US Sanctions on Iran Nearly Kill Everyone on a Boeing 727 / Incredible Video

An incredible video of an epic landing by brilliant Iran Air pilots who had lost their nose gear (94 international passengers and 17 crew were on this flight ... fortunately all escaped unharmed but could have been killed because of US sanctions on spare parts for civilian aircraft)

and yet ironically no one mentions that the US sanctions on selling civilian aircraft parts to Iran not only violates international law but also places the lives of innocent Iranians in danger every day. Remember that everytime some moron gets on a podium and proclaims his endless support for the people of Iran - but I guess the US formally gave up on that a while a ago too. I guess "human rights" in Iran are only selectively important.

www.iranaffairs.com...

Well they better start playing by the rules then huh? Sanctions are just that, sanctions

Originally posted by AtticusRye
...and yet ironically no one mentions that the US sanctions on selling civilian aircraft parts to Iran not only violates international law but also places the lives of innocent Iranians in danger every day.

On August 19, 1997, the President signed Executive Order 13059 clarifying Executive Orders 12957 and 12959 and confirming that virtually all trade and investment activities with Iran by U.S. persons, wherever located, are prohibited.
In general, a person may not export from the U.S. any goods, technology or
services, if that person knows or has reason to know such items are intended
specifically for supply, transshipment or reexportation to Iran.

US Department of the Treasury

Covers pretty much anything and everything really.
because Iran is evil.
Evil, I tell ya!!!

reply to post by AllUrChips


Which legitimate rules are they breaking? And as the article says, sanctions on civilian aircraft parts is against international law, you know, those things the US accuses Iran of doing.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by AllUrChips

 

Which legitimate rules are they breaking? And as the article says, sanctions on civilian aircraft parts is against international law, you know, those things the US accuses Iran of doing.

Probably the whole nuclear program thing I dont know and honestly dont care. My point is examples have been made out of people such as saddam, bin laden, ghadaffi, that you either play by their rules, or you pay the price. Period. I didnt say I agree with it, just the way it is

Iran's central bank is not controlled by the International Bankers, they are also not permitted by their own laws to lend money at interest.

Therefore Iran is a big problem for those people who want to rule the world-they cannot use their normal methods of forcing it into unpayable debt servitude, because their internal laws prevent them for going into interest burdened debt.

This is why Iran is promoted as the enemy, and this is why the international bankers hate Islam so much-because usury is forbidden - which means they are immune to the debt slavery of the banksters in a conventional way.

While I am personally agnostic, I see at least that one law is worth adopting everywhere. Historically usury was forbidden everywhere and considered to be one of the most egregious crimes-often punishable by death.

This tactic of sanctions is designed to force Iran into aggression-it is an act of war, targeting the people of the nation.

It is a vile and malicious policy, and those responsible for it should face criminal charges-Iran poses only one threat, that it will remain sovereign, peaceful and free.

To tho controllers, it cannot be tolerated.

WOW! Forget Sulu, I want this guy piloting my Starship!

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross

And as the article says, sanctions on civilian aircraft parts is against international law

Totally and completely untrue.

This particular sanction against Iran falls under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929. Twelve nations voted in favor of the resolution: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Austria, Bosnia, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, and Georgia. One abstained (Lebanon), and two voted against it (Turkey and Brazil).

Of those twelve nations, Iran (and rather conveniently, the OP) solely blames the United States without taking into consideration any of the other twelve nations, specifically its ally to the east, China.

In order for this particular sanction to violate international law, it would have to have been conducted solely by the United States, while also being in violation of the UN Security Council. This is not the case. Rather, it is supported by the international community and falls under accordance with international law.

reply to post by AllUrChips


And now examples will be made out of 94 mothers flying with their small children, honeymooners, middle aged couples on holiday, retirees, etc. Violate the U.S.' edicts and no one will be spared from death.

Good lord. Forget what the thread is about. That was one of the best landings I'ver ever seen. A lot better than some I've had in Chicago. Hats off to you Mr. Iranian Air pilot.

Originally posted by AtticusRye
reply to post by AllUrChips

 

And now examples will be made out of 94 mothers flying with their small children, honeymooners, middle aged couples on holiday, retirees, etc. Violate the U.S.' edicts and no one will be spared from death.

Unfortunately, yes.
2nd line.

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross

 

And as the article says, sanctions on civilian aircraft parts is against international law

Totally and completely untrue.

This particular sanction against Iran falls under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929. Twelve nations voted in favor of the resolution: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Austria, Bosnia, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, and Georgia. One abstained (Lebanon), and two voted against it (Turkey and Brazil).

Of those twelve nations, Iran (and rather conveniently, the OP) solely blames the United States without taking into consideration any of the other twelve nations, specifically its ally to the east, China.

In order for this particular sanction to violate international law, it would have to have been conducted solely by the United States, while also being in violation of the UN Security Council. This is not the case. Rather, it is supported by the international community and falls under accordance with international law.

Incorrect - the 1944 Convention on International Aviation has been endorsed by acclimation of the General Assembly. As a result, its edicts are applicable in a binding manner on the Security Council. UNSC prohibitions in violation of it, therefore, are null and void.

The 1944 convention prohibits restriction on the free trade of parts and machinery required for the safe operation of civilian-flagged aircraft except in time of a declared and recognized war.

Originally posted by AllUrChips

Originally posted by AtticusRye
reply to post by AllUrChips

 

And now examples will be made out of 94 mothers flying with their small children, honeymooners, middle aged couples on holiday, retirees, etc. Violate the U.S.' edicts and no one will be spared from death.

Unfortunately, yes.
2nd line.

Respectfully I will not call you a sick individual. However, your ideas are extremely sick and disgusting.

Originally posted by AtticusRye

Originally posted by AllUrChips

Originally posted by AtticusRye
reply to post by AllUrChips

 

And now examples will be made out of 94 mothers flying with their small children, honeymooners, middle aged couples on holiday, retirees, etc. Violate the U.S.' edicts and no one will be spared from death.

Unfortunately, yes.
2nd line.

Respectfully I will not call you a sick individual. However, your ideas are extremely sick and disgusting.

these are not my "ideas". What are you talking about? Theres a little thing called "the way things are" you will learn this one day.

Originally posted by AllUrChips

Originally posted by AtticusRye

Originally posted by AllUrChips

Originally posted by AtticusRye
reply to post by AllUrChips

 

And now examples will be made out of 94 mothers flying with their small children, honeymooners, middle aged couples on holiday, retirees, etc. Violate the U.S.' edicts and no one will be spared from death.

Unfortunately, yes.
2nd line.

Respectfully I will not call you a sick individual. However, your ideas are extremely sick and disgusting.

these are not my "ideas".

What are you talking about? Theres a little thing called "the way things are" you will learn this one day.

You celebrate and smugly say "dats de way things are - oh well!" when hearing that mothers with small children, retirees and young college students are being burned to death in firey airplane crashes as a result of illegal US sanctions. (BTW - this time they were lucky - in January of this year 88 people were killed on an aircraft that fell out of the sky in Iran as a result of the U.S.' illegal sanctions on Iran.)

US nuclear weapons sharing with Germany and the Netherlands (a program where US tactical nukes are stored at German and Dutch facilities) are a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement. By this rationale, making US civilian aircraft less safe by - oh, say crashing them into fields in Pennsylvania or skyscrapers in New York, is "just the way things are" and the US better learn how to play by the rules if it doesn't want its aircraft falling out of the sky.

reply to post by AtticusRye

Sure, why not

reply to post by AtticusRye


First.. there is no such thing as International Law.

Second.. all airports have repair facilities and every carrier that has a hub at an international airport has a repair facility. So why don't they repair their planes at another airport? Orrr ....... buy the parts from another source like China, or Russia, or many European countries. Dumbest article ever.

In the US and just about every other country in the world no plane wlll ever take off without being airworthy that is on Iran for being stupid and risking the passenger's and the pilot's lives.

reply to post by AtticusRye

UNSC prohibitions in violation of it, therefore, are null and void.

If UNSC Resolution 1929 was in violation of the 1944 Convention on International Aviation (whose constitution, mind you, has been altered and changed as recently as 2006), it would have been declared null and void. Has it been declared null and void? No. The Convention on International Civil Aviation has made no formal complaint, nor has it filed a grievence with the UNSC against Resolution 1929.