News Why Did Iran Seize UK Sailors Near Royal Navy Waters?

[J77]

Messing with the Royal Navy...

Did nobody tell the Iranians you don't do that!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6484279.stm

 

[Art]

Messing with the Royal Navy...

Did nobody tell the Iranians you don't do that!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6484279.stm

If a British freighter was stopped and searched by the Iranians I doubt the British would be very happy either and so the Iranian reaction whilst politically naive is understandable. I've no doubt like last time the captives will be released in a few days.

 

[Cyrus]

Nice video clip. The Commodore is clam and collected, not some nonsense BS from fox news where everything would be hyped up.

 

[drankin]

Interesting situation. Anyone have any predictions?

 

[Kurdt]

Interesting situation. Anyone have any predictions?

Well if they're not released I wouldn't rule out the SAS being deployed. But I'd assume that the Iranians would let them go pretty soon as diplomatic proceedings were started swiftly.

All in all its a very unexpected move from Iran.

 

[Anttech]

Interesting situation. Anyone have any predictions?

I would agree with Kurdt special forces will be deployed if there is resistance, and it will all be low level without much mass media knowledge, and the political waves will be kept to a minimum.

 

[russ_watters]

If a British freighter was stopped and searched by the Iranians I doubt the British would be very happy either and so the Iranian reaction whilst politically naive is understandable. I've no doubt like last time the captives will be released in a few days.

The Iranian navy most certainly can and does stop merchant ships in Iranian territorial waters. It is a normal, everyday occurrence for hundreds of merchant ships, every day, all over the world. No, if a British freighter were stopped in Iranian waters for a routine inspection, it wouldn't even be noticed by anyone outside the shipping company.

What happened here is likely that the British found what they were looking for (smuggled cars) and the Iranians were not happy about it.

 

[Cyrus]

Who he hell smuggles cars anyways...seriously. Number one kar in all of tehran, high five!

Ive been there, they need to smuggle some good cars into the country, by the thousands. Its all crappy no-name Iranain brand junk and Hundai/Kia's.


Hostages <==> New cars.

I should be a diplomat.

 

[Art]

The Iranian navy most certainly can and does stop merchant ships in Iranian territorial waters. It is a normal, everyday occurrence for hundreds of merchant ships every day, all over the world. No, if a British freighter were stopped in Iranian waters for a routine inspection, it wouldn't even be noticed by anyone outside the shipping company.

What happened here is likely that the British found what they were looking for (smuggled cars) and the Iranians were not happy about it.

If you had followed the links in the OP you would find your conspiracy style speculation unnecessary as you would have heard the commander of HMS Cornwall himself say first the inspection had been completed prior to his men's detention and everything was in order and secondly an admission by him that although he believes they were operating in Iraqi waters he accepts that the borders are the subject of dispute and that to the Iranians it is their territorial waters.

It was skirmishes over these borders on the Shatt al-Arab waterway that led to the Iraq/Iran war and so it is obviously something they feel very strongly about.

 

[Anttech]

The Iranian navy most certainly can and does stop merchant ships in Iranian territorial waters. It is a normal, everyday occurrence for hundreds of merchant ships, every day, all over the world.

What does this have to do with anything? The fact that *all over the world* Merchant ships are bored and search has nothing to do with navy personal being taken captive.

What happened here is likely that the British found what they were looking for (smuggled cars) and the Iranians were not happy about it.

Why did you conclude this? A link to this extra information you seem to have would be good.

 

[Art]

I would agree with Kurdt special forces will be deployed if there is resistance, and it will all be low level without much mass media knowledge, and the political waves will be kept to a minimum.

Personally I doubt it very much. Iran isn't Uganda. Unless the Brits have recruited muslim suicide jihadists to their ranks they are not going to try raiding Iran.

Like 3 years ago when 8 UK service members were detained in similar circumstances I believe this will be settled diplomatically over the next few days or possibly weeks.

 

[Anttech]

Personally I doubt it very much. Iran isn't Uganda. Unless the Brits have recruited muslim suicide jihadists to their ranks they are not going to try raiding Iran.

Like 3 years ago when 8 UK service members were detained in similar circumstances I believe this will be settled diplomatically over the next few days or possibly weeks.

Its only a raid if you get caught, and the special forces of the UK don't get caught.

 

[Cyrus]

Its only a raid if you get caught, and the special forces of the UK don't get caught.

But they will be so obvious flying in on a rescue mission in their Airbus 380.

Wait, Iran doesn't have an airfield to support that airplane...never mind.

 

[Anttech]

But they will be so obvious flying in on a rescue mission in their Airbus 380.

Wait, Iran doesn't have an airfield to support that airplane...never mind.

wrong thread...

 

[Art]

I doubt very much the UK were actually looking for smuggled cars, more likely weapons.
Under international law there are strict rules governing when flagged ships can be stopped and searched even in coastal waters (see Law of the Sea Convention, Art 19) The US who had a major hand in drafting this treaty never actually signed up to it themselves but the UK did and one of the few reasons ships can be stopped and searched is suspicion of smuggling contrabrand hence the "we were looking for smuggled cars" story.

 

[Anttech]

What I don't understand is that HMS Cornwall was supposedly very close to the action. Something doesn't add up here, that is a very heavily armed frigate.

 

[Art]

But they will be so obvious flying in on a rescue mission in their Airbus 380.

Wait, Iran doesn't have an airfield to support that airplane...never mind.

The Airbus 380 will only be a diversion. Whilst the Iranian guards are rooted to the spot watching slack jawed in awe as it flys past the SAS will sneak in and grab the prisoners.

 

[devil-fire]

Its only a raid if you get caught, and the special forces of the UK don't get caught.

intelligence gathering for an operation like this would be vary, Vary hard if the iranians cared to prevent such an raid from being successful. holding the people in a military prison or anywhere not accessible to non-authorized personnel would limit intelligence gathering to virtually zero. to make a stab in the dark with vary little intel would mean a lot of risk for everyone.

 

[russ_watters]

What does this have to do with anything? The fact that *all over the world* Merchant ships are bored and search has nothing to do with navy personal being taken captive.

Ask Art - he brought it up, not me. I agree that it is irrelevant.

Why did you conclude this? A link to this extra information you seem to have would be good.

It is just a guess. It could also be sabre rattling. I highly doubt it was simply a "tactical error" as the CO suggested, unless the Iranian who made the decision is reaallllly[b/] stupid (the British CO has to be politically savy, so it is understandable that he would say that). If there is a dispute over where you are wrt to territorial waters, the first thing you do is demand the other side withdraw. Simply capturing sailors is an open act of war, whether you think they are in your territorial waters or not.

 

[russ_watters]

...you would find your conspiracy style speculation unnecessary...

Et tu, Art - that's all your first post was...

If you had followed the links in the OP ... you would have heard the commander of HMS Cornwall himself say first the inspection had been completed prior to his men's detention and everything was in order

It does not say that in the link in the OP. Looking into it more, though, I see that yes, the inspection was finished and the Marines leaving when they were captured. In any case, that doesn't really change the central issue here (yes, I'm speculating on motive and it is just that: speculation) ...

Under international law there are strict rules governing when flagged ships can be stopped and searched even in coastal waters (see Law of the Sea Convention, Art 19)

No:

Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate any use, and use any resource.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

Sovereign territory is sovereign territory. There is nothing unsual about the British Navy's actions nor the response to the unlawful siezing of her personnel here, contrary to your assertion.

 

[russ_watters]

What I don't understand is that HMS Cornwall was supposedly very close to the action. Something doesn't add up here, that is a very heavily armed frigate.

Yes, I'm surprised the Brits didn't resist more, though I guess if the safety of the boarding party is the priority, there is only so much you can do - a 5" gun and an anti-ship missile aren't going to be much use in rescuing them (though obviously they do have deterrence/coercion value...). It is also possible that the British ROE doesn't give their sailors the ability to protect themselves. These things happens when politicians write ROEs.

 

[Art]

Et tu, Art - that's all your first post was... .

What ?

It does not say that in the link in the OP. Looking into it more, though, I see that yes, the inspection was finished and the Marines leaving when they were captured. In any case, that doesn't really change the central issue here (yes, I'm speculating on motive and it is just that: speculation) .

Just to clarify this once and for all YES it does say that in the link from the OP so as I said your speculation was unnecessary and wrong.
...

No: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

Sovereign territory is sovereign territory. There is nothing unsual about the British Navy's actions nor the response to the unlawful siezing of her personnel here, contrary to your assertion.

Hey why bother with wiki when you can read the actual text of the convention here, http://www.oceanlaw.net/texts/losc.htm please pay particular note of Art 17 which asserts the right of 'innocent passage' in territorial waters Art 19 which defines the circumstances under which ships will be denied the 'right of innocent passage' i.e. stopped and searched and Art 42 which sets limitations on laws and regulations which can be imposed by the owner of the territorial water.

I'm surprised as an ex-sailor you are not familiar with this international law even if the US hasn't yet signed up for it. Especially as the UK's stopping and seaching of US flagged vessels was such a bone of contention prior to the US joining WW1.

btw As stated in the link you supplied one of the reasons why the US will not ratify the treaty is precisely because it would curtail their ability to board and search foreign flagged shipping.

The treaty limits US military activities especially relevant to anti-terror operations, such as intelligence collection and submerged travel in coastal waters (Articles 19, 20) and the boarding of ships for anti-terror purposes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea So your link actually supports my contentions. I appreciate your assistance in proving me correct; thanks

 

[russ_watters]

That isn't what any of that says at all, Art. Pretty much everything you said about everything there is wrong. From the initial link (if you could provide the quote you are referring to...) to your interpretation of the convention. It just plain doesn't say what you are interpeting from it. The limits on "innocent passage" - Aricle 19 is a laundry list that makes your whole line of argument about "innocent passage" irrelevant (for the purpose of this thread, the relevant one is item "G"). And your bit at the end clearly doesn't (anti-terrorism and intelligence issues the US has with the treaty) doesn't have anything to do with the issue here either.

Assuming the British were, in fact, in Iraqi waters, their actions were perfectly in accordance with international law, as is practiced everywhere around the world, hundreds of times a day. If they were in Iranian coastal waters, they were wrong, but they would not be subject to capture unless the Iranians are asserting an act/state of war. Either way, for the Iranians to sieze them is an out-right act of war.

Now, could we dispense with the argument-for-the-sake-of-argument and maybe have a discussion about the motivations and implications of this incident? 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?

 

[Futobingoro]

Perhaps these events are similar to the Thornton Affair and Nazi Germany's tripwire for the invasion of Poland, but with different motivations. Where those two incidents were used as reasons to bring overwhelming force to bear, Iran may have acted to cast itself as a victim of aggression. There may also be the nationalistic urge to "avenge" the Iranian operatives captured in Iraq.

 

[Art]

That isn't what any of that says at all, Art. Pretty much everything you said about everything there is wrong. From the initial link (if you could provide the quote you are referring to...) to your interpretation of the convention. It just plain doesn't say what you are interpeting from it. The limits on "innocent passage" - Aricle 19 is a laundry list that makes your whole line of argument irrelevant (for the purpose of this thread, the relevant one is item "G").

Assuming the British were, in fact, in Iraqi waters, their actions were perfectly in accordance with international law, as is practiced everywhere around the world, hundreds of times a day. If they were in Iranian coastal waters, they were wrong, but they would not be subject to capture unless the Iranians are asserting an act/state of war. Either way, for the Iranians to sieze them is an out-right act of war.

Russ forgetting about my interpretation I quoted the same conclusion from your link for chrissakes!

As for the Iranian's right to arrest them in Iranian territorial water read the bit again about how one is not allowed to perform military operations in another state's territorial waters. If they were in Iranian waters as Iran claims they were then they lose the right of innocent passage and are subject to arrest.

As for their arrest constituting an act of war surely boarding another state's ship in that ship's own waters is an act of war. Certainly N Korea said recently that is how they would view such actions and I strongly suspect if an Iranian revolutionary guard unit boarded a US or UK ship in their (US UK) territorial waters it would be viewed as an act of war and I very much doubt if caught in the act they would be simply sent on their way.

Whether or not they were actually in Iranian waters is contentious but the lack of info from the Brits on exactly where this incident took place leaves one to wonder if they are as clean as they claim to be.

If they were in Iraqi waters then under the convention which Britain signed they can be stopped and searched but only for one of the reasons listed in the convention and so it may only be a legal ass covering job but they do need to provide a valid reason ergo 'searching for contrabrand' as speculative 'fishing' expeditions is not a valid reason.

Besides the territorial dispute I've no doubt the arrest in Iraq of 5 Iranian diplomats is also a big factor in the current crises and may delay it's resolution.

btw the link from the OP I referred to is a video link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6480000/newsid_6484800?redirect=6484813.stm&news=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1 As you can see and hear the commodore states quite clearly 1) the search had been competed and the Iranian ship cleared to continue 2) the territorial waters around there are complicated and confused and the subject of disagreements.

A BBC report suggests the Iranians are feeling hard done by and under great pressure at the moment and are keen to assert their authority in the region. They do not want to be conceived as (in their opinion) being dictated to or giving into coalition demands and so this could drag on for a while

 

[Anttech]

Iran wants a fight it seems, it could get one unfortunately. Especially after this new letter has come to light. This really is low...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6518250,00.html

ran has raised the stakes in the diplomatic dispute over the seizure 15 of the British Service personnel, releasing a second letter said to have been written by Royal Navy rating Faye Turney.

In the the hand-written note, released by the Iranians to Sky News, Leading Seaman Turney is said to have called for the withdrawal from British troops from Iraq.

The letter, dated March 27, was addressed to "representatives of the House of Commons" and states: "Isn't it time for us to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?"

What on Earth do they think they will gain from this? Somebody fancys a fight with the Brits... Probably not the Iranian government per say, but probably the revolutionary guard.. Yes many brits feel the same way, but this girl has been forced under duress to write something with contradicts an interview taken with her 2 weeks ago... That is what is low... And actually if that is what iran wants, it won't help.

 

[ukmicky]

Whilst the british special forces are probably as good as you get i very much doubt they would be used in an operation to release the captives.
( Lessons learned from passed operations in iran)

If diplomatic efforts fail then they should place an embargo on shipping and flights coming and going from iran.

but should anything happen to ther captives then i could see it becoming a wicked excuse for britain and the US to invade and bomb Iran ,it would also make a good exit stratagy from Iraq.

 

[denverdoc]

well if they do raid, let's hope the brits do better than the fiasco during Carter administration.

 

[Gokul43201]

Iran wants a fight it seems, it could get one unfortunately. Especially after this new letter has come to light. This really is low...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6518250,00.html

This really ups the ante. Too bad they're taking this approach - it's inconceivable to me what they hope to achieve out of this.

 

[Futobingoro]

Here is an interesting aspect of the dispute over the location of the Revolutionary Guard vessels:

The coordinates initially provided by the Iranian government lay within Iraqi waters.

They have since been "adjusted" by almost a nautical mile, placing the Iranian vessels in Iranian waters.

Oops!

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ModBriefingShowsRoyalNavyPersonnelWereInIraqiWaters.htm

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/09D090E9-66DD-4951-9774-AC88983AF4CD/0/Slide2.JPG

 

[Kurdt]

Seems like Iran are deliberately trying to provoke some sort of reaction which makes me uneasy. I don't even want to go int the speculation as to why, but with all the talk of nuclear weapons perhaps they're looking for an excuse to use some. Not to mention the high-tech anti-aircraft defences they recently purchased from russia.

 

[denverdoc]

Like the most primitive GPS unit on the planet can't close within 50meters much less than the error noted above--they would seem to be a cruisin for a bruisin, and certainly Bush if not Blair has the belly for it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Why hasn't anyone requested the SATNAV log from the Indian merchant vessel? Or have they? That should settle this once and for all.

After bungling and fixing the alleged co-ordinates, then coercing the recent written notes, Iran has no credibility in this matter (almost anywhere except perhaps in some parts of the ME).

 

[Cyrus]

I'll tell you one thing, it may seem like a stupid move and an act of war, but its not. Behind the scenes Iran is going to get a nice quiet deal and the sailors will go back home. You won't ever hear about this deal, but it will happen. Something is going to exchange hands.

 

[denverdoc]

like this strategy helped the lebanese?

 

[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