• tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        What? In the article it does state, that the company had to pay for the significant expenses of bringing the ship to the US. So it was likely seized somewhere, where the US has no jurisdication. This is just piracy and it is in line with US crimes like murdering an Iranian diplomat, they invited to negotiations.

        Critizising these blatant crime sby the US, that are similiar to what China is trying to pull in the Sea around East Asia has nothing to do, with being pro Putin or pro China.

        But it is no wonder, that China and Russia can muster support around the world, despite the shit they pull, if the US is still acting high and mighty, while being drenched in blood.

        • deft@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is an American company. That is American jurisdiction. The fuck you talking about tankie?

          • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            The cargo wasn’t american and the company was owned by an american equity company. By that logic half of the US is under chinese jurisdication, because it is owned by chinese companies.

            Also nice, that instead of interacting with half of what i said your immediate go to is to insult me as tankie. China is pulling a lot of shit, but if that is the best the US can measure itself by, then the US is just incredibly pathetic.

            • deft@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              20
              ·
              1 year ago

              The contraband cargo is now the subject of a civil forfeiture action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The United States’ forfeiture complaint alleges that the oil aboard the vessel is subject to forfeiture based on U.S. terrorism and money laundering statutes.

              The complaint alleges a scheme involving multiple entities affiliated with Iran’s IRGC and the IRGC-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to covertly sell and transport Iranian oil to a customer abroad. Participants in the scheme attempted to disguise the origin of the oil using ship-to-ship transfers, false automatic identification system reporting, falsified documents and other means. The complaint further alleges that the charterer of the vessel used the U.S. financial system to facilitate the transportation of Iranian oil

              I called you a tankie cause your blatantly being a goof about it.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              “In addition, pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) and a seizure warrant issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Empire Navigation, the operating company of the vessel carrying the contraband cargo, agreed to cooperate and transport the Iranian oil to the United States – an operation which has now concluded.”

              Damn this is some new age piracy with the company itself transporting the contraband.

              This is why venture capitalists win. You choose hills to die on that have no bearing whatsoever and fabricate the existence of violence on the hills.

            • CmdrShepard
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’d point out that this ship was owned by American capitalists trying to boost the value of their stock portfolio, but I think that might cause your head to explode.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          The company’s vessel, Suez Rajan Limited, transported the contraband to the US and “incurred the significant expenses associated with the vessel’s voyage to the United States,” according to the DOJ.

          Here.

          Literally just try reading the fucking article instead of acting high and mighty without any effort because you want to be right.

          • CmdrShepard
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Where does it state blood was spilled? If the US seized the ship out in the open ocean (piracy), how would the company have incurred any expenses on the journey to the US? They wouldn’t be the ones piloting the ship.

            • Krauerking@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What? What? You aren’t even making sens and not talking as if you read the article or understand what is being talked about here.

              They told a ship of an American finance holding company to get it’s butt to their borders or suffer consequences and made the company pay for fees, and it’s own gas usage.

              I quoted the part of the article where it says they piloted the ship back to the US? Also you could still have the company pay all costs associated. So many people in here who don’t read.

              • CmdrShepard
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes it’s clear people don’t read. For example, when someone is asked to provide evidence to the claim that “blood was spilled” or “piracy occurred,” people respond with a quote about the company “incurring expenses” as if that is in any way relevant or satisfies the question.

                  • CmdrShepard
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yes apparently. Up until this reply, your comment was in the comment chain talking about how “blood was spilled” and people demanding proof of this.

        • iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Cope and seethe.

          I hope we seize so much oil that China, Russia and Iran have economic contractions.

          What blood was spilled? The ship turned itself in following a court order. No USN involvement.

          • CmdrShepard
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Also, piracy didn’t occur here. It was a ship owned by a US company who was served a court order, admitted guilt, and sailed to the US…

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It would be better for the US if we didn’t sanction Iran, actually. But it might be better for China that we are. We are sanctioning against human rights violations, not just cuz muh money.

        • CmdrShepard
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is like arguing you shouldn’t get prison time after committing a murder because you have kids and they’ll struggle without you around. These sanctions can be more targeted like in cases of Russian oligarchs having their properties seized. In this specific case, a US company was transporting oil in violation of US law and were served a court order. Iran is free to send their own tankers to China and Russia. I doubt the US would blow one of them up.

            • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well I have to agree they target the people and have unintended consequences. BUT I disagree that they don’t hurt the rich and powerful.

              1. Just like here, the rich absorb 90% of the new wealth created. If wealth isn’t being created, they lack power in capital to exert.

              2. We have recently sanctioned Iranian individuals. This means they have trouble leaving their country, and any trade with them is illegal, which again reduces their bargaining power - so that actors like China can swoop in and take advantage of Iran.

              The iranian citizens are standing up and revolting. Iran has seen a lot of direct action over this 40 year history during sanctions. The idea that we are keeping evil people in power is new to me and feels really abstract. In my mind the only way we are making the situation worse is by increasing poverty in Iran. But are sanctions also stopping political upheaval, and how?