Iranian Naval 'Incident' - fabricated for GWB

[Brownshirt]

See Rule #2

[Holden McGroin]

See Rule #2

[bj229r]

The 3 ships we had there.... if something which needed to be avoided were dropped in their path 200 yards off bow, would they be able to react and turn in time?

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Rolex
This posing is normal in the Straits. The Iranians were being as aggressive and defiant as the US is while transiting the Straits of Hormuz.

Where were the US ships? All the announcements are that the ships were inbound in the Straits of Hormuz. One US transmission in the video is: "We are in international waters and we intend no harm."

That is not true. They may mistakenly claim they are in international waters, but there are no international waters in the Straits of Hormuz. The inbound channel is in Iranian territorial waters and ships in transit through the Straits do so at the pleasure of Iran or Oman (the outbound channel) and according to the rules set out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

"I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law," is another one of the transmissions from the US ships.

OK, fine, except the US has never ratified the "international law" that they now want to claim privileges and protection with for navigation rights in the Straits. You can't claim protections from an international law and ignore it all on the same day.

The "international law" that gives navigation rights through the Straits of Hormuz prohibits air operations while in transit. It also prohibits surveillance and surveys while in transit. See the helos in the videos? That violates the terms of right of passage. The US Navy uses sonar and US subs do not surface while going through the Straits - all violations of the terms to right of passage.

Iran could deny all US ships right of passage tomorrow, if it wanted to, and the US would have no legal standing. The inbound channel is 100% Iran territorial waters. Iran is probably content to let these theatrics continue for its own political purposes, just as the US is.

It's theater for you. Put on some popcorn and enjoy it.

Rolex, you are applying the wrong rules... You are applying PART II
TERRITORIAL SEA AND CONTIGUOUS ZONE, SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

The above does not include Straits Used for International Navigation. See Part III of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Submarines need not surface in these straits. Aircraft may operate within these straits.

The Straits of Hormuz are not recognized as territorial seas, but as a strait where different rules apply. Moreover, Iran MAY NOT deny the US the right to transit.

Article 44 states...
Duties of States bordering straits:
States bordering straits shall not hamper transit passage and shall give
appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation or overflight within or over
the strait of which they have knowledge. There shall be no suspension of
transit passage.

My regards,

Widewing

[AKIron]

So far as I'm concerned we should be in a state of war with Iran for past  and present aggressions. No action by any of our military branches should be executed as if we are at peace with Iran.

[Brownshirt]

See Rule #5

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by AKIron
So far as I'm concerned we should be in a state of war with Iran for past  and present aggressions. No action by any of our military branches should be executed as if we are at peace with Iran.

Why?

Would we act differently if they were in Canada?

The United States has been involved in 3 Wars and multiple conflicts in the past 35 years.  

The bloodthirsty Iranians?  One.  Iraq invaded them and they fought a horribly bloody defensive campaign for 7 years.  Iran was also the only Muslim country to denounce the 9-11 attacks and had mass demonstrations in support of the United States in its' streets following the attacks.

You are completely wrapped up in the idiocy this administration spews at you.  Please hit the power button on your brain, and start it up.  When an M16 bullet hits one of our soldiers...(and they are) should we blame ourselves for that casualty?  But, our government blames Iran on US deaths with circumstantial evidence akin to exactly that.  The adinistration just wants to go that much further and invade Iran as well.

 A couple of boats play tag in our wakes...and an un identified voice is attributed to THEM... a voice which spoke clearly without any wind in the background...You wanna blow them away.


I'm not in support of the Iranians... I could care what they do.. it's their country.  I'm only in support for rational thinking.... something which is missing in our current decision making.

[john9001]

Originally posted by MORAY37


I'm not in support of the Iranians... I could care what they do.. it's their country.  

so you don't care if Iran gets nukes and destroys Israel and starts WW3?

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by john9001
so you don't care if Iran gets nukes and destroys Israel and starts WW3?

One outcome does not nessecitate the other.  

Just because one leader is an anti semite...(not even a part of the ruling council) doesn't mean they want anything to do with Israel.  You really need to familiarize yourself with their political process, john.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by john9001
so you don't care if Iran gets nukes and destroys Israel and starts WW3?

Pakistan is much more likely to do exactly that..and they already have the nukes...and the national sympathy for Al Queda.

[Dago]

Originally posted by MORAY37
 Iran was also the only Muslim country to denounce the 9-11 attacks and had mass demonstrations in support of the United States in its' streets following the attacks.

Yeah, you're right.

Iran on 911    
9/11 incident, a make-believe: Iranian official

IranMania

An Iranian official mocked the 9/11 story presented to the world public opinion by the US, IRNA reported.

“What we watched on the TVs regarding slamming of two planes into the New York Twin Towers, was in fact a make-believe scene,” said Iran’s Deputy Culture and Islamic Guidance Minister and head of Iran’s Culture, Art and Communications Research Center Mohammad-Hadi Homayoun in an address to the Iran-Russia Dialogue among Civilizations Conference in Moscow.

Homayoun stipulated that the sky-scrappers were destroyed through bomb explosions, adding that after massive media propaganda of the US the crusades began.

Criticizing Hountington’s theory of Clashes among Civilizations, Homayoun said the theory was formed to justify clashes and tensions among civilizations and cultures.

Meanwhile, touching on a quarter-a-century chronology of the globalization process, Iran’s Presidential advisor Mohammad Nahavandian told the audience for his part that global village is in need of human relations more than satellites and the internet.

“Communications are today only responsible for preparing the technical ground for the relations; and as long as there is no cultural cooperation, there will be clashes among civilizations,” announced Nahavandian.

Accusing the US and the ‘Zionist’ regime of adventurism and of opposing the idea of dialogue among civilizations, Nahavandian said that Iran and Russia are advocates of dialogue among civilizations and cultures.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Dago
Yeah, you're right.

Actually, yes I am.

Iranian president condemns September 11 attacks
November 12, 2001 Posted: 5:42 PM EST (2242 GMT)


 
Khatami: "We have to address the root causes of terrorism."    
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
(CNN) - The U.S.-led war against terrorism is being carried out across the border from Iran, in Afghanistan.

Iranian President Mohammed Khatami discussed the military campaign, the September 11 attacks and the political future of its war-torn neighbor in a rare interview Sunday with CNN Senior International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour.

AMANPOUR: With every statement, every new videotape, Osama bin Laden comes closer to admitting responsibility for September 11. Are you are comfortable that, with the evidence so far, the United States, under international law, has the right to defend itself against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden?

  MORE STORIES  
Iranian president: 'Root of terrorism' must be addressed  
 KHATAMI (through translator): In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful, first of all, I would like to again express my deepest condolences to the nation of America, and express my sorrow for the tragic event of September 11. What occurred was a disaster.

[Maverick]

Moray, do you have the link to the entire speech you posted a sentence from?

[Delirium]

Originally posted by MORAY37
Iranian president: 'Root of terrorism' must be addressed

What he didn't tell you is, in his opinion, the root cause of 9-11 is our support of Israel.

[Rolex]

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm

Hi Widewing,

Yes, both parties have obligations and rights under the rules. That right to transit passage is based on ships following their obligations, though. If a ship is not following the rules for innocent passage, it can be denied passage.

I was using Part III. Article 45 in Part III, refers back to Part II for the definition of innocent passage.
------------
"SECTION 3. INNOCENT PASSAGE

Article45

Innocent passage

1. The regime of innocent passage, in accordance with Part II, section 3, shall apply in straits used for international navigation:"

----------

And that Part II, section 3 says this [Note 2. (e) and Article 20]:

----------

"Article19

Meaning of innocent passage

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;

(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;

(i) any fishing activities;

(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;

(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;

(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

Article20

Submarines and other underwater vehicles

In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag."
-------------

Also, Article 25 states:

"A coastal state may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent ... the coastal state may suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its of security, including weapons exercise."

And Article 30 states, "If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal state concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal state may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately."