Comments:Iran claims airliners were denied fuel

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
submission1216:58, 8 July 2010


Why are those British, German business so submissive to US policies? This makes no sense. -- (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC) (talk)08:11, 6 July 2010

facepalm. Only a fool would believed the gov't of Iran. --KDP3 (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

KDP3 (talk)11:48, 6 July 2010

According to the Reuters link, the Financial Times was told by an unnamed source (according to the wiki article, "involved in the UAE's airline industry") that BP decided to stop refuling Iranian jets. I don't see why anyone needs to believe what Iran is saying in order to believe this article, which would, in effect, be foolish (though I'm willing they believe they will "retaliate"), unless Iran has infiltrated one of those sources - a possibility, all things considered, but not an immediately overwhelming one.

Either way, this is yet another nice little step on the way to confrontation. Somebody ought to have supported those students and protesters way back when - but then Micheal Jackson died.

GarrickW (talk)12:14, 6 July 2010

Clearly a public relations stunt by BP - "We denied the Iranians fuel, aren't we good after all....Sure, we have destroyed a delicate ecosystem, but we aren't helping psychopathic islamic extremist..." KUDOS!

Could someone please get rid of Mahmoud Ahmadinnerjacket please, he's starting to annoy me...

BKCW8 talk12:54, 6 July 2010

Both of you should watch "For Neda".--KDP3 (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

KDP3 (talk)13:20, 6 July 2010

=( thats horrible...

BKCW8 talk13:23, 6 July 2010

Well, aren't all of us, the good little Republicans! I think it is to OBama's credit that both the tighter relationship he has been able to create around the World and deciding to take this strong action against Iran's refusal to stop producing atomic weapons, is a huge step toward forcing the real authorities in Iran to step forward and insist on a ban. Where are the people out there that can acknowledge how many gigantic problems he has been wrestling with, and the numerous reforms and laws he has been able to force into effect. And all of that while the "stand by and watch the US going down the drain, because it makes it easier for them to win seats in congress in November and the presidency back in 2012. PIWAK July 6,2010 (talk)05:28, 7 July 2010

This article is really misleading, Mehdi Aliyari is just the secretary of the Iranian Airlines Union, which is not part of the government while "[Iran] foreign ministry spokesman said on Tuesday that "no such limitation has been imposed". And the UK, Germany and UAE all denied the claim."

The actual news is the fact that "Most of Iran Air's jets will be banned from flying to the EU because of safety concerns, the European Commission says." (BBC: [1])

As predicted, Iran is getting vilified (BBC:[2]) while more sanctions are being added. Israel is going to strike by the fall, it seems inevitable in the current climate. (talk)17:47, 7 July 2010
Edited by author.
Last edit: 16:58, 8 July 2010

Its almost laughable how hysterical this geopolitically motivated confrontation has become in the public sphere. The US has its panties in a bunch over Iran's adamant refusal to bow to the authority of NATO on the issue of Nuclear Technology.Trouble is, Iran isn't producing "Atomic Weapons", They're producing fuel rods for nuclear power plants, which they of course have the legal right to do under the NNPT. The real issue here is that a nuclear-powered Iran would be able to greatly increase their petroleum production market share with their domestic demand for electricity taken out of the equation. NIOC (The Iranian state-owned Oil company) would likely become the largest oil company in the world by revenue.) This makes The Oil Industry - which is comfortable with the status quo (for the past 65 years) of Saudi Arabia having the largest market share- very very nervous.

HaroldWilson'sWar (talk)19:53, 7 July 2010