War with Iran?

[Dill]

(08-01-2019, 12:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 3. As stated in my previous post, the co-chair of the EU Council on Foreign Relations says the EU does not impose EU sanctions on non-EU nations. Iran is not an EU nation.  This undermines any claim that the seizure was about EU sanctions. Let's add this to that:
The underlined is demonstrably false.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/05/17/syria-eu-renews-sanctions-against-the-regime-by-one-year/
"More broadly, sanctions currently in place against Syria include an oil embargo, restrictions on certain investments, a freeze of the assets of the Syrian central bank held in the EU, export restrictions on equipment and technology that might be used for internal repression as well as on equipment and technology for the monitoring or interception of internet or telephone communications."
You literally made a demonstrably false statement.  Knowing you you'll probably find a weasel loophole, but you just got caught making a false statement to bolster your argument.

Re: following closely the relation of statements to support, I only have time to respond to this point at the moment.

I quoted the Co-Chair of the EU Council of Foreign Relations stating, in reference to sanctions on Syria and the seizure of the Iranian ship, that the EU does not enforce its sanctions on non-Eu countries.  If the EU does not enforce its Syrian sanctions on non-EU nations, then the reason given for the seizure by Britain and Gibraltar does not fit--though it does align with the US goal of preventing Iran from selling oil anywhere. I.e., it aligns with the enforcement of US, not EU policy.

You claim the bolded regarding enforcement of EU Syrian sanctions on non-EU countries is "demonstrably false." That leads me to expect you have evidence that the EU routinely, as a matter of policy, impounds sanctioned cargo on ships from non-EU countries or some such. 

But you only provide a link to a quote that the EU "sanctions currently in place include an oil embargo."

This looks like "proof" of what no one is disputing--i.e., that there are EU sanctions in place on Syria. Not proof that I made a "demonstrably false statement" by quoting an EU official on EU policy. Happily, you "abstain" from calling me a liar.

So my "weasel loophole" would be that while my quote of an EU official stating EU policy NOT to enforce EU sanctions on Syria on non-EU nations does call into question the "official" British explanation of actions that align with US , not EU policy, your "proof" that EU sanctions on Syria "include oil" does not even address, much less refute, my (and Bildt's) point.