Thread: Ouch- This is Gonna be Embarassing

Iran parades captured and blindfolded sailors on TV



Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday June 23, 2004
The Guardian


The government's attempts to resolve a deepening diplomatic row with Iran over the capture of British sailors and marines were poised on a knife edge last night after a day in which two of the men appeared in blindfolds on Iranian television and apologised for entering the country's territorial waters.
The men were arrested on Monday on the Shatt al-Arab waterway dividing Iran and Iraq.
"Our team of three boats and eight crew entered Iranian waters by mistake. We apologise because this was a big mistake," one of the men, who identified himself as Sergeant Thomas Hawkins of the Royal Marines, said, according to a translation of the Arabic voice-over provided by al-Alam satellite television news channel.
He said he had been arrested by Iranian revolutionary guards.

Chief Petty Officer Robert Webster, reading from a prepared text, said: "The Iranian revolutionary guards stopped us in Iranian territorial waters. We accidentally entered Iranian waters."
The Foreign Office last night described the apparent confessions, and earlier television footage showing the eight men blindfolded, as "deeply concerning".
Earlier, pictures on Iran's main state-run channel, showed the men sitting silently on chairs and a sofa. Three of them were in British military uniform; five others wore military trousers and civilian T-shirts.
In a day of mixed messages from the Iranians, the al-Alam station described an Iranian officer as saying: "Their weapons, instruments, large equipment, machine guns and submachine guns, and the flag of their special naval unit indicate that they are not regular sailors."
Later, Ali Reza Afshar, the deputy head of the Iranian armed forces, said that if the interrogations showed that the men "didn't have any bad intention, they will be released soon".
Iran's ISNA news agency, quoting "unofficial sources", said the revolutionary guards had been ordered to free the men. The Iranian foreign ministry contradicted al-Alam reports that the men would be prosecuted.
In London, the Ministry of Defence denied that the men were members of the special forces. It said they were delivering the boats from the port of Umm Qasr to Basra for the newly formed Iraqi river police.
"The boats are unarmed, but the crews were carrying their personal weapons," the MoD said. However, defence sources admit that the boats could have strayed into Iranian waters in bad weather.
Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, yesterday telephoned his Iranian counterpart, Kamal Kharrazi, to ask for the release of the sailors. The Foreign Office said Mr Kharrazi promised to look into the case.
Iran's ambassador to Britain, Morteza Sarmadi, was summoned to see the FO's political director, John Sawers, to explain why Iran had arrested the men who were on a "routine mission".
A spokeswoman for the British embassy in Tehran said British diplomats had requested permission to visit the detained men. "We have asked for full details on who is holding them, where they are and for access to them," she said.
The British ambassador, Richard Dalton, was in talks with the Iranian authorities over the incident.
British officials last night said that while Iranian officials had made some "positive noises", these had been gleaned from reports in the media rather than through official diplomatic channels.
Most commentators yesterday said the way the incident was being handled by Tehran reflected differences between the hardline revolutionary guards and the more moderate government.
Others said that the Iranian government itself might have seized the opportunity to make the point - not least to the new Iraqi interim govern ment which takes office on July 1 - that it regards the issue of the oft-disputed border with Iraq along the Shatt al-Arab as extremely serious.
A commentary on Iran's state-run radio yesterday said the British vessels "openly violated a recognised border treaty", and that Iran was sending a "message to countries disrupting stability in the Persian Gulf".
While Tehran welcomed the end of Saddam Hussein's regime, it is deeply worried about the continuing presence of US troops in Iraq. It is also embroiled in a dispute with the US, the EU, and the UN over its nuclear programme.
Britain has criticised Iran over nuclear inspections, while Tehran has accused Britain of caving in to American pressure over the issue. Iranians repeatedly demonstrated in front of the British embassy in Tehran last month, throwing stones at the building to protest at the US-led occupation of Iraq."

The Guardian - Iran parades captured and blindfolded sailors on TV | Iran | Guardian Unlimited

OK, it's Ten Quid to a Penny that they were in Iranian waters.
But were they Special Forces?
If so, why were they there?
According to one Iranian Officer quoted above, they had a well equipped Boat.

Anyway, they will be released unharmed, but now they are Pawns.

They paraded them last time too, just as well they're nice blokes and don't have the stomach for cyber beheadings.

As to whose waters they were in, that region is pretty murky with borders moving according to whim, so it's quite possible for each side to believe they were in the right though I doubt this was anything less than another whackjob windup.

Despise the Brits for all you're worth and dance with glee if you really must, but the incident occurred in an open area, which seas tend to be, and therefore not easy for the Brits to slip in a quickie invasion.

Iran would be well-advised to return them promptly!

Problem is the whackjob revels in the kudos points earned throughout the Islamic world whenever he steps out of line, so it's easy to see how he might get carried away with the glory of cocking yet another snoot, and again with impunity, because any sanctions grudgingly issued by the UN will invariably turn into another propaganda victory by promotion through the lib/left/looney media as an attack on Iran, or worse, Muslims.

It seems an overwhelming majority of Iranians would be happy if the ground opened up to swallow him, but with the support of his clerics and the basiji this is unikely.

I see this apprehension as a little chess game for the world.

Talk, negotiate, ask for apology, study this incident to see if they did technically enter Iranian waters, negotiate more, talk about cooperation,

Then they fly back home.

I see these guys released withing two weeks.

iraq 'ole news? yeehaaaa.. lets do eyeran now!

^^Could be 2 weeks or 2 years, but they're on overtime. As to apologies, yes we'll end up giving it to them because we're the civilised ones, right?

So, Iran has all rights to defend themselves and invade Britain now, since the British marine has entered Iranian territory, and they have killed Iranian citizens in Iraq as well. There are WMDs in the UK, too.

Roll on, though any invasion will be by remote.

Originally Posted by mad_dog

If the Americans didn't have an empire to protect the British soldiers wouldn't have been there in the first place. Why are there US military bases in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq? Why do American destroyers prowl the Persian Gulf? They have no business being there compromising the sovereignty of the countries in the region.

Ferget about that little three letter word...OIL?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by mad_dog

If the Americans didn't have an empire to protect the British soldiers wouldn't have been there in the first place. Why are there US military bases in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq? Why do American destroyers prowl the Persian Gulf? They have no business being there compromising the sovereignty of the countries in the region.

Ferget about that little three letter word...OIL?

Why does a country need to project military force to aide its business interests? When the country is an imperical power that conducts business at gun point !

Fine choice of words, they do go hand in hand and security of oil supply plays a major role in determining Western policy, but is it so obvious that business interests created the drive for oil, or is oil the key to progress and survival, which generates business interest?

Do we have banks and motor cars because businesses can make money out of them, or have these businesses evolved as a result of our needs?

Have nations historically gone to war to serve their business community, or is Iraq that milestone?

Don't you envy the man who opened the very first restaurant, or did the capitalist peeg do it to exploit the masses?

Many years ago the US Navy was invited into Bahrain as a docking facility for Naval ships and to show the flag long before there was any bullshit going on there.
Bahrain was a fairly poor country mostly dealing in Pearls then and was just starting to make millions [before billions] or dollars thru the export of Saudi/Aramco oil loading facilities.
Then there was all of the oil support co.s that moved in there doing business with the other countrys around the Arabian Gulf that they figured did need the protection afforded to American big business doing nasty shit on foreign soil.
Now there are a hell of a lot more and bigger ships there than Destroyers.

Originally Posted by mad_dog

If the Americans didn't have an empire to protect the British soldiers wouldn't have been there in the first place. Why are there US military bases in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq? Why do American destroyers prowl the Persian Gulf? They have no business being there compromising the sovereignty of the countries in the region.

I suspect the US bases are in the countries you mention, by invitation of their respective governments.

An offer they couldn't resist comes to mind.
In all aspects of the meaning of that sentence..

Originally Posted by mad_dog

Why does a country need to project military force to aide its business interests? When the country is an imperical power that conducts business at gun point !

You can't expect those big-assed Americans to give up their SUV's can you?

Nice 'Quotes'.

But I wonder what any of this has to do with the topic at hand...

Originally Posted by stroller

Nice 'Quotes'.

But I wonder what any of this has to do with the topic at hand...

Well, what do you think Thatcher would do?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by stroller

Nice 'Quotes'.

But I wonder what any of this has to do with the topic at hand...

Well, what do you think Thatcher would do?

Do exactly what that dangerous moronic fool Ronnie told her to do? ... Ahhh the more things change the more they stay the same... When will The Special Relationship end???

Yanks play games. "Show time."

March 27, 2007
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran.
The maneuvers bring together two strike groups of U.S. warships and more than 100 U.S. warplanes to conduct simulated air warfare in the crowded Gulf shipping lanes.

The U.S. exercises come just four days after Iran’s capture of 15 British sailors and marines who Iran said had strayed into Iranian waters near the Gulf. Britain and the U.S. Navy have insisted the British sailors were operating in Iraqi waters.

Link: U.S. launches show of force in Gulf - Focus on Iran - MSNBC.com

Originally Posted by Milkman

Yanks play games. "Show time."

Well, we ain't the big dog for nothin'!