BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Barry Finn
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 02:21 PM

Did it ever occur to you that they, (the Brits and the USA) MAY OR MAY NOT have been trespassing in other peoples countries and waters & that they MAY OR MAY NOT have been in those waters acting on no one's authority and/or mandate but they may or may ni=ot have been acting on there own.

Had they tried to stay a farther distance than 1.7 nuatical miles from a known disputed border they wouldn't have been in this mess in the 1st place.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 02:26 PM

"Had they tried to stay a farther distance than 1.7 nuatical miles from a known disputed border they wouldn't have been in this mess in the 1st place"


Had the Iranians stayed on their side of the known disputed border, they wouldn't have been in this mess in the 1st place.


Even the initial Iranian coordinates, along with the civilian ship captain, the Brits, and the Iraqi fisherman state that the Brits were in Iraqi territory.


By the standards YOU are saying, I will now sue you for trespassing on my property, since you are not on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Barry Finn
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 02:34 PM

Neither nation, so far, can make a positive claim that any other nation (including the UN) with except as gospel. And it was Britain that made the 1st move. And it seems that both are excepting that no one is right but that it won't happen again. All else is hearsay, he say, she say. But Iran did get back it's lost puppy, which could be the start of another embrassment to George.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 02:38 PM

"And it was Britain that made the 1st move."


How do you think this? Searching commercial vessels in IRAQI waters by request of the IRAQI government and the UN mandate is making the first move?

Oh, I guess you have already decided WHO is at fault, regardless of the facts.

First the execution, then the trial...

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: alanabit
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 03:19 PM

The captives are now on their way home. Let's hope there will be no crowing about it. Perhaps the good sense of their release will set a precedent for the future. Now perhaps some of those kidnap victims in other places around the world can be released too.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 03:25 PM

From Time...


Who Got the British Sailors Released?
Wednesday, Apr. 04, 2007 By CATHERINE MAYER/LONDON AND AZADEH MOAVENI/TEHRAN Enlarge Photo
British navy personnel, seized by Iran, wave to the media after their meeting with the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at the presidential palace in Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, April 4, 2007.
AP
Article ToolsPrintEmailReprints The President of Iran was clearly relishing his role as beneficent liberator of the 15 British Marines and sailors detained by Iran for nearly two weeks. At a press conference today, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the release a "gift to the British people" on the occasion of Easter as well as a commemoration of the Prophet Muhammad's birthday. The smiling President then met with the British detainees, nodding his head munificently as they lined up to offer thanks for their release. "It is for Islam," he reminded one. He joked to another: "You ended up on a compulsory visit, didn't you?"

As much as today's events appeared to be another episode of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad show, the Iranian president's actual role in ending the crisis may have been less than meets the eye. The office of the presidency in Iran does not really have a say in matters of foreign policy. Indeed, British analysts were quick to credit another political personage for the resolution of the drama. John Williams, the former Director of News of Britain's Foreign Office, asserts that Dr. Ali Larijani, the secretary general of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, was more important in calling the shots. "It seems that around the weekend, Dr. Larijani decided to settle this and took control," says Williams. "He has proved himself a significant power broker, a man who, if he feels it is in Iran's best interests, will do business with the international community." Other observers warn against giving Larijani too much credit. Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, they say, may have decided that Iran had squeezed as much advantage out of the situation as possible and simply got Larijani to do the legwork to end the crisis.

Observers in Britain don't doubt that the release of the detainees was in Iran's best interest. "If the saga had dragged on, it would have led to an escalation of international opinion against Iran," says Chris Rundle, a former British diplomat in Iran, noting that it took Iran 13 days to coordinate its policy. Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's former ambassador to the U.S., describes the decision as "a shrewd move. The detainees were a wasting asset." The sudden announcement also reinforced a sense that Iran, and not Britain, was dictating the pace.

Having Ahmadinejad deliver the breakthrough news may have been intended to buttress that image. He remains a symbol of Tehran's defiance of the West, and, for a politician of limited power, Ahmadinejad still knows how to play his role to maximum advantage. Nazenin Ansari, the diplomatic correspondent of the London-based Persian-language weekly Kayhan, believes he and Iran's hardliners have benefited from the showdown with Britain. "What we have seen is a shift to the right," she says. Reformists had been making progress, but "in Iran politics is all about changing the atmosphere. The current has now shifted in the same way it did during the 1979 hostage crisis."

In his press conference, Ahmadinejad said the captives would have been let go sooner but that the "British government behaved badly, and so it took a little while." When asked what prompted the sudden release, he said London had sent a letter promising that such incidents would not be repeated. While careful to point out that the British sailors were being released "as a gift, and not as a result of the letter," the president's reference to a British concession served as a face-saving device, rationalizing the sudden release after much clamor in Iran for a possible trial of the British service personnel.

The Iranian leadership — including Larijani, Ahmadinejad and certainly Khamenei — believes that Tehran's popularity among the world's Muslims, particularly for its face-off against America, gives it leverage in dealing with the West. "Iranians had bruised egos because of international pressure over their nuclear program and the detentions of their personnel by the U.S. in Iraq," says Ansari. "What we've seen is a public relations exercise to take command of the Arab street once again." Says Shahid Malik, one of the first Muslims elected to Britain?s parliament: "This was yet another example of how adept Ahmadinejad is at communications in the way he targets the Muslim and non-Muslim world." During the press conference, Ahmadinejad made the expected jabs at the West, referring to the U.N. Security Council as "an organization they've created" and its resolutions as "pieces of paper they keep passing." He then accused Britain of involvement in a series of bombings in Iran's ethnic minority provinces in the past two years, while saying he would avoid going into detail lest the session "turn bitter."

Downing Street welcomed the move with public caution and mopped brows behind closed doors. As the crisis dragged on, government sources acknowledged that Iran's intransigence was exposing Britain's comparative impotence. It had failed to secure a strong denunciation of Iran's actions from the U.N. Security Council; its European allies were balancing support for Britain against their business interests; and although Prime Minister Tony Blair warned a failure to reach a quick resolution would lead to a "new phase" in response to the detentions, nobody detected in his words the martial sounds of rattling sabers. "There's no mood here for military adventures in Iran or elsewhere," says Malik. "Iraq wasn't what we thought it would be. There's a somber mood in this country."

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Barry Finn
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 03:34 PM

Yes BB Britan made the 1st move . They boarded a vessel that may or may not have been in Iranain or Iraqi waters.Knowing well that the border was disputed & that they were on the fine line of it. That was their call & their move. The Iranian move was in reaction to that, weither or not it was an excuse is something else but the Brits did supply the excuse to be used.

So far their is no proof of a UN mandate, that was one of the complaints when trying to get the UN to go along & denounce the Iranain act.

The Brits are now a branch of the Iraqi Coast Guard, since when was this delegated to them & by whose authority was this duty excepted. Do we patrol Singapore's water just because we've been invited to. If one flies an Iraqi Flag in Iraqi waters then they can do as the law allows. When one flies a British Flag in British waters then they can do as the law allows. But no one has the right to board my vessel in foreign waters when flying a foreign flag. Unless they have the overwhelming firepower to do as they please.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 03:44 PM

"They boarded a vessel that may or may not have been in Iranain or Iraqi waters.Knowing well that the border was disputed & that they were on the fine line of it."

According to all parties, the position of the ship was clearly within Iraqi waters. No maybes.


Sitting in your livingroom, you are within 1.7 km of the property boundary. Does this give me the right to come into your house, and kidnap you?

You chose to be within 1.7 km of the property line, after all.


Check back for earlier posts by others with the UN resolution that the Brits were acting under. THAT is the mandate, not the resolution about the kidnapping. Having participated in the invasion, there are certain responsibilities that the UN requires of the occupying powers.
Refusal to act upon those responsibilities IS in violation of the UN resolution.

The Iranians acted in an illegal manner, EVEN if the Brits had been in Iranian waters. International law does not allow the capture of military personnel except during declared war, only the escorting of them out of the disputed area.

In addition, it was NOT the Iranian ARMED forces, but the Revolutionary Guard, which is NOT under military control. Their actions against the hostages were in violation of the Geneva conventions, had this been in wartime.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Barry Finn
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 04:31 PM

"No maybes" you gotta be kidding. You know better than the experts. Read this.

The Iraqi-Iranian Sea Boundary: An Assessment Apr-3-07 01:52 pm
The International Boundaries Research Unit at the University of Durham has produced an excellent analysis of the Iranian-British dispute. It begins with this map of the area and the placement of the respective claims:

The group makes several very useful clarifications.

First, there is no agreed boundary between Iran and Iraq:

No maritime boundary has ever been agreed between Iran and Iraq. However, the boundary in the Shatt al Arab river agreed in 1975 (1) extends to the mouth of the river at the astronomical lowest low-water line, which is located nearly 10 nautical miles seaward of the high-water line that most maps show as the coastline. The southern terminal point of the agreed boundary lies just under 1.7 nautical miles northeast of the position at which the British Ministry of Defence claimed that incident on 23 March took place.

Second, according to this analysis, the British Defence Ministry Map had some problems.

The line shown on the Ministry of Defence maps published on 28 March is described as the "Iraq/Iran Territorial Water Boundary". This is somewhat misleading. The line shown actually comprises (i) the section of the Iran-Iraq land boundary that follows the Shatt al Arab between the high- and low-water lines, and (ii) the median line between the two low-water lines running through the territorial sea.

The map above, prepared by IBRU, shows the agreed boundary in the Shatt al Arab and the median line constructed between the low-water lines depicted on United Kingdom Hydrographic Office charts (nos. 1235, 2884 and 3842). The low-water lines in the vicinity of the mouth of the Shatt al Arab depicted on the charts were derived from satellite imagery acquired in 2002.

Third, they offer the following discussion about the locations of the seizure:

Based on the coastal geography depicted on UKHO charts, the following points can be noted:

If the merchant vessel was located where the British Ministry of Defence claims (29° 50.36'N, 48° 43.08'E), the incident appears to have taken place on what is technically land territory rather than in the territorial sea. More importantly, the point is clearly south of both the 1975 boundary and the median line between the two low-water lines.
Both of the positions that the Ministry of Defence stated were supplied by the Iranian government lie just seaward of the land boundary terminus. The position that was initially reported (29° 51'N, 48° 45.11'E) is 0.5 nautical miles south of the median line; the revised position (29° 51.9'N, 48° 45.11'E) is 0.3 nautical miles north of it. (2)

Fourth, the group makes the following assessment of several "complicating factors":

Whatever the true location of the incident, there are a number of reasons for exercising caution before making categorical assertions about whether the incident took place in Iraqi or Iranian waters:

The unstable coastline
The coastline in the northern Gulf is far from stable, and it is quite possible that there is a legitimate dispute over the alignment of the median line. Iranian charts may show a different low-water line from British charts, and Iran is perfectly entitled to define its baseline using Iranian charts. While it seems unlikely that the mouth of the Shatt al Arab would have shifted sufficiently for the point given by the Ministry of Defence to be located on the Iranian side of the median line, if the incident took place further east (as the Iranian government is claiming) then it is quite possible that Iran has legitimate grounds for its claim that the British boat was operating on the wrong side of what is a de facto if not a de jure boundary. It is also arguable that the unstable coastline represents a special circumstance that justifies delimiting a territorial sea boundary that departes from the median line.

Iran is not a party to the law of the sea conventions
Iran is not a party to UNCLOS, nor to its predecessor, the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. Iran might therefore argue that it is not bound by the (identical) provisions of those conventions regarding baselines and territorial sea delimitation. However, if these these provisions have become customary international law (and that is widely considered to be the case) they would be binding on Iran.

Iran's straight baselines
Iran measures its territorial sea from a system of straight baselines. Even though the legitimacy of these baselines is questionable (straight baselines should only be drawn around coastlines which are deeply-indented or fringed with islands, and Iran's coastline is neither of these things) they certainly complicate the jurisdictional picture in the boundary area.

Issues relating to the 1975 boundary agreement
Article 2 of the 1975 protocol defining the land boundary made provision for the boundary to continue to follow the thalweg of the Shatt al Arab if the thalweg shifts as a result of natural causes; however, changes in the bed of the river "which would involve a change in the national character of the two state's respective territory" would not alter the course of the boundary. In Article 6 of the protocol it was agreed that a joint survey of the Shatt al Arab would be made at least every 10 years. No such joint survey appears to have taken place, so there may be a question as to whether the boundary still follows the line defined in 1975 or whether it actually follows the course of the thalweg of the river today.

Some commentators have cast doubt on whether the 1975 boundary agreement is still valid. It is true that Iraq unilaterally abrogated the agreement in September 1980 and declared its sovereignty over the whole of the Shatt al Arab. However, in the aftermath of the eight-year war between the two countries that followed, Saddam Hussein confirmed Iraq's recognition of the 1975 agreement in a letter to President Rafsanjani in August 1990.

One further point to note about the 1975 protocol: Article 7 provided for freedom of navigation for Iranian and Iraqi vessels "regardless of the delimitation of each country's territorial sea".

(Many thanks to Senior Fellow Doug Shaw for bringing this assessment to our attention.)

"No Maybes" you know better right.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Barry Finn
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 04:38 PM

Here's a link to the site & the map
from my above post.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 04:41 PM

no link- want to try again? I would like to check it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Barry Finn
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 04:41 PM

Sorry, try this Map

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 04:42 PM

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 04:47 PM

"If the merchant vessel was located where the British Ministry of Defence claims (29° 50.36'N, 48° 43.08'E), the incident appears to have taken place on what is technically land territory rather than in the territorial sea. More importantly, the point is clearly south of both the 1975 boundary and the median line between the two low-water lines.
Both of the positions that the Ministry of Defence stated were supplied by the Iranian government lie just seaward of the land boundary terminus. The position that was initially reported (29° 51'N, 48° 45.11'E) is 0.5 nautical miles south of the median line; ..."

As I said, the parties agreed initially it was in Iraqi territory. SOUTH is in Iraq, NORTH is in Iran, according to the map.

And as I said, EVEN if the Brits had been over the line, the Iranians DID NOT have the right to capture them.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 04:49 PM

I get a feeling that some people are feeling a bit let down by the fact that this has been sorted out peacefully. No torture, no prisoners in orange jump-suits with bags over their heads. And now they are going to be home for Easter. These Iranians clearly don't know how these things are supposed to be done.

I'd not be the least surprised to find out in the course of time that we were being lied to about the actual facts of this case. As for the question about who was lying, and who (if anyone) was telling the truth, I'm not holding my breath to know either way.

Meanwhile God knows what is happening to the Iranians seized by the Americans, and held somewhere in defiance of the wishes of the Iraqi government.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Charley Noble
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 05:06 PM

I'm glad I'm on good terms with my, neighbors. Boundary coveting neighbors can drive you right up the wall, and so far we don't even have a wall along our property lines. If we did, the cats would ignore it anyway, along with most of the neighborhood school children.

BB-

I do hope you and your neighbors are also on good terms.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Barry Finn
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 05:09 PM

Agreed McGrath

"As I said, the parties agreed initially it was in Iraqi territory. SOUTH is in Iraq, NORTH is in Iran, according to the map."

Nobody has agreed to that.

"And as I said, EVEN if the Brits had been over the line, the Iranians DID NOT have the right to capture them."

Can you show this to be law, anywhere? This seems to contradict our recent practice of our outsourcing of torture victims.
Sorry, whose laws are we practicing & abidding by now?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 05:18 PM

"Territorial Waters
Passage of ships through territorial waters is governed by balancing the rights of maritime powers to innocent passage and the rights of Coastal States to their security and territorial integrity. These rights are both customary and codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). "

http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/nwfz/submission%20on%20NWF2.htm

"Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations

of the coastal State

If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately."

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 05:19 PM

"Article32

Immunities of warships and other government ships

operated for non-commercial purposes

With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes."

from he above UN site...

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 05:21 PM

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:05 PM

Thank goodness bb isn't on the British negotiating team or those sailors would never have been released!

Iran has set a good example regarding the detainment of prisoners. I hope that Bush takes notice and returns the Iranians who are being held in defiance of the Iraqis. I still do not know why Bush thinks the U.S. has the authority to hold these men.

At least I hope Bush lets the Iranians see prisoners to make sure they are not being tortured. According to the Kurds, it was all a case of mistaken identity and the Iranians were there at the request of the Kurds working on a bilateral defense strategy. The charges against the prisoners are completely bogus.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:23 PM

From my understanding, the guys the US were after were ALSO there at the request of the Kurds - and this was public knowledge and official; the US forces came in without so much as a by-your-leave, but happened to miss grabbing the guys they wanted; grabbed some smaller fish instead ...

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:47 PM

Thats the story I heard, too.

The U.S. has absolutely no right to hold these Iranians. I'm surprised Britain got their sailors back but I guess Iran differentiates between the U.S. and Britain. I'm not so sure I would be so generous.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:48 PM

A clever show of 'Chivalry' in generously giving back the 15.

Saladin inspired 'Western Chivalry' by giving a horse to Richard to replace one lost in battle.

Western Europe and the US may not get it, but the Middle East will.

Cleverly outmanoeuvred!

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 07:25 PM

Do rubber dinghies actually count as "warships"?

I somehow suspect that if, for example, some Cuban sailors were found bobbing about on craft like these just offshore at Guantanamo Bay, they would not be escorted politely back into "Cuban waters". And that's even with Guantanamo Bay and its offshore waters all actually being part of Cuba.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 07:29 PM

The Iranians have pulled the PR coup of the year. Neat one. I hope that the UK sends best wishes to that country when it celebrates the birthday of Mohammed. I fear it won't be so. This presents an opportunity for countries to talk. It would be a class act if Blair went to Iran to thank their government. Hell, never pass up a Kodak moment. But I won't hold my breath on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 07:37 PM

A "PR coup"? Maybe in the Middle East; I can't imagine MOST people outside are terribly impressed. And, jeesh, Blair would "look a right wimp" if he went any further than he already has to "thank" the Iranians. IMO, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 07:47 PM

Sure he'd look a wimp. But it's not like he has any choice about that. He has the opportunity to upstage the Iranian government, show the people of both Iran and Britain that they can be made of brass from time to time, and walk away with the beginning of a friendship in that part of the world. Hell, no one else has any friends there.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Gulliver
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 08:03 PM

Saladin inspired 'Western Chivalry' by giving a horse to Richard to replace one lost in battle.

Richard repaid the complement by disembowelling and executing 3,000 Muslim prisoners (mainly women and children) outside Acre in 1191. As St. Bernard of Clairvaux said: "The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 08:09 PM

Spain, Portugal, Greece, Sicily, Serbia, Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary, the bloody conquests in Africa and Asia, the Sudan today: All those things did not take place without bloodshed. If you intend to spread the blame, spread it evenly. BTW, the countries above were invaded by Muslims.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 09:51 PM

BTW, my post above does not mean I excuse the excesses of the 'Christians' during the Crusades. But implying that Islam is a peaceful religion with a sedate, calm and rational group of followers is revisionist history. Little has changed to this day with either of those groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Barry Finn
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 11:15 PM

BB
"Iran is not a party to UNCLOS, nor to its predecessor, the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone."

And as far as my property line, "it was never in dispute". Why would you compare my small, private domain to the borders of a nation?

As to the taken of the 15 sailors being illegal, if that is in fact the case, I can only say that we are guilty of far worst when we take foreign nationals & civilians, from foreign soils & secertly ship them foreign to secert jails to be held incognito & tortured. "Extraordinary Rendition" violates human & civil rights
violates the Geneva Conventions & is a crime against humanity & a war crime. The Iranians look like cub scouts along side of US.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 12:17 AM

"He has the opportunity to upstage the Iranian government, show the people of both Iran and Britain that they can be made of brass from time to time" -

(Not sure if being made of brass is a good thing or a bad thing, but) it WOULD be nice if these great statesmen would take the "potlatch" approach to their power struggles - humiliate your foe by heaping an embarrassment of riches on him - might help with that pesky little problem of the unjust distribution of the world's wealth, too -

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 03:00 AM

Finn, by the "logic" of the Middle East, if your neighbour decides the boundary puts your garden in his garden, then it is a "disputed boundary", and by your logic he can now claim you are a peeoping tom in his back garden, while you are sitting on a deckchair soaking up the sun in yours.

I usually agree with Dianavan and disagree with Bearded Bruce (albeit I disagree with the usual professional Irishmen) but on this thread it seems to me that DV is simply barking mad and BB displays both rational thought and mastery of the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 03:26 AM

Gee, Richard, maybe you could be a little more specific. It seems to me that Iran definitely came out of this smelling like a rose while the British had to eat their words.

Perhaps its because I referred to the U.S. backing the Arab-Sunnis in Iran. Gee, Richard, do you think they might be backing the Arab-Sunni insurgency in Iraq, too? You seem to be a big fan of the Sunnis so maybe thats why you think I'm mad.

Hmmm, maybe its because I think Iran has a right to defend its territory against Arab-Sunnis, or Brits or the U.S. or whoever..

You know, if Iraqis had done what the British did, I might have come to a different conclusion being that they're neighbors and all but...unless you can prove to me that the Brits had a U.N. mandate to be skirting the borders of Iraq and Iran in an inflatable, well - lets just say I think they got exactly what they deserved.

They were poking at a hornets nest and they got stung.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: ard mhacha
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 04:23 AM

Poor demented Bearded Bruce, the USA and Britain are foreign usurpers as far as Iraq and Iran are concerned, that hole is becoming ever deeper, thousands of dead because of the plundering, blundering goons in the Bush government, followed into this disaster by his poodle Blair, surely common sense tells that it is time to GO.
As for the blood-bath which is supposed to take place after the war-criminals leave, what do you believe is happening now?.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Billy Suggers
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 06:23 AM

We're declaring peace with Iran, as they turned out to be cheeky chaps with a GSOH. They're now looking for ard mhacha instead as Mr Bush thinks his name sounds like it ought to have a beard on it
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 06:46 AM

Bridge, by your logic you must be drowning in your neighbor's garden or pool.
Here's where the mid east logic differs from the British, the Brits have been cossing borders illegally for the past millennium & claiming they've a God given right to. Once again,,,,,

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 08:10 AM

"Iran definitely came out of this smelling like a rose "

Jeesh, that's not the whiff I'm getting from that direction ...

"the British had to eat their words" -

Which words are those, exactly?

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Charley Noble
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 09:24 AM

Guest meself-

I do like your suggestion that Western powers try to "humiliate your foe by heaping an embarrassment of riches on him..."

What do we have to lose except for some cheap imported trinkets from China?

It would really be difficult for the hard liners in Iran to organize a protest march on our embassies because of that. Who knows, the leaders might even be amused and be provoked into sending out pastries to all of the above.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:16 AM

There were drawbacks to the competitive potlatch - but it would make more sense to exhaust your country's resources by ostentatious give-away in order to gain political objectives than by warfare which not only exhausts material resources but also wastes the cream of a generation. And after you have blown your wad on a potlatch, then your enemy has to buckle down and get to work for as many years as it will take him to produce and accumulate the goods to at least equal, but preferably exceed, what you gave him.

In a number of aboriginal cultures, in various parts of the world, social status is achieved by how much you give away, rather than by how much you horde. This is how they deal with the problem of unequal distribution of wealth. We get the smallest taste of that when some moneybags makes a display of endowing a charitable foundation or an art gallery.

The colonial authorities tried to stop the potlatch precisely BECAUSE it limited long-term accumulation of capital. The potlatch was seen as thoroughly incompatible with the new order, even subversive of it ...

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: GUEST,GPS
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:28 PM

Would the rogue who two weeks ago fiddled with the settings of the system please stand up and take responsibility for this silly and dangerous prank!

Oh and CIA as well as MOSAD you may not take the credit for the idea!

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Peace
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:32 PM

It's MOSSAD.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 02:12 PM

From Time:

What Message Was Iran Sending?
Wednesday, Apr. 04, 2007 By SCOTT MACLEOD/CAIRO

Already facing U.N. sanctions and speculation about a U.S. attack over its nuclear program, Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines on March 23 had the makings of a new Middle East crisis that could spin dangerously out of control. So, Tehran's decision to free the captives in what President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called a "gift to the British people" was a notable victory for Iranian pragmatists over hard-liners — one that could even build momentum within Tehran's power structure and in Western capitals for a diplomatic solution to the standoff over Iran's uranium-enrichment program.

Iran claimed it had arrested the Britons for illegally entering Iranian waters, a charge London hotly disputed. Although President Bush declared that Iran had seized the 15 sailors and marines as "hostages," Iran's treatment of its captives from the start indicated that it sought to make a point rather than provoke a war. In contrast to images of blindfolded hostages when Iranians stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, Iranian footage this time showed the British captives in their uniforms sitting together and eating — a diplomatic affront, but hardly a menacing scene.

The capture of the Britons seemed designed to send three messages to London, and more importantly, to Washington:


Don't think about attacking Iran, because it has the capacity to threaten Western interests in the Gulf and throughout the Middle East, directly as well as through allies in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine;

Expect Iran to instigate trouble if the West continues to punish Iran for what it sees simply as exercising as its legal right to nuclear technology; and,

Iran will play tit-for-tat if U.S. forces continue arresting Iranian officials working inside Iraq, as in the Jan. 11 raid on an Iranian consular facility in Erbil where five Iranians were detained.

Iran's sudden decision to release the Britons may mean that the Western pressure on the Iranian regime is bearing fruit. A day after the Britons were taken captive, the U.N. Security Council passed the second set of sanctions against Iran in three months — and a third round of sanctions is anticipated if Iran does not freeze its uranium-enrichment program, which the U.S. fears could enable Tehran to produce a nuclear weapon. As Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns told the Senate last week, "Despite the fulminations of President Ahmadinejad, Iran is not impervious to financial and diplomatic pressure."

But the release of the Britons could also mean that Iran has achieved some of its objectives. The surprise announcement came just a day after the sudden release of an abducted Iranian diplomat in Iraq, who Iranian officials claimed had been arrested on U.S. orders. British, American and Iraqi officials denied any connection between the freed Iranian and release of the Britons. Iran also disclosed on Wednesday that its embassy in Iraq had finally been granted access to the five Iranians detained at Erbil.

The peaceful end to the naval dispute is a victory for diplomacy. Iranian and British leaders maintained constant contact through direct diplomatic channels, and kept their heads amid rising domestic political pressure on both ends to act tough. In particular, the outcome is a significant boost for Iran's pragmatists led by Ali Larijani, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, and who is also Tehran's chief nuclear negotiator. Last year, Ahmadinejad's hard-line opposition had helped scuttle a deal Larijani was crafting in discussion with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana that involved a temporary suspension of Iran's enrichment program. In announcing the release of the Britons, Ahmadinejad signaled that the more radical faction of Iran's leadership would not stand in the way of Larijani's dealings with the West. The question, now, is whether Larijani can achieve the same success in guiding Tehran to a compromise in Iran's nuclear showdown — and whether the U.S., following Britain's example, is willing to give diplomacy a real chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 02:56 PM

From the Wall Street Journal:

Mahmoud's 'Gift'
The right way to exploit any fissures in the Tehran regime.

Thursday, April 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Having kidnapped 15 British sailors and marines in Iraqi waters and paraded them before the world making "confessions," Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad now says he is pardoning them as a "gift" to the British people. As we go to press, Iran's news agency reports the Brits will go home today.

While we can be grateful for the captives' release, no one should conclude from this episode that the Iranian government is taking a new peaceful turn, or that its President has become Mahmoud the Munificent. If anything, the events of the past two weeks show the opposite--notably the influence inside the regime of the Revolutionary Guards, who provoked the incident by seizing the sailors in Iraqi waters only hours after a unanimous vote in the U.N. Security Council to stiffen sanctions against Iran's nuclear program. Their objective was clearly to create some negotiating leverage and humiliate Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is leaving office later this year. Hostage-taking has been a tool of Iranian foreign policy going back to 1979, and this was merely another turn of that wheel.

Mr. Blair's decision to use diplomacy to gain the sailors' release paid off, but as the second week of the hostage crisis neared its end, it was also becoming clear that British patience was beginning to wear thin. The implicit warning in the Prime Minister's comment Tuesday that the next 48 hours would be "fairly critical" would not have gone unnoticed in Tehran. That the mullahs are now releasing the hostages is not an act of charity but a recognition that the hostage-taking would cost Iran more diplomatically--and perhaps militarily--than it would gain.

One benefit of this episode is that it provoked the press to start reporting on the Revolutionary Guards and elite al Quds force. These highly trained and well-financed fighters are the regime's instruments of violence from Lebanon and the Palestinian territories--where they arm Hezbollah and Hamas--to Iraq, where Iranian-supplied weapons are killing American and British soldiers.

For that reason, it's important to separate Iran's hostage-taking from the entirely lawful arrest by the U.S. of five Iranians in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil in January. Some hyperbolic British reporting has linked the two, but the Iranians were part of a Revolutionary Guard network that was supplying money and weapons to killers in Iraq. It would be a bad sign, and only encourage more hostage-taking, if the five Iranians were now released quickly in what Iran might claim is a quid pro quo.





Britain made it clear from the outset of the crisis that its foreign policy would not be held hostage to the mullahs. In this, it found scant support from its European allies. They preferred the usual appeasement track, calling for "dialogue" and refusing Britain's request to threaten Iran with the end of government export guarantees if it did not release the sailors. The European Union bravely issued a declaration "deploring" the arrests while the U.N. weighed in with a statement of "grave concern."
The British military has performed magnificently in Iraq, where 136 servicemen and women have been killed. Even so, with the release of the sailors, we would like to learn the full story of why the hostages seemingly cooperated so readily with their captors. Videotaped confessions, in which the accused apologize for misdeeds they didn't commit, are staples of Iran's authoritarian regime, and the British apologies to their captors may well have been coerced. Yet it's hard to know what to make of yesterday's pictures of the sailors--in suits, not uniforms--smiling and shaking hands with a beaming Mr. Ahmadinejad. These weren't civilians but sailors presumably trained to resist propaganda displays.

While the release of the Brits is cause for celebration, we hope the world won't forget those who aren't getting out--the myriad political prisoners, often democrats, in Iran's dungeons. These are the truly courageous people the West has paid too little attention to as it focuses on diplomacy and business with Iran. Given his regime's persecution of Iran's tiny Christian community, Mr. Ahmadinejad's invocation of Easter as a reason for freeing the sailors is particularly offensive.

Many will be tempted to interpret the release of the hostages as evidence of Iran's essential reasonableness, conveniently forgetting who started the crisis in the first place. The lesson of these two weeks is not to slip back into negotiations with Iran in the hope of exploiting some division that may or may not exist between "moderates" and Mr. Ahmadinejad's allies.

The lesson is for the world to increase the diplomatic and sanctions pressure in response to Iran's threatening behavior and continued nuclear program. That is what will produce more fissures in the regime--as more and more Iranians understand the price of isolation and conclude that the mullahs and their Revolutionary Guards are leading them down a dangerous, losing road.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: GUEST,Phot in Devon
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 02:57 PM

If you watch the Sky aerial footage you might just see me at work! (Black trousers, white shirt and camera!)

Wassail!! Chris

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Charley Noble
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 04:06 PM

BB

Well, you can't say that the Wall Street Journal doesn't know which side its bread is buttered on:

"it's important to separate Iran's hostage-taking from the entirely lawful arrest by the U.S. of five Iranians in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil..." (Emphasis added)

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Peace
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 04:09 PM

LOL

Colateral damage (new speak "Oops!").

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 06:05 PM

I think we can now all be thankful that they are home. Apologists on both sides can revel in the fact that their side saved face. Sabres can be rattled by all the protagonists here without fear of repercusion. Mysongenistic Brit haters can carry on living alongside the nuke the Arab brigade safe in the knowledge that the service personel who risk life and limb to keep them safe, on both sides, will continue to be used as disposable pawns in the big power game. Sad, vary sad.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 08:24 PM

As for "given his regime's persecution of Iran's tiny Christian community" - which doesn't begin to compare with what has been happening to the ancient Christian community in Iraq, which was quite sizable until the occupation.
..........
It appears that the Iranian diplomatic staff taken prisoner by the Americans, and still held incommunicado in face of protests by the Iraqi government are now to be allowed consular access. It has been suggested that this might be tied up with the British sailor episode, since the refusal to allow such consular access was becoming very embarrassing for the British government.