Iran detains and televises UK sailors, tensions escalating...

[exile]

exile, threads on discussion boards are rarely, if ever, about one thing "specifically". Threads tend to pulse and breathe with attitudes and opinions of participants. Moderators will at times attempt to re-direct divergences, if the wandering goes too far afield.

If threads truly were "specifically" about an idea, what need would there be for a reply from anyone? All participates could just adopt the original posters premise and end the discussion.

All of this is way beside the point, as you are surely aware. You were constructing an argument in the context of a discussion of a certain topic: the treatment of British sailors by the Iranian military. You brought up certain facts which you claimed were relevant to a wider discussion of the logic of... something. That something was, presumably, the treatment of those sailors. And the point which you were apparently making was that if those sailors were in Iraqi waters, and if they were, as you appear to be suggesting, there illegally, then the actions of the Iranians who themselves would have had to venture (illegally, right?) into Iraqi territory to kidnap them would in some way be justified. So it seems that your original line of argument, the one you apparently now wish to retire, accepts a double standard—it is illegal for the Brits to be in Iraqi waters but legal for the Iranians to not only be there, but to apply armed force against those British sailors, and broadcast pictures of them in detention all over the world. Given your willingness to entertain this double standard, your overall take on the situation strikes me as being, well, a little compromised, eh?

So, riddle me this - Mr. adopt my premise - what if the British soldiers were in Iranian territorial waters? I brought this argument to the table, first, if I recall.

Why so anxious to drop your original point, ME? Has it become a little problematic? Let me instead counterpose a question to you: what do you think you'd be saying if the British had come across some Iranian sailors in Iraqui territorial waters and had forcibly detained them, taken tons of footage of them and produced some convenient videos showing the Iranians objecting to their own country's up-to-its-eyebrows involvement in the Iraqi civil war? And had, in the course of this detention, forced one of the soldiers to wear a cross around his neck in accord with the religious symbolism of the Church of England? Before we change the topic to one more convenient to you, why don't you follow out the `logic' of your own implicit argument from your previous post just a bit further?

 

[michaeledward]

Why so anxious to drop your original point,

exile ...

The waters in question are in dispute. It is one of the few things that almost all of those not directly involved agree upon. Your demand that we consider the premise that the Iranians took the Brits into custody in Iraqi waters ignores this completely.

And, you seem to be changing the topic from the detention of the British solders to the treatment of British soldiers.

While we can certainly discuss both, but it would be helpful if we discussed one of them at a time, rather than calling me out for not discussing the treatment when I am discussing the detention.

You call out my 'original point' ... let's review.

(1)Apparently, absent in this discussion, is the possibility that the British soldiers were in the territorial waters of Iran. What are the ramifactions if this is evidenced? Don't nation-states have the right to protect the territorial integrity?

(2)And a truly logical discussion would need to consider the justification and authorization of British sailors in Iraqi territorial waters?

(3)Further, any reasoned discussion would also consider the Iranian diplomatic officials being detained by United States coalition forces in Iraq, since a raid in January.

Now, I have added numbers, so that we can be clear on what my "original point" may have been. Number 1 seems to point to British Soldiers in Iranian Territorial waters. Number 2 looks to the actions of Brits in Iraqi waters. Number 3 looks to a retaliation for Coalition abductions.

Now, as I remember my basic math, 1 comes before 2. So my original point does not appear to be British occupation of Iraq.

And, nowhere in this discussion am I making comments about the treatment of detained soldiers. I am making comments about the detention.


I guess that after Abu Ghraib and Saddam Hussein's publicity photo in his underwear, maybe we Americans should not be so quick to yell about treatment before we ascertain the legitimacy, or illegitimacy of the detention. Wasn't it our current Attorney General who told use the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and outdated?

 

[Tez3]

As I know and work closely with all three Services I'm going to be pendantic here and say that it wasn't British soldiers who were captured by the Iranians, it was Royal Marines and Royal Navy personnel. The three services are very independant and very proud of their apartness. With their hundreds of years of experience it would be very surprising if the Royal Navy personnel didn't know exactly where they were therefore it's a very safe bet to say they were in Iraqi waters not Iranian.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...gShowsRoyalNavyPersonnelWereInIraqiWaters.htm

 

[michaeledward]

Would it be correct to describe these personnel as 'sailors'? I mean no disrespect by the term selected. Often I will use service personnel or service members. In this discussion I know I have defaulted to soldiers when describing the detained Brits.



I understand that a former British Ambassador (to Uzbekistan), one Craig Murray, has had this to say on the topic.

There is no agreed maritime boundary between Iraq and Iran in the Persian Gulf.

The relevant commander of coalition Naval Task force, Commodore Peter Lockwood, has said

No maritime border has been agreed upon by the two countries

The Stars and Stripes - an United States military Newspaper, has this too say.

Bumping into the Iranians can’t be helped in the northern Persian Gulf, where the lines between Iraqi and Iranian territorial water are blurred,

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/03/both_sides_must.html

So, while it may be true that the British service personnel were exactly where they say they were, it is far from certain that the location in question is unquestionably within Iraqi waters.

 

[Tez3]

I think you need to be very careful about believing Craig Murray, he says he 'exposed' human rights only after himself being exposed of dodgy dealing.

The Roayl Navy is the Senior Service and takes that position very seriously, calling them soldiers would be considered fighting talk in Pompey and Plymouth and dear me, matelots can fight..............! We are talking hundreds of years of rivalry here not just a small bit of inter service banter. I can put my hand on my heart and say the personnel being held in Iran would be far more insulted to be called soldiers than they would be anything else. No one has any worries at all in this country about their morale and their fighting spirit, they will retain their unique sense of humour as you will see when they are released.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3839

 

[exile]

exile ...

The waters in question are in dispute. It is one of the few things that almost all of those not directly involved agree upon. Your demand that we consider the premise that the Iranians took the Brits into custody in Iraqi waters ignores this completely.

Ah, my mistake. When you referred to British sailors in Iraqi territory in your post, I naively concluded that you were talking about... well, British sailors in Iraqi territory... a pardonable error, you'll admit!

And, you seem to be changing the topic from the detention of the British solders to the treatment of British soldiers.

I know, I'm probably confused about many things, but I can't help thinking that detaining people is itself a form of `treatment' of them. And that the other aspects of that `treatment' depend on the success of the `detainment' part of the `treatment'.

While we can certainly discuss both, but it would be helpful if we discussed one of them at a time, rather than calling me out for not discussing the treatment when I am discussing the detention.

Fair enough!

Now, I have added numbers, so that we can be clear on what my "original point" may have been. Number 1 seems to point to British Soldiers in Iranian Territorial waters. Number 2 looks to the actions of Brits in Iraqi waters. Number 3 looks to a retaliation for Coalition abductions.

Now, as I remember my basic math, 1 comes before 2. So my original point does not appear to be British occupation of Iraq.

No no no. You were providing a set of discussion points all of which bear on a `truly logical discussion'. Discussion of what? Of the thread topic, right? You were saying—please don't try to deny it—that the unspecified actions or whatever of Brits in Iraqi waters is germane to the issue of the kidnapping of British soldiers by Iran. That's the sticking point, I'm afraid.

And, nowhere in this discussion am I making comments about the treatment of detained soldiers. I am making comments about the detention.

Agreed. We can partition the issue into two kinds of treatment: kidnapping (or if you prefer, detaining) British sailors and forcing the women among them to wear the mandated garb for women under Islamic law, televising them, and eliciting public statements from them under very, very suspicious circumstances....

I guess that after Abu Ghraib and Saddam Hussein's publicity photo in his underwear, maybe we Americans should not be so quick to yell about treatment before we ascertain the legitimacy, or illegitimacy of the detention. Wasn't it our current Attorney General who told use the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and outdated?

Et tu quoque, Brute? (Sorry, couldn't resist). Let me turn your argument around for you. Was is nasty, wicked and morally abhorrent at Abu Ghraib? You bet! So is this treatment, by the same criterion, nasty, wicked and morally abhorrent? Well, you tell me... :wink1:

 

[Carol]

I think you need to be very careful about believing Craig Murray, he says he 'exposed' human rights only after himself being exposed of dodgy dealing.

The Roayl Navy is the Senior Service and takes that position very seriously, calling them soldiers would be considered fighting talk in Pompey and Plymouth and dear me, matelots can fight..............! We are talking hundreds of years of rivalry here not just a small bit of inter service banter. I can put my hand on my heart and say the personnel being held in Iran would be far more insulted to be called soldiers than they would be anything else. No one has any worries at all in this country about their morale and their fighting spirit, they will retain their unique sense of humour as you will see when they are released.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3839

I made the same mistake in calling them soldiers as well. I apologize for my ignorance and appreciate the correction, as well as the correction. Thank you very much!

 

[Andrew Green]

whole thing seems a little revenge like IMO: http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=37142

And for a little satire, here's Terry Jones: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2047128,00.html

 

[Stan]

While we all hope for the safe return of the service people to Britain, maybe a good (though uncomfortable) question to ask is at what cost to British national interests should the British government seek their return. Hostages are taken to pressure the group to which they belong into a compromising action. Should the government of Britain make concessions to Iran that they normally wouldn't, for the sake of the captured Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel? At what point would Iranian demands go too far, necessitating a more forceful approach from Britain even if it means risking the hostages?

I know this is a very tough question. That's why I'm asking it.

 

[Tez3]

I made the same mistake in calling them soldiers as well. I apologize for my ignorance and appreciate the correction, as well as the correction. Thank you very much!

They just get a bit touchy as they consider the Army junior to them,well I guess over a thousand years of existence can do that to you.

A simple point here, if the waters are in dispute the Iranians can have no proof that the British personnel were in Iranian water. Stan is right, the hostages were taken to provide Iran with something they want.
LOL at Terry Jones, quite often the epithet "Guardian readers" is flung at people in the same way that Americans say "communist"!
Margaret Beckett is negotiating the release of the personnel, with her ineptitude she may well cost them their lives.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Not much to add except that my fingers are crossed for those sailors.

I *hope* that Iran will come to its senses and back down(they've tried posturing like this before).

I FEAR that the outcome will be much worse.

 

[Tez3]

One interesting thing, when Leading Seaman Turney made her "confession" she sent out a code that it was false as was the letter she wrote. She referred to her ship as "Foxtrot 99" instead of "Cornwall". All sailors refer to their ship/boat by name never a callsign. Good on yer lass!

 

[exile]

One interesting thing, when Leading Seaman Turney made her "confession" she sent out a code that it was false as was the letter she wrote. She referred to her ship as "Foxtrot 99" instead of "Cornwall". All sailors refer to their ship/boat by name never a callsign. Good on yer lass!

Brilliant woman!

But it wasn't really necessary (though it probably will prove useful in responding to those who trot out such `confessions' as evidence that even the sailors themselves know they were being bad). Forced confessions have a long and dishonorable history in oppressive authoritarian states, and the conditions to which these sailors are being subject makes it obvious to anyone who isn't blind that their kidnappers were quite likely to try it on...

 

[jdinca]

Jonathan Randall ... as a member of the Democratic Party, I find your interpretation insulting and disgusting. While you claim you are an independent, you have bought into the hyperbole of the Republican ideologs of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly when you claim what the Democrats 'hoped' for.

Because the members of the Democratic Party listened to the Administrations answers provided to some hard questions, and expected accountability (how long will the war last? how much will the war cost?) you step up to the line of calling them treasonous.

Very Unpleasant.

You sling the hyperbole pretty well yourself, based on the above quote. I find it insulting that you think that Jonathans point of view could only be because he has bought into the "Republican Idealog hyberpole", as opposed to paying attention to what both sides have to say and drawing an independent conclusion.

There are crooks and idealogues on both sides of the aisle. It's politics. Neither side is clean. It boils down to personal opinion as to who you choose to align yourself with, as in "I like my jerks better than I like your jerks". Regardless of which ideology you choose to go with, the bottom line is that our soldiers get stuck in the middle.

 

[jdinca]

This was damn stupid on Iran's part. What were/are they thinking? Apparently even they, the Iranians, first gave the GPS coordinates where these sailors were "arrested" as IRAQI waters! They can't even be incompetent competently.

Actually, not so much. Iran is gambling big time but could come out on top. If Britain responds aggressively, Iran stands to gain the support of others in the middle east. If Britain continues to take the passive approach, they, and by proxy the west, will seem weak. Strength of the opponent goes a very long ways in that part of the world.

In addition, Iran can now put pressure on the US, through Britain, to get their operatives back that were caught in Iraq. This issue also keeps Iran on the front page as the power in the region.

As for accuracy, it's already been proven on a number of occasions that the quality of the rhetoric has much more influence that the facts of the situation. That's a page right out of good old American politics. "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story, and only use as much of the truth as you need to to support your story". The Iranians are proving to be very adept at that concept, especially since their message is aimed at the people of the region, as opposed to the rest of the world.

Yeah, President "Member's Only" is whacked but not as much as the Ayatollahs pulling his strings, and the people who do not favor what they're doing are not yet in a position where they can effect a change. This whole issue could also be viewed as an attempt at pulling the Iranian people "back into the fold", after they slapped the president in the local elections.

 

[Lisa]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Thread locked pending Admin review.

Lisa Deneka
MT Assist. Admin