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.

 

US sanctions target Iran carrier

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   

US sanctions target Iran carrier


news.bbc.co.uk

The US has imposed sanctions on an Iranian shipping company and 18 of its affiliates over its alleged support for Tehran's nuclear programme.

The Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) had provided logistical support for the Iranian defence ministry, the US treasury said.

IRISL's US-based assets would be frozen and its transactions banned, it said.

The US has already imposed a number of sanctions on Iran linked to its controversial nuclear programme.

Western nations accuse Iran of seeking to develop a nuclear weapon. But Tehran says its nuclear activities are aimed solely at peaceful energy development.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
My god our nation is being lead by madmen hellbent on the destruction of every man and other living organism on the planet.

Welcome to WWIII.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   


The Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) had provided logistical support for the Iranian defence ministry, the US treasury said.


Iranian Defense : "Crap, where did that chart go?"
Iranian Shipping Company : "Oh, here, have one of ours, don't want you to run ashore accidentally"
USA : "NO! How dare you! EVIL EVIL! You MUST let them run ashore... BAN THEM!"

lol.

The White House is whining and pouting like a spoiled child who was just told he isn't going to be bought that toy. They'll come up with any excuse, based on the tiniest bits of information, to try to convince daddy to hand over the cash for that toy.

Well, scream all you want Bush... heck, drop to the ground and start slamming your fists around... we're not buying it, and you're not getting your war. Pathetic.


"over its alleged support"...
Why oh why do so many people go unemployed or killed at the hands of the United States over those words...
... alleged.
... supposed.
... suspicion of.
... possible ties to.

Kind of makes you miss the days when countries went to war over FACTS.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by johnsky]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


I hope you are right, about the war. It looks like the economy is about to crash. We all know how you fix a desperate economic situation.......



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Well, I was speaking more from a point of WE won't recognize their calls for war...

... who knows what some of the other morons out there will do.

In regards to everyone else, I hope I'm right... but you are correct... economic troubles are ahead, and one of the quickest ways to distract the public from those economic problems, is to tell the people another nation intentionally caused them. Which results in war, and the people get distracted.

I know it's an ancient tactic... but if recent times have shown me anything, it's that there's enough uneducated people out there to swallow the same old garbage, maggots and all.


Telling people that their freedoms are being revoked for their "protection" is also an ancient tactic... and the American public seemingly cheered that one.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
How do you surmise all that from this report? That seems a little far-fetched. Links, evidence?



Originally posted by downtown436


My god our nation is being lead by madmen hellbent on the destruction of every man and other living organism on the planet.

Welcome to WWIII.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


HAHAHA I love your attitude, like this one story is the only one on the planet, and there are no other facts at all in the universe.

By blockading Iranian shipping we just got one step closer to the economic crash we all know is coming. (skyrocketing oil prices hyperinflation)

With the coming collapse we will be hurled by our wonderful gov't into war with russia, or at least a new cold war (which we are already in).

Don't believe me, I don't care.

While we could be the global helping hand, we instead are the global antbed poker.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
So, what is this going to do to? Will Iran declare war? No?



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
deleted


[edit on 10-9-2008 by all2human]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
So basically you are saying: "this is going to lead to this, which is going to lead to this, which is goig to lead to WW3"? Okay. I'll take my chances on beign right as far as this goes. History is on my side (with much more severe actions having taken place than this). Thanks.



Originally posted by downtown436
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


HAHAHA I love your attitude, like this one story is the only one on the planet, and there are no other facts at all in the universe.

By blockading Iranian shipping we just got one step closer to the economic crash we all know is coming. (skyrocketing oil prices hyperinflation)

With the coming collapse we will be hurled by our wonderful gov't into war with russia, or at least a new cold war (which we are already in).

Don't believe me, I don't care.

While we could be the global helping hand, we instead are the global antbed poker.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Anyone actually read the article? The US is only banning US based assets. This is going to start WW3? Its not the US is actually blocking their shipping in the gulf or something.

"US based IRISL's US-based assets would be frozen and its transactions banned, it said."



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
So basically you are saying: "this is going to lead to this, which is going to lead to this, which is goig to lead to WW3"? Okay. I'll take my chances on beign right as far as this goes. History is on my side (with much more severe actions having taken place than this). Thanks.


You mean... like world war 1 starting with a single man being shot?

Yeah... MUCH more severe, lol.

Then there was WW2... started with sanctions put on Germany...

Oh yeah, the possibility of WW3 seems remote alright... lol. (Sarcasm)



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Thursday, September 11, 2008

U.S. Accuses Iran Shipper Of Nuclear Aid

Treasury Intensifies Pressure via Move To Limit Imports


The U.S. Treasury Department accused Iran's national maritime carrier of helping the country's nuclear and missile programs, a formal move designed to pressure Iran amid stalled talks over its nuclear work.

The Treasury, in designating the carrier as a "proliferator," said the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and 18 of its affiliated entities were secretly "providing logistical services" to Iran's military, falsifying shipping documents and using deceptive terms to describe shipments in order to hide their activities from foreign maritime officials.



A container ship belonging to the Islamic Republic
of Iran Shipping Lines anchored in the Persian Gulf.



The designation, which typically is designed to stop companies on the list from doing business in the U.S., further blocks the carrier's ability to move money through U.S. banks as well as blocking it from carrying food and medical supplies not included in Washington's longstanding trade sanctions against Iran.

Mostly the move appears to be designed to encourage other countries to further limit their dealings with Iran, which is dependent on imported refined-petroleum products such as gasoline.

Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines was targeted not for its size but because it was "the shipper of choice for Iran's missile entity," said Adam Szubin, director of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control.

But, he added, the designation had been adopted "not just to try to disrupt and pressure their proliferation network, but to raise the cost for the Iranian regime of their continued defiance of international resolutions" on the country's nuclear program.

(Rest of the article: The Wall Street Journal)



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Duh...every war starts with the first shot. But folks on here act like EVERY first shot is the start of WW3. Thats the difference. Again, I'll take my chances on being right with this one.




Originally posted by johnsky

Originally posted by princeofpeace
So basically you are saying: "this is going to lead to this, which is going to lead to this, which is goig to lead to WW3"? Okay. I'll take my chances on beign right as far as this goes. History is on my side (with much more severe actions having taken place than this). Thanks.


You mean... like world war 1 starting with a single man being shot?

Yeah... MUCH more severe, lol.

Then there was WW2... started with sanctions put on Germany...

Oh yeah, the possibility of WW3 seems remote alright... lol. (Sarcasm)


[edit on 11-9-2008 by princeofpeace]




top topics



 
4

log in

join