Why Did Iran Seize UK Sailors Near Royal Navy Waters?

[Anttech]

Ok, when I gave you the definition of "act of war" you attempted to lessen the validity of the definition because it was from reference.com and they also list wiki stuff.

No I didnt, I was attempting to comment on the fact that I could scower the internet and find lots of different definitions for "act of war." It seemed that you cherry picked one, and decide that this was the definitive definition.

I still stand by my understanding of what an act of war is, and I have explained this already. I don't aggree that the capture of the UK soldiers was an act of war, or a declaration of war on the UK. It was an act of aggression, and we shouldn't hype it up beyond what it actually is. These people haven't been beheaded, they have been coerced into appoligising for something that I am willing to assume didnt happen. They haven't been starved nor have they been paraded in orange jumpsuits with black bags over their heads. They seem to all be in good health so far.

Iran was wrong in what it did, but you really think it was trying to start a war?

 

[drankin]

Iran was wrong in what it did, but you really think it was trying to start a war?

No, what they were doing was committing and act of war because they know that the UK won't do anything, though they have to ability and the right to militarily defend their own sailors.

I partially blame the UK for letting this happen to their own sailors. Hell, that probably made it easier for the sailors to sell out their own Navy. The bastards let them get taken away. Completely my opinion, not based on anything we all don't already know.

 

[cristo]

No, what they were doing was committing and act of war because they know that the UK won't do anything, though they have to ability and the right to militarily defend their own sailors.

It wasn't an act of war; the sailors haven't been hurt. I don't even think that they've been taken all that aggressively-- they're probably just pawns in a bigger diplomatic game.

I partially blame the UK for letting this happen to their own sailors. Hell, that probably made it easier for the sailors to sell out their own Navy. The bastards let them get taken away. Completely my opinion, not based on anything we all don't already know.

How have the sailors "sold out" on their own Navy? From what I've heard and seen, it would have been a bit stupid of them to try and refuse to be taken when they were!

 

[Anttech]

No, what they were doing was committing and act of war because they know that the UK won't do anything, though they have to ability and the right to militarily defend their own sailors.

I partially blame the UK for letting this happen to their own sailors. Hell, that probably made it easier for the sailors to sell out their own Navy. The bastards let them get taken away. Completely my opinion, not based on anything we all don't already know.

Who are you calling bastards? The UK Navy?

 

[drankin]

I mean sell out in the sense of their public admissions to being in Iranian waters knowing full well they were not. They are probably a little miffed at not being protected from the Iranians capturing them.

 

[cristo]

I mean sell out in the sense of their public admissions to being in Iranian waters knowing full well they were not. They are probably a little miffed at not being protected from the Iranians capturing them.

You think they had a choice in those statements? Do you think anyone in the world believes them?

 

[drankin]

Who are you calling bastards? The UK Navy?

Pretty much. I'd call my own Navy the same thing if they let my fellow sailors and myself be taken hostage.

 

[Anttech]

I mean sell out in the sense of their public admissions to being in Iranian waters knowing full well they were not. They are probably a little miffed at not being protected from the Iranians capturing them.

Doubt it, these men and woman are part of the best trained navy in the world. War is the last resort, they knew the stakes, and they know the consequences of what would happen if HMS Cornwall started firing on the Iranians. The UK has a different approach, I hear a lot of Americans calling them cowards blah blah blah, but that's one thing the British Military is not. One should use their Brain then resort to brawn. Now if they (Iranians) started firing... That would be different, but they didnt. They took them because they believe they were in there rights too, or rather they could get away with it because it could be perceived as such.

Pretty much. I'd call my own Navy the same thing if they let my fellow sailors and myself be taken hostage.

I can assure you the UK Naval personnel arent calling their own Navy Bastards, and arent sulking for what happened.

The UK don't perceive this issue as an act of War, and thus arent treating it as such. Negotiation will be fruitful in the end, with NO loss of life... If it isnt, Special forces will be used, but it won't be escalated into a *war* Thats for sure

 

[drankin]

I do believe the UK has an awesome Navy, they always have. All said, they put themselves in this situation and it really looks bad for them. Not that looking bad should be a motivation for military action but man, this has to be demoralizing and to allow it does not help their influence. It just emboldens the Iranians to defy cooperation.

 

[Futobingoro]

If there is any confusion lingering from the "act of war" debate, let this be a good example:

"North Korea equates sanctions to act of war"

Excepting the fact that the Korean War never technically ended, the sanctions on North Korea did not result in a war.

Using Anttech's definition, until a war starts, one does not know whether an "act of aggression" is an "act of war."

I have always found it useful to think of an "act of war" as an "act befitting a war." I find this less problematic, because Anttech's usage of the term would require a woman to transform into a man if she performed an "act of masculinity."

"You can't commit an act of masculinity and not be a man."

 

[blackcat]

The Iranian president just said they're free to go.

What i found hilarious was that he awarded medals to his navy men for capturing them!

 

[J77]

The Iranian president just said they're free to go.

What i found hilarious was that he awarded medals to his navy men for capturing them!

Nice -- did we admit that they were in Iranian waters, or did they use the fact that the line between that and Iraqi is blurred (and varies due to coastal movement). In which case no-one loses face and everyone's a winner.

 

[blackcat]

No idea, I think the Iranians still insisted they were tresspassing and we still haven't said anything else other than that we were not.

 

[Astronuc]

Iranian leader says he'll free Britons (AP/Yahoo)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain

TEHRAN, Iran - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would free the 15 detained British sailors and marines Wednesday as an Easter holiday "gift" to the British people.

He said the captives, who were seized while on patrol in the northern Persian Gulf on March 23, would be taken to the airport following his news conference, but Iranian state television reported they would leave Iran on Thursday. An Iranian official in London said they would be handed over to British diplomats in Tehran.

After the news conference, state television showed Ahmadinejad meeting with the British crew, dressed in business suits, at the presidential palace. He shook hands and chatted with them through a translator, and a caption to the video said the meeting was taking place as part of the "process of release."

"We appreciate it. Your people have been really kind to us, and we appreciate it very much," one of the crew could be heard telling Ahmadinejad in English.

Another said: "We are grateful for your forgiveness."

Yeah right. What else are they going to say in that situation.

Somebody get me off this planet and far, far away.

Between George and Mahmood - this place is getting too absurd and bizarre for my mind. We past surreal along time ago.

Now folks, let's move quickly along to the next crisis.

 

[Art]

Good to see dialogue triumphing over bombs. This incident and it's satisfactory outcome goes to prove there are valid alternatives to shock and awe.

 

[Anttech]

If there is any confusion lingering from the "act of war" debate, let this be a good example:

"North Korea equates sanctions to act of war"

Excepting the fact that the Korean War never technically ended, the sanctions on North Korea did not result in a war.

Using Anttech's definition, until a war starts, one does not know whether an "act of aggression" is an "act of war."

I have always found it useful to think of an "act of war" as an "act befitting a war." I find this less problematic, because Anttech's usage of the term would require a woman to transform into a man if she performed an "act of masculinity."

"You can't commit an act of masculinity and not be a man."

Ack you totally missed the point, and used a totally irrelevant comparison.

A woman can not be a man simple. Its a FACT, saying something is an act of war is an OPINION. You just compared apples and pears! I didnt actually define anything, I was showing that there isn't a good definition, and thus the only way you could assert as a fact that it was an act of war, or declaration of war (which performing an act of war is!) is if it was followed by a war. Since the Iranians decided not to capture any Americans it wasnt, and as we can see once again deplomacy beared fruit.

The point is, I think Russ was exaggerating what happened by call it an act of war. The UK government does not think it was an act of war. Neither do I.

If you want to have a debate on my use of Logic fine, but not in this thread.

 

[Anttech]

Iranian leader says he'll free Britons (AP/Yahoo)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain



Yeah right. What else are they going to say in that situation.

Somebody get me off this planet and far, far away.

Between George and Mahmood - this place is getting too absurd and bizarre for my mind. We past surreal along time ago.

Now folks, let's move quickly along to the next crisis.

LOL Does he think he is some Persian Demi-God? LOLOLOL...

 

[Futobingoro]

I never attempted to define what specific actions would be "acts of war." I only analyzed the text of your definition of the term. You are confusing real-world "acts of war" with the dictionary entry for the word. Apparently, my focus on the latter struck you as an attempt to define the former.

The UK government does not think it was an act of war. Neither do I.

I hope you aren't assuming that, because no war resulted, neither side thinks the event was an "act of war." Am I to assume that, in spite of the fact that North Korea's government labeled last year's sanctions an "act of war," they didn't really think it was an act of war because no war resulted?

You are wrapping the definition of "act of xxxx" terms around the axle.

Somebody can commit an act of contrition without being a contrite person.
...or an act of masculinity without being a masculine person.
...or an act of stupidity without being a stupid person.

So in the dictionary sense of the term, there is no requirement for two nations to be at war for an act of war to happen between them. An "act of war" is an act befitting a war, not requiring a war.

 

[Anttech]

I never attempted to define what specific actions would be "acts of war." I only analyzed the text of your definition of the term. You are confusing real-world "acts of war" with the dictionary entry for the word. Apparently, my focus on the latter struck you as an attempt to define the former.

I am not confusing anything, why exactly do you think I am?

I hope you aren't assuming that, because no war resulted, neither side thinks the event was an "act of war."

No you can rest in peace, I am not assuming that.

Am I to assume that, in spite of the fact that North Korea's government labeled last year's sanctions an "act of war," they didn't really think it was an act of war because no war resulted?

As I said OPINION... Its their opinion, its not a hard cold fact that those embargoes on N.K. were an act of war.

Rather than telling me, I am confused, and that I am defining things wrong, and you attempting to force feed me your logic, why not tell me what it is you don't understand with what I am saying, and I can explain?

It is very simple and I am surprised you don't understand it. Or do you, and you wish to argue with me regardless, because it does seem to me you have missed/ignored the point (again)?

 

[BobG]

... I have always found it useful to think of an "act of war" as an "act befitting a war." I find this less problematic, because Anttech's usage of the term would require a woman to transform into a man if she performed an "act of masculinity."

"You can't commit an act of masculinity and not be a man."

Ack you totally missed the point, and used a totally irrelevant comparison.

A woman can not be a man simple. Its a FACT, saying something is an act of war is an OPINION. You just compared apples and pears! I didnt actually define anything, I was showing that there isn't a good definition, and thus the only way you could assert as a fact that it was an act of war, or declaration of war (which performing an act of war is!) is if it was followed by a war. ...

Actually, it's a good example. Women have babies and men don't. Aside from a few roles that are defined by physical differences, many 'masculine' and 'feminine' roles are interchangeable and do vary from culture to culture.

Saying a woman "performed an act of masculinity" only has meaning within the context of a specific culture. If the woman was able to perform the act (probably a better comparison than "didn't turn into a man"), then the act was poorly defined as a masculine act in a general sense.

I'm not positive, but I think that's the point you've been trying to make. A lot of definitions between different nations, especially nations with radically different cultures, lack clarity and tend to be made up along the way. They even change over time.

 

[Anttech]

Well yes sort of, its not very well defined, and is used as an "adjective" to make a strong emotional point. Just because N.K. said the embargoes on them are an act of war, in the eyes of another nation its not an act of war, its a means to punish.

When used it is the opinion of the persons saying it, and the only time we could conclude that an act of war really was that, would be in retrospect if a war did start due to that act, or of course an action done during a war.

Its very loosely defined, and I was highlighting that in this case, I thought it was an exaggeration of the actual event.

 

[drankin]

It looks like the sailors are being returned. I'm very happy to see it. I wonder what the fallout will be around their "confessions". I'll bet there is a crazy story there.

 

[sara_87]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6528235.stm

 

[drankin]

What do you guys think about the apologies, the confessions, the thankfulness, the "gift"?

This serioulsly wierds me out. I can almost hear the http://home.comcast.net/~dennisrankin/TZONE11.WAV" theme in the backround.

 

[denverdoc]

just part of the deal and happy to be released/

 

[Cyrus]

It looks like the sailors are being returned. I'm very happy to see it. I wonder what the fallout will be around their "confessions". I'll bet there is a crazy story there.

...

If they are returned soon and without incident, I will be surprised. The Iranians are going to require something very public to save face. Basically, we will have to show them something that both makes the West look weak, and makes them look otherwise. It's a pissing match and it is likely we will lose. Not because we have to but because we don't have the balls to do anything, and they know it.

The ME is not much different than your local elementary school playground. It's not about what is rational it's about who has the biggest set. And they are calling the bluff.

Please remove egg from your face.

Just say it, "I was wrong"...its not that hard.

 

[J77]

I like the Iranians -- sharp suits.

Looked like they even kitted the sailors out at the local tailor too.

Plus it got Bliar all flustered, which is nice.

 

[Art]

It appears the sailors and marines are more restricted now than they were when the Iranians had them . They are being flown back to the UK on a scheduled flight and journalists on the same flight have been refused any access to them. When they arrive back in the UK they will be transferred to a military base for debriefing again it is expected without any contact with the public; even their own families.

Perhaps the UK gov't is concerned in case they say something which embarrasses them?

btw anyone know where the US gov't is holding it's 5 Iranian hostages and how they are being treated?

Back to my point re hypocricy

Britain says the crew were in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate when they were captured, and says the confessions were extracted under duress.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6528235.stm
If that's duress what do you call 5 years in Guantanamo and yet their 'confessions' are considered sound!

 

[drankin]

...



Please remove egg from your face.

Just say it, "I was wrong"...its not that hard.

They did release them sooner than I expected. I'll give you that, cry. But not until they thoroughly made a mockery of those sailors.

 

[Anttech]

It appears the sailors and marines are more restricted now than they were when the Iranians had them . They are being flown back to the UK on a scheduled flight and journalists on the same flight have been refused any access to them. When they arrive back in the UK they will be transferred to a military base for debriefing again it is expected without any contact with the public; even their own families.

Perhaps the UK gov't is concerned in case they say something which embarrasses them?

btw anyone know where the US gov't is holding it's 5 Iranian hostages and how they are being treated?

Back to my point re hypocricy http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6528235.stm
If that's duress what do you call 5 years in Guantanamo and yet their 'confessions' are considered sound!

Hey Art spot the difference

UK...
US...

One letter I know, but geographically a tad more. I understand your point, but the UK isn't the US, its the *unfortunate* or rather the lesser, with no say partner of the US (right now).

I think you have to give them credit for not going all out crazy and starting another war shock and awe style. Perhaps the world coverage of this situation and how it was handled could inspire other leaders *cough cough* that diplomacy does work, and *I am a hard man* brow bashing doesnt. Ohh wait, no, because the UK were cowards, and were made to look like clowns for not starting another war, silly me, everyone in the world is probably laughing at the UK now...

 

[denverdoc]

Anttech,

Yea, reckon you noticed the remarks made by Bolton. "Emboldened... " etc. Glad that loose cannon is out of a job, but reminds me Bush is at it again by appointing Sam Fox during the recess.

 

[drankin]

Ohh wait, no, because the UK were cowards, and were made to look like clowns for not starting another war, silly me, everyone in the world is probably laughing at the UK now...

LOL, well to each his own. Being a "clown" and a "coward" can definitely keep you out of a fight, no doubt. Appeasement seems the way to go for many on the other side of the ocean. History shows us what happens when that becomes your policy.

 

[Anttech]

LOL, well to each his own. Being a "clown" and a "coward" can definitely keep you out of a fight, no doubt. Appeasement seems the way to go for many on the other side of the ocean. History shows us what happens when that becomes your policy.

Appeasement?

So talking to someone to get something you want, rather than smashing their face in and taking it from them is appeasement is it?
Thats not very democratic now is it? I *was* under the impression the *west* were the civilized democratic ones, not the totalitarian ones...

 

[Art]

Hey Art spot the difference

UK...
US...

One letter I know, but geographically a tad more. I understand your point, but the UK isn't the US, its the *unfortunate* or rather the lesser, with no say partner of the US (right now).

I think you have to give them credit for not going all out crazy and starting another war shock and awe style. Perhaps the world coverage of this situation and how it was handled could inspire other leaders *cough cough* that diplomacy does work, and *I am a hard man* brow bashing doesnt. Ohh wait, no, because the UK were cowards, and were made to look like clowns for not starting another war, silly me, everyone in the world is probably laughing at the UK now...

As I said where is the UK condemnation of their 'best friends' behaviour. Where is the denouncement of confessions obtained through 5 years of torture? Why has the UK conspired to have it's own residents renditioned? Where are the demands for the immediate release of the 5 Iranian hostages seized by their partners in the MNF?

As to how complicit the British gov't has been? I suggest you read this news report;

Documents show that Britain's security services tried to recruit a Guantanamo Bay detainee shortly before his arrest.

At a quarter to nine in the morning on the 31st October 2002, Jamil al-Banna was at home with his family when there was a knock at the door. Two men - one from MI5, the other Special Branch - wanted to speak to Mr al-Banna about his association with the Jordanian radical cleric Abu Qatada.

This is the Mi5 officer's account of that meeting. (Jamil al-Banna was also known as Abu Anas.)

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/mi5+contacted+guantanamo+detainee/396717


You can't act in lockstep with the Bush gov't and then plead non mea culpa as you are trying to do on Blair's behalf.

Sky News has released an interview they filmed with the captain of the arrested team a few days before their detention. In it the captain stated their mission was to stop ships to search for terrorists which as already shown is illegal under the Law of the Sea so as I said the excuse the British gov't gave about searching for smuggled cars was just that - an excuse or to be more precise - a lie and crucially he also said part of his mission was to gather intel on Iran I wonder which part of the UN mandate the British claimed their people to be operating under authorised this?

'We Gathered Intelligence'
Updated: 20:07, Thursday April 05, 2007

The captain in charge of the 15 marines detained in Iran has said they were gathering intelligence on the Iranians.

Sky News went on patrol with Captain Chris Air and his team in Iraqi waters close to the area where they were arrested - just five days before the crisis began.
snip
The operation was mainly to investigate arms smuggling and terrorism but Captain Air said it was also to gain intelligence on Iranian activity.

We withheld the interview until now so it would not jeopardise their safety.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1259413,00.html

If Sky had broadcast this interview before their release I doubt very much they would be back home in England now.

With the British gov't now being shown to have lied about 2 of the 3 central issues in this incident hands up those who still believe the sailors and marines were captured in Iraqi waters.

 

[Anttech]

As I said where is the UK condemnation of their 'best friends' behaviour. Where is the denouncement of confessions obtained through 5 years of torture? Why has the UK conspired to have it's own residents renditioned? Where are the demands for the immediate release of the 5 Iranian hostages seized by their partners in the MNF?

There is a lot (and I mean a lot) of "condemnation" of Guantanamo, and renditioning to there. Why would the UK demand immediate release of Iranians? The press is already denouncing those confessions and a load of crap. But I still don't see what the hell that has got to do with the UK demanding its troops back from Iran?

You can't act in lockstep with the Bush gov't and then plead non mea culpa as you are trying to do on Blair's behalf.

Im not pleading non mea culpa, I am saying that the US isn't the UK. America absolutely does as it pleases, the UK has no control over what it does. I don't think its a fair comparison at all. If UK military personal were being taken to Guantanamo then I am sure there would be just a big fuss, and actually many MP's in the UK are screaming and shouting about Guantanamo. But I still don't get the link to the current Iranian crises

With the British gov't now being shown to have lied about 2 of the 3 central issues in this incident hands up those who still believe the sailors and marines were captured in Iraqi waters.

what have they lied about? The car smuggling? and...? Even if they are doing other operations it still seems feasible they were looking for cars.

I read the News report, and it doesn't seem such a scoop. Big deal they were gathering intelligence, or in other words, were asking questions. Its normal procedure especially in the battle field, or close to it.