15 Briton's in Iran - DPChallenge Forums

03/27/2007 06:56:42 AM · #1

15 Briton's in Iran

"They are being treated humanely" but should they have been captured at all?

Diplomacy is a good 1st option, but...

03/27/2007 04:35:53 PM · #2

Originally posted by Flash:

15 Briton's in Iran

"They are being treated humanely" but should they have been captured at all?

Diplomacy is a good 1st option, but...

Are you suggesting that we should take a leaf out of Israel's book when dealing with captured soldiers? How many Iranian lives are they worth?

Thank goodness the Iranians are not taking a leaf out of the US's book on the mental and physical torture of detainees.

Seriously - it is not as if they are being tortured, and there is at least a decent chance that they were somewhere they were not supposed to be. It is frustrating and I feel sorry for their families, but the only way that these guys are likely to come home is if Iran agrees to it (or if things really deteriorate and the SAS get sent in). That means for quite some time negotiations, not bombs.

ETA: I'm surprised anyone noticed when there are so many more important things to read about...!!!

Message edited by author 2007-03-27 17:05:01.

03/28/2007 08:35:38 AM · #3

Matthew,

I specifically posted this, hoping top get some commentary from you. I was curious for your take, when it involved 1). your countrymen, and 2). an obvious violation by Iran. However, you seem to hold open the possibility that your countrymen (the marines) were at least partially to blame, and thus again you give me the impression that you are sympathetic to Iran's cause.

I certainly appreciate your candor in this matter, as it has solidified my suspicions.

Although I agree with your position on using diplomacy to its fullest, I in no way believe that the incident was instigated by UK Marines in Iranian waters. To me this is just another chess move by Radical Islamic Leaders to show force and IMO unstableness. Exactly why they cannot be allowed to procure nuclear weapons.

Your SAS would do a right smart job of dealing with this, should diplomacy run its course. Please remember then, who started this.

03/28/2007 01:54:44 PM · #4

MSNBC article

03/28/2007 02:12:03 PM · #5

FOX article

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

03/28/2007 02:15:48 PM · #6

CNN article

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

03/28/2007 02:23:32 PM · #7

Ownership of the area in which the Marines were operating has been contested between Iran and Iraq for a long time, well before the fall of Saddam.

This reminds me of the incident a few years ago in which a US surveillance aircraft collided with a Chinese MiG and after making a miraculous emergency landing, the aircrew was detained by the very angry Chinese.

As for the comparison to the US treatment of detainees, there's a big difference between detaining an enemy that is actively at war with you and detaining someone who may not be your friend, but is, by no means, at war with you.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

03/28/2007 02:24:02 PM · #8

This is a bad situation. What hasn't come to the table yet is Iran's motive. These patrols have been going on for a long time now. The question is simply WHY the troops were captured. The Iranians state that the troops were in Iranian waters and the troops say they weren't. The answer to that question probably will never be resolved, so we just have to wait and see what Iran intends to gain by this capture.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

03/28/2007 02:29:00 PM · #9

Based in Iran's leader's previous statements and actions would anyone be surprised if it really was not in Iran's waters and this was an intentional act to stir the pot?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

03/28/2007 02:43:37 PM · #10

Originally posted by Flash:

I wouldn't say so much "sympathetic to Iran's cause" so much as less influenced by the demonisation of that state for a variety of reasons. For example, as a consequence of some personal familiarity with the region I know that the people who would be affected are no different to you or me. I don't think that the coalition's actions in the region have been at all justified, nor that we are fighting a righteous war (which may have an unexpected impact). I am not paricularly prone to alarmism, and a lot of the rhetoric on Iran is little more than that. I am sure that the soldiers will be released with little cost if we persevere with our current diplomatic approach - appropriate pressure is being applied already.

There is nothing so very obvious about who is in the right and who in the wrong. I understand that the US has also captured a number of Iranians in the last couple of months (c.300) following a change in policy towards Iranians found in Iraq. Some suspect that Iran is reacting to that.

I agree that it is highly undesireable for Iran to have the bomb. However, on a rational note I note that other military Islamic dictatorships engaged in long term semi-religious war over disputed land with neighbouring nuclear states already have the bomb and the sky has not fallen in - we even call Pakistan our ally.

If I were being provocative, I would point out that of course the US already has the bomb, but also an extreme religious leader willing to fight wars in the name of god and in extreme self interest, abuser of the democratic system, user of torture who refuses to be bound by major international treaties on the legality of war or human rights, possible war criminal (but who refuses to recognise the authority of the international courts), who has repeatedly and unilaterally breached nuclear non-proliferation treaties and expressed a willingness to use nuclear force.

All that said, of course I am patriotic and I hope that the soldiers are returned quickly and safely. I just don't want, nor feel that it should, be escalated into something that it isn't. I feel especially that it should not be used as a pretext for an American invasion (something that is also being rumoured).

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

03/28/2007 03:04:59 PM · #11

If Iran has no bad intentions, why have they not released them yet and why did they take them prisoner in the first place?

And, why did they change the coodinates of the alleged incursion into their waters?

And, I'm highly skeptical of the letter. I love how they throw the names in at the end to make you really think she wrote it.

This is Iran being a bully and picking a fight.

03/28/2007 03:19:53 PM · #12

Originally posted by LoudDog:

If Iran has no bad intentions, why have they not released them yet and why did they take them prisoner in the first place?

And, why did they change the coodinates of the alleged incursion into their waters? And, I'm highly skeptical of the letter. I love how they throw the names in at the end to make you really think she wrote it.

This is Iran being a bully and picking a fight.

1. What do you think that their bad intentions might be? I think that they were captured either because they unlawfully entered Iranian territory (most states (inc. US and UK) arrests illegal aliens for the same reasons), or by mistake, or in an attempt to gain some diplomatic leverage. I am not sure that any of those reasons are "bad" in an evil sense (though they may be contrary to our interests).

2. It takes no genius to see that both governments have a huge interest in presenting evidence that they were acting within international law (and both have done so). I personally think that the British evidence is a bit more convincing too, but I am not blind to the alternative nor the the fact that the alternative view could be presented differently and more convincingly.

3. If the US were to respond with a military invasion, would that make the US a bully picking a fight on a pretext?

MikeO

Fujifilm x100

03/28/2007 03:20:59 PM · #13

This is Iran trying to shift attention from the flak it is getting concering its Nuclear programme, nothing more, nothing less.
It will run its course and they will start releasing these people sooner rather than later.

As for a military solution - that is a non starter - its just not practical or realistic.

Its ironic that last week I started reading Mark Bowden's ''Guests of the Ayatollah'' - the story behind the 1978 siezure of the American embassy in Tehran and holding 66 American diplomats and citizens. Remarkable reading.

Edit to add - this is not the first time Marines/Sailors have been captured/held by Iran - they did it back in 2004

Message edited by author 2007-03-28 15:24:01.

03/28/2007 04:00:50 PM · #14

Matthew,

I do not believe that the US is interested in "bombing" Iran - at this point. I do believe that the recent "Gulf Exercises" were a prepartory display and rehersal should the need arise (kind of like reaching into my coat jacket pocket while approaching my vehicle at 2am in a deserted parking garage whilst a hoodlum looking person is eyeing me - the intent is to avoid the potential confrontation by appearing prepared to deal with it, NOT to be a bully looking for a fight). Regarding our role - should it escalate, it would be one of ally to your country, not as an excuse to warmonger - as you suggest. (edit to add) I fully expected you to draw a link to the Iraq war and thus excuse Iran's behaviour as being merely a "reaction" to our efforts there. Thank you for not disapointing me.

Mike Owens,

Your comments on the 1978 seizure is quite appropriate. Some believe that Iran's current President was a participant (perhaps even a ringleader) in the 444 day hostage crisis - although he denies it (and the holocaust).

Message edited by author 2007-03-28 16:06:09.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

03/28/2007 04:21:26 PM · #15

Originally posted by Matthew:

So holding someone against their will to gain diplomatic leverage isn't a bad thing? Would you hold this same belief should the UK do the same to the Iranians so they can regain some leverage back?

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/28/2007 06:19:52 PM · #16

Originally posted by Flash:

Some believe that Iran's current President was a participant (perhaps even a ringleader) in the 444 day hostage crisis - although he denies it (and the holocaust).

Most that are still around....KNOW he was the ringleader. They state they had day to day, face to face conversations, run-ins with him. Just one place.
//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4626081.stm

Message edited by author 2007-03-28 18:23:23.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

03/28/2007 06:25:18 PM · #17

Originally posted by yanko:

So holding someone against their will to gain diplomatic leverage isn't a bad thing? Would you hold this same belief should the UK do the same to the Iranians so they can regain some leverage back?

I said not "bad" in the sense of evil. You misportray my words by using a phrase "bad thing" which has a different meaning. It is contrary to our interests, probably unwise, probably provocative, but hardly evil.

Louis

Nikon D800

03/28/2007 06:30:15 PM · #18

Originally posted by Matthew:

I think that they were captured either because they unlawfully entered Iranian territory (most states (inc. US and UK) arrests illegal aliens for the same reasons), or by mistake, or in an attempt to gain some diplomatic leverage.

Apparently they did no such things:

"Satellite data proves 15 navy personnel being held in Iran were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they were seized, UK defence officials say."

Full story.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

03/28/2007 06:32:17 PM · #19

And by the way - the title of the thread should be 15 Britons in Iran. :P

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

03/28/2007 06:32:20 PM · #20

Originally posted by Matthew:

Bad intentions? How about intimidating other units operating in the same area to avoid doing so that Iran would then be free to operate there, in effect claiming by possession, the disputed territory. Perhaps as a staging grounds for even more incursions into Iraq.

I highly doubt they were actually in Iranian territory, perhaps territory the Iranians wish they owned.

If it was a mistake, why not just release them?

The Iranian government has a history of hostage taking, including implications that the current president was involved in the 1978 seizure of the American embassy, why is outright kidnapping such a stretch?

How can you say any of this not a bad thing?

The US does detain illegal aliens and those attempting illegal entry to the US. However, unless involved in criminal activity, they are promptly returned across the border/deported, not held hostage and paraded on TV, forced to read admissions for transgressions they didn't commit.

03/28/2007 06:57:46 PM · #21

Originally posted by Flash:

(edit to add) I fully expected you to draw a link to the Iraq war and thus excuse Iran's behaviour as being merely a "reaction" to our efforts there. Thank you for not disapointing me.

You must be somewhat disappointed that my reference to Iraq was an aside as to possible reason and not in any way seeking to provide a justification for the capture. I said that some people (incidentally not me) think that it may have been a reaction to US change in stance in Iraq. A *reason* - not a *justification*. Quite an important difference. I can comprehend without supporting.

You seem to think that I have some irrational support for ME countries: I don't support their actions uncritically, but rather try to focus my criticism on the foolish, misguided and deadly decisions that our leaders have taken and try to avoid the worst excesses of blind patriotism. For supporters of our leaders, it appears easier to seek to discredit people with my viewpoint as being lovers of the enemy than to respond to the criticism.

I understand that the manouevres are pre-planned, but they smack a little of the pre-planned manouevres carried out by, say, the UK in Oman immediately before the invasion of Iraq. Sabre rattling, but no less alarming for it. The balance of power between our nations also makes it unlikely that the US would intervene solely as ally of the UK - it is hard to believe that the UK could hold the US back if the US were determined to invade.

Message edited by author 2007-03-28 19:18:14.

03/28/2007 07:02:30 PM · #22

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Matthew:
I think that they were captured either because they unlawfully entered Iranian territory (most states (inc. US and UK) arrests illegal aliens for the same reasons), or by mistake, or in an attempt to gain some diplomatic leverage.

Apparently they did no such things:

"Satellite data proves 15 navy personnel being held in Iran were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they were seized, UK defence officials say."

Full story.

The articles that Flash posted above refer to the statements of the British soldiers saying that they were trespassing and had been arrested peacefully. Personally, I find the satellite data more compelling, but I do not ignore the fact that the UK government is fighting a media battle and historically has not been above stretching the truth.

03/28/2007 07:11:28 PM · #23

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

How can you say any of this not a bad thing?

I did not - see my response to this very phrase to yanko. Indeed, since the same incorrect allegation has been made twice, I just double checked and I said no such thing.