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.

 

Iran's new piracy case

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I will state I am not sure now if she transited the SOH. Looking at marinetraffic.com again her last port of call was in Bahrain nearly a month ago, but this is coming from AIS data which is not always up to date on non location and identification data points as port calls and dates have to be input at the discretion of the Captain.

If this is the case though, the only way Iran would be in the right is if the vessel crossed in between their islands. And, having said that, it is actually hard to avoid absent skirting Qatar, Saudi and UAE TTW (which must be done with permission absent legitimate business).




posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   

More disrespectful, undeserved insults.


So after repeated attacks upon my grammar, you're going to call me the bad guy?


I said you maid the claim, I was pointing out we are in the same bubble of having a lack of definitive, documented proof.


Why on earth would you say I made the claim? I asked a question explain that to me?


It sounds like they have been attempting to negotiate (not litigation) and negotiations have broken down. The court case and litigation starts with the arrest of the vessel, getting a court order to arrest, and arresting the vessel is the start of that process.


In the original RT article they quoted that negotiations had broken down. Nothing about court orders,notices to lienholders or any of their other requirements to seize a vessel. Hence my response with the questions about litigation that you took offense to.



Same exact stance, especially if Saudi Arabia arrested a Brazalian vessel two weeks prior and the case panned out in court. Rationally, absent obvious and definitive violation, I must presume actions are justified, the courts will determine, and if the shipping company gets a ruling it does not like and disagrees with, it can appeal there, and in Saudi, as they can here.


Would that stance be open seizure of ships any nation has a grievance with over debt without legal action? Because that again seems to be your current stance .





edit on 18-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Why do you insist to go in circles and toll this thread?

originally posted by: Greathouse


More disrespectful, undeserved insults.


So after repeated attacks upon my grammar, you're going to call me the bad guy? Yup pretty much right expected.

I never attacked you for your grammar. I (1)asked politely for clarification and (2)pointed out matter of factly, as in it is a fact, your grammar on the particular sentence I asked for clarification on was poor, as would have every English teach you have had.

I'll let ATS be the judge of who is doing the name calling here, it is pretty evident.


I said you maid the claim, I was pointing out we are in the same bubble of having a lack of definitive, documented proof.



Why on earth would you say I made the claim? As I normally do with you I feel the need to repeat myself. You said I made the claim yet I asked a question explain that to me?

The feeling of needing to repeat, I suppose, is a mutual one.

You realize everyone can see what I actually wrote without you cutting and deleting my words right?

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
I never said you maid the claim, I was pointing out we are in the same bubble of having a lack of definitive, documented proof.



It sounds like they have been attempting to negotiate (not litigation) and negotiations have broken down. The court case and litigation starts with the arrest of the vessel, getting a court order to arrest, and arresting the vessel is the start of that process.



In the original RT article they quoted that negotiations had broken down. Nothing about court orders,notices to lienholders or any of their other requirements to seize a vessel. Hence my response with the questions about litigation that you took offense to.

I have yet to take offense to anything you have said. I have no reason, absent proof to the contrary, to question that Iran did not obtain a court order, as they did just that two weeks ago.


Same exact stance, especially if Saudi Arabia arrested a Brazalian vessel two weeks prior and the case panned out in court. Rationally, absent obvious and definitive violation, I must presume actions are justified, the courts will determine, and if the shipping company gets a ruling it does not like and disagrees with, it can appeal there, and in Saudi, as they can here.



Would that stance be open seizure of ships any nation has a grievance with over debt without legal action? Because that again seems to be your current stance .

Can you prove the actions were not legal? I think the best determinant of legal would be, well, a court ruling. We already have M/V Maersk Tigris that had to pay up, and, if Iran's actions were illegal, Maersk would have appealed. Do you think that was illegal?
edit on 5/18/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/18/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/18/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

You're the one going in circles and trolling this thread. I have proven to you how many different times you slip the subject off the topic by posting my original response.

If you don't like it don't reply. I made no claims I asked questions and gave opinions on the questions. You set out to prove me wrong when you had no proof of legal justification.



Can you prove the actions were not legal?


Nope I showed you I never claimed to be able to prove it in my original reply. I have even repeated that claim throughout the thread .,,,,, again you just ignored that and kept repeating the question.
edit on 18-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)




realize everyone can see what I actually wrote without you cutting and deleting my words right?




That is a flat out lie.
edit on 18-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

You're the one going in circles and trolling this thread. I have proven to you how many different times

None, zero, null, zilch.


you slip the subject off the topic by posting my original response.

I would like to see each and every post I have done that, it will maybe be three or so, each time in direct response to what you had to say.


If you don't like it don't reply. I made no claims I asked questions and gave opinions on the questions. You set out to prove me wrong when you had no proof of legal justification.

I can go another 24 hours doing this. This is how you feel, I cannot help that. I can tell you though, that I express the exact same sentiment and would substitute the word legal with illegal.

You made not claims? You and I have both had made plenty of claims, otherwise, just what are we discussing and trying to prove to one another?



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse

Can you prove the actions were not legal?


Nope I showed you I never claimed to be able to prove it in my original reply. I have even repeated that claim throughout the thread .,,,,, again you just ignored that and kept repeating the question.

Because you keep repeating if I can prove it was legal, obviously, again, each time in direct response.



realize everyone can see what I actually wrote without you cutting and deleting my words right?





That is a flat out lie.

So the word never was accidentally deleted in your post above with my quote in it?



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

More deflection to the fact that you're making assumptions on a position and claiming it legal. This thread's title was " Iran's new piracy case" after all.

I just attempted to steer it back on topic and here you are again off-topic. My opinion throughout the threat. Is that if Iran followed proper procedures it was legal in lack of evidence of proper procedures it is illegal.


Pretty simple when you actually think about it. Yet for some reason you've spent the last three pages telling me I was wrong while taking every available cheap shot you could?

No I'm not going to supply the sources look them up yourself they're on this thread.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

More deflection



to the fact that you're making assumptions on a position and claiming it legal.

Quite the opposite is the case, everyone can see this.

Making assumption and educated assessments are not the same.


thing This thread's title was " Iran's new piracy case" after all.

Sarcastically so.


I just attempted to steer it back on topic and here you are again off-topic. My opinion throughout the threat. Is that if Iran followed proper procedures it was legal in lack of evidence of proper procedures it is illegal.

And my stance throughout has been if Iran followed proper procedure it was legal and in lack of evidence it was illegal, it is presumed legal.



Pretty simple when you actually think about it.

Yes, it is.


Yet for some reason you've spent the last three pages telling me I was wrong while taking every available cheap shot you could?

Quite the opposite is the case, everyone else can see this.
edit on 5/18/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/18/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel


So the word never was accidentally deleted in your post above with my quote in it?


Absolutely positive,I really couldn't understand why you would say something so uninformed and although I am operating analytically you seem to be operating on passion so a slip is understandable.

You know but I did notice the two edits on your post.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

We may have the answer to this dispute soon anyway ...

ChannelNewsAsia

SINGAPORE: The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) on Monday (May 18) said it has requested the Iranian maritime authorities to probe the attack on Singapore-flagged vessel Alpine Eternity last Thursday.

Five Iranian boats had fired shots across the bow of Alpine Eternity in the international waters off the Gulf, and MPA said it is "deeply concerned with such actions".

“The freedom of navigation and free flow of commerce are of critical importance to Singapore and other maritime and trading nations. Such interference with navigational rights is a serious violation of international law,” the agency said.

As for the Singapore-flagged vessel’s previous collision with an Iranian oil drilling platform that took place on Mar 22, MPA said its ship manager Transpetrol Ship Management, had reported the incident the following day.

MPA said: “As the Flag Administration of Alpine Eternity, MPA had immediately commenced a marine safety investigation into the incident in accordance with the International Maritime Organization’s Casualty Investigation Code, and the investigation is still in progress."

No pollution or injuries to crew were caused as a result of the collision, according to an earlier report by Reuters.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel


And my stance throughout has been if Iran followed proper procedure it was legal and in lack of evidence it was illegal, it is presumed legal.


G that sounds familiar? Do you want to know why? That has been my position since the beginning of the thread. Yet you found some way to argue for three pages over it and I am the troll?



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse


So the word never was accidentally deleted in your post above with my quote in it?



Absolutely positive,I really couldn't understand why you would say something so uninformed

I was following the conversations flow:

This is my original quote:


originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

I never said you maid the claim, I was pointing out we are in the same bubble of having a lack of definitive, documented proof.


This is how you quoted me:


originally posted by: AllSourceIntel


I said you maid the claim, I was pointing out we are in the same bubble of having a lack of definitive, documented proof.


With your reply to how you quoted me.


Why on earth would you say I made the claim? As I normally do with you I feel the need to repeat myself. You said I made the claim yet I asked a question explain that to me?


The mistake is easily made. On either side I suppose.
edit on 5/18/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/18/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Your post didn't come out all the way. But like I said I noticed your edits to that post also. I checked it three times because I couldn't believe you said something so ridiculous.

Once again here you go insisting to keep this subject off-topic.

I would like to discuss your most recent informative post if you don't mind.
edit on 18-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel


And my stance throughout has been if Iran followed proper procedure it was legal and in lack of evidence it was illegal, it is presumed legal.


G that sounds familiar? Do you want to know why? That has been my position since the beginning of the thread. Yet you found some way to argue for three pages over it and I am the troll?


I thought it was:

originally posted by: Greathouse
My opinion throughout the threat. Is that if Iran followed proper procedures it was legal in lack of evidence of proper procedures it is illegal.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse
Yes, I am having trouble getting some of the html coding how I want it.

Go ahead, address the news article.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel



originally posted by: Greathouse My opinion throughout the threat. Is that if Iran followed proper procedures it was legal in lack of evidence of proper procedures it is illegal.


Seriously you are unable to comprehend that that is the exact same thing I've been saying the entire thread?

Again like I've repeated over and over until my fingers have become bloody pulp's on the keyboard. If Iran follow the proper procedures to arrest a vessel it was legal. If Iran did not follow the proper procedures ( you know like not have the proof that they followed proper procedures i.e. evidence) it was illegal.

Like I've said sounds pretty simple.

Edit; I took the last line out, let's just try and keep it on subject from here out please. It's apparently obvious that we are never going to come to a conclusion in our first discussion. Let's begin it anew with your most recent post.
edit on 18-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Do you know offhand if that casualty investigation they are talking about is for insurance purposes?



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse
Because we are saying the exact opposite thing, I understand perfectly.

You: absent proof it was carried out legally = illegal

Me: absent proof it was carried out illegally = legal



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Do you know offhand if that casualty investigation they are talking about is for insurance purposes?


The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) on Monday (May 18) said it has requested the Iranian maritime authorities to probe the attack on Singapore-flagged vessel Alpine Eternity last Thursday.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Just curious if none of this proof is ever supplied and Iran is proven to have acted without any internationally recognized requirements.

Would you deem it legal or not?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join