British Sailors Captured By Iran

Remove all ads!

However, based on the maps I have seen, this dispute did not occur in the river, but rather, further out at sea. The maps I have seen also show, in the sea, where the internationally recognized lines are drawn. So unless that area is disputed as well, then I don't see why GPS wouldn't help. Of course if that area is disputed as well, then knowing where you are doesn't really help any, if both sides claim that water as theirs.

 

Well, based on Iran's recent 'tubthumping' with its nuclear weapons program, I'd say that even if the Brit boats were in waters that Iran previously admitted were Iraqi-owned, this may be a overture towards gaining more 'turf' - they eventually offer to release the 15 in exchange for recognition of *their* possession of the waters in question.

Just my , and totally cynical conjecture...

 

Commodore Nick Lambert, the Royal Navy commander of the operation on which the Marines were captured:

and you wonder where Tony Blair takes his utter confidence from.

PS: I found an interesting theory by David Igantius:

Very speculative, and I don't like about it that it, despite the absence of evidence, takes an Iranian nuklear weapons program as a given. However, the thesis of an internal Iranian power struggle sounds very much on target to me. I think this is it.

Still, this might the deeper reason: That the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps need confrontation and the neo-cons and vice versa so they can continue to demonise each other to justify their own radicalism. Institutional self-preservation.

[ March 31, 2007, 13:23: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

One of the things that I've heard that doesn't make things any easier is that Iran doesn't recognize the internationally recognized territorial borders in those waters. They claim control over areas that no one else recognizes they have authority over.

 

Bush has come out ans backed us up. I never thought I'd say this, but.. thanks George! We needed some kind of support.

 

Kinda amusing to see the people who have been against US aggression turn into gung ho supernationalists when their boys are caught with the fingers in the jamjar.

 

Terry Jones:

Read the entire article here.

 

I guess if you like articles that are written to basically be a straw man, that ignore the obvious, and compare apples to oranges then it is a good piece.

By the way...it isn't really all that hard to set up a stage and put these soldiers on display for a little video tape and stills before you take them back to their cells...the Vietnamese and Japanese both did it with Allied soldiers in their respective wars. Somehow I don't thing those soldiers would be writing letters admitting they were at fault unless they were under some sort of duress.

 

what the hell are you talking about? the (majority) UK has never been against a justifiable war, there were little or no protests against the kosovo war, the first gulf war or the afghanistan war, the protests were relating to iraq because we knew full well that the war was an illegal ploy to secure oil prices for the US. tensions have been high with iran for a while now, and even before this hostile action by iran there was support for a move to destroy their uranium enrichment program.

as for the quantanamo article, its just an attempt at poking people in the eyes, iran couldnt possibly treat the 15 like that or they would already be at war, history shows from the iraq - iran war that they treat their prisoners very badly - dental torture, beatings tieing captives in the sun for long hours are just a few ot the methods they like.

 

Darkwolf,
I don't believe the Iranians are nice guys. But I do think they treat the Brits like POWs.

The article, as Shoshimo' rightly said, is just some serious poking (I guess Brits understand British humour better). Jones makes the point that people who are silent about Gitmo or other detention abuses should, and that includes the Brits, too, please shut up about the 'Iranian outrages' against British POWs. Because if they don't it's selective outrage, and thus, bigotry. If you're against such things happening, be against it altogether, and not only when things happen to 'our guys'.

I think to some degree what we can observe here is traditional Chauvinism or Jingoism, not exactly the most charming expression of national sentiment.

Don't forget the tension between the US/ UK and Iran. Both have put intense pressure put on Iran. It isn't as if the Iranians have snatched British soldiers on a daily basis for three decades as a welcome distraction from otherwise tedious border duty. You cannot view the prisoner story out of that context.
I stand with my point that the sailors are in hard circumstances now, but just like getting killed that is risk of being a soldier. That doesn't mean they deserve it, or that Iran is right, but just that.

 

Huh; the wiki page on this hot topic brought up a point; why did Iran detain these foreign military personnel?

Per the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (This is under Part II, Section 3, Subsection C.)

In other words, if a RN warship is proceeding with search and seizure - without Iran's permission - within Iranian territorial waters, Article 30 clarifies that it's within Iran's right to tell the RN vessel (and/or any boats from same) to leave the area they are infringing on and Article 32 limits Iran's actions to THAT.


There is one hitch to my thought about the illegality of seizing the sailors and Marines - Iran has signed this agreement, but not yet ratified it.
(see here - under "Signature and Ratification")

 

But of course, jaded empath, as Aiky pointed out (although relating to a slightly different object), once the world superpower chooses to ignore the UN, why should Iran follow their guidelines? Or anyone else for that matter?

 

the difference is simple, who will stop the US?

 

Today the Independent reports that seemingly Iran snatched the Brits in retaliation for a failed US attempt to snatch two quite senior Iranian security officials who had been on an official visit to northern Iraq, during which they met the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, and later saw Massoud Barzani, the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government.
The two Iranian officials were Mohammed Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The attempt by the US to seize these two high-ranking Iranian security officers openly meeting with Iraqi leaders is somewhat as if Iran had tried to kidnap the heads of the CIA and MI6 while they were on an official visit to a country neighbouring Iran, such as Pakistan or Afghanistan.

This fits to the stories of an Iranian General who diasppeared in Turkey. It seems a part of the US strategy to put pressure on Iran to snatch their personnel to keep Iran off ballance. Considering the Iranian reaction now, it seems to have succeeded in triggering a response against Washington's weaker partner.

There is also word that the British government quietly is unhappy with the US stance toward Iran. US calls for tough action and British quiet negotiations don't mix so well. Thanks to Blair the Brits are privy to share the consequences of US actions, wether they endorse them or not, without having a say in these decisions.

 

EDIT: note to self: do not repeat hearsay without first confirming.

[ April 04, 2007, 19:24: Message edited by: AMaster ]

 

Important: the captives have been released:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6525905.stm

He said it was a gift to the British people for the coming Easter (and the already past birthday of Mohammed, to each their own I guess). Well, congratulations to the families of the sailors, the people involved in the negotiations and all British. Here's hoping it will be a good omen for the entire crisis.

 

Good for them

 

So Ahmadinejad releases them, awards the men who captured them, admonishes the British government... will this tactic work anywhere? Probably not in Europe, but how will the rest of the Middle East see it?

Perhaps it was all a ruse in the first place so Iran can say, "Look, we *do* deal generously with the international community."

It's good to know that they're free, though.

edit: grammatical error.

[ April 04, 2007, 20:47: Message edited by: Midwinter ]

 

Since Iran broke international law to capture them, and since they have not followed the Geneva Conventions this is a false statement by definition.

Brits=Apples
Guantanamo=Oranges

Not sure I can make it any plainer than that.

Soldiers should not have to expect to be grabbed by a foreign nation who crossed outside their borders to do so. You just stated that soldiers are valid targets at any point anywhere, without a declaration of war or any justification.