Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

So, I'm having trouble figuring out why Iran would take the Brits hostage. I mean, they know that the Bush Administration is just dying for a good reason to kick their asses. But since the US is bogged down in Iraq, and the UN is completely unwilling to make a move, they were in a fairly secure spot continuing to build their nukes without intervention.

But then they go and pull this stunt. It's pretty hard (impossible) to justify the action. Especially since the GPS indicated that the Brits never entered Iranian territory. So now they've provoked a crisis which the international community is practically forced to go against them on. It only further makes the case to the world that the Iranian government is dangerous, aggressive, and unreasonable.

So really, what the [censored] are they thinking? It seems like the potential costs of this stunt outweigh any benefits of asserting their sovereignty over their territory.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

I don't think they would have done it if they didn't think they were right, they are fighting a propaganda fight and it would be just too stupid. So it is a mess up. Now the whole situation is just a pain in the ass for them, looking for a way they can release them without losing face and admiting they screwed up.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

As far as I've read from different news sources, Britain produced maps and GPS showing the sailors in Iraqi water (as they obviously would), and Iran produced maps and GPS showing sailors in Iranian waters (as they obviously would). So really nothing can be concluded from that. You said it yourself, this would be a horrible stunt for Iran to pull, so why do it? *gasp* Maybe Iran is in the right, and the West really did overstep its bounds.


Edit: I found this bit interesting from NY Times

[ QUOTE ]
But Craig Murray, a former British diplomat and Foreign Office specialist on maritime affairs, said, “There is no agreed maritime boundary between Iraq and Iran in the Persian Gulf. Until the current mad propaganda exercise of the last week, nobody would have found that in the least a controversial statement.”

In postings on his Web site, www.craigmurray.co.uk, Mr. Murray referred to charts shown by the Royal Navy to reinforce its argument, saying: “The Iran-Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British government.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

Im confused how an armed Unit of UK forces could be forcibly kidnapped and it NOT be considered an "act of war." When a foreign Naval power threatens or uses force at sea on another Navy it is clear "act of war."

Had this occurred with a US detachment there is a high probability that air cover would have been called in and a firefight at sea occurred.

To ascribe any sort of reason to this kidnapping by The Iranians is to attempt to asign reason to the unreasonable.

Iran has a professional military(Including their Navy and especially the Republican Guard Units). In my 9 mos in the Gulf, despite whatever political rhetoric was spewing between Tehran and Washington, our 2 navies always acted professionally to each other. Even when they think you may be entering a disputed area of water they would easily have gotten on the radio with the Brits and WARNED you long before attempting any sort of hijack at sea. I find it highly unlikely that this warning could have been made in that the Brits would almost definitely have withdrawn rather than force a poor situation (poor from both a tactical and poltical standpoint).

This leads me to believe that there must have been a standing order from V high up in The Iranian Govt. to make something like this happen. I don't seriously see how a professional sailor is going to commit an "act of war," on a known foreign force with clearly known and routine intentions, without authorization.

Why doesn't the press and governments start calling this what it really is, an act of war by a country which is increasingly attempting to place themselves outside the boundries of reason, professionalism, and any sense of international standards for conduct between nations.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

Great post. Exactly how I feel. This smelled like a trap as soon as I heard about it. Still, I have no idea why the iranians would have done it unless they actively want an armed conflict.

All I know is, I wouldn't want to be working in that nuclear facility in iran - as soon as anything happens that building is gonna be a greasy smear.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I've read from different news sources, Britain produced maps and GPS showing the sailors in Iraqi water (as they obviously would), and Iran produced maps and GPS showing sailors in Iranian waters (as they obviously would). So really nothing can be concluded from that. You said it yourself, this would be a horrible stunt for Iran to pull, so why do it? *gasp* Maybe Iran is in the right, and the West really did overstep its bounds.


Edit: I found this bit interesting from NY Times

[ QUOTE ]
But Craig Murray, a former British diplomat and Foreign Office specialist on maritime affairs, said, “There is no agreed maritime boundary between Iraq and Iran in the Persian Gulf. Until the current mad propaganda exercise of the last week, nobody would have found that in the least a controversial statement.”

In postings on his Web site, www.craigmurray.co.uk, Mr. Murray referred to charts shown by the Royal Navy to reinforce its argument, saying: “The Iran-Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British government.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Iran also produced GPS data showing the Brits were in Iraqi waters, then, hours later, retracted that data and issued new coordinates.

Also, Iran is charging them with espionage and spying. As they were uniformed soldiers they cannot possibly be guilty of spying.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]

Also, Iran is charging them with espionage and spying. As they were uniformed soldiers they cannot possibly be guilty of spying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read that someone (I forget who) said that the sailors may be tried for various things, but Iran has since denied that any trials will occur.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I've read from different news sources, Britain produced maps and GPS showing the sailors in Iraqi water (as they obviously would), and Iran produced maps and GPS showing sailors in Iranian waters (as they obviously would). So really nothing can be concluded from that. You said it yourself, this would be a horrible stunt for Iran to pull, so why do it? *gasp* Maybe Iran is in the right, and the West really did overstep its bounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing can be concluded from that? It's [censored] Iran. And [censored] Britain. I'm not saying Britain's word is sacrosanct, but Iran's sure as hell isn't. And even if there is a disputed border, kidnapping soldiers patrolling in good faith on their side is not a good way to handle it.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
kidnapping soldiers patrolling in good faith

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to nit, but how do you know this to be the case? Is an RC-135 aircraft flying inside Chinese controlled waters also patrolling in "good faith"? What about a U-2 flying over Moscow?

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
kidnapping soldiers patrolling in good faith

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to nit, but how do you know this to be the case? Is an RC-135 aircraft flying inside Chinese controlled waters also patrolling in "good faith"? What about a U-2 flying over Moscow?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know anything for a fact, but if there is in fact a border dispute, and the British were doing typical customs inspection work in a tiny boat, it seems odd to classify it as some sort of deliberate hostile incursion.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

What gives the Brits any right to search any boat in the Gulf?

----
Quote: Im confused how an armed Unit of UK forces could be forcibly kidnapped and it NOT be considered an "act of war." When a foreign Naval power threatens or uses force at sea on another Navy it is clear "act of war.""

How could you not consider GWB & Cos. rhetoric about Iran an act of war? When visiting a bomber factory, American politicans publically commented that wooden Japanese cities would burn nicely from fire bombs delivered by B-39's...Before Pearl Harbor. Why did the Japs attack first again?

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know anything for a fact, but if there is in fact a border dispute, and the British were doing typical customs inspection work in a tiny boat, it seems odd to classify it as some sort of deliberate hostile incursion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the border dispute was settled in the peace negotiations after the Iran-Iraq-war. However it is a bit unclear where it runs, but as I understand it that is another area than where this happened.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
What gives the Brits any right to search any boat in the Gulf?

----
Quote: Im confused how an armed Unit of UK forces could be forcibly kidnapped and it NOT be considered an "act of war." When a foreign Naval power threatens or uses force at sea on another Navy it is clear "act of war.""

How could you not consider GWB & Cos. rhetoric about Iran an act of war? When visiting a bomber factory, American politicans publically commented that wooden Japanese cities would burn nicely from fire bombs delivered by B-39's...Before Pearl Harbor. Why did the Japs attack first again?

[/ QUOTE ]

Canis, what exactly did GWB and Co. say about Iran that you would consider to be an act of war?

Also, do you consider Iran's parading of missiles emblazoned with the slogan "Death To America!" an act of war?

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
What gives the Brits any right to search any boat in the Gulf?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maratime law, UN resolutions, right to self defense, Iraqi government auhorizing coalition forces to maintain law and order in Iraqi territory and waters.

Is that list long enough to satisfy?

[ QUOTE ]
How could you not consider GWB & Cos. rhetoric about Iran an act of war?

[/ QUOTE ]
GWB says a lot of silly chit. I'll grant you that. But, I can't seem to recall him openly calling for the anhiliation of another country/people (as Iran has wrt Israel). I also don't see how loudly trying to prevent a "clearly deranged" Iranian Leadership from getting ahold of nuclear weapons is an act of war.

I'm sure next you will try to compare Gitmo with The Iranian hijacking of the Brit Marines and Sailors. These two situations are completely different. Uniformed British personnell are required to be handled VERY differently by other military forces both during times of open combat and international unease.

Iran has ZERO legs to stand on from an international law or maratime law perspective in this instance.


[ QUOTE ]
When visiting a bomber factory, American politicans publically commented that wooden Japanese cities would burn nicely from fire bombs delivered by B-39's...Before Pearl Harbor. Why did the Japs attack first again?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL Historical revisionism! Trying to prop up WWII Japanese leadership and their decisions to anything approaching a legal or moral stance goes beyond belief. Please answer why they attacked China, Korea, Siam, Burma, The Philipines, e.t.c. Furthermore please answer to their actions whilst occupying those countries.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
What gives the Brits any right to search any boat in the Gulf?

[/ QUOTE ]

excerpt:

"The 15 Britons were detained by Iranian naval units on March 23 while patrolling for smugglers as part of a U.N.-mandated force monitoring the Persian Gulf. "

AP

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
So really, what the [censored] are they thinking? It seems like the potential costs of this stunt outweigh any benefits of asserting their sovereignty over their territory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, try to tell that to the US should someone invade their territoriality! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

The Brits Need to Be More.......American
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, I'm having trouble figuring out why Iran would take the Brits hostage.

[/ QUOTE ]
They think they can score domestic political victory, intimidate the UK, and they think they can exchange these UK sailors for captured Iranian spies.

I have to wonder weather any of the UK political leadership has any balls. The fact that the UK political leadership forbid any response while their sailors are being captured is beyond me.

If the Iranians tried this on an American outfit, there would have been a big fire fight. It has not been publicized adequately, but the USA/Iran have been engaged in several fire fights on the Iraq/Iran border. And shortly after the Iraq invasion, Iran moved troops into disputed territory hoping to take advantage of Iraq's weakness.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...0/ixportal.html

Perhaps the UK has become too feminized under Labour's rule. One Tory MP has more balls than a hundred labour MPs.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

This entire crisis seems almost too perfect of an event for drumming up anti-Iranian public sentiment in the UK and US. The sailors have admitted to being in Iranian waters, and have said that they, as instructed, left the main vessel, which was in Iraqi waters, in a smaller craft and traveled into Iranian waters, where they were detained. Why would they do that? Is it possible that the large vessel was indeed in Iraqi waters, but the smaller one which was captured was not? Maybe that's why there has been so much confusion.

Also, I agree with everyone else's sentiment that the sailors (and their support) might not allow themselves to be captured so easily. Perhaps they were instructed not to resist. Is it possible that the Iranians simply took the bait?

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
This entire crisis seems almost too perfect of an event for drumming up anti-Iranian public sentiment in the UK and US. The sailors have admitted to being in Iranian waters, and have said that they, as instructed, left the main vessel, which was in Iraqi waters, in a smaller craft and traveled into Iranian waters, where they were detained. Why would they do that? Is it possible that the large vessel was indeed in Iraqi waters, but the smaller one which was captured was not? Maybe that's why there has been so much confusion.

Also, I agree with everyone else's sentiment that the sailors (and their support) might not allow themselves to be captured so easily. Perhaps they were instructed not to resist. Is it possible that the Iranians simply took the bait?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you suppose that the sailors "admitting to being in Iranian waters" means anything? What do you suppose "under duress" means? The sailors are right now under extreme duress.

The British rules of engagement forbade the sailors from fighting back.

Also, in my opinion there's no confusion at all as to what occurred. The Iranians simply captured hostages and are lying about the location of the capture. Not surprisingly, the first location the Iranians provided was not in Iranian waters - they later "corrected" that to their current claim. Yeah...right, sure, Ok, uh-huh...the second coordinates they provided are really the correct ones - it is simply unbelievable.

Just because it is hard to fathom a motive for the Iranians' actions does not mean a motive does not exist.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
This entire crisis seems almost too perfect of an event for drumming up anti-Iranian public sentiment in the UK and US. The sailors have admitted to being in Iranian waters, and have said that they, as instructed, left the main vessel, which was in Iraqi waters, in a smaller craft and traveled into Iranian waters, where they were detained. Why would they do that? Is it possible that the large vessel was indeed in Iraqi waters, but the smaller one which was captured was not? Maybe that's why there has been so much confusion.

Also, I agree with everyone else's sentiment that the sailors (and their support) might not allow themselves to be captured so easily. Perhaps they were instructed not to resist. Is it possible that the Iranians simply took the bait?

[/ QUOTE ]

These types of routine inspections of suspected smuggler vessels are always mothershipped from larger ships. IOW The marines and sailors would be based on a Ship (most likely a Brit Frigate or Destroyer patrolling the upper Gulf). When a suspected smuggler is located, they are queried by radio. If the answers are nonsatisfactory or nonexistent, they get paid a visit by a team of Marines and sailors via speedboat which is housed on the mother ship. So all that part of the story is routine.

The Brit ship would always have positive control of the boarding team via radio until they actually boarded the suspected smuggler for inspection. Once the boarding team was onboard the smuggler they would have little difficulty in gaining control of the vessel but are in a uniquely vulnerable position WRT other warships. In this case, I suspect an Iranian Patrol Craft likely approached rapidly from Iranian waters and trained it's guns on the smuggler vessel then boarded and took the Brits hostage before the Brit Ship could move in to assist. Once the Iranians had positive control of the smuggler vessel and the Brit Marines and sailors the Brit ship could do little aside from use "harsh language" on the radio OR blow the sheeeet out of the Iranian Patrol Craft. Option 1 OBV had little effect and option 2 would OBV resulted in a brief and fiery battle at sea with follow on results of all Iranians dead along with their ship but also all the Marines and Sailors likely killed as well.

I'm guessing it all happened a bit fast and with little warning from The Iranians the sailors/marines were in "enemy hands" before much could be done.

All that said, The Iranians would still have had to give NO warning (which as I stated in an earlier post is standard for these sort of disputed waters) and come with a clear intention of essentially kidnapping Brit servicemen.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you suppose that the sailors "admitting to being in Iranian waters" means anything? What do you suppose "under duress" means? The sailors are right now under extreme duress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you suppose that the sailors "admitting to being in Iranian waters" means anything? What do you suppose "under duress" means? The sailors are right now under extreme duress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL If I put a gun against your head or some electrodes on your balls, or even better, a gun against your fellow Marine or Sailor's head what WON"T you say? I'd imagine I'd have you saying anything I like.

I don't understand why many who rightly condemn the unmonitored actions of The US in Gitmo can now suddenly condone a far more extreme and dangerous government hijacking and imprisoning foreign military personell.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you suppose that the sailors "admitting to being in Iranian waters" means anything? What do you suppose "under duress" means? The sailors are right now under extreme duress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL If I put a gun against your head or some electrodes on your balls, or even better, a gun against your fellow Marine or Sailor's head what WON"T you say? I'd imagine I'd have you saying anything I like.

I don't understand why many who rightly condemn the unmonitored actions of The US in Gitmo can now suddenly condone a far more extreme and dangerous government hijacking and imprisoning foreign military personell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove that they're under duress. Prisoners have been found to be under duress at Gitmo, but as far as we know, these sailors are being treated fine.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you suppose that the sailors "admitting to being in Iranian waters" means anything? What do you suppose "under duress" means? The sailors are right now under extreme duress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL If I put a gun against your head or some electrodes on your balls, or even better, a gun against your fellow Marine or Sailor's head what WON"T you say? I'd imagine I'd have you saying anything I like.

I don't understand why many who rightly condemn the unmonitored actions of The US in Gitmo can now suddenly condone a far more extreme and dangerous government hijacking and imprisoning foreign military personell.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may or may not be right that the admissions of trespassing into Iranian waters were acquired under duress. But to claim that you know for certain one way or another is absurd. You don't know that, and there's no way you could.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

Last time we had sailors captured by Iran in 2004, they were subjected to mock executions... would that count as duress?

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
Last time we had sailors captured by Iran in 2004, they were subjected to mock executions... would that count as duress?

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet a lot of peopl ein history were subject to duress. So what?

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you suppose that the sailors "admitting to being in Iranian waters" means anything? What do you suppose "under duress" means? The sailors are right now under extreme duress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL If I put a gun against your head or some electrodes on your balls, or even better, a gun against your fellow Marine or Sailor's head what WON"T you say? I'd imagine I'd have you saying anything I like.

I don't understand why many who rightly condemn the unmonitored actions of The US in Gitmo can now suddenly condone a far more extreme and dangerous government hijacking and imprisoning foreign military personell.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may or may not be right that the admissions of trespassing into Iranian waters were acquired under duress. But to claim that you know for certain one way or another is absurd. You don't know that, and there's no way you could.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this line of thought for the simple reason that we are talking about Royal Marines here. These aren't civilians, contractors, reporters, photogs, phonytough jihadists, or any other such fare. These are Royal Marines and The UK makes them just as tough as US Marines. They DON'T make public statements for hostile governments WITHOUT being under SERIOUS duress.

The whole question is irrelevant anyway in that they were Illegally captured and are illegally being detained.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
The whole question is irrelevant anyway in that they were Illegally captured and are illegally being detained.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, what proof of this do you have?

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

I highly suspect no torture or forcing has occured yet, most likely they were trained to simply "confess" when told to (but not diviluge any secrets).

So the Iranians probably put them in front of a camera and say "Ok, confess your crimes and tell the world how you are wrong."

and then they are simply doing it, as they were most likely told to.

If they were to refuse then the bad stuff would possibly start.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
I highly suspect no torture or forcing has occured yet, most likely they were trained to simply "confess" when told to (but not diviluge any secrets).

So the Iran's probably put them in front of a camera and say "Ok, confess your crimes and tell the world how you are wrong."

and then they are simply doing it, as they were most likely told to.

If they were to refuse then the bad stuff would possibly start.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both The US Military and Britsh Militaries have codes of conduct for POWs. Neither of them permit such "confessions." Thus it is UNpossible they were trained to do so in that it would contravene some rather essential core standing orders.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
Last time we had sailors captured by Iran in 2004, they were subjected to mock executions... would that count as duress?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I wasn't familiar with the previous incident. Here's a link discussing it:
link

If that link is a fair representation of the previous incident, then, IMO, by far the most likely scenario is that the confessions that have been aired were tortured or otherwise coerced out of the Brits.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you suppose that the sailors "admitting to being in Iranian waters" means anything? What do you suppose "under duress" means? The sailors are right now under extreme duress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can they NOT be under duress in their current situation, regardless of whose waters they were in? Are you sure you know what "duress" means? They could have been treated very well yet their current situation inherently places them under duress.

Simply put, the fact that they know that cooperating with what their captors would wish them to say, is likely to produce better results or better treatment for themselves (versus non-cooperation) means that anything they say about theeir captors or treatment may be disregarded as having been influenced by implied if not actual coercion.

If you were a hostage would you dare to publicly criticize your captors? Of course not, and saying positive things about your captors might even save your life. That is why they are under considered to be under duress.

Finally, an Iranian spokesman said that the captive sailors may be unnerved by hearing chants of "Death to America!" from crowds or from guardsmen.

The reason I am explaining this is because you seemed to think that their word that they had trespassed in Iranian waters could possibly be taken at face value. That isn't the case, given their situation.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Last time we had sailors captured by Iran in 2004, they were subjected to mock executions... would that count as duress?

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet a lot of peopl ein history were subject to duress. So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you can't rely on what people under duress say. The publicly aired "confessions" of the British sailors must therefore be taken with a grain of salt.

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

thats a pretty broad deffinition of duress, by that deff. it seems that i have been under duress my entire life. As I should cooperate with parents, police, friends or else face a (perhaps unspoken) threat of retaliation.

You just never know if criticising your best friend could get you killed!

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

[ QUOTE ]
thats a pretty broad deffinition of duress, by that deff. it seems that i have been under duress my entire life. As I should cooperate with parents, police, friends or else face a (perhaps unspoken) threat of retaliation.

You just never know if criticising your best friend could get you killed!

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a bit different when you are being held by a hostile country which has mobs wanting to kill Americans - and they chant "Death to America!" - and the penalty for spying is death and you have been told you may be tried. Seriously, don't you think that places the sailors under duress?

Re: Iran Hostage Crisis 2.0
 

I am sure only CIA-Approved interogation techniques have been used. Maybe some frat house type tom foolery thrown in.

A little waterboarding, anyone?
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]