UK sailors seized by Iranians

[Cyrus]

like this strategy helped the lebanese?

Lebanon is not Iran. It had no army. When the Chinese captured US airmen and ripped appart their P3 orion, did a war happen? No, the US made a quiet deal and got their people back because they know they can't deal with China.

 

[denverdoc]

I sure don't know. But I think the party line by the triumvirate of US, UK and Israel is to not take prisoners, and negotiations only a sign of weakness. We'll see if the UN signs on to Blair's wishes. Probably but so what. If Iran is attacked blatantly we fall into the same goo of Iraq.

 

[Cyrus]

Do you really think the Chinese just handed back the US airmen out of the goodness of their heart? BS, the US at the very least paid off China or gave it some economic deals in the process and kept it quiet.

Im pretty sure that the US, UK and Israel negotiate with terrorists all the time, because half the time we give them the money anyway and then they turn around and use it against us. So yes, we do negotiate with them, on a constant basis.

 

[Anttech]

cyrusabdollahi you may well be right. The UK won't go head first into another war. Iran may have an army, but that wouldn't stop it getting bombed.

However, Iran is upping the anti even more...

A second member of the Royal Navy crew captured in the Gulf has apologised for "trespassing" in Iranian waters, in a broadcast on Iranian television.

He says: "We trespassed... I would just like to apologise for entering your waters without permission."

The crewman, one of 15 seized seven days ago, is named by Iran as Nathan Thomas Summers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6509813.stm

 

[Art]

cyrusabdollahi you may well be right. The UK won't go head first into another war. Iran may have an army, but that wouldn't stop it getting bombed.

However, Iran is upping the anti even more...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6509813.stm

The UK gov't is incandescent with rage that the prisoners are being shown on Iranian television albeit smiling and apparently being well treated.

I'm sorry but this to me ranks of utter hypocrisy coming from a gov't which has aided and abetted in the extraordinary rendition of it's own residents to Guantanamo prison for illegal imprisonment and torture.

Even if the Iranians had paraded the captives manacled, hooded, in orange jumpsuits wearing sensory deprivation apparatus and had secured the sailors' confession they had strayed into Iranian waters through the application of interrogation techniques such as water boarding, sleep deprivation and trussing them up in stress positions for days on end with a bit of sexual abuse thrown in, the British gov't still wouldn't have the right to complain. They lost that right when they condoned and assisted in Rumsfeld's interpretation of what constitutes reasonable treatment of captives.

 

[Anttech]

Apples and oranges.
One bad doesn't excuse another.

Regardless I don't think you can accuse the UK of renditioning, you could accuse them of appeasement to the USA, or turning a blind eye for a while, but that wasnt the whole government as the disgust by beckett when she found out showed.

There is little to none similarities between to the cases you site, and I don't see why there is any hypocracy with being outraged at what Iran is doing especially with the propaganda and humiliation tactics they are using...

 

[Art]

Apples and oranges.
One bad doesn't excuse another.

Regardless I don't think you can accuse the UK of renditioning, you could accuse them of appeasement to the USA, or turning a blind eye for a while, but that wasnt the whole government as the disgust by beckett when she found out showed.

There is little to none similarities between to the cases you site, and I don't see why there is any hypocracy with being outraged at what Iran is doing especially with the propaganda and humiliation tactics they are using...

I have great sympathy for the individuals being held, which is not lessened one iota by my accusing the British gov't of hypocricy. I am truly glad that the Iranians do not appear to be using the Bush / Blair manual on treatment of prisoners.

As for just how actively complicit the UK has been in renditions; well that seems to be a burning question at the moment.

UK Guantanamo man 'to be freed'
A British resident is to be released from Guantanamo Bay, the Foreign Office has announced.
Bisher al-Rawi, an Iraqi national, has been held at the US detention camp in Cuba for almost five years on suspicion of links to terrorism.
-snip-
Amnesty International UK said Mr al-Rawi's release was a "huge relief", but said the UK had played a "shadowy role" in Mr Al-Rawi and Mr el-Banna's arrests, and urged an independent inquiry into any UK complicity with Guantanamo detentions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6507937.stm

 

[Yonoz]

I'm actually at a loss here: can anyone tell me what purpose the Iranians could have for doing this? What do they hope to gain? Don't they see the possible risks?

By placing themselves as the flag-bearers in the fight against western "crusaders" Iranian leaders are increasing their support among the Iranian people and other peoples of the region, such as the Shia in Iraq.

 

[Yonoz]

I have great sympathy for the individuals being held, which is not lessened one iota by my accusing the British gov't of hypocricy. I am truly glad that the Iranians do not appear to be using the Bush / Blair manual on treatment of prisoners.

So in your opinion the British government should do nothing to return British servicemen captured while operating under UNSC mandate?
BTW, there is a vast difference between terrorist operatives and military personnel, legal status-wise.

 

[Art]

So in your opinion the British government should do nothing to return British servicemen captured while operating under UNSC mandate?

Just what sort of nonsensical strawman piece of crap is this? There is absolutely NOTHING in anything I posted to suggest anything remotely akin to what you are saying so I presume you are simply trolling.

BTW, there is a vast difference between terrorist operatives and military personnel, legal status-wise.

Perhaps you could provide the precise definition of terrorism you have in mind? Do you mean random attacks on civilians or indiscriminate use of cluster munitions in breach of international law for instance? Or is your definition: terrorism is violence committed by those we disapprove of?

 

[Yonoz]

Just what sort of nonsensical strawman piece of crap is this? There is absolutely NOTHING in anything I posted to suggest anything remotely akin to what you are saying so I presume you are simply trolling.

Not trolling, just wondering what sort of action by the British government would be acceptable in your opinion. I don't see how you can accuse them of hypocrisy for trying to perform their basic duty of returning their soldiers home.

Perhaps you could provide the precise definition of terrorism you have in mind? Do you mean random attacks on civilians or indiscriminate use of cluster munitions in breach of international law for instance? Or is your definition: terrorism is violence committed by those we disapprove of?

Terrorism is the use of violence against civilians for political gains, though I agree that term is quite broad. The use of cluster munitions is not forbidden by any sort of law, for there is no distinction between cluster munitions and regular explosive munitions - but we're getting off topic here.
I'll try and make this as simple an explanation as possible: the state, by definition, has a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use_of_physical_force" within a given territory. Military personnel are agents of a state, while terrorists/freedom fighters are not. The state is accountable for the actions of its military, but this is not the case with terrorists/freedom fighters. Thus your comparison is completely void, for one conflict is between two states and the other between a state and non-aligned combatants, legally speaking.

 

[Anttech]

I am truly glad that the Iranians do not appear to be using the Bush / Blair manual on treatment of prisoners.

Me too, but I don't accept the similarity between guatamino and this episode. So again the siting or hinting towards that afair isn't anything to do with what is going on.

I am against how the Turks treated the Assryains (Orthodox Christians) during the fall of the Ottoman empire, but it has as much to do with this episode as the renditioning by Americans of so called enemy's of the USA, to the capture of the UK Navy persons by Iranian's.

BTW, there is a vast difference between terrorist operatives and military personnel, legal status-wise.

ermmmmmm, You are making great leaps of judgment there, to say the least.

 

[Yonoz]

ermmmmmm, You are making great leaps of judgment there, to say the least.

The reason people organised in states in the first place was to avoid this unnecessary violence. These states have also established international laws that regulate the way states are supposed to deal with each other's combatants. Since terrorists/freedom fighters are not agents of a state, international law is irrelevant and they are subject to the state's laws.
So military personnel (in the hands of another state) are subject to international law while terrorists/freedom fighters/non-aligned combatants are subject to individual states' laws. IMO that can be considered a vast difference.

 

[Art]

Not trolling, just wondering what sort of action by the British government would be acceptable in your opinion I don't see how you can accuse them of hypocrisy for trying to perform their basic duty of returning their soldiers home.

Appeals to the UN, which they have done and appeals for support from their fellow EU states which they have also done seem like positive rational steps to me now perhaps you could show me where I criticised them for this?? And also perhaps explain what exactly has the UK gov't expressing it's disgust about the captives being shown on Iranian TV got to do with getting them released pray tell?

In fact all it has achieved in doing so far is to harden Iranian attitudes.

Terrorism is the use of violence against civilians for political gains, though I agree that term is quite broad. The use of cluster munitions is not forbidden by any sort of law, for there is no distinction between cluster munitions and regular explosive munitions - but we're getting off topic here.
I'll try and make this as simple an explanation as possible: the state, by definition, has a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use_of_physical_force" within a given territory. Military personnel are agents of a state, while terrorists/freedom fighters are not. The state is accountable for the actions of its military, but this is not the case with terrorists/freedom fighters. Thus your comparison is completely void, for one conflict is between two states and the other between a state and non-aligned combatants, legally speaking.

1)Your wrong about Israeli use of cluster bombs in civilian areas being legal but I suspect you probably already know that. The indiscriminate use of any munitions in civilian areas is illegal under the Geneva Conventions.

BEIRUT, Jul 28 (IPS) - The Israeli military is using illegal weapons against civilians in southern Lebanon, according to several reports.
U.S.-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) said this week that Israel had used cluster bombs in civilian areas of Lebanon, in clear violation of international law.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=JAM20060729&articleId=2853

Or if you prefer an Israeli source

IDF commander: We fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon

By Meron Rappaport

"What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.

Quoting his battalion commander, the rocket unit head stated that the IDF fired around 1,800 cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets.

In addition, soldiers in IDF artillery units testified that the army used phosphorous shells during the war, widely forbidden by international law. According to their claims, the vast majority of said explosive ordinance was fired in the final 10 days of the war.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html

2) Why not use the definition of terrorism from the jewish virtual library

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/terrordef.html Oops but that would include Israel and several other 'civilised' westen nations in the ranks of terrorists.

3) Human rights laws apply to everybody (yes even Palestinians ) regardless of their military status but notwithstanding that would you be so kind as to provide the link showing where the 500+ prisoners in Guantanamo were convicted of being terrorists or any other crime for that matter as I evidently missed those court cases.

 

[denverdoc]

<snip>...
3)Human rights laws apply to everybody (yes even Palestinians ) regardless of their military status but notwithstanding that would you be so kind as to provide the link showing where the 500+ prisoners in Guantanamo were convicted of being terrorists or any other crime for that matter as I evidently missed those court cases.

Hey we got one, finally! Notice the condition that he can't talk about any alleged abuse as part of the deal in getting to serve in Aussie jail.
http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=115823

 

[Yonoz]

And also perhaps explain what exactly has the UK gov't expressing it's disgust about the captives being shown on Iranian TV got to do with getting them released pray tell?

The British government objected to the "confessions". Airing these "confessions", while declaring the sailors will be put on trial, makes their release much more difficult. As Anttech put it, Iran is "upping the ante", or in other words climbing the proverbial tree. Now releasing the prisoners will also involve terminating the legal proceedings against them. The Iranian regime can now demand more for their release, or better yet, make a demand for cancelling the legal proceedings while still holding the prisoners.

In fact all it has achieved in doing so far is to harden Iranian attitudes.

How so? The Iranian attitude is just as hard now as it was at the moment those sailors were captured.

Human rights laws apply to everybody (yes even Palestinians ) regardless of their military status but notwithstanding that would you be so kind as to provide the link showing where the 500+ prisoners in Guantanamo were convicted of being terrorists or any other crime for that matter as I evidently missed those court cases.

That is all irrelevant to this discussion - you accused the British government of hypocrisy and compared the detaining of those sailors who are agents of the British state who operated under UNSC mandate by Iran, to the "extraordinary rendition of it's [sic] own residents".
British "residents" vs. British state = national affair -> state laws apply.
British combatants under UNSC mandate vs. Iranian state = international affair -> international law applies.

I would gladly answer all these other points you've raised, but I'm quite sure I'd be promptly accused of taking this thread off-topic. If you like you may start another, relevant thread.

 

[Art]

SnipThe British government objected to the "confessions". Airing these "confessions", while declaring the sailors will be put on trial, makes their release much more difficult. As Anttech put it, Iran is "upping the ante", or in other words climbing the proverbial tree. Now releasing the prisoners will also involve terminating the legal proceedings against them. The Iranian regime can now demand more for their release, or better yet, make a demand for cancelling the legal proceedings while still holding the prisoners.

How so? The Iranian attitude is just as hard now as it was at the moment those sailors were captured.

That is all irrelevant to this discussion - you accused the British government of hypocrisy and compared the detaining of those sailors who are agents of the British state who operated under UNSC mandate by Iran, to the "extraordinary rendition of it's [sic] own residents".
British "residents" vs. British state = national affair -> state laws apply.
British combatants under UNSC mandate vs. Iranian state = international affair -> international law applies.

You're digressing again so rather than write an essay discussing the minutae I'll reiterate my original point for you which is really quite simple. Blair claims to be disgusted at his people being shown smiling and apparently reasonably happy whilst in Iranian detention and yet he expressed no such disgust at TV film of prisoners, who's capture and treatment he was complicit in, being paraded on TV manacled, hooded, in orange jumpsuits and wearing sensory deprivation headware. Personally I find that hypocritical.

Oh and by the way according to a poll in the Sunday times only 7% of the British public favour military action against Iran under any circumstances so Blair needs to get over his disgust smartish and get down to serious negotiations. The Iranians are asking for an official apology and a guarantee the British will not trespass in their waters again. Before you attack me for repeating this please note I personally did not draft these demands and have no idea whatsoever if they were in Iranian waters or not.

 

[drankin]

Hypothetical scenario, what if the Royal Navy began sinking Iranian military ships? Let's say a ship every 6hrs that Iran refuses to release the prisoners.

I honestly believe that a lack of action is actually escelating the situation to a future catastrophe. We are all kitty footing around so much that we allow this crap to happen. Just like with children, they will do anything they are allowed to, plus a little more to push their boundaries.

Now if the UN is involved Iran will really be shaking in their sandles. OOOOH. Please. Noone has any rocks anymore. All bark and no bite. The Iranians are going to just going to soak this up. Laughing at our lack of resolve.

 

[Cyrus]

Are you 5 years old drankin? You argue like your 5.

No ones going to sit here and flatter you with your hypothetical situation that arnt happening.

I don't think the Iranians nor the UK are laughing.

 

[drankin]

Are you 5 years old drankin? You argue like your 5.

No ones going to sit here and flatter you with your hypothetical situation that arnt happening.

I don't think the Iranians nor the UK are laughing.

LOL. Come on, "flatter" me. Seriously, there was a time when this was considered an act of war. Now you have your own countrymen sitting on hostile soil and it's tolerable. This Western world has been castrated. And I do believe there are plenty of Iranian nationals laughing about it. And they should be, it's laughable.

BTW, no need for immature personal attacks, I'm sure the forum rules apply to you as well.

 

[Cyrus]

Ok, but then keep your comments serious. I find it irriatting when people make stupid comments like "shaking in their sandles". Whats the point of this? If you want to make an argument, then make one.

"This Western world has been castrated." - you are now 2 for 2.

You can talk about other countries (US included) with more respect.

 

[drankin]

Look, I'm giving a perspective. As base as it may seem to you. Lay off the insults. Take my posts with a grain of salt but take a look of where I'm coming from. That IS the point of this forum.

My point, that you asked for, is that it seems to take a catastrophe for the Western world to take action anymore, and even then it is with a significant lack of commitment.

Also, what is the UN going to do in this situatioin? What are the options?

 

[Cyrus]

Thats fine, and I am not arguing with your perspective. Just don't argue like Glenn Beck (i.e snide comments about other countries) :)


...god I hate that moron.

 

[drankin]

OK, I'll try not to. Just don't try to argue like Rosie O'Donnel and we'll do fine :) j/k

Back to my points, what do you think?

 

[drankin]

"Instead of apologizing over trespassing by British forces, the world arrogant powers issue statements and deliver speeches," Ahmadinejad told a crowd in southeastern Iran.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,263041,00.html (Biased lies of Fox News)

GPS equipment and the Iraqi foreign minister have confirmed the British sailors were 1.7 nautical miles, roughly three kilometres, inside Iraqi waters when they boarded the merchant vessel, he said.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/03/28/britain-iran.html?ref=rss

How/where does it end?

 

[Cyrus]

(Biased lies of Fox News)

Amen to that.

The US has Iranians it has detained inside of Iraq. I am willing to bet that there will be a silent trade of sorts.

My point, that you asked for, is that it seems to take a catastrophe for the Western world to take action anymore, and even then it is with a significant lack of commitment.

Its probably because we insult every other country and shot ourselves in the foot with Iraq and now Afganistan.

Suddenly the shoe is on the other foot and we are up in arms. Keep in mind, we invaded another country and destroyed it. I think that's far far worse than capturing sailors and demanding an appology.

I have to say, I aqree with Art on this one. Dont do onto other that you wouldn't want done to yourself.

A few years ago the Iranians were open to dialogs with the United States but the US did not want to have anything to do with Iran. We absolutely put ourselves in this mess.

 

[drankin]

Yes, but no. Even if it were admitted by all Western nations that we unjustly invaded another country and destroyted it, it does not mean we should now let our soldiers be captured unjustly. Nobody invaded Iran and destroyed their country. That argument doesn't hold water.

I cannot believe that you are now on the side of those that have our comrades imprisoned. What is up with that? Wrong is wrong and you cannot use the argument that we were wrong over here so they can be wrong over there. Doesn't work like that. If it did then we would just roll over and let everyone wrong us into oblivion because God knows we probably deserve it.

 

[Cyrus]

Sure it holds water. You just destabilized their immediate neighbor.

What if tomorrow China came in and destroyed Canada and Mexico. Don’t you think that would affect us just as bad?

I cannot believe that you are now on the side of those that have our comrades imprisoned.

Quite the contrary. You're being the hypocrite right now. Its perfectly fine for you to go and bomb a country, but when you have a group of well fed sailor being held (which let's face it, are going to be returned unharmed), its the end of the world.

Doesn't work like that.

Welcome to the middle east. This ant the Christian west. As they say, slap me once, you turn the other cheek. Slap the middle east once, they slap you back twice.

The point, we are meddling in a part of the world were they don't take things lightly.

 

[drankin]

If they are returned soon and without incident, I will be surprised. The Iranians are going to require something very public to save face. Basically, we will have to show them something that both makes the West look weak, and makes them look otherwise. It's a pissing match and it is likely we will lose. Not because we have to but because we don't have the balls to do anything, and they know it.

The ME is not much different than your local elementary school playground. It's not about what is rational it's about who has the biggest set. And they are calling the bluff.

You have (so it seems) already given up on the whole purpose we are in Iraq in the first place. Our soldiers who are in the streets their don't feel the same way you do. And I'll take their word for it before I'd take yours.

 

[Cyrus]

If they are returned soon and without incident, I will be surprised.

Then prepare to be amazed.

I play poker with a guy my age back from Iraq. He told me the guys there feel like its time to go back home. His humvee was blown up and only him and one other guy survived. I take his word, not yours. He earned his purple heart.

Wake up and see reality for what it is my friend. Iraq is gone.

 

[drankin]

Iraq is gone.

Quite the pessemist. What does that mean to you? Iraq will always be. And it will be a much better country when all is said and done. But, like anything, it will probably get worse before it gets better, IMO. And I'm all for getting out if that is the will of the people there.

So, your poker buddy, is he saying he wasted his time there? I just don't believe you.

Our soldiers there on the streets, mingling with locals as well as the children, will tell you differently.

But, it is off topic, which is a sad way to argue your point, IMO

 

[Cyrus]

Did I ever say "wasted time"?

Pessemist? Eruuuuuum...nooo. I see things for what they are. Not a rosey fantasy.

Thats the lovely picture you have there. Soilders mingling with locals as well as children. Yeah...right. When was the last time you turned on the news? The soilders are not welcomed there anymore, and rightly so. No security was provided and the Iraqis have had enough.

Now, let's swing this back to the main point of THIS post. You complain about Iran taking hostages as an act of war. So what do you call an Illegal war in Iraq where the US now poses a major military threat to Iran? That smells like a a big act of war on our part.

If China invaded Mexico and set up a military base over there, don't you think we would consider that an aggressive act of war?

Wake up man!

 

[drankin]

Back on topic, good deal...

Hey, I respect your opinion on this. But I sincerely disagree with your apparent justification of Iran taking UK hostages. It just amazes me that you imply that it is justified and that your reasoning is "If China invaded Mexico...".

Here is a quick article that sums up my feeling on this issue: http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Iran's+terrorism%3A+Mahmoud+the+kidnapper&articleId=1671987d-0dca-40c2-8835-223f3ee90cfd

It was a Google news clip, I'm not familiar with this news organization but the article is spot-on IMO.

 

[Cyrus]

Ok, the change it to read:

it is justified and that your reasoning is "the Us invaded Iraq..."

Also, I never said it was justified either. I said that's what happens when you mess around in the middle east...they slap you back twice. So we knew full well what was going to happen if things went wrong over there. Now they are going wrong and these are the consequences.

There are cases where countries in the middle east were literally begging to have talks with the US and the US did not want to (See. Syria). If we want to act like the bully of the middle east, don't be surprised that some countries have a backbone and push back when pushed.

 

[drankin]

Ok, the change it to read:

it is justified and that your reasoning is "the Us invaded Iraq..."

Also, I never said it was justified either. I said that's what happens when you mess around in the middle east...they slap you back twice. So we knew full well what was going to happen if things went wrong over there. Now they are going wrong and these are the consequences.

There are cases where countries in the middle east were literally begging to have talks with the US and the US did not want to (See. Syria). If we want to act like the bully of the middle east, don't be surprised that some countries have a backbone.

I think we've reached the end of our debate. I fully understand your position on the matter. You do have what can be considered a point, I just cannot personally relate to it at all. I just hope that the most of us have not totally sold out our comrades over there.