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.

 

Russia lashes out over stop of Syria-bound ship

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

(AP) MOSCOW - Russia's foreign minister lashed out at Britain on Thursday for pressuring a Russian-operated ship heading to Syria with a load of weapons to turn back, saying that Moscow won't abide by European Union sanctions against its Arab ally.


Sergey Lavrov said a British insurer's decision to remove the ship's coverage reflected the "unreliability of the British insurance system." He also said the British government defied international law by asking the insurance company to act.


"The EU sanctions aren't part of the international law," he said on nationally broadcast Ekho Moskvy radio.



Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

edit on 23/6/12 by argentus because: added ex tags & mod notes




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
"And the hits' just keep on comin' !!!!!"

Tom Cruise, as LTJG McCaffey in " A Few Good Men"



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Any possibility of a couple of links??

2nd/



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Ask and you shall receive:

www.cbsnews.com...



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
To the [SNIP] rubber stamping Russian foreign minister:-

So turning a blind eye to the slaughter of fellow innocent unarmed men, women and children in Syria daily for 14months, supplied with weapons of HumanSlaughter by you son of a bit*ches in power is 'international law' as envision by the bast*rd that is you?

[middle finger up to the bast*rd inhuman Russian foreign idiot]

[/middle finger up to the bast*rd inhuman Russian foreign idiot] 2nd line for emoticon.

Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors – Please Review This Link.
edit on 23/6/12 by argentus because: removed censor circumvention



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


I know i will get flammed for this and people are going to dump all over me BUT. Sometimes the US just needs to stay the heck out of other countries problems. And the British or any other country should have no say on where other country ships can go. What if all of a sudden they didnt want China's ships docking in the US. Should they be able to turn them back? I know there are a lot of politics involved and fighting and killing. However we are not the worlds 911 force and cannot protect, police or defend everyone. OK let the critisim begin.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by tluna1
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


I know i will get flammed for this and people are going to dump all over me BUT. Sometimes the US just needs to stay the heck out of other countries problems. And the British or any other country should have no say on where other country ships can go. What if all of a sudden they didnt want China's ships docking in the US. Should they be able to turn them back? I know there are a lot of politics involved and fighting and killing. However we are not the worlds 911 force and cannot protect, police or defend everyone. OK let the critisim begin.


The ship was free to carry on sailing without insurance cover if it wished. It decided not to. What has that got to do with The British Government?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Russia is PRETENDING to be "defying the West", for domestic consumption.

If Rusia REALLY wanted that those arms arrived in Syria, the ship would set sail from Rostov-na-Donu in the Black Sea.

Or even this ship that came back from Scotland.... Why they simply didn't sail on international waters, in the middle of the Atlantic?

They are just pretending, for domestic consumption. Putin likes a political game to boost his popularity. He won't REALLY defy the west.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 


wasnt it a british ship that made them turn back?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tluna1
reply to post by alldaylong
 


wasnt it a british ship that made them turn back?




No. The Insurance cover on the ship and it's cargo was cancelled. The ship wouldn't continue it's voyage without insurance cover.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Wow...look how close it was to popping off:

Syria: David Cameron considered ordering special forces to seize Russian ship
David Cameron considered ordering British special forces to board and impound a Russian ship suspected of carrying arms to Syria, it has emerged.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

So what happens after Russia puts THEIR flag on the ship and sends it back which is what they said they will do.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
No ship is going to sail without insurance cover...unless its a pirate.



Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by tluna1
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


I know i will get flammed for this and people are going to dump all over me BUT. Sometimes the US just needs to stay the heck out of other countries problems. And the British or any other country should have no say on where other country ships can go. What if all of a sudden they didnt want China's ships docking in the US. Should they be able to turn them back? I know there are a lot of politics involved and fighting and killing. However we are not the worlds 911 force and cannot protect, police or defend everyone. OK let the critisim begin.


The ship was free to carry on sailing without insurance cover if it wished. It decided not to. What has that got to do with The British Government?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
No ship is going to sail without insurance cover...unless its a pirate.



Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by tluna1
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


I know i will get flammed for this and people are going to dump all over me BUT. Sometimes the US just needs to stay the heck out of other countries problems. And the British or any other country should have no say on where other country ships can go. What if all of a sudden they didnt want China's ships docking in the US. Should they be able to turn them back? I know there are a lot of politics involved and fighting and killing. However we are not the worlds 911 force and cannot protect, police or defend everyone. OK let the critisim begin.


The ship was free to carry on sailing without insurance cover if it wished. It decided not to. What has that got to do with The British Government?


It's sailing back to Russia, without insurance cover. I don't think for one moment the crew would just "Get Off" and leave the ship adrift.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Semantics. It wouldnt continue to sail as far as completing tis mission.



Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by princeofpeace
No ship is going to sail without insurance cover...unless its a pirate.



Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by tluna1
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


I know i will get flammed for this and people are going to dump all over me BUT. Sometimes the US just needs to stay the heck out of other countries problems. And the British or any other country should have no say on where other country ships can go. What if all of a sudden they didnt want China's ships docking in the US. Should they be able to turn them back? I know there are a lot of politics involved and fighting and killing. However we are not the worlds 911 force and cannot protect, police or defend everyone. OK let the critisim begin.


The ship was free to carry on sailing without insurance cover if it wished. It decided not to. What has that got to do with The British Government?


It's sailing back to Russia, without insurance cover. I don't think for one moment the crew would just "Get Off" and leave the ship adrift.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by tluna1
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


I know i will get flammed for this and people are going to dump all over me BUT. Sometimes the US just needs to stay the heck out of other countries problems. And the British or any other country should have no say on where other country ships can go. What if all of a sudden they didnt want China's ships docking in the US. Should they be able to turn them back? I know there are a lot of politics involved and fighting and killing. However we are not the worlds 911 force and cannot protect, police or defend everyone. OK let the critisim begin.


The ship was free to carry on sailing without insurance cover if it wished. It decided not to. What has that got to do with The British Government?

Perhaps the fact that the British Gov't broke international law by pressuring the insurance carrier to stop coverage?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by tluna1
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


I know i will get flammed for this and people are going to dump all over me BUT. Sometimes the US just needs to stay the heck out of other countries problems. And the British or any other country should have no say on where other country ships can go. What if all of a sudden they didnt want China's ships docking in the US. Should they be able to turn them back? I know there are a lot of politics involved and fighting and killing. However we are not the worlds 911 force and cannot protect, police or defend everyone. OK let the critisim begin.


The ship was free to carry on sailing without insurance cover if it wished. It decided not to. What has that got to do with The British Government?

Perhaps the fact that the British Gov't broke international law by pressuring the insurance carrier to stop coverage?


And your proof of this is?

Or maybe it was a commercial decision which is more like the case

www.insurancejournal.com...



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by tluna1
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


I know i will get flammed for this and people are going to dump all over me BUT. Sometimes the US just needs to stay the heck out of other countries problems. And the British or any other country should have no say on where other country ships can go. What if all of a sudden they didnt want China's ships docking in the US. Should they be able to turn them back? I know there are a lot of politics involved and fighting and killing. However we are not the worlds 911 force and cannot protect, police or defend everyone. OK let the critisim begin.


The ship was free to carry on sailing without insurance cover if it wished. It decided not to. What has that got to do with The British Government?

Perhaps the fact that the British Gov't broke international law by pressuring the insurance carrier to stop coverage?


Didn't Russia break international law by not observing the weapons sanctions set forth by the UN?

Just saying!

And I'm not intimate with international law. Could you enlighten us lackies to where Britain had broken international law?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Perhaps the fact that the British Gov't broke international law by pressuring the insurance carrier to stop coverage?


How has the UK government broken international law? In your own words.

The question is whether the cargo of arms was covered by the insurance as the ship was Dutch flagged and the arms were en route to Syria. There is an EU arms embargo to that wretched dictatorship. In other words, it was not about the UK breaking laws, it was the insurance company who was potentially in contravention of beaching laws and the insurance was cancelled because of it.

Russia has said they will put the helicopters on a Russian flagged ship. Thus, the autocratic Russia can support their ally Assad the Dictator. Let’s hope Russia wake up.

Regards



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
In response to the three posters above me, please do read the OP, and source.


edit on 21-6-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Russia is NOT breaching International law by giving Assad the helicopters because it IS NOT a sale of weapons... They were paid to refurbish the Helicopters in 2008 which was before the sanctions set in so they are not breaching any laws or sanctions.

Anyway, with Saudi Arabia and the United States giving the 'Free Syrian Army' more advanced weaponry and nigh unlimited funds it is only fair that Russia should give the Assad Govt. back their own property.

If this was Saudi Arabia involved in civil war the US wouldn't think twice about selling them lethal equipment. And don't even attempt to deny it. Because if you do I have one word for you. Yemen.

Even so, Putin is just posing for domestic support, they aren't going to do much except sit back and let the US trample yet another nation.

Hopefully, Iran will stick up for their Syrian allies in the face of Western attack and make some moves themselves to counter the chess game being played.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join