Iran has captured 15 british marines
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
Only the lowest form of life holds a woman hostage......danmand said:Iran today announced that it would not release the female sailor
as promised, due to the british governments incorrect attitude.
OTB
Sounds like all hell is going to break loose in the region very soon if the prisoners are not released. The US is encouraging the british to launch an attack on Iran. Iran is going to wait just before that happens and release all the prisoners all at once, imo. The US and Brits will still attack for other reasons they are going to justify, such as regeim change or their nuclear program.
good to see you have an open mind.......Face it OTB there are lower forms of life.thedon said:Sounds like all hell is going to break loose in the region very soon if the prisoners are not released. The US is encouraging the british to launch an attack on Iran. Iran is going to wait just before that happens and release all the prisoners all at once, imo. The US and Brits will still attack for other reasons they are going to justify, such as regeim change or their nuclear program.
Then she should treated as such and not forced to dress differently from the other soldiersalienencounters said:Does it matter if she's a woman?
She's a Soldier.
One has to wonder why Carter sat for so long........I suspect Blair won't.alienencounters said:Would you sport a lovely scarf if you got better treatment?
The whole thing stinks to me and lets not forget that using prisoners for propaganda is against the Geneva Convention.... but I guess they'll claim they aren't at war so it makes it OK.
alienencounters said:The whole thing stinks to me and lets not forget that using prisoners for propaganda is against the Geneva Convention.... but I guess they'll claim they aren't at war so it makes it OK.
I think its clear, the Geneva Convention means nothing to any side, war or no war.
I'm not convinced Carter's efforts should be discounted so easily.papasmerf said:One has to wonder why Carter sat for so long........I suspect Blair won't.
Its a little thing called diplomacy.
My point is all sides break it. Even the "good" guys.alienencounters said:Unless the other side is breaking it.
As long as you understand what you are doing.persis said:...
But off course unless you are bias and want to believe what you want to hear then hey go ahead no one is going to stop you!
The brits have provided consistent statements and have given some direct evidence that you choose to believe is faked (without any evidence to base this on except your bias). The Information that the Iranians have provided has contradicted itself and they have not provided anything except testimony from hostages (which in many previous examples has been shown to be coerced).
This is obviously just a political show of force from the Iranians to show they can stand up to the West. They have no interest in proving their case and have therefore don't care to try and give evidence. It actually strengthens their point if everyone knows they are lying when the West can't (will not?) do anything about it.
To humans it matters.alienencounters said:Does it matter if she's a woman?
She's a Soldier.
OTB
Wearing a burka is fairly mild punishment compared to what the coalition forces were doing at Abu Ghraib.papasmerf said:Then she should treated as such and not forced to dress differently from the other soldiers
danmand said:Wearing a burka is fairly mild punishment compared to what the coalition forces were doing at Abu Ghraib.
Hmmmmm
How many prisoners lost their head there?
So you're okay with torturing prisoners, so long as you don't chop off their heads?papasmerf said:Hmmmmm
How many prisoners lost their head there?
You gotta draw the line somewhere eh Papa?
lookingforitallthetime said:So you're okay with torturing prisoners, so long as you don't chop off their heads?
You gotta draw the line somewhere eh Papa?
You jumped to a conclusion, there.
I believe it has to be a more "traditional" type of warfare where both sides have a certain respect for both the Geneva Conventions and the norms of warfare. There were of course exceptions, but in general both sides in the European Theatre of the Second World War respected the Geneva Conventions. That was certainly not the case in the Pacific Theatre (ask a survivor of a Japanese POW camp). It has been quite one sided in the years between then and now.lookingforitallthetime said:My point is all sides break it. Even the "good" guys.
What happened at Abu Ghraib was a disgrace but U.S. Army solders have been court-martialed and imprisoned for it. I somewhat doubt that's going to happen to any Iranian "Revolutionary Guards." no matter what they do.danmand said:Wearing a burka is fairly mild punishment compared to what the coalition forces were doing at Abu Ghraib.
To tell the truth, I have little if any sympathy with the revolutionary guards,Aardvark154 said:What happened at Abu Ghraib was a disgrace but U.S. Army solders have been court-martialed and imprisoned for it. I somewhat doubt that's going to happen to any Iranian "Revolutionary Guards." no matter what they do.
but so far what I saw on TV of the treatment of prisoners looked not too bad.
They were eating food.
The issue that I referred to about the geneva convention is simple:
do unto others what you want them to do to you.
US troops 'would have fought Iranian captors'
US troops 'would have fought Iranian captors'
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2393337.ece
By Terri Judd in Bahrain
Published: 26 March 2007
A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Republican Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.
In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive.
Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation."
The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: "The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'"
His comments came as it was reported British intelligence had been warned by the CIA that Iran would seek revenge for the detention of five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq two months ago but refused to raise threat levels in line with their US counterparts. The capture of the eight sailors and seven marines - including one young mother - will undoubtedly renew accusations that Britain's determination to maintain a friendly face in the region has left its troops frequently under protected.
Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, the Royal Navy team from HMS Cornwall were seized on Friday after completing a UN-authorised inspection of a merchant dhow in what they insist were clearly Iraqi waters. The Iranian Republican Guard Corps Navy appeared in half a dozen attack speedboats mounted with machine guns..
Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."
Three days after the team were taken hostage, Tony Blair publicly spoke about the diplomatic crisis for the first time. "I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us," he said
"We have certainly sent the message back to them very clearly indeed. They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong," he added, speaking from Berlin.
In a telephone conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki last night the Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett "expressed concern regarding the detention of the British soldiers". An Iranian official later confirmed that Iran may give consular access to the British sailors once an investigation into the incident is completed.
Yesterday, the armed forces spokesman General Ali Reza Afshar said the crew were in "sterling health" and were being interrogated in Tehran, where the Iranians claim they have "confessed" to straying into Iranian waters.
The Foreign Office minister, Lord Triesman, held "frank" discussions with the Iranian ambassador yesterday .
US troops 'would have fought Iranian captors'
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2393337.ece
By Terri Judd in Bahrain
Published: 26 March 2007
A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Republican Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.
In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive.
Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation."
The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: "The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'"
His comments came as it was reported British intelligence had been warned by the CIA that Iran would seek revenge for the detention of five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq two months ago but refused to raise threat levels in line with their US counterparts. The capture of the eight sailors and seven marines - including one young mother - will undoubtedly renew accusations that Britain's determination to maintain a friendly face in the region has left its troops frequently under protected.
Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, the Royal Navy team from HMS Cornwall were seized on Friday after completing a UN-authorised inspection of a merchant dhow in what they insist were clearly Iraqi waters. The Iranian Republican Guard Corps Navy appeared in half a dozen attack speedboats mounted with machine guns..
Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."
Three days after the team were taken hostage, Tony Blair publicly spoke about the diplomatic crisis for the first time. "I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us," he said
"We have certainly sent the message back to them very clearly indeed. They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong," he added, speaking from Berlin.
In a telephone conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki last night the Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett "expressed concern regarding the detention of the British soldiers". An Iranian official later confirmed that Iran may give consular access to the British sailors once an investigation into the incident is completed.
Yesterday, the armed forces spokesman General Ali Reza Afshar said the crew were in "sterling health" and were being interrogated in Tehran, where the Iranians claim they have "confessed" to straying into Iranian waters.
The Foreign Office minister, Lord Triesman, held "frank" discussions with the Iranian ambassador yesterday .
There are well documented massacres of POW's in the Western war. Right now on the History network is a show about Canada's Black Watch members being captured the executed just after DDay.Aardvark154 said:I believe it has to be a more "traditional" type of warfare where both sides have a certain respect for both the Geneva Conventions and the norms of warfare. There were of course exceptions, but in general both sides in the European Theatre of the Second World War respected the Geneva Conventions. That was certainly not the case in the Pacific Theatre (ask a survivor of a Japanese POW camp). It has been quite one sided in the years between then and now.
You could also mention Dresden.
I think that each side will violate the conventions as much as they need to to gain an advantage.
p.s. It seems that persis has learned from many here and is now just posting other people's words. It's one way to seem intelligent.
