Why Are British Sailors Being Prosecuted by Iran?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jimmy p
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the prosecution of British sailors and Royal Marines by Iran after their alleged incursion into Iranian waters. Participants explore the implications of this incident, the motivations behind Iran's actions, and the broader geopolitical context, including issues of national sovereignty and international law.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express outrage at the prosecution of the British sailors, suggesting it reflects a betrayal or hostility from Iran.
  • Others question the legality of the British sailors' actions, asking whether they were indeed in Iranian waters and if their presence was justified as routine patrolling.
  • There are claims that Iran's actions may be influenced by internal power struggles between religious and secular factions within the Iranian government.
  • Some participants argue that the situation illustrates the complexities of international law and the differing interpretations of sovereignty in the region.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for the incident to be used as a political tool by Iran, possibly as a response to international pressures regarding issues like uranium enrichment.
  • Several participants challenge each other's interpretations of international law and the appropriateness of Iran's response, leading to further debate about the nature of the border and military presence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the motivations behind Iran's actions or the legality of the British sailors' presence in Iranian waters. Multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of the incident and the nature of international law.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexities of international relations and the varying perspectives on sovereignty and military engagement in contested regions. There are references to ongoing geopolitical tensions that may influence the situation.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in international relations, military law, and Middle Eastern politics may find this discussion relevant.

jimmy p
Gold Member
Messages
419
Reaction score
73
I thought they were on "our side"

Have a read of this... backstabbers.

Iran is preparing to prosecute eight British sailors and Royal Marines arrested after allegedly straying into Iranian waters near Iraq, according to reports.

Taken from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ml&sSheet=/portal/2004/06/22/ixportaltop.html

Apparently according to the latest news, it could be some Iranian Revolutionary Group who have 40 members of their group held hostage by Iraqi's and are willing to trade the 8 marines for their men. It's disgusting.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you calling the British "backstabbers" for illegally entering Iranian waters? Or the Iranians "backstabbers" for legally detaining them? Which side of this do you think is disgusting?
 
Who did you think was on "our side" Iran? HAHAHAHAHAHA
Thanks, I needed that.
 
Who exactly is "our side"? Are you on mine? I've never even been to England...
 
Adam's right. Are you with or against the British? Both the British and the Iranians are on "our side." The Abu Graib torture was done by Americans yet they are against our side if our side is for liberation, humanity, and freedom. In other words, the lines of justice and morality do not always follow the lines of nationalistic borders.
 
Hmm... look where I come from...

Doesnt matter any more, the Iranians have given the troops back.
 
And what I meant by "our side" was that they were particularily hostile to the coalition or other Western countries. That is the first time I have heard from Iran in a while. Besides, the troops were just doing routine patrolling.
 
It's routine to patrol in Iranian territory?
 
jimmy p said:
And what I meant by "our side" was that they were particularily hostile to the coalition or other Western countries. That is the first time I have heard from Iran in a while. Besides, the troops were just doing routine patrolling.

They were delivering a boat to the Iraqis.
According to Iran, they crossed onto the Iranian side of the river (that divides Iran and Iraq).
How silly. Iran knows damn well why the people were there, but apparently have something to prove.
 
  • #10
jimmy p said:
And what I meant by "our side" was that they were particularily hostile to the coalition or other Western countries. That is the first time I have heard from Iran in a while. Besides, the troops were just doing routine patrolling.
You've missed the stuff about IAEC inspectors, 'improper' uranium enrichment equipment, etc? What about the resurgence of the Revolutionary Guard (or whatever they're called)?

Does anyone know if Iran is the only theocratic state in the world today (now that the Taliban have left the stage in Afghanistan)? (No, the Vatican doesn't count).
 
  • #11
phatmonky said:
They were delivering a boat to the Iraqis.
According to Iran, they crossed onto the Iranian side of the river (that divides Iran and Iraq).
How silly. Iran knows damn well why the people were there, but apparently have something to prove.

I'm glad you think international law is "silly" when it only involves the sovereignty of Middle East states. I wish some other nations would stick to the law as tightly as Iran does.
 
  • #12
Adam said:
I'm glad you think international law is "silly" when it only involves the sovereignty of Middle East states. I wish some other nations would stick to the law as tightly as Iran does.

Where did he call international law silly? Please stop twisting peoples words.
 
  • #13
Adam said:
I'm glad you think international law is "silly" when it only involves the sovereignty of Middle East states. I wish some other nations would stick to the law as tightly as Iran does.
First, you should heed StudentX's post.

Secondly, Going on to the other half of the river is hardly the same as driving tanks into their country side.
Iran should have detained the soldiers, investigated, while allowing full diplomatic communication from the first moment, and then allowed them to go.
Talk of "prosecuting" them and not allowing diplomatic communication IS silly, considering the style of border we are talking about, and the obviousness of the crews' actions. Iran's point was a little kick at the English, and that's all there is to it. It's silly.

Thirdly, Iran stick to international law?? I'll just assume that since you made it a relative statement, you werne't implying that they kept to it well.
 
  • #14
phatmonky said:
First, you should heed StudentX's post.

Secondly, Going on to the other half of the river is hardly the same as driving tanks into their country side.
Iran should have detained the soldiers, investigated, while allowing full diplomatic communication from the first moment, and then allowed them to go.
Talk of "prosecuting" them and not allowing diplomatic communication IS silly, considering the style of border we are talking about, and the obviousness of the crews' actions. Iran's point was a little kick at the English, and that's all there is to it. It's silly.

Thirdly, Iran stick to international law?? I'll just assume that since you made it a relative statement, you werne't implying that they kept to it well.
Maybe it was a coded message? Something like "don't get too heavy with us over this uranium enrichment thing, or you might find that we can make life pretty unpleasant for you!"
 
  • #15
Nereid said:
Maybe it was a coded message? Something like "don't get too heavy with us over this uranium enrichment thing, or you might find that we can make life pretty unpleasant for you!"
I honestly think that, due to the mixed message coming from Iran on this, that there is/was some internal power struggle over what to do with them.
 
  • #16
phatmonky said:
I honestly think that, due to the mixed message coming from Iran on this, that there is/was some internal power struggle over what to do with them.


I hardly think that prosecuting them would have been a very good idea. As soon as the news came to England, Jack Straw had discussions with the Iranian ambassador.
 
  • #17
OOPS. Probably quoted the wrong person... sorry. :smile:
 
  • #18
phatmonky said:
I honestly think that, due to the mixed message coming from Iran on this, that there is/was some internal power struggle over what to do with them.
There are essentially two governments in Iran - one religious and one secular. The religious leaders hold most of the power and the secular (the "real" government) is moderate. The struggle has been going on for quite some time.
 
  • #19
russ_watters said:
There are essentially two governments in Iran - one religious and one secular. The religious leaders hold most of the power and the secular (the "real" government) is moderate. The struggle has been going on for quite some time.

I'm aware of that. Just commenting that it appeared to have transferred to this situation as well.
 
  • #20
phatmonky said:
Secondly, Going on to the other half of the river is hardly the same as driving tanks into their country side.
It's EXACTLY the same. It's a border. A foreign military, engaged in military action in the region, and recently involved in an illegal war which killed a LOT of people, crossed over that border.

Iran should have detained the soldiers, investigated, while allowing full diplomatic communication from the first moment, and then allowed them to go.
Well, so far they've done all that. British personnel have been granted access to the soldiers. Now we just wait for them to be released.

Talk of "prosecuting" them and not allowing diplomatic communication IS silly, considering the style of border we are talking about, and the obviousness of the crews' actions. Iran's point was a little kick at the English, and that's all there is to it. It's silly.
Just remember, in future, that you consider armed people in the wrong place an "obvious" misunderstanding or mistake, and not a real threat.

Thirdly, Iran stick to international law?? I'll just assume that since you made it a relative statement, you werne't implying that they kept to it well.
Well, it's not Iran that broke it this time. It's Britain.
 
  • #21
phatmonky said:
Talk of "prosecuting" them and not allowing diplomatic communication IS silly,

Agreed, I thought when America decided that no matter what happened at the UN they would invade Iraq anyway, that it was a silly move.
 
  • #22
i was wondering when one of you would begin about the USA again.
please, do it in another thread :-p
 
  • #23
revelator said:
Agreed, I thought when America decided that no matter what happened at the UN they would invade Iraq anyway, that it was a silly move.
Once again, are you incapable of sticking on topic? Get out. Go to another thread for your own subject.
 

Similar threads

News Iranian Elections: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Wins by Landslide
  • · Replies 232 ·
8
Replies
232
Views
26K
News Who is to Blame for Baghdad Blast Killing 2 Britons?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Global warming is not caused by CO2
  • · Replies 184 ·
7
Replies
184
Views
50K