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

  • Thread starter Thread starter J77
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Uk
AI Thread Summary
Iran's seizure of UK sailors near Royal Navy waters has sparked discussions about territorial disputes and the legality of naval operations. The incident is viewed as politically naive by some, with expectations that the captives will be released soon, similar to past occurrences. The British Navy's actions were reportedly in line with international law, as they were conducting a routine inspection when the sailors were detained. Speculation suggests that the seizure may be linked to tensions over smuggling issues, although some argue that capturing sailors is a significant escalation. Overall, the situation reflects ongoing complexities in maritime law and regional politics.
  • #101
Kurdt said:
Territorial gains as I mentioned in the previous post :smile: Sorry should have been clearer. As I said before I think we're just going to have to wait to see, pure speculation on my part.
Fair enough.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #103
so why bother being argumentative about it?:
Because IMO it is an exaggeration that's why.
Yes (more or less...). So you agree that this was a wrongful aggressive act and therefore a justifiable basis for war. Fine. Good. We agree.
I agree that it was a wrongful act of aggression, but I don't agree it is enough to go to war on!. That is why I am disagreeing with you on that word :smile: anyhow I don't think it is an act of war, especially an act with a view to starting a war.
Most of the rest of your post there isn't complete sentences and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Sorry, I can't comment on that...
ermm yeah whatever
 
  • #104
drankin said:
Wrong. Do you just make this stuff up?

http://dictionary.reference.com does not reference wikipedia. Their references are listed here: http://dictionary.reference.com/help/about.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act of war

On the bottom of the definition of this link it states the source:

"Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006."

Ohh I suppose you miss the 2 links? 1 taken from Reference.com one from wiki.org, funny enough reference.com was a word for word copy from wiki. Give it a rest:

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hom

In case you missed it the first time.

Here is another:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Casus_belli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli

To answer you question, no I don't make it up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #105
Ok, when I gave you the definition of "act of war" you attempted to lessen the validity of the definition because it was from reference.com and they also list wiki stuff. But, as shown, reference.com does just that "references" other sources. In this case "act of war" was referenced from Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

So, can we agree that the definition is valid and continue the topic?
 
  • #106
Ok, when I gave you the definition of "act of war" you attempted to lessen the validity of the definition because it was from reference.com and they also list wiki stuff.
No I didnt, I was attempting to comment on the fact that I could scower the internet and find lots of different definitions for "act of war." It seemed that you cherry picked one, and decide that this was the definitive definition.

I still stand by my understanding of what an act of war is, and I have explained this already. I don't aggree that the capture of the UK soldiers was an act of war, or a declaration of war on the UK. It was an act of aggression, and we shouldn't hype it up beyond what it actually is. These people haven't been beheaded, they have been coerced into appoligising for something that I am willing to assume didnt happen. They haven't been starved nor have they been paraded in orange jumpsuits with black bags over their heads. They seem to all be in good health so far.

Iran was wrong in what it did, but you really think it was trying to start a war?
 
  • #107
Anttech said:
Iran was wrong in what it did, but you really think it was trying to start a war?

No, what they were doing was committing and act of war because they know that the UK won't do anything, though they have to ability and the right to militarily defend their own sailors.

I partially blame the UK for letting this happen to their own sailors. Hell, that probably made it easier for the sailors to sell out their own Navy. The bastards let them get taken away. Completely my opinion, not based on anything we all don't already know.
 
  • #108
drankin said:
No, what they were doing was committing and act of war because they know that the UK won't do anything, though they have to ability and the right to militarily defend their own sailors.
It wasn't an act of war; the sailors haven't been hurt. I don't even think that they've been taken all that aggressively-- they're probably just pawns in a bigger diplomatic game.

I partially blame the UK for letting this happen to their own sailors. Hell, that probably made it easier for the sailors to sell out their own Navy. The bastards let them get taken away. Completely my opinion, not based on anything we all don't already know.

How have the sailors "sold out" on their own Navy? From what I've heard and seen, it would have been a bit stupid of them to try and refuse to be taken when they were!
 
  • #109
No, what they were doing was committing and act of war because they know that the UK won't do anything, though they have to ability and the right to militarily defend their own sailors.

I partially blame the UK for letting this happen to their own sailors. Hell, that probably made it easier for the sailors to sell out their own Navy. The bastards let them get taken away. Completely my opinion, not based on anything we all don't already know.
Who are you calling bastards? The UK Navy?
 
  • #110
I mean sell out in the sense of their public admissions to being in Iranian waters knowing full well they were not. They are probably a little miffed at not being protected from the Iranians capturing them.
 
  • #111
drankin said:
I mean sell out in the sense of their public admissions to being in Iranian waters knowing full well they were not. They are probably a little miffed at not being protected from the Iranians capturing them.

You think they had a choice in those statements? Do you think anyone in the world believes them?
 
  • #112
Anttech said:
Who are you calling bastards? The UK Navy?

Pretty much. I'd call my own Navy the same thing if they let my fellow sailors and myself be taken hostage.
 
  • #113
drankin said:
I mean sell out in the sense of their public admissions to being in Iranian waters knowing full well they were not. They are probably a little miffed at not being protected from the Iranians capturing them.

Doubt it, these men and woman are part of the best trained navy in the world. War is the last resort, they knew the stakes, and they know the consequences of what would happen if HMS Cornwall started firing on the Iranians. The UK has a different approach, I hear a lot of Americans calling them cowards blah blah blah, but that's one thing the British Military is not. One should use their Brain then resort to brawn. Now if they (Iranians) started firing... That would be different, but they didnt. They took them because they believe they were in there rights too, or rather they could get away with it because it could be perceived as such.

Pretty much. I'd call my own Navy the same thing if they let my fellow sailors and myself be taken hostage.
I can assure you the UK Naval personnel arent calling their own Navy Bastards, and arent sulking for what happened.

The UK don't perceive this issue as an act of War, and thus arent treating it as such. Negotiation will be fruitful in the end, with NO loss of life... If it isnt, Special forces will be used, but it won't be escalated into a *war* Thats for sure
 
Last edited:
  • #114
I do believe the UK has an awesome Navy, they always have. All said, they put themselves in this situation and it really looks bad for them. Not that looking bad should be a motivation for military action but man, this has to be demoralizing and to allow it does not help their influence. It just emboldens the Iranians to defy cooperation.
 
  • #115
If there is any confusion lingering from the "act of war" debate, let this be a good example:

"North Korea equates sanctions to act of war"

Excepting the fact that the Korean War never technically ended, the sanctions on North Korea did not result in a war.

Using Anttech's definition, until a war starts, one does not know whether an "act of aggression" is an "act of war."

I have always found it useful to think of an "act of war" as an "act befitting a war." I find this less problematic, because Anttech's usage of the term would require a woman to transform into a man if she performed an "act of masculinity."

"You can't commit an act of masculinity and not be a man."
 
  • #116
The Iranian president just said they're free to go.

What i found hilarious was that he awarded medals to his navy men for capturing them!
 
  • #117
blackcat said:
The Iranian president just said they're free to go.

What i found hilarious was that he awarded medals to his navy men for capturing them!
Nice -- did we admit that they were in Iranian waters, or did they use the fact that the line between that and Iraqi is blurred (and varies due to coastal movement). In which case no-one loses face and everyone's a winner.
 
  • #118
No idea, I think the Iranians still insisted they were tresspassing and we still haven't said anything else other than that we were not.
 
  • #119
Iranian leader says he'll free Britons (AP/Yahoo)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain

TEHRAN, Iran - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would free the 15 detained British sailors and marines Wednesday as an Easter holiday "gift" to the British people.

He said the captives, who were seized while on patrol in the northern Persian Gulf on March 23, would be taken to the airport following his news conference, but Iranian state television reported they would leave Iran on Thursday. An Iranian official in London said they would be handed over to British diplomats in Tehran.

After the news conference, state television showed Ahmadinejad meeting with the British crew, dressed in business suits, at the presidential palace. He shook hands and chatted with them through a translator, and a caption to the video said the meeting was taking place as part of the "process of release."
:bugeye:

"We appreciate it. Your people have been really kind to us, and we appreciate it very much," one of the crew could be heard telling Ahmadinejad in English.

Another said: "We are grateful for your forgiveness."
Yeah right. :rolleyes: What else are they going to say in that situation.

Somebody get me off this planet and far, far away.

Between George and Mahmood - this place is getting too absurd and bizarre for my mind. We past surreal along time ago.

Now folks, let's move quickly along to the next crisis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #120
Good to see dialogue triumphing over bombs. This incident and it's satisfactory outcome goes to prove there are valid alternatives to shock and awe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #121
Futobingoro said:
If there is any confusion lingering from the "act of war" debate, let this be a good example:

"North Korea equates sanctions to act of war"

Excepting the fact that the Korean War never technically ended, the sanctions on North Korea did not result in a war.

Using Anttech's definition, until a war starts, one does not know whether an "act of aggression" is an "act of war."

I have always found it useful to think of an "act of war" as an "act befitting a war." I find this less problematic, because Anttech's usage of the term would require a woman to transform into a man if she performed an "act of masculinity."

"You can't commit an act of masculinity and not be a man."
Ack you totally missed the point, and used a totally irrelevant comparison.

A woman can not be a man simple. Its a FACT, saying something is an act of war is an OPINION. You just compared apples and pears! I didnt actually define anything, I was showing that there isn't a good definition, and thus the only way you could assert as a fact that it was an act of war, or declaration of war (which performing an act of war is!) is if it was followed by a war. Since the Iranians decided not to capture any Americans it wasnt, and as we can see once again deplomacy beared fruit.

The point is, I think Russ was exaggerating what happened by call it an act of war. The UK government does not think it was an act of war. Neither do I.

If you want to have a debate on my use of Logic fine, but not in this thread.
 
Last edited:
  • #122
Astronuc said:
Iranian leader says he'll free Britons (AP/Yahoo)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain

:bugeye:

Yeah right. :rolleyes: What else are they going to say in that situation.

Somebody get me off this planet and far, far away.

Between George and Mahmood - this place is getting too absurd and bizarre for my mind. We past surreal along time ago.

Now folks, let's move quickly along to the next crisis.
LOL Does he think he is some Persian Demi-God? LOLOLOL...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #123
I never attempted to define what specific actions would be "acts of war." I only analyzed the text of your definition of the term. You are confusing real-world "acts of war" with the dictionary entry for the word. Apparently, my focus on the latter struck you as an attempt to define the former.
Anttech said:
The UK government does not think it was an act of war. Neither do I.
I hope you aren't assuming that, because no war resulted, neither side thinks the event was an "act of war." Am I to assume that, in spite of the fact that North Korea's government labeled last year's sanctions an "act of war," they didn't really think it was an act of war because no war resulted?

You are wrapping the definition of "act of xxxx" terms around the axle.

Somebody can commit an act of contrition without being a contrite person.
...or an act of masculinity without being a masculine person.
...or an act of stupidity without being a stupid person.

So in the dictionary sense of the term, there is no requirement for two nations to be at war for an act of war to happen between them. An "act of war" is an act befitting a war, not requiring a war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #124
I never attempted to define what specific actions would be "acts of war." I only analyzed the text of your definition of the term. You are confusing real-world "acts of war" with the dictionary entry for the word. Apparently, my focus on the latter struck you as an attempt to define the former.
I am not confusing anything, why exactly do you think I am?
I hope you aren't assuming that, because no war resulted, neither side thinks the event was an "act of war."
No you can rest in peace, I am not assuming that.
Am I to assume that, in spite of the fact that North Korea's government labeled last year's sanctions an "act of war," they didn't really think it was an act of war because no war resulted?
As I said OPINION... Its their opinion, its not a hard cold fact that those embargoes on N.K. were an act of war.

Rather than telling me, I am confused, and that I am defining things wrong, and you attempting to force feed me your logic, why not tell me what it is you don't understand with what I am saying, and I can explain?

It is very simple and I am surprised you don't understand it. Or do you, and you wish to argue with me regardless, because it does seem to me you have missed/ignored the point (again)?
 
  • #125
Futobingoro said:
... I have always found it useful to think of an "act of war" as an "act befitting a war." I find this less problematic, because Anttech's usage of the term would require a woman to transform into a man if she performed an "act of masculinity."

"You can't commit an act of masculinity and not be a man."

Anttech said:
Ack you totally missed the point, and used a totally irrelevant comparison.

A woman can not be a man simple. Its a FACT, saying something is an act of war is an OPINION. You just compared apples and pears! I didnt actually define anything, I was showing that there isn't a good definition, and thus the only way you could assert as a fact that it was an act of war, or declaration of war (which performing an act of war is!) is if it was followed by a war. ...

Actually, it's a good example. Women have babies and men don't. Aside from a few roles that are defined by physical differences, many 'masculine' and 'feminine' roles are interchangeable and do vary from culture to culture.

Saying a woman "performed an act of masculinity" only has meaning within the context of a specific culture. If the woman was able to perform the act (probably a better comparison than "didn't turn into a man"), then the act was poorly defined as a masculine act in a general sense.

I'm not positive, but I think that's the point you've been trying to make. A lot of definitions between different nations, especially nations with radically different cultures, lack clarity and tend to be made up along the way. They even change over time.
 
  • #126
Well yes sort of, its not very well defined, and is used as an "adjective" to make a strong emotional point. Just because N.K. said the embargoes on them are an act of war, in the eyes of another nation its not an act of war, its a means to punish.

When used it is the opinion of the persons saying it, and the only time we could conclude that an act of war really was that, would be in retrospect if a war did start due to that act, or of course an action done during a war.

Its very loosely defined, and I was highlighting that in this case, I thought it was an exaggeration of the actual event.
 
  • #127
It looks like the sailors are being returned. I'm very happy to see it. I wonder what the fallout will be around their "confessions". I'll bet there is a crazy story there.
 
  • #129
What do you guys think about the apologies, the confessions, the thankfulness, the "gift"?

This serioulsly wierds me out. I can almost hear the http://home.comcast.net/~dennisrankin/TZONE11.WAV" theme in the backround.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #130
just part of the deal and happy to be released/
 
  • #131
drankin said:
It looks like the sailors are being returned. I'm very happy to see it. I wonder what the fallout will be around their "confessions". I'll bet there is a crazy story there.
...

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.

Please remove egg from your face. :wink:

Just say it, "I was wrong"...its not that hard. :-p
 
Last edited:
  • #132
I like the Iranians -- sharp suits.

Looked like they even kitted the sailors out at the local tailor too.

Plus it got Bliar all flustered, which is nice.
 
  • #133
It appears the sailors and marines are more restricted now than they were when the Iranians had them :biggrin: . They are being flown back to the UK on a scheduled flight and journalists on the same flight have been refused any access to them. When they arrive back in the UK they will be transferred to a military base for debriefing again it is expected without any contact with the public; even their own families.

Perhaps the UK gov't is concerned in case they say something which embarrasses them? :biggrin:

btw anyone know where the US gov't is holding it's 5 Iranian hostages and how they are being treated?

Back to my point re hypocricy
Britain says the crew were in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate when they were captured, and says the confessions were extracted under duress.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6528235.stm
If that's duress what do you call 5 years in Guantanamo and yet their 'confessions' are considered sound!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #134
cyrusabdollahi said:
...



Please remove egg from your face. :wink:

Just say it, "I was wrong"...its not that hard. :-p

They did release them sooner than I expected. I'll give you that, cry. But not until they thoroughly made a mockery of those sailors.
 
  • #135
Art said:
It appears the sailors and marines are more restricted now than they were when the Iranians had them :biggrin: . They are being flown back to the UK on a scheduled flight and journalists on the same flight have been refused any access to them. When they arrive back in the UK they will be transferred to a military base for debriefing again it is expected without any contact with the public; even their own families.

Perhaps the UK gov't is concerned in case they say something which embarrasses them? :biggrin:

btw anyone know where the US gov't is holding it's 5 Iranian hostages and how they are being treated?

Back to my point re hypocricy http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6528235.stm
If that's duress what do you call 5 years in Guantanamo and yet their 'confessions' are considered sound!
Hey Art spot the difference :smile:

UK...
US...

One letter I know, but geographically a tad more. I understand your point, but the UK isn't the US, its the *unfortunate* or rather the lesser, with no say partner of the US (right now).

I think you have to give them credit for not going all out crazy and starting another war shock and awe style. Perhaps the world coverage of this situation and how it was handled could inspire other leaders *cough cough* that diplomacy does work, and *I am a hard man* brow bashing doesnt. Ohh wait, no, because the UK were cowards, and were made to look like clowns for not starting another war, silly me, everyone in the world is probably laughing at the UK now... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #136
Anttech,

Yea, reckon you noticed the remarks made by Bolton. "Emboldened... " etc. Glad that loose cannon is out of a job, but reminds me Bush is at it again by appointing Sam Fox during the recess.
 
  • #137
Anttech said:
Ohh wait, no, because the UK were cowards, and were made to look like clowns for not starting another war, silly me, everyone in the world is probably laughing at the UK now... :rolleyes:

LOL, well to each his own. Being a "clown" and a "coward" can definitely keep you out of a fight, no doubt. Appeasement seems the way to go for many on the other side of the ocean. History shows us what happens when that becomes your policy.
 
  • #138
drankin said:
LOL, well to each his own. Being a "clown" and a "coward" can definitely keep you out of a fight, no doubt. Appeasement seems the way to go for many on the other side of the ocean. History shows us what happens when that becomes your policy.
Appeasement? :confused:

So talking to someone to get something you want, rather than smashing their face in and taking it from them is appeasement is it? :rolleyes:
Thats not very democratic now is it? I *was* under the impression the *west* were the civilized democratic ones, not the totalitarian ones...
 
  • #139
Anttech said:
Hey Art spot the difference :smile:

UK...
US...

One letter I know, but geographically a tad more. I understand your point, but the UK isn't the US, its the *unfortunate* or rather the lesser, with no say partner of the US (right now).

I think you have to give them credit for not going all out crazy and starting another war shock and awe style. Perhaps the world coverage of this situation and how it was handled could inspire other leaders *cough cough* that diplomacy does work, and *I am a hard man* brow bashing doesnt. Ohh wait, no, because the UK were cowards, and were made to look like clowns for not starting another war, silly me, everyone in the world is probably laughing at the UK now... :rolleyes:
As I said where is the UK condemnation of their 'best friends' behaviour. Where is the denouncement of confessions obtained through 5 years of torture? Why has the UK conspired to have it's own residents renditioned? Where are the demands for the immediate release of the 5 Iranian hostages seized by their partners in the MNF?

As to how complicit the British gov't has been? I suggest you read this news report;
Documents show that Britain's security services tried to recruit a Guantanamo Bay detainee shortly before his arrest.

At a quarter to nine in the morning on the 31st October 2002, Jamil al-Banna was at home with his family when there was a knock at the door. Two men - one from MI5, the other Special Branch - wanted to speak to Mr al-Banna about his association with the Jordanian radical cleric Abu Qatada.

This is the Mi5 officer's account of that meeting. (Jamil al-Banna was also known as Abu Anas.)
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/mi5+contacted+guantanamo+detainee/396717


You can't act in lockstep with the Bush gov't and then plead non mea culpa as you are trying to do on Blair's behalf.

Sky News has released an interview they filmed with the captain of the arrested team a few days before their detention. In it the captain stated their mission was to stop ships to search for terrorists which as already shown is illegal under the Law of the Sea so as I said the excuse the British gov't gave about searching for smuggled cars was just that - an excuse or to be more precise - a lie and crucially he also said part of his mission was to gather intel on Iran :rolleyes: I wonder which part of the UN mandate the British claimed their people to be operating under authorised this?

'We Gathered Intelligence'
Updated: 20:07, Thursday April 05, 2007

The captain in charge of the 15 marines detained in Iran has said they were gathering intelligence on the Iranians.

Sky News went on patrol with Captain Chris Air and his team in Iraqi waters close to the area where they were arrested - just five days before the crisis began.
snip
The operation was mainly to investigate arms smuggling and terrorism but Captain Air said it was also to gain intelligence on Iranian activity.

We withheld the interview until now so it would not jeopardise their safety.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1259413,00.html

If Sky had broadcast this interview before their release I doubt very much they would be back home in England now.

With the British gov't now being shown to have lied about 2 of the 3 central issues in this incident hands up those who still believe the sailors and marines were captured in Iraqi waters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #140
As I said where is the UK condemnation of their 'best friends' behaviour. Where is the denouncement of confessions obtained through 5 years of torture? Why has the UK conspired to have it's own residents renditioned? Where are the demands for the immediate release of the 5 Iranian hostages seized by their partners in the MNF?
There is a lot (and I mean a lot) of "condemnation" of Guantanamo, and renditioning to there. Why would the UK demand immediate release of Iranians? The press is already denouncing those confessions and a load of crap. But I still don't see what the hell that has got to do with the UK demanding its troops back from Iran?
You can't act in lockstep with the Bush gov't and then plead non mea culpa as you are trying to do on Blair's behalf.
Im not pleading non mea culpa, I am saying that the US isn't the UK. America absolutely does as it pleases, the UK has no control over what it does. I don't think its a fair comparison at all. If UK military personal were being taken to Guantanamo then I am sure there would be just a big fuss, and actually many MP's in the UK are screaming and shouting about Guantanamo. But I still don't get the link to the current Iranian crises
With the British gov't now being shown to have lied about 2 of the 3 central issues in this incident hands up those who still believe the sailors and marines were captured in Iraqi waters.
what have they lied about? The car smuggling? and...? Even if they are doing other operations it still seems feasible they were looking for cars.

I read the News report, and it doesn't seem such a scoop. Big deal they were gathering intelligence, or in other words, were asking questions. Its normal procedure especially in the battle field, or close to it.
 
Last edited:
  • #141
Hands up

Art said:
Sky News has released an interview they filmed with the captain of the arrested team a few days before their detention. In it the captain stated their mission was to stop ships to search for terrorists which as already shown is illegal under the Law of the Sea so as I said the excuse the British gov't gave about searching for smuggled cars was just that - an excuse or to be more precise - a lie and crucially he also said part of his mission was to gather intel on Iran :rolleyes:

I wonder which part of the UN mandate the British claimed their people to be operating under authorised this? http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1259413,00.html
It's all explained in the article:
"Secondly, it's to gather int (intelligence). If they do have any information, because they're here for days at a time, they can share it with us.

"Whether it's about piracy or any sort of Iranian activity in the area. Obviously we're right by the buffer zone with Iran."

The UK Defence Secretary Des Browne told Sky News it was important to gather intelligence to "keep our people safe".

He said: "Modern military operations all have an element of gathering intelligence.

"We need to understand as much as we can about the environment we operate in and intelligence gathering is an every day part of that."

He added: "The UN mandate would clearly empower the military taskforce to gather information about the environment in which they were working."

Captain Air said that fishing dhows had been robbed by Iranian soldiers on a number of occasions.

"It's good to gather int on the Iranians," he said.
You've seen too many American action movies. When you hear "gathering intelligence" you must think it means some sort of 007 diving around and photographing stuff. The truth is most intelligence gathering in the form of observation diaries and casually talking with the locals. Intelligence gathering is an inherent part of every military activity, and in the form described in the article is not only reasonable but necessary considering the UN mandate.

Art said:
If Sky had broadcast this interview before their release I doubt very much they would be back home in England now.
To the discredit of whom?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #142
Originally Posted by Anttech There is a lot (and I mean a lot) of "condemnation" of Guantanamo, and renditioning to there. Why would the UK demand immediate release of Iranians? The press is already denouncing those confessions and a load of crap. But I still don't see what the hell that has got to do with the UK demanding its troops back from Iran?
Im not pleading non mea culpa, I am saying that the US isn't the UK. America absolutely does as it pleases, the UK has no control over what it does. I don't think its a fair comparison at all. If UK military personal were being taken to Guantanamo then I am sure there would be just a big fuss, and actually many MP's in the UK are screaming and shouting about Guantanamo. But I still don't get the link to the current Iranian crises
Did you read the news report I linked to? The BRITISH arranged for two of their residents to be renditioned by the US. This makes BRITAIN directly responsible for their subsequent treatment. And for the umpteenth (and last) time the link to Iran is the double standards Blair showed in his reaction between how Iran treated it's prisoners and how the US treats hers some of which BRITAIN very deliberately helped put in Guantanamo!

Originally Posted by Anttech what have they lied about? The car smuggling? and...? Even if they are doing other operations it still seems feasible they were looking for cars.

I read the News report, and it doesn't seem such a scoop. Big deal they were gathering intelligence, or in other words, were asking questions. Its normal procedure especially in the battle field, or close to it.
lol if only every country was as blase about being spied on as you evidently are. :smile:

I presume you do know intelligence gathering is a euphamism for spying, don't you. So apart from lying to cover up illegal searches at sea the UK gov't also lied when it said it's forces were acting within it's UN mandate and lying about the nature of the operation the UK forces were involved in. Or perhaps you can provide a link to where the UK gov't said "big deal they were only doing a bit of spying on Iran" :smile: or perhaps like Yonoz and the British defence ministry you are suggesting this spying was authorised by the UN whose mandate Blair repeatedly cited as raison for the captured UK forces' operation? :smile: Here's a link to the mandate the MNF are operating under. Perhaps you can show me where spying on Iran was mandated as I can't seem to find it. http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cach....pdf+draft+resolution+1546&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

And yes spying is common but so are very long prison sentences if you get caught.

And Yonoz fyi the James Bond films were made by EON productions based in London's Piccadilly which also operates from Pinewood Studios in England so they are British action movies :-p .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #143
Why do you claim they were spying?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage"
Espionage or spying is a practice of obtaining information about an organization or a society that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. Unlike other forms of intelligence work, espionage involves accessing the place where the desired information is stored, or accessing the people who know the information and will divulge it through some kind of subterfuge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intelligence"
Military intelligence (abbreviated MI, int. Commonwealth, or intel. U.S.), is a military discipline that focuses on the gathering, analysis, protection, and dissemination of information about the enemy, terrain, and weather in an area of operations or area of interest. Intelligence activities are conducted at all levels from tactical to strategic, during peacetime and in war.
Having been a field intelligence officer myself I can tell you the vast majority of the intelligence work at the tactical level is simple observation work. This is basic, universally accepted military doctrine and not espionage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #144
Can you imagine the reaction were these soldiers interrogated using water boarding or other techniques approved by Rummy and Gonzales?

What would the Bush admin supporters be calling the Iranians then?
 
  • #145
Ivan Seeking said:
Can you imagine the reaction were these soldiers interrogated using water boarding or other techniques approved by Rummy and Gonzales?

What would the Bush admin supporters be calling the Iranians then?
My point exactly :approve:
 
  • #146
Yonoz said:
Why do you claim they were spying?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intelligence"
Having been a field intelligence officer myself I can tell you the vast majority of the intelligence work at the tactical level is simple observation work. This is basic, universally accepted military doctrine and not espionage.
Just to clarify you are saying you would have no problem with an Arab nation stopping ships in or on the cusp of Israeli territorial waters and asking for information relating to Israeli military activities? :bugeye:

And as a former Israeli MI agent if you had come across such a situation you would have apologised for interrupting them and wished them well with their work? :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #147
Art said:
My point exactly :approve:
So why didnt you say that then rather than try and make comparisions that don't fit this thread :biggrin:

The UK don't interogate like that, so stop trying to pin something on the UK government which they didnt do :wink: Even if it is via proxy or not (or via association)
 
Last edited:
  • #148
Anttech said:
So why didnt you say that then rather than try and make comparisions that don't fit this thread :biggrin:

The UK don't interogate like that, so stop trying to pin something on the UK government which they didnt do :wink: Even if it is via proxy or not (or via association)
:confused: wha?
 
  • #149
It appears the sailors and marines are more restricted now than they were when the Iranians had them . They are being flown back to the UK on a scheduled flight and journalists on the same flight have been refused any access to them. When they arrive back in the UK they will be transferred to a military base for debriefing again it is expected without any contact with the public; even their own families.

Perhaps the UK gov't is concerned in case they say something which embarrasses them?

btw anyone know where the US gov't is holding it's 5 Iranian hostages and how they are being treated?

Back to my point re hypocrisy http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6528235.stm
If that's duress what do you call 5 years in Guantanamo and yet their 'confessions' are considered sound!

^___ why are calling for the UK to call for the US to free Iranians, and also why are you mentioning confessions from Guantanamo prisoners under duress, in a thread about UNITED KINGDOM Sailors whom had been taken prisoner by Iranians?

That is how you associate what the UNITED STATES are doing in Guantanamo and the UNITED KINGDOM, and thus in making your point (in which I agree) it looks to me like you are pinning by associated the US's policy onto the UK. This is what I don't understand, and why I think what you are saying is irrelevant to this thread!
 
  • #150
Royal Navy personnel seized by Iran were blindfolded, bound and held in isolation during their 13 days in captivity, the crew have said.

They were also subject to random interrogation and rough handling, and faced constant psychological pressure.

In a joint statement the crew also stressed that they were inside Iraqi waters at the time of the capture.

Royal Marine Captain Chris Air said it became apparent that opposing their captors was "not an option."

"If we had, some of us would not be here today, of that I am completely sure," he said.

The crew said they spent nights in stone cells, sleeping on piles of blankets and were kept in isolation.

Earlier, the Royal Navy's head defended the actions of the personnel, after criticism that they gave up too easily.

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band said the crew "reacted extremely well in very difficult circumstances".

He said British boarding operations being carried out in the Gulf had been "absolutely proper", but there would be a "complete review".

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6533069.stm

I hope this is the truth, if it isn't it will come back and haunt them down the line.
 

Similar threads

News Why Are British Sailors Being Prosecuted by Iran?
Replies
22
Views
3K
News Is the US Report on Iran's Nuclear Program Misleading?
Replies
8
Views
2K
News What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?
10
Replies
490
Views
40K
News Iranian Elections: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Wins by Landslide
5
Replies
232
Views
25K
News Obama on Al Arabia: A Case for Mutual Respect
Replies
34
Views
5K
News Why Did Flint Switch to River Water Despite Safety Concerns?
Replies
13
Views
3K
News What are the potential consequences of occupying Iran?
4
Replies
193
Views
22K
News Bush & Blair: Making & Breaking Rules for Agendas
Replies
37
Views
5K
News Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions
Replies
4
Views
2K
Physics Goes in Search of 'Cool' - Einstein Year Launch
Replies
15
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top