15 UK sailors captured at gunpoint

**Bluesman** · 25 Mar 07,, 18:29

Originally Posted by Mick in England

I'm sure Iran will thank Britain for gifting them 15 hostages!
What a **** up, the Brit politicians/military should have foreseen it and not put our people in a position to be taken.
In fact if I was the HMS Cornwall skipper I'd have flatly refused to risk my personnel like that even if it meant my courtmartial.
Anyway why didn't he intervene to stop them being taken when he saw the situation developing?

Then you're declaring you're total unfitness for command of so much as a church bingo game.

Risk is what they're FOR. Not unnecessarily, of course, but MISSION FIRST, and boarding suspect vessels is exactly why they've been placed there.

Now government has to do the right thing, and make sure it never happens again. NOT by not risking anybody, but by training our enemies that this sort of thing has COSTS, not rewards.

**Visigoth** · 26 Mar 07,, 04:10

With their emasculated de-escalatory ROE's one wonders what happened to Royal Navy traditions such as Nelson's famous phrase "England expects that every man will do his duty," or "prepare to repel boarders." Apparently the Iranians had started a week long naval exercise the day before, there should have been a hightened state of security in those contested waters even if the helicopter was off patrolling other areas. The apparent lack of radar coverage from HMS Cornwall and subsequent surprise kidnapping of Royal Marines and Royal navy personnel is a black day in the annals of these once mighty and feared institutions.

**Bluesman** · 26 Mar 07,, 04:28

Originally Posted by Visigoth

With their emasculated de-escalatory ROE's one wonders what happened to Royal Navy traditions such as Nelson's famous phrase "England expects that every man will do his duty," or "prepare to repel boarders." Apparently the Iranians had started a week long naval exercise the day before, there should have been a hightened state of security in those contested waters even if the helicopter was off patrolling other areas. The apparent lack of radar coverage from HMS Cornwall and subsequent surprise kidnapping of Royal Marines and Royal navy personnel is a black day in the annals of these once mighty and feared institutions.

Okay, at ease with that crap. An overwhelming force took down the Brit boarding party, they didn't storm Picadilly.

Shouldn't have happened, but it hardly means the Iranians can go toe-to-toe with the Royal Navy.

Next thing that happens had better be SERIOUSLY lethal to something with an Iranian flag on it, though, and I don't mean later. NOW.

**lemontree** · 26 Mar 07,, 05:32

The Iranians are just testing the coalition resolve. If the have any grey matter in their heads the Iranians will release the 15 RN chaps unharmed, but only after the UK/US has squirmed for some time. They known that harming them will only make things difficult for thremselves.

This incident also puts the RN surveillance chaps in poor light - could they detect hostile/vessels in the vicinity. Was'nt there any backup/ covering group? - this what the skipper of HMS Cornwall may have to answer.

**xerxes** · 26 Mar 07,, 05:47

Collective apology for the late reply, I have been most busy …

First a small word regarding executions, public beating and those things, sense pictures were presented here. You see Sharia and all those public execution and all those public whipping is minimal if you compare Iran today to lets say revolutionary days of the 80s. That is a good thing obviously because there is less execution and so on and so forward, but the real reason is not that Government is becoming more relaxed, though it had became relaxed in many ways. The real reason is the Mullah in Iran, have understood that to control the large masses and potential revolutionary young population, they must keep them out of politics and therefore into drinking, drugging, and all those other good things, to keep their mind away. When u see public whipping or some execution in Iran, these are usually the people who don’t have the right connection and the money to bribe and avoid it. But I can assure you if the regime was going to crackdown on alcohol, and all those un-Islamic things in Tehran, they would be monstrous blood bath in Tehran. Of course, sense A-jad came to power, the “old Guard” revolutionary lad that he is, he is trying to reverse what MULLAH understood as fundamental to their survival: therefore he started imposing ridiculousness everywhere: an example would be the case of university professors have to be part of Basiji or removing professionals and putting those that are pro-Basiji or pro-Revolutionary Guards. Basically, he is artificially trying to bring the nation back to revolutionary fever of the 80s. He is damaging Mullah’s framework to rule by going against the Golden Rule of “distract the youngsters and rule the nation”.

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Just look at the U.S., durring their civil war they were very much a nation torn apart, yet after all that death and distruction they changed for the better. If Iran is truely to become the nation she deserves to become Iranians need to stand up (and die if need be) to make it a better country.

It takes action and sadly given all the current events that action is needed now more than ever if Iran is to survive with its dignity intact.

Mr Assasssin, you are using an example of a scenario in history that worked. Another scenario would be the Civil War in the Russia, which pitted Reds against White: guess who won? … Iranian did standup in 1978-79, however they got their newly found freedom hijacked away by group of people who tasted power and were not going to give it up. We have a saying in Iran: back in the 70s, people were drunk, they could do anything, now they are drugged. And that is not far from reality considering the fact that large amount of drugs that is captured on the Afghan border by the Guards is redistributed in Tehran.

Take no offense at what I am going to say, but what you have said as poetic as it is, it will result in a massive bloodbath that is going to make Shah’s non-existent crackdown in late 70s look like a joke. Indeed, Shah’s downfall aside being due to massive corruption in his august Imperial regime was his weakness to secure the Peacock Throne as the cost of the life of many people, but I can assure you the current regime knows quite well the weakness of the previous one and its cracks. They will not make the same mistakes. While the previous regime was buying US the most sophisticated weaponry to be able to stand against Soviet proxy states, which even astonished General Brown (Chairmn JSCS) who said : «One must wonder what Shah is going to do with all these weapons », today’s regime is arming itself non-conventionally, and I don’t mean WMD, but rather non-conventionally in terms of Revolutionary Guards that is by all right an state within a state, a political power base by itself. Back in the 70s, Shah didnot have a formidable counter-revolution (for the lack of better term) police force to crackdown on the people, eventhough his Air Force and Army were equipped with the best. Todays regime is totallu different.

Furthermore, considering the fact that Iran is seating at a crossroad geographically, I would be a damn fool to think that neighboring nations wont take advantage of this theoretical Civil war to further their aim. Ex: today’s Iraq and Iran’s affairs in Iraq, or another example would be Saddam invasion of Iran in 1980. Do you think that Saddam Hussein would have dared launch a full-scale invasion of Iran when Shah was in power?

You and others here may call Iran evil for interfering in Iraq, but the matter of the fact is that no-nation anywhere in the world is foolish enough not to take advantage of that. Infact, in the 70s, Shah of Iran, the great ally of United States in the region, was arming Kurds in Iraq to gain bargaining chips against Saddam who was vice-president of Iraq back in the day. Guess what happened, Saddam was awed by Iranian military maneuvers, awed by Iran’s great ally (US) and Iranian Connection to the Kurds, therefore he agreed to Shah demands on the question of Shatt-al-Arab. As payment for Saddam demand, Shah had to agree to stop financing and arming the Kurds. Guess what happened next … the great Kurdish uprising collapsed like a house of cards when Shah withdraw his support. Looks to me that the Shah of Iran was also interfering in Iraq as well back in the 70s, and looks to me that Shah’s great ally didn’t quite object to that, and looks to me that Shah was supportting Insurrgent and terrorists against Iraq central government, with full knowledge of the States.

Therefore, no thank you very much. I would rather not have a civil war. The Great Russia still dreams of access to the warm waters of Indian Ocean. The triple Sunni power of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt would not stop for Iran to have its jolly civil war. Do you really think all neighboring nations and the world remaining superpower will all sit-down quietly while the Iranians fight their civil war, without furthering their own agenda. So no I don’t think it is right to compare Iran to American civil war which in many ways was shielded by two oceans.

Originally Posted by InfiniteDreams

That the Iranian Sharia Rule is not as bad as Pakistani Sharia Rule? And since Pakistan has a nuclear deterrent Iran should also be allowed one? Surely you don’t believe this? Comparing track records isn’t relative to the issue.

Surely not, and that is not what I meant.

Originally Posted by InfiniteDreams

I have no problem acknowledging that the US behaves duplicity. I’ll concede that so long as you’re willing to concede that the same rings true for every major power from time immemorial. The Romans, the Greeks, the British Empire, the French, the Russians, the Chinese all of them today behave no differently. No state or government that has come before can claim any different. That’s realpolitik. Life’s not fair. Never has been. We’re not happy or okay with the Pakistani situation. Just because we’re so called allies in WoT doesn’t mean we’re okay with their proliferating nuclear weapons. The answer to that question is no. The US doesn’t want ANYONE proliferating nuclear weapons. It doesn’t matter if they’re an ally or not. It’s not in anyone’s interests..

We are in deep agrement. As long as people do admit to that, then that is fine with me.

Originally Posted by InfiniteDreams

How the issues are related to each other Xerxes is that the fear of nuclear proliferation is magnified with countries that practice Sharia Law. If this is the type of abuse a state is willing to inflict on their own populace what might they be willing do to a foreign populace?

You know what, I am actually thinking that Iran is willing to abuse its people more than then foreigners. Ofcourse, we are talking in peacetime and not wartime.

Originally Posted by InfiniteDreams

Sharia Law is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. It’s outright barbaric.

Xerxes I think other WAB members understand history has a way of repeating itself and it’s Déjà vu all over again with regards to Iran. The Iranian issue is spiraling downwards and it’s frustrating to us in the west and patience is running thin. Ultimately we’d like to see the Iranian people do something about the situation rather than have our hand forced.

It is spiraling downward. I agree. Perhapes there will a clash very soon or maybe not. What I am certain is that there will be a large clash between Saudi and Iran on longerterm, as their intrests are colliding and overlapping each other.

@chosenOne and @Pari

I am wokeup pretty early today, and its noruz and its been a long exhausting day. I will respond tomorrow, if you dont mind.

**Parihaka** · 26 Mar 07,, 06:09

Originally Posted by xerxes

@Pari

I am wokeup pretty early today, and its noruz and its been a long exhausting day. I will respond tomorrow, if you dont mind.

It's all right Xerxes, I've already started answering my own question. Have a look when you can, I'd appreciate any comments.

**Ray** · 26 Mar 07,, 07:22

I believe the Coalition had detained some Iranian military men. Is this correct? I seem to have missed it, if indeed it is true.

**pdf27** · 26 Mar 07,, 08:59

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Newest developments: Iran ‘to try Britons for espionage’-News-World-Middle East-TimesOnline Now they're going to try them!

Careful with that article. I know a MoD Civil Servant on another board who deals with this part of the world on a daily basis (he's also in the RNR, and had done a tour with MND(SE) in his Civil Service role). He says he was contacted by this journalist friday night, and they were clearly on a fishing expedition looking to write up a worst case story. Most of what they had as of friday night was apparently wrong, and this story is unlikely to be any more accurate.

**execrable** · 26 Mar 07,, 09:14

Originally Posted by xerxes

I find it intresting that the first post of this thread refers to the Gulf as the "Arabian Gulf", instead what is the actual name ....

In the given link (BBC NEWS) it is mentioned: "The men were seized at 1030 local time when they boarded a boat in the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars."

source: BBC NEWS | UK | UK sailors captured at gunpoint

Was the word Arabian added by the author of the thread him/herself ??? and if so why???

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.

**lemontree** · 26 Mar 07,, 09:28

Ah! Now that makes sense. A barter trade has to be done. The Iranians are turning out to be hard nuts to crack.

**Parihaka** · 26 Mar 07,, 11:14

Originally Posted by Ray

I believe the Coalition had detained some Iranian military men. Is this correct? I seem to have missed it, if indeed it is true.

Iranian ambassador says Iranians detained by U.S. could be freed next week

By Scheherezade Faramarzi
ASSOCIATED PRESS

3:25 p.m. March 14, 2007

BAGHDAD – Five Iranians detained during a U.S.-led raid in northern Iraq in January could be released as early as next week, Iran's ambassador said Wednesday.

Hassan Kazemi Qomi said U.S. officials had informed Iranian delegates at a weekend security conference here that they were in “the final stage” of the investigation into the case. Qomi said he hoped the five could be released before the Iranian New Year, which falls on March 21.

Advertisement
The U.S. military said the five Iranians, who were arrested in the northern city of Irbil, were part of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard force that provides funds, weapons and training to Shiite militias in Iraq. Two days after the raid, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said President Bush approved the strategy of raiding Iranian targets in Iraq as part of efforts to confront Tehran.

Iran had insisted that the five detained Iranians were engaged exclusively in consular work.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman on Wednesday referred all questions about the detained Iranians to the State Department, while a State Department official said reporters should ask the Pentagon about the matter.

The release of the Iranians could pave the way for more cooperation between Tehran and Washington on stabilizing Iraq. Delegates of the two nations held their first direct talks in years at a weekend conference in Baghdad on resolving the crisis in the country, although U.S. and Iraqi leaders remain skeptical of Iran's commitment of support.

On Sunday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said intelligence reports indicated weapons were flowing into Iraq from Iran. He said the Iranians “need to match their statement of support for the Iraqi government with actions and words on the ground.”

In an interview with The Associated Press, Qomi said any effort to stabilize Iraq would succeed only after the U.S. hands over the country's intelligence and security services to “an empowered and sovereign” Iraqi government – led now by Shiite religious parties with ties to Iran.

Without such a hand-over, he said, “the government cannot structure its defense and security to tackle the threats it faces,” nor can it build relations with neighboring countries.

“We believe an empowered government here will be able to fight terrorism and play a role in regional security,” Qomi said.

He dismissed allegations than Iran has become a major arms supplier to Shiite extremists.

“To those who make such allegations, I say, where is your evidence?” Qomi said. “Frankly, they (Shiite groups) don't need our weapons and the Islamic Republic of Iran has not given them weapons.”

He added: “Why should we give them weapons if we believe insecurity in Iraq only prolongs the presence of the occupation forces?”

Qomi said Iran will continue to control its long border with Iraq to make sure no weapons or extremists infiltrate the country. He said that since the beginning of the war in March 2003, not a single terrorist attack had been carried out by anyone arriving from Iran.

“Have you ever heard of any car bomb that came from Iran?” Qomi asked. “No weapons have come through our borders.”

However, he said weapons had been smuggled from British-controlled southern Iraq into southwestern Iran for use in terrorist attacks there.

Qomi said Iran had much to offer Iraq including sharing intelligence information on terrorism, providing security expertise and training Iraqi police. He said Iran was prepared to host meetings between Sunni and Shiite religious leaders to ease sectarian tensions.

“What's important is what the Islamic Republic of Iran's policy is going to be. Our path is clear. What we want is an Iraq where there's security, is independent, free, able to start reconstruction, a strong government that is capable of getting foreign occupation forces out of here,” he said.

Source

**TheChosenOne** · 26 Mar 07,, 11:16

No problem Xerxes. Take your time. I was actually reading your reply to SA and ID and thought it was rather insightful. Plus I've been reading Parihaka's posts on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. That was very insightful too. I hope my post yesterday wasn't to offense in anyway. I had rockets fly over head the night before. I do look forward to your reply for I believe you are one of the only Iranian's on the board I know of at the time.

**Bluesman** · 26 Mar 07,, 12:35

Did y'all miss the story of Americans being taken prisoner and then executed by a VERY professional raiding party? It was Iranian, bet your bottom dollar on it, and this is incident is them dialing up the pain meter on us AGAIN.

We owe these bastards a debt of honor, and I am more than willing to pay them in the coin of exchange that they know best.

KILL THEM.

**smilingassassin** · 26 Mar 07,, 13:12

Originally Posted by xerxes

Mr Assasssin, you are using an example of a scenario in history that worked. Another scenario would be the Civil War in the Russia, which pitted Reds against White: guess who won?

Take no offense at what I am going to say, but what you have said as poetic as it is, it will result in a massive bloodbath that is going to make Shah’s non-existent crackdown in late 70s look like a joke.

So was the American civil war, it was a bloodbath...

Originally Posted by xerxes

Furthermore, considering the fact that Iran is seating at a crossroad geographically, I would be a damn fool to think that neighboring nations wont take advantage of this theoretical Civil war to further their aim. Ex: today’s Iraq and Iran’s affairs in Iraq, or another example would be Saddam invasion of Iran in 1980. Do you think that Saddam Hussein would have dared launch a full-scale invasion of Iran when Shah was in power?

I doubt Iraq is going to be in a possition to meddle in Iranian affairs and can Saudi Arabia really throw its weight around in Iran without stiring up Persian nationalism?

Originally Posted by xerxes

You and others here may call Iran evil for interfering in Iraq, but the matter of the fact is that no-nation anywhere in the world is foolish enough not to take advantage of that.

I only call the current Iranian regieme evil not Iran or Iranians in general.

Originally Posted by xerxes

Therefore, no thank you very much. I would rather not have a civil war.

I don't think there should be a civil war, I'd rather not see one, but I would like to see Iranians stand up and demand their government act a little more responcible.

**kams** · 26 Mar 07,, 14:00

It appears that majority is not taking in to account the internal Iranian Power politics. Is it possible that British Sailors fell victim to one such group's (which may be getting alienated internally) bid to force the others? In such a scenario, US/UK response to the crisis should be calibrated and targetted