(12-11-2025 10:23 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-11-2025 10:17 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-11-2025 10:02 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

I have a serious question about the sky screamer girl. Do you think she screamed at the sky again when Trump was sworn back in back in January? I bet ya she probably did.

her name is ball gurgles…

Just a friendly reminder, but the OP for this thread is the same moron that stated that he thought the oil in the tanker was of Iranian origin, when the link the moron posted clearly stated the crude originated from Venezuela. Ball-gag cuck uses AI to try to make a cogent argument, even after the very thread it/she/kitty/puppy/furry/turd originally posted cannot even get the facts straight from the very link t/she/kitty/puppy/furry/turd used to support t/she/kitty/puppy/furry/turd's original post. Choad loser. Needs to sit at the kiddie a while before rejoining the adults in the room.

(12-11-2025 10:27 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-11-2025 10:23 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-11-2025 10:17 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-11-2025 10:02 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

I have a serious question about the sky screamer girl. Do you think she screamed at the sky again when Trump was sworn back in back in January? I bet ya she probably did.

her name is ball gurgles…

I see the conversation has lowered to Gemini approval levels with the above. Cool stuff there, son.

(12-11-2025 06:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Good lord, Tanq, you are an effing moron. You always dodge the actual point with some stupid deflection.

The point is the rationale that the Govt is spouting doesnt have a fing basis in international law, Geritol. I guess that is a hard issue for you to process. Good show there, bright guy. But please whine about that.

(12-11-2025 11:20 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Just a friendly reminder, but the OP for this thread is the same moron that stated that he thought the oil in the tanker was of Iranian origin, when the link the moron posted clearly stated the crude originated from Venezuela. Ball-gag cuck uses AI to try to make a cogent argument, even after the very thread it/she/kitty/puppy/furry/turd originally posted cannot even get the facts straight from the very link t/she/kitty/puppy/furry/turd used to support t/she/kitty/puppy/furry/turd's original post. Choad loser. Needs to sit at the kiddie a while before rejoining the adults in the room.

Again this is probably not worth the effort given you’ve demonstrated a very low reading level and an even lower level of comprehension.

The very article I posted mentioned this tanker had previously been sanctioned for hauling Iranian oil using a different name. Attackcoog called it an “Iranian tanker” and I merely pointed out it was owned by a Nigerian company hauling (allegedly) Iranian oil.

I’m guessing you didn’t make it that far in the article due to too many compound words for your smooth brain and came over here in an impotent rage to offload a literal load of crap.

Now run back to truth social to jerk to dear leaders dementia addled ramblings

(12-11-2025 11:20 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Just a friendly reminder, but the OP for this thread is the same moron that stated that he thought the oil in the tanker was of Iranian origin, when the link the moron posted clearly stated the crude originated from Venezuela. Ball-gag cuck uses AI to try to make a cogent argument, even after the very thread it/she/kitty/puppy/furry/turd originally posted cannot even get the facts straight from the very link t/she/kitty/puppy/furry/turd used to support t/she/kitty/puppy/furry/turd's original post. Choad loser. Needs to sit at the kiddie a while before rejoining the adults in the room.

Also, this OP is from the same moron that believes every word the Democrat presstitues say about Trump having dementia, and that he's unfit to serve. Yet this same moron believes everything the same Democrat presstittues said about Biden being sharp as a tack and was fit to serve a second term.

(12-11-2025 11:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-11-2025 09:53 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Sanction enforcement is not "against the law". We have done it before. Google Suez Rajan. I know, no one has heard of it.....because it happened during the Biden Administration. Our country is so phucked by the "news".

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Suez_Rajan

"The Marshall Islands-flagged Suez Rajan, carrying Iranian-grade crude oil,[1] was seized in April 2023 by the US Department of Justice.[2] The Suez Rajan was carrying about 800,000 barrels of oil, a cargo worth about $56 million.[3] The US justification for the seizure was violation of US sanctions on Iran's oil exports, and the US said the Suez Rajan scheme "attempted to disguise the origin of the oil using ship-to-ship transfers". Suez Rajan Ltd., the owner of the ship, pleaded guilty and was fined $2.5 million. The US claimed ownership of the confiscated oil.[4] As the original payment to Iran for the Iranian oil was done using US dollar transaction wire transfers, without a license issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the US Department of the Treasury, the US could claim jurisdiction under US law.[5]"

Funny, never said sanction enforcement actions werent enforceable. Calling into question the use of the military in extraterritorial aspects. Might want to retool your pithy off the subject answer to one more on point.

How else do you enforce International Sanctions? Social Workers? Stay in your lane. Leave the serious stuff to the bosses. You are digging yourself another hole.

(12-12-2025 09:27 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(12-11-2025 11:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-11-2025 09:53 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Sanction enforcement is not "against the law". We have done it before. Google Suez Rajan. I know, no one has heard of it.....because it happened during the Biden Administration. Our country is so phucked by the "news".

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Suez_Rajan

"The Marshall Islands-flagged Suez Rajan, carrying Iranian-grade crude oil,[1] was seized in April 2023 by the US Department of Justice.[2] The Suez Rajan was carrying about 800,000 barrels of oil, a cargo worth about $56 million.[3] The US justification for the seizure was violation of US sanctions on Iran's oil exports, and the US said the Suez Rajan scheme "attempted to disguise the origin of the oil using ship-to-ship transfers". Suez Rajan Ltd., the owner of the ship, pleaded guilty and was fined $2.5 million. The US claimed ownership of the confiscated oil.[4] As the original payment to Iran for the Iranian oil was done using US dollar transaction wire transfers, without a license issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the US Department of the Treasury, the US could claim jurisdiction under US law.[5]"

Funny, never said sanction enforcement actions werent enforceable. Calling into question the use of the military in extraterritorial aspects. Might want to retool your pithy off the subject answer to one more on point.

How else do you enforce International Sanctions? Social Workers? Stay in your lane. Leave the serious stuff to the bosses. You are digging yourself another hole.

Each country upholding the sanctions does so domestically, Eagle. Except when you have a dick wagger who thinks that it is a great spectacle to wag his dick with using the military in international waters.

Last I saw sanctions are a domestic decision. Not a unilateral one. Not an extraterritorial one either. Unless one buys into the dick wagging thing, I guess.

You have to admit, seeing the drunk patent attorney whine about every single thing Trump does is really entertaining.

International Law!!

(12-12-2025 10:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-12-2025 09:27 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(12-11-2025 11:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-11-2025 09:53 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Sanction enforcement is not "against the law". We have done it before. Google Suez Rajan. I know, no one has heard of it.....because it happened during the Biden Administration. Our country is so phucked by the "news".

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Suez_Rajan

"The Marshall Islands-flagged Suez Rajan, carrying Iranian-grade crude oil,[1] was seized in April 2023 by the US Department of Justice.[2] The Suez Rajan was carrying about 800,000 barrels of oil, a cargo worth about $56 million.[3] The US justification for the seizure was violation of US sanctions on Iran's oil exports, and the US said the Suez Rajan scheme "attempted to disguise the origin of the oil using ship-to-ship transfers". Suez Rajan Ltd., the owner of the ship, pleaded guilty and was fined $2.5 million. The US claimed ownership of the confiscated oil.[4] As the original payment to Iran for the Iranian oil was done using US dollar transaction wire transfers, without a license issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the US Department of the Treasury, the US could claim jurisdiction under US law.[5]"

Funny, never said sanction enforcement actions werent enforceable. Calling into question the use of the military in extraterritorial aspects. Might want to retool your pithy off the subject answer to one more on point.

How else do you enforce International Sanctions? Social Workers? Stay in your lane. Leave the serious stuff to the bosses. You are digging yourself another hole.

Each country upholding the sanctions does so domestically, Eagle. Except when you have a dick wagger who thinks that it is a great spectacle to wag his dick with using the military in international waters.

Last I saw sanctions are a domestic decision. Not a unilateral one. Not an extraterritorial one either. Unless one buys into the dick wagging thing, I guess.

Yeah. I guess you have no experience in dick-wagging...for obvious reasons.

Just can't help himself.

So, Social Workers? What the Hell was that? Dick wagging? Really? I know it is hard for the weak to realize the USA IS the Sheriff in the Western Hemisphere. Those that can't handle that need to go hide under the bed with the women and children. We still get no answer from the resident expert on everything on what is SUPPOSED to happen when sanctioned countries blatantly break the rules, because what we did IS what is supposed to happen. The ship was breaking every rule in the book to ship sanctioned oil.
L. Move on.

(12-12-2025 06:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-11-2025 06:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Good lord, Tanq, you are an effing moron. You always dodge the actual point with some stupid deflection.

The point is the rationale that the Govt is spouting doesnt have a fing basis in international law, Geritol. I guess that is a hard issue for you to process. Good show there, bright guy. But please whine about that.

Glad to know that this action was supported by international law.

(12-12-2025 10:51 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(12-12-2025 06:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-11-2025 06:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Good lord, Tanq, you are an effing moron. You always dodge the actual point with some stupid deflection.

The point is the rationale that the Govt is spouting doesnt have a fing basis in international law, Geritol. I guess that is a hard issue for you to process. Good show there, bright guy. But please whine about that.

Glad to know that this action was supported by international law.

"muh international law" - can't live with it; dayum sure can laugh at it...

there are no fair actors on the stage....

(12-12-2025 11:15 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-12-2025 10:51 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(12-12-2025 06:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-11-2025 06:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Good lord, Tanq, you are an effing moron. You always dodge the actual point with some stupid deflection.

The point is the rationale that the Govt is spouting doesnt have a fing basis in international law, Geritol. I guess that is a hard issue for you to process. Good show there, bright guy. But please whine about that.

Glad to know that this action was supported by international law.

"muh international law" - can't live with it; dayum sure can laugh at it...

there are no fair actors on the stage....

International Law is only enforceable by military might. What it amounts to is pretext (a propagandized reason to act) for those who act. T.R.'s "Big Stick" ultimately determines what passes for justice in a world filled with corruption. And whether you are on the left or right or in the middle that is the reality.

Because of that the damned United Nations is a waste of everyone's time and money. It's just a place for the losers to bellyache about the realities of the world.

Add international law and admiralty law to Tanq's practice areas.

(12-12-2025 11:49 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Add international law and admiralty law to Tanq's practice areas.

They have ambulances for those?

The Precedent
https://www.justice.gov/nsd/case/united-...an-limited
https://www.justice.gov/nsd/media/1328126/dl

(12-12-2025 10:34 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  You have to admit, seeing the drunk patent attorney whine about every single thing Trump does is really entertaining.

International Law!!

He has Rosie O'Donnell levels of TDS

Very bad for your health. Being a drunk and those levels of TDS exhibit signs and symptoms indicating "full retard" ....on an hourly basis.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(12-11-2025 04:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-11-2025 01:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-11-2025 11:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-11-2025 09:53 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Sanction enforcement is not "against the law". We have done it before. Google Suez Rajan. I know, no one has heard of it.....because it happened during the Biden Administration. Our country is so phucked by the "news".

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Suez_Rajan

"The Marshall Islands-flagged Suez Rajan, carrying Iranian-grade crude oil,[1] was seized in April 2023 by the US Department of Justice.[2] The Suez Rajan was carrying about 800,000 barrels of oil, a cargo worth about $56 million.[3] The US justification for the seizure was violation of US sanctions on Iran's oil exports, and the US said the Suez Rajan scheme "attempted to disguise the origin of the oil using ship-to-ship transfers". Suez Rajan Ltd., the owner of the ship, pleaded guilty and was fined $2.5 million. The US claimed ownership of the confiscated oil.[4] As the original payment to Iran for the Iranian oil was done using US dollar transaction wire transfers, without a license issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the US Department of the Treasury, the US could claim jurisdiction under US law.[5]"

Funny, never said sanction enforcement actions werent enforceable. Calling into question the use of the military in extraterritorial aspects. Might want to retool your pithy off the subject answer to one more on point.

First off---its flying under a false flag. A nation can intercept, detain, investigate, and seize a ship flying a false flag treating it as a stateless vessel outside of normal protections----especially if its involved in sanctions violations or other illegal activities.

Funny, thats not the legal rationale set out by our government. Care to attempt an answer that follows the stated rationale?

Bondi’s claim that the Skipper was seized in accordance with domestically imposed sanctions has no standing in international law. Zero.

And a boarding under the Unclos provisions you allude to above for stateless vessels only contain provisions for allowing boarding to inspect. The provisions do not allow for arrest, seizure, or prosecution beyond an initial inspection.

Quote:Furthermore, what difference does it make what branch of US government intercepts it? Its outside of US waters on the high seas---and it was unknown if the crew would resist. Maybe it just came down to the the US Navy represented the closest force that that could make a show of force sufficient enough to minimize the likelihood of crew resistance....or maybe the ship foolishly entered into an area of denial zone around the current Navy operations off the coast of Venezuela. Im not sure why it matters what branch of the US seizes the ship when its outside of US waters.

Under various treaties relating to specific law enforcement powers, the Coast Guard is under a much stronger position legally when seizing vessels in international waters. And, there seems to be a decent amount of confusion about whether the ship was in international waters or not.

Best I can tell, while the operation was launched from the Gerald Ford, the actual raid was performed by 10 Coast Guard members backed by 10 US marines. The actual boarding team were all members of the US Coast Guard Maritime Security and Response Team, an elite unit used for maritime interdiction. The same article indicates the vessel was sanctioned in 2022, before Trump was even re-elected president. As for international law, the vessel is flying under a false flag, is a previously totaled vessel that was supposed to be scrapped, now operating without proper maintenance logs or international maintenance certifications---often running without operating a transponder or insurance coverage. Even if you throw out sanctions (which frankly, its up to the sanctioning nation as to how far they are willing to go as far as enforcing sanctions--most nations only have very limited physical ability to enforce them---and even less ability to deal with the potential consequences of enforcing a sanction), it would seem there are probably still plenty of grounds to seize the vessel.

That said, Ive said my sense is this is less about sanctions and Venezuela---and more about China and Russia. If you'll notice, the US naval build up looks A LOT like what China routinely does off the coast of Taiwan. Given that Venezuela has established substantial military and/or investment ties with Russia and China---I think we are telling China (and Russia as well) if they continue to misbehave in areas where they have a "home field advantage"---America's hugely capable blue water navy can do the same thing to their interests virtually anywhere else in the world. A potentially sobering message to a nation that makes virtually all their bones from international sea trade (as well as to Putin, who sells a lot of oil via tankers).

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-we-kno...venezuela/