British troops seized by Iranian Revolutionary Guard

[in48092]

i believe there are amiguities surrounding the 'ownership' of the waterway in question. I have a feeling this will end with Iran maintaining there waterways were breached, Britain denying it, and no way for either side to convince Iran will let the troops go, unharmed, with no concessions made by Britain or America. I suspect that this was Irans intention from the outset, and they will let them go as a B.S. 'show of good faith' a powerplay of sorts to show the internaitonal community that they can be reasonable, and will play ball.

Syria does this type of thing from time to time. They will have a phony 'terrorist bust' where they kill some alleged al quaeda members to prove they can be an ally in the war on terror. It is realy a ploy to improve ones position in negotiations. sometime down the line iran will point to the time they released 15 soldiers who incurred on their waterways and asked for nothing in return.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
i believe there are amiguities surrounding the 'ownership' of the waterway in question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is any disagreement about the border, but parts of it follows the thalweg, so it is hard to see where it actually is. Maybe the Iranians found a place where it takes a westernly curve and arrested them or the British had found a spot where it takes an easternly curve which the Iranian soldiers were not aware of.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
UPDATE: Britian admits its troops were in Iranian Waters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Canis, this is really misleading, even for you. If by this you mean that the sailors in custody have supposedly "admitted" to being in iranian water, then yes, but, umm, wouldn't you admit that to avoid being tortured and killed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you prove this happened to the sailors? I refuse to believe that Iran is completely in the wrong and Britain in the right, as all the US news coverage would want me to believe. I need to do some more research, then I'll be better prepared to defend my position.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a little tit for tat going on:

IRAN is threatening to retaliate in Europe for what it claims is a daring undercover operation by western intelligence services to kidnap senior officers in its Revolutionary Guard.

According to Iranian sources, several officers have been abducted in the past three months and the United States has drawn up a list of other targets to be seized with the aim of destabilising Tehran’s military command.

In an article in Subhi Sadek, the Revolutionary Guard’s weekly paper, Reza Faker, a writer believed to have close links to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, warned that Iran would strike back.

“We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting [censored],” he said. “Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.”

The first sign of a possible campaign against high-ranking Iranian officers emerged earlier this month with the discovery that Ali Reza Asgari, former commander of the Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force in Lebanon and deputy defence minister, had vanished, apparently during a trip to Istanbul.

Asgari’s disappearance shocked the Iranian regime as he is believed to possess some of its most closely guarded secrets. The Quds Force is responsible for operations outside Iran.

Last week it was revealed that Colonel Amir Muhammed Shirazi, another high-ranking Revolutionary Guard officer, had disappeared, probably in Iraq.

A third Iranian general is also understood to be missing — the head of the Revolutionary Guard in the Persian Gulf. Sources named him as Brigadier General Muhammed Soltani, but his identity could not be confirmed.

Iran to Hit Back at US Kidnappings

[DVO]

Whiskey

Do you believe the threat from the USA having nuclear capabilities is the moral equivalent of Iran having them?

If so, justify your position, please.

The mind boggles.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
UPDATE: Britian admits its troops were in Iranian Waters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Canis, this is really misleading, even for you. If by this you mean that the sailors in custody have supposedly "admitted" to being in iranian water, then yes, but, umm, wouldn't you admit that to avoid being tortured and killed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah! We are talking torture now! What, like renditions and Guantamo? [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Britian is much more than America's dearest friend. We have stood side by side for the last century. I was shocked that it was not the lead news story on all the networks and cable TV.

[/ QUOTE ]


Was it on all the network and cable TV that the US refused to cooperate in an investigation of friendly fire which resulted in british soldiers being killed by american fire. Dearesr friends??? LOL. The US has no dearest friends any longer, it is now US economic interests that drives its foreign relationships.

[BPA234]

The report cites an Iranian source that claims the British admitted to being in Iranian waters. The British did not admit to trespassing.

FWIW, the British were on a UN missiion interdicting smugglers.

IMO, the Iranians have made this move, because of the vote that the UN Security Council is making today to tighten sanctions today in response to the Iranian nuclear program.

Update: The vote was unaminous to tighten the sanctions.

[canis582]

Sorry, I was working from the Drudge headline that said "Britons admit being in Iranian Water". Or something to that effect.

[Woolygimp]

The British has specifically said that they have GPS proof that the soldiers were in Iraqi waters.

Midge. I don't like you.

[daveymck]

There was an article written on the BBC saying that in essence these troops are told say agree to say whatever, as long as not giving away secrets, if they want them on TV admitting to being in Iranian waters then to do it, the priority is to get released safely.