Iran takes 15 British Soldiers into custody

I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. i've been to iran and everytime i go back, the amount of hatered even amongst the former pillars of the regime is increasing alarmingly. even the support for the nuke program is vaning heavily.

This is a ploy by the mullahs to negotiate the release of there generals in american custody. there smart enough to take the british soldiers and not the americans. they know if they take american soldiers, all hell would break loose. the british are more tamed in there timid responses.

 

I've only been to Tehran. Does that count?




D&D. Don't Count your Ducks before they Quack.

 

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Di...th=March2007&file=World_News2007032534322.xml

Britons detained in Iraqi waters, says fisherman
Web posted at: 3/25/2007 3:43:22
Source ::: REUTERS
basra, Iraq • An Iraqi fisherman who said he saw Iranian forces detain British sailors and marines on Friday in a waterway between Iraq and Iran said yesterday the ship British forces were searching was anchored in Iraqi waters.

Iran has condemned what it called the illegal entry of 15 British naval personnel into Iranian waters as a “suspicious act”, the official Irna news agency said yesterday.

Britain says they were detained in Iraqi waters on a routine search operation and has demanded their immediate return.

The fisherman, the same one who said he witnessed the sailors being detained several hours before it was confirmed by the British government, said the line between Iranian and Iraqi waters was not marked by buoys but was well known.

“We’ve been working in this job for many years and because of our experience we can distinguish which is the Iraqi and which is Iranian side,” he said, adding that Iraqi boats never venture across because of tight security by Iranian coastguards.

He said the ship the British forces were searching was among several that had been anchored for a week or more, waiting to unload or take on cargo at an Iraqi port. “The ship was in Iraqi waters,” said the fisherman, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of security concerns.

Brigadier Hakim Jassam of the Iraqi coastguard said the incident happened at the entrance of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the open waters of the Gulf narrow into a channel that marks the southern border between the two countries. “We don’t know whether it happened in Iraqi or Iranian waters, we don’t have exact information,” Jassam said.

 

See this is what we get for making that movie, "300"...We stray away from the typical F.A.G. type movie and we suffer the consequences...

Let's stop with Hollywood deviating from the liberal propaganda methodology in movie making. What was Hollywood thinking?

 

Good idea, linking conservatism to latent bigotry. Do you still feel like an adult after posting that?

 

This thing might get a little ugly, gas prices are gonna rise due to this mess. Should have bought a hybrid.




http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/25/iran.nuclear/index.html

Ahmadinejad rejects U.N. sanctions


TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is rejecting new United Nations sanctions as illegal, according to IRNA, the state-run Iranian news agency.

Ahmadinejad, in an interview with France's Channel 2 TV network, warned nations "seeking to impose sanctions against Iran will suffer a greater damage themselves," IRNA reported.

The 15-member Security Council unanimously passed a resolution Saturday imposing new sanctions on Iran because of its refusal to suspend its uranium-enrichment program. (Full story)

According to IRNA, the Iranian president told the French interviewer that his country's nuclear activities are legal, "based on the country's legal and inalienable rights" and that the program would "continue without hesitation."

The United States and other nations contend Iran is using the project to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies the claim.

The new measures follow a resolution adopted December 23, 2006, that prohibits trade with Iran in nuclear materials and ballistic missiles and froze assets of individuals and institutions involved in Tehran's atomic programs.

The embargo on Iranian weapons exports -- such as small arms and explosives -- is an attempt to stop Iran from smuggling to militant groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, and to prevent Iranian arms from reaching Iraq, U.S. officials contend.

The new resolution would bar nations and international banks from making new loans to Iran. The proposed new penalties build on previous sanctions barring transfer of nuclear materials and know-how to Iran.

The latest sanctions, formulated last week by the five permanent members of the council -- the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France -- plus Germany, would freeze the assets of 28 additional individuals and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. About a third of those are linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an elite military corps.

The resolution also calls for a voluntary travel embargo on Iranian officials and Revolutionary Guard commanders.

 

That movie is the bigget disgrace in history. the persians were the creators of the first written human rights tablet.the tablet is currently in the UN.Cyrus the great freed the jewish people from the slavery from under the babalonians. The likes of king daruis preached equality amongst the sexs. some of the great ancient persian generals were woman. free religious practises were allowed. the persians created the first canal and postal system. the list goes on. anyone who has a good enough education will tell you it was the spartans and not the persians who were barbarians.

 

Interesting. Anyone else catch that tidbit in the article madmonkey posted? It's the first article I've come across that cites a 'third party' in the dispute, which apparently favors the Iranian version of the event.

Hypothetically speaking, if the British sailors did in fact cross into Iranian waters, does it change anything in your mind? Are the sailors still considered 'hostages'?

EDIT: I see MadMax posted another article that refers to the Iraqi fishermen's account of what happened.

 

After the fall of the late shah, the mollah's never signed a treaty and ineffect never created border line on the river. there is no border. it's just a disputed river. iran says it's our river and iraq wrongly claims it's theres. it's pretty easy for the poor british marines to get confused. there is no legal border thee.

 

After reading several stories over several days it is clear that this incident is a political response to the UN Security Council sanctions. Not to lessen the sanctity of national territorial borders, but I don’t think the British were doing anything that they hadn’t done 1000 times before, and in a normal diplomatic situation Country A would document violations and protest to Country B or something like that before escalating the situation to capturing foreign soldiers. Here is a good example of what I describe, reprinted below.

[rquoter]
General Assembly
Fifty-second session


OCEANS AND THE LAW OF THE SEA

UNITED NATIONS DECADE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Letter dated 3 February 1997 from the Charge' d'affaires a.i. of
the Permanent Mission of the United Arab Emirates addressed to
the Secretary-General


On instructions from my Government, I have the honour to transmit
herewith the text of note No. OK1/7/2-50, dated 28 January 1997, from
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Emirates addressed
to the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Abu Dhabi, setting
forth the Ministry's vigorous protests against the violation of the
territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates on 19 January 1997 by a
logistic landing ship flying the Iranian flag, which was fitted out
with four 40 mm/60 guns, and by another Iranian vessel carrying
vehicles, cement, sand and building materials. This illegal action is
a blatant violation of the sovereignty of the United Arab Emirates, a
flagrant breach of the norms and principles governing relations
between States and conduct that is contrary to the principle of good-
neighbourliness.

I should be grateful if you would have the text of this letter and
its annex circulated as a document of the General Assembly under the
items entitled "Oceans and the law of the sea" and "United Nations
Decade of International Law".


(Signed) Khalid Khalifa AL-MUALLA
Charge' d'affaires a.i.


ANNEX

Note verbale dated 28 January 1997 from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of the United Arab Emirates addressed to the Embassy of
the Islamic Republic of Iran in Abu Dhabi


The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Emirates
presents its compliments to the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of
Iran in Abu Dhabi and has the honour to inform it that on 19 January
1997, at 5.30 a.m., units of the border guards, coast guard units and
police aircraft accompanying them sighted an object at sea 3 nautical
miles off Hamra island in the emirate of Ras al-Khaimah. It was
ascertained that the object was a naval vessel flying the Iranian
flag, the Hengam 511, a logistic landing ship fitted out with four
40 mm/60 guns, sailing at a speed of 14.5 knots.

On the same day, another object was sighted in the same area. It,
too, was found to be an Iranian vessel carrying vehicles, cement, sand
and building materials.

The captain of the vessel, with whom contact had been made for the
purpose of ascertaining the reasons for the vessel's entering the
territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates, stated that he had the
authorization of the port authorities of the emirates of Ajman and Ras
al-Khaimah, an assertion that was subsequently found to be totally
unfounded.

Given such unjustified violation of its territorial waters, the
United Arab Emirates vigorously protests against these illegal
actions, which constitute a blatant violation of its sovereignty, a
flagrant breach of the norms and principles governing relations
between States and conduct that is contrary to the principle of good-
neighbourliness.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs therefore expects that the Embassy
of the Islamic Republic of Iran will promptly convey to the competent
authorities the vehement protest of the United Arab Emirates and the
latter's wishes that such violations of its sovereignty will not be
repeated, as they can only have a detrimental effect on relations
between the two countries.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs takes this opportunity to convey
to the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran the renewed assurances
of its highest consideration.

[/rquoter]

In that sense I still view them very clearly as hostages taken as part of a political game.

 

Unless you have access to that kind of info, I wouldn't speculate that it would settle much, since both sides can probably manipulate it to support their account of exactly what happened.

Not really interested in your personal bias (already know you hate the Iranians), just trying to figure out who's telling the truth, which is the key here.

The Iranians are acting belligerent and undiplomatic, but that has no bearing on who is telling the truth here.

What we have so far is Iraqis -- possibly eyewitnesses -- claiming that the British sailors did in fact cross into Iranian territorial waters. It's natural for the British to deny it, and it's natural for the Iranians to claim otherwise because it would support their detention of the offenders...but someone is lying.

 

The timing is certainly convenient, but that's still speculation...

I agree, that's the normal course of action one would expect.

Fair enough. But again, I am more interested in the 'letter of the law' -- so to speak -- in regards to what the Iranians did, not what's customary.

I understand that it's undiplomatic, but is it a violation of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to detain violators? Admittedly, I am not well-versed in this specific area of International Law, so I don't know much about admiralty law or Law of the Sea and am too lazy to look it up now (I will read up on it a bit more tomorrow).

Understandably, the Iranians have elected to take an unorthodox course of action. But putting that aside, is it 'illegal'?

 

But Iran is saying the British were warned Several times by the Iranian navy boats to evacuate the Iranian water Immediately. the british in turn decided to heed and not take any notice of the warrning. leaving the navy with no other options but to detain them. the problem is there is no legal border there.

 

Following this situation it sounds like this is likely a mistake where the Iranians over reacted. I was listening to a report on NPR that said that the border is the deepest channel of the Shatt Al Arab waterway that was agreed upon in 1975 but after the Iran-Iraq war that border wasn't clearly recognized. Another factor obscuring the border might be that Saddam did a lot of things that affected the flow and landscape around the waterway during the Iran-Iraq war and to destroy the marsh Arabs so that might've affected the flow of the waterway. It seems likely to me that the British were in water that they and Iraqis considered part of Iraq but that the Iranians didn't.

Many posters seem to be arguing that this might be a deliberate Iranian move to rally internal support and to make a provocative statement in the face of the International Community but throwing this out there there is another possibilty that this could've been a deliberately provocative move on the part of the British and US Coalition forces.

I am engaging in raw speculation here and don't claim that this is definitive at all but putting this out there for discussion.

Consider that opinion in the UK has always been very high against the invasion of Iraq and now that Tony Blair is on the way out along with a drawdown of British forces in Iraq what if Iran was enticed into a provocative move that would rouse British opinion? As I said before I don't believe the Brits will mistake Iraq with Iran but any action on Iran will require basing out of Iraq. Iranian provocation provides a convenient excuse to continue British forces in Iraq. Also with rising tensions between the US and Iran there is a need to maintain coalition forces in the region. I'm guessing that British opinion has been leery about action against Iran and skeptical regarding anti-Iranian rhetoric from the US. OTOH if the Iranians though provoke the British then the British opinion would likely change to support military action against Iran. So there is a huge interest from both US and hawks in the British government to have Iran do something provocative.

An incident like this may not have been fully planned but British coalition forces could've been directed to engage in aggressive manuevers that bring them into disputed waters. Knowing that the Iranians did capture British sailors before there would be a high likelyhood that some sort of incident would happen eventually.

 

It's ironic. Israel ravaged Lebanon over the imprisoning of Israeli Soldiers by Hezbollah on disputed land. Will Great Britian ravage Iran over the imprisoning of Royal Sailors by Iran on disputed waters? Will Iran be seen as a winner in this situation like Hezbollah was by the Islamic world? I feel it is in the West's interest to not pull an Israel here.

 

The movie I saw showed the Spartans being pretty barbaric. Killing unarmed messengers, building a wall of corpses, etc. It also showed the Persions offering a peaceful solution to the Spartans before the battle.

My understanding is that the film is admitted historically inaccurate and meant to bring a comic to life, as opposed to being a History Channel documentary.

But, yeah, I can see where it would be considered the "biggest disgrace in history".

 

What would you think if an Iranian, or more realistically, a Chinese or Russian spy plane or spy boat were located a short distance off Hawaii, intercepting signals and otherwise spying while sitting in what may or may not be American territorial waters? You'd want to shoot the plane/boat to the bottom of the ocean, right?

We've had this issue before. Bush tried this **** with China back in 2001 and it didn't work, he was forced to apologize and compensate us, and we got a nice planeload of spy equipment. The British were probably in Iranian waters, and they got caught. Oops. Maybe next time they should be more careful.