15 UK sailors captured at gunpoint - Page 10

xerxes · 03-26-2007, 15:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by execrable

xerxes... I was on the BBC website when the breaking news was first posted. If you've ever watched a story unfold you'll note that the story changes as initial panic and details start to come through. What I posted was word for word what the original breaking news thread contained.

As to why the gulf was called "Arabian" - there are 15 british sailors and marines captured and all you can worry about is why the original BBC reporter (or myself) called it Arabian?

Bluesman, thank you for your comments when you tried explaining, I don't know "xerxes" enough yet, not having been here long but I thank you for pointing out the flaws in his argument and suspicions against me.

Shame we may never meet cos you'd get a beer from me anyday mate.

My dear friend, had the subject of the thread was on-going genocidal mass killing of 500 Africans, and had someone question the name of the lake or the gulf or the ocean. The same reaction would not have happened.

It did happened because these events were related to the capture of 15 BRITISH servicemen. But you are right on that. It was out of the place, but only because it involved Royal Navy and Britons. Not because it was the most grave humanetiran crisis. As far as the gentlemen who kindly pointed out the flaw in my argument: cause and effect. There is history behind everthing.

**astralis** · 03-26-2007, 15:10 PM

US troops 'would have fought Iranian captors' - Independent Online Edition > Middle East

US troops 'would have fought Iranian captors'
By Terri Judd in Bahrain
Published: 26 March 2007

A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.

In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive.

Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation."

The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: " The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'"

His comments came as it was reported British intelligence had been warned by the CIA that Iran would seek revenge for the detention of five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq two months ago but refused to raise threat levels in line with their US counterparts. The capture of the eight sailors and seven marines - including one young mother - will undoubtedly renew accusations that Britain's determination to maintain a friendly face in the region has left its troops frequently under protected.

Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, the Royal Navy team from HMS Cornwall were seized on Friday after completing a UN-authorised inspection of a merchant dhow in what they insist were clearly Iraqi waters. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy appeared in half a dozen attack speedboats mounted with machine guns..

Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."

Three days after the team were taken hostage, Tony Blair publicly spoke about the diplomatic crisis for the first time. "I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us," he said

"We have certainly sent the message back to them very clearly indeed. They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong," he added, speaking from Berlin.

In a telephone conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki last night the Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett "expressed concern regarding the detention of the British soldiers". An Iranian official later confirmed that Iran may give consular access to the British sailors once an investigation into the incident is completed.

Yesterday, the armed forces spokesman General Ali Reza Afshar said the crew were in "sterling health" and were being interrogated in Tehran, where the Iranians claim they have "confessed" to straying into Iranian waters.

The Foreign Office minister, Lord Triesman, held "frank" discussions with the Iranian ambassador yesterday .

Dreadnought · 03-26-2007, 15:17 PM

The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence.

Dam skippy Dad!

jeffpayne56 · 03-26-2007, 16:11 PM

Oh well perhaps we can now justify Trident, a little sunshine for Iran would be nice

pdf27 · 03-26-2007, 16:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astralis

A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.

In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive.

Two problems with that:
1) We were apparently very heavily outnumbered and outgunned. Leaving aside questions of if the Iranians could have been stopped before they got close, once they did had we decided to fight heavy casualties would probably have been unavoidable.
2) Had they fought they would most likely have been arrested for murder and sent for trial in the UK. I'm not altogether joking here
<Nor am I in the slightest bit bitter about the government's habit of prosecuting anybody in sight if allegations are made. Honest guv.>

jeffpayne56 · 03-26-2007, 17:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdf27

Two problems with that:
1) We were apparently very heavily outnumbered and outgunned. Leaving aside questions of if the Iranians could have been stopped before they got close, once they did had we decided to fight heavy casualties would probably have been unavoidable.
2) Had they fought they would most likely have been arrested for murder and sent for trial in the UK. I'm not altogether joking here
<Nor am I in the slightest bit bitter about the government's habit of prosecuting anybody in sight if allegations are made. Honest guv.>

If the past has anything to go on, they'd be put out to dry by our government, no wonder 11000 have gone awol over the last few years, the government just don't give a damm, bloody glad I'm out of it. If Maggie was still in power god help Iran and the mad mullas. Please if you believe in a god of some sort say a prayer for the 15 hostages and if you don't spare a thought for them.

xerxes · 03-26-2007, 17:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astralis

the shah's SAVAK was damned brutal and was widely feared. they made plenty of people disappear. but look where the shah went. same with the eastern europeans...and the biggie, the USSR.

SAVAK was brutal, yes, but its mandate and job was making people disappear and intelligence. Shah did not have counter-uprising police force. Infact, I think at one point in the late 70s he had to make an emergency order of plastic (non-lethal) bullets for his force on the streets. This is how unprepared he was. Even SAVAK mandate was originaly killing off the Tudeh party and communists.

Today they do have everything.

Jan · 03-26-2007, 17:41 PM

Apparently the Iranians became quite adept at riverine/marsh ops during Fao offensives of the Iraq-Iran war. Which would probably explain the sudden appearance of the IRGC in motorized launches at the mouth of the shatt al arab.

I surprised there was no helo back-up; a lynx in time, saves nine... or 15.

I'm sure the backchannel switch boards are blazing away as we speak. Blair's response was low key : I was expecting something more thatcherite, like with the "argies".

YellowFever · 03-26-2007, 18:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

Are you sure I am supporting everything that they do, or is that your perceived view, because, you see that I support certain things in regards to Iran (like not supporting a regime change) then you think I must be fully supporting the regime.

It's not my perceived view..
you mentioned it yourself in post number 32.

and I quote...

Quote:

.....The way I see it, because in this forum I support everything that Iran does, in your great black-and-white logic, I must be pro-Islamic regime.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

As far as regime change, if it was a mouse click away, I would done it myself long ago. Sadly is not. You want to see regime change, then look no further then Iran's neigbouring country: a nation torn apart.

So what do you want?
Do you want a regime change or not?
The mullahs has got to be forced out. They're noy gonna do it outof the goodness of their hearts.

You want them out..you gotta force them out...

It's not going to be bloodless.

So choose.

Regime change or not.

**Parihaka** · 03-26-2007, 22:02 PM

The telegraphs view

Quote:

Iran? Remember the Falklands, Mr Blair

By Andrew O'Hagan
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 27/03/2007

Have your say Read comments

There must be a widespread sense of distraction in Britain at the moment, or conflict fatigue, otherwise it's hard to understand why this newspaper was the only quality one yesterday to lead on the plight of 15 British sailors kidnapped in the Shatt al-Arab waterway south of Basra.

Even if you think, as I do, that Britain has no real business being in Iraq in the first place, it is maddening that a neighbouring power should simply choose to abduct servicemen and women as if they were not human beings but ciphers in a vast political game.

The relative inattention is weird. If they had been French sailors, or Spanish, we would be up in arms at the injustice and the outrageous insult offered by Teheran to diplomatic relations and world security. But because they are British, and so many of us are opposed to the war, we almost behave as if the servicemen deserve whatever they get, and that their horrible experience (to say nothing of the unspeakable anxiety of their families) is somehow their just deserts for finding themselves embroiled in an unpopular war.
advertisement
<A HREF="http://ads.telegraph.co.uk/event.ng/Type%3dclick%26FlightID%3d18028%26AdID%3d21645%26T argetID%3d4729%26Redirect%3dhttp://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/prizedraw/default.mspx" target="_blank"><IMG SRC="http://ads.telegraph.co.uk/m/microsoft/vista/windows-vista-wow-300x250.gif" WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></A>

This is puerile thinking. Servicemen and women are professionally engaged and we must not allow our consideration of the politics surrounding their tasks to undermine our feeling for them as servants of duty. I have never understood - at least, not since I was a blathering teenager - the concept that soldiers and sailors are part of some general, faceless evil called militarism, and that the world would be a safer place if one were to take away all the machine-guns and bombs.

There were no machine-guns or bombs at the time of the Hundred Years War, though plenty of damage was done. And even Robert Burns, that international poet of peace and liberty, understood what it was to feel respect for those who agreed to serve their country.

Tony Blair is therefore right to speak of this Iranian matter in the strongest of terms. He must send the message that kidnapping cannot be tolerated, no matter what the kidnappers' fears or grievances. Teheran might prefer the notion that Western servicemen are guilty by their very nature, and subhuman, but Blair would be failing in his duty if he were not to oppose with the utmost vigour all actions based on that view.

The great trial for Blair is to get those sailors safely back on board HMS Cornwall without the matter becoming an international incident, though the Iranians, thus far, would appear to be inviting one.

Blair said last week how he now admired Mrs Thatcher's policy during the Falklands conflict. I suppose he means that he identifies with her moral cause and sees it as a milestone on the road to Project Democracy - that of turning the world towards liberal democracy before countries spread their brand of tyranny to their neighbours. The Argentinians invaded a small island, just as the Iranians kidnapped the personnel of a small British ship, and one could see this latest matter escalating in the same way, with bitter rewards.

Those who supported the Falklands war have always claimed that it ended the rule of a military junta in Argentina and so was worth the candle, even if the islands themselves aren't much cop, and even if the rewards of ''democracy'' are still not felt in the country as the liberators had hoped. But that war, like so many, constituted a depressing failure of diplomacy, and it is that part of the equation that Blair should heed. Galtieri was squaring for a fight back then, and Teheran is now, but the nobler mind is that which can avert disaster even as it presses forward with a logic and momentum all of its own.

It is not our business to press the cause of democracy in Iran, but simply to bring our sailors back. Without a clear focus on the latter, this debacle would be sure to result in the kind of military conflict that would suit the fundamentalists (on both sides) down to the ground. It may be too late for Blair, or his legacy, but not too late for him to realise for himself that a great statesman is not to be judged on how well he fights wars but in how diligently and brilliantly he avoids them.

It looks like my generation, and the one after, might burn itself out trying to prevent civil war in Iraq, and that we may be haunted by the knowledge that our attempt, with the United States, to export democracy there resulted in a tyranny that will always bear something of our name. We must be extra-vigilant not to be fooled into doing anything of that kind in Iran, of using this kidnapping of our servicemen as a pretext for bloodshed and retaliation.

But these things will surrender nothing of their complication. It is the Iranians who are behaving with terrifying hostility and carelessness; but we must learn how to handle dire provocations with a delicacy born of an understanding of what is lost when one of our cruise missiles finds its target. What is lost is not merely a military installation, a block of flats, perhaps some innocent or some not-so-innocent lives, but an opportunity to find a way back to what we actually are: a nation at the other side of the world, with problems of our own, and no direct responsibility for how life is lived in Iran.

With any luck, those 15 sailors will be back in their bunks by the time you read this. If not, perhaps the rest of the world will have awakened to what it could mean. Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett will be right to let toleration fade out of their warnings, but they must show by example how to deactivate aggression and underline their sense of the seriousness of this threat by not immediately allowing it to erupt in their faces. The important thing is to get those sailors out of Iran, and for Britain to remain similarly out of Iran for good.

Please get our soldiers out without upsetting the Iranians?

T_igger_cs_30 · 03-26-2007, 22:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffpayne56

If the past has anything to go on, they'd be put out to dry by our government,

Quote:

no wonder 11000 have gone awol over the last few years,

the government just don't give a damm, bloody glad I'm out of it. If Maggie was still in power god help Iran and the mad mullas. Please if you believe in a god of some sort say a prayer for the 15 hostages and if you don't spare a thought for them.

11000 Military personel Absent WithOut Leave and on the run in the last few years???? where did that figure come from ...........ludicrous.......if not please prove me wrong with the document

T_igger_cs_30 · 03-26-2007, 22:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

The telegraphs view

Please get our soldiers out without upsetting the Iranians?

It does not surprise me at all that at the moment it is not all over the papers on a 24 hour basis,its the way some things are done in Great Britain, I hold firm with my believe that the plans are in motion to bring the boys home..................and soon

**Parihaka** · 03-26-2007, 22:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30

It does not surprise me at all that at the moment it is not all over the papers on a 24 hour basis,its the way some things are done in Great Britain, I hold firm with my believe that the plans are in motion to bring the boys home..................and soon

I hope you're right, I read a report that some SAS personnel have moved there.

T_igger_cs_30 · 03-26-2007, 23:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30

11000 Military personel Absent WithOut Leave and on the run in the last few years???? where did that figure come from ...........ludicrous.......if not please prove me wrong with the document

Ok Guess I have to eat a little humble pie here, watching a video now of the Panorama programme that stated "since the start of the Iraq war over 11000 service personal have gone AWOL" It makes me very sad.

Ps...Having now watched the whole programme it was a "one line statement" they did not support that statement with fact, I still find the number incredible.

Bowman · 03-26-2007, 23:42 PM

It is certainly true that we British place a value on being slow to anger. We embrace a thoughtful approach to foreign policy that has served us well for many years. However, in this circumstance, with this enemy- yes, enemy - we must act decisively.

The only reasonable response to this act of war is to mobilize our armed forces. We must issue an ultimatum to the Iranians to release our servicemen and women within twenty-four hours or face the consequences. The Iranians are bullies and we must treat them as such. Hopefully, Tony Blair has quietly ordered British cruise-missile armed nuclear hunter-killer subs to the area. Hopefully, the RAF is preparing to send Tornado attack jets to Iraq. Hopefully, the aircraft carriers are converging on the region as we speak. I think it would be quite gratifying and more than a little ironic if a British ballistic missile sub were to surface alongside HMS Cornwall as she waits forlornly in the Gulf.

We should not attack,yet, but we must prepare a decisive blow. Tony Blair's comment about this issue being "fundamental" sounded wishy-washy. However, onlookers should not underestimate British resolve. By God, we will have those sailors and marines back unharmed.

03-26-2007, 15:10 PM	#137 (permalink)
astralis *Foreign Service* Moderator Lei Feng Protege Join Date: 08-23-05 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,484 Country:	US troops 'would have fought Iranian captors' - Independent Online Edition > Middle East US troops 'would have fought Iranian captors' By Terri Judd in Bahrain Published: 26 March 2007 A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage. In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive. Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation." The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: " The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'" His comments came as it was reported British intelligence had been warned by the CIA that Iran would seek revenge for the detention of five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq two months ago but refused to raise threat levels in line with their US counterparts. The capture of the eight sailors and seven marines - including one young mother - will undoubtedly renew accusations that Britain's determination to maintain a friendly face in the region has left its troops frequently under protected. Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, the Royal Navy team from HMS Cornwall were seized on Friday after completing a UN-authorised inspection of a merchant dhow in what they insist were clearly Iraqi waters. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy appeared in half a dozen attack speedboats mounted with machine guns.. Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away." Three days after the team were taken hostage, Tony Blair publicly spoke about the diplomatic crisis for the first time. "I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us," he said "We have certainly sent the message back to them very clearly indeed. They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong," he added, speaking from Berlin. In a telephone conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki last night the Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett "expressed concern regarding the detention of the British soldiers". An Iranian official later confirmed that Iran may give consular access to the British sailors once an investigation into the incident is completed. Yesterday, the armed forces spokesman General Ali Reza Afshar said the crew were in "sterling health" and were being interrogated in Tehran, where the Iranians claim they have "confessed" to straying into Iranian waters. The Foreign Office minister, Lord Triesman, held "frank" discussions with the Iranian ambassador yesterday . __________________ Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present. -Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

03-26-2007, 15:17 PM	#138 (permalink)
Dreadnought *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-12-05 Posts: 5,796 Country:	The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. Dam skippy Dad! __________________ Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

03-26-2007, 16:11 PM	#139 (permalink)
jeffpayne56 *Military Professional* Join Date: 12-03-06 Location: Deal, Kent Posts: 123 Country:	Oh well perhaps we can now justify Trident, a little sunshine for Iran would be nice __________________ Can the last person to leave the UK please turn out the lights cheers Jeff

03-26-2007, 17:41 PM	#143 (permalink)
Jan Regular Join Date: 03-12-07 Posts: 60 Country:	Apparently the Iranians became quite adept at riverine/marsh ops during Fao offensives of the Iraq-Iran war. Which would probably explain the sudden appearance of the IRGC in motorized launches at the mouth of the shatt al arab. I surprised there was no helo back-up; a lynx in time, saves nine... or 15. I'm sure the backchannel switch boards are blazing away as we speak. Blair's response was low key : I was expecting something more thatcherite, like with the "argies". __________________ "Just another brick in the wall."

03-26-2007, 23:42 PM	#150 (permalink)
Bowman Regular Join Date: 03-26-07 Posts: 72	Time For Action It is certainly true that we British place a value on being slow to anger. We embrace a thoughtful approach to foreign policy that has served us well for many years. However, in this circumstance, with this enemy- yes, enemy - we must act decisively. The only reasonable response to this act of war is to mobilize our armed forces. We must issue an ultimatum to the Iranians to release our servicemen and women within twenty-four hours or face the consequences. The Iranians are bullies and we must treat them as such. Hopefully, Tony Blair has quietly ordered British cruise-missile armed nuclear hunter-killer subs to the area. Hopefully, the RAF is preparing to send Tornado attack jets to Iraq. Hopefully, the aircraft carriers are converging on the region as we speak. I think it would be quite gratifying and more than a little ironic if a British ballistic missile sub were to surface alongside HMS Cornwall as she waits forlornly in the Gulf. We should not attack,yet, but we must prepare a decisive blow. Tony Blair's comment about this issue being "fundamental" sounded wishy-washy. However, onlookers should not underestimate British resolve. By God, we will have those sailors and marines back unharmed.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Britain Appeals To UN In Sailors' Case	Ironduke	International Politics	338	04-23-2007 16:24 PM
Battleship History Article	rickusn	Battleships Forum	3	01-17-2007 11:16 AM
Al Qaeda Declines in Northern Iraq, Military Officer Says	Shek	The War in Iraq	6	09-16-2005 19:03 PM
Future of afghanistan	raja khan	Operation Enduring Freedom	113	09-20-2004 19:23 PM