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.

 

Has iran surpassed North Korea as 'the' rogue nation'?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   


Iran–North Korea relations are described as being positive by official news agencies of the two countries. Diplomatic relations picked up following the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the establishment of an Islamic Republic. Iran and North Korea pledge cooperation in educational, scientific, and cultural spheres,[1] as well as cooperating in the nuclear program of Iran.[2] The United States has been greatly concerned by North Korea's arms deals with Iran, which started during the 1980s with North Korea acting as a third party in arms deals between the Communist bloc and Iran, as well as selling domestically produced weapons to Iran, and North Korea continues selling missile and nuclear technology to Iran. North Korea and Iran are the remaining two members of George W. Bush's "Axis of evil," which has led to many of the concerns regarding Iran–North Korea relations.

Iran–North Korea relations





posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Considering many states do not execute and the rest take decades to get to that point-except Texas- I'd say without doubt.

I have friends and acquaintances from Iran and the stories are enlightening. Plenty of goings on that caused their emigration. If you think otherwise regarding the treatment of their own people or that the general population likes it's leadership and it's oppression, you'd be mistaken.

Still, this isn't really Germane, these acts, potentially, puts the Straights at risk, are arbitrary in their nature and I suggest that those defending Iran take another look at the potential consequences of them.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

At the moment, N.K. and Iran seem very, very ,similar.


Other than they are they both have no central banks... no, they do not look similar at all. Iran has the support of the global community despite the ramblings of a few psychotic war mongerers that think that your rights are too talerant, the world deserves to be spied on and that only a Muslim can be a terrorist. But who really gives a *snip* what they think? Clearly their mothers never read them 'Never Cry Wolf'.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

Has iran surpassed North Korea as 'the' rogue nation'?

What a nonsensical question.

Half of the Korean Peninsula is under occupation by the US military.

What is rogue if not invading and conquering another country for no reason?

All this propaganda presents is who heads the US Next Up list.



Occupation? I dunno if I'd call it that. I was in SK for a tech expo a few years back, and the general impression I got was that they love us. Anecdotal perhaps, but then when was the last time you were in SK?



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

One doesn't really need a 'central bank' when the leadership controls all the coin. Their regimes ARE 'the central banks of those two nations....



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Thanks, I appreciate your honesty, and it allows me to explain something, so lets start with the retaining their crews under the guise of debts owed by the ship lines those crews are usually on 4-month hitches, sometimes longer, are usually filipino and are paid pittance in comparison to most, you would have to remove them kicking and screaming as the moment they are removed, they are signed off articles of agreement and that is their means of salary continuance.

The vessel being detained, especially under these circumstances, is "honey money" for the crews on board.....just kick back do your anchor watch, a bit of chipping and painting and watch many many movies and TV, cruise the internet - they would love to see it detained until the end of their hitch and then go into "double bubble" where they are then paid 2x their normal salary due to the shipping charterer not (being able to) get them off at the end of their nominated hitch (over-cycle payments).

Believe you me, no seafarer on any vessel is put under mental or physical duress by IMO compliant statutory authorities - to be separated from pirates and the act of piracy.

OK, under international maritime law (SOLAS in this instance), any vessel in the vicinity is required to render assistance, if practical to do so, to any other vessel who is in distress. No one came to the assistance of the vessel, it darted into UAE waters from international waters and did not activate it's distress equipment (for me, and pardon the pun, that is alarm bell number one that something is not right with this scenario) - so was the vessel in distress? I would say yes if 5 revolutionary guard vessels are firing across the bow. One firing is standard for a vessel about to be arrested and detained..it's a "stand-down, reduce speed, prepare to be boarded" call, but 5....Iran may very well be playing silly buggers here and may be doing so to prove a point - "we will no longer allow fees and debts to go unpaid whilst these vessel owners / charterers rub it in our face time and time again" - now add the fact it is Iran who is close to the nuclear deal and also add to the fact the US military, who has constant naval and air support presence in the region and who would not hesitate to use it for an illegal act - and you have a picture as to what may very well be going on there.

US Naval Captains and Commanders are by far, some of the most important men and women on the planet and have weapons systems and tech at their disposal to destroy, beyond recognition, any country on the planet - certainly in that region.

But they choose to monitor - and we should all be thankful for their level headedness in these situations where sovereign countries exercise their rights under UN IMO mandated law for merchant vessels transiting the region.

We have AMSA, the US has the USCG and Iran has the Revolutionary Guard to enforce statutory maritime compliance.

Now, the Strait of Hormuz is a hotbed for illegal activity under the guise of merchant shipping and have no doubt that weapons and military supplies are smuggled on a regular basis - Western allied countries get theirs via US and Western Militaries in full transparency, those not aligned to western ideals use other means, usually merchant vessels.

In this instance it was a tanker that was redirected and arrested, so I believe Iran is ramping up compliance in a deliberate attempt to shine a light on the region.........but they have not breached any international laws in what they have done, nor committed any acts of piracy.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Fantastic post! Thanks.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Has iran surpassed North Korea as 'the' rogue nation? Well, if what they have done is evidence of them becoming more of a rouge nation than North Korea then I don't know how the US could be described given a description of events the US coast guard got up in the med, or somewhere thereabouts, on the jimstone website.

According to him, he got the information from a relative who works on the US coast guard vessels that go to such place.
edit on 16-5-2015 by Azureblue because: x



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

OK. That clarifies it somewhat for me.

I do service, via truck, major cruise ship lines in the Seattle and Vancouver region. The crews are far more international with the majority Euros.

My rubbing shoulders with their crews gave me the opinion that they couldn't wait to be flown home. If the crews are not 'restrained' in any fashion then transportation would/should be available for them.

At a guess, at least some would exercise that option, especially not knowing, with any assurances what their fates might be. I feel safe in assuming at least some would want to depart, post haste.
...I would!

A point of non-understanding, for me, is the concept that the carrier would owe someone rather than the shipper. The carrier, in this case a ship, get compensated for it's service of transportation. Not the other way around. I could see port/moorage fees or ship repairs falling under the ship-owners responsibility. Surely not for any cargo loss, be it due to embargos or even damage. That would fall under an insurance claim, not the carrier, itself.

I am also skeptical that a major carrier, like Maersk, wouldn't be addressed via hired Barristers representing Iran's interests in the flagged nation. Iran is more than capable of operating in that fashion. (I don't know whether they did or not. You'd be more privy to that than I would.)

If Maersk was avoiding a legitimate debt deliberately, why would they accept a contract anywhere near Iranian waters? At a guess, the more likely answer is Iran did not take that tack and operated arbitrarily.

Another point I find a bit of a stretch is this shooting across the bow. Radio communication would be the first step with a heave to and prepare to be boarded order/demand. A major carrier would comply immediately. If a warship did that to me, I'm hitting the brakes..


The shot across the bow would only be used as a second to last resort following a refusal to comply. Then there's your point of the five vessels.....

Add this all up and I remain dubious about Iranian intentions and still do not discount fully outright piracy. After all, there have been Iranian threats regarding shutting down the straight repeatedly over the last few years, not to mention ridiculous comments like 'looking forward to confronting the U.S. Navy'.

You cede them the high road. I still do not. Though you post opens the door to that possibility.

Thanks for the response...



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

My understanding is USCG ships are often used as support vessels for the U.S. Navy. Tasked and controlled by the Pentagon for the duration of that cruise.(?)

Not sure about that though. It would explain their presence overseas....



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker


Another point I find a bit of a stretch is this shooting across the bow. Radio communication would be the first step with a heave to and prepare to be boarded order/demand. A major carrier would comply immediately. If a warship did that to me, I'm hitting the brakes..

The shot across the bow would only be used as a second to last resort following a refusal to comply.


Ah, my apologies and I do need to clarify, under international GMDSS radio operators certification, the shot across the bow is the first course of action after a vessel fails or refuses to comply with a radio (VHF Ch16) request and/or then MF 2182Khz request to acknowledge a communication and see through said contents of that conversation, usually a coast guard vessel will literally cut across the bow to get the watchkeepers attention too - all the time spruiking on a loudspeaker.

If none of that works, firing across the bow comes first, then forceful boarding of the vessel and entry to the bridge and control taken to reduce / stop the vessel and have the Master (Captain) then maneuver the vessel to a nominated point.

It may appear I am cutting the Iranian authorities some slack here, but I will not deny they can, and have been real pricks in the past in enforcing compliance..........sometimes they are not nice, but just after 9/11 when I entered US coastal waters, I was boarded without warning and forced at gun point to the deck, with my entire crew by USCG thug assholes (geared up like TRG - tactical response group) until they were satisfied I was not Osamas mate - that was the most traumatic 35 minutes in my sea-going career - beating coastal Somalia and the strait of Hormuz.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Not unless our world has been replaced by one of Bibi Neyanblahblah's wet dreams.




posted on May, 16 2015 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Mate , i really appreciate the time you spent on posting such a long article (if you will) on how iran is a rogue state like north korea .

the reason for that : 1- piracy 2- supporting hamas and hezbollah .

first of all , even if Iran was being a pirate , we for sure were not a rogue state , cause you're supporting Anti- Iranian terrorist group named MKO and you're not rouge (according to yourself) . your allies in the region support al-qaeda and ISIS and they are still not rouge .

in the first naval incidence , with the help of my dear friend sublimecraft , we showed you the amount of propaganda haters are throwing at Iran .

on the second incidence , about the singaporian vessel - which has nothing to do with you BTW- , as i have new info on the subject , i'll make a new thread about it and show you how uninformed you're .

or you want to be deliberately .

==========

Secondly , on the issue of hamas and hezbollah , you HAVE to understand that muslim countries (actually most of the UN including the members of NAM ) don't categorize them as terrorist organizations .

so you're argument worth zilch , period .



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
after 9/11 when I entered US coastal waters, I was boarded without warning and forced at gun point to the deck, with my entire crew by USCG thug assholes (geared up like TRG - tactical response group) until they were satisfied I was not Osamas mate - that was the most traumatic 35 minutes in my sea-going career - beating coastal Somalia and the strait of Hormuz.

Sorry about that. When did this happen? We used every trick, and I mean stretching circumstantial evidence to its breaking point, for any excuse to board a ship. It took the Intel Community until about 2006/7 to finally convince the Pentagon this was a waste of resources, time, and flat out a bad idea.

As far as the thread itself goes, I don't even know what to say except no, not even close. Actually, not even wrong - meaning so, so wrong.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 03:22 AM
link   
double post
edit on 5/16/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

November 2002, before the ratification of the ISPS Code, and when the US was a wounded soul, and angry and overtly paranoid, thank God I had/have ASIO clearance and kept yelling that fact otherwise the event could have gotten a lot worse. My pure Aussie accent didn't mean jack. But I will say that after it was all said and done, I have never, even to this day, received a more profoundly genuine apology from another human ever, and we keep in touch, even to this day.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 04:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: nwtrucker

Before I address the specific contents of your OP, I'm going to ask you 4 simple questions so I know to what degree you are marine qualified as the accusations you make warrants me asking first.

1. Do you have any formal marine qualifications, and if so, to what extent?
2. Are you aware of the Maritime Labour Convention and it's contents regarding the protection of seafarers rights?
3. Are you familiar with a vessels MSM certificate (not to be confused with her SMS cert) and the ramifications of breaching that?
4. Are you aware that merchant Navy and military navy do not work on the same set of rules and can you point out those differences?



Matters little to these pathetic neocons.

They want there war. Fox news told them Iran needs bombing so Iran needs a good bombing goddammit.

Laws be be dammed!



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 04:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Sir, I am aware, via your previous posts, you knowledge of the area. I completely cede to you in that arena. In short, the answer to all four is a resounding no...
.

I read your posts carefully and learn from them.

However, be it Maritime law, The U.S. constitution, likely Magna carta and most certainly the Geneva Convention was violated by the same people who wrote/approved them, in all probability, the very next day.

Surely you see my point on the timing of these acts and the potential to disrupt any meaningful negotiations. You, yourself, stated that this issue could take considerable time to be sorted out on a legal basis.

Taken in an overview, the political, financial, military considerations, I see the legal aspect as taking a back-seat in a hurry if this is viewed by TPTB as I suggest (as a possibility).

Much like British concerns on the Suez canal's freedom of movement and the creation of Israel, as a result. The Straight is similarly critical to the world's economy.

Justice may be blind, sir, I am not.




For # sake dude.

You would ignore maritime law to start another illegal war that no one wants this time with Iran?

Are you sure your surename not Bush or cheny?
edit on 16-5-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Just saying...




posted on May, 16 2015 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
Just saying...



Hush you!

They are not military bases they are freedom stations!

Were else can you drop freedom and democracy on people from?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join