• tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    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
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • IHaveTwoCows@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        WRONG

        Thanks for demonstrating the violence of American capitalists and the value of stock portfolios over basic right and wrong.

        Fucking pirate

        • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          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.

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        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
          2
          ·
          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.

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      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@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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…