I'm saying, heric, that when a country does something like detain some sailors or soldiers from another country in a border area, they always say that they were justified because the other guys were trespassing. The Iranians in the actual incident probably fully believed the British were trespassing. It may have been an error...by the British...or by the Iranians. If so, neither one will want to admit publicly that they made an error. This sort of thing happens. People's pride gets in the way of finding agreement, just like it does on this forum in these discussions.

And you and I are in no position to decide who made an error or who is lying, are we?

Accordingly, I see no particular reason to take political sides in the matter.

When I was saying was that when we take people prisoner they are not called "hostages" by the media. I was just pointing out a peculiarity of human psychology...because one person's hostage can be another person's legitimate prisoner when it comes to politics. It just depends whose story you believe, that's all. Our media will NEVER call a bunch of Iranians that we take prisoner "hostages" (whether they truly are or not).

That's what I was drawing notice to. Certain words are used in the media to charge people up and get them mad. "Hostages" is one such word. It's not necessarily an appropriate word in this case, because this is a squabble over a purported border violation.