News Why Are British Sailors Being Prosecuted by Iran?

[jimmy p]

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.

 

[Adam]

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?

 

[kat]

Who did you think was on "our side" Iran? HAHAHAHAHAHA
Thanks, I needed that.

 

[Adam]

Who exactly is "our side"? Are you on mine? I've never even been to England...

 

[ku]

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.

 

[jimmy p]

Hmm... look where I come from...

Doesnt matter any more, the Iranians have given the troops back.

 

[jimmy p]

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.

 

[Adam]

It's routine to patrol in Iranian territory?

 

[member 5645]

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.

 

[Nereid]

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).

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[studentx]

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.

 

[member 5645]

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.

 

[Nereid]

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!"

 

[member 5645]

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.

 

[jimmy p]

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.

 

[jimmy p]

OOPS. Probably quoted the wrong person... sorry.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[member 5645]

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.

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[revelator]

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.

 

[studentx]

i was wondering when one of you would begin about the USA again.
please, do it in another thread

 

[member 5645]

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.