Iran Captures 15 British Sailors

[Jem of the Shire 0]

I just saw a video of a female marine (the only female amongst the 15 captured) saying that they were treated with all correction, well-fed and she admited that "of course" they were on Iranian waters. Furthermore, the Iranian Govt said that she will be liberated in the next couple of days.

i'm getting annoyed now. The evidence has been made public and Iran STILL want an apology from UK. Not going to happen. UK will not be treated like a bitch by Iran

Option A is only the best option if the sailors were truly in Iranian waters. Otherwise, you are sacrificing what is right for the sake of 'peace'. "Let's give Iran what it wants and we won't have to fight". What if Iran wants Australia? Will you fight? An extreme example, but it get's the point across.

you will be glad to hear that i am now getting cheesed off with Iran and how they're dealing with this. They've seen the evidence, they've shown some ridiculous video of the female marine saying how nice the Iranians are (with flowers in the background, its all bullcrap), there's no reason to be holding them any longer

The confession is meaningless, they would know that that is exactly what the last lot did to get out. And they know that noone at home would believe a word of it back home.

damn right, it seems pretty clear that she's been told what to say, plus Iran has also released a copy of a letter that the female marine apparently wrote to her family saying she has a present from the Iranians and she gets 3 meals a day, its all a big lie and Iran's conduct is really ridiculous.

I said before that I'd be extremely interested to see Iran's reaction once they've seen the evidence proving where the boats were. Now they've seen it and I think Blair should up the ante a bit. UK are NOT going to apologise for something that they havent done

[james 0]

It's nice to finally see a rise out of you.

[Jem of the Shire 0]

It's nice to finally see a rise out of you.

this doesnt mean i want to see a conflict between Iran & UK, I want to see this resolved quickly and peacefully, but it seems Iran is deliberately acting like idiots and thats what is annoying me. They think they can gain the upper hand over UK by forcing us to apologise for a crime that we didnt even commit, and no way is that going to happen!

[james 0]

this doesnt mean i want to see a conflict between Iran & UK, I want to see this resolved quickly and peacefully, but it seems Iran is deliberately acting like idiots and thats what is annoying me. They think they can gain the upper hand over UK by forcing us to apologise for a crime that we didnt even commit, and no way is that going to happen!

I never said you did. No one in their right mind wants war but sometimes its inevitable. It just shows that you won't violate your morals just to avoid conflict. Thats called character and its nice to see it displayed from time to time.

[cavallino 2]

Sorry Cav, but I don't understand what you mean.

Was referring to the British sailors captured in 2004. They confessed in a similar video, the Iranians released them and they later said (probably correctly) that the statements were made under duress. They know any such confession will have zero credibility back home, so if the Iranians want them to say that they were in the Mare Tranquillitatis when they were captured, they would gladly say it.

[cavallino 2]

Bombing our civilians is just as wrong as us bombing Iraqi civilians so both solutions should be condemned.

And about as wrong as the hundreds of thousands of deaths directly caused by U.S. actions in the past 60-70 years. Compared to which the toll of 9/11 is a very small number. You of course woul look at things in isolation, you didn't care what the CIA got upto around the world. Yet when a relatively small attack takes place in your country, you expect that to be the only event of importance for everyone in the world. 9/11 does not justify Iraq, whichever way you spin it. 9/11 was a very minor incident, compared to the Vietnam war for example. So you cannot blame me if on my scale of condemnation, 9/11 does not rank that high, becase your invasion of Iraq has killed almost 300 times that number. So I care about 300 times less about 9/11 than I do about Iraq, pardon me for that. I care 200 times less about 9/11 than I do about the children who died in Iraq due to sanctions that prevented the transfer of basic medical equipment.

Dubious records? All historical records past 200 years are dubious, and get moreso the further back you go. Confirmation of biblical accounts are found in Babylonians and Assyrian texts. Mythical people indeed!

No they aren't, they are extremely well documented in fact, especially the last 500 years or so which is about all we care about. I was of course referring to the question of whether there is one direct unbroken bloodline in all Jews of the world tracing back to over 2000 years. In any case since when did something as ridiculous as that become a legitimate reason for blatant land grabbing. Israel wasn't created 300 years by some rampaging imperialists, living in a savage world. It was created after the second world war, at the beginning of an era when the world as a whole began to have a whole lot more respect for people's right to govern themselves. It was created under a U.N. mandate in a decision which is quite reprehensible, and yet buys the creation of the state itself huge credibility, which is why I wouldn't ever call for a reversal to it, even if it was remotely possible. However while countries like Australia are trying to make amends with the indigenous inhabitants of their countries, Israel holds millions of people with far more right to the land in a virtual prison, runs an apartheid regime. At the same time we go around pretending that Israel is some beacon of democracy in a savage middle east.

[LabradoRacer 2]

Seems Iran is lying about the Brits being in Iran waters.

The confessions of the female marine are obviously under gentle persuasion.

It's strange that she was forced to wear the veil ( a metaphor,eh) ,but allowed to have a fag.

[Shane2 0]

Ok i withdraw my politness these guys are a bunch of extremist w@nkers. Probably hitting out in retaliation at the EU sanctions.

And forcing the woman to wear the muslim head dress... thats just wrong

Another extremist islamist nation to hate. How nice

[LabradoRacer 2]

And forcing the woman to wear the muslim head dress... thats just wrong

Mebbe , Britain should retaliate by kidnapping some beautiful ,young Iranian women & making them pose in nothing on the page 3 of The Sun or any other tabloid!

[Shane2 0]

They would probably send suicide bombers. The thing is you see, the fact they are muslims makes their indiscretions acceptable (in their eyes anyway)

[LabradoRacer 2]

They would probably send suicide bombers. The thing is you see, the fact they are muslims makes their indiscretions acceptable (in their eyes anyway)

No,there won't be any attacks by suicide bombers. As soon as they see that Iranian women have posed nekkid in British tabloids,the Iranian men will realise what the clerics had been depriving them of all these years. Then they will send the clerics to their makers & liberate Iran sexually.

Instead of bombing Iraq/Iran/any other axis of evil,western countries would be much better served by carpet bombing with magazines like Playboy,Maxim,whathaveyou.(Can you imagine? A jet fighter loaded with porno mags?) Trust me,repressed sexuality is a powerful weapon to overthrow the hardliners.

[pabloh20 1]

No,there won't be any attacks by suicide bombers. As soon as they see that Iranian women have posed nekkid in British tabloids,the Iranian men will realise what the clerics had been depriving them of all these years. Then they will send the clerics to their makers & liberate Iran sexually.

Instead of bombing Iraq/Iran/any other axis of evil,western countries would be much better served by carpet bombing with magazines like Playboy,Maxim,whathaveyou.(Can you imagine? A jet fighter loaded with porno mags?) Trust me,repressed sexuality is a powerful weapon to overthrow the hardliners.

Though I am not sure I want to know why you know so much about repressed sexuality

[Max Mosley 2]

That's a great idea Jay! Unite the world through porn! Ladies: lie back and think of world peace!

[Shane2 0]

I am not sure such a backwards country would know what to do with the freedom if they had it

[dribbler 6]

If you say something smart-a$$ and get punched in the face do you turn to the person who just hit you and say "I'm sorry to have offended you. What can I do to assure that this never happens again?" That just tells the person that he can hit you and get away with no consecuences.

I know its not the best analogy but I think it works.

Let's imagine you pick on someone. You call them names, you taunt them, you hold an opinion on them which you won't be swayed on. They call you unfair and a bully. Still, you don't listen. One day they punch you in the face. Do you wonder why, realise and see the error of your ways? or respond with a higher level of terror and bullying?

I know this isn't the best analogy either, but once again i think it works.

No one in their right mind wants war but sometimes its inevitable. It just shows that you won't violate your morals just to avoid conflict. Thats called character and its nice to see it displayed from time to time.

Nice? You need your brain checked friend.

[Max Mosley 2]

And our resident analologist strikes again! (And I agree btw)

[james 0]

Let's imagine you pick on someone. You call them names, you taunt them, you hold an opinion on them which you won't be swayed on. They call you unfair and a bully. Still, you don't listen. One day they punch you in the face. Do you wonder why, realise and see the error of your ways? or respond with a higher level of terror and bullying?

I know this isn't the best analogy either, but once again i think it works.

I wasn't talking about America, as we have been sticking our nose places it doesn't belong for quite some time now. Unless I'm mistaken that seems to be who the bully in your analogy refers to.

Nice? You need your brain checked friend.

Do you think there is something wrong with standing up for ones morals? If thats how you feel whats the point of having morals to begin with? If you are walking in an alley and you see a woman getting raped are you going to look the other way just to avoid a fight and the possiblity of getting your a$$ kicked or killed? I really hope not. One of the rules that I try to live by is "I will not lie, cheat, or steal. Nor will I tolerate those who do."

[Kay 0]

Just reminds me that an eye for an eye and we'll all be blind.

But at least then we won't be able to see the wrong doing.

[dribbler 6]

I wasn't talking about America, as we have been sticking our nose places it doesn't belong for quite some time now. Unless I'm mistaken that seems to be who the bully in your analogy refers to.

Do you think there is something wrong with standing up for ones morals? If thats how you feel whats the point of having morals to begin with? If you are walking in an alley and you see a woman getting raped are you going to look the other way just to avoid a fight and the possiblity of getting your a$$ kicked or killed? I really hope not. One of the rules that I try to live by is "I will not lie, cheat, or steal. Nor will I tolerate those who do."

I applaud your morals, sincerely. It appears that we share the same philosophy. A woman being raped who can be spared the horror of such an act by an individual who will not have any impact on anyone else other than a positive one for her and a just one for the perpetrator is totally different from what we are discussing though and an anology too far.

In the situation we are discussing i.e the case of the 15 service people, morals can be a very expensive price to pay. We need to put the safety of these people above all else. If that includes bowing to the pressures of Tehran, for now, then yes, that is what we should do. If Iran tries to invade our country, that will be a different matter. The world has become such a small place that perception of what is tolerable has gone out of control. You wouldn't kick someones head in if they called you a name, you would just keep your eye on them. If they broke into your house, that would be a different matter. Do you see the distinction?

[Autumnpuma 0]

It was long reading, but I dug through everything posted so far (including Murray's well-researched post).

Steve: My appologies. It seems I took your comments askew of what you intended. I've not got much good to say about what you intended, but I suppose we should agree to disagree.

Murray: I've read your post, and links. All of them deal with potential danger. Theoretical danger. Because of America's unwavering support of Israel, we have always been in danger of an attack. In fact, there were more successful attacks/kidnappings against U.S. citizens in the 5 years before 9/11 than the 5 years after (excluding the Iraqi conflict which can be seen as willingly placing those citizens in harm's way). Of course you would have to include the 9/11 attacks into the pre-9/11 figures as well. That puts a rather interesting spin on exactly how safe we were before Iraq. Fact is, we will always be in danger while we support Israel. Period.

Cav: I hear you but I disagree with your conclusions a bit. I will ever stand on the side of Israel's existence, but I would do so as you have suggested (retreating back to their legal borders).

Andres: It's sad that you assume I would not have chosen option A. It points to your very inaccurate view of Americans, as most would feel just like me in this. You are taking the current administration's views and transerring that onto all of America.

Jem: I'm only happy that you have decided to stand up for your countrymen and let what is right prevail. Your sailors were clearly in Iraqi waters and Iran was breaking international law by entering those water to capture your people. I'm not happy about any loss of life that might come out of this, however. My preference would be for Iran to have not done this illegal act in the first place.

That about does it, I think. Good luck Brits on your situation. I shall see you all in the F1 threads!

[james 0]

I applaud your morals, sincerely. It appears that we share the same philosophy. A woman being raped who can be spared the horror of such an act by an individual who will not have any impact on anyone else other than a positive one for her and a just one for the perpetrator is totally different from what we are discussing though and an anology too far.

In the situation we are discussing i.e the case of the 15 service people, morals can be a very expensive price to pay. We need to put the safety of these people above all else. If that includes bowing to the pressures of Tehran, for now, then yes, that is what we should do. If Iran tries to invade our country, that will be a different matter. The world has become such a small place that perception of what is tolerable has gone out of control. You wouldn't kick someones head in if they called you a name, you would just keep your eye on them. If they broke into your house, that would be a different matter. Do you see the distinction?

I may have been coming across as advocating a much harsher reaction than I believe is necessary. I truly hope all of your servicemen get home safely. But when they do, if Iran doesn't get a stern warning and a promise of further actions if they continue to screw around then I will feel like Britain dropped the ball.

[Max Mosley 2]

Murray: I've read your post, and links. All of them deal with potential danger. Theoretical danger. Because of America's unwavering support of Israel, we have always been in danger of an attack. In fact, there were more successful attacks/kidnappings against U.S. citizens in the 5 years before 9/11 than the 5 years after (excluding the Iraqi conflict which can be seen as willingly placing those citizens in harm's way). Of course you would have to include the 9/11 attacks into the pre-9/11 figures as well. That puts a rather interesting spin on exactly how safe we were before Iraq. Fact is, we will always be in danger while we support Israel. Period.

Well done for wading through them all. I think they are interesting though. Anyway, you make good points as always.

The links do deal with potential danger but that is how it has to be. After all, any threat is a potential danger! (If it's already happened it's no longer a threat.) When assessing how safe you are, by definition you need to consider how likely you are to be attacked again in the future. In other words you need to assess the potential danger that you may be in.

The best way to judge how safe you are is to look at intelligence estimates rather than headline stats about numbers of deaths. Remember that many things have changed recently, including the now-tighter security and now-better intelligence. This is why there hasn't been another 9/11. There have been many attempts that have been foiled by those measures. In particular, there was a plan to take liquid explosives on-board flights from the UK to the US, which would have caused similar destruction to 9/11 probably. US citizens have also been caught operating as "Islamic" terrorists, both in the US and the Middle East.

Intelligence estimates are much better than a few stats (I imagine Bush trumpets carefully massaged stats without commenting on his own intelligence reports?) because they are written by the best experts we all have, who take into account all the available information, including numbers of attacks, but also many other types of info. I think you have to trust the intelligence services when every such service around the world agrees with your own NIE's that the Iraq war has made the world and America less safe. As even US intelligence officers say "it's stating the obvious" now.

Fwiw though, the figures you give are interesting. It seems to me that they show you became safer after 9/11? Well I agree with that, because you tightened security and improved intelligence and generally clamped down on terrorism around the world, especially in Afghanistan. But the situation is different in Iraq, and, using the same methodology, we can easily see that: the rate of deaths of US civilians has increased after the war in Iraq, excluding civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. (That's from the academic study I linked.) I really think the evidence is overwhelming that the war has made you less safe. I think America should follow the advice of that intelligence officer and look at why people become radicalised rather than trying to fend off billions of people who are becoming more angry by the day!

[Autumnpuma 0]

Cheers Murray!

[Max Mosley 2]

Cheers! You stuck with the program for longer than expected Mike! Getting Americans to reconsider American policy is like explaining Britney Spears' songs to ............................................Britney Spears.

[Autumnpuma 0]

I'm not completely off the 'program' but your posts are good ones and quite convincing. I'll consider them and perhaps modify my view on certain points. Well done.

EDIT: BTW, your quoted proverb is taken way out of context...but I suspect you already know that