lo folks,

Incase you folks dont read the newspapers heres what happened.
15 British Navy personnel have been 'arrested' by the Iran National Guard for "straying into Iran's waters". They were taken at gunpoint during a check on an Iraqi boat for the on going operation to stop smugglers. They are being held in Iran's capital, Tehran.

I think this has been handled wrong. The British are far too politically correct to do anything.

1. The boats on patrol were supported by a Lynx helicopter. The helicopter is there to protect the boats and keep lookout for the enemy. The Lynx shadowed the boats as they were escorted into an Iranian port before returning to ship. What is the point of having the Lynx there, at great cost to the British tax payer, if its not aloud to carry out its role. This is where the the situation should have been stopped. They should have engaged the Iranian vessels and sunk them before they reached the British.

2. Ok so the 15 sailors have been captured. They are being escorted back to an Iranian port. What does the commadore of the fleet do? Nothing! He sits there and crys to the admiral over his sat phone that his men have been captured and then admiral goes to the government. Whats the point of the gun, i paid for, sitting on the front of the ship then? The Captain should have sailed the Cornwall and a few destroyers up the river and taken the sailors back by force with support from Lynx helicopters.

3. So were left in this situation where 15 British sailors are now being held by terrorists supported by an anti western government who are the next target for Bush's war machine. Diplomacy hasnt worked for the last 2 years trying to get them to stop making nukes why is it going to work now over a few sailors? What will our government do? Nothing! were a soft target. The Iranians arnt stupid, they didnt take US soldiers. Why? Because we'd be seeing the second night of cruise missiles landing all over Iran on our news screens. No, they took British troops because our government will sit there and let the Iranians walk all over them. What should of happened? SAS should have stormed the compound, taken out the national guard and rescued our troops.

We should be in a position now where we can turn aound to Iran and say "look they were in Iraq water why did you take our personnel hostage"? Instead the 15 will spend another night being subjected to mock execusions, forced confessions and torture.

Britian SUCKS!

cheers tony!

Carver

PS: on an ArmA front: This would make an awsome coop MP mission ^^

Don't they normally have some RMC aboard for anti smuggling etc?

Tell you what, if we get them back and they say they've been subjected to that crap, there better be hell to pay. There's a twang of heartache for me whenever I find out any of our boys have been captured (or any western forces).

EDIT:

Fukken bullshit

Wr're bringing 2k of troops out of Iraq by the end of june AFAIK so that will be some to send to Iran...

That's cool !
Now The UK and USA got a real reason to attack Iran, I allready see the Oil price sinking in America

in my opinion they offered a reason for war now. iran wants the war, but they want others to start it to be held as the victim in the muslim world. so either we will become witnesses of a very serious war against a large military power now or not. remember the american hostage siege of 1979/1980 and how long it took to get the american citizens back.

There's talk of them being tried for spying
Utterly ridiculous... As Admiral West said this morning on BBC news - what kind of military would send 15 ordinary naval personnel out to a vessel in inflatable boats to conduct some nefarious activity?

Indeed. Isn't that we have UAVs for. If push comes to shove I'm sure 22reg will have some say in the matter...

that is the same silly debate like with the german angler donald klein who was arrested in 2005 for straying into iranian waters. the iranians wanted germany to set a convicted murderer free, rumor says a personal friend of ahmadinejad. that killer murdered four iranian opposition politicians in german exile somewhen in the eighties.

on the sea, how will one manage not to get a meter across the invisible border?
and those british naval personel were taken on the shatt al arab river, german media reports. the iraqi-iranian border divides the river in the middle, how should one avoid to drive occasionally across that line?

Exactly what me and my parents think

Be aware guys the almighty Railway Minister of Pakistan has spoken

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=48176

"Now approaching platform 3 is the 09:54 train to Tehran. Passengers are advised to sit in the front 3 carriages only to avoid the blast"

Do the rest of you think this will end up as a war?

The Iranians arnt stupid. They know that right now western forces are streched to their limits across half the middle east. Why wait till the yanks are back up to full force and ready to invade? Take 15 brits hostage and hang them for spying - start the war now when the west isnt ready.

I'd say they'll be released within the following 14 days.

Time to call in the Israelis, the US is already hated in the entire Islamic world anyway, so it can't possibly get worse anyway, and the Israeli's have plenty of firepower to flatten Iran back to sealevel

Alternatively once the hostages are released/freed, have a sub fire a few nukes or cruise missiles at large Iranian cities.

As a second alternative, and much more deniable: give the Israeli's some old Sovjet ICBM's, all muslims already want to kill every Jew already anyway, so that also cannot get any worse. Also we've seen what the IDF does to Arab armies (1948, 1967, 1973 etc) should they attempt to retaliate.

This is also what the UK should have done when they had Bin Laden pinned in the Tora Bora region, one of the most uninhabited places on earth. It would have cost 100 "innocent" civilians lives max, and would have gotten rid of the leader plus alot of his subordinates and troops. Would also have sent a good signal to potential backers of terrorism: Plot against us and be whiped from the face of the earth.

Make the price of these kinds of actions so high that they will never again attempt it.

the british sailors have been proved to be in iraqi waters by both fishing vessels and US Navy personnel. Iran was out of iranian waters therefor they should be in our hands, which is the problem. There holding the sailors so long because the US hold 4 iranian sailors.

That was a point raised earlier that we are being ued as bargining chips by the iranians.

I suspect we're getting close to "HAMMER TIME!!!" again:

haha, anyone else think we have seen this before?? (failure of bay of pigs and Castro budding up with Krustchev lead to US marines 'practice' ampbibious landings on carrabian islands)

US Iraq exit strategy announced

Here

This whole incident, and all the news articles I've read about it, or broadcasts I've watched about it, make me believe that Iran is just egging on the western world to start the war. I mean, why on earth would you watch so closely to see if any Coallition vessle barely goes over the border? The only reason for this is Iran is monitoring everything looking for every oppertunity to go to war. Hopefully we'll get those 15 young men back, if not, there'll be Hell to pay. The execution of these soldiers would create a public outcry, and one that could possibly start a third Middle-Eastern war, but this time with Iran.

For me, this is freaky. Iran is only about 500KM North of the Qatari Border (Doha, Qatar is where I live) so I'll be damn close to it. Either way, we're in for a hell of a show...

Point is, it's been proven that they didn't go over the border at all, but in fact Iranian ships crossed the border to get them (the ship they boarded remains anchored in the same spot and GPS proves that they didn't go any further). Yet they dare still hold these British personnel? It's a god damn outrage if you ask me - they have absolutley no right at all to still be holding them.

And now they have released the Woman only? Anyone got any theories on this?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/28/...lors/index.html

Bullshit IMHO

ofcourse it is, whats more outragous is that they changed the co-ordinated they detained them in after they relised that the initial ones were in iraqi waters.

Bah go drop a moab on tehran

Should we really expect anything else from a region/culture that is known for torture and executing prisoners?...

I reckon she's the only one being released as of yet because she's the only one that would crack and supposedly "admit" 'it'.

There is also the position of women in Islamic and especially Iranian Islamic culture and our own, its better to hold men prisoner than women is the cultural view of most western people...

I honestly cant fathom what the Iranian's are trying to achieve here or whether it was ordered from above or some hothead Gunboat commander did it on the spur of the moment...then again Iran isn't exactly stable in its international relations or military decisions

I agree about the womans importance.

IMHO I dont think they have anything planned it seems to have been very botched (the moving of cordinates etc). Why would the Iranians detain 14 marines and a pilot with no real goal except publicity or maybe some leverage to get some prisoners released?

Regards Mark

In Islam killing a vergin to the faith (ie: not having slept with a muslim man) is seen as a very bad thing to do. Iran only releasing the woman could be a sign that they intend on trying the 15 men and executing them....starting a war.

i dont think iran want war. This is as much a tool for domestic pressures than international one for Iran.

If they are indeed testing the water, they've found it to be quite tepid indeed. Our softly-softly approach is rather pathetic if you ask me.

i think its a safe approach, lets face it, its a loose loose situation for our goverment whatever they do. A rash decision, such as "give them back or well attack" would be extremly foolish and we wouldnt get them back AND have a war on our hands. The best thing in my view is to apologise, get the 15 back, then withdraw the apology and impose further sanctions etc.. (there is still no total trade embargo and 30% of irans trade is with europe, would be very damaging to impose one)

That would only increase their trade with the Russians and Chinese.

A conventional war in Iran like the one we have seen in Iraq would probably be disasterous for the attacking force. There are a lot of mountains and a big part of the 70 million people living there are hostile to USA and her allies.

I don't think the UK will have the ability to muster such a force that can undertake an attack and occupation of Iran.

The right way to go imo are political sancions.

the question is whether sanctions could show positive effects. those sanctions which are valid at the moment will hardly force the iranian regime to reflect upon it´s policy, so the west had to decide about sanctions able to dammage iranians economy what is obviously not useful to bring the iranians on one´s own side - sanctions, which however cannot become valid due to the in any case obvious veto of the russians in the security council.

but i doubt that really such a majority in iran has a hostile attitude towards the united states and the western world, especially the younger generation is said to be very wide-minded and pro-western.

the ultra-conservative regime in teheran is only out to provoke some kind of reaction to determine iran´s scope, they only want to see how far they can go. i am very sorry for that hostage-held people who got between the lines in that silly conflict. to strengthen the own credibility the allied should now stand side by side. it´s their responsibility to prevent a war because today reasons for a war do exist. the 'iran nuclear matter' is not a real one. what´s the problem about a nuclear armed iran? take another nuclear-armed state: pakistan is the hotbed of the international terrorism at the moment. i am sure, that the danger going out from a stolen or even over-handed nuclear device from pakistan is much bigger than the danger going out from iran who is, if you ask me, only interested in getting a measure to increase it´s position as a regional power in competition with saudi arabia and egypt. nothing more, nothing less.

I know a few Iranians, they all are friendly to the west (they live here, after all) but they do not like the politics of the US of A ant their allies and if USA invaded Iran im positive they would support the Irani militia.

only if the usa do the same fateful mistake like in iraq and occupy iran. to remove a regime is one thing, but to take the people their chance to create independently their own future within the desired new beginning, and to prescribe to them how their new nation building has to look like, is funnily still valued as the best remedy. in fact this has worked only once, namely in germany, and also only as it had been buried in debris.

Bush attacks Iran over captives
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6514567.stm

Well... the headline was a huge overstatement, wasn't it?

As for my view on this, we should do what Stalin did to Mao. Threaten to bomb Beijing. their capital. Not Invade, just bomb.

(I can see Biggles is still ranting against his governments... what a crackpot, doesn't he realize that the UK's "constitution" does nothing to protect his Human Rights? I bet he really likes the EEC )

[polemic] the last person on this planet those captured brits can use now is george w. bush, master of disaster and holder of the adolf-hitler-memory-doctorate of invading countries for egoism [/polemic]

riot outside British embassy in iran today. chanting of "death to the british" was heard. oh dear, This is turning sour for Iran now, because to win a propaganda victory they will be aiming to split the british population, but in fact its being counter-productive.

ambassadors live dangerously in these days. the first indications were the attacks on danish and swiss embassies after the mohamed cartoon riots. imagine - a hundred years ago, a down-burned embassy would be a reason to bulldoze a country.

honestly said i disagree with the supposition that the prisoners would be released soon. i can only again refer to the american hostage siege in 1980. just like twentyseven years ago, limited military strikes should be a real option today, because in 1980 the hostages were held for over 440 days. for iran, those captured brits symbolize an ace resting in the sleeve.

do we want to see these hostages beheaded? becusae that would be the natural reaction for 'pre-emtive' stikes lets face it. No, that would be a VERY bad idea, it would just give the iranians more reason to hold onto the hostages as barganing tools, or a justification to execute/harm them. responding by force would give them the propaganda victory, and we all know how well the american operation to free there hostages went.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if all the footage of these people was prefilmed and they were already dead.

Also, if we declare War on Iran they won't be able to behead the hostages, it's against he Geneva convention

That stop the US using phosphorous etc?

You're right, sadley, the UN doesn't have enough power. If only there was some sort of UN adminstrated military force .

The Geneva conventions don't restrict the usage of any weapon, they only mention how people are to be treated, and what not to do in war. Of course in the duality that is international law, you as a goverment or group have to sign the agreement to be possibly held responsible for any breaches, and terrorist organisations aren't officially recognised or care, and neither does any sane country.

The US for instance doesn't want any of it's soldiers arrested and tried for anything that might be considered a warcrime, but they do expect other nations that signed the exact same agreements to extradite people that do exactly the same, or capture them by force.

Many nations signed the anti-mine agreement, yet they use claymore mines (yes, it's even in the name) with a tripwire that works through exactly the same principle of indiscriminate infliction of damage.



There are several, the problem is however that a majority of the non-permanent members in the inSecurity Council needs to agree with it, and then there are still a bunch of bullies with a veto-right so they can ruin a plan that the entire UN agrees with because of their own self-interest. No UN force in history has ever been deployed before the shit had already hit the fan, and many thousands had been slaughtered.

The wishes of over 5 billion can be shattered by the corporate interests of a few fatasses representing less than a billion people. The UN is a useless organisation that only costs us money.



That wouldn't serve any purpose, as they are worth much more alive than they would dead. Also many Iranians think this was a stupid idea, don't be fooled by the Iranian PR machine that hired/forced/rallied all of their radicals to make it seem that the entire population has rallied behind their president. Revolutionary Iran has had a long history with supressing people that think differently such as progressive students. A military invasion however would most likely result in the same effect as it did in Iraq. Initially a large portion of the population wouldn't be all that unhappy with the regime change, but over time resistance would increase dramatically, which means that any military operation would have to be a surgical cut which would keep civilian and even military casualties to an absolute minimum. Things like a few coordinated bombings of Iranian Revolutionary Guard baracks and naval vessels combined with a rescue attempt by an SF force. This last part of course depends on the location the hostages are being held. Even a slight chance of a repeat of the US 1980 disaster is of course not an option.

A good example of the succesfull application of the so beloved American term "Hearts and Minds" (it is actually a British term) were the SAS operations in Oman in the 1960's and 70's. Through offering medical assistance, housing, education and infrastructure (water wells etc) a very small force was able to both train the local forces there, and get the support of the locals in their fight against communist guerillas.

But well, Americans and wanting to learn from any non-American force...has always seemed to be a reluctant marriage to me....

On a more funny note: [SAS: Wildlife Warriors]

I think the new involvment of Bush is nothing but a bad thing. I think the best way to get some leverage is to attempt to get Pakistan and Turkey to apply pressure to Iran, both of which i feel will be willing to do so.