Start of war? 15 Royal Marines and sailors seized by Iranians

[hermanntrude]

try to make sense. Some soldiers were taken for whatever reason in suspicious circumstances thousands of miles AWAY from britain, then you say it's an invasion of britain, I ask you what you mean by it and say it's a trade for oil. These three stories don't tie in for me. could you explain what you mean?

 

[darkbeaver]

that's how i label you as a loonie rather than part of the mainstream media

OHHHHH

 

[talloola]

try to make sense. Some soldiers were taken for whatever reason in suspicious circumstances thousands of miles AWAY from britain, then you say it's an invasion of britain, I ask you what you mean by it and say it's a trade for oil. These three stories don't tie in for me. could you explain what you mean?

They don't tie in for me either. I guess Iran is just "FLEXING it's muscles, getting attention, and
trying to convince others in the area, that they are the "cat's ass" locally, and otherwise. It was done
before, sailers were freed, shortly after, so I would imagine, same will happen here. I don't really
take it too seriously at all, (but I'm sure Britain does), If they harm the sailers, they will be in big deep "doo doo", and they don't want that, at this point.

 

[darkbeaver]

Ah Taloola they live in the area, the limeys are there stealing the oil, the Brits were scouting for landing areas or digging clams far away from the mother ship. They are invaders and occupiers and mass murderers, they have no legal right to board any ships in the region.:smile:

 

[tamarin]

It's an interesting situation, especially the moreso when the UN is about to consider further sanctions against Iran. It's embarrassing for Britain too as the Brits will have to save face on this one. Iran is obviously tweaking the lion's tail, trying to provoke a little confrontation. It has to play big in the Arab world where hatred of the West is feverish.

 

[earth_as_one]

Most likely the captured British service men will be used as bargaining chips to secure the release of Iranians:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6232735.stm

 

[CDNBear]

Most likely the captured British service men will be used as bargaining chips to secure the release of Iranians:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6232735.stm

Yet another illegal act under international law.

 

[earth_as_one]

Yet another illegal act under international law.

Whether its legal or not depends where these sailors were when they are captured/kidnapped.

Iranian side

Iran: detained Britons admit being in Iranian waters

Sat, 24 Mar 2007

The Deputy Head of Iran's Joint Chiefs of Staff has said Tehran has gathered substantial information proving the detained British sailors had entered Iranian waters.

Brigadier General Alireza Afshar made the remarks on Saturday, adding "The detainees are being questioned right now and they have admitted to incursion into Iranian territorial waters."

Iran has moved the 15 British servicemen to Tehran after detaining them on Friday for transgressing into its waters in the Persian Gulf.

Iran says the Britons claimed they had entered Iranian waters by mistake while on a "routine" patrol of Iraqi waters close to Arvand Rud (Iranian name for Shatt al-Arab)...

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=3668&sectionid=3510101

This is the British side:

The Financial Times reckons a "major diplomatic showdown" is in the offing over Iran's seizure of 15 British sailors and marines off the Iraq coast.
The Times speculates that the personnel could be used as pawns by Iran against the West in the battle over its nuclear programme.
The Daily Mail says it is possible that Tehran will use them to release five Iranians seized by the US in Iraq. The Daily Telegraph believes it is no coincidence that more sanctions against Iran are in prospect at the UN...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6490723.stm

Former Royal Navy chief Admiral Sir Alan West explains the issues surrounding the seizure of 15 Royal Navy personnel from HMS Cornwall in the Gulf by Iran.

Sir Alan was first sea lord in 2004, when Iran detained eight British servicemen after they allegedly strayed over the maritime border.
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?...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6491581.stm

Sounds to me like this was orchestrated by the Iranians as Sir West says. I suspect Iran looked for and seized an opportunity to legally seize allied soldiers. It would have been better to capture some of the "covert ops" aka "black reconnaissance" people operating inside Iran's borders, but technically this serves their purposes just as well.

Foreign plots and cockroaches in Iran

By Iason Athanasiadis

TEHRAN - The recent deadly unrest in Iran's predominantly Azeri northwestern region - an area acknowledged as ripe for covert operations - has raised concerns in Tehran not only of foreign hands in action, but also of its resurgent oil-rich, US-friendly neighbor the Republic of Azerbaijan...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HF08Ak02.html

Do American backed anti-Iranian operatives and mercenaries operate in Iran?

...The President’s decision enables Rumsfeld to run the operations off the books—free from legal restrictions imposed on the C.I.A. Under current law, all C.I.A. covert activities overseas must be authorized by a Presidential finding and reported to the Senate and House intelligence committees. (The laws were enacted after a series of scandals in the nineteen-seventies involving C.I.A. domestic spying and attempted assassinations of foreign leaders.) “The Pentagon doesn’t feel obligated to report any of this to Congress,” the former high-level intelligence official said. “They don’t even call it ‘covert ops’—it’s too close to the C.I.A. phrase. In their view, it’s ‘black reconnaissance.’ They’re not even going to tell the cincs”—the regional American military commanders-in-chief....

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/01/24/050124fa_fact

I wouldn't expect a Whitehouse press statement on this.

 

[talloola]

Ah Taloola they live in the area, the limeys are there stealing the oil, the Brits were scouting for landing areas or digging clams far away from the mother ship. They are invaders and occupiers and mass murderers, they have no legal right to board any ships in the region.:smile:

These aren't normal times in that area. the Brits, at the moment, have a job to do, they won't be there
much longer, and I'm sure if you talked to the Iraqi's in Southern Iraq, they would be happy about much of their lives at the moment. It's not Bagdad down there.
There were outside of Iranian waters,
which means it's no business of the Iranians, so don't talk about them as though they are innocent
non violent, nice guys, they have their own agenda.
The Brits will be out of there in a few months, I believe, so hopefully the Iraqi's in the south will
be left alone to live in peace, they have had lots of help with "water supply" and other infrastructure
which has made their lives a little easier.
I would like to see "all western troops" out of there soon, but after so much devastation, surely the
U.S. has big responsibility toward reconstruction and facilities.

 

[tamarin]

Iran is pretty good at this Let's Seize Some Westerners bs. Ronnie Reagan won a presidency on the back of such a hostage situation with Iran. Tony Blair should show some backbone. The folks in these areas aren't receptive to diplomacy.

 

[darkbeaver]

If I we're the Iranians I would tie the limeys to the nuclear reactor so the Yanks or the Hebs won't bomb it. They were breaking international law and spying in Iran for a beach head, they could be legally shot or hung, especially as eight of the fifteen we're already arrested in Iran three years ago under similar circumstances.:lol:

 

[AndyF]

hermanntrude:

Well I can understand their intollerance. The downing of an Iranian airline with a full passenger list by a US frigate while it was in Iranian waters would still be fresh in their minds.

I have heard this is the second time the Brits were caught in the act. The other time the Iranians held some soldiers captive until the Brits admitted their wrong and they did.

Andyf

 

[hermanntrude]

have we actually got to the point where we actually know what happened or are we still speculating based on various differing reports?

 

[westmanguy]

Britain darn well better go in and get those troops.

This is getting international attention.

O Judas... if Britain goes in there and tries to get their men back and Iran resists, that means war.

Tony Blair will declare war on Iran

And George W. Bush will declare war on Iran.

And we will all be in chaos once again.

Tony and George will get their last war in before they are done.

 

[earth_as_one]

have we actually got to the point where we actually know what happened or are we still speculating based on various differing reports?

The exact location of the Iran/Iraq border in this area is disputed. But even the Iraqis appear to support Iran's claim that these soldiers were in Iranian waters.

...A senior Iraqi officer appeared to back Tehran’s claim that the British had entered Iranian waters. “We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control,” said Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim, who is in charge of Iraq’s territorial waters. “We don’t know why they were there.”...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563877.ece

 

[gopher]

Iran's news service portrays a very different picture:

http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-203/0703247166165714.htm

quote:

Deputy Commander in Chief of Armed Forces General Staff by confirming arrest of 15 British sailors by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) naval forces in Iran's territorial waters on Friday March 23, 2007, said the sailors were under interrogation and have confessed violating Iranian territorial water.

 

[hermanntrude]

that was a truly stupid thing for the british soldiers to be doing then, wasnt it? tension's really high, everyone's bracing for a war, and they go and trespass on iranian waters?

 

[gopher]

Ships today have satellite monitors that indicate their precise location. If the British ship was in international waters, its records would show that and they would easily have the UN on its side in this conflict. But it is only too obvious that Bush and Blair want a war in order to bolster thier criminal political ambitions.

 

[Liberalman]

This is a ruse that was orchestrated by the Brits and probably the Yanks so they can invade Iran.

The Americans will send in a force into Iran for a rescue or maybe to get captured.

This is necessary to fool the Democrats into supporting another war.

Weapons of mass destruction are not working any more.

The British forces would not leave themselves to be captured so I can only assume that this is the intial stages of an invasion of Iran

 

[westmanguy]

I hope we do get another war.

Iran is a rogue force in the World and must be eliminated.

And the USA and Britain are the people to do it.