15 royal navy held by iran
- Thread starter disownedspirit
- Start date
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Well you want to see royal navy personnal tortured on international tv.Second thought sctach the choking hope you get the shits
I just read every post on this thread. Now this thread deals with 15 members of the British armed forces taken by the Iranian navy under conflicting circumstances - ie no one knows for sure whether they were in Iranian waters or not.
But we do know Iran took 15 people from a country they are not at war with off the high seas. No one has seen or heard from these people since.
And not one of you have criticized the Iranian government. The same government whose president holds holocaust denial conferences and has talked of taking Israel off the map.
Interesting priorities from the European out of touch left wing contingent.
But we do know Iran took 15 people from a country they are not at war with off the high seas. No one has seen or heard from these people since.
And not one of you have criticized the Iranian government. The same government whose president holds holocaust denial conferences and has talked of taking Israel off the map.
Interesting priorities from the European out of touch left wing contingent.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Why the emphasis on Israel? We in the UK aren't responsible as far as I know (perhaps Tony Blair sees things differently) for looking after the welfare of a state pretty much founded on the terroristic murder of British servicemen, or protecting it from the consquences of its own subsequent actions.
In terms of the UK and Iran, our ill-conceived support for the miltary adventures of a bunch of incompetent cowboys in Washington has placed us at a severe strategic disadvantage in our dealings with Iran for no evident benefit that I can discern. Given the situation in Iraq, blustering about this stuff is rather pointless. In these circumstances, the best we can reasonably hope for is to get the personnel in question back in one piece and in the long term, to extricate ourselves completely from the broader consequences of US idiocy.
In terms of the UK and Iran, our ill-conceived support for the miltary adventures of a bunch of incompetent cowboys in Washington has placed us at a severe strategic disadvantage in our dealings with Iran for no evident benefit that I can discern. Given the situation in Iraq, blustering about this stuff is rather pointless. In these circumstances, the best we can reasonably hope for is to get the personnel in question back in one piece and in the long term, to extricate ourselves completely from the broader consequences of US idiocy.
The Iranian government has announced publicly that they have arrested these men, and have given their reasons.
If what they claim is true, then we are in the wrong. If our men were not in Iranian territory, then the Iranians are in the wrong.
I wouldn't expect either government to admit fault, whichever version is true.
This needs to be thrashed out by diplomatic means, so let's wait and see how it turns out.
By the way, did anybody see the Blair announcement on TV, where he said that seizing these men was unjustified and wrong? Carefully chosen words - and was there a shifty look in his eyes when he said them? Is the 'consummate actor' mask beginning to slip a bit?
Or is it just me being paranoid?
If what they claim is true, then we are in the wrong. If our men were not in Iranian territory, then the Iranians are in the wrong.
I wouldn't expect either government to admit fault, whichever version is true.
This needs to be thrashed out by diplomatic means, so let's wait and see how it turns out.
By the way, did anybody see the Blair announcement on TV, where he said that seizing these men was unjustified and wrong? Carefully chosen words - and was there a shifty look in his eyes when he said them? Is the 'consummate actor' mask beginning to slip a bit?
Or is it just me being paranoid?
Bernie Gunther said:
Do you believe Israel has a right to exist?
I know you would not criticize the Iranian government, its not their fault, they have no choice but to take the boys in. The loony left in Europe will crawl into bed with some of the nastiest regimes on earth to burnish their anti-american credentials.
You are a prime example.
DownwardDog
Well-Known Member
This obviously just the normal Iranian shit stirring and is straight from the Hezbollah playbook. I think what's really interesting is the relatively muted media reaction. TB is going to be in the shit (like he cares) if there is pressure to do something because I don't think there is much that he can profitably do other than rely on the munificence of the Iranians. Nobody seems to give a toss at the moment. That could all change very quickly if one of these Jack Tars has a sufficiently attractive young wife that could do a weepy interview with Sir Trevor McDonald.
Apparently one of the sailors taken is a young mother
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2393337.ece
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2393337.ece
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
mears said:
And no doubt you'd be saying the same had Iranian soldiers been caught off the US coast.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Don't be a dick mears, you're so wrapped up in your little 'loyalty test' scripts about Israel that you're missing the reality by a mile. Israel's welfare is not the UK's responsibility any more than that of say Yemen is. Nor is it relevant in any obvious way to the use of British service personnel as political hostages in the context of US-Iranian power games. As far as I can tell bringing it up at all in this thread is simply a robotic response based on your conditioning in US political rhetoric.
I'd also be incredibly surprised if anyone here had a good word for the cabal of religious authoritarians running Iran.
It is in fact a premise for making any argument criticising the stunning incompetence of the Bush administration and their lapdog Blair in handing a massive strategic advantage to Iran by deposing their worst enemy Saddam and replacing his government with a bunch of pro-Iranian stooges, that you don't think much of the Iranian regime in the first place.
Unfortunately, because of that strategic incompetence we don't have any particularly attractive choices in dealing with the situation being discussed.
I'd also be incredibly surprised if anyone here had a good word for the cabal of religious authoritarians running Iran.
It is in fact a premise for making any argument criticising the stunning incompetence of the Bush administration and their lapdog Blair in handing a massive strategic advantage to Iran by deposing their worst enemy Saddam and replacing his government with a bunch of pro-Iranian stooges, that you don't think much of the Iranian regime in the first place.
Unfortunately, because of that strategic incompetence we don't have any particularly attractive choices in dealing with the situation being discussed.
ska invita
back on the other side
Bernie Gunther said:
..and the fact that this cabal is running Iran is nothing but the doing of the oil-hungry Brits with US backing
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2...s/intl_iran_constitution19sep.php&frame=true-
This whole episode can be filed under 'reap what you sow'.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
niksativa said:
Well quite.
Unfortunately mears doesnt seem to be able to grasp that it's possible to think both sides are arseholes in any given conflict between governments.
Good for getting the retaliation in, but not too useful for the 15 sailors / marines. What's the betting that all future helicopter flights are going to be fitted with what ever anti-shipping missiles the Navy are using nowadays? I wonder why the Iranian boats weren't challenged if they were in Iraqi waters?likesfish said:
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
The High Seas no lese. Fantastic ! Very Pirates from the Caribbean.mears said:
It wasn't a "holocaust denial conference" - nice concept though; say, where should we hold it next year, Vegas, maybe ??!!
No one spoke of "taking Israel off the map". If you didn't spend so much time immersed in you rmedia and wrapped in the flag, you'd understand absolutely everything hinges on the adgenda of the person doing the translation from the original (speech) text.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Tissue will do, but I think he's prefer something with a union jack motif.Spion said:
mears isn't far behind either.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
er except RG boats don't come with fitted with silkworm
more likely buzzed by helicopter and if that does'nt deter them finding the destroyer between them and the boarding party it can move at 30 knots when it has too and its a big ship don't really want to play dodgems with one unless you in an icelandic tug and speedboat and you've no chance
more likely buzzed by helicopter and if that does'nt deter them finding the destroyer between them and the boarding party it can move at 30 knots when it has too and its a big ship don't really want to play dodgems with one unless you in an icelandic tug and speedboat and you've no chance
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
mears said:
What about Iranian sovereignty? The only 'corroborating' evidence that the RN boats were in Iraqi waters comes from the USN, while the Iraqis who were in the water at the time, tell us a different story. I guess they're lying cos they're ragheads - non?
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Strange conflict on what was said by certain people. Peter Beaumont in the Observer commented,
The Washington Post article gives the impression that this is incorrect,
Another report gives a different quote from the Iraqi General,
I e-mailed Peter Beaumont and asked which was correct to which he replied,
Funny, I thought he was the journo.......
The Washington Post article gives the impression that this is incorrect,
Another report gives a different quote from the Iraqi General,
I e-mailed Peter Beaumont and asked which was correct to which he replied,
Funny, I thought he was the journo.......
corporate whore
oh, thought you were dead
To be fair to Beaumont, as the foreign affairs editor he'd be sitting behind a desk in London. A Reuters reporter would have talked with the fisherman, probably face-to-face, in the Gulf.
This is "a lot of stuff happened yesterday, here's a round-up" piece - most newspapers rely on agency copy for these kinda things.
Ownership of the waters the sailors were seized in have been disputed since Iraq and Iran came into existence. It's a moveable line, depending on who you talk to, with both countries wanting the lion's share. It was only a matter of time before something like this happened.
This is "a lot of stuff happened yesterday, here's a round-up" piece - most newspapers rely on agency copy for these kinda things.
Ownership of the waters the sailors were seized in have been disputed since Iraq and Iran came into existence. It's a moveable line, depending on who you talk to, with both countries wanting the lion's share. It was only a matter of time before something like this happened.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
So it's "eye witness accounts" as reported to an unnamed Agency stringer.
A somewhat diff complexion, then.
A somewhat diff complexion, then.
corporate whore
oh, thought you were dead
Well yeah, that's how mass media works. Reckon The Observer's got a man in the Shatt al-Arab waterway? Fuck no, I'd be surprised if they've got more than 2 people in Iran.
A newspaper would never name an agency correspondent. His byline will be on the Reuters web site though, if you need to put a name to the claim.
Guess how much you want to believe depends on how much you trust Reuters in situations like this.
A newspaper would never name an agency correspondent. His byline will be on the Reuters web site though, if you need to put a name to the claim.
Guess how much you want to believe depends on how much you trust Reuters in situations like this.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
I'd rather just have the Observer say when it's using unnamed sources, quoting from unnamed sources.
corporate whore
oh, thought you were dead
I wouldn't feel misled by that - The Obs states it's quoting Reuters, which in turn is quoting an (unnamed) fisherman.
Admittedly it's basing it's whole stance around What The Fisherman Said He Saw, which is a bit dubious, but I reckon it's pretty upfront about the whole thing.
Admittedly it's basing it's whole stance around What The Fisherman Said He Saw, which is a bit dubious, but I reckon it's pretty upfront about the whole thing.
Similar threads
