UK sailors captured at gunpoint

kickars

New Member
Then the Iranians are very stupid - we don't back down in the face of bullying.
Of course it does - they were taken directly to Tehran for "questioning". It was probably organised by the central government.
Yes, everybody know British people will never back down in the face of bullying. But I'm not sure about current British government though (I mean verbally the government won't, BUT....) .:mad:

I don't think the 'it' you two were talking about were the same. Coz we all know there are two different kind of 'it' in Tehran if you know what I mean.;)
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Having watched media coverage on BBC News 24 today, & the former Naval officer they wheeled out (who was the man in charge during the 2004 incident) to discuss the situation, these guys were out in 2 R.I.B.s, helping to search shipping that has been suspected of helping to ship arms & insurgents into Iraq.

In undertaking this activity they are actually helping to keep that area of the sea free from such things, something that the Iranians should have been doing themselves!

In addition, the Rules of Engagement (ROE), have been changed for UK Armed forces for the last few years, aiming to help difuse a situation, rather than inflame it.

In following these directives, the sailors & marines actively surrendered to more heavily armed forces, to prevent any esscalation of actions that might cause an incident. This pretty much amounts to them owning up to anything that they are being accused of, even if they didn't do it.

In the meantime the politicos & the foreign office will be doing what they can to "grease the wheels" & get the 14 men & 1 woman home ASAP.

The Iranians can do all the sabre rattling they wish, but if this incident turns sour, all they'll do is bring down the wrath of the UN Nations upon them.

It is in THEIR interest to make that happen.

Systems Adict
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
It seems to me that there are two clear issues that need to be addressed. The first is to secure the immediate release of the British service personnel and the second is to put new rules of engagement in place to ensure that there is no repetition of this situation.

The British Government has already begun diplomatic efforts to secure their release but I hope that every other country involved in the policing action that HMS Cornwall was involved in will give Britain their total support, both diplomatically and, if need be, militarily. Iran has to know that this sort of action will not be tolerated and that Britain's allies will stand solidly alongside in whatever actions are necessary. Hopefully it will be resolved without further incident but if not I believe that a response ranging from heavy sanctions to military action should be implemented.

IMO, it is essential that the rules of engagement must be immediately changed to bring the naval force in the region to a virtual war footing. It must be made clear to the Iranians that any attempt to prevent this force from going about its business will be met with a lethal response, i.e. the sinking of their vessels. RHIBs inspecting ships must be covered by helicopter and/or surface combat ships prepared to respond to any threat in whatever way is necessary.

Cheers
 
Last edited:

rickusn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
"The Iranians can do all the sabre rattling they wish, but if this incident turns sour, all they'll do is bring down the wrath of the UN Nations upon them.

It is in THEIR interest to make that happen."

Unfortunately this is not true.

Russia and China among other nations will back Iran to the hilt.

The UN is impotent and always has been this incident could well spell the end of this useless organization.

In actuality this incident could well ignite WWIII or doom the UK as well as the US to impotence and indeed even worse consequences than WWIII would.

Neither outcome is acceptable to me but make no mistake we are staring at these results squarely in the eye.

But too many billions of others in the world this is a great thing and looked at as a blessing.

Misguided though they are which in the normal course of events they will come to understand and rue.

Alas to late for them to escape their ultimate fate of living a life far worse than death would be.

Maybe thats how it should be.

Bring it on.

I counsel no appeasement to any nation as it only and always breeds consequences far worse than are neccessary.

I paraphrase a US President from more than 65 years ago.:

'The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.'
 

bonita.h

New Member
it's actually not a serious incident,just a chain of IRan's serial actions coping with US's military deployment that aims at iran. Iram will surely not trigger the war which will be destined to bring great suffer to herself. The hostages will probably be released very soon.
 

rickusn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
You are one of the mistaken ones(see below** for an excerpt from one of your posts that is total nonsense but as usual because its anti-American its OK if an American posted such nonsense about another country they would be instantly banned) who needs to understand what is happening here and what is at stake.

You have far more to loose for far longer than I.

This is a various serious incident which could well trigger war.

Here is Irans latest response to the useless UN on the nuclear issue. Do you really think their response to the hostage situation will be more diplomatic much less timely. History has shown otherwise.:

"The world must know — and it does — that even the harshest political and economic sanctions or other threats are far too weak to coerce the Iranian nation to retreat from their legal and legitimate demands," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the Security Council after the vote. "Suspension is neither an option nor a solution."

Look at this appeasement at the UN which I warned against. These arent sanctions just mostly a whiny, begging please do this. "A call on..." Puhlease?!?!?!?!:


KEY ELEMENTS OF U.N. RESOLUTION ON IRAN
LATEST RESOLUTION:


• A ban on Iranian arms exports and on any country buying Iranian weapons. • A call on all nations "to exercise vigilance and restraint" in supplying tanks, combat aircraft and other heavy weapons to Iran.
• An asset freeze on 15 individuals and 13 organizations and companies.
• A call on all governments and financial institutions not to make any new commitments "of grants, financial assistance, or concessional loans" to the Iranian government.
• A call on all countries to exercise "vigilance and restraint" on the entry or transit through their territory of the individuals who provide support or are involved with Iran's nuclear activities.
• A requirement that all countries report the transit or entry of any of people whose assets have been frozen to the Security Council committee monitoring sanctions against Iran.

**"US should not impose her interest over other countries, the root of the mess in the Middle East nowadays attribute to that."
 

Distiller

New Member
UNARMED??? Do I understand that correctly?

And what was HMS Cornwall doing during that time? No support? How far out do they operate their Zodiacs? Why was there no area surveillance warning of Iranian MPB activities? "Defusing the situation" by making clowns out of soldiers. Unarmed!

And everybody knows it was not a "mistake" by the Persians. But no wonder they have no respect for Western troops and toot about taking fair-haired blue-eyed officers whenever they want. Everybody who had been in that part of the world - even if it was only on a business trip - knows how important respect and keeping face is in those retarded cultures. The Persians are getting high and think Western soldiers are button-pushing pussies. Maybe they are right. And what all that does to the moral! If the West is afraid of starting a war they should get out there, or better never have gone there at all.

Another dangerous disgrace!
 

bonita.h

New Member
You are one of the mistaken ones(see below** for an excerpt from one of your posts that is total nonsense but as usual because its anti-American its OK if an American posted such nonsense about another country they would be instantly banned) who needs to understand what is happening here and what is at stake.

You have far more to loose for far longer than I.

This is a various serious incident which could well trigger war.

Here is Irans latest response to the useless UN on the nuclear issue. Do you really think their response to the hostage situation will be more diplomatic much less timely. History has shown otherwise.:

"The world must know — and it does — that even the harshest political and economic sanctions or other threats are far too weak to coerce the Iranian nation to retreat from their legal and legitimate demands," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the Security Council after the vote. "Suspension is neither an option nor a solution."

Look at this appeasement at the UN which I warned against. These arent sanctions just mostly a whiny, begging please do this. "A call on..." Puhlease?!?!?!?!:


KEY ELEMENTS OF U.N. RESOLUTION ON IRAN
LATEST RESOLUTION:


• A ban on Iranian arms exports and on any country buying Iranian weapons. • A call on all nations "to exercise vigilance and restraint" in supplying tanks, combat aircraft and other heavy weapons to Iran.
• An asset freeze on 15 individuals and 13 organizations and companies.
• A call on all governments and financial institutions not to make any new commitments "of grants, financial assistance, or concessional loans" to the Iranian government.
• A call on all countries to exercise "vigilance and restraint" on the entry or transit through their territory of the individuals who provide support or are involved with Iran's nuclear activities.
• A requirement that all countries report the transit or entry of any of people whose assets have been frozen to the Security Council committee monitoring sanctions against Iran.

**"US should not impose her interest over other countries, the root of the mess in the Middle East nowadays attribute to that."
what's your definition of "anti-american"? Should eveybody say blessing words to your troops invading other countries?? all my posted are just my objective thoughts based on the situations,it's not nonsense,ok?
Iran's nuclear program is unquestionablely a threat to the middle east ,especially for Israel,as their president alleged. But have you considered how many problems US has properly solved by their guns in the past ? pls don't mention the iraq war. say nothing of the difference between Iraq and iran.Iranian firmly support their government and nuclear program. It's no doubt iran cannot withstand the attack from powerful US, but hatred can not be eliminated . you could defer it ,but not cancel it, if the threat from us always exist.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
it's actually not a serious incident,just a chain of IRan's serial actions coping with US's military deployment that aims at iran. Iram will surely not trigger the war which will be destined to bring great suffer to herself. The hostages will probably be released very soon.
The Sunday Times says they are going to be charged, convicted and executed.

Are you sure it's still not serious?
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
do you have a link
It's the lead on the website - look for it yourself. But I forgot the "may" - of course it's not confirmed. The paper also pointed out the same threats were made in 2004, but it ended peacefully.

That said things are different now that the UN has imposed some serious sanctions on Iran and some of the Revolutionary Guard are under arrest in Iraq. If they don't get whatever it is they want, I don't think they'll just hand them back.
 
Last edited:

bonita.h

New Member
The Sunday Times says they are going to be charged, convicted and executed.

Are you sure it's still not serious?
trust the media ??
mybe, they will be charged ,convicted and.. executed by "Sunday Times".


they are hostages, they are useful for iran, any hurt to them make no sense .
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
mybe, they will be charged ,convicted and.. executed by "Sunday Times".
Don't joke about such a serious situation please.

they are hostages, they are useful for iran, any hurt to them make no sense.
It makes no sense to take on the entire world over having the right to enrich your own nuclear fuel, despite guarantees from countries like Russia they will supply it - but they still do it.

It makes no sense for a president to do his best to annoy the world and spew propaganda while his country suffers from high unemployment and a lackluster economy.

Who said Iran was rational?
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
My bet is also on the Iranians wanting back some of their active personal from Iraq and thought that exchanging them with some british sailors would be a good idea.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
My bet is also on the Iranians wanting back some of their active personal from Iraq and thought that exchanging them with some british sailors would be a good idea.
Then that's very stupid, because we don't have control of their men - the Americans do. What if they say "no, we won't let ourselves be held to ransom by the Iranians"?
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
With the Brits operating in the area of Basra I would not bet on them not having some iranians by themselfs.
Also there might be no US sailors available for capturing and the ROEs of the RN might be better suited for such a task as it might be that the USN would not stand by and look.
 

bonita.h

New Member
Don't joke about such a serious situation please.



It makes no sense to take on the entire world over having the right to enrich your own nuclear fuel, despite guarantees from countries like Russia they will supply it - but they still do it.

It makes no sense for a president to do his best to annoy the world and spew propaganda while his country suffers from high unemployment and a lackluster economy.

Who said Iran was rational?
sorry , i dont mean to joke. I also have been astonished by the remarks made by iran's new president ,of course it's not rational and contribute nothing to peace. but we should consider more about the reasons, the conflict of interests of both countries . all iran did is to insure his interests ,why they do that? becoz they feel the threats from some powerful countries.they must
defend,nuclear weapons is ,of course, the best choice. also DPRK's.
any guarantee from other countries is unreliable compared with herowns.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
It makes no sense for a president to do his best to annoy the world and spew propaganda while his country suffers from high unemployment and a lackluster economy.

Who said Iran was rational?
It does when you're trying to distract attention from the failings of the economy, or seek someone else to blame for them ("The shortages are due to the US sanctions! Death to America!").

A word on the division of powers (according to the formal rules, at least), within Iran.

The President is responsible for the civil administration, including economic matters & civil foreign affairs. He has far fewer powers than the US president. He has no authority over the military or the judiciary. He has no veto over legislation passed by the Majlis. He can't declare war. There is no notion of "executive privilege". He is subject to the law in the same way as every other citizen, & may be prosecuted - or sued in a civil action - in the normal courts, in the normal way. He signs treaties, but only with the prior approval (not subsequent ratification) of the Majlis.
The Majlis (parliament) passes laws, to be enforced by the executive bodies. Like the president, members lack the legal protections of members of legislative bodies in other countries.
The judiciary & military run themselves, subject to oversight by the other layer of government, which is above both the president & Majlis. This is unique to Iran, AFAIK. It consists of the religious "Supreme Leader" & a bunch of committees of "experts", consisting of religious leaders, legal experts, etc. It has little executive authority, but considerable powers of oversight & veto. It appoints the heads of state TV & radio, the heads of the armed forces & the joint staff, the justices of the highest court, & can veto legislation & treaties, subject to certain rules laid down in the constitution. The "Supreme Leader" is the formal commander in chief of the armed forces. He can declare war. But he doesn't dirty his fingers with the day to day management of anything, just lays down limits.

When we discuss what Ahmedinejad says, we should bear all this in mind. He has a power base, but his only formal power over the military is (subject to the agreement of both the Majlis & Supreme Leadership) budgetary, & only the overall amount. The military is free to spend its money how it wishes, overseen (limited by, not prescribed by) the Supreme Leadership. He has personal influence over the Revolutionary Guard, through friendships & political alliances, but it's purely nod & wink stuff. Ahmedinejad can't order them to kidnap our sailors. Or order them not to. The armed forces, including the Revolutionary Guard, have an extraordinary, by our standards, degree of operational freedom. And they don't quite fit into the formal system, being off to one side of the conventional armed forces. Tricky to say exactly who they report to.

What's probably happening now is a lot of negotiation & discussion between the various power centres about what to do with our blokes.
 

rickusn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
"what's your definition of "anti-american"? Should eveybody say blessing words to your troops invading other countries?? all my posted are just my objective thoughts based on the situations,it's not nonsense,ok? "

None of your posts are "objective". You are nothing but a chinese troll.

Ok no moderation then the gloves are off.

Stand by further action.
 
Top