15 UK sailors captured at gunpoint

**jtl310** · 29 Mar 07,, 01:03

Exactly .. they didnt have the air reconnaissance cause the heli headed back to the HMS and im sure the Iranians sneaked up on them. Then again the report does say:

"Two Iranian boats with far heavier weapons - rocket launchers and heavy machine guns against rifles and pistols - came alongside after indicating a friendly attitude."

In the end no one can really know what truly happened other than the Iranians themselves and the 15 captives, but does sound very plausible.

**jtl310** · 29 Mar 07,, 01:11

Below are a few excerpts from the article which can be found here Gulf allies say they won't allow U.S. attack on Iran from their territories - International Herald Tribune

On Wednesday, the U.S. Navy wrapped up its largest show of force in the Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with 15 ships, 125 aircraft and 13,000 sailors in an exercise a few dozen miles off Iran's coast.

The maneuvers were meant to show "the commitment of the U.S. to stability and security in the region," said Rear Admiral Kevin Quinn, commander of Strike Group Three — which includes the USS John C. Stennis.

The United States has close to 40,000 troops in the Gulf, including 25,000 in Kuwait, 3,000 in Bahrain, 1,300 in the United Arab Emirates and a few hundred in Oman and Saudi Arabia, according to figures from the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center.

Gulf Arab nations are increasingly uneasy with the United States' tough stance against Iran, fearing any outbreak of hostilities could bring Iranian retaliation onto them. All lie within distance of Iranian missiles.

Qatar — home to 6,500 U.S. troops and the enormous al-Udeid air base, headquarters of all American air operations in the Middle East — has already said it would not permit an attack on Iran from its soil.

U.A.E- "We have assured the brothers in Iran ... that we are not a party in its dispute with the United States," said United Arab Emirates Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan. "We will not allow any force to use our territories for military, security and espionage activities against Iran."

That could prevent the U.S. Air Force from flying intelligence missions over Iran with its squadron of U-2 and Global Hawk spy planes based at al-Dhafra Air Base near the Emirates capital, Abu Dhabi.

The U.S. Air Force said Wednesday it had not altered air operations in response to Sheik Khalifa's statement.

Air Force Lt. Col. Mike Pierson, based in Qatar, declined to say whether U-2s were flying missions over Iran, but said the U.S. Air Force only operated in international airspace or over countries that had granted permission.

Iran has full diplomatic ties with the Emirates and most Gulf countries, with booming trade and tourism links. As a result, Gulf countries are doing their best to avoid being linked to any potential military clash.

The refusals have precedent: In the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Turkey denied access to Turkish territory, forcing U.S. military planners to adjust their plans and to forgo opening a northern front. The refusal ushered in a tense period in Turkish-American relations.

But on board the USS Stennis Wednesday, the mood was upbeat.

Lieutenant Dennis Cox, who selects weapons for the jets, said it was a busy day of exercises.

"They were flying double hops," he said of air crews. "This is fairly unusual. I could tell by the looks on their faces that they had a big day."

The war games were the first time two U.S. aircraft carriers have operated in the Gulf since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

**jtl310** · 29 Mar 07,, 01:58

Here is the Article Iran: Britain must admit navy trespassed - Yahoo! News

I tired to highlight wat was important for those who wanted to speed read (not sure if i did a good job ...)

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- Iran's foreign minister said Wednesday that Britain must admit that its 15 sailors and marines entered Iranian waters in order to resolve a standoff over their capture by the Mideast nation.

Manouchehr Mottaki's statement in an interview with The Associated Press came on a day of escalating tensions, highlighted by an Iranian video of the detained Britons that showed the only woman captive saying her group had "trespassed" in Iranian waters. Britain angrily denounced the video as unacceptable and froze most dealings with the Mideast nation.

Mottaki said that if the alleged entry into Iranian waters was a mistake "this can be solved. But they have to show that it was a mistake, that will help us to end this issue."

"Admitting the mistake will facilitate a solution to the problem," he said late Wednesday night in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where he was attending a summit of Arab leaders.

It was the first time that Iran has publicly suggested a way to resolve the crisis, but British acquiescence appeared unlikely as the country has been insisting since the crisis began that its troops were in Iraqi waters and released documents on Wednesday to back up the claim.

There was no immediate comment from the British to Mottaki's statement. A call to Britain's Foreign Office in London was not answered early Thursday.

Mottaki also backed off a prediction that the female sailor, Faye Turney, could be freed Wednesday or Thursday, but said Tehran agreed to allow British officials to meet with service personnel.

"We have accepted that (the British request), there is no problem. Measures are underway (to arrange meeting.) They can meet them," he said.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government announced it was freezing all dealings with Iran except to negotiate the release of its personnel, adding to a public exchange of sharp comments that helped fuel a spike in world oil prices.

Britain's military released a GPS readout it said proved the Royal Navy personnel were seized 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters Friday. But Mottaki said Iran had GPS devices from the British boats that showed they were in Iranian territory.

A few hours later, a brief video of the captured Britons was shown on Iran's Arabic language satellite television station, Al-Alam.

One segment showed sailors and marines sitting in an Iranian boat in open waters immediately after their capture.

The video also displayed what appeared to be a handwritten letter from Faye Turney, 26, to her family.

"I have written a letter to the Iranian people to apologize for us entering their waters," it said. The letter also asks Turney's parents in Britain to look after her 3-year-old daughter, Molly, and her husband, Adam.

The video showed Turney in checkered head scarf and her uniform eating with other sailors and marines. Later, wearing a white tunic and black head scarf, she sat in a room before floral curtains and smoked a cigarette.

Turney was the only detainee to be shown speaking, giving her name and saying she had been in the navy for nine years.

"Obviously we trespassed into their waters," Turney said at one point, her voice audible under a simultaneous Arabic translation. "They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested. There was no harm, no aggression."

In backing away from predictions that Turney could be freed Wednesday or Thursday, Mottaki said Iran will look into releasing her "as soon as possible."

Asked when Iran would release Turney, Mottaki said in the interview with the AP, "We will look into this as soon as possible."

He said earlier reports that he had said she could be freed Wednesday or Thursday were incorrect. "I was probably misquoted," he said.

Earlier in the day, Mottaki told AP on the sidelines of an Arab summit in the Saudi capital, "Today or tomorrow, the lady will be released." The Turkish television station, CNN-Turk, had also reported him saying Wednesday she would be freed "today or tomorrow."

But the talk of releasing Turney did little to calm British anger.

Before the broadcast, a spokesman for Blair said any showing of British personnel on TV would be a breach of the Geneva Conventions.

After the footage was aired, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said she was "very concerned about these pictures and any indication of pressure on, or coercion of, our personnel. ... I am particularly disappointed that a private letter has been used in a way which can only add to the distress of the families."

The third Geneva Convention bans subjecting prisoners of war to intimidation, insults or "public curiosity." Because there is no armed conflict between Iran and Britain, the captives would not technically be classified as prisoners of war.

Blair told the House of Commons that "there was no justification whatever ... for their detention, it was completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal."

"We had hoped to see their immediate release; this has not happened. It is now time to ratchet up the diplomatic and international pressure in order to make sure the Iranian government understands its total isolation on this issue," he said.

Beckett said Britain would focus all its efforts on resolving the issue.

"We will, therefore, be imposing a freeze on all other official bilateral business with Iran until the situation is resolved. We will keep other aspects of our policy towards Iran under close review and continue to proceed carefully. But no one should be in any doubt about the seriousness with which we regard these events," she said.

The statement appeared to refer to diplomatic dealings rather than business relations, but Britain's Department of Trade said the country does not buy oil directly from Iran.

Oil prices rose by more than $1 a barrel Wednesday to a six-month high amid worries about the standoff, which came as the U.S. Navy is carrying out its largest show of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

President Bush discussed the 15 Britons with Blair over a secured video conference call Wednesday, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said. "The president fully backs Tony Blair and our allies in Britain," she said.

British officials have said the 15 Britons were taken captive after completing a search of a civilian ship near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which forms the border between Iran and Iraq.

Soon after the sailors and marines were seized, Britain had hoped to resolve the issue quickly. In 2004, six British marines and two sailors were captured by Iran in the Shatt al-Arab but released within days.

In London, British military officials released new information about the location where they said the Britons and their two inflatable boats were seized by Iranian naval forces.

The military said satellite positioning readings showed the vessels were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters.

Vice Adm. Charles Style gave the satellite coordinates as 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north latitude and 48 degrees 43.08 minutes east longitude. He said that position had been confirmed by an Indian-flagged merchant ship boarded by the sailors and marines.

He also told reporters the Iranians had provided a geographical position Sunday that he said was in Iraqi waters. By Tuesday, he said, Iranian officials had given a revised position 2 miles to the east, inside Iranian waters.

"It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of coordinates," Style said.

---

AP writers Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, and Lee Keath in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, contributed to this report.

**smilingassassin** · 29 Mar 07,, 02:09

Originally Posted by Garry

Hei! Wake up! come back to real world... Why would you think that Iranians would want to overthrough their government? Do you really expect xerxs to go on and start a revolutionary movement?!?!? For democracy?!?!?

Why would the U.S. wish to overthrow their president? Because some feel he's not getting the job done. That applys in any nation be it the U.S. or Iran.

A-jads simply not getting the job done, Irans oil infrastructure is deteriorating and its energy needs are increasing. Iran simply refuses to swollow its pride, earn the trust of the international community and allow them to oversee their "Peacefull" use of Nuclear tech. To do so would mean an end to sanctions, an end to their energy problems and improved relations with the rest of the world but instead they insist that somehow the U.S. and Israel have somehow convinced the entire world that Iran is the bad guy.

Who is living in a riverie?

**Parihaka** · 29 Mar 07,, 05:44

Originally Posted by Jan

I wasn't aware they had much of a "navy" beyond a few souped up tugs and motorized launches. Brownwater at best. They seem to be more focused on sea-denial capability by way of silkworms (80s) and now sunburns.
.

Current Iranian Navy vessels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Enough to give the RAF some practice. Destruction of their port facilities could add sauce.

**Garry** · 29 Mar 07,, 07:46

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Why would the U.S. wish to overthrow their president? Because some feel he's not getting the job done. That applys in any nation be it the U.S. or Iran.

A-jads simply not getting the job done, Irans oil infrastructure is deteriorating and its energy needs are increasing. Iran simply refuses to swollow its pride, earn the trust of the international community and allow them to oversee their "Peacefull" use of Nuclear tech. To do so would mean an end to sanctions, an end to their energy problems and improved relations with the rest of the world but instead they insist that somehow the U.S. and Israel have somehow convinced the entire world that Iran is the bad guy.

Who is living in a riverie?

Hi smilingassassin, don't take it personal but your reasoning is exactly what I point as living in dreams.... in parralel reality. Reality does not work this way... Governments are RARELLY being removed for doing GOOD or BAD job even in WESTERN PLUTOCRACIES. They are being removed for PERCEPTION of good or bad job.... Look at your president for example.... the list of his mistakes and errors in both domestic economic, foreign trade and foreign politic issues is so long that he should have been removed..... but he was successfully re-elected.... why? Because world is MUCH MORE complicated than a framework which you are being told everywhere...

It is not your fault... you are being told that world works like this from school and them supported by TV... books.... articles.... In fact this works only IN LONG run if it works at all.

As for your statements that Iran will swalow its pride and be forgiven for everything.... you are again show all the signs of brainwashing. Things you are being told are far from what is being planned and aimed. Remember why US was kicked off Iran. Go to history man..... it tells a lot. Then ask yourself what have changed?!?!? US goal is DOMINATION in the middle east - either you COMPELTELLY agree with anything they do or you are being opposed.

The problem is that US has two contraditory goals in middle east - DOMINATION and SUPPORTING ISRAEL. These two will NEVER be achieved together.....

**Garry** · 29 Mar 07,, 07:52

Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30

So what is the solution?

Not to attack only with idea - WE MUST ATTACK TO GIVE THEM GOOD LESSON. It may cost you 15 POW lifes. Probably sinking Iranian fleet will not release your people either....

You either trade for Iranian dimplomats arrested in Mosul or take time to plan a good spec op if it is ever possible.... I am sure something like this is being done now.

**Garry** · 29 Mar 07,, 08:25

Originally Posted by gunnut

Here's the thing I like to ask people. How is Bush "without proper intellectual capabilities?" I hear that a lot. Bush is stupid. Bush is a moron. Those sound like very emotional attacks rather than logical critiques.

Bush & co. have made mistakes. They did not anticipate the level of sectarian violence to ramp up like this. But that doesn't make them stupid.

I buy a stock in a company that I think has a bright future. Then the stock tanks because the anticipated emerging market evaporates. Does that make me stupid? Maybe. I took the best available data and made a rational decision. I did not have the new data which would have told me otherwise. That doesn't make me stupid. If I had the new data and still insists on sinking money into a losing cause, then I'm stupid.

Bush is not stupid for invading Iraq. He's stupid for retaining Rumsfeld an additional 2 years when his strategy showed little progress.

Hi I actually never spoke to guy

.... but listened a lot about what he says and observed a lot about what he does. Can you list few important reform/political action which he did RIGHT and COMPLETED?

Well. Now having a backsight I see that I was right that invasion was not right thing at all...... with the goals stated it was DOOMed to fail. We talked a lot on WMD.... and come to understanding that it was a COVER reason... while basic reason was DEMOCRACY building to fight TERRORISM.

Rumsfeld was just part of the story. Even if US had enough troops on site building DEMOCRACY in Iraq to fight TERRORISM stemming from there is illusion and dream at best.... I just don't want to go rounds again

Originally Posted by astralis

i personally believe that had all phases of OIF (and not just OIF I) been executed successfully, it would have been an absolutely stunning victory in the war on terror. however, the failure of the administration to successfully propagate its ideas, to listen to professional dissenting opinions from across the board, and adapt to changing conditions, led to a blindsided and muddled strategy that only recently has been changed (to bush's credit).

that the country can rise above political ideology and personal vendettas can be seen in the aftermath of 9/11, when over 90% of the american populace backed bush. that such a stunning margin of support disappeared is less a reflection on the american populace and media than a reflection of bush as a leader whom can communicate.

Well. OIF had and has wrong goals..... these are not achievable.

War on terror...

I always smile how mass media works well. There is no war on terror. It is like war on drinking vodka for example

.... Terror is just a tool used by different groups of resistence in different times of history and different parts of the globe. Irish millitants for example... or french resistance to German occupation... or juwish resistance to british rule... now islamic millitants resistance to israelly occupation. Everywhere where some group can not win millitarilly it would use terror. For your case you are fighting islamic religious millitants who fight USA for supporting israel.

Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. As for democracy.... the idea of building it in Iraq was plain STUPID. And following this route leads to NOWHERE. Hence victory is not possible until you bring in REALISTIC goals. Stabilizing Iraq would be one for example. It is perfectly possible but you would need some local SOB to help you... just like Putin used Kadyrov....

ps. After posting that I found funny article
Terrorized by 'War on Terror'
How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America

By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Sunday, March 25, 2007; Page B01
Terrorized by 'War on Terror' - washingtonpost.com

**Garry** · 29 Mar 07,, 08:30

Originally Posted by gunnut

Grab some Iranian soldiers and say we caught them sneaking across the border. Two can play that game.

I guess they could care less about their few soldiers... they want their General and dimplomats from Mosul back!!!

**Ray** · 29 Mar 07,, 10:09

Good for the Lord to resign because of his department's failing.

But is that an answer?

Should have indicated that he would resign from the morality point of view, after clearing the issue. Having set things right, then resign. The effect would have been better.

Would indicate the gentleman he is, but at the same time, as a man of steel!

Did the lady servicewoman indicate that she was writing the letter under coercion by doing those finger twisting signals that "Airborne 101" indicated was done by servicemen when taken hostage (thread showing Hillary shaking hands with a US soldier and the soldier doing india rubber man tricks with his fingers!)?

**~~bandwagon~~** · 29 Mar 07,, 14:19

Originally Posted by gunnut

Originally Posted by Garry

My proposal. Lets populate whole US government with people of Mr Bush level of knowledge and see how it works...

Actually Iraq would be much better if we did that. Leftist news organization and socialist democrats won't be cheering the enemy on and demoralizing our own population on a daily basis. Real world difference would probably be minimal, but psychologically the nation will be united behind our troops 100%.

It's a shame we have people in this country who put their political ideology and personal vendetta above what's good for the nation and good for the troops.

That's ironic because that is exactly what the Iraq invasion was about: Neoconservative ideology with a tiny smattering of old scores (helped along by the breeze of Christian Fundamentalists ideology, not to speak of oil ideology).

**Ray** · 29 Mar 07,, 15:52

I wonder if Bush has been able to implement any of his ideas in totality.

If he has, then I appear to have missed them.

He had a free run of the Congress and the Nation was with him. Therefore, he should have been able to achieve a lot.

**Jan** · 29 Mar 07,, 15:55

Originally Posted by jtl310

Below are a few excerpts from the article which can be found here Gulf allies say they won't allow U.S. attack on Iran from their territories - International Herald Tribune

Gulf Arab nations are increasingly uneasy with the United States' tough stance against Iran, fearing any outbreak of hostilities could bring Iranian retaliation onto them. All lie within distance of Iranian missiles.

Qatar — home to 6,500 U.S. troops and the enormous al-Udeid air base, headquarters of all American air operations in the Middle East — has already said it would not permit an attack on Iran from its soil.

U.A.E- "We have assured the brothers in Iran ... that we are not a party in its dispute with the United States," said United Arab Emirates Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan. "We will not allow any force to use our territories for military, security and espionage activities against Iran."

Iran has full diplomatic ties with the Emirates and most Gulf countries, with booming trade and tourism links. As a result, Gulf countries are doing their best to avoid being linked to any potential military clash.

The refusals have precedent: In the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Turkey denied access to Turkish territory, forcing U.S. military planners to adjust their plans and to forgo opening a northern front. The refusal ushered in a tense period in Turkish-American relations.

Iranians probably factored this in; another wrench in the works.

Reading between the lines: the GCC states are only too happy to see the mil capability of their "iranian brothers" culled. So long as they aren't seen as being in cahoots with the red coats.

**Jan** · 29 Mar 07,, 16:01

Originally Posted by jtl310

The military said satellite positioning readings showed the vessels were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters.

Vice Adm. Charles Style gave the satellite coordinates as 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north latitude and 48 degrees 43.08 minutes east longitude. He said that position had been confirmed by an Indian-flagged merchant ship boarded by the sailors and marines.He also told reporters the Iranians had provided a geographical position Sunday that he said was in Iraqi waters. By Tuesday, he said, Iranian officials had given a revised position 2 miles to the east, inside Iranian waters.

"It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of coordinates,"

So now the coalition gps coordinates are corroborated by a third party.

**Bluesman** · 29 Mar 07,, 17:47

That's not even important. Those who are pre-disposed to see the Iranians as victims, merely asserting their rights, will do so, no matter what the evidence. Those whose proclivities are to blame their own governments will do so, again, no matter what is proved. Sometimes, these are the same people. Go to any college campus or the newsroom of almost any major daily and you can speak to teeming crowds of them.

No minds will be changed by the most airtight of forensic cases, and frankly, anybody that takes the word of the gang of thugs currently running things in Tehran is either a traitor or a fool.

We know what they're like, we know what they do, and if anybody thinks this act of kidnapping in international waters is beyond them, they simply don't know who they're dealing with.

One of the things that's wrong with the West is our first instinct to see things as a lawyer might, in terms of Right and Wrong, as if that mattered somehow to our opponents. It doesn't. What matters to a criminal regime like this is what they're able to get away with.

So put away any notions of whether the Iranians were somehow 'correct', or whether they can make a case for their actions. It just doesn't matter to them, and it shouldn't matter to us, either.