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.

 

Iranians attempt to highjack a british fuel tanker

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Bosts try to stop British tanker off coast of iran

news.sky.com...

They said they would do try now they will loose more face, things are hotting up but i really dont want a war with iran its pointless and needless
edit on 10-7-2019 by jd0Fengland because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: jd0Fengland


Just saw this reported.

How "awkward" for the Iranians.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Definitely it will only cause more friction now and gives the politicians a pretext to drag the uk into a war with the US if anything else happens


+11 more 
posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: jd0Fengland

Well, to be honest, if Iran doesn’t want war they really should stop trying to steal your ships.

Just sayin’



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:49 PM
link   
The report is very light on details, see what else comes out.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

That be because it was breaking they've already added more details including the name of the british ship that stopped the attack



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: jd0Fengland

I'll be watching



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 06:59 PM
link   
They're really asking for it at this point. And I know, I'm a warmonger and don't care about the thousands of US soldiers that will be killed. This might be news to some folks, but there are a lot of options on the table that don't require a full ground invasion and putting our troops in harm's way.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Right now the ball is in the UK's court.

What they do with it might just determine what the US does.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 07:03 PM
link   
YES! This is all we need. Coupled with the Yemen remote operated suicide boats made in Iran to target commercial shipping, we should be able to at the very least have the justification of a limited strike on Iran. I say we go hard and take that island in the Straight of Hormuz from them.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

We will probably do nothing and keep on shipping our oil right of their coast until they actually do something


+1 more 
posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: jd0Fengland

It's a hijacking when the Iranians attempt a detainment off their own coast, yet it's a seizure when Britain does it at Gibraltar, the double standards of this dumb crap are astonishing.


+8 more 
posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

One was operating illegally shipping oil to syria which has restrictions right now and Gibraltar is part of the UK



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Five boats thought to be Iranian tried to stop a British oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, according to US officials


Might be Iranian pirates (military).

Can they be confirmed as Iranians at this point? Poor move by Iran if they are.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 07:08 PM
link   
news.sky.com... guess the brits got a warship escorting the tankers in the region now

A Royal Navy warship is offering increased protection to a second tanker in the Gulf in an apparent boost to maritime security following a threat from Iran to seize a British vessel, Sky News understands. HMS Montrose, a Type 23 frigate, is travelling with the British Heritage tanker off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, according to a ship tracking website and a defence source.
messing with the British navy is rarely wise


en.wikipedia.org...

As a result of lessons learned from the Falklands War, the design grew in size and complexity to encompass the Vertical Launch Sea Wolf (VLS) system with an extra tracking system as a defence against low-flying aircraft and sea-skimming anti-ship missiles such as Exocet.[7] With the addition of Harpoon surface-to-surface missiles and a medium calibre gun for naval gunfire support, the Type 23 had evolved into a more complex and balanced vessel optimised for general warfare, which introduced a host of new technologies and concepts to the Royal Navy. These included extensive radar cross-section reduction design measures, automation to substantially reduce crew size, a combined diesel-electric and gas (CODLAG) propulsion system providing very quiet running for anti-submarine operations along with excellent range, vertical launch missile technology and a fully distributed combat management system. The Vertical Launch Sea Wolf surface-to-air missile system was designed for and first deployed on the Type 23. Unlike conventional Sea Wolf, the missile is boosted vertically until it clears the ship's superstructure and then turns to fly directly to the target. Consequently, the ship's structure does not cause no-fire zones that would delay or inhibit missile firing in a conventionally launched system. Although the Type 23 is officially the "Duke" class, and includes such famous names as HMS Iron Duke (which had been the name of the battleship HMS Iron Duke, Admiral Jellicoe's flagship at the Battle of Jutland), five of the names had previously been used on classes known as the "County class": Kent and Norfolk were names given both to 1960s guided missile destroyers and Second World War-era County-class heavy cruisers, while Monmouth, Lancaster, Kent and Argyll revived names carried by First World War-era Monmouth-class armoured cruisers. This use of Ducal and County names broke a tradition of alphabetical names for escort ships which had run in two – not unbroken – cycles from the L-class destroyers of 1913 to the Daring-class destroyers of 1950; this progression was revived with the Amazon-class Type 21 frigates of 1972–1975, and continued with B and C names for most of the Type 22 frigates of 1976–1989. However, the D names have since been used for the new Type 45 Daring-class destroyers, the first of which entered service in 2009. It is stated that: "Type 23 frigates achieved approximately 85–89 per cent average availability for operational service in each of the last five years with the exception of 1996 when the figure dropped to just over 80 per cent due to a number of ships experiencing a particular defect. This discounts time spent in planned maintenance."[8] Unlike the Type 45 destroyer, the "Type 23 frigate does not have the capability or configuration to act as flagship and is not tasked in this way."[9]
so not the newest warship but still nothing to screw with



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: jd0Fengland
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

One was operating illegally shipping oil to syria which has restrictions right now and Gibraltar is part of the UK


And there's another questionable set of sanctions against another country, it's financial bullying because the corporate powers want their way mate, it has nothing to do with morals



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Syria and morals hardly fit together, chemical attacks on citizens 🤔🤔



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: jd0Fengland
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

One was operating illegally shipping oil to syria which has restrictions right now and Gibraltar is part of the UK


And there's another questionable set of sanctions against another country, it's financial bullying because the corporate powers want their way mate, it has nothing to do with morals


Of course it has nothing to do with morals. Sanctions aren't morally driven.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Iran is being foolish again. Her Majesties ship, Montrose will slap them, and if that isn't enough, we have got Her Majesties back, and we will rain Hellfire on them.

Just keep it up, and give President Donald J Trump a good enough reason, and we will spank you good, and send you to bed, with no dinner
edit on 10-7-2019 by visitedbythem because: spelling due to ATS commercial lag



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 07:21 PM
link   
They tried and failed?

That's gotta be embarrassing for the Iranian, ahem, navy.





top topics



 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join