Thread: Britain Appeals To UN In Sailors' Case

Originally Posted by Amled

Yet at the same time it stresses the point, that it is these hard-line elements that are in the ascendancy, and if we choose to take the article at face value, it is they who are setting the agenda. Case in point the seizure of the British sailors

I read it the other way. The sailors were captured by the hardliners acting alone, -and for a small action like this that can't be hard for the IRGC,- but were then released without price by the pragmatists. It suggests that the latter dominate; in fact Ahmadinajed has been losing popularity and favour. That's why it would have been such a huge mistake to start tactical bombing, which would have shifted the balance of power to the hardliners.

Originally Posted by chankya

In that regard, may i point out that the US detained a few Iranian diplomats inside Iraq and one possibly in Turkey. There is something called diplomatic immunity. Even if you think they are instigating or supporting violence or carrying on espionage activity you still really shouldn't do things like that.

That doesn't justify holding the British sailors for so long. Mind you, if they thought they were in Iranian waters then they were justified in capturing them. But holding and parading them around was wrong.

And everyone here seems to want to make a distinction between Britain and the US now. For the most part though they always seem to act together and I would suggest that as far as the rest of the world is concerned at least militarily they are a single entity.

Chankya, there is no moral justification for what Iran did. I agree with that. and I agree with the parading of the 15 Brits. It is damn wrong.

Though, I will remind you the US/UK do their own parading when it suits them. Remember Saddam Hussein after being captured with his mouth open and the doctor. Now, what that image suppose to represent ??? ... the PR in the DoD knows very well what they are doing when they released that image. The only thing I ask from people is to be fair and stick to their principals. If you dont like parading prisonners or kindappeers or whatever, stick to your principals and always crititize whoever is doing it. Do not applaud (not talking about you) when u see the Iraqi prisonners and then act like victims when somebody else (in this case Iran) does for their own wicked propoganda network.

Final Point: be fair.

As far as diplomatic immunity, I guess that immunity didnt work quite well.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

The main thing is they are released, I'll be interested to see the diplomatic developments over the next few months. Well done Ray, you called it correctly, I'd expected this to run for months....

Thank you dear moderator, that is very kind of you. I called it correctly also on the day one, while everyone was talking about tortue and return of hostage crisis and let loosing the dogs of war and all this cool and good stuff.

I will take 1/2 of Ray's trophy if you dont mind.

Originally Posted by xerxes

Thank you dear moderator, that is very kind of you. I called it correctly also on the day one, while everyone was talking about tortue and return of hostage crisis and let loosing the dogs of war and all this cool and good stuff.

I will take 1/2 of Ray's trophy if you dont mind.

by all means Xerxes, by all means

Originally Posted by brokensickle

Mammoud is declaring victory in hostage deal IMO.
uk HAS GAINED BACK ITS warriors. THIS IS WAR FOR IRAN and political failure for uk. uk MAY AS WELL CONVERT AS they TRUST THE LITTLE DESPOT MORE THAN their own survival instincts. It is a sad day. THE ANSWER IS FOUND IN TWO WORDS "FEAR NOT". WE HAVE TO HAVE A WINNING STRATEGY GREATER THAN THE MUSLIM"S. THEY ARE FOCUSED ON CONQUERING. IF WE KEEP UP OUR LACK OF STRATEGY THE MUSLIM"S WILL WIN THIS WITHOUT A DOUBT. AND MANY IN THE WEST WILL BE COMPELLED TO SUBMIT. HUMAN NATURE AND SURVIVAL INSTINCT WILL KICK IN AND THE WEAK WILL CONVERT AS THEY WILL PICK THE WINNER AS THEY SEE IT. THE uk DOES NOT SEE itself AS WINNING IMHO. SOME THINK THAT IF WE GLOBALIZE SOMEHOW THE MUSLIM"S WILL JUST COMPLY AND OUR KINDNESS WILL WIN THE DAY. TO BAD THE MUSLIM'S DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY.

Ivan, I dont think Muslims as whole do have an overall strategy, except the centuries old inter-islam strategy of Sunni vs Shia.

Surely each muslim nation has strategy regarding the geopolitical situation around them, but thats national affair rather religious. Even, in case of Mahmud Ahmedinejad (which in this forum we shortened to A-jad for ease), he could have been a communist and he would still be acting crazy like that. Speaking of Iran, Shia Islam as a whole is being used as an ideology to fuel their geopolitical ambitions of Tehran. That ideology could also be Persian nationlism like the Shah era. However, the latter would be much less fruitfull and effective because there is only one Persian nation whereas the Shia brotherhood ideology can be exported to Iraq and Lebenon, and therefore works better. and I can assure you Saudi Arabia and Iran fear each other ideology far more than anything else.

IMHO, the "muslims as a whole" do NOT have an strategy. and IMHO this mistake that people make is akin to the idea of a single Red communist empire controlled from Moscow that US administration had in mind right after WWII, without taking account major differences within the communsit camp such as Tito's Yogouslavia or Mao's China.

Originally Posted by xerxes

Ivan, I dont think Muslims as whole do have an overall strategy, except the centuries old inter-islam strategy of Sunni vs Shia.

If you don't mind me hijacking the thread a bit.

Xerxes, I understand Iran is Shia while most of the Muslim world is Sunni, is that correct?

Does that have anything to do with Iran being Persian?

Are the Shiites in Iraq Persians? Or are they all Persians? Who are the Kurds? I understand they don't even speak Iraqi (is there such a language?). Does Iraq speak Persian as well?

Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by gunnut

If you don't mind me hijacking the thread a bit.

Xerxes, I understand Iran is Shia while most of the Muslim world is Sunni, is that correct?

Does that have anything to do with Iran being Persian?

Are the Shiites in Iraq Persians? Or are they all Persians? Who are the Kurds? I understand they don't even speak Iraqi (is there such a language?). Does Iraq speak Persian as well?

Thanks in advance.

no problem mate,

Well, it does to a degree, back in the days of the Sunni Ottomans, a turcoman tribe named Safavi led by Shah Ismail who were followers of the heretic Shia sect setup their kingdom to the west of Caspien Sea and gradually took over the whole Persia. Vaguely speaking, the Persians wanting to be different then Arabs accepted Shia to be their version of Islam prior to the rise of Safavids. Therefore, before the days of Shah Ismail, Shia was powerfull in Iran. For example, the Timur Lang, his son Shahrukh and Uzun Hassan were all also followers of the Husseinian religion. But, it was only when the Safavi led by Shah Ismail took power in Iran that Shia became an Persian signature and national religion.

The Shia in Iraq are not Persians, infact inversly a part of the western Iranian provinces bordering Iraq are actually populated by Arabs to a large degree, whom Saddam during 1980 invasion pleaded them to turn against their Persian brothers, to no avail. Equally, Khomeini pleas to the Shia Iraqis in Basra to turn against their Iraq brothers fell on deaf ears. Of the Kurds I know little, though I am sure they both speak Kurdish and Arabic. Infact, the muslim hero Sultan Salahuddin was a Muslim Kurd and not an Arab, and most Arabs do not know that. A dark side of Kurdish history is their hands in the Armeniean genocide and being the Sublime Porte's hitmen. Today, they have large population in Iran, Iraq and Turkey.

Egypt was also Shia during Fatimid era though now they are mostly Christians and Sunnis. Of the Lebenon shia, i dont know much. The Shia in West afghanistan are ofcourse were part of the realm of the Safavids as well. I think the only Shah in Perian history that was NOT Shia, but the great Nadir Shah who raided Dehli and took the infamous peackthrone .. sorry Ray. I think the modern founder of Afghanistan was Ahmad Shah, better know as Ahmad Khan who was a general under the Persian Nadir Shah, untill the latter was assassinated and his vast empire splinterred.

hope this helps

Originally Posted by xerxes

Chankya, there is no moral justification for what Iran did. I agree with that. and I agree with the parading of the 15 Brits. It is damn wrong.

Though, I will remind you the US/UK do their own parading when it suits them. Remember Saddam Hussein after being captured with his mouth open and the doctor. Now, what that image suppose to represent ??? ... the PR in the DoD knows very well what they are doing when they released that image. The only thing I ask from people is to be fair and stick to their principals. If you dont like parading prisonners or kindappeers or whatever, stick to your principals and always crititize whoever is doing it. Do not applaud (not talking about you) when u see the Iraqi prisonners and then act like victims when somebody else (in this case Iran) does for their own wicked propoganda network.

Final Point: be fair.

As far as diplomatic immunity, I guess that immunity didnt work quite well.

To be fair I don't think the Americans could have claimed they captured Saddam without video footage and Saddam is a much higher profile detainee than 15 sailors/Marines.

I see with what you are saying SA, but I bet the image of Saddam with his mouth open with a doctor, smells like the work of great PR department within DoD. There are many way to show pictures of captured Saddam to confirm that he is captured, that was the humiliating way. Also, I could be wrong but in the first Gulf War there were many videos of mass surrendering were shown en masse on TV.

Originally Posted by xerxes

hope this helps

Very.

Thank you.

But now I'm intrigued and want to read up on the history of that region...all 4000 years...

After reading the mind numbing diatribe of the first 5 or 6 pages I skipped to the end.... The sailors were released without bombs..... Any bombs should have been dropped in 1979 when the American embassy was taken. America could have destroyed Iran easily back then contrary to popular belief, but Jimmy Carter was a sissy and has caused much of the problems we have today with muslim nations. Those nations only respect strength, something we didn't show any of back then. As a member of the US Navy in 1979, to a man we wanted to go in and take our people back, we were not allowed to by our president.

Teddy Roosevelt explained the art of diplomacy the correct way, and in very few words. "Speak softly and carry a big stick". I'm sure the British did just that, speak softly in public and behind the scenes warn Iran they would lose their Navy, their Airforce, and their nuclear production facilities in short order and there would be nothing they could do to stop it from happening. It's known in poker as "calling their bluff". Of course the savvy diplomat always leaves a way for his opponent to save face....

Ray and Xerxes, whilst diplomacy seems to have led to the release of the captives, I am not sure that the release was down to British diplomacy, but a result of Iranian guile, -on the part of the pragmatists in the regime. They held them long enough to maximise tension, but not so long that it would look like a climbdown or a purely result of artful British diplomacy and threat, rather than Iranian “goodwill”. They were helped by their new year holiday period during which no decisions and little diplomatic contact was possible, but added to the tension and head of steam in the media.

Now they can show the release is a gesture of goodwill, to add to their argument that they can be trusted with nuclear technology. Whilst noone in the West would buy this, there are plenty in the UN that will.

Originally Posted by bandwagon

Ray and Xerxes, whilst diplomacy seems to have led to the release of the captives, I am not sure that the release was down to British diplomacy, but a result of Iranian guile, -on the part of the pragmatists in the regime. They held them long enough to maximise tension, but not so long that it would look like a climbdown or a purely result of artful British diplomacy and threat, rather than Iranian “goodwill”. They were helped by their new year holiday period during which no decisions and little diplomatic contact was possible, but added to the tension and head of steam in the media.

Now they can show the release is a gesture of goodwill, to add to their argument that they can be trusted with nuclear technology. Whilst noone in the West would buy this, there are plenty in the UN that will.

Right On!

Originally Posted by brokensickle

Right On!

Sickle? You’re agreeing with a post I made? That immediately has me concerned that you are inferring something I did not intend to say; so did you realize I did not mean to imply in that post that all homosexuals are evil?

I do think our best bet over the threat from Iran is to support the pragmatists in the regime, rather than treating Iran as one “evil” entity. The pragmatists will do whatever is best for Iran and the regime and tend to be moderate. The stronger they are the more grip they may get on the IRGC and the nutjob hardliners.