15 UK sailors captured at gunpoint - Page 12

execrable · 03-27-2007, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

Maybe you are just not getting it.

No, I prefer plain honest answers. I am not just British but African born British and I can tell the difference between a story about ongoing mass-killings in darfur (for example) and a story about 15 British enlisted men kidnapped by Iran.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

for what? ... did I accuse you of something?

Maybe I'm too plain speaking... Let me help point out the clues that mean a question is being asked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

"Was the word Arabian

[quote=xerxes;359604]added by the author of the thread him/herself ???

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

and if so why???"

hint - they're all emboldened, underlined and italicised. I don't think I'll get any further with this, we're done here.

xerxes · 03-27-2007, 10:58 AM

I still dont get whats your problem with my question is. If it is an apology you want (i dont know for what) ....

Here it is: I apologize for asking a geography question while a very grave humanterian crisis was under way???

execrable · 03-27-2007, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

If it is an apology you want (i dont know for what) ....

You have a short memory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xerxes

As far as the posed question, I was just confirming that it was execrable, and not the BBC News that felt changing "Arabian Gulf" to "Gulf". You got a problem with that? ..

Now, let's leave this here. There's far more serious matters and far more important people for the British Government to be worried about than your accusation against me.

Can we return to the subject of the thread now?

execrable · 03-27-2007, 12:23 PM

link here

Quote:

'To fight would not be clever'

Admiral Sir Alan West was First Sea Lord in 2004, when Iran detained eight British servicemen after they allegedly strayed over the maritime border. Here he comments on the current detention by Iran of 15 Royal Navy personnel and compares it with the earlier incident.

How do the current events differ from 2004?

This seems to be something that has been orchestrated from Tehran. I think the incident in 2004, one can't be sure of it, but I think that was something that started locally and then Tehran became involved.

Why suddenly should an operation we do every day be aggressive and suspicious? It's absolute nonsense.

What was going on in the background in 2004?

That is more of a question for the Foreign Office but it was being resolved by diplomacy, through words with Tehran.

I have to say we saw that terrible treatment of our people then, which was absolutely outrageous. It would be outrageous if we were at war with a country - but we weren't actually at war with them. That was appalling and we did complain.

I don't know if maybe we were as robust as we might have been. They did release the people and that was the important thing, but we had huge trouble getting equipment back, which was effectively just stolen.

In fact, one of the boats was paraded and put into their military museum in Tehran as if this was some great victory.

The other thing about 2004 was that it was actually quite close to the Shatt al-Arab mouth, going up the river, where you can say, 'Well, it's quite close, where is the median line?', although they were clearly in Iraqi waters. This has taken place further out.

How can you tell which waters you are in?

It is highly complex. A commission is meant to meet to lay down the median line down the Shatt al-Arab and agree where the various lines are. So we have the line we believe is the correct one. We then make allowance the other side of it and make sure our craft operate well clear of that.

What kind of equipment would the navy have to guide them?

They have GPS and they have a system which allows communications. It means they know where the mother ship is and the mother ship knows where they are. GPS means they know their position exactly.

It's not like the old days when you went away in a boat and didn't really have a clue where you were. But all they had were small arms, they don't have heavy weapons. So of course to actually start fighting patrol boats would not be a clever thing.

What are the rules of engagement in this type of situation?

The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting. The reason we are there is to be a force for good, to make the whole area safe, to look after the Iraqi big oil platforms and also to stop smuggling and terrorism there.

So we try to downplay things. Rather then roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away.

If we find this is going to be a standard practice we need to think very carefully about what rules of engagement we want and how we operate. One can't allow as a standard practice nations to capture a nation's servicemen. That is clearly wrong.

How important are the British patrols?

I think they are very important. The Iraqi wealth depends on oil, the oil pipelines going through those big platforms. The terrorists did try to blow one up. They have managed to blow up lots of the other routes of oil going out of Iraq. So there's that importance. And, indeed, we are training up the Iraqi navy. It has been a huge success, and there is normally one Iraqi patrol vessel in the area. But it is also important to stop smuggling because smuggling is linked to terrorism.

What training would the personnel have been given to help them in the event of capture?

These particular people would not be trained in counter-interrogation techniques because they are not expected to be captured. But I think our guidance to anyone in that position would be to say what they want you to say, let's not be silly about it. Don't tell them secrets, clearly, but if they tell you: 'Say this', well if that's going to get you out, then do it. It means absolutely nothing, what they say, to be honest.

JMH · 03-27-2007, 13:17 PM

The Iranian Mullahs probably accurately perceive that the Labour (Socialist) British Government is weak and indecisive and would never resort to force against Iran to protect British military personnel or any British interest and they correctly conclude that the only way the British government would ever launch a military operation against Iran would be only if the US approved that operation and provided the bulk of the Military forces involved in such an operation.

If the British sailors and marines held by Iran are tortured and killed, the British government could retaliate by killing the Iranian President and than threaten to use Trident to destroy Iran if Iran attacks the UK.

But due to the morally weak nature of European Governments in general and the British Labour Government in particular it is highly unlikely that the UK would do anything but protest, if the British Sailors and Marines held in Iran are tortured and killed.

T_igger_cs_30 · 03-27-2007, 13:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMH

The Iranian Mullahs probably accurately perceive that the Labour (Socialist) British Government is weak and indecisive and would never resort to force against Iran to protect British military personnel or any British interest and they correctly conclude that the only way the British government would ever launch a military operation against Iran would be only if the US approved that operation and provided the bulk of the Military forces involved in such an operation.

If the British sailors and marines held by Iran are tortured and killed, the British government could retaliate by killing the Iranian President and than threaten to use Trident to destroy Iran if Iran attacks the UK.

But do to the morally weak nature of European Governments in general and the British Labour Government in particular it is highly unlikely that the UK would do anything but protest, if the British Sailors and Marines held in Iran are tortured and killed.

Rubbish, have you any concept how difficult it is to arrange a rescue mission, or plan an attack of this magnatude, as much as I hate to say this "diplomacy" is an integral part of the build up buying you time to prepare.

Did we leave the 40 Marines captured by the Argies?.no we did not and when the Falklands was recaptured they were the ones who raised the flag over Port Stanley

Dreadnought · 03-27-2007, 13:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Iran is possibly doing a copycat for the 'diplomats' held in North Iraq, who were helping the Kurds.

Blair has stated that this will go into 'another phase'.

One wonders what is 'another phase'. Sound ominous!

Sir,
One questioned Maggie Thatcher in a very simular way during the Faulklands conflict and the outcome was very ominus.

Ominus yes but the point was made very clearly no matter how politically unfair it was.

pdf27 · 03-27-2007, 13:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMH

Labour (Socialist) British Government

First time I've seen the HMG described as socialist for quite a while. While the Labour party is a socialist one, the Government isn't. The majority of the opposition comes from their own back benches.

Dreadnought · 03-27-2007, 13:33 PM

But do to the morally weak nature of European Governments in general and the British Labour Government in particular it is highly unlikely that the UK would do anything but protest, if the British Sailors and Marines held in Iran are tortured and killed.

I would imagine a full strike capability in unison with U.S. assistance if necessary as an aid if this happened. Dont paint the Brits into a corner and you wont be sorry!

Ray · 03-27-2007, 15:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Sir,
One questioned Maggie Thatcher in a very simular way during the Faulklands conflict and the outcome was very ominus.

Ominus yes but the point was made very clearly no matter how politically unfair it was.

Comparing Falklands with Iran is a bit unfair to Blair.

Britain's armed forces are overstretched and to expect a Falkland repeat is totally outside the realm of reality. If there were enough troops, then the British would not be packing their bags in Iraq!

In so far as the British morale goes, read the ARRSE.

Now, look at the geography.

Falkland was a logistic problem for the UK and it was not all that smooth sailing for Argentina either. Militarily, the UK was way superior. And Falkland had sparse population.

In the Iranian issue, you are expecting action in an area full of Iranians and Iranian defence forces, who are gearing up for war and so their preparedness would not be tardy.

How much of force is available to the UK for this action?

Tigger,

Ominous is because unless it is 100% successful, it will be of the same state as of Israel at the hands of the Hezbollah.

A total embarrassment, in other words.

Anger is expected of you, but one should never underestimate the enemy!

bandwagon · 03-27-2007, 17:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowman

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.

It doesn't seem like a good bet compared to diplomacy.

The Brits were taken by Revolutionary Guards who are close to Ahmadinejad and not so much under direct control of the supreme leader. Ahmadinejad is losing both popular support and favour with grand ayatollah Khamenei, and we may even see the back of him at some point. A reprisal now would gain him and his hawkish stance massive renewed support. I wouldn't be suprised if the capture was carried out by the Revolutionary Guards in order to invite reprisal for this very reason.

jeffpayne56 · 03-27-2007, 18:03 PM

Fire a trident or 2 with a dummy warhead, let israel loose on iran and then say the 3rd Trident will give them all a nice suntan and turn the sand to glass, might just work, might just piss off a few other countries and make them take notice 15 hostages or 15000 hostages make no difference, we must act hard now before it becomes 15000

pdf27 · 03-27-2007, 18:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

But do to the morally weak nature of European Governments in general and the British Labour Government in particular it is highly unlikely that the UK would do anything but protest, if the British Sailors and Marines held in Iran are tortured and killed.

Yeah, right. Bad things would happen to Iran, the only question is whether they would ever be admitted to.
For a similar hostage situation, look to what happened when that Royal Irish Regiment patrol got captured in Sierra Leone a while back. The UK negotiated for quite a while, then sent the whole of 1 PARA plus rather a lot of SAS (I met one of them last year - he my section commander on my recruits' course) to get them out. End result? One of the rescue party dead, all the hostages safely released and virtually all of the group who kidnapped them dead or prisoners. Iran is a massively harder nut to crack - the hostages are allegedly in Tehran, close to the centre of the country, and apparently have most of a brigade guarding them - but is not necessarily impossible.

In any case, I have yet to see a plausible reason the Iranians would torture or kill the guys (and girl) taken hostage. They are worth far, far more to them alive and unharmed than dead or injured.

Bowman · 03-27-2007, 18:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bandwagon

It doesn't seem like a good bet compared to diplomacy.

The Brits were taken by Revolutionary Guards who are close to Ahmadinejad and not so much under direct control of the supreme leader. Ahmadinejad is losing both popular support and favour with grand ayatollah Khamenei, and we may even see the back of him at some point. A reprisal now would gain him and his hawkish stance massive renewed support. I wouldn't be suprised if the capture was carried out by the Revolutionary Guards in order to invite reprisal for this very reason.

Diplomacy did not work for President Carter. Don't believe we would have re-taken the Falklands with diplomacy, either. I would subscribe to a short period of diplomacy, but we shoud definitely be prepared to issue an ultimatum within days. We cannot always avoid unpleasant situations by deferring the tough decisions until later. The Iranians committed an act of war; any patience that we demonstrate is beyond what they deserve.

bandwagon · 03-27-2007, 19:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowman

Diplomacy did not work for President Carter.

Actually it did. His action failed when his paltry few helicopters crashed in the Saudi desert. Eventually the hostages were released through diplomacy involving the Algerians if my memory serves me. I do remember they returned home on the day of Reagan's inauguration.

It's not a tough decision if you are likely to achieve the opposite to your aim.

03-27-2007, 10:58 AM	#167 (permalink)
xerxes Padishah Shahanshah *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-23-07 Location: Canada Posts: 1,240 Country:	I still dont get whats your problem with my question is. If it is an apology you want (i dont know for what) .... Here it is: I apologize for asking a geography question while a very grave humanterian crisis was under way??? __________________ If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon Last edited by xerxes : 03-27-2007 at 11:10 AM.

03-27-2007, 13:17 PM	#170 (permalink)
JMH Regular Join Date: 01-24-07 Location: Alexandria and Everett and various other locations. Posts: 117 Country:	Is the British government weak? The Iranian Mullahs probably accurately perceive that the Labour (Socialist) British Government is weak and indecisive and would never resort to force against Iran to protect British military personnel or any British interest and they correctly conclude that the only way the British government would ever launch a military operation against Iran would be only if the US approved that operation and provided the bulk of the Military forces involved in such an operation. If the British sailors and marines held by Iran are tortured and killed, the British government could retaliate by killing the Iranian President and than threaten to use Trident to destroy Iran if Iran attacks the UK. But due to the morally weak nature of European Governments in general and the British Labour Government in particular it is highly unlikely that the UK would do anything but protest, if the British Sailors and Marines held in Iran are tortured and killed. Last edited by JMH : 03-27-2007 at 13:39 PM.

03-27-2007, 18:03 PM	#177 (permalink)
jeffpayne56 *Military Professional* Join Date: 12-03-06 Location: Deal, Kent Posts: 123 Country:	Fire a trident or 2 with a dummy warhead, let israel loose on iran and then say the 3rd Trident will give them all a nice suntan and turn the sand to glass, might just work, might just piss off a few other countries and make them take notice 15 hostages or 15000 hostages make no difference, we must act hard now before it becomes 15000 __________________ Can the last person to leave the UK please turn out the lights cheers Jeff

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

03-27-2007, 13:33 PM	#174 (permalink)
Dreadnought *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-12-05 Posts: 5,796 Country:	But do to the morally weak nature of European Governments in general and the British Labour Government in particular it is highly unlikely that the UK would do anything but protest, if the British Sailors and Marines held in Iran are tortured and killed. I would imagine a full strike capability in unison with U.S. assistance if necessary as an aid if this happened. Dont paint the Brits into a corner and you wont be sorry!

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