UK sailors captured at gunpoint by Iranian Forces

[GinandTonic]

Is taping them in this way a violation of the Geneva Convention? Which part?

Using POW's for propergada is outlawed.

 

[skadistic]

It falls under the "humiliating treatment" part. This the same part the Gitmo whiners used to say the non-uniformed terrorists were being violated with when a tellaphoto lensed camera shot film of detained terrorists. But as we know the GC doesn't apply to non-uniformed terrorist enamy combatents with no nation state. Yet those same crybabies are not crying foul when it actualy applys like it does now for the sailors from the UK who are now being held hostage by Iran.

Look at that a legitmate connection to Gitmo JR.

 

[Elrohir]

It falls under the "humiliating treatment" part. This the same part the Gitmo whiners used to say the non-uniformed terrorists were being violated with when a tellaphoto lensed camera shot film of detained terrorists. But as we know the GC doesn't apply to non-uniformed terrorist enamy combatents with no nation state. Yet those same crybabies are not crying foul when it actualy applys like it does now for the sailors from the UK who are now being held hostage by Iran.

Look at that a legitmate connection to Gitmo JR.

Are you serious? (About the telephoto lens thing) It's not like the US set them up to be photographed! And besides....if that's the biggest thing you can criticize the US for, in regards to how it treats it's prisoners, then you're severely lacking in imagination.

Any ideas why Iran would take this step? Are they spoiling for a fight, or just too stupid to know what they're doing?

 

[skadistic]

Are you serious? (About the telephoto lens thing) It's not like the US set them up to be photographed! I am serious and the prisons were going through a routin entry processing(this was before the aircondition buildings were put up)And besides....if that's the biggest thing you can criticize the US for, in regards to how it treats it's prisoners, then you're severely lacking in imagination.I'm sorry if I don't show much remorse for terrorists as they eat lavish meals painstakingly made to religious dietary needs and have airconditioning. Living better then the service men and woman who gaurd them at risk of being attacked.

Any ideas why Iran would take this step? Are they spoiling for a fight, or just too stupid to know what they're doing?

Both. They are stupid and spoiling for a fight. Irans leaders need a war to galvinize the population wich is not very fond of the ruling imamas and Amadinadumbnuts.

 

[Lotus49]

I don't see how a war would benefit Iran. If the UK gets involved, the USA will follow suit, perhaps also along with other Western countries.

You have to take a longer, wider view. They want to expell the Western powers form the Middle East, by way of getting the entire Islamic world to rise up and fight, putting us in such a volatile and unstable situation that we have no choice but to exit from. Sort of like what they're doing in Iraq, only on a much larger scale.

Basically, Persia (now known as Iran) wants to dominate the region (again). Main inhibitor to that happening, is us. So, how do you force us out? Broaden the scale in which we'd be forced to commit combat forces. See if you (they) can get us to the limit, and push us over.

But they need the Islamic world rallying behind them. They won't actually proceed unless they feel confident. Right now, they're just testing the waters. This likely isn't the time. But, it's not impossible. Major wars have been triggered over more trivial matters, in history - let's not forget.

 

[JollyRoger]

Look at that a legitmate connection to Gitmo JR.

Congrats - you a starting down the path to enlightenment.

 

[Godwynn]

 

[White Elk]

I have limtited time and am waaaaay behind on this thread and others. So I respond to a post from a couple days back and may not respond again for many days. While catching up posts in this thread, one post struck me as important because it addressed some critical points as I saw them. 'Internet time' be damned... its just been a few days! Not weeks!

But first....

@ White Elk, I get what your saying (and it is kind of long winded, but so are mine post sometimes),..........

Yes, this is a great weakness of mine... being long winded. Works in real life in real audience when people volunteer to hear other peoples points. But it only seems to serve to put off the internets quick readers/judges. I fail to find the balance to interject 'just enough' knowledge... and 'far too much' knowledge! Too much alienates the audience that needs the education. Too little does nothing for the audience that actually gives a damn. Catch 22. Though I must say I suck big time! And I often go faaaaar tooo far. But frack it! How can one attmept to share ones beliefs relating to complex issues such as ecology, governance, religion, politics and war??? Not in a few short paragraphs for sure! Right?

But even if it was the UK in the wrong. They were what, a few meters at most in Iran's waters. (and luckily enough Iran had 3 fully armed boats right there) That maybe a better action would of been a warning or such 1st? Or at the VERY LEAST issuing a warning that they will now use force over this border dispute? There are border dispute all over the world, no sane nation tries to settle it by randomly kidnapping hostages in the area of dispute with out even the hint or wanning before hand. (unless it's a cover for something else)

Warnings have long been issued and this is not the first time that British operatives have been detained since September 11th 2001. So to... have 'warnings' been issued to Iran for its apparent actions in Iraq. And then alleged Iranians in Iraq have been detained by the US alliance (with the UK being top ally), and Briton soldiers have been detained by Iranians for the same accusation. WTF is the differance? Really WTF is the differance?

I dont discount the potential that Iran is using this 'near' border operation as some so called "saber rattling". But nor do I discount that the western allies may have engineered an oppurtuninty to garner support for an extreme action they may have planned. Nor after looking at the recent history do I discount that the western allies have been caught subterfuging in Iran!

And dont forget how Israel used the capture of soldiers to attack Lebanon. Look what that gained the world? Tens of thousands of refugees, and no military advantage gained. Even if an advantage had been gained then would it have been worth the price? Hell NO. That action served to bolster the ranks of the extremists. We were played by the media which was played by the western governments. All that was worth it due to the life of a couple captured soldiers. I can tell you that without a flipping doubt I would attempt to take my own life in captivity if I knew that many many thousands of inoccents would suffer in my release!!! No doubt!! Are a few worth the death and destruction that was wrought upon Lebanon? Will more than a dozen Brits justify an action in Iran? I dont say give up and let them rot by no means! But I ask what is the price? And I wonder at the parrellels between this current event and a few past events.

But I personally don't know what the frack is going on. And that pisses me the heck off!! I WANT to trust my government and the British Government. But they lost my trust long ago. And sure as Shootin I will look at ALL the options! History has taught me to NOT base my views upon 'evidence' which one side or another would give me! And very recent history exclamates this! It sucks to be us. It really does. If my country and England had been truthfull all along... then I would have absolutely NO Question trusting what I am told! But they have lied as much as the Iranian current leadership has. Time and time again have I been lied to. Frack them all. I will look for patterns; and Heck Yes I trust them ALL with equal weight.... which is to say that I trust absolutley none of them!!! None of them. Not the Iranians, the British, nor my fellow American leadership... NONE OF THEM DO I TRUST. As far as I am concerned this recent action is either Iranian saber rattling or it is a busted Allied action against Iran. I dont know. I blame this confusion on the Western Allies. Had they been truthfull when appropriate, then I could trust them. But I have absolutley NO trust in any side now! I am left with attempting to make my own judgements based upon extremely limited information. But that is far far better than passing judgement based on some media spun government disseminated information. That last sentance sums up my response to most all of the posts I have read thus far.

 

[White Elk]

arghhhh I am finally now a victim of the duplicate posts....

Post deleted as a duplicate of post#448

 

[amadeus]

10 bucks says the kid is Palestinian.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

I saw those protestors on news, they were protesting in Tehran.

 

[Winner]

Just a note, text is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council#Veto_power

"Another criticism of the Security Council involves the veto power of the five permanent nations. As it stands, one veto from any of the "Big Five" (Russia, China, the United States, the United Kingdom and France) can halt any possible action the Council may take. One nation's objection, rather than the opinions of a majority of nations, may cripple any possible UN armed or diplomatic response to a crisis. For instance, "Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members."[9]"

People are often screaming that Russia and China block all the decisions on SC by their veto, which clearly is not the case.

And please, do not try to flame me for being pro-terror / anti-Israel / pro-Iran blahblah.

I won't flame you, because the Security Council did that for me:

UN let you down, it refused to call for release of the captive soldiers

So, as you can see, UN SC is useless. All it does in such cases is issuing of useless hogwash instad of clear and legitimate demand.

While the Western powers (US, UK and France) use the veto often, they seldom use it to protect dictators. Russia and China have no such moral considerations.

 

[Winner]

Where did I put my "Nuke Iran" banner?

 

[Winner]

As I said, Britain should capture 200 Iranians and hold them captive until Iran release the British sailors. Also make it clear that if any one of them is harmed, it will cost Iran one of its nuclear sites...

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Where was the outrage when American forces attacked Iranian consulates in Iraq? That's an act of war.

 

[White Elk]

Forget real life... I made extra time as I just read new news;

So Briton and Iran both show proof of where the incident occured. As expected they are contrary. Experts are quoted as reminding all of us dumbsquats that those borders have been contested for as long as some CivFanatics have been alive. Now I read that Briton stands firm in its stance after an under the table 'official' "note" from Iran.

I am very concerned over this whole thing. I am concerned that one side has been escualting another in the hopes of justifying conflict. I would love to be wrong. I really really hope that I am. Some might say that this kernal of doubt in me (which happens to lead credance to the Western Allies engineering a string of incidents to bring about justification for War).... well, they might say that I am a conspircay theorist. To them I say I am an amateur historian and have seen it all before. Even in this last 5 years Ive seen this all before. I now seriously wonder about some things. I predict nothing. Though I deeply worry that some nations extremists gamble everything on an event that could esculate to a war that cannot end; despite what the people may have to say. How better to preserve a bush gang vision of the future than to enact circumstances from which there is no return? A war sparked in Iran over a few hostages, but based on the nuclear issue with the hostages as bait.. would ensure that the United States is embroilled in yet another war that will far outdate the first and second term of the next US President. This preserves the power of the industrial military complex and it preserves the precedence of private military contrators (ie mercenaries) as essential to US security. The same security garbage we were fed with the patriot act which has fracked up the sovereinty of Americas Supreme Justice system (just to name one serious infraction on our freedom). Doesnt this concern you all? Even those outside the US? The great potnetial for circumstances to be devised which empower an extremist movement within the Untied States? This very same people have been in office and in Haliburton et all during all the black times of our recent history. Now they stand with unprecedented power even if they are forced from power. Dangerous indeed. I used to think we could outwait bush and even though many thousands of innocents would dies in the following years I did think it would get better. I wonder now.

A potential situation arrises where the current power of a rogue US president can far superside his legal term regardless if he is in office. Haliburtuons out of the US juristiction now and we've learned how 'out of the US' allows for unconstitutional torture and even for 'turning a blind eye' to the crimes coimmited by its mercenary forces... such as attempted assasination). Now the contractor that Chenney ran and who gave them unprecented power over US contracts over seas (an outfit which is so fracked up that it poisened our soldiers in Iraq with untreated water and got away with it... among many other dereliction of duties as contracted and paid by the US Gov)... well now they are in the position of 'security' in the same way that the 'out of country' unconstitutional torture prisions were. Furthermore the mercenary outfits which number in the tens of thousands... they also do not answer to US laws. But they act on the direction of Specific US politicians who have deep links with them dating back to the time of Americas dark days. The Iran Contra affair pales in comparision.

When bush and chenney leave, their gang will still have power over us if they can devise a situation which keeps us embroiled in conflict to where we can not disband the mercenaries and the outfits like haliburton. Blackwater was sent to Sudan and now months later Sudan is embroilled in deeper conflict.... the list goes on and on. Sounds like the CIA ops in South America etc. But now these are Private agencies which are not under the same oversight as even the CIA et all was when they commited their crimes. WTF? These are extremely dangerous times, and extremely dangerous people are forcing our future. Even a limited conflict with Iran grants grave powers to the private contractors who have been linked with the bush gang since before anyone ever heard of bush. This is old connections past Watergate. They make their big move now. They could have us. These are the black hawks of Nixons days. Same belief system and same tactics with differant laws (they made) and differant circumstances (they created). Forget theory... just look at the facts and wonder as I do. I very much worry for the future of the United States and the World.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

I won't flame you, because the Security Council did that for me:

UN let you down, it refused to call for release of the captive soldiers

So, as you can see, UN SC is useless. All it does in such cases is issuing of useless hogwash instad of clear and legitimate demand.

While the Western powers (US, UK and France) use the veto often, they seldom use it to protect dictators. Russia and China have no such moral considerations.

They did not vote this time, no point for that really though. I guess participants almost always know if someone is gonna veto and just want to have outcome of voting market on paper. I agree that SC is pretty much useless since it simply does not agree on anything because real members (Big 5) have their own agendas.

But, i doubt it would have made any difference if SC would have said "Return them to us now, or else" instead of "Please, return them".

 

[bigfatron]

Interesting commentary on the radio this morning from the guy who used to run the Maritime desk at the UK Foreign Office. He said that the border between Iraq and Iran through the Shatt al Arab is disputed, and always has been. No part of that border is registered at the relevant commission, as all agreed maritime borders must be.

It is possible and even likely - according to him - that the sailors were in the Iraqi definition of Iraqi waters but the Iranian definition of Iranian waters.

This - again according to him - was likely to be why Russia had vetoed the original resolution, because by doing so it de facto recognised the Iraqi version of a long-disputed border.

Besides the obvious desire to crank up some pressure on the UK, there is no way the Iranians will simply hand these guys back without making some kind of a point, because they are not going to implicitly abandon their territorial claim.

Don't know if he is right, but it sheds an interesting light on the situation.
BFR

 

[White Elk]

Interesting commentary on the radio this morning from the guy who used to run the Maritime desk at the UK Foreign Office. He said that the border between Iraq and Iran through the Shatt al Arab is disputed, and always has been. No part of that border is registered at the relevant commission, as all agreed maritime borders must be.

It is possible and even likely - according to him - that the sailors were in the Iraqi definition of Iraqi waters but the Iranian definition of Iranian waters.

This - again according to him - was likely to be why Russia had vetoed the original resolution, because by doing so it de facto recognised the Iraqi version of a long-disputed border.

Besides the obvious desire to crank up some pressure on the UK, there is no way the Iranians will simply hand these guys back without making some kind of a point, because they are not going to implicitly abandon their territorial claim.

Don't know if he is right, but it sheds an interesting light on the situation.
BFR

Yes Yes and Yes. Its nothing new. Though it may be to those who base their judgements on current news reporters views and know not the past....

If I was playing a game of MP Civilization... this would be ideal for me to make justifications... from one side or another.

Why do we not hear of this in the Western media? WHY???

 

[White Elk]

These disputed borders represent substantial economic power. These borders have been in contention from the time that the United States backed Iran against Iraq and then to support Iraq against Iran. Iraq indiscriminantly using weapons of mass destrutction against Iran (and Iraqis) which affected many thousands of noncomabatent civlians. (while under Donald Rumsfeld... the former US Secretary of Defenses for gw bush). Now this same border dispute threatens once again to initiate a conflict. This IS about oil and its transport to the rest of the world. I never beleived that the Iraq war was about just Oil. Even though I understood some of the history. But now I cant help but wonder what else all this could be about. The evidence is rather overwhelming at this point.