys hands for crying wolf with Iraq,



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: junglimogli

What mortgage? What's your source?

The post by ANNED seems a more likely scenario....if verifiable.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Grasping at straws again, I see.

I "trust' the Saudis, and the other five ME countries, do not trust Iran.

I 'trust" Netanyahu has better control on the Mossad than any President has had on the CIA.....




You trust the saudis?

The abosolte monachy that stones women to death, chops off body parts and were most of Al queda and a good portion of ISIS comes from?

Ok sure...........

I would not trust them as far as I can throw a barrel of oil.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: haman10

Well, I am getting old and was rushed this morning getting this thread off before leaving for work. I, therefore, re-read my post as you suggested and YOU, not the "we" you claim to represent, that I understand that post...


If there is a specific point I need to clarify-and you aren't being deliberately obtuse- then I'd be glad to answer that query.

Otherwise, I will ignore it.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

The blood will also be on you and those that argue against blocking that development in the here and now.

You'd better explain how Bush and Blair failed stopping IRANIAN nuclear development. You connect points that aren't remotely related, from what I can see. All you suggest is allow Iran to duplicate N.K.'s nuclear development. It is completely contradictory.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DeathSlayer

If the incident is the subject of maritime law, it does not pass, by any means to "the law of the land" - even vessels in "inland waterways, rivers" etc are subject to maritime law.

The only thing that trumps maritime law in this case, is a tomahawk missile, then the gloves are off, the UN gets involved and laws are at the discretion of he who has the most weapons.

What we are currently witnessing occurs daily around the world and is not uncommon, in this instance, it's Iran and the Nuclear deal is set for next month so it is being highly politicized.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Stranger things have happened, however, with Maritime Insurance, because we are talking massive $$$, there really are only a hand-full of them globally. Pental Insurance Co Ltd in New Orleans is one. They work very closely with the likes of Lloyd Register, Det Norske Veritas and so on so it would usually be someone waiting on the sidelines to hit the boat as you suggest.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Would not International sanctions trump Maritime Law?

If payment was interpreted as in violation of those sanctions, as suggested by the post of ANNED, then one would think payment would be in abeyance/escrow for the duration of the sanctions.

U.S. escorting both U.S. and U.K. flagged ships through the Straights would also suggest more than a valid debt claim by Iran...



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Do you not understand the concept of a qualifier? Of course you do. "I 'trust' the Saudis and the other five ME nations do not trust Iran". That is very qualified. Yet you ignore it.

Lacking further valid points, please return to the thread topic.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

As the international sanctions are enforced by United Nations member states, those same member states must still comply with the IMO (International Maritime Organization - the Maritime wing of the United Nations).

You raise an excellent question - I honestly do not know as I have not been exposed to this scenario before. As previously indicated, Maritime law by itself is very complicated so to add sanctions to the mix will most likely mean a court ruling to set a precedence as I see no previous case ruling in this regard.

I think to myself - what is more legitimate - the payment of maritime levies or sanctions to counter the payment of Maritime levies. Murky, and a team of lawyers may take quite some time to fight this.

Again, an excellent point you (and ANNED) have raised.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

The blood will also be on you and those that argue against blocking that development in the here and now.

And I don't see any concrete evidence of the, developing anything.

It more likely your ilk will go in all RAR RAR like Iraq, # it up and kill thousands and find nothing.


originally posted by: nwtrucker
You'd better explain how Bush and Blair failed stopping IRANIAN nuclear development.

Its called crying wolf.

I do not trust the word of ANY politician now.
If there is war I want concrete proof not the word of Politicians.


originally posted by: nwtrucker
All you suggest is allow Iran to duplicate N.K.'s nuclear development. It is completely contradictory.

No I have not said that.

If the world had gone into NK after the first test then we could have stopped them being a nuclear power that blackmails half of Asia. You don't go from a test to having a Nuclear deterrent that can cause irreparable damage over night.

IF (and I dont see it happening) a Nuclear test in Iran happens the world will have time to respond.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

All right. Fine. You advocate waiting until the first test. Then war is justified by your standards and morals...your comfort zone. Got it.

Ok. In hind-site, I'd agree that after N.K.'s first test was the point that would have had the least casualties/harm to take out N.K..

Missed opportunity, I suppose. Now that China is starting to bleat about N.K.-instead of merely intimidating it's other neighbors, let them handle N.K..

The weakness-or at least, the potential weakness- in your position is an actual test isn't really mandatory to assume full detonation. Too many scientists, technology and expertise out there to assume a bomb would not work. Now add in, if a nation builds, lets say 6 bombs, then tests one, successfully, then announces the fact of five remaining and active weapons they now have a proven inventory, game over. They have their deterrence. If the test fails or is a partial, all they have to do is tweak the remaining units and in short order again deterrence is achieved.

I'm not shooting your position down entirely, just pointing out there are ways around that particular 'line in the sand', especially if made a public policy.

The Iranian situation is a different kettle of fish. IMO, it is far too late for the U.S./coalition to back down after sanctions, repeated lines in the sand that have disappeared. If they do, all credibility is lost to any that are considering similar developments. Now add in the fear of neighboring nations will not have diminished one bit. No real or credible deterrence out there to stop their own defensive development of nukes.

Even if Iran had zero intentions of building a nuke, only the delusional would buy into that one, someone else in the region would beat them to the punch.

A massive nuclear proliferation is guaranteed if the U.S. backs down at this stage. No penalties or consequence exists anywhere on the planet if this one fails. Period. Unarguable, IMO.

If this is to stop, be it by sanctions to such a point that the locals throw out the current gov't in Iran or even a bloodied nose by the U.S. it is far, far more preferable that unfettered proliferation.

The rest of the Yahoos have to get the idea that if they even think about developing nukes they get a case of the trots!!

That's my position on it.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I got my information from a member of ILWU Local 13 long beach calif.

Very seldom does homeland security scan out going shipping containers but they do in cases where they are going to companies that are believed to be working with or are shell companies of Iran.
This started after the case i posted.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

Thanks for the response and again, your initial post. It helped with the situation...




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join