Iran shows true colours

Zambia

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Doesn't give them the right to enter disputed waters.

If the waters are disputed well them they are not Irans either.

The scenario really would be the Le Erin stops a Fishing Trawler for supected drug running just over Irish waters. During the search the Royal Navy appears and informs them of there presence in UK waters. The Irish Navy would of course check there GPS and leave the area. Leaving it for the two goverments to argue.

I am sure if they arrested them brought them to london and paraded the Le erin Boarding Party in front of Cameras saying things like we are so sorry for crossing into her Majestys waters.

The Irish public would not be happy.

Akrasia

Zambia232 wrote:

If the waters are disputed well them they are not Irans either.

The scenario really would be the Le Erin stops a Fishing Trawler for supected drug running just over Irish waters. During the search the Royal Navy appears and informs them of there presence in UK waters. The Irish Navy would of course check there GPS and leave the area. Leaving it for the two goverments to argue.

I am sure if they arrested them brought them to london and paraded the Le erin Boarding Party in front of Cameras saying things like we are so sorry for crossing into her Majestys waters.

The Irish public would not be happy.

There is a huge difference between what you described, and the situation in Iran at the moment. Ireland and the U.K. are peaceful allies at the moment, but the U.K. and her allies (the U.S.) are actively threatening Iran with military attack and U.N. sanctions.

The U.S/UK coalition have been acting hostile towards Iran and are currently occupying one if it's neighbours.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote:

if the waters are disputed, then surely they have as much right as the Iranians to enter them?

They don't actually. The waters are disputed between local countries Iran, Iraq, UAE etc. They don't have the right to be in disputed waters on the other side of the world. They have no legitimate business there!!!

Akrasia

They claim to be enforcing a U.N. mandate.

(they're a protectorate of the empire)

Erin Go Brath

Akrasia wrote:

They claim to be enforcing a U.N. mandate.

(they're a protectorate of the empire)

My sentiments exactly!

Lemming

Erin Go Brath wrote:

They don't actually. The waters are disputed between local countries Iran, Iraq, UAE etc. They don't have the right to be in disputed waters on the other side of the world. They have no legitimate business there!!!

*cough*

UN mandate anyone? Number 1546 if I'm not mistaken

Zambia

Akrasia wrote:

There is a huge difference between what you described, and the situation in Iran at the moment. Ireland and the U.K. are peaceful allies at the moment, but the U.K. and her allies (the U.S.) are actively threatening Iran with military attack and U.N. sanctions.

The U.S/UK coalition have been acting hostile towards Iran and are currently occupying one if it's neighbours.

Granted its simplistic but the scenario remains the same they are parading troops on TV in full view of their home nation. Its not exactly helping prior to this incident I was in no way supportive of any Iranian action now I would be leaning the other way as the days go by that this remains the state of Play.

Despite where you stand on the British the fact remains these men/women should not be held in this manner.

Erin Go Brath if British troops intervened anywhere for any reason you would object.

mike65

Quite so.

Mike.

FTA69

Lemming wrote:

3. Wanting to "hit back", the Revolutionary Guard enters Iraqi waters with seven gun boats (iirc) and take 15 UK personnel captive.

Who says they were actually in Iraq? (Aside from the Brits of course, who denied enough border incursions in Ireland to make their word worthless on this particular issue.) I'm a bit surprised to see all the faux outrage over the televisation of the troops and the female wearing a shidoor. I'd prefer one of those than a hood over my face anyway a la Guantanamo. Typical hypocrisy.

LordSutch

I am just curious to know how the Royal Navy let this happen in the first place! Wot 'No Binoculars'?

The Cornwall with all its technology didnt see the gunboats comming? and what about the Cornwall's Helicopter overhead? that didnt see the Iranian gun-boats coming either? the mind boggles..........................

Or am I missing something?

Erin Go Brath

Zambia232 wrote:

Erin Go Brath if British troops intervened anywhere for any reason you would object.

Yeh well I have the same attitude to any nation on Imperialist duties!!!

Frederico

the_syco wrote:

So if the British Navy is just off the British coast, the Irish Navy should arrest them? WTF? This makes no sense!

Also, why were the British looking for people trying to smuggle guns into Iraq on the Persian gulf? [sarc]Is there a war happening in Iraq, or something?[s/sarc]

Iran is a country literally under siege, thats how they feel. Usually before any attack special forces will be sent in, the Iranians have to be extremely paranoid about this fact. Countries on friendly terms are a completely different matter.

The US/UK will always have the upper hand in these situations simply because the rest of the world trusts them alot more, I mean its been drummed into us who the good guys really are through TV, film, etc, etc.

All the Americans have to do is say that the Iranian diplomats they siezed are involved in something dirty and deep down we don't really question it. We have an advanced propaganda model, to us the Iranian propaganda looks old-fashioned and crude, maybe one day they'll learn to manipulate the media like we can.

Personally I feel the current situation is ridiculous and the Iranians are too clumsy to make themselves look good out of this, or the victim, or whatever.

Whim

FTA69 wrote:

Who says they were actually in Iraq? (Aside from the Brits of course, who denied enough border incursions in Ireland to make their word worthless on this particular issue.) I'm a bit surprised to see all the faux outrage over the televisation of the troops and the female wearing a shidoor. I'd prefer one of those than a hood over my face anyway a la Guantanamo. Typical hypocrisy.

My thoughts exactly. The Iranians are treating these hostages humanely and decently. And if we're going to give out about the illegal capture of people, we might want to have a look at Bush's extradition policy.

FYI

It's pretty obvious that if Blair (and Bush) weren't beating their war drums so loudly they probably could have retrieved the soldiers a lot quicker than this. There is a historical precedent...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3835313.stm

And further 'suggestion' the soldiers were indeed in Iranian waters:

"Brigadier General Hakim Jassim [the top Iraqi military officer in charge of guarding the Shatt al-Iraq waterway where the Brits were actually apprehended] told Associated Press the day after the March 23 incident: "We were informed [about the British troops' arrests] by Iraqi fishermen, after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control. We don't know why they were there.'""

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp04022007.html

It is not beyond reason to think that Britain and the US see the continued detention as 'advantageous'.

FYI

FYI wrote:

And further 'suggestion' the soldiers were indeed in Iranian waters:

"Brigadier General Hakim Jassim [the top Iraqi military officer in charge of guarding the Shatt al-Iraq waterway where the Brits were actually apprehended] told Associated Press the day after the March 23 incident: "We were informed [about the British troops' arrests] by Iraqi fishermen, after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control. We don't know why they were there.'""

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp04022007.html

It is not beyond reason to think that Britain and the US see the continued detention as 'advantageous'.

You're surely not expecting anyone other than someone with an anti Bush Blair stance to accept that article?
It's a bit like looking on labour.ie for praise of Bertie...

GuanYin

Hrmmm. Iranians have handled this like a burst bag of maltesers on a hot day and certainly their story looks suspicious.

However, the soldiers, by and large look to be well treated and appeared relatively relaxed in video footage which is more than can be said for people detained by the US.

As for holding/releasing them - again given the US/UK stance on enemy combatants, I really don't think they are in a place to cry with such outrage - true they're not "At war" with Iran, but then technically, many of the "enemy combatants" being held by the Coalition of the Willing are not actually soldiers so the US and UK have happily made rules to suit themselves.

While I think the Iranians have certainly acted inappropriately and can blame only themselves for the way this has gone, the UK have certainly reaped what they sowed.

I think we should be grateful the Iranians don't take a leaf from the US book, they could just deport the soldiers back to Iraq where they run the risk of being taken by insurgents and a fate similar to Maher Arar and the many like him.

jrey1981

I give them credit on one point...they haven't sent the detainees to Guantanamo or anywhere like that as far as we know.

Other than that it seems to be a bit of a stalemate.

hairymary

British gunboats have no legal right to be patrolling a waterway in Iraq or Iran - have you forgotten that the invasion of Iraq is illegal under international law.

Iran has every reason to fear an US/British invasion.Remember the fabricated pretext for the invasion of Iraq.The US and Britain have vital strategic and economic interests in the region - they have control of Iraqi oil supplies now and award huge contracts to British and American companies in 'recontruction'.

Fratton Fred

hairymary wrote:

British gunboats have no legal right to be patrolling a waterway in Iraq or Iran - have you forgotten that the invasion of Iraq is illegal under international law.

Iran has every reason to fear an US/British invasion.Remember the fabricated pretext for the invasion of Iraq.The US and Britain have vital strategic and economic interests in the region - they have control of Iraqi oil supplies now and award huge contracts to British and American companies in 'recontruction'.

read UN mandate 1546, which talks about the protection of Iraq.

Now consider those sailors and marines are not British, they are merely part of the UN forces enforcing mandate 1546, they could even be Irish.

By the way, 1546 even talks about where the money from Oil sales go, which blows a few of the war for oil conspiracies away.

Hoops1888

Fratton Fred wrote:

read UN mandate 1546, which talks about the protection of Iraq.

Doing a great job aint they! More like protecting the oil

Fratton Fred wrote:

Now consider those sailors and marines are not British, they are merely part of the UN forces enforcing mandate 1546, they could even be Irish.

These people should be hung for been spies.

Fratton Fred wrote:

By the way, 1546 even talks about where the money from Oil sales go, which blows a few of the war for oil conspiracies away.

In the last three years while the price of oil is going up is getting more cheaper or expensive In America? :rolleyes:

FYI

Tristrame wrote:

You're surely not expecting anyone other than someone with an anti Bush Blair stance to accept that article?
It's a bit like looking on labour.ie for praise of Bertie...

There's a difference with being sceptical and simply dismissing a quote because it is in an article posted on a website you don't like.

Here's a few other websites publishing the same quote (initially reported by AP I believe), dismiss them all if want.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17769296/

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1284395.0.captive_crisis_iran_says_sailors_confessed.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10724

http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/122215

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=472&letter_id=1117087581

http://www.britain.tv/wikipedia.php?title=2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel#_note-ap

Fratton Fred

Hoops1888 wrote:

Doing a great job aint they! More like protecting the oil

which is, after all, the property of the Iraqi government and therefore why the UN are there.

Hoops1888 wrote:

These people should be hung for been spies.

:rolleyes:

Hoops1888 wrote:

In the last three years while the price of oil is going up is getting more cheaper or expensive In America? :rolleyes:

don't know, don't care. The important thing is that the moeny from the sale of the oil is passed through to the Iraqi people

mike65

The higher oil price due to this little crisis is helping the Iranians, thier short-arse of a leader has screwed up the economy no end since he got elected. One might even suggest that prolonging this is fiscally helpful to him. But I would'nt be that cynical.

Mike.

hairymary

The British and US forces occupy Iraq illegally - there is no UN resolution that supports their presence in Iraq - they have no UN mandate and they do not constitute a UN force.They failed to win support for their invasion despite putting enormous pressure on other members to support their position.

Does resolution 1546 refer to the obligations of occupying forces to the Iraqi population - a completely separate issue and one that does not legitimize their illegal occupation.

THEY CAME FOR THE OIL BUT THE PRICE OF OIL WAS PAID BY THE IRAQI PEOPLE - 650,000 AND COUNTING.

hairymary

Let me see now name the 2 leading countries who supplied and supported Iraq in Iran-Iraq war that cost the deaths of hundreds of thousands and Iranians and Iraqis.

The West will murder Iraqi men,women and children to maintain their lifestyles and their oil guzzling SUVs.


Maybe the Iranians should send gunboats and aircraft carriers to patrol the English channel to protect the British people from megalomaniac leaders like Blair and Bush.

mike65

and your point is caller?

Mike.

ninebeanrows

I think it's fair enough,

The Iranians just want their men who were nipped from Iraq back.

Who says they weren't hawking the waters for the British to cross the border? and then swoop..

I think that's what is happening now, the silent diplomacy.. returning of Iranians from Iraq.

The arrested British Soldiers look like they have been treated well, the Iranians wouldn't do this for no reason. They aren't mindless bandits like NK or Saddam's Regime.

Fratton Fred

hairymary wrote:

The British and US forces occupy Iraq illegally - there is no UN resolution that supports their presence in Iraq - they have no UN mandate and they do not constitute a UN force.They failed to win support for their invasion despite putting enormous pressure on other members to support their position.

Does resolution 1546 refer to the obligations of occupying forces to the Iraqi population - a completely separate issue and one that does not legitimize their illegal occupation.

THEY CAME FOR THE OIL BUT THE PRICE OF OIL WAS PAID BY THE IRAQI PEOPLE - 650,000 AND COUNTING.

totally seperate issue. what is done is done and the most important thing now is for the people of Iraq to have a peaceful country. From what I see it is not Americans or Brits killing Iraqis, it is Iraqis and arab insurgents.

The British Army are there working as part of a UN force to try and restore infrastructure and order to a county that has fallen into a civil war. The actions of Iran do not help in that process.

Whim

Weathercheck wrote:

Who says they weren't hawking the waters for the British to cross the border? and then swoop..

Just as the USA has done countless times. Iran have done nothing compared to them. The hypocrisy makes me sick.

Weathercheck wrote:

The arrested British Soldiers look like they have been treated well, the Iranians wouldn't do this for no reason. They aren't mindless bandits like NK or Saddam's Regime.

Or a fair few American and British soldiers...

watty

Whim wrote:

My thoughts exactly. The Iranians are treating these hostages humanely and decently. And if we're going to give out about the illegal capture of people, we might want to have a look at Bush's extradition policy.

The Iranians have broken Geneva convention on the treatment of these prisoners.


The fact that the US is running a concentration camp and breaking human rights doesn't give the Iranians the right to abuse British captives.

hostages humanely

Those two words don't go together. Woolly thinking there.