UK, Iran, Tunb Islands
oldfr...@gmail.com
Hormuz claimed by UAE but occupied by Iran. They are a threat to the
security of the strait and have no civilian population. If the UK
wanted to send a message to Iran AND do something positive about
security in the Persian Gulf, they would "liberate" the Tunb Islands.
This would not harm any Iranian civilians but would hurt the Irankian
regime.
William Black
<oldfr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175525466.7...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
That may just make them do something even sillier.
What they want is their people back.
When they get them back something may be done.
But I doubt very much is gunfire and explosions will be heard.
This is Perfidious Albion they're dealing with now, not a gang of Texas
cowboys...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Andrew Chaplin
news:eurdpr$m65$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> <oldfr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1175525466.7...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> The Tunb islands are two small islands just west of the Straits of
>> Hormuz claimed by UAE but occupied by Iran. They are a threat to the
>> security of the strait and have no civilian population. If the UK
>> wanted to send a message to Iran AND do something positive about
>> security in the Persian Gulf, they would "liberate" the Tunb Islands.
>> This would not harm any Iranian civilians but would hurt the Irankian
>> regime.
>>
> They don't want to hurt or embarrass the Iranian government.
>
> That may just make them do something even sillier.
>
> What they want is their people back.
>
> When they get them back something may be done.
>
> But I doubt very much is gunfire and explosions will be heard.
>
> This is Perfidious Albion they're dealing with now, not a gang of Texas
> cowboys...
Add to that the fact the UAE have already said publicly, "hey, we want no part
of this tiff with Iran," it would be seen as nothing more than the grab it
would be. There are too many Britons circulating in Iran on legitimate
business or as ex-pats to risk it.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
William Black
"Andrew Chaplin" <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:0f-dnRRhl80cgo_b...@giganews.com...
The British aren't going to start shooting yet.
If they were then the information at
Would be different.
Andrew Swallow
a close eye on political developments and check the media and this
travel advice regularly." could mean the attack is not today but next
week is a different matter.
Andrew Swallow
William Black
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:hsSdnb5GvYa...@bt.com...
The indicator that something may happen to an individual is the advice to
check in with the British consulate, although what they'll do if the
Iranians deny consular access.
The indicator that it's still reasonably safe to travel there is that the
FCO isn't saying something like:
'All travel to Iran, except that considered vital, should be avoided'.
On the other hand, if they were about to let loose the gang they keep in
cages who live on raw meat and vodka then 'they would say that wouldn't
they'.
But personally I feel that there are just too many Brits in, or visiting,
Iran at the moment and they probably wouldn't contemplate military action
unless something nasty was about to happen.
If the Iranians start organising a show trial then all bets are off in a
rush and you'll almost certainly get an FCO 'advisory' saying 'stay away'.
Andrew Chaplin
wrote:
> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swal...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hsSdnb5GvYa...@bt.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > William Black wrote:
> >>news:0f-dnRRhl80cgo_b...@giganews.com...
> >>> "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>news:eurdpr$m65$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> >>>> <oldfrogs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:1175525466.7...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> The Tunb islands are two small islands just west of the Straits of
> >>>>> Hormuz claimed by UAE but occupied by Iran. They are a threat to the
> >>>>> security of the strait and have no civilian population. If the UK
> >>>>> wanted to send a message to Iran AND do something positive about
> >>>>> security in the Persian Gulf, they would "liberate" the Tunb Islands.
> >>>>> This would not harm any Iranian civilians but would hurt the Irankian
> >>>>> regime.
>
> >>>> They don't want to hurt or embarrass the Iranian government.
>
> >>>> That may just make them do something even sillier.
>
> >>>> What they want is their people back.
>
> >>>> When they get them back something may be done.
>
> >>>> But I doubt very much is gunfire and explosions will be heard.
>
> >>>> This is Perfidious Albion they're dealing with now, not a gang of
> >>>> Texas cowboys...
> >>> Add to that the fact the UAE have already said publicly, "hey, we want
> >>> no part of this tiff with Iran," it would be seen as nothing more than
> >>> the grab it would be. There are too many Britons circulating in Iran on
> >>> legitimate business or as ex-pats to risk it.
>
> >> The British aren't going to start shooting yet.
>
> >> If they were then the information at
>
>
> >> Would be different.
>
> > The line "If you are planning to travel to Iran we advise that you keep
> > a close eye on political developments and check the media and this
> > travel advice regularly." could mean the attack is not today but next
> > week is a different matter.
>
> The indicator that something may happen to an individual is the advice to
> check in with the British consulate, although what they'll do if the
> Iranians deny consular access.
>
> The indicator that it's still reasonably safe to travel there is that the
> FCO isn't saying something like:
>
> 'All travel to Iran, except that considered vital, should be avoided'.
>
> On the other hand, if they were about to let loose the gang they keep in
> cages who live on raw meat and vodka then 'they would say that wouldn't
> they'.
>
> But personally I feel that there are just too many Brits in, or visiting,
> Iran at the moment and they probably wouldn't contemplate military action
> unless something nasty was about to happen.
>
> If the Iranians start organising a show trial then all bets are off in a
> rush and you'll almost certainly get an FCO 'advisory' saying 'stay away'.
Fortunately, the Iranians appear to have dialed things back a notch
and are saying they want to resolve the dispute through negotiation.
La N
"Andrew Chaplin" <ab.ch...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1175608359....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I haven't really followed this thread, but it brought to mind a question.
Would the Brits ever consider an SAS commando raid to free the hostages?
Would a commando raid create more problems? I don't know that such raids
have a very high success rate ...
- nil
Fred J. McCall
:
:I haven't really followed this thread, but it brought to mind a question.
:Would the Brits ever consider an SAS commando raid to free the hostages?
:Would a commando raid create more problems? I don't know that such raids
:have a very high success rate ...
:
Rather depends on where they're being held, I would think. If they've
moved them to Teheran, I don't think the British have enough logistics
support to put a raiding party in and get both them and the captives
back out.
Then there would always be the concern about backlash against British
nationals in Iran. You couldn't alert all your tourists to get out
ahead of time (as that would warn the other side sufficiently that you
might have just made your raid impossible).
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
William Black
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:I1tQh.27753$6z3.14259@edtnps82...
> I haven't really followed this thread, but it brought to mind a question.
> Would the Brits ever consider an SAS commando raid to free the hostages?
Certainly.
The military planning would have started as soon as the thing started.
> Would a commando raid create more problems?
Yes, but if you get your people out nobody cares much.
I don't know that such raids
> have a very high success rate ...
The British seem to have a better sucess rate than most.
Of course the decision to go ahead will be political and not military. The
military will say 'We have an X% chance of sucess Prime Minister'.
La N
>
> "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:I1tQh.27753$6z3.14259@edtnps82...
>
>> I haven't really followed this thread, but it brought to mind a question.
>> Would the Brits ever consider an SAS commando raid to free the hostages?
>
> Certainly.
>
> The military planning would have started as soon as the thing started.
>
>> Would a commando raid create more problems?
>
> Yes, but if you get your people out nobody cares much.
>
> I don't know that such raids
>> have a very high success rate ...
>
> The British seem to have a better sucess rate than most.
>
> Of course the decision to go ahead will be political and not military.
> The military will say 'We have an X% chance of sucess Prime Minister'.
>
Taking yours and Fred's responses in consideration, I'm also thinking that
if the Iranians were "astute", they would put their hostages in a variety of
different locales in Iraq to complicate such a rescue effort.
- nil
TMOliver
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote ....
>
> Taking yours and Fred's responses in consideration, I'm also thinking that
> if the Iranians were "astute", they would put their hostages in a variety
> of different locales in Iraq to complicate such a rescue effort.
>
No, you keep'em together, simply moving them far enough to be beyond easy
fetching (remembering that given the current levels of manning and equipment
that the British simply don't have the assets to mount an operation as far
inland as Tehran without risking a level of carnage and collateral damage
unacceptable internationally).
Neither the US or the UK are currently in a force level/logistics capacity
situation to seek any sort of military confrontation with Iran (the first
responses from which would likely entail all sorts of border incursions into
Iraq). Just as most of that which could go wrong with the US "raid" on
Tehran went wrong, the sort of "rescue" missions envisioned are simply "pie
in the sky", every step depending upon the success of the last, minor blips
capable of derailing the entire operation, and for which the odds of success
are usually a bit longer than military senior officers are willing to admit.
Much of the US problems in Iraq flowed not from Rumsfield's thinking, but
from the response he received from some of his force commanders...."Can your
troops accomplish this?"...."Sure, because they are well equipped, well
trained and I, confident of my eventual place in the Pantheon, am leading
them!" Unintended consequences and split-second contingencies are left to
poor bastards in the back room (unappreciated) or walking point (at greatest
risk).
Even if the sailors and Marines are put up for a show trial, the best the UK
and the US could come up with would be economic suasion up to and including
an inconvenient sea blockade (the land frontier with states of the former
USSR is really not equipped to handle much commerce) or the sort of
"pin-pointed" air strikes the US tried early on against the NVNese, grand in
photo and film, but simply irritant and aggravation to folks you really
don't want to irritate and aggravate. A maritime blockade would
unfortunately take several years to exert much pressure and would lessen the
lifestyles and potential efforts of those who we most want to cultivate,
that portion of the Iranian middle-class which would like to see regime
change.
The UK is left to talk its way out of this one with some sort of tradeout
(and the most likely tradeout will be some level of quid pro quo in the
Delta/SIraq). Pawns left exposed (and these folks were exposed since
obviously the RoE did not allow rapid counter force) are likely to get
snapped up, the other side generally viewing a few pawns for trading
purposes as a valuable acquisition. The real fuckup was exposing the boat
team without visible on scene ready response, armed helos, fixed wing a/c or
some sort of hard charger tactics by the mother ship. The Iranians tested
the water, noted the lack of response and acted predictably. The US had
only weeks before faced the same sort of tactics on the Border inland.
Fortunately, someone was wide enough to get the Hell out of Dodge and beat a
hasty retreat, for what the Iranians wanted was a few US military hostages.
It continues to amaze me that in the face of predictable tactics, we (and I
include the UK) act as if we had never heard of that sort of thing
before....
TMO
Brian Sharrock
snip
>
> I haven't really followed this thread, but it brought to mind a question.
> Would the Brits ever consider an SAS commando raid to free the hostages?
You really need to sort out your teminology;-
_A_ commando is one of those words that can be singular or plural;
An individual servicement who passes the appropriate training is a
'Commando' (and entitled to sport the 'Green Beret'. Most (excluding
bandsmen etc.) recruits into the Royal Marines _must_ pass the training
course and will be posted to a 'Commando' which is a battalion sized outfit.
Commando are gropued into Commando Brigade(s). [the role of supplying
'Commando' type individuals has, after WWII, been assigned to the Royal
Marines.]
A very few Commando are recruited into the 'Special Boat Service' (SBS).
On the other hand ; Recruits who wish to be paratroopers must pass the
Parachute Regiment's training course and then entitled to wear the Red
Beret, will be posted to a battalion of the Parachute Regiment, which may be
brigaded into a Parachute Brigade. Some paratroopers are recruited into the
'Special Air Service' (SAS).
Both Commando and Parachute (infantry) batallions are supported by
specialist organisations (Logistics, Signals, Artillery etc.) by outifts
which include the appropriate 'word' in their individual titles such as XX
(Commando) Btty, Royal Artillery Regt; YY (Parachute) Btty; Royal Artillery
Regt. individual posted to these organisations are required to complete the
'All-Arms Commando/Paratroop Course'.
> Would a commando raid create more problems? I don't know that such raids
> have a very high success rate ...
>
Although it involved the Iranians, the assualt on the Embassy in London was
accomplished by the SAS. It had a succesful outcome :)
IMHO, the first problem to be overcome would be determining which
organisation to send !
The SBS wouldn't be over-chuffed about SAS 'rescuing' any of their
sailor-colleaques ... and the Marines won't be over-chuffed if 'pongo' SAS
turn up.
> - nil
--
Brian
Arved Sandstrom
>
> "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:I1tQh.27753$6z3.14259@edtnps82...
>
>> I haven't really followed this thread, but it brought to mind a question.
>> Would the Brits ever consider an SAS commando raid to free the hostages?
>
> Certainly.
>
> The military planning would have started as soon as the thing started.
I'm sure the British military already has standing plans for generic ops of
this sort.
>> Would a commando raid create more problems?
>
> Yes, but if you get your people out nobody cares much.
>
> I don't know that such raids
>> have a very high success rate ...
>
> The British seem to have a better sucess rate than most.
Oh, I think the US does OK. There is the noted Ranger raid on Cabanatuan in
the Philippines in 1945 that rescued hundreds of POWs, and I just ran across
an episode in "Infantry in Vietnam 1965-66", by LTC Albert Garland (ret'd),
that describes a Sept 1966 raid by an element of the US 101st Div that
rescued 35 prisoners from a VC prison camp in mountainous terrain.
Might I also point out how good the US was in Vietnam at doing extractions
of LRRPs, infantry platoons, SEAL teams, etc.
Might I also point out Operation EASTERN EXIT, where in January 1991 a
portion of 4th MEB was detached to eventually extract 281 non-combatants
from the US embassy compound in Mogadishu. That's worth reading about,
because the logistics of that are comparable to what the UK would have to do
to rescue the current prisoners.
There's a world of difference between assaulting the Iranian embassy in
London - your homeground - and going in after a shitload of people in
Teheran (the US debacle). If the Brits had to plan and conduct a snatch of
the current prisoners I wish 'em luck but if the Iranians can find their
asses with their hands in daylight then the SAS and SBS, and who knows who
else, has no chance.
> Of course the decision to go ahead will be political and not military.
> The military will say 'We have an X% chance of sucess Prime Minister'.
I have no doubt that they've said they have 0% chance of success. A prisoner
rescue works if everyone's held in one spot and you know where the spot is -
I doubt that the Iranians are so stupid.
If the thing lasts for a long time - months - then in theory you might
gather enough information. But the whole event is so young that it would be
nuts to try it right now.
AHS
AHS
Arved Sandstrom
news:46127314$0$17151$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote ....
>>
>> Taking yours and Fred's responses in consideration, I'm also thinking
>> that if the Iranians were "astute", they would put their hostages in a
>> variety of different locales in Iraq to complicate such a rescue effort.
>>
> No, you keep'em together, simply moving them far enough to be beyond easy
> fetching (remembering that given the current levels of manning and
> equipment that the British simply don't have the assets to mount an
> operation as far inland as Tehran without risking a level of carnage and
> collateral damage unacceptable internationally).
In this particular case you could keep them together, yes. For the reasons
you state. As a general rule, it doesn't hurt to keep prisoners in such a
situation separated into a number of groups that are all over the place -
this greatly complicates the potential rescue, because the Iranians are on
home ground and don't hurt for troops.
I wouldn't even try to rescue them yet - I'd already be inflicting carnage
and collateral damage. I'd have most of the Iranian Navy sunk or hiding, and
at least a few petro offloading facilities in flames. But that's just me.
AHS
Jim Yanik
S_U_R_E they do.....
they can talk for a LONG time,drag things on and on,making the UK look like
a bunch of wusses.
And their first demand is the return of those Irani captured well INSIDE
Iraq with documents,money and materials exposing Iran's perfidy.
(BTW,I read a scathing op-ed piece today about how the Royal Marines are
not like the Royal Marines of old,nor any comparison to the US
Marines.Stuff about how US Marines would have fought to not be captured,and
wouldn't have "confessed" so quickly if captured.)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Arved Sandstrom
news:Xns9907BF901EC...@64.209.0.84...
[ SNIP ]
> (BTW,I read a scathing op-ed piece today about how the Royal Marines are
> not like the Royal Marines of old,nor any comparison to the US
> Marines.Stuff about how US Marines would have fought to not be
> captured,and
> wouldn't have "confessed" so quickly if captured.)
I don't know that all of the Brits captured were Marines...I don't think
they were. But at least one was - a confessee. It shocked me a bit too.
There is in fact no way that a representative group of a dozen or twenty US
Marines would produce up 3 or 4 people so quick to utter treasonous
statements...they'd need rubber hoses, sleep deprivation, and a few broken
ribs first. I didn't myself notice that the Brits trotted out looked all
that bad.
But you may be right, in general. There may be a lot of US Marines, but very
few of them would have been willing to put on a dog and pony show like that.
Maybe on a stretcher they would have.
I don't doubt that each and every Brit sailor and Royal Marine that bleated
on Iranian TV is going to have a very short career. And perhaps some should
end up in prison.
AHS
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> I don't doubt that each and every Brit sailor and Royal Marine that bleated
> on Iranian TV is going to have a very short career. And perhaps some should
> end up in prison.
Permission to start a war comes from the top. No one in that boat had
such authorisation.
There are rules against revealing classified information to an enemy.
There are no rules against making your opponent look an idiot. Read
exactly what the captives are saying and join in the joke.
Andrew Swallow
Peter Skelton
<asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
>"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
>news:Xns9907BF901EC...@64.209.0.84...
>[ SNIP ]
>> (BTW,I read a scathing op-ed piece today about how the Royal Marines are
>> not like the Royal Marines of old,nor any comparison to the US
>> Marines.Stuff about how US Marines would have fought to not be
>> captured,and
>> wouldn't have "confessed" so quickly if captured.)
>
>I don't know that all of the Brits captured were Marines...I don't think
>they were. But at least one was - a confessee. It shocked me a bit too.
>There is in fact no way that a representative group of a dozen or twenty US
>Marines would produce up 3 or 4 people so quick to utter treasonous
>statements...they'd need rubber hoses, sleep deprivation, and a few broken
>ribs first. I didn't myself notice that the Brits trotted out looked all
>that bad.
>
Nonsense Arved. It would take four hours tops, if the cell and
gas delivery were set up in advance. There are probably things
you can do to food and water to get the same effect. Getting
someone to say what you want isn't very hard because you don't
have to keep the person responsive. Getting access to their
memory is harder because memory lingage and will both function
through the same bit of working storage.
That's what disturbs me about this - it was a prepared operation
by somebody who could use Iran's government resources. ISTM that
a prepared government operation is the simplest guess. That would
mean that the Iranian government desired a confrontation of this
type.
>But you may be right, in general. There may be a lot of US Marines, but very
>few of them would have been willing to put on a dog and pony show like that.
>Maybe on a stretcher they would have.
>
>I don't doubt that each and every Brit sailor and Royal Marine that bleated
>on Iranian TV is going to have a very short career. And perhaps some should
>end up in prison.
>
>AHS
>
Peter Skelton
William Black
"Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:49BQh.38083$__3.5607@edtnps90...
I doubt that very much.
They'll have had instructions about what to do, this isn't the first time
this has happened.
That everyone in the group has reacted in exactly the same way is an
indication that everyone in the group is following orders.
When they get home I imagine there'll be an inquiry. I have absolutely no
doubt that all will be exonerated. What happen to their superiors, who put
them in this position, is another matter...
Being captured like this could well be the making of the two officers
involved, they've been on TV, got their names in the papers and come
across as the sort of sensible young men who are a credit to HM Forces...
Now US Marines may well have started shooting.
In that case they're obviously not suitable for an operation where being
captured by an 'interested neutral' is a possibility.
Or do you live in a world where a Lieutenant is allowed to start your wars?
Arved Sandstrom
This is an interesting consideration. Understand that I get text snippets
such as afforded by CBC and CNN websites, so I myself would not have seen
any body language or verbal indications that everyone in the group is
reacting the same way.
If you're correct, then yes, then there seems to be order & discipline of a
sort in that group.
As for being captured by "interested neutrals", I think people who really do
cross boundaries illegally are mentally prepared for it. I'm not so sure
that people who don't cross boundaries are. You're talking about surface
sailors and Royal Marines - are they in fact thinking on each inspection
trip that the Iranians may snatch them? I pretty much doubt it, because if
the British navy thought that was a possibility then they'd make sure that
the Iranians could not so easily snatch an inspection party. You can't be
saying that just as the Iranians probably planned this hostage grab that the
UK in turn planned to let it happen? Of course, some conspiracy theorists
are probably arguing just that.
Would US Marines on a similar operation have started shooting? Perhaps.
There's no reason to believe a shooting incident would have started a war;
things like that have happened before, and as often as not both sides hush
it up. If they don't, it's because one or both sides already wanted a war,
and sooner or later would have manufactured an excuse anyhow.
I stand by my statement that some of the sailors and marines are saying
things that they ought not to be saying. I'm sure that even in the British
military there is the concept that you start with name, rank and serial
number, and as mental and physical pressure is applied you are allowed to
gradually let slip other information...hopefully fairly useless crap, and
time-sensitive stuff that is stale by the time you release it. But agreeing
that you were in Iranian waters, and apologizing for it, that's way over the
top.
AHS
Arved Sandstrom
I've read what the prisoners are saying at several removes, that is to say,
on CBC and CNN online news. My take on that information is that they are
saying things that they ought not to, and I detect no joke.
If careful viewing of the complete TV broadcasts makes it appear that the
British sailors and marines are playing a joke, then I'll have to take your
word for it - I very rarely watch TV. If that's the case they are playing a
dangerous game, because not many people on the outside are going to be aware
that they are doing it. They'd be much better off not to try to outsmart the
Iranians, and just fall back on the tried and true name-rank-number formula.
As for starting a war, self-defence is not starting a war. If Iran wanted to
start one they've already had a few pretexts to do it, and in any case could
easily manufacture one. Some shots exchanged, and a few casualties before an
inevitable capture, would not have started a war. If anything, a bloodless
capture almost makes it look like you're in the wrong to start with. I'm not
saying that I myself in that situation would have started shooting (I
probably wouldn't have) - I'm just saying that if someone had I doubt it
would have started a war.
There is also the very real possibility that a sign of armed resistance to
being captured would have caused the Iranians not to capture them. As Peter
suggests, this was likely a planned grab. As such, the last thing they would
have wanted is a firefight, because then they'd not have a group of
prisoners who are quite as compliant, and they'd also have bodies, and a
very pissed-off UK government (much more pissed off, that is, than now).
Shooting in self-defence might actually have spared these people the ordeal
of being captured.
AHS
Arved Sandstrom
news:05q5135tm7u68p9oo...@4ax.com...
Trained people would be able to tell whether or not the prisoners who spoke
had the demeanour of people who've been through that kind of treatment. I've
seen no comment to that effect in mainstream news, so far. If you have, I'd
be interested in a link or two. I've only seen still photos.
I am not saying that I am necessarily shocked *at* the British sailors and
marines. It's more the relative ease with which the Iranians extorted these
confessions. I don't for a second think that the people who said that they
were in Iranian waters and apologized just freely volunteered to do that.
However, it's clear that they didn't get beaten up either, nor do they
appear to be zombies, so whatever the Iranians did, it was pretty frigging
effective.
It's not impossible that by getting personal vital information - name, rank,
unit, place and date of birth, maybe even some initial family information by
expressing solicitude and offering to send information to next of kin, that
the Iranians were able to assemble enough information on family members in
the UK to make very credible threats on family back home, and that some of
the sailors and marines were simply in a state of fear, not for themselves,
but for loved ones. That would account for the fact that they are neither
physically wrecked nor obviously mentally wasted...and if they happen to
look scared, hey, they're prisoners. That's my theory.
> That's what disturbs me about this - it was a prepared operation
> by somebody who could use Iran's government resources. ISTM that
> a prepared government operation is the simplest guess. That would
> mean that the Iranian government desired a confrontation of this
> type.
[ SNIP ]
I think it's still up in the air as to how planned it was. It may have been
a routine SOP that the Iranian border guards have, it could have been a
planned snatch by a regional commander with no reference to higher up, or it
could have been a planned grab right from the top.
If it had been carefully planned right at the top, I think the Iranians
probably wouldn't have made that initial map coordinate mistake.
How ever planned it was, the snatch clearly didn't bother the Iranian
higher-ups too much, and it certainly appears that now they like it.
AHS
Peter Skelton
<asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
I saw tape of the woman on the National, I imagine it's on the
cbc website. Her appearance and behaviourwer not natural
(semi-professional opinion, I had a coffee yesterday morning with
a psychologist who specializes in brain-damaged geriatrics) but a
professional would need to know normal behaviour for the person
intimately, have access to the person or see many people of a
type he was familliar with, before venturing an opinion.
>I am not saying that I am necessarily shocked *at* the British sailors and
>marines. It's more the relative ease with which the Iranians extorted these
>confessions. I don't for a second think that the people who said that they
>were in Iranian waters and apologized just freely volunteered to do that.
>However, it's clear that they didn't get beaten up either, nor do they
>appear to be zombies, so whatever the Iranians did, it was pretty frigging
>effective.
>
It wasn't a natural-looking performance, and there was no free
Q&A
>It's not impossible that by getting personal vital information - name, rank,
>unit, place and date of birth, maybe even some initial family information by
>expressing solicitude and offering to send information to next of kin, that
>the Iranians were able to assemble enough information on family members in
>the UK to make very credible threats on family back home, and that some of
>the sailors and marines were simply in a state of fear, not for themselves,
>but for loved ones. That would account for the fact that they are neither
>physically wrecked nor obviously mentally wasted...and if they happen to
>look scared, hey, they're prisoners. That's my theory.
>
I doubt that approach could have worked in the available time.
>> That's what disturbs me about this - it was a prepared operation
>> by somebody who could use Iran's government resources. ISTM that
>> a prepared government operation is the simplest guess. That would
>> mean that the Iranian government desired a confrontation of this
>> type.
>[ SNIP ]
>
>I think it's still up in the air as to how planned it was. It may have been
>a routine SOP that the Iranian border guards have, it could have been a
>planned snatch by a regional commander with no reference to higher up, or it
>could have been a planned grab right from the top.
>
>If it had been carefully planned right at the top, I think the Iranians
>probably wouldn't have made that initial map coordinate mistake.
>
>How ever planned it was, the snatch clearly didn't bother the Iranian
>higher-ups too much, and it certainly appears that now they like it.
>
IMO they set up for the situation but it had to be opportunistic,
so it had to be executed initially by lower levels under time
pressure.
>
Peter Skelton
Fred J. McCall
:
:Being captured like this could well be the making of the two officers
:involved, they've been on TV, got their names in the papers and come
:across as the sort of sensible young men who are a credit to HM Forces...
Rather frightening that you're selecting for folks whose expertise is
surrendering. Just another sad comment on the state of Empire, I
guess...
:Now US Marines may well have started shooting.
:
:In that case they're obviously not suitable for an operation where being
:captured by an 'interested neutral' is a possibility.
If they're trying to capture you they aren't 'neutral' any longer. Or
is it your contention that the British forces involved WERE in Iranian
waters?
:Or do you live in a world where a Lieutenant is allowed to start your wars?
The side executing the capture already made that decision.
--
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has
nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,
and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
William Black
> As for being captured by "interested neutrals", I think people who really
> do cross boundaries illegally are mentally prepared for it. I'm not so
> sure that people who don't cross boundaries are. You're talking about
> surface sailors and Royal Marines - are they in fact thinking on each
> inspection trip that the Iranians may snatch them? I pretty much doubt it,
> because if the British navy thought that was a possibility then they'd
> make sure that the Iranians could not so easily snatch an inspection
> party.
The ONLY hazard on such duties, excepting the chance of falling into the
sea while boarding the target ship, is being picked up by some local
nutters.
As it has happened before I would imagine everyone would be trained and
briefed on exactly what to do in these circumstances.
If they haven't been then someone is going to get the sack.
William Black
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:89971312rl0dnvpvk...@4ax.com...
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :
> :Being captured like this could well be the making of the two officers
> :involved, they've been on TV, got their names in the papers and come
> :across as the sort of sensible young men who are a credit to HM Forces...
>
> Rather frightening that you're selecting for folks whose expertise is
> surrendering. Just another sad comment on the state of Empire, I
> guess...
They pick them for intelligence.
Going down under a hail of bullets is not considered good practice these
days...
> :Now US Marines may well have started shooting.
> :
> :In that case they're obviously not suitable for an operation where being
> :captured by an 'interested neutral' is a possibility.
>
> If they're trying to capture you they aren't 'neutral' any longer. Or
> is it your contention that the British forces involved WERE in Iranian
> waters?
It doesn't matter where they were.
Iran doesn't care, the UK doesn't care. We are in a position where we have
to go forward rfrom where we are and not from where we'd like to be...
>
> :Or do you live in a world where a Lieutenant is allowed to start your
> wars?
>
> The side executing the capture already made that decision.
Good old Fred, always ready to blow up the world instead of talking.
"Jaw jaw...", to quote a dead Tory, "...is better than war war".
Arved Sandstrom
>
> "Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
> news:cRKQh.28253$6z3.16633@edtnps82...
>
>> As for being captured by "interested neutrals", I think people who really
>> do cross boundaries illegally are mentally prepared for it. I'm not so
>> sure that people who don't cross boundaries are. You're talking about
>> surface sailors and Royal Marines - are they in fact thinking on each
>> inspection trip that the Iranians may snatch them? I pretty much doubt
>> it, because if the British navy thought that was a possibility then
>> they'd make sure that the Iranians could not so easily snatch an
>> inspection party.
>
> The ONLY hazard on such duties, excepting the chance of falling into the
> sea while boarding the target ship, is being picked up by some local
> nutters.
>
> As it has happened before I would imagine everyone would be trained and
> briefed on exactly what to do in these circumstances.
>
> If they haven't been then someone is going to get the sack.
I don't know exactly how one goes about being trained to behave when being
captured by some local nutters. About the best thing you can do is just
maintain your chain of command and keep your mouth shut, and don't provoke
the nutters.
I do agree that someone is going to get the sack - maybe. At the least a
bollocking and a letter of reprimand.
I am still reading Scott of the Antarctic, and the part of the book I am
reading just finished covering his naval career prior to being selected for
doing neat stuff in cold places. Apparently in the Victorian Royal Navy you
could get reprimanded badly and still enjoy a stellar career. Scott himself
ran a torpedo boat aground, but as a great number of his peers were doing
the same thing, or ramming ships by accident, it was no biggie.
AHS
William Black
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ev0aek$ntb$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>> "Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
>> news:cRKQh.28253$6z3.16633@edtnps82...
>>
>>> As for being captured by "interested neutrals", I think people who
>>> really do cross boundaries illegally are mentally prepared for it. I'm
>>> not so sure that people who don't cross boundaries are. You're talking
>>> about surface sailors and Royal Marines - are they in fact thinking on
>>> each inspection trip that the Iranians may snatch them? I pretty much
>>> doubt it, because if the British navy thought that was a possibility
>>> then they'd make sure that the Iranians could not so easily snatch an
>>> inspection party.
>>
>> The ONLY hazard on such duties, excepting the chance of falling into the
>> sea while boarding the target ship, is being picked up by some local
>> nutters.
>>
>> As it has happened before I would imagine everyone would be trained and
>> briefed on exactly what to do in these circumstances.
>>
>> If they haven't been then someone is going to get the sack.
>
> I don't know exactly how one goes about being trained to behave when being
> captured by some local nutters. About the best thing you can do is just
> maintain your chain of command and keep your mouth shut, and don't provoke
> the nutters.
Keeping your mouth shut may well engrage the local nutters.
Going on TV and making a statement about how much you sympathise with them
might get you home quickly.
The only people who'll be telling us what went on will be the people who got
caught when they get home.
And it looks like that may well be sooner rather than later.
I would imagine you'll then hear a series of statements from the MoD about
just how well everyone has behaved and that it all went according to plan.
> I do agree that someone is going to get the sack - maybe. At the least a
> bollocking and a letter of reprimand.
>
> I am still reading Scott of the Antarctic, and the part of the book I am
> reading just finished covering his naval career prior to being selected
> for doing neat stuff in cold places. Apparently in the Victorian Royal
> Navy you could get reprimanded badly and still enjoy a stellar career.
> Scott himself ran a torpedo boat aground, but as a great number of his
> peers were doing the same thing, or ramming ships by accident, it was no
> biggie.
A RAF officer of my acquaintance got a 'severe repremand' from a board of
enquiry once.
One year's loss of seniority, no social or professional stigma,
sympathetic noises from other officers on the lines of the 'well it could
have been me' type, normal career afterwards...
Jim Yanik
> "Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:0eudnQysa9xCf4_b...@bt.com...
>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I don't doubt that each and every Brit sailor and Royal Marine that
>>> bleated on Iranian TV is going to have a very short career. And
>>> perhaps some should end up in prison.
>>
>> Permission to start a war comes from the top. No one in that boat
>> had such authorisation.
No permission(ROE) to act in one's own defense? Unbelieveable.
>>
>> There are rules against revealing classified information to an enemy.
>> There are no rules against making your opponent look an idiot. Read
>> exactly what the captives are saying and join in the joke.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
> I've read what the prisoners are saying at several removes, that is to
> say, on CBC and CNN online news. My take on that information is that
> they are saying things that they ought not to, and I detect no joke.
>
> If careful viewing of the complete TV broadcasts makes it appear that
> the British sailors and marines are playing a joke, then I'll have to
> take your word for it - I very rarely watch TV. If that's the case
> they are playing a dangerous game, because not many people on the
> outside are going to be aware that they are doing it. They'd be much
> better off not to try to outsmart the Iranians, and just fall back on
> the tried and true name-rank-number formula.
>
> As for starting a war, self-defence is not starting a war.
Only in the minds of liberals.
> If Iran
> wanted to start one they've already had a few pretexts to do it, and
> in any case could easily manufacture one. Some shots exchanged, and a
> few casualties before an inevitable capture, would not have started a
> war. If anything, a bloodless capture almost makes it look like you're
> in the wrong to start with. I'm not saying that I myself in that
> situation would have started shooting (I probably wouldn't have) - I'm
> just saying that if someone had I doubt it would have started a war.
>
> There is also the very real possibility that a sign of armed
> resistance to being captured would have caused the Iranians not to
> capture them. As Peter suggests, this was likely a planned grab. As
> such, the last thing they would have wanted is a firefight, because
> then they'd not have a group of prisoners who are quite as compliant,
> and they'd also have bodies, and a very pissed-off UK government (much
> more pissed off, that is, than now). Shooting in self-defence might
> actually have spared these people the ordeal of being captured.
>
> AHS
>
>
>
--
William Black
>> As for starting a war, self-defence is not starting a war.
>
> Only in the minds of liberals.
You consider the current government of Iran to be liberal?
Jim Yanik
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ev0aek$ntb$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>> "Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
>> news:cRKQh.28253$6z3.16633@edtnps82...
>>
>>> As for being captured by "interested neutrals",
One can hardly consider IRAN an "interested NEUTRAL",they are supplying
Iraqi terrorists with arms,money and training,NOT "neutral".They allow Al-
Qaida free passage.
We even caught some of their Quds people red-handed.I guess some people
can't accept that Iran is the reason the war is going the way it is.
Arved Sandstrom
I agree, Jim. Just don't quote me.
AHS
Brian Sharrock
So if I intrepret you correctly; you haven;t seen ...any body language ...
but feel yourself justified in pontificating about it and making
deflamatory judgements?
The matelots and bootnecks have 'indicated' that they are being coerced by
Iranian (Farsi?) speakers to speak/write in ways that are 'alien' to native
borrn Englishmen (and women).
One letter was addressed to 'Representative of Parliament' fr'instance -
considering that was from a constituent of the Lib-Dem held consituency of
Devonport it conveys a lot -; another man was consistently looking towards
an of-screen 'prompter' for instructions (TV presenters have expounded on
the 'jump edits' where the coverage is not coherent) - and an officer
gesticulating in front ot two overlapping charts was giving an astonishing
portrayal of Jon Snow during coverage ofa particularly close election .
I am indebted to the 'Telegraph which recounted a tale from another war;-
A British hostage was brought before cameras to declare; - "We are being
well treated and well fed; you can tell that to the Army; tell that to the
Navy; and particularly ... tell that to the Marines!"
--
Brian
Brian Sharrock
UK media has reported that the period has been over an extended Iranian
public holiday period Allegedly 'nobody' has been in office.
--
Brian
Vince
> "Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in
> news:1%KQh.28257$6z3.3340@edtnps82:
>
>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:0eudnQysa9xCf4_b...@bt.com...
>>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> I don't doubt that each and every Brit sailor and Royal Marine that
>>>> bleated on Iranian TV is going to have a very short career. And
>>>> perhaps some should end up in prison.
>>> Permission to start a war comes from the top. No one in that boat
>>> had such authorisation.
>
> No permission(ROE) to act in one's own defense? Unbelieveable.
This is not entirely clear
self defense requires that the demand for surrender be unlawful and
justifying self defense
When surrender is demanded by an officer of state with overwhelming
force, futile resistance is itself an invitation to destruction and may
itself be unlawful.
Many legal systems do not allow claims of self defense agasint unlawful
arrest
I believe you post from texas (my apology if i'm wrong)
but it make an example
9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
vince
Vince
Bush put the Iraqi Shiites in power so they could form an alliance with
the Iranian Shiite co-religionists. One bloodstained hand smears the
other.
"mission accomplished"
Vince
William Black
> "Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in
> news:d8PQh.28306$6z3.13302@edtnps82:
>
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ev0aek$ntb$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>>
>>> "Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:cRKQh.28253$6z3.16633@edtnps82...
>>>
>>>> As for being captured by "interested neutrals",
>
> One can hardly consider IRAN an "interested NEUTRAL",they are supplying
> Iraqi terrorists with arms,money and training,NOT "neutral".They allow Al-
> Qaida free passage.
Anyone who thinks the Shia running Iran have anythimng in common with the
Wahabist fanatics of al Quaida needs to do some reading.
It's wooly thinking of this nature that got the US into the ghastly quagmire
that they're hip deep in at the moment.
Look, this is dead basic, the Shia (led by the Iranian government) don't
like the Sunnis. The Wahabist faction of the Sunni sect hate everybody who
isn't like them.
The Iranians and the Wahabists would rather fight each other than just about
anyone else.
> We even caught some of their Quds people red-handed.I guess some people
> can't accept that Iran is the reason the war is going the way it is.
Iran is NOT a combatant in either of the conflicts going on each side of
them. They're an interested party.
The term usually used for people like this is 'neutral'.
Just like the USA in the North Atlantic before 1941, they know which side
they're on...
Jack Linthicum
> "Arved Sandstrom" <asandst...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:cRKQh.28253$6z3.16633@edtnps82...
>
>
>
> > "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:euvnfn$bpj$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> >> "Arved Sandstrom" <asandst...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
Read a little bit of the similar type of signalling the members of the
Pueblo crew did when they were shown on TV. "We paean the Korean
government" being the best.
"Over the following weeks the military stalemate was punctuated by a
series of photos, films, and letters depicting the crew of the Pueblo
enjoying their comfortable stay in North Korea. On the surface, these
communications seemed to indicate that the crew had willingly defected
to the DPRK, but they contained numerous oddities. In letters home the
crew members spoke of events which had never occurred, they used
archaic words in their press conferences, and they appeared in a
curiously large number of the photographs with their middle fingers
extended to the cameraman.
Unaware of these secret signals, the North Korean captors continued to
threaten, torture, and coerce the crew members to prompt them to
cooperate. They rehearsed staged press conferences and posed for
photographs. In order to spare his youngest crew member from
execution, Commander Bucher also agreed to sign a confession stating
that the Pueblo had been in North Korean territorial waters at the
time of the attack.
The Hawaiian Good Luck Sign
All the while the men continued to subtly use "the finger" to signal
to the US that the photos were staged propaganda. The North Koreans
were unfamiliar with the western gesture, though after it appeared in
many photos they asked the Americans about it. The Pueblo's crew had
agreed in advance to describe it as the "Hawaiian good luck sign," and
their captors seemed to accept that explanation.
While in captivity the prisoners were regularly beaten, with little
hope of rescue. They were subjected to ridiculous lessons on the North
Koreans' version of US history which depicted the country as it was in
the late 1800s. The were smothered in propaganda propping up the
"Glorious Fatherland" in contrast to the "cowardly US imperialistic
aggressors."
In October 1968, Time magazine published a photo of the prisoners
displaying their Hawaiian good luck sign, and from the photo's caption
the DPRK military learned that the gesture was one of "obscene
derisiveness and contempt." This discovery infuriated the North Korean
captors, bringing about a period of beatings which came to be known as
"Hell week." During a seven day period, every member of the crew was
brutally tortured in reprisal."
Arved Sandstrom
news:H9udnbMHWomkQI7b...@comcast.com...
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> "Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in
>> news:1%KQh.28257$6z3.3340@edtnps82:
>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0eudnQysa9xCf4_b...@bt.com...
>>>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> I don't doubt that each and every Brit sailor and Royal Marine that
>>>>> bleated on Iranian TV is going to have a very short career. And
>>>>> perhaps some should end up in prison.
>>>> Permission to start a war comes from the top. No one in that boat
>>>> had such authorisation.
>>
>> No permission(ROE) to act in one's own defense? Unbelieveable.
>
> This is not entirely clear
>
> self defense requires that the demand for surrender be unlawful and
> justifying self defense
>
> When surrender is demanded by an officer of state with overwhelming
> force, futile resistance is itself an invitation to destruction and may
> itself be unlawful.
>
>
> vince
In the military, though, there is no such thing as futile resistance,
because it's very difficult to define what's futile. That famous KV-2 tank
on the Eastern front in WW2 (the one that disconcerted a Panzer division for
a day) most assuredly was offering futile resistance in isolation, but in
the context of the larger situation it certainly was not. You never know
when a platoon or company or battalion that's fighting itself literally to
the last man is not doing so in order to secure the safe retreat, passage,
or flank of a much larger force.
You're using civilian law concepts. If as a civilian I am demanded by a
peace officer to stop holding a hostage and give myself up, why, I'd best do
it. I'd be in the wrong not to (even if I already was not for holding a
hostage...) But if I was the leader of a reduced squad of men that was
holding up an enemy company or battalion, why, I'd posthumously get an award
for valour, assuming that anyone noticed the deed.
Where civilian and military concepts of law overlap is perhaps in military
operations in urban terrain (MOUT). It's no longer acceptable to hole up
with an inferior force in a village or town, and endure massive shelling and
rocketing and bombing along with the civilian population, just because
that's a safer place for you to endure that treatment than the pleasant
terrain outside town. You'd likely be prosecutable for holing up like that,
just as your opponent would be for shelling the shit out of you. As to who
actually gets prosecuted it would depend on who won.
Certainly a navy patrol doing sovereignty enforcement is not required under
any circumstances to give up. Not to other naval forces it's not. It might
be stupid in the local context to actually offer resistance, but if they did
it would not be unlawful.
AHS
Arved Sandstrom
news:d7QQh.106$tl2...@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
> news:cRKQh.28253$6z3.16633@edtnps82...
>> This is an interesting consideration. Understand that I get text snippets
>> such as afforded by CBC and CNN websites, so I myself would not have seen
>> any body language or verbal indications that everyone in the group is
>> reacting the same way.
>
> So if I intrepret you correctly; you haven;t seen ...any body language ...
> but feel yourself justified in pontificating about it and making
> deflamatory judgements?
You can call it pontificating if you like. Bear in mind that none of the
rather respected media outlets that I cite (there are a number of others),
that have people who scrutinize the released video in detail, have said
anything in particular about the prisoners looking like they were given the
treatment. If they don't think so then maybe the prisoners didn't get the
treatment. Large media organizations actually have a few people who have
gotten the treatment, so they may even know what the signs are.
As for inflammatory judgments, I believe I am in the position that those
prisoners have a very serious case to make when they are released, that
great pressure was brought to bear against them in order for them to say
what they have said. The captives who have spoken have clearly not been
beaten within an inch of their lives, and they don't by any accounts I have
read appear to be zoned out on drugs.
If you mean that they are being coached, why not say so? A relatively
willing volunteer in that situation would still be told what to say, to the
extent of being given a prepared speech or having their own speech vetted.
Nobody - myself included - has suggested that there is not coercion. The
question is, how much coercion has there been?
> One letter was addressed to 'Representative of Parliament' fr'instance -
> considering that was from a constituent of the Lib-Dem held consituency of
> Devonport it conveys a lot -; another man was consistently looking towards
> an of-screen 'prompter' for instructions (TV presenters have expounded on
> the 'jump edits' where the coverage is not coherent) - and an officer
> gesticulating in front ot two overlapping charts was giving an astonishing
> portrayal of Jon Snow during coverage ofa particularly close election .
None of that is particularly unusual in such a situation. Again, I have not
suggested that the Brits who spoke freely volunteered to do it because they
feel solidarity with the Iranian government. I'm suggesting that they folded
a bit too quickly, and in any case they should be beat up and mentally
exhausted before they admit that they were in Iranian waters and aplogize
for it...not eating on TV in apparent good health. Last I checked, torture
reduces both your appetite and your ability to sit or stand...or
gesticulate.
> I am indebted to the 'Telegraph which recounted a tale from another war;-
> A British hostage was brought before cameras to declare; - "We are being
> well treated and well fed; you can tell that to the Army; tell that to the
> Navy; and particularly ... tell that to the Marines!"
That's one guy, apparently a well read guy, because probably most Marines
(either Royal or US, let alone those of other countries) aren't aware of the
phrase. The most likely origin of the phrase is found in an English novel of
1806, where a fictitious captain balks at a tall tale and says that you can
tell that to the Marines, but he'll be damned if the sailors will believe
it. The other interpretation of the phrase - that Marines have seen
everything - falls flat, because so have the army and the navy.
In any case that's one fellow who is making a clear point that his captors
likely did not understand. Any evidence that the current prisoners are doing
the same thing?
AHS
Jack Linthicum
> "Brian Sharrock" <b.sharr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d7QQh.106$tl2...@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
>
>
> > "Arved Sandstrom" <asandst...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
In the Pueblo case, as I said in a post just above, the use of the
Hawaiian Good Luck Sign was doing pretty well until Time Magazine
decided to explain what it really meant to their readers. The North
Koreans could read English too.
Vince
> "Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> news:H9udnbMHWomkQI7b...@comcast.com...
>> Jim Yanik wrote:
>>> "Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in
>>> news:1%KQh.28257$6z3.3340@edtnps82:
>>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:0eudnQysa9xCf4_b...@bt.com...
>>>>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't doubt that each and every Brit sailor and Royal Marine that
>>>>>> bleated on Iranian TV is going to have a very short career. And
>>>>>> perhaps some should end up in prison.
>>>>> Permission to start a war comes from the top. No one in that boat
>>>>> had such authorisation.
>>> No permission(ROE) to act in one's own defense? Unbelieveable.
>> This is not entirely clear
>>
>> self defense requires that the demand for surrender be unlawful and
>> justifying self defense
>>
>> When surrender is demanded by an officer of state with overwhelming
>> force, futile resistance is itself an invitation to destruction and may
>> itself be unlawful.
>>
> [ SNIP ]
>> vince
I snipped this portion since it deals with combat operations in wartime
... I don't disagree but it is not relevant
> Certainly a navy patrol doing sovereignty enforcement is not required under
> any circumstances to give up. Not to other naval forces it's not. It might
> be stupid in the local context to actually offer resistance, but if they did
> it would not be unlawful.
They are not Iraqi forces enforcing sovereignty
they are UK forces enforcing a UN mandate at best.
At worst they are enforcing iraqi sovereignty
They have no "brief" to start shooting at an official force peacefully
albeit forcibly enforcing Iranian law.
Vince
Arved Sandstrom
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
[ SNIP ]
>
>> Certainly a navy patrol doing sovereignty enforcement is not required
>> under any circumstances to give up. Not to other naval forces it's not.
>> It might be stupid in the local context to actually offer resistance, but
>> if they did it would not be unlawful.
>
>
> They are not Iraqi forces enforcing sovereignty
> they are UK forces enforcing a UN mandate at best.
And that cripples them how?
> At worst they are enforcing iraqi sovereignty
Why "at worst"? Isn't that exactly what they are supposed to be doing?
> They have no "brief" to start shooting at an official force peacefully
> albeit forcibly enforcing Iranian law.
Well, they do and they don't. They weren't in Iranian waters, so they could
reasonably protest against an attempt to enforce Iranian law. If the Iranian
force really did look like a border patrol that genuinely thought that the
British were in Iranian waters, it might not be the best idea to start
shooting. OTOH, since the Brits weren't in Iranian waters, they definitely
did have a "brief" to start shooting.
Let me put it this way - if a US frigate was floating in the exact same spot
that the British were at, and the Iranians tried to capture it, what do you
think the US response would be? That's assuming that the Iranians would be
stupid. Why, the frigate would blow all Iranian assets out of the water, and
for good measure it might dispatch any Iranian helicopters or fixed-wing ac
that were in the air nearby.
I don't see the difference between that hypothetical frigate and small
boats.
AHS
Arved Sandstrom
news:1175718075.4...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...[ SNIP ]
>> In any case that's one fellow who is making a clear point that his
>> captors
>> likely did not understand. Any evidence that the current prisoners are
>> doing
>> the same thing?
>>
>> AHS
>
> In the Pueblo case, as I said in a post just above, the use of the
> Hawaiian Good Luck Sign was doing pretty well until Time Magazine
> decided to explain what it really meant to their readers. The North
> Koreans could read English too.
Right. But are any of the current prisoners doing that kind of thing?
AHS
Jack Linthicum
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
They aren't prisoners anymore, if I were they I would not reveal any
SOP that would be turned back on the next group to gathered in. The
Iranians took some in 2004, I would guess they will try for some more
in 2008 or 2009, if the same group is still in power.
Kerryn Offord
Is anybody at war with Iran?
If not, it's very much the same as the US in the 1980s re Afghanistan..
Interested neutral.
Kerryn Offord
<SNIP>
> Would US Marines on a similar operation have started shooting? Perhaps.
> There's no reason to believe a shooting incident would have started a war;
> things like that have happened before, and as often as not both sides hush
> it up. If they don't, it's because one or both sides already wanted a war,
> and sooner or later would have manufactured an excuse anyhow.
<SNIP>
Assume it was US Marines exactly the same situation.
If they start shooting, the MGs on the six gunboats open fire. They kill
or injure all Marines.. Then they swoop in to capture them.
Meanwhile, what is the USN frigate nearby doing?
escalation? Or do they just let the Marines be taken away?
Paul J. Adam
Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> writes
>They aren't prisoners anymore,
We're dealing with the Revolutionary Guards of Iran - they aren't "not
prisoners" until they're on British soil, which hasn't happened yet.
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk
Arved Sandstrom
news:4614...@clear.net.nz...
I see no escalation when the frigate opens up on the gunboats - it's the
same level of violence. Firing back with SA from a small boat is one level,
and I believe it would be justified - it's self defence. If the gunboats had
then massacred the crew of the inspection party's boat(s), *that* would be
serious escalation. But the subsequent reaction by an accompanying frigate
would not be escalation, since I believe that a bunch of MGs on Iranian
gunboats firing on a small boat is pretty far up the scale already.
There was no frigate nearby anyway, was there? If there had been, the
appropriate response would have been to obliterate said Iranian gunboats.
AHS
Jim Yanik
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> "Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in
>> news:d8PQh.28306$6z3.13302@edtnps82:
>>
>>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:ev0aek$ntb$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>>> "Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:cRKQh.28253$6z3.16633@edtnps82...
>>>>
>>>>> As for being captured by "interested neutrals",
>>
>> One can hardly consider IRAN an "interested NEUTRAL",they are
>> supplying Iraqi terrorists with arms,money and training,NOT
>> "neutral".They allow Al- Qaida free passage.
>> We even caught some of their Quds people red-handed.I guess some
>> people can't accept that Iran is the reason the war is going the way
>> it is.
>>
>
> Is anybody at war with Iran?
When was the last DECLARED war???
Iran committed it's FIRST act of war with the US when it invaded our
Embassy in 1979. More followed.
Today,it's control,support and supply for terrorists operating inside Iraq
is another act of war.Together with their Revolutionay Guards people that
were CAPTURED inside Iraq,Iranian-made IEDs.
>
> If not, it's very much the same as the US in the 1980s re
> Afghanistan..
>
> Interested neutral.
>
--
Arved Sandstrom
No, they are not prisoners anymore. It was magnanimous of Ahmadinejad to
"pardon" them. I myself would turn the tables and haul in every Iranian navy
small boat crew in the Shatt al-Arab.
If that group actually had an SOP - I myself doubt that they did - it would
of course be unwise to say much about it.
AHS
Jim Yanik
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
><SNIP>
>> Would US Marines on a similar operation have started shooting?
>> Perhaps. There's no reason to believe a shooting incident would have
>> started a war; things like that have happened before, and as often as
>> not both sides hush it up. If they don't, it's because one or both
>> sides already wanted a war, and sooner or later would have
>> manufactured an excuse anyhow.
>
><SNIP>
>
> Assume it was US Marines exactly the same situation.
>
> If they start shooting, the MGs on the six gunboats open fire. They
> kill or injure all Marines.. Then they swoop in to capture them.
Killing their intended hostages is not going to help their plan to trade
hostages for Iranian prisoners in Iraq.
>
> Meanwhile, what is the USN frigate nearby doing?
Probably be doing a lot more than what the Brit frigate did.
I doubt they would just watch and do nothing.
Perhaps that's why the Iranians didn't try to snatch US personnel.
>
> escalation? Or do they just let the Marines be taken away?
>
--
Fred J. McCall
:
:Look, this is dead basic, the Shia (led by the Iranian government) don't
:like the Sunnis. The Wahabist faction of the Sunni sect hate everybody who
:isn't like them.
:
:The Iranians and the Wahabists would rather fight each other than just about
:anyone else.
:
:> We even caught some of their Quds people red-handed.I guess some people
:> can't accept that Iran is the reason the war is going the way it is.
:
:Iran is NOT a combatant in either of the conflicts going on each side of
:them. They're an interested party.
Interested enough so that they are allowing passage of combatants and
their supplies, financing combatants, supplying them, etc.
:The term usually used for people like this is 'neutral'.
Not hardly. The term usually used for people like this is 'ally'.
:Just like the USA in the North Atlantic before 1941, they know which side
:they're on...
Except that wasn't a given. There was real strong sentiment that said
we should let the Germans have you...
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
Fred J. McCall
:
:Is anybody at war with Iran?
:
:If not, it's very much the same as the US in the 1980s re Afghanistan..
:
:Interested neutral.
Nope. You might not recall it, but that was just another proxy battle
in the Cold War. We weren't 'neutral' by any stretch of the
imagination.
Fred J. McCall
:
:Assume it was US Marines exactly the same situation.
:
:If they start shooting, the MGs on the six gunboats open fire. They kill
:or injure all Marines.. Then they swoop in to capture them.
:
:Meanwhile, what is the USN frigate nearby doing?
:
:escalation? Or do they just let the Marines be taken away?
They're sinking the gunboats so that they don't get to kill or injure
all marines or swoop in to capture them.
It's not 'escalation' to shoot back at people who are shooting at your
folks.
Then when the Iranians start claiming it was all in Iranian waters,
you just point to where their gunboats are...
--
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has
nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,
and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
William Black
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uok813pj2fnkgvahm...@4ax.com...
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :
> :Look, this is dead basic, the Shia (led by the Iranian government)
> don't
> :like the Sunnis. The Wahabist faction of the Sunni sect hate everybody
> who
> :isn't like them.
> :
> :The Iranians and the Wahabists would rather fight each other than just
> about
> :anyone else.
> :
> :> We even caught some of their Quds people red-handed.I guess some people
> :> can't accept that Iran is the reason the war is going the way it is.
> :
> :Iran is NOT a combatant in either of the conflicts going on each side of
> :them. They're an interested party.
>
> Interested enough so that they are allowing passage of combatants and
> their supplies, financing combatants, supplying them, etc.
>
> :The term usually used for people like this is 'neutral'.
>
> Not hardly. The term usually used for people like this is 'ally'.
>
> :Just like the USA in the North Atlantic before 1941, they know which
> side
> :they're on...
>
> Except that wasn't a given. There was real strong sentiment that said
> we should let the Germans have you...
I know.
You make my point for me...
Brian Sharrock
"Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:vQUQh.28375$6z3.6792@edtnps82...
> "Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> news:BIidndnoislakInb...@comcast.com...
>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> [ SNIP ]
>>
>>> Certainly a navy patrol doing sovereignty enforcement is not required
>>> under any circumstances to give up. Not to other naval forces it's not.
>>> It might be stupid in the local context to actually offer resistance,
>>> but if they did it would not be unlawful.
>>
>>
>> They are not Iraqi forces enforcing sovereignty
>> they are UK forces enforcing a UN mandate at best.
>
> And that cripples them how?
>
>> At worst they are enforcing iraqi sovereignty
>
> Why "at worst"? Isn't that exactly what they are supposed to be doing?
>
>> They have no "brief" to start shooting at an official force peacefully
>> albeit forcibly enforcing Iranian law.
>
> Well, they do and they don't. They weren't in Iranian waters,
What is your basis for making this statement?
Have you studied the history of the Iran/Iraq dispute concerning this
border?
Do you _know_ what the significance of the Thalweg (Dalweg) is in the
dipute?
Can you state the significance of 'Point R' (the waypoint defined as the end
point of theborde according to the 1975 Treaty?
Do you assert that the 1975 Treaty remains extant -given that Saddam Hussein
literally tore up the treaty on TV?
> so they could reasonably protest against an attempt to enforce Iranian
> law.
Unless you can make a positive statement about the border, your corrolary
falls.
> If the Iranian force really did look like a border patrol that genuinely
> thought that the British were in Iranian waters, it might not be the best
> idea to start shooting. OTOH,
From what _I_ saw on the TV coverage -and the commentator's voice-over- a
medal was awarded to a 'Coast-Guard' not a 'Navy' type. In UK (and other
nations) the CoastGuard is a police rather than a military service.
> since the Brits weren't in Iranian waters, they definitely did have a
> "brief" to start shooting.
>
Once again; your corollary presumes your original -unsubstantiated-
assertation.
Hypotheses about US Frigates deleted as being stupid.
--
Brian
Arved Sandstrom
It seems to me that if there is an area of disputed borders, and I'll agree
that the area in question is one, it's not particularly productive to
capture military or peace officers from the other side in the disputed zone.
Doing so is a provocation.
No, I have not studied the detailed history of the dispute. I myself am
satisfied with the UK government asserting that they were not in Iranian
waters. If you feel otherwise, and wish to support Ahmadinejad, phone Tony
and tell him you're upset about Brits invading Iran.
>> so they could reasonably protest against an attempt to enforce Iranian
>> law.
>
> Unless you can make a positive statement about the border, your corrolary
> falls.
*I* don't need to make a positive statement about the border...the UK and
Iraq already did that for me. I believe they know better than you or I do.
>> If the Iranian force really did look like a border patrol that genuinely
>> thought that the British were in Iranian waters, it might not be the best
>> idea to start shooting. OTOH,
>
> From what _I_ saw on the TV coverage -and the commentator's voice-over- a
> medal was awarded to a 'Coast-Guard' not a 'Navy' type. In UK (and other
> nations) the CoastGuard is a police rather than a military service.
In the US and very possibly Iran the coast guard isn't very police-like.
It's quite military. Hell, in Iran I suspect the civilian police aren't very
police-like.
>> since the Brits weren't in Iranian waters, they definitely did have a
>> "brief" to start shooting.
>
> Once again; your corollary presumes your original -unsubstantiated-
> assertation.
You mean, unsubstantiated in the sense that the UK govt and the Iraqi govt
are lying, and that the Iranian govt isn't?
> Hypotheses about US Frigates deleted as being stupid.
Why? The presence of a frigate would make sense. In fact I think you'll see
future patrols regularly be accompanied by a ship. Either that or stop
patrolling.
AHS
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:uok813pj2fnkgvahm...@4ax.com...
:> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :Look, this is dead basic, the Shia (led by the Iranian government) don't
:> :like the Sunnis. The Wahabist faction of the Sunni sect hate everybody who
:> :isn't like them.
:> :
:> :The Iranians and the Wahabists would rather fight each other than just about
:> :anyone else.
:> :
:> :> We even caught some of their Quds people red-handed.I guess some people
:> :> can't accept that Iran is the reason the war is going the way it is.
:> :
:> :Iran is NOT a combatant in either of the conflicts going on each side of
:> :them. They're an interested party.
:>
:> Interested enough so that they are allowing passage of combatants and
:> their supplies, financing combatants, supplying them, etc.
:>
:> :The term usually used for people like this is 'neutral'.
:>
:> Not hardly. The term usually used for people like this is 'ally'.
:>
:> :Just like the USA in the North Atlantic before 1941, they know which side
:> :they're on...
:>
:> Except that wasn't a given. There was real strong sentiment that said
:> we should let the Germans have you...
:
:I know.
:
:You make my point for me...
Not unless you're REALLY confused I don't...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:89971312rl0dnvpvk...@4ax.com...
:> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :Being captured like this could well be the making of the two officers
:> :involved, they've been on TV, got their names in the papers and come
:> :across as the sort of sensible young men who are a credit to HM Forces...
:>
:> Rather frightening that you're selecting for folks whose expertise is
:> surrendering. Just another sad comment on the state of Empire, I
:> guess...
:
:They pick them for intelligence.
:
:Going down under a hail of bullets is not considered good practice these
:days...
Neither is surrendering and then giving statements against your own
country.
:> :Now US Marines may well have started shooting.
:> :
:> :In that case they're obviously not suitable for an operation where being
:> :captured by an 'interested neutral' is a possibility.
:>
:> If they're trying to capture you they aren't 'neutral' any longer. Or
:> is it your contention that the British forces involved WERE in Iranian
:> waters?
:
:It doesn't matter where they were.
:
:Iran doesn't care, the UK doesn't care. We are in a position where we have
:to go forward rfrom where we are and not from where we'd like to be...
In other words, you're on the losing end of this stick and don't want
to discuss it further, since your silly "interested neutral" claim has
vanished in a puff of logic.
:>
:> :Or do you live in a world where a Lieutenant is allowed to start your
:> wars?
:>
:> The side executing the capture already made that decision.
:
:Good old Fred, always ready to blow up the world instead of talking.
Good old Willy, always ready to concoct some ad hominem lie instead
of talking sense.
:"Jaw jaw...", to quote a dead Tory, "...is better than war war".
He's dead. What he says hardly matters. I seem to recall a certain
William Black screaming not so long ago about how one of these days
Iran would pull something like this and get blown back into the stone
age for it...
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Brian Sharrock
Do I detect a retreat? You've stated previosuly 'They weren't in Iranian
waters' now it's 'an area of disputed water' ..... why haven't you answered
the specific questions I posed?
> it's not particularly productive to capture military or peace officers
> from the other side in the disputed zone. Doing so is a provocation.
>
Irrelevant.
> No, I have not studied the detailed history of the dispute.
Why not?
> I myself am satisfied with the UK government asserting that they were not
> in Iranian waters.
JaWohl mein Fuhrer! The Leader is correct! The leader must be true!
I presume that you're unfamilar with the doctrine of free will?
> If you feel otherwise, and wish to support Ahmadinejad, phone Tony and
> tell him you're upset about Brits invading Iran.
>
Having a questioning mind does not infer support of Ahmadinajad ... withdraw
that remark!
>>> so they could reasonably protest against an attempt to enforce Iranian
>>> law.
>>
>> Unless you can make a positive statement about the border, your corrolary
>> falls.
>
> *I* don't need to make a positive statement about the border...the UK and
> Iraq already did that for me. I believe they know better than you or I do.
>
All hail the Leader's word!? BTW; as you're probably unfamiliar with the
general UK population's thinking; - most UK citizens would check their
calenders if Tony Blair was to say;- "Today is Thursday!" - 'WMD capable
of being deployed within 45 minutes' ; 'Education, Education. Education';
'The NHS is safe in our hands!' etc. etc.
BTW I don't know how much experience you have with UK maps/charts but those
I'm familar with are usually overprinted in blue with words to the effect '
National borders depicted are illustrative only, do not convey that HMG
recognises these borders and are not to used for navigation'.
>>> If the Iranian force really did look like a border patrol that genuinely
>>> thought that the British were in Iranian waters, it might not be the
>>> best idea to start shooting. OTOH,
>>
>> From what _I_ saw on the TV coverage -and the commentator's voice-over- a
>> medal was awarded to a 'Coast-Guard' not a 'Navy' type. In UK (and other
>> nations) the CoastGuard is a police rather than a military service.
>
> In the US and very possibly Iran the coast guard isn't very police-like.
> It's quite military. Hell, in Iran I suspect the civilian police aren't
> very police-like.
>
>>> since the Brits weren't in Iranian waters, they definitely did have a
>>> "brief" to start shooting.
>>
>> Once again; your corollary presumes your original -unsubstantiated-
>> assertation.
>
> You mean, unsubstantiated in the sense that the UK govt and the Iraqi govt
> are lying, and that the Iranian govt isn't?
>
Yes! Even _you_ have now written "It seems to me that if there is an area
of disputed borders, and I'll agree that the area in question is one,"
You have _not_ substantiated your original assertion ;- 'They weren't in
Iranian waters'. Now, think; do you normally and consistently accept the
word of your Leader?
When a border is 'disputed' - it takes two to Tango - it is possible for
both the Iranians and the Coalition forces -acting nominally as the servants
of the Iraqi government- to be correct.
I do urge you to study the history of this border; alternatively point to
any published 'line of demarcation' accepted by both countries.
>> Hypotheses about US Frigates deleted as being stupid.
>
> Why? The presence of a frigate would make sense. In fact I think you'll
> see future patrols regularly be accompanied by a ship. Either that or stop
> patrolling.
>
> AHS
Why? You postulated the actions of a USS $Frigate -when there was no frigate
action involved.
B-Liar's regime would better serve the RN by removing the three Maritime
Patrol Vessels off the 'For Sales List' and sending them out to the Gulf to
act as mother ships rather then deploy a huge T22 Batch III frigate in what
is essentially a shallow water operation of inspecting anchored merchant
ships.
--
Brian
Kerryn Offord
> Kerryn Offord <ka...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> :
> :Is anybody at war with Iran?
> :
> :If not, it's very much the same as the US in the 1980s re Afghanistan..
> :
> :Interested neutral.
>
> Nope. You might not recall it, but that was just another proxy battle
> in the Cold War. We weren't 'neutral' by any stretch of the
> imagination.
>
Afghanistan?
They were effectively just "interested Neutrals"
Like Russia and China in Korea... (Certainly there was no state of war
between US and China/ Russia.. A stand off...maybe, but no war. A cold
war is political posturing and doesn't count.)
Kerryn Offord
> Kerryn Offord <ka...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in
> news:4614...@clear.net.nz:
>
>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>> Would US Marines on a similar operation have started shooting?
>>> Perhaps. There's no reason to believe a shooting incident would have
>>> started a war; things like that have happened before, and as often as
>>> not both sides hush it up. If they don't, it's because one or both
>>> sides already wanted a war, and sooner or later would have
>>> manufactured an excuse anyhow.
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> Assume it was US Marines exactly the same situation.
>>
>> If they start shooting, the MGs on the six gunboats open fire. They
>> kill or injure all Marines.. Then they swoop in to capture them.
>
> Killing their intended hostages is not going to help their plan to trade
> hostages for Iranian prisoners in Iraq.
***
If the intended hostages start shooting, why wouldn't they shoot back?
It's a very natural reaction... It might reduce the number of hostages,
but they'll be wounded.. Makes for better ratings on TV. And of course
they can say "They started it" "We were only defending ourselves"...
Which would have the virtue of being true...
>> Meanwhile, what is the USN frigate nearby doing?
>
> Probably be doing a lot more than what the Brit frigate did.
> I doubt they would just watch and do nothing.
> Perhaps that's why the Iranians didn't try to snatch US personnel.
***
What could the RN frigate have done?
IIRC there were other ships and small boats in the area.. that means
risk of collateral damage.
Look at what's happened.. The prisoners have been returned unharmed.
If the Marines had opened fire there would have been dead. It's very
hard to back down once things go that far.
Kerryn Offord
> Kerryn Offord <ka...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> :
> :Assume it was US Marines exactly the same situation.
> :
> :If they start shooting, the MGs on the six gunboats open fire. They kill
> :or injure all Marines.. Then they swoop in to capture them.
> :
> :Meanwhile, what is the USN frigate nearby doing?
> :
> :escalation? Or do they just let the Marines be taken away?
>
> They're sinking the gunboats so that they don't get to kill or injure
> all marines or swoop in to capture them.
>
> It's not 'escalation' to shoot back at people who are shooting at your
> folks.
>
> Then when the Iranians start claiming it was all in Iranian waters,
> you just point to where their gunboats are...
>
But he marines are to have started shooting first... The Iranians shoot
back in self defence. The Frigate adds it's fire power.. Escalation.
You (US) aren't at war with Iran (yet).. So you can't just go around
shooting at people... That's how wars can be started.
Tankfixer
fmc...@earthlink.net mumbled
> "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :I haven't really followed this thread, but it brought to mind a question.
> :Would the Brits ever consider an SAS commando raid to free the hostages?
> :Would a commando raid create more problems? I don't know that such raids
> :have a very high success rate ...
> :
>
> Rather depends on where they're being held, I would think. If they've
> moved them to Teheran, I don't think the British have enough logistics
> support to put a raiding party in and get both them and the captives
> back out.
>
> Then there would always be the concern about backlash against British
> nationals in Iran. You couldn't alert all your tourists to get out
> ahead of time (as that would warn the other side sufficiently that you
> might have just made your raid impossible).
One might make vague referances to a rescue just to spook the Iranians
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
Tankfixer
willia...@hotmail.co.uk mumbled> news:d8PQh.28306$6z3.13302@edtnps82...
> > "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:ev0aek$ntb$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> >>
> >>
> >>> As for being captured by "interested neutrals", I think people who
> >>> really do cross boundaries illegally are mentally prepared for it. I'm
> >>> not so sure that people who don't cross boundaries are. You're talking
> >>> about surface sailors and Royal Marines - are they in fact thinking on
> >>> each inspection trip that the Iranians may snatch them? I pretty much
> >>> doubt it, because if the British navy thought that was a possibility
> >>> then they'd make sure that the Iranians could not so easily snatch an
> >>> inspection party.
> >>
> >> sea while boarding the target ship, is being picked up by some local
> >> nutters.
> >>
> >> As it has happened before I would imagine everyone would be trained and
> >> briefed on exactly what to do in these circumstances.
> >>
> >> If they haven't been then someone is going to get the sack.
> >
> > I don't know exactly how one goes about being trained to behave when being
> > captured by some local nutters. About the best thing you can do is just
> > maintain your chain of command and keep your mouth shut, and don't provoke
> > the nutters.
>
> Keeping your mouth shut may well engrage the local nutters.
What are they going to do ?
Beat me ?
Not when that hinders the result they wish to gain.
>
> Going on TV and making a statement about how much you sympathise with them
> might get you home quickly.
Might get you in a nice warm prison too.
I'd just as soon refuse to speak on TV. Or even let them film me.
Tankfixer
willia...@hotmail.co.uk mumbled
> Going down under a hail of bullets is not considered good practice these
> days.
Remmeber that line when they come to hand your wife, mother and
daughters thier burka's
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Kerryn Offord <ka...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :Is anybody at war with Iran?
:> :
:> :If not, it's very much the same as the US in the 1980s re Afghanistan..
:> :
:> :Interested neutral.
:>
:> Nope. You might not recall it, but that was just another proxy battle
:> in the Cold War. We weren't 'neutral' by any stretch of the
:> imagination.
:
:Was America actively (Using regular military) fighting the Soviets in
:Afghanistan?
:They were effectively just "interested Neutrals"
Wrong. That doesn't make you an 'interested neutral'.
:Like Russia and China in Korea... (Certainly there was no state of war
:between US and China/ Russia.. A stand off...maybe, but no war. A cold
:war is political posturing and doesn't count.)
Hogwash. There sure were a lot of us killing each other to say it
"doesn't count".
Fred J. McCall
:Jim Yanik wrote:
:> Kerryn Offord <ka...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in
:> news:4614...@clear.net.nz:
:>
:>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
:>> <SNIP>
:>>> Would US Marines on a similar operation have started shooting?
:>>> Perhaps. There's no reason to believe a shooting incident would have
:>>> started a war; things like that have happened before, and as often as
:>>> not both sides hush it up. If they don't, it's because one or both
:>>> sides already wanted a war, and sooner or later would have
:>>> manufactured an excuse anyhow.
:>> <SNIP>
:>>
:>> Assume it was US Marines exactly the same situation.
:>>
:>> If they start shooting, the MGs on the six gunboats open fire. They
:>> kill or injure all Marines.. Then they swoop in to capture them.
:>
:> Killing their intended hostages is not going to help their plan to trade
:> hostages for Iranian prisoners in Iraq.
:
:***
:If the intended hostages start shooting, why wouldn't they shoot back?
:It's a very natural reaction... It might reduce the number of hostages,
:but they'll be wounded.. Makes for better ratings on TV. And of course
:they can say "They started it" "We were only defending ourselves"...
:Which would have the virtue of being true...
You're obviously too deluded on this topic to be in this discussion.
Yeah, the Iranians would only have been defending themselves when
someone resisted being kidnapped. Right...
:>> Meanwhile, what is the USN frigate nearby doing?
:>
:> Probably be doing a lot more than what the Brit frigate did.
:> I doubt they would just watch and do nothing.
:> Perhaps that's why the Iranians didn't try to snatch US personnel.
:
:***
:What could the RN frigate have done?
:
:IIRC there were other ships and small boats in the area.. that means
:risk of collateral damage.
:
:Look at what's happened.. The prisoners have been returned unharmed.
:
:If the Marines had opened fire there would have been dead. It's very
:hard to back down once things go that far.
Small wonder the Empire fell, given you lot and how you think...
--
"Der Feige droht nur, wo er sicher ist."
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Kerryn Offord <ka...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :Assume it was US Marines exactly the same situation.
:> :
:> :If they start shooting, the MGs on the six gunboats open fire. They kill
:> :or injure all Marines.. Then they swoop in to capture them.
:> :
:> :Meanwhile, what is the USN frigate nearby doing?
:> :
:> :escalation? Or do they just let the Marines be taken away?
:>
:> They're sinking the gunboats so that they don't get to kill or injure
:> all marines or swoop in to capture them.
:>
:> It's not 'escalation' to shoot back at people who are shooting at your
:> folks.
:>
:> Then when the Iranians start claiming it was all in Iranian waters,
:> you just point to where their gunboats are...
:>
:
:But he marines are to have started shooting first... The Iranians shoot
:back in self defence. The Frigate adds it's fire power.. Escalation.
Sorry, but it's not 'self defense' when your actions are the proximate
cause of someone resisting an illegal action.
:You (US) aren't at war with Iran (yet).. So you can't just go around
:shooting at people... That's how wars can be started.
Yeah. You'd have done well at the Munich Conference. Fit right in.
'Peace in our time' and all that.
William Black
> Kerryn Offord <ka...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> :If the Marines had opened fire there would have been dead. It's very
> :hard to back down once things go that far.
>
> Small wonder the Empire fell, given you lot and how you think...
The empire didn't 'fall'.
We sold it so we could pay the price of saving the world.
William Black
"Tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.army.m> wrote in message
news:VqhRh.19961$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> In article <ev0ar6$o1k$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
> willia...@hotmail.co.uk mumbled
>
>> Going down under a hail of bullets is not considered good practice these
>> days.
>
> Remmeber that line when they come to hand your wife, mother and
> daughters thier burka's
I thought that was the Sunni Wahabists.
Oh wait, you're one of the lame brains who can't tell the difference...
William Black
"Tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.army.m> wrote in message
The available evidence seems to indicate that everyone concerned on the
British side did everything just right.
La N
None of us, including Tanky, have been in that situation. So we don't
really know how we'd respond if we were ...
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:8rjb1310stjknboqe...@4ax.com...
:> Kerryn Offord <ka...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
:
:> :If the Marines had opened fire there would have been dead. It's very
:> :hard to back down once things go that far.
:>
:> Small wonder the Empire fell, given you lot and how you think...
:
:The empire didn't 'fall'.
Oh, then you still have it?
:We sold it so we could pay the price of saving the world.
YOU pay the price of saving the world? That's really quite funny.
You mean the price of saving your own asses after you botched things
for years, don't you?
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.army.m> wrote in message
:news:VqhRh.19961$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
:> In article <ev0ar6$o1k$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
:> willia...@hotmail.co.uk mumbled
:>
:>> Going down under a hail of bullets is not considered good practice these
:>> days.
:>
:> Remmeber that line when they come to hand your wife, mother and
:> daughters thier burka's
:
:I thought that was the Sunni Wahabists.
You thought wrong.
If you believe you are correct, please post some citations showing
that only Sunni Wahabist women wear it.
:Oh wait, you're one of the lame brains who can't tell the difference...
Oh wait, you're one of the lame brains who isn't aware of the common
attributes...
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Arved Sandstrom
news:3OrRh.234$Uf7.64@edtnps89...
>
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ev50je$ji2$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>> The available evidence seems to indicate that everyone concerned on the
>> British side did everything just right.
>
> None of us, including Tanky, have been in that situation. So we don't
> really know how we'd respond if we were ...
That's true. If I was having teeth removed without anesthetic, or
fingernails yanked out, or having my testicles crushed, or having designs
imprinted on me with a soldering iron, I do believe that I'd be confessing
to everything, including stuff that wasn't true.
At some lesser point I might also break. Who knows?
Here's the thing, though - there are accepted standards of conduct. The
soldier who loses it on a battlefield and runs to the rear may genuinely
have been temporarily insane. After all, a battlefield is a very unnatural
place to be. Nevertheless, we hold that such conduct is unacceptable, and
other soldiers - many of whom may not have been exposed to such terrors -
are allowed to pronounce judgment.
Similarly, conduct as a prisoner of war (let's not quibble about the fact
that there is no state of war between Iran and the UK - the captives ought
to have behaved as if they were POWs) cannot be prescribed in a relative
way. It has to be absolute. That means that some people fail the test and
others don't, and the ones that do must be punished. It doesn't matter why
the people who failed the test failed, nor does it matter that many of us
would probably also fail the test.
It may seem hypocritical, but I don't think it is. Hypocrisy lies in
condemning behaviour that you yourself are guilty of, *and* not
acknowledging that yourself are guilty of it. I myself freely acknowledge
that in a similar situation I might break also; that doesn't mean that I
cannot criticize the statements made by some of the captives.
As I pointed out in another post, the one with the link to a BBC article,
the former captives are likely going to get a thorough interrogation about
what methods the Iranians used. Because clearly the Iranians used some
methods of coercion; not even I have suggested that the Brits who blabbed
started talking without being pressured in some manner.
AHS
La N
They were just interviewed on t.v. There *was* coercion, isolation, and a
bit of terror ... being blindfolded, isolated and hearing guns cocking.
And, you're right, everybody has a right to comment or criticize.
How the Brits handle it will be *their* concern, but it appears all the
sailors/marines involved are looking forward to getting back to work.
- ni
Jim Yanik
Maybe opened up on the Iranians with a cannon?
Don't they have a ~5" cannon on those boats? Was there helo support?
>
> IIRC there were other ships and small boats in the area.. that means
> risk of collateral damage.
Who cares,if your own troops are being snatched?
>
> Look at what's happened.. The prisoners have been returned unharmed.
At great cost to Britain. They now look incompetent,wusses.
>
> If the Marines had opened fire there would have been dead. It's very
> hard to back down once things go that far.
>
The only "good" thing to come of this is that it shows how useless and
corrupt both the UN and European "Union" are. Neither did SQUAT to get the
Brits released.So much for "soft power".
But some of us already knew that...
-
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Jim Yanik
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Kerryn Offord <ka...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>>
>> :
>> :Assume it was US Marines exactly the same situation.
>> :
>> :If they start shooting, the MGs on the six gunboats open fire. They
>> :kill or injure all Marines.. Then they swoop in to capture them.
>> :
>> :Meanwhile, what is the USN frigate nearby doing?
>> :
>> :escalation? Or do they just let the Marines be taken away?
>>
>> They're sinking the gunboats so that they don't get to kill or injure
>> all marines or swoop in to capture them.
>>
>> It's not 'escalation' to shoot back at people who are shooting at
>> your folks.
>>
>> Then when the Iranians start claiming it was all in Iranian waters,
>> you just point to where their gunboats are...
>>
>
> But he marines are to have started shooting first... The Iranians
> shoot back in self defence.
It's NOT "self-defense" for the Iranians when the Iranians are trying to
seize them and their vessel.You have a SCREWY concept of "self-defense".
> The Frigate adds it's fire power..
> Escalation.
>
> You (US) aren't at war with Iran (yet).. So you can't just go around
> shooting at people... That's how wars can be started.
>
The "war" has already started,some people just can't see that.
BTW,the 1979 US Embassy seizure was an act of war,same for the other acts
Iran has made against the US.
--
Jim Yanik
news:SqhRh.19959$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
The Iranians and Al-Qaida are being proven right;they claim the West does
not have the will or backbone to resist them,and events are showing that
they are right.
TMOliver
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote ....
>
> The available evidence seems to indicate that everyone concerned on the
> British side did everything just right.
>
Somehow, to be self-congratulatory in a circumstance in which viewers of
television from the Kirghiz heights to the back alleys of Aden (and all
sorts of other places) have been exposed to a healthy dose of propaganda in
which the government of Iran (and a portion of its paramilitary forces)
appear better prepared, etc. than the tattered remainders of a Great Empire
makes me a bit uncomfortable.
For all the millions of inches of newspaper space and video tape expended
over this incident, while the collateral news that an IED blew four UK
service personnel apart in the pleasant and subdued neighborhood of Basra
(which we are told is secured and friendly because of the excellent PR of
the squaddies) went almost unnoticed makes a sad commentary on the
perspective of UKians (and a lot of USAians). In a few brief hours Iran
could appear publicly as gentle and forgiving, while behind the scenes
reminding you that they hold the lash. For Brits not to be more upset over
the 4 dead, than they are exhilarated for the safety of the 15 is shameful.
For 28 years, we've played political footsie with a regime dead set on
damaging us at every convenient and possible moment. All the while, the
party line has been that eventually the Iranian moderates would take over
governance. At this moment, it appears the Iranian moderates couldn't
jointly poor piss out of a boot. The best we could manage was girding up
Sadam Hussein's loins (spiritually and with a bit of logistics and INTEL) to
annoy them, thankfully not providing enough aid for him to "win". Every
time the Israelis attempt to hammer Hezbollah we (or must of us) become more
wrought up and annoyed than we would if Muslim suicide bombers attacked
Disneyworld at the height of the British tourist season there (of course, we
ought to get upset at the Israelis who persist in using tactical strikes to
constrain an "enemy" for whom casualties among its paramilitaries are borne
like honorable battle scars, building rather than reducing morale. As
Willum and Vince continue to note, in protecting and furthering the
interests of Iraqi Shia, we've managed to annoy every clan and group among
the Iraqi Sunni (and most all Sunni everywhere), while across the border,
the Sadr-sponsors simply sit back, enjoy a smoke and wait for us to leave,
bloody and certainly not "unbowed, not borne on our shields or carrying
them, leaving them behind as trophies, evidence of the "pussy" factor which
now either before, after or during, takes over every attempt we make to
carry out activities we believe (or sell as) attempts to improve US (and UK)
national security.
I needed the rant, but am convinced that the West increasingly reveals
itself to be "pussy-whipped", stage number whatever in its inevitable
decline and fall...
TMO
William Black
"TMOliver" <tmoliv...@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote in message
news:46166e38$0$9896$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> For all the millions of inches of newspaper space and video tape expended
> over this incident, while the collateral news that an IED blew four UK
> service personnel apart in the pleasant and subdued neighborhood of Basra
> (which we are told is secured and friendly because of the excellent PR of
> the squaddies) went almost unnoticed makes a sad commentary on the
> perspective of UKians (and a lot of USAians).
Have you read/seen the Prime MInister's statement on the release of the
sailors?
He didn't actually mention them for the first few minutes but talked
exclusivly about the dead soldiers.
>At this moment, it appears the Iranian moderates couldn't jointly poor piss
>out of a boot.
They were actually doing quite well until GWB spooked the religious
authorities in Iran and they all got disqualified from standing in the
election.
Vince
>> You (US) aren't at war with Iran (yet).. So you can't just go around
>> shooting at people... That's how wars can be started.
>>
>
> The "war" has already started,some people just can't see that.
>
> BTW,the 1979 US Embassy seizure was an act of war,same for the other acts
> Iran has made against the US.
no the seizure of the embassy was a casus belli
However in 1981 the USA and Iran settled that with the algiers accord
Vince
Vince
I think you should enlist the entire NRA and go right to Iran and whup
ass all over the place
You will feel so much better
Vince
Fred J. McCall
:
:They were actually doing quite well until GWB spooked the religious
:authorities in Iran and they all got disqualified from standing in the
:election.
Good Lord, are you really this stupid? Yes, no doubt EVERYTHING is
GWB's fault! Hell, if he didn't suck so much we'd all fly off the
planet!
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> The "war" has already started,some people just can't see that.
>
> BTW,the 1979 US Embassy seizure was an act of war,same for the other acts
> Iran has made against the US.
>
Not quite, the pre-war has started.
No part of the UK or USA was in danger so the Iranians have not forced
us to war. The time when the real war starts is when we choose to
start it.
However this is a good time to start the mobilisation. Prepare
invasion plans, open training camps, start a recruitment drive and
raise the taxes needed to pay for it. Any appropriate new weapons
should be put into production. Buy lots of old ones. The diplomats
and spin doctors let loose to show that the Iranians are the bad
guys and it is their fault.
Dictatorships never understand that simply because they are still
lying does not mean that the rest of the world is still believing.
Order our spin doctors not to lie, the truth about evil is sufficient.
Next move the men, ships, aircraft, artillery and tanks to the
battle field. Remember that our forces are both east and west of
Iran. Take lots of ammunition.
Fighting in the Middle East in the summer is a bad idea so choose to
fight in the fall or January. The Iranians will provide grounds.
There is one matter on which a decision is needed now. What do we
do with Iran after the war?
Andrew Swallow
Tankfixer
willia...@hotmail.co.uk mumbled
I saw the press conference with the LT and his crew.
It seems our kind friendly Iranians used all the usual tricks to scare
them.
Now that they are home I'd say it's time to start inspecting civilian
shipping. They do have a UN mandate to do so.
There might be a few minor adjustments to the SOP and ROE though...
Tankfixer
mumbled
No, we hav't been in that situation
But we do think about how we might handle such situations and try to
anticipate the best way to deal with it.
It's called training.
Tankfixer
willia...@hotmail.co.uk mumbled
>
> "Tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.army.m> wrote in message
> news:VqhRh.19961$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > In article <ev0ar6$o1k$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
> > willia...@hotmail.co.uk mumbled
> >
> >> Going down under a hail of bullets is not considered good practice these
> >> days.
> >
> > Remmeber that line when they come to hand your wife, mother and
> > daughters thier burka's
>
> I thought that was the Sunni Wahabists.
I would direct your attention to the little fact that the kind, peaceful
Iranians forced the female member of the boat crew to appear in dress of
thier religion
> Oh wait, you're one of the lame brains who can't tell the difference...
Don't forget to face east now..
William Black
"Tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.army.m> wrote in message
> In article <ev50i0$jhl$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
> willia...@hotmail.co.uk mumbled
>>
>> "Tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.army.m> wrote in message
>> news:VqhRh.19961$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > In article <ev0ar6$o1k$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
>> > willia...@hotmail.co.uk mumbled
>> >
>> >> Going down under a hail of bullets is not considered good practice
>> >> these
>> >> days.
>> >
>> > Remmeber that line when they come to hand your wife, mother and
>> > daughters thier burka's
>>
>> I thought that was the Sunni Wahabists.
>
> I would direct your attention to the little fact that the kind, peaceful
> Iranians forced the female member of the boat crew to appear in dress of
> thier religion
Actually she was made to wear a shawl over her head.
No burka for her...
Or, once more, can't you tell the difference?
Having lived in a Moslem community for a few months I can assure you that
what she was wearing is what is considered the absolute minimum for decency
when in public in a reasonably relaxed Moslem society.
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.army.m> wrote in message
:news:xzCRh.368$3P3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
:> In article <ev50i0$jhl$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
:> willia...@hotmail.co.uk mumbled
:>>
:>> "Tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.army.m> wrote in message
:>> news:VqhRh.19961$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
:>> > In article <ev0ar6$o1k$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
:>> > willia...@hotmail.co.uk mumbled
:>> >
:>> >> Going down under a hail of bullets is not considered good practice
:>> >> these
:>> >> days.
:>> >
:>> > Remmeber that line when they come to hand your wife, mother and
:>> > daughters thier burka's
:>>
:>> I thought that was the Sunni Wahabists.
:>
:> I would direct your attention to the little fact that the kind, peaceful
:> Iranians forced the female member of the boat crew to appear in dress of
:> thier religion
:
:Actually she was made to wear a shawl over her head.
:
:No burka for her...
:
:Or, once more, can't you tell the difference?
:
:Having lived in a Moslem community for a few months I can assure you that
:what she was wearing is what is considered the absolute minimum for decency
:when in public in a reasonably relaxed Moslem society.
In other words, they want to impose their religious rules on everyone,
whether everyone wants to be subject to them or not.
What's that 'difference' again?
--
"This philosophy of hate, of religious and racial intolerance,
with its passionate urge toward war, is loose in the world.
It is the enemy of democracy; it is the enemy of all the
fruitful and spiritual sides of life. It is our responsibility,
as individuals and organizations, to resist this."
-- Mary Heaton Vorse
William Black
True.
So?
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
And there you have it. You can't tell the difference. I can.
Soren Larsen
They would also insist on you wearing pants if you were to appear
on prime time Iranian telly.
It has nothing to do with religion but rather what is considered decent.
The obvious sore point is her (and the other sailors) being paraded on telly
most likely without them really wanting to.
Soren Larsen
>
> What's that 'difference' again?
--
History is not what it used to be.
La N
>
> "Tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.army.m> wrote in message
> news:xzCRh.368$3P3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> In article <ev50i0$jhl$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
>> willia...@hotmail.co.uk mumbled
>>>
>>> "Tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.army.m> wrote in message
>>> news:VqhRh.19961$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> > In article <ev0ar6$o1k$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
>>> > willia...@hotmail.co.uk mumbled
>>> >
>>> >> Going down under a hail of bullets is not considered good practice
>>> >> these
>>> >> days.
>>> >
>>> > Remmeber that line when they come to hand your wife, mother and
>>> > daughters thier burka's
>>>
>>> I thought that was the Sunni Wahabists.
>>
>> I would direct your attention to the little fact that the kind, peaceful
>> Iranians forced the female member of the boat crew to appear in dress of
>> thier religion
>
> Actually she was made to wear a shawl over her head.
>
> No burka for her...
>
> Or, once more, can't you tell the difference?
>
> Having lived in a Moslem community for a few months I can assure you that
> what she was wearing is what is considered the absolute minimum for
> decency when in public in a reasonably relaxed Moslem society.
>
Very true. Tanky tends to see the world in black and white.
Even Laura Bush will wear a head scarf when visiting the MidEast friends of
Bush.
I remember as a kid having to put on a scarf or hat when entering the
Catholic Church which I rarely visited except to go with a friend from time
to time.
- ni
La N
"Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
news:461782ad$0$14017$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...
Why do the right wingers make such a big deal of the head scarf I don't
know. The Bush supporters have helped Iraqi become a Shiite dominated
country / government, and the women who are in government all appear at
meetings wearing the same type of head scarves.
- nilita
Arved Sandstrom
news:ev7l7o$73l$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> Having lived in a Moslem community for a few months I can assure you that
> what she was wearing is what is considered the absolute minimum for
> decency when in public in a reasonably relaxed Moslem society.
I don't believe that she was asked to be there. Last I checked she was a
prisoner. It's offensive - at least it was to me - that she was forced to
satisfy Moslem sensitivities.
As it stands right now I don't see too much quid pro quo happening wrt
Moslems. They want us to bend over backwards in their countries, and their
immigrant populations want us to bend over backwards in ours. We should stop
kissing ass so much.
AHS
La N
And, so when Laura Bush, Condi, etc., visit the "friendly" Muslim nations,
they should not wear the head scarves?
Should that young English navy girl have refused to wear the scarf? Should
she have behaved insolently?
- ni