Iran shows true colours

Deliverance

So Iran is flexing it's muscles and it is picking on the UK, for a start. It is a gesture to put pressure on the US which is stretched at the moment. Have they showed their cards to soon or is their timing just right, putting pressure on the weakened 'Allies'. Or are they risking an all out war with the Brits and the US, that is if the US will back up the UK?
Will there be a war with Iran as threatened by Blair, and hinted by Bush or are they testing for an initial response?

Lemming

The Iranians have utterly, utterly fudged their hand. This is what you get when you allow hard-line muppets free reign.

So to sum up;

1. Spot of bother over nuclear plans.
2. A bunch of Revolutionary Guard operatives get nabbed, apparently red-handed, in Iraq by the US.
3. Wanting to "hit back", the Revolutionary Guard enters Iraqi waters with seven gun boats (iirc) and take 15 UK personnel captive.

3.a - they provide co-ordinates for the "incursion" of UK personnel that are inside Iraqi waters.
3.b - UK point this out, and the Iranians go "whoops .. did we say that? eeehhh .. we meant 'over here ...' *cough* " and provide a new set of co-ordinates that are funnily enough juuuuust inside Iranian waters.
3.c The UK goes "uh uh that's bollocks" and releases its GPS data showing the "incursion" was actually nothing of the sort and 1.7 nautical miles insides Iraqi waters.
3.d The Iranians, who were going to release the female captive, turn around and go into a strop and refuse citing, and I quote, "incorrect attitude" by the UK.

The rest of it I wont even bother going into because it's blatant propoganda material being trotted out in the media; "letters", "interviews", etc. etc.

TBH, the Revolutionary Guard are lucky it wasn't US personnel or else they'd already have dragged Iran into a war. The UK is a little more politically astute. It's obvious that they're beginning to cook under pressure with some of the 'ridiculous' statements they've come out with in the last few days like the "incorrect attitude" statement, saying the UK shouldn't have involved the UN and was an 'unhelpful' thing to do, etc, officials saying that the soldiers may well face trial (when on foreign visits) and then back-pedalling when quoted on what they say. Then take into account that they've not allowed the British consul access to the soldiers either. They know that as soon as they do, their entire argument will fall apart and their captives will not co-operate. It's all bluster.

FYI

It is a little odd that you say the 'rest is blatant propaganda' when pretty much everything you offer as fact, in summary, is simply propaganda.

Lemming wrote:

2. A bunch of Revolutionary Guard operatives get nabbed, apparently red-handed, in Iraq by the US.

Their involvement in the funding of militant forces is +alleged+ by the US, who claimed they were "up to no good".

More on the recent kidnappings by the coalition et al:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_kidnapping_of_Iranian_diplomat_(February_2007)

And a more likely scenario for their capture:

"Perhaps the starkest indication of an impending war with Iran is Washington's recent arrest of Iranian diplomats in Iraq. Around the time of President Bush's speech, U.S. Special Forces -- in blatant violation of diplomatic regulations reminiscent of the hostage taking of U.S. diplomats in Tehran by Iranian students in 1979 -- stormed the Iranian consulate in Erbil in northern Iraq, arresting five diplomats. Later that day, U.S. forces almost clashed with Kurdish peshmerga militia forces when seeking to arrest more Iranians at Arbil's airport.

These operations incensed the Iraqi government, including its Kurdish components that otherwise are staunchly pro-Washington. "What happened... was very annoying because there has been an Iranian liaison office there for years and it provides services to the citizens," Iraq's Minister of Foreign Affairs Hoshiyar Zebari, who is himself a Kurd, told Al-Arabiya television.

The Bush administration has justified the raids -- including the arrests of several Iranian officials in December last year -- on the grounds that evidence is collected on Iranian involvement in destabilising Iraq. But if the purpose is intelligence gathering, it would make more sense to launch a simultaneous mass raid of Iranian offices rather than the current incremental approach that provides the Iranians forewarning and an opportunity to destroy whatever evidence they may or may not have in their possession.

The incremental raids and arrests may instead be aimed at provoking the Iranians to respond, which in turn would escalate the situation and provide the Bush administration with the casus belli it needs to win Congressional support for war with Iran. Rather than making the case for a pre-emptive war with Iran over weapons of mass destruction -- a strategy the U.S. pursued with Iraq that is unlikely to succeed with Iran -- the sequence of events in the provocation and escalation strategy would make it appear as if war was forced on the U.S."

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=11859&sectionID=15

Lemming wrote:

3. Wanting to "hit back", the Revolutionary Guard enters Iraqi waters with seven gun boats (iirc) and take 15 UK personnel captive.

3.a - they provide co-ordinates for the "incursion" of UK personnel that are inside Iraqi waters.
3.b - UK point this out, and the Iranians go "whoops .. did we say that? eeehhh .. we meant 'over here ...' *cough* " and provide a new set of co-ordinates that are funnily enough juuuuust inside Iranian waters.
3.c The UK goes "uh uh that's bollocks" and releases its GPS data showing the "incursion" was actually nothing of the sort and 1.7 nautical miles insides Iraqi waters.
3.d The Iranians, who were going to release the female captive, turn around and go into a strop and refuse citing, and I quote, "incorrect attitude" by the UK.

All this information was supplied by the MOD, it can be no less considered propaganda than anything released by the Iranians. As you can see here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6502805.stm All 'facts' are offered by the British government, there is absolutely no point in regurgitating them as history now. It has accepted now by many mainstream agencies that the UK troops could have been captured/arrested within Iranian waters. As military operatives within sovereign territory they could have been arrested, just as a person of foreign military dress could be arrested in Ireland. There is obviously no excuse for what followed.

Craig Murray, former UK ambassador, made these two points, which were basically echoed by a British commander (quote further down):

"A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one."

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/03/fake_maritime_b.html

[Again from Craig Murray]

"Before the spin doctors could get to him, Commodore Lambert said:

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in their territorial waters. The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated"."

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/03/captured_marine.html

It is extremely difficult to understand these stories through the prism of the corporate media, however, you must look at the who and the why. No one believes the Iranians, and yet we unconsciously believe our 'allies'. Despite the fact 'they' are proven liars.

Lemming

FYI wrote:

It is a little odd that you say the 'rest is blatant propaganda' when pretty much everything you offer as fact, in summary, is simply propaganda.

snip

It is extremely difficult to understand these stories through the prism of the corporate media, however, you must look at the who and the why. No one believes the Iranians, and yet we unconsciously believe our 'allies'. Despite the fact 'they' are proven liars.

*sigh*

I'm not going to repudate you line by line because that'd take far too long. First of all, I never claimed the Iranians that were taken prisoner in Iraq were actually guilty, hence my use of the word "apparently" since it's all claims at this point.

Secondly, I don't hinge my opinion on what the MoD has said but on the carry-on regarding the prisoners in front of the world's media combined with the fact that the IRG, as stated elsewhere in the political world, have been eager to challenge US/UK authority. Looking at the way the prisoners are behaving on camera doesn't look right. Something is fundamentally wrong in how they are carrying themselves and that should be apparent. Granted, they're prisoners and by rights aren't going to be terribly thrilled about that, but nonetheless it all looks out of place. Blinking a lot, not making eye-contact, smiles that disappear as fast as they appear, etc. The "letter" contents also strike me as being false, and have some "interesting" typos. Considering the rest of the contents apparently have a good command of the english language they strike me as being peculiar and, as I've said before, out of place.

Add in the Iranian 'statements' to the press. Add in their apparent change of "stated fact" regarding positions, and it doesn't look terribly convincing at all.

THAT is why I don't believe the Iranians. Papers are papers. Governments are governments, but how people behave is similar the world over.

FYI

Lemming wrote:

First of all, I never claimed the Iranians that were taken prisoner in Iraq were actually guilty, hence my use of the word "apparently" since it's all claims at this point.

Perhaps your use of the word 'nabbed' can be misconstrued, it is usually used in an instance where criminals are arrested, therefore you are making your position clear, before adding the disclaimer 'apparently red-handed'. The word 'apparently' here is incorrect if I am to accept your above quote, it is not the same as allegedly, it means 'plainly' or 'Unmistakably'. And taken in the context of the rest of your post it seems that you are willing to accept the MOD line.

I have no interest in discussing semantics, my original post stands.

Lemming wrote:

Secondly, I don't hinge my opinion on what the MoD has said but on the carry-on regarding the prisoners in front of the world's media

Hinge what opinion? You offered the MOD time line as fact. That is the issue I was addressing.

Whatever about the state of the detainees, you don't seem to have any concern for the Iranian diplomats (whose guilt as you say is 'apparent' - should read 'alleged'). They certainly do not look physically roughed up. The confessions were +obviously+ forged. They are under some duress and I'm sure they feel pressured into to asking 'forgiveness'. In much the same way a corrupt cop could pressure someone into a forced confession in the hope of a lighter sentence, or possibly avoiding a beating. But this again is high level assuming. They do not appear to have experienced water boarding or any of the other standard US/UK interrogation methods.

mike65

The British, while expressing concern publicly must be fairly unconcerned in truth, they can see the Iranians have dug themsleves a hole and so far have'nt thought to stop with the shovels.

The UK Gov know Tehran can't harm a hair on the heads of thier men and women. Its all about how to save face now, indeed the British may do the Iranians a favour with the suggested sending of a military commander to the capital with a statement saying "we did'nt do wrong this time and hey we won't do wrong in the future either (but you can feel free to suggest this is an appology in your media)"

I like this

Tehran, Iran (AHN) - The Islamic Republic of Iran on Saturday warned the British government against politicizing the issue of 15 British sailors detained in Tehran for allegedly illegally entering the country's territorial waters. Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki made the appeal as he calls for a quick solution on the crisis.

Mottaki reportedly told Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, "The British leaders should avoid media campaign and politicization, or it would further complicate the affairs."

Bush should shut the fupp up too.

Mike.

Lemming

FYI wrote:

Hinge what opinion? You offered the MOD time line as fact. That is the issue I was addressing.

My mistake. let me rephrase myself for you. Considering all of the above that I have listed as why I do not believe the Iranian side of things, this is why I would also consider the MoD line to be closer to the truth of the matter.

Whatever about the state of the detainees, you don't seem to have any concern for the Iranian diplomats (whose guilt as you say is 'apparent' - should read 'alleged'). They certainly do not look physically roughed up. The confessions were +obviously+ forged. They are under some duress and I'm sure they feel pressured into to asking 'forgiveness'. In much the same way a corrupt cop could pressure someone into a forced confession in the hope of a lighter sentence, or possibly avoiding a beating. But this again is high level assuming. They do not appear to have experienced water boarding or any of the other standard US/UK interrogation methods.

FYI, I'll say this here and now .. I most certainly do not find confessions extracted by the US military in Iraq or anywhere else to be in any way more convincing than those provided in the current debacle between the UK and Iran. Come to think of it, I find 'confessions' extracted by any military to be highly dubious at best. But we're not discussing the US at the moment since their involvement at present is token at best. Until the Iranians specifically ask for an exchange, they'll remain token.

fly_agaric

FYI wrote:

They are under some duress and I'm sure they feel pressured into to asking 'forgiveness'.

LOL. You don't say.

FYI wrote:

But this again is high level assuming. They do not appear to have experienced water boarding or any of the other standard US/UK interrogation methods.

HTH would you know? Are you some kind of Expert in Torture! I thought one reason such torture would be used is because it doesn't leave obvious marks/harm?

Also, is "Water-boarding" really a "standard" UK Military interrogation technique?

What are the standard Iranian interrogation techniques? Oh wait (**thinks of the Iran nuclear energy thread**), they wouldn't do things like that in Iran because they are all so holy and pray all the time!:) It just wouldn't be on at all!

FYI

fly_agaric wrote:

HTH would you know? Are you some kind of Expert in Torture! I thought one reason such torture would be used is because it doesn't leave obvious marks/harm?

Hence the use of 'high level assuming'.

It is simply a lay man assumption based on the soldiers demeanour.

The reason I lump the US/UK together is that they form the coalition, whose responsibilties extend into every facet of Iraqi authority. While the UK, to my knowledge, have not admitted to using methods such as waterboarding, they do actively facilitate the method, by the transfer of prisoners etc. And thereby provide tactit approval.

The US on the other hand are quite open about their use of the 'interrogation' (torture) method:

"The CIA maintains its interrogation techniques are in legal guidance with the Justice Department. And current and former CIA officers tell ABC News there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft approving the techniques, including water boarding."

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870

"The use of a form of torture known as waterboarding to gain information is a "no-brainer", the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, told a radio interviewer, it was reported today."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1933317,00.html

Lemming wrote:

Considering all of the above that I have listed as why I do not believe the Iranian side of things, this is why I would also consider the MoD line to be closer to the truth of the matter.

Fair enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

marco murphy

3.a - they provide co-ordinates for the "incursion" of UK personnel that are inside Iraqi waters.
3.b - UK point this out, and the Iranians go "whoops .. did we say that? eeehhh .. we meant 'over here ...' *cough* " and provide a new set of co-ordinates that are funnily enough juuuuust inside Iranian waters.
3.c The UK goes "uh uh that's bollocks" and releases its GPS data showing the "incursion" was actually nothing of the sort and 1.7 nautical miles insides Iraqi waters.

Is that your opinion of what happened?

Lemming

Poblachtach wrote:

Is that your opinion of what happened?

Ah .. I was wondering how long it'd take the deliciously blinkered Sinners to find this thread. It's not my opinion, it's apparently what happened according to the MoD. Funnily enough, I've noticed a distinct absence of rebuttal of the "correcting" of co-ordinates by the Iranians. An absence made all the more striking given the fact that they've been quick to comment on just about everything else however related or unrelated.

crybaby

I can't see Iran backing down from this now, this is the excuse they have been waiting for so long for

mike65

Excuse for what though?

Mike.

Lemming

Tbh, I don't think there's an excuse for anything other than this being a very ill-thought out and rash act by the IRG and perhaps some senior members of government wanting to try and embarass/distract the US/UK/World from other issues.

The president of Iran is probably sticking his foot up some IRG commander's @rse right now screaming at him for not thinking about what he was doing and suggesting how to go about saving face.

They've boxed themselves into a corner, badly so. The UK knows this, the UN knows this, and pretty much the rest of the world knows it too. Short of the UK doing an utter U-Turn (unlikely), any other outcome for the Iranians will be embarrassing and/or potentially a lot worse than just a loss of face.

FYI

More from the Guardian today:

"Downing Street was passed evidence purporting to show that the arrest of the British sailors was planned days in advance. Hossein Abedini, spokesman for the exiled National Council of Resistance of Iran, said the arrests were a 'meticulously concocted operation' to divert attention from Iran's nuclear programme.

But the Ministry of Defence hinted for the first time it may have made mistakes surrounding the incident. An inquiry has been commissioned to explore 'navigational' issues around the kidnapping and aspects of maritime law."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2047590,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

Both 'official' statements from the British. Make of it what you will.

mike65

exiled National Council of Resistance of Iran

The first word is the important one there!

Mike.

Lemming

FYI wrote:

More from the Guardian today:

"Downing Street was passed evidence purporting to show that the arrest of the British sailors was planned days in advance. Hossein Abedini, spokesman for the exiled National Council of Resistance of Iran, said the arrests were a 'meticulously concocted operation' to divert attention from Iran's nuclear programme.

But the Ministry of Defence hinted for the first time it may have made mistakes surrounding the incident. An inquiry has been commissioned to explore 'navigational' issues around the kidnapping and aspects of maritime law."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2047590,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

Both 'official' statements from the British. Make of it what you will.

In fairness, seven (I believe I've read somewhere but could be mistaken) gunboats surrounded the two UK boats. Assuming that figure is indeed correct, seven gunboats don't just 'happen' to be in the area together like that and would indeed imply a measure of planning on the part of the Iranians. That they also just 'happened' to have video recording equipment on -hand to capture the moment also strikes me as a little too convenient. I might be wrong on the whole video equipment thing, and perhaps every Iranian boat-crew carries such kit as standard, but it is one more thing that seems 'out of place' in the whole sorry saga.

The second statement seems to me like the UK trying to give the Iranians an easy way out.

mike65

I think they are doing exactly that, Jack Straw, in the not-so-old-days had a good relationship with his opposite number and some of the old "entente cordiale" still lurks I expect. This mess serves no-one well and many poorly.

Mike.

FYI

Lemming wrote:

In fairness, seven (I believe I've read somewhere but could be mistaken) gunboats surrounded the two UK boats. Assuming that figure is indeed correct, seven gunboats don't just 'happen' to be in the area together like that and would indeed imply a measure of planning on the part of the Iranians.

If you accept that then you also have to accept that the British probably knew they were there - which begs the question why were the boarding parties not called back; the alternative is that they are simply inept.

Mr. Presentable

Lemming wrote:

Ah .. I was wondering how long it'd take the deliciously blinkered Sinners to find this thread. It's not my opinion, it's apparently what happened according to the MoD. Funnily enough, I've noticed a distinct absence of rebuttal of the "correcting" of co-ordinates by the Iranians. An absence made all the more striking given the fact that they've been quick to comment on just about everything else however related or unrelated.

Interestingly, there was on Sky News with Kay Burley early this week, an interview with an expert in territorial agreements. Anyone see it? He said that there are *no* agreed territorial waters in that area of the northern gulf, that there are merely disputed waters. In fact, the interview was very stilted because Sky were trying to put words in his mouth, and he, knowing this but not wanting to offend, wouldn't utter them.

Instinct tells me that Iran is the offender here, but I can see that they wouldn't regard the British presence in any part of the gulf as acceptable. Which, of course it's not. Just having a bigger stick doesn't mean you're not a bully!

Lemming

FYI wrote:

If you accept that then you also have to accept that the British probably knew they were there - which begs the question why were the boarding parties not called back; the alternative is that they are simply inept.

Indeed it does. Only two things strike me as possibly having happened. Either the crews were in the middle of searching a third party vessel and they may not have had the ability to withdraw in time. Or (possibly and), since they believed themselves to be in Iraqi waters were probably thinking wtf. Remember, radar only shows you that *something* is out there. Not what it is.

Meanwhile the iranians continue to say these guys have admitted this that and the other.
Why they are bothering with this crack is beyond me.

If they offered me a mcfeast with extra bacon as opposed to burnt toast and water I'd probably admit I was on the Iranian moon sticking up union jacks-safe in the knowledge that when I get home I'd be telling the public what really happened.

Zambia

Seems all a bit strange to me , We invade Iraq cause they might have weapons of Mass destruction , possibly.

These lads are currently making them and to boot hold 15 of our personnel hostage. I agree they are being forced to make statements that they will refute when they return.

The only way Iran can stop this is by holding on to the 15 men. Even if these men wandered into Iranian waters I still see no reason to hold these men if they are not being charged with anything substantial. Searching a sail bourne vessel for contraband does not seem like it was a Major slight on the Iranian Nation.

Chances of a military operation to retrive these men are slim, to none its been tried before and failed.

I for one would not accept the contuined holding of these men to the extent where I would understand if the goverment this time if they resorted to a military option. While not believing any side entirly I see no reason for the holding of these personnel hostage.

Fratton Fred

Zambia232 wrote:

Seems all a bit strange to me , We invade Iraq cause they might have weapons of Mass destruction , possibly.

These lads are currently making them and to boot hold 15 of our personnel hostage. I agree they are being forced to make statements that they will refute when they return.

The only way Iran can stop this is by holding on to the 15 men. Even if these men wandered into Iranian waters I still see no reason to hold these men if they are not being charged with anything substantial. Searching a sail bourne vessel for contraband does not seem like it was a Major slight on the Iranian Nation.

Chances of a military operation to retrive these men are slim, to none its been tried before and failed.

I for one would not accept the contuined holding of these men to the extent where I would understand if the goverment this time if they resorted to a military option. While not believing any side entirly I see no reason for the holding of these personnel hostage.

Trouble is, I guess, to get them out, you need to know where they are. A failed operation would be a disaster but I suspect someone somewhere is drawing up plans.

hopefully common sense will prevail but there may need to be diplomatic negotiations carried out between the different factions within Iran before Iran can carry out constructive negotiations with the UK.

FYI

Zambia232 wrote:

Seems all a bit strange to me , We invade Iraq cause they might have weapons of Mass destruction , possibly.

These lads are currently making them and to boot hold 15 of our personnel hostage. I agree they are being forced to make statements that they will refute when they return.

When you begin a comment with this reversal of the historical record, you really can't hope to make a coherent argument for the soldiers release, can you?

Bush declared Iraq +possessed+ the most dangerous weapons known to man, or something asinine to that effect. That was the reason for war in Iraq. A complete fabrication as we knew/know.

Iran is not currently 'making them [WMD]' and according to the CIA they are about 10 years from developing them if the political will existed, which we don't know it does.

Zambia232 wrote:

The only way Iran can stop this is by holding on to the 15 men. Even if these men wandered into Iranian waters I still see no reason to hold these men if they are not being charged with anything substantial. Searching a sail bourne vessel for contraband does not seem like it was a Major slight on the Iranian Nation.

Correct, Iran should not still be holding these soldiers or seemingly forcing confessions. Even if the soldiers were within Iranian waters, no doubt their training would direct them to deny any wrong doing.

Zambia232 wrote:

I for one would not accept the contuined holding of these men to the extent where I would understand if the goverment this time if they resorted to a military option. While not believing any side entirly I see no reason for the holding of these personnel hostage.

The same question could equally be posed by the Iranian's - should they plan a military solution to the detention of Iranians held by coalition forces within Iraq?

nacho libre

Has this anything to do with Britain helping to overthrow Iran's democractic leader in the 1950's? The Iranians seem to be paranoid about the British. Are they hoping to drive a wedge between them and America over the pursuit of future military action by detaining these British personnel? Whatever their aim is it's futile- they can never win the propaganda campaign. They have just played into America's hands with this action.

Zambia

FYI wrote:

Bush declared Iraq +possessed+ the most dangerous weapons known to man, or something asinine to that effect. That was the reason for war in Iraq. A complete fabrication as we knew/know.

Iran is not currently 'making them [WMD]' and according to the CIA they are about 10 years from developing them if the political will existed, which we don't know it does.
?

Granted the whole Iraq reasoning was unfounded and clearly wrong. Iran is trying to atain Nuclear power this is true. Which I have no problem with as it a big country and could quite possibly need it.

Wether they want to develop a weapon system to deliver a nuclear payload I agree is not proven. I would also see a reason to try and develop a Nuclear deterent as its neighbour fell so quickly. So even if they are tinkering with Nuclear power that I would class as "making them" , in light of the reasons from the Iraq invasion. However its a small piont.

So it is a given that they cant be rescued , unless there is some fantastic intelligence obtained.

As for the Iranians held in Iraq well I believed they are charged/held with offences relating to terrorism if not well than Iran should be making as big a fuss as the British. No such charges are being levelled at the 15.

In short the worst that should have happened was the UK soldiers should have been warned off back into their own Waters by the Iran Navy.

Erin Go Brath

Deliverance wrote:

So Iran is flexing it's muscles and it is picking on the UK, for a start.

The question we have to ask is: What British marines were doing in that part of the Persian Gulf in the first place?

They have no legitimate business to be where they were, and I believe the Iranians are fully entitled to hold the British soldiers as prisoners, until a satisfactory explanation or at least an apology has been issued.

If Iranian military were just off the British coast you can be damn sure that Britain would arrest their soldiers, and their would be no sympathy for the arrested soldiers.

As usual propagandist media such as Sky News are going to portray the Iranians as evil monsters and Britain of course as the good guys. Someone needs to tell Britain you've lost your empire, now go home!!!

the_syco

Erin Go Brath wrote:

If Iranian military were just off the British coast you can be damn sure that Britain would arrest their soldiers, and their would be no sympathy for the arrested soldiers.

So if the British Navy is just off the British coast, the Irish Navy should arrest them? WTF? This makes no sense!

Also, why were the British looking for people trying to smuggle guns into Iraq on the Persian gulf? [sarc]Is there a war happening in Iraq, or something?[s/sarc]

Erin Go Brath

the_syco wrote:

So if the British Navy is just off the British coast, the Irish Navy should arrest them? WTF? This makes no sense!

Eh.. not sure what you're getting at

I did say if the Iranian Navy were off the British Coast they would be arrested. The questions asked would probably be along the lines of "WTF are you doing in our waters?"

Also, why were the British looking for people trying to smuggle guns into Iraq on the Persian gulf? [sarc]Is there a war happening in Iraq, or something?[s/sarc][/QUOTE]


Doesn't give them the right to enter disputed waters.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Doesn't give them the right to enter disputed waters.

if the waters are disputed, then surely they have as much right as the Iranians to enter them?

There is international protocol, which is signed by Iran, which clearly states what should happen if a Navy enters another countries sovereign waters. Arresting those involved and parading them in a kind of kangaroo court is not part of this protocol.

Forget for a moment the right and wrongs of Britain being in Iraq, the fact is those sailors and marines were carrying out legitimate patrols and had stopped and searched, legitimately, an Indian vessel. Unless that hapened in Iranian water, which may be open to debate, the Iranians had no right to intervene.

What followed is unquestionably wrong and I fail to see how it can be justified.

Zambia

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Doesn't give them the right to enter disputed waters.

If the waters are disputed well them they are not Irans either.

The scenario really would be the Le Erin stops a Fishing Trawler for supected drug running just over Irish waters. During the search the Royal Navy appears and informs them of there presence in UK waters. The Irish Navy would of course check there GPS and leave the area. Leaving it for the two goverments to argue.

I am sure if they arrested them brought them to london and paraded the Le erin Boarding Party in front of Cameras saying things like we are so sorry for crossing into her Majestys waters.

The Irish public would not be happy.

Akrasia

Zambia232 wrote:

If the waters are disputed well them they are not Irans either.

The scenario really would be the Le Erin stops a Fishing Trawler for supected drug running just over Irish waters. During the search the Royal Navy appears and informs them of there presence in UK waters. The Irish Navy would of course check there GPS and leave the area. Leaving it for the two goverments to argue.

I am sure if they arrested them brought them to london and paraded the Le erin Boarding Party in front of Cameras saying things like we are so sorry for crossing into her Majestys waters.

The Irish public would not be happy.

There is a huge difference between what you described, and the situation in Iran at the moment. Ireland and the U.K. are peaceful allies at the moment, but the U.K. and her allies (the U.S.) are actively threatening Iran with military attack and U.N. sanctions.

The U.S/UK coalition have been acting hostile towards Iran and are currently occupying one if it's neighbours.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote:

if the waters are disputed, then surely they have as much right as the Iranians to enter them?

They don't actually. The waters are disputed between local countries Iran, Iraq, UAE etc. They don't have the right to be in disputed waters on the other side of the world. They have no legitimate business there!!!

Akrasia

They claim to be enforcing a U.N. mandate.

(they're a protectorate of the empire)

Erin Go Brath

Akrasia wrote:

They claim to be enforcing a U.N. mandate.

(they're a protectorate of the empire)

My sentiments exactly!

Lemming

Erin Go Brath wrote:

They don't actually. The waters are disputed between local countries Iran, Iraq, UAE etc. They don't have the right to be in disputed waters on the other side of the world. They have no legitimate business there!!!

*cough*

UN mandate anyone? Number 1546 if I'm not mistaken

Zambia

Akrasia wrote:

There is a huge difference between what you described, and the situation in Iran at the moment. Ireland and the U.K. are peaceful allies at the moment, but the U.K. and her allies (the U.S.) are actively threatening Iran with military attack and U.N. sanctions.

The U.S/UK coalition have been acting hostile towards Iran and are currently occupying one if it's neighbours.

Granted its simplistic but the scenario remains the same they are parading troops on TV in full view of their home nation. Its not exactly helping prior to this incident I was in no way supportive of any Iranian action now I would be leaning the other way as the days go by that this remains the state of Play.

Despite where you stand on the British the fact remains these men/women should not be held in this manner.

Erin Go Brath if British troops intervened anywhere for any reason you would object.

mike65

Quite so.

Mike.

FTA69

Lemming wrote:

3. Wanting to "hit back", the Revolutionary Guard enters Iraqi waters with seven gun boats (iirc) and take 15 UK personnel captive.

Who says they were actually in Iraq? (Aside from the Brits of course, who denied enough border incursions in Ireland to make their word worthless on this particular issue.) I'm a bit surprised to see all the faux outrage over the televisation of the troops and the female wearing a shidoor. I'd prefer one of those than a hood over my face anyway a la Guantanamo. Typical hypocrisy.

LordSutch

I am just curious to know how the Royal Navy let this happen in the first place! Wot 'No Binoculars'?

The Cornwall with all its technology didnt see the gunboats comming? and what about the Cornwall's Helicopter overhead? that didnt see the Iranian gun-boats coming either? the mind boggles..........................

Or am I missing something?

Erin Go Brath

Zambia232 wrote:

Erin Go Brath if British troops intervened anywhere for any reason you would object.

Yeh well I have the same attitude to any nation on Imperialist duties!!!

Frederico

the_syco wrote:

So if the British Navy is just off the British coast, the Irish Navy should arrest them? WTF? This makes no sense!

Also, why were the British looking for people trying to smuggle guns into Iraq on the Persian gulf? [sarc]Is there a war happening in Iraq, or something?[s/sarc]

Iran is a country literally under siege, thats how they feel. Usually before any attack special forces will be sent in, the Iranians have to be extremely paranoid about this fact. Countries on friendly terms are a completely different matter.

The US/UK will always have the upper hand in these situations simply because the rest of the world trusts them alot more, I mean its been drummed into us who the good guys really are through TV, film, etc, etc.

All the Americans have to do is say that the Iranian diplomats they siezed are involved in something dirty and deep down we don't really question it. We have an advanced propaganda model, to us the Iranian propaganda looks old-fashioned and crude, maybe one day they'll learn to manipulate the media like we can.

Personally I feel the current situation is ridiculous and the Iranians are too clumsy to make themselves look good out of this, or the victim, or whatever.

Whim

FTA69 wrote:

Who says they were actually in Iraq? (Aside from the Brits of course, who denied enough border incursions in Ireland to make their word worthless on this particular issue.) I'm a bit surprised to see all the faux outrage over the televisation of the troops and the female wearing a shidoor. I'd prefer one of those than a hood over my face anyway a la Guantanamo. Typical hypocrisy.

My thoughts exactly. The Iranians are treating these hostages humanely and decently. And if we're going to give out about the illegal capture of people, we might want to have a look at Bush's extradition policy.

FYI

It's pretty obvious that if Blair (and Bush) weren't beating their war drums so loudly they probably could have retrieved the soldiers a lot quicker than this. There is a historical precedent...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3835313.stm

And further 'suggestion' the soldiers were indeed in Iranian waters:

"Brigadier General Hakim Jassim [the top Iraqi military officer in charge of guarding the Shatt al-Iraq waterway where the Brits were actually apprehended] told Associated Press the day after the March 23 incident: "We were informed [about the British troops' arrests] by Iraqi fishermen, after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control. We don't know why they were there.'""

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp04022007.html

It is not beyond reason to think that Britain and the US see the continued detention as 'advantageous'.

FYI

FYI wrote:

And further 'suggestion' the soldiers were indeed in Iranian waters:

"Brigadier General Hakim Jassim [the top Iraqi military officer in charge of guarding the Shatt al-Iraq waterway where the Brits were actually apprehended] told Associated Press the day after the March 23 incident: "We were informed [about the British troops' arrests] by Iraqi fishermen, after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control. We don't know why they were there.'""

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp04022007.html

It is not beyond reason to think that Britain and the US see the continued detention as 'advantageous'.

You're surely not expecting anyone other than someone with an anti Bush Blair stance to accept that article?
It's a bit like looking on labour.ie for praise of Bertie...

GuanYin

Hrmmm. Iranians have handled this like a burst bag of maltesers on a hot day and certainly their story looks suspicious.

However, the soldiers, by and large look to be well treated and appeared relatively relaxed in video footage which is more than can be said for people detained by the US.

As for holding/releasing them - again given the US/UK stance on enemy combatants, I really don't think they are in a place to cry with such outrage - true they're not "At war" with Iran, but then technically, many of the "enemy combatants" being held by the Coalition of the Willing are not actually soldiers so the US and UK have happily made rules to suit themselves.

While I think the Iranians have certainly acted inappropriately and can blame only themselves for the way this has gone, the UK have certainly reaped what they sowed.

I think we should be grateful the Iranians don't take a leaf from the US book, they could just deport the soldiers back to Iraq where they run the risk of being taken by insurgents and a fate similar to Maher Arar and the many like him.

jrey1981

I give them credit on one point...they haven't sent the detainees to Guantanamo or anywhere like that as far as we know.

Other than that it seems to be a bit of a stalemate.

hairymary

British gunboats have no legal right to be patrolling a waterway in Iraq or Iran - have you forgotten that the invasion of Iraq is illegal under international law.

Iran has every reason to fear an US/British invasion.Remember the fabricated pretext for the invasion of Iraq.The US and Britain have vital strategic and economic interests in the region - they have control of Iraqi oil supplies now and award huge contracts to British and American companies in 'recontruction'.

Fratton Fred

hairymary wrote:

British gunboats have no legal right to be patrolling a waterway in Iraq or Iran - have you forgotten that the invasion of Iraq is illegal under international law.

Iran has every reason to fear an US/British invasion.Remember the fabricated pretext for the invasion of Iraq.The US and Britain have vital strategic and economic interests in the region - they have control of Iraqi oil supplies now and award huge contracts to British and American companies in 'recontruction'.

read UN mandate 1546, which talks about the protection of Iraq.

Now consider those sailors and marines are not British, they are merely part of the UN forces enforcing mandate 1546, they could even be Irish.

By the way, 1546 even talks about where the money from Oil sales go, which blows a few of the war for oil conspiracies away.

Hoops1888

Fratton Fred wrote:

read UN mandate 1546, which talks about the protection of Iraq.

Doing a great job aint they! More like protecting the oil

Fratton Fred wrote:

Now consider those sailors and marines are not British, they are merely part of the UN forces enforcing mandate 1546, they could even be Irish.

These people should be hung for been spies.

Fratton Fred wrote:

By the way, 1546 even talks about where the money from Oil sales go, which blows a few of the war for oil conspiracies away.

In the last three years while the price of oil is going up is getting more cheaper or expensive In America? :rolleyes: