BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 05:09 PM

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam?

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 05:08 PM

Have the sailors decided which group they are going to join?

Taliban, Hezbollah, Al Quida, Brothers of ISlam, Peoples front of Iraq, IRaqi peoples front, Love boat IRanian style, Perky Turks for Islam...

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Peace
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 04:49 PM

I have NO trust at all in the governments of Iran, US or Great Britain. (I ain't too happy with Canada's either!) Bastards the lot of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 03:25 PM

Teribus-

I'm still not convinced that the boundary of Iraqi territorial waters is beyond dispute. "Unsettled" between Iraq and Iran might be a more accurate description.

However, I do appreciate your other thoughts on process and critique.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 02:05 PM

Charlie,

I have absolutely no doubt at all that the 15 UK service-personnel were adbucted illegally inside Iraqi territorial waters, by units of Irans Revolutionary Guard.

The Board of Inquiry will look into how this force managed to get into position to effect that abduction undetected by the "mothership", the Boarding Party itself, or by the ship's helicopter.

Commodore Lambert will have to explain the following:
- Relative positioning of the forces under his command
- Inadequate support of the boarding party under his orders
- The decision to re-task the ship's helicopter when it may have been the only unit capable of providing close support to the Cornwall's Boarding Party

From what has been stated by senior naval personnel and by what has so far been reported the whole operation seems to have conducted in a very slack, almost lackadaisical fashion. If this is established Commodore Nick Lambert RN will face the heat for it as he, and he alone, was the man in charge - Rank may have its privileges, it also has its responsibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 09:48 AM

I would hope that there would be no rush to judgment in the formal Board of Inquiry on Commodore Nick Lambert's decisions on the day that his boarding party was captured by the Iranians. His descretion may not earn him a medal but direct intervention would have risked the loss of lives and a major international crisis. I for one will be interested to see how this one gets played out.

With regard to the Defense Minister, I don't have a clue about what role he really had in the "mismanagement" of the public relations campaign following the release of the captured sailors and marines.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 08:12 AM

Thanks, T.

8-{E

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 08:01 AM

Board of Inquiry will establish the facts of the incident and examine the reasons why things happened the way that they did. The Board will then submit its findings, from which Court Martial proceedings may, or may not, be initiated against the Commanding Officer.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 06:54 AM

"Commodore Nick Lambert, an experienced officer who has completed four tours in the Gulf region, is the subject of a board of inquiry into why the boarding party was left exposed and vulnerable when the Iranians closed in."


Actually, that should be normal procedure in any incident. Can any Royal Navy types tell me the rules there?



"Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it. "

What, that the RN is interested in determining the facts instead of jumping to political-based conclusions?

Sounds to me like they are being profesional.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 02:09 AM

From the Herald -

"Military sources confirmed yesterday the British commander of the coalition flotilla which allowed 15 naval personnel to be captured by Iranian Revolutionary Guards could face internal disciplinary action.

Commodore Nick Lambert, an experienced officer who has completed four tours in the Gulf region, is the subject of a board of inquiry into why the boarding party was left exposed and vulnerable when the Iranians closed in."

Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Gulliver
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 10:45 PM

If only the rest of the Cabinet would follow suit...

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 09:00 PM

This thread may be on it's final plunge to the bottom but may yet be resurrected by the resignation of Des Browne, Defence Minister. He's agreed that the buck stops with him, so now we're waiting to see whether he jumps before he's pushed! Personally I think he should go because this publicity stunt has become a total shambles.

Arnie at work

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 10:32 AM

Ron-

It really is a treasure and I'm amazed I've never run across it before.

Maybe I'll post it as a separate thread so more folks are likely to read it. This thread is evidently on its final plunge to the bottom.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:10 PM

Excellent. Almost a Gilbert flavor.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 10:19 PM

I finally ran across an appropriate song:

From Louis Untermeyer, ed. (1885–1977). Modern British Poetry. 1920, p. 73.

By Anthony C. Deane. 1870–?

The Ballad of the Billycock

IT was the good ship Billycock, with thirteen men aboard,
Athirst to grapple with their country's foes,—
A crew, 'twill be admitted, not numerically fitted
To navigate a battleship in prose.

It was the good ship Billycock put out from Plymouth Sound,
While lustily the gallant heroes cheered,
And all the air was ringing with the merry bo'sun's singing,
Till in the gloom of night she disappeared.

But when the morning broke on her, behold, a dozen ships,
A dozen ships of France around her lay,
(Or, if that isn't plenty, I will gladly make it twenty),
And hemmed her close in Salamander Bay.

Then to the Lord High Admiral there spake a cabin-boy:
"Methinks," he said, "the odds are somewhat great,
And, in the present crisis, a cabin-boy's advice is
That you and France had better arbitrate!"

"Pooh!" said the Lord High Admiral, and slapped his manly chest,
"Pooh! That would be both cowardly and wrong;
Shall I, a gallant fighter, give the needy ballad-write
No suitable material for song?"

"Nay—is the shorthand-writer here?—I tell you, one and all,
I mean to do my duty, as I ought;
With eager satisfaction let us clear the decks for action
And fight the craven Frenchmen!" So they fought.

And (after several stanzas which as yet are incomplete,
Describing all the fight in epic style)
When the Billycock was going, she'd a dozen prizes towing
(Or twenty, as above) in single file!

Ah, long in glowing English hearts the story will remain,
The memory of that historic day,
And, while we rule the ocean, we will picture with emotion
The Billycock in Salamander Bay!

P.S.—I've lately noticed that the critics—who, I think,
In praising my productions are remiss—
Quite easily are captured, and profess themselves enraptured,
By patriotic ditties such as this,

For making which you merely take some dauntless Englishmen,
Guns, heroism, slaughter, and a fleet—
Ingredients you mingle in a metre with a jingle,
And there you have your masterpiece complete!

Why, then, with labour infinite, produce a book of verse
To languish on the "All for Twopence" shelf?
The ballad bold and breezy comes particularly easy—
I mean to take to writing it myself!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 01:51 PM

Lucrative, indeed!

I understand the Iranians are now rushing the publication of a book with their side of the story, complete with full-color glossy pictures. They probably have a best-seller in the making.

I can't help but admire their marketing acumen.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:56 AM

tacky

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 07:27 AM

Interesting. I wonder what the reaction in the US would have been if the sailors had been American. I have to say I have no idea--there's certainly a lot of exploitation of situations here to make money. Would there have been huge protests? Hard to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 07:22 AM

Julia May, London
April 11, 2007

THE 15 British sailors seized by Iranian forces have been banned from selling their stories to the media after a Government reversal, but not before two detainees gave interviews for apparent five-figure sums.

On Monday, the Government banned media deals for the navy personnel — who were released by the Iranian Government on April 4 — following widespread protest about their special treatment. In a statement, Defence Secretary Des Browne admitted the Government had "not reached a satisfactory outcome" by allowing the sailors to make money from media interviews.

There is a lot more on this story and it can be found by typing in sailors stories on Google. No doubt there are lots of other sources of the same information.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 07:16 AM

Ron Davies, they have but I understood that it was in all further cases. Certainly sums were agreed with some of them and stories did appear in newspapers at the weekend and also on television programmes.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 06:48 AM

My understanding is that the UK government has now rescinded permission for the sailors to tell their stories for pay--is this not so? If it is, the argument becomes moot.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 05:58 AM

Peace, I knew you'd want full reasons!!

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Peace
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 05:48 AM

I'm willing to listen.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 05:27 AM

And the difference between what they are doing and what Nixon, Lewinsky, Churchill, etc., did with books is what?

There's quite a lot of difference IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Peace
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:26 PM

Or Brickhill, bader, . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Peace
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:25 PM

And the difference between what they are doing and what Nixon, Lewinsky, Churchill, etc., did with books is what?

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Gulliver
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:19 PM

If I had lost a loved one in Iraq I would find it hard to stomach.

Agreed.

One can see their colleagues, green with envy, queuing up to try to get kidnapped, thinking of juicy and lucrative stories to cancoct for the gutter press once they are freed.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 04:17 PM

Now that you have me trembling in my boots, can you please return to the subject?

Re: The British Hero, warriors who are capitalizing on their adventure.

I'm sure the British government will heavily censor anything they have to say. As such, it becomes free propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Dickey
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:46 PM

Al-Jazeera TV on January 30, 2007.

Mahmoud Al-Sayyed Al-Dugheim: We consider the Zionist plan to be dangerous to the Arab nation, but even more dangerous is the Safavid, Sassanian, Iranian plan to restore the Empire of Cyrus, which would range from Greece to Egypt, and the Arabian Peninsula, in addition to other regions. The Zionist plan was unable to penetrate the ranks of Islamic unity, the way the Safavid Iranian plan did. The collaborators with the Zionists throughout the Arab and Islamic world are too ashamed to reveal themselves, while the collaborators with the Sassanian, Safavid plan boast about it in public. Wasn't it one of their leaders who said yesterday: "We are a Lebanon in Iran, and an Iran in Lebanon"?
While the Zionist plan targets Jerusalem, which is holy to us, the Safavid plan targets Mecca and Al-Madina. If you go back to their books, which they do not mention in the media, yet these books exist and are accepted by them - they claim that their Hidden Imam will come to Mecca and Al-Madina, destroy the Al-Haram Mosque and the Mosque of the Prophet, and will dig in the graves of Abu Bakr and Omar, and burn them both, and then he will command the wind to blow them away. He will also dig in the grave of Aisha, the Mother of the Believers, and will execute her. All this is part of their plan.
The Shah was most definitely one of the sworn enemies of the Arabs, but he did not legislate a law to persecute the Sunni Muslims, who constitute one-third of the Iranian population. The new Iranian constitution persecutes Sunni Muslims in Iran, while it gives constitutional rights to the the Zoroastrians, the Jews, and the Christians. This constitution denies the Sunnis these rights. There is no Sunni mosque in Tehran, even though there are over two million Sunni Muslims there.
All these actions are part of the 50-year plan of the Protocols of the Mullahs of Qom. This plan has been published and is well known. It aims to infiltrate the Sunni Muslim countries, to annihilate them, and to sow civil strife between the ruler and his subjects, all within fifty years.
Listen to the following secret communique: "At the command and with the guidance of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Guide of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and under the title 'The Shi'a of Ali Are Victorious', the extended conference of the world's Shiites was held in the holy city of Qom. It was attended by the leaders of all Shiite parties and religious authorities. The conference decided that a global organization must be established to annihilate the people who are left, to examine and analyze the current regional situation, to build a military force, to infiltrate governmental institutions through the women's organizations everywhere, and then to infiltrate intelligence agencies, and to finish off the Sunni leaders, even by assassination." This is the plan of the Hashashin, which still exists. There is a fatwa by their imams and religious authorities, which permits the trading and planting of hashish, in order to profit and to cover up their crimes.
While the American target is economic oil, the Iranian Persian goal is to massacre the Arabs, as is evident in all their writings.

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1380

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 12:10 PM

Old news or not I don't understand why this was allowed. Despite the promises to give some money to charity people will make a lot of money out of it. Also, some of the hostages were given a higher profile than others so they are likely to make more money than others. If I had lost a loved one in Iraq I would find it hard to stomach.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Peace
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 11:53 AM

That is old news.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Gulliver
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:55 AM

Those doughty warriors who endured so much--being force-fed chicken jalfrezi and nan bread, tortured by being forced to sleep in cold beds, resisting for whole days before finally confessing to have trespassed on Iranian territory--are now, with the full approval of their superiors, selling their stories to the British tabloid press for six-figure sums.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6537901.stm

Meanwhile Al-Alam videos of their captivity show several of the sailors and marines eating at a long dining table, watching football on television and playing table tennis and chess.

Expect to see them on Big Brother any day now!

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 01:35 PM

BB-

Actually some of your contributions were editorials and some--in fact most-- were columns. There's a difference.    Columns do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff--only of the particular author. And I think you know that.    But thanks for giving the names of the column authors. Hope you continue to do that.

As I pointed out elsewhere, a further complication as regards the Wall St Journal is that the reporting--often--directly contradicts the editorials. And this was the case in the editorial you cited.

The WSJ editorials can virtually always be counted on to provide the more-Bushite-than-thou stance. But the reporting actually considers many other germane facts and possible interpretations. Pardon my prejudice in stating my belief that the reporting usually makes a lot more sense.

But the editorials are good for comic relief--for calm reasoning, not so much.

I wonder why you never seem to cite the reporting.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Barry Finn
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 12:17 PM

So what's our excuse, that we're a little bit younger than Britian & that for being so young that we did't know any better. It seems like the pupil is surpassing the master.

Barry

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

Let's see what we can learn from this incident before it's buried by the pundits.

Yes, that Bush, Blair & Co should get the hell out of that part of the world. The Brits fought innumerable wars there--India, Burma, Afghanistan (where they got their asses kicked more than once)--since they started colonizing. Now they're back again, on account of oil this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 08:29 PM

Diana may be right on this one. I hope she's not but it's very difficult to have much faith in the Bush Administration really having an interest in creating a strong democratic Iraq. Hell, they have no interest in a strong democratic United States!

I also would urge folks not the cherry-pick their history. There is enough history around to condemn most religious groups, ethnic groups, or nation states.

Let's see what we can learn from this incident before it's buried by the pundits.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 08:24 PM

"And I won't whirewash Bush and his crew, OK?"

"Whirewash"? Do you mean, "wirewash", as with a wire-brush? If so, go ahead with our blessing ...

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Peace
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 06:25 PM

The Crusades were about 'Christianity'. Many of the later invasions you allude to were not done by countries as part of a religious war or attitude that says "We are doing this in the name of _________ (insert name of god/God there)." Read the post I responded to. And please don't cherry-pick.

I am as sure as you that most people who follow Islam today are folks who would prefer peace to war. Most Americans are like that, too. But don't whitewash Muslim fundies. And I won't whirewash Bush and his crew, OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Gulliver
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 06:19 PM

But implying that Islam is a peaceful religion with a sedate, calm and rational group of followers is revisionist history.

Peace, the vast majority of Muslims are indeed peace-loving (as are the vast majority of Christians, Buddhists, etc.). I've visited many Muslim countries (including Iran and Afghanistan).

Your listing of a (relatively small) number of countries that have been invaded by Muslims in the past pales in comparison with the number of countries invaded by Christians. Just to mention recent history: Who fought the bloody battles of WW1 and WW2? Who bombed the civilians in Germany cities? Who dropped the atom bombs? Who was responsible for the deaths in South-east Asia? Not to mention other bloody conflicts in the Balkans, Spain, Northern Ireland, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Peace
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 01:37 PM

There seems to be a technical problem. It has been being addressed by people in the Help section (see top right of page just under Go)

A glitch - submit posting not working sometim

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 01:36 PM

technical problem- I can't get a post into the "Popular Opinions" thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 01:32 PM

Was that a result of censorship or is there something technically wrong with Mudcat?

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 01:30 PM

"Now it is far too early to say that the particular terrorist act that killed our forces was an act committed by terrorists that were backed by any elements of the Iranian regime, so I make no allegation in respect of that particular incident,"

"Just as we rejoice at the return of our 15 service personnel so today we are also grieving and mourning for the loss of our soldiers in Basra, who were killed as the result of a terrorist act," Blair said.

This is the same way that the U.S. led the public to believe that Saddam was responsible for 911!

Link Iran to terrorism in Iraq so that you have justification for an invasion of Iran. The five Iranian hostages were not the intended targets. They meant to kidnap men of higher rank but failed because the Kurds tipped them off. Now Iraq wants the Iranian released. How can the U.S. continue to detain these men if the Iraqis think it is wrong? Who has the power?

It is my understanding that while it may be true that Iran is supplying Iraqi Shiites with weapons, it is to protect the civilian population from the Sunni insurgency (something the military seems incapable of doing). They are involved in what is considered protection and reprisal killings. They are not targetting the U.S. or Iraqi military.

The deaths of U.S. and coalition forces are due to the Sunni insurgency and/or al-Qaeda. Al-Sadr wants the U.S. out because the U.S. is using Iraq as an excuse to start a war with Iran. If the U.S. would leave, the Mahdi militia and the Iraqi army would be able to quell the insurgency and allow the Shiite dominated, Iraqi government to control their own destiny.

I may be wrong and if I am, you are free to disagree but it appears that the U.S. has no intention of allowing a Shiite dominated, Iraqi government to succeed and that they are allowing the insurgency to gain momentum to justify their presence in Iraq. The end game is to invade Iran to eliminate Hezbollah and Hamas. All of this so that the U.S./Israel can gain dominance in the Middle East. If its true, the coalition forces are being used as cannon fodder in a war that will destroy more than Iraq and Iran.

Please tell me I'm wrong or bring the coalition forces home immediately!

For some odd reason, this post is not getting through. I'll hit submit again and hope this isn't a multiple post. What is going on? O.K., I've tried four times. Time to take a break and try later. Maybe I'm being censored.

I know, I'll remove the part about the Z*&^%$# conspiracy and see what happens. I do believe I'm being blocked.

Hmmm - Still no luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 11:50 AM

UK sailors 'blindfolded, isolated'
POSTED: 11:43 a.m. EDT, April 6, 2007

Story Highlights• British service members say they were subjected to "psychological pressure"
• UK to conduct inquiry into capture of 15 military personnel by Iran
• British boarding operations in Persian Gulf suspended, head of navy says
• 15 sailors and marines reunited with families Thursday after return to UK


LONDON, England (CNN) -- The 15 British military personnel captured by Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf were subjected to "psychological pressure" and kept in isolation during their detention, the group's officers said on Friday.

Lt. Felix Carman of the British Royal Navy, addressing a news conference at a military base in Chivenor, southwestern England, said the sailors and marines were well outside Iranian waters when the incident occurred -- despite previous statements to the contrary while in Iranian custody.

"Irrespective of what has been said in the past, when we were detained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard ... I can clearly state we were 1.7 nautical miles from Iranian waters," Carman said. (Read the full statement)

The sailors and marines, who were seized from patrol boats on March 23, returned to the UK on Thursday after 13 days in Iranian captivity.

Lt. Carman said they were kept in isolation, interrogated and blindfolded, and subjected to "aggressive questioning and rough handling."

Members of the group had been presented with two options, said Lt. Carman: To admit having strayed into Iranian waters or face up to seven years in prison in Iran.

Capt. Christopher Air of the British Royal Marines said they had "feared the worst" during their captivity when they had been bound, blindfolded and lined up against a wall while they heard the sound of weapons being cocked. "There was a lot of trickery and mind games being played," he said. (Watch the sailors describe their experiences in captivity )

Several of the captives appeared on Iranian state television during their detention to apologize for their actions. They were also filmed meeting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and receiving gifts prior to their return to the UK. (Watch how Iran's PR plan unfolded )

Faye Turney, the one woman among the captives, had been singled out and "used as a propaganda tool," Carman said.

Air praised Turney for maintaining her dignity. He said she had been told the rest of the group had returned home and she was the only one still being held.

Air said a "conscious decision" had been taken not to engage the Iranians who took them captive. (Watch the sailors' denial that they were in Iranian waters )

"It was clear they arrived with a planned intent," said Air. "Had we resisted there would have been a mighty fight that we could not have won and with consequences that would have major strategic impacts."

Air said some of the Iranian sailors had been "deliberately aggressive and unstable."

"They rammed our boats and turned their heavy machine guns, RPG, and weapons on us. Another six boats were closing in on us. We realized that our efforts to reason with these people were not making any headway. Nor were we able to calm some of the individuals down... They boarded our boats, removed our weapons, and steered the boats towards the Iranian shore."

Able Seaman Arthur Batchelor said the 15's treatment by the Iranians had been "humane" but they had not been allowed to communicate with each other.

UK suspends boarding operations
Meanwhile, military sources said on Friday that Britain had suspended boarding operations in the Persian Gulf and launched a review into the circumstances that led to the 15's capture and detention.

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defence said a "detailed inquiry" was under way and that debriefings of the group would continue, the UK's Press Association reported.

First Sea Lord Jonathon Band, the head of the Royal Navy, confirmed boarding operations involving British forces had been suspended.

"For the moment we have stopped UK boarding operations," Band told BBC radio. "We will obviously do a complete review."

Band said the review of the incident would consider intelligence, equipment and procedures as well as examining the rules of engagement for British forces operating in the area.

He also defended the conduct of the 15 during their captivity, commenting that their "confessions" to Iranian state media appeared to have been made under "a certain amount of psychological pressure."

"From what I have seen of them on the television and I met them personally when they returned to their families yesterday, I think they acted with considerable dignity and a lot of courage," Band said.

He also rejected suggestions that the patrol had been "spying" and said there was "absolutely no doubt" they were in Iraqi waters.

"We are certainly not spying on them," he said. "The Iranians in that part of Iraqi territorial waters are not part of the scene."

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Charley Noble
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 08:50 AM

CNN was getting right to the heart of the matter last evening, focusing on what they described as "ill-fitting" the business suits that the British marines and sailors were attired in. The suits looked pretty sharp to me but, then, my tastes probably predate the current styles available in Iran.

BB-

Thanks for posting the editorials. I bet there are more out there to harvest.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 08:30 AM

Another editorial. Same paper.

Ditto again...


******************************************************************
Calming the Waters in the Gulf

By David Ignatius
Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A21

Here's an American acronym we ought to translate promptly into the Iranian language of Farsi: INCSEA.

It's shorthand for a May 1972 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union to prevent dangerous incidents at sea, and it's a model for how to begin reducing dangerous tensions with Iran.

The moment for such a dialogue is ripe, now that the Iranians have opted for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis they provoked two weeks ago when they seized15 British sailors and marines in disputed waters off the Iraqi coast. The British hostages are back home, but it's obvious that a better system is needed to avoid confrontations in the crowded waters of the northern Persian Gulf.

U.S. naval commanders with the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain have been interested for many months in the possibility of a "naval hotline." They know how quickly an incident in the Gulf could trigger an inadvertent escalation that could push the United States and Iran toward war. U.S. admirals are said to favor some system that would allow them to talk directly with the Iranian navy and, more important, with the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps naval forces that seized the British sailors.

The current system for avoiding confrontations is informal and haphazard. The U.S. Navy, in effect, draws imaginary lines in the Gulf and stays within those boundaries. By repeating the same patterns over and over, it signals to the Iranians that it doesn't have hostile intent. But one unplanned action -- a loose torpedo that strikes an American warship -- and the two nations could be on the verge of war.

"Our naval commanders are very concerned about confrontation coming out of misunderstanding," says Eric Thompson, who directs the international affairs group of the Center for Naval Analyses, a Washington think tank.

The INCSEA agreement was negotiated during the dark years of the Cold War, after a series of dangerous incidents involving the U.S. and Soviet navies. In May 1967, two Soviet warships collided with the American destroyer USS Walker while it was escorting a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Sea of Japan. That was part of an ongoing game of "chicken" at sea, with American jets routinely buzzing Soviet warships.

What finally prompted action was an incident involving a British ship. The aircraft carrier Ark Royal collided with a Soviet destroyer in November 1970, killing a number of Soviet sailors. Moscow decided to accept an American proposal for "Safety at Sea" talks, and the roiling waters began to calm.

The American assigned to lead the U.S. negotiating team was none other than John Warner, then undersecretary of the Navy and now a U.S. senator from Virginia. As the negotiations progressed, Warner invited the Soviet delegation to his house for dinner -- where they watched President Richard Nixon announce the mining of Haiphong Harbor in North Vietnam. The Russian admiral leading the Soviet delegation turned to Warner and said, "I need another bourbon; this matter is for the politicians to decide," according to naval historian David F. Winkler in his book "Cold War at Sea."

INCSEA talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran aren't likely to involve bourbon. But the Cold War agreement offers some useful guideposts. The United States and the Soviet Union pledged in 1972 to try to avoid collisions, to refrain from close surveillance and to inform each other before potentially dangerous maneuvers. Most important, they agreed to exchange information promptly through naval attachés in the event of an incident and to hold annual meetings to review how the agreement was working.

This confidence-building measure followed the 1963 hotline agreement that established a direct communications link between the White House and the Kremlin. The October 1962 Cuban missile crisis had convinced both sides that the risk of misunderstanding in a crisis was too high -- and that they needed some reliable channel for contact. Surely we are at a similar moment now with Iran, when the risks of escalation are obvious to everyone.

Perhaps the British, who have diplomatic relations with Iran, could begin the dialogue about an INCSEA for the Persian Gulf. The goal would be an official blessing for navy-to-navy contacts. The British could then draw in the United States for a broader discussion about naval "rules of the road" in the Gulf. It might make sense to embed this naval hotline in a larger framework for discussing regional security, similar to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which helped defuse Cold War tensions.

Crisis brings opportunity. The British sailors and marines are back home. The Iranians are patting themselves on the back for exercising restraint. Now it's time for discussions that begin to move Iran and the West back from the brink.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 08:27 AM

Another editorial from the Washington Post.

Ditto.

**********************************************************
End of a Standoff
Does Iran's seizure and release of British sailors demonstrate pragmatism -- or belligerence?
Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A20


THERE WAS relief in Britain yesterday as 15 sailors and marines abducted by Iran and held for 12 days arrived home. Their abrupt release on Wednesday defused a slowly mounting international crisis -- but not before Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had taken the opportunity to parade the service members once more before television cameras, accept their humiliating thanks and unjustified apologies, and reap the resulting propaganda benefits at home and abroad.

Mr. Ahmadinejad and Iran's hard-line Revolutionary Guard Corps were the clearest winners in the affair. They carried out an illegal attack against a major Western power and got away with it. They recouped some prestige following recent reverses in Iraq and in Iran's domestic politics, and they may have extracted some concessions from their enemies: An Iraqi diplomat arrested in Baghdad two months ago was released Tuesday, while U.S. officials announced that they might allow an Iranian envoy to meet five Iranians detained by American forces in northern Iraq.

Meanwhile, the release of the captives prompted a predictable debate in the West. Those who insist that "dialogue" and "engagement" should be the only means of dealing with the Islamic regime cited the sailors' release as proof that quiet diplomacy can work. Mr. Ahmadinejad's showy performance was preceded by a quiet phone call between a senior British official and Iran's national security chief, Ali Larijani. Mr. Larijani is the contact for European diplomats seeking a way out of the standoff over Iran's nuclear program; there are hopes he can deliver a constructive response by Iran on that far more momentous issue.

We share those hopes. Yet the rosy analyses play down the salient fact of the sailors' case: Iran showed it remains prepared to take aggressive and illegal action to defend its nuclear program and other Revolutionary Guard interests. Two days before the sailors were captured, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described international pressure against Iran as "illegal" and added, "if they take illegal actions we, too, can take illegal actions and will do so." He wasn't bluffing, and there's no reason to believe the aggression won't continue.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 08:20 AM

From the Washington Post. NOTE: This is an editorial. Obviously, if you disagree with it, it has no relationship to the facts of the matter. Who cares what people think, anyway?

*****************************************************************

Britain's Humiliation -- and Europe's

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A21

Iran has pulled off a tidy little success with its seizure and release of those 15 British sailors and marines: a pointed humiliation of Britain, with a bonus demonstration of Iran's intention to push back against coalition challenges to its assets in Iraq. All with total impunity. Further, it exposed the impotence of all those transnational institutions -- most prominently the European Union and the United Nations -- that pretend to maintain international order.

You would think maintaining international order means, at least, challenging acts of piracy. No challenge here. Instead, a quiet capitulation.

The quid pro quos were not terribly subtle. An Iranian "diplomat" who had been held for two months in Iraq is suddenly released. Equally suddenly, Iran is granted access to the five Iranian "consular officials" -- Revolutionary Guards who had been training Shiite militias to kill Americans and others -- whom the United States had arrested in Irbil in January. There may have been other concessions we will never hear about. But the salient point is that American action is what got this unstuck.

Where then was the European Union? These 15 hostages, after all, are not just British citizens but, under the laws of Europe, citizens of Europe. Yet the European Union lifted not a finger on their behalf.

Europeans talk all the time about their preference for "soft power" over the brute military force those Neanderthal Americans resort to all the time. What was the soft power available here? Iran's shaky economy is highly dependent on European credits, trade and technology. Britain asked the European Union to threaten to freeze exports, $18 billion a year of commerce. Iran would have lost its No. 1 trading partner. The European Union refused.

Why was nothing done? The reason is simple. Europe functions quite well as a free-trade zone, but as a political entity it is a farce. It remains a collection of sovereign countries with divergent interests. A freeze of economic relations with Europe would have shaken the Iranian economy to the core. "The Dutch," reported the Times of London, "said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue." So much for European solidarity.

Like other vaunted transnational institutions, the European Union is useless as a player in the international arena. Not because its members are venal but because they are sovereign. Their interests are simply not identical.

The problem is most striking at the United Nations, the quintessential transnational institution with a mandate to maintain international peace and order. There was a commonality of interest at its origin -- defeating Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. The war ended, but the wartime alliance of Britain, France, the United States, China and Russia proclaimed itself the guardian of postwar "collective security" as the Security Council.

Small problem: Their interests are not collective. They are individual. Take the Iranian nuclear program. Russia and China make it impossible to impose any serious sanctions. China has an interest in maintaining strong relations with a major energy supplier and is not about to jeopardize that over Iranian nukes that are no threat to it whatsoever. Russia sees Iran as a useful proxy in resisting Western attempts to dominate the Persian Gulf.

Ironically, the existence of transnational institutions such as the United Nations makes it harder for collective action against bad actors. In the past, interested parties would simply get together in temporary coalitions to do what they had to do. That is much harder now because they believe such action is illegitimate without the Security Council's blessing. The result is utterly predictable. Nothing has been done about the Iranian bomb. In fact, the only effective sanctions are those coming unilaterally out of the U.S. Treasury.

Remember the great return to multilateralism -- the new emphasis on diplomacy and "working with the allies" -- so widely heralded at the beginning of the second Bush administration? To general acclaim, the cowboys had been banished and the grown-ups brought back to town.

What exactly has the new multilateralism brought us? North Korea tested a nuclear device. Iran has accelerated its march to developing the bomb. The pro-Western government in Beirut hangs by a thread. The Darfur genocide continues unabated.

The capture and release of the British hostages illustrate once again the fatuousness of the "international community" and its great institutions. You want your people back? Go to the European Union and get stiffed. Go to the Security Council and get a statement that refuses even to "deplore" this act of piracy. (You settle for a humiliating expression of "grave concern.") Then turn to the despised Americans. They'll deal some cards and bail you out.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 07:22 AM

UK halts Gulf boarding operations
POSTED: 7:16 a.m. EDT, April 6, 2007

Story Highlights• UK to conduct inquiry into capture of 15 British service members by Iran
• British boarding operations in Persian Gulf suspended, head of navy says
• Captain told Sky News the patrol gathered intelligence on Iran as part of duties
• 15 sailors and marines reunited with families Thursday after return to UK from Iran

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Britain has suspended boarding operations in the Persian Gulf and launched a review into the circumstances that led to 15 military personnel being captured by Iranian forces last month, defense sources have confirmed.

The sailors and marines, who were seized from patrol boats on March 23, returned to the UK on Thursday after 13 days in Iranian captivity. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that the group had been "pardoned" as an Easter gift to the British people.

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defence said a "detailed inquiry" was under way and that debriefings of the group would continue at a military base in Chivenor, southwestern England, on Friday, the UK's Press Association reported.

Meanwhile, the head of the Royal Navy, First Sea Lord Jonathon Band, confirmed boarding operations involving British forces had been suspended.

"For the moment we have stopped UK boarding operations," Band told BBC radio. "We will obviously do a complete review."

Band said the review of the incident would consider intelligence, equipment and procedures as well as examining the rules of engagement for British forces operating in the area.

He also defended the conduct of the 15, several of whom appeared on Iranian state television during their captivity to apologize for their actions and were also filmed meeting Ahmadinejad and receiving gifts on behalf of the Iranian president prior to their return to the UK. (Watch how Iran's PR plan unfolded )

Band said the "confessions" by the group appeared to have been made under "a certain amount of psychological pressure."

"From what I have seen of them on the television and I met them personally when they returned to their families yesterday, I think they acted with considerable dignity and a lot of courage," Band said.

He also rejected suggestions that the patrol had been "spying" and said there was "absolutely no doubt" they were in Iraqi waters.

"We are certainly not spying on them," he said. "The Iranians in that part of Iraqi territorial waters are not part of the scene."

In an interview with British TV network Sky News, released on Thursday but conducted before the group's capture, the captain of the 15 said gathering intelligence on Iranian naval activity was a standard part of their duties.

Capt. Chris Air said patrols regularly encountered fishing boats in the area and talked to their crews about guarding against terrorism and piracy.

"Secondly, it's to gather int [intelligence]. If they do have any information, because they're here for days at a time, they can share it with us, whether it's about piracy or any sort of Iranian activity in the area," Air told Sky News.

"Obviously we're right by the buffer zone with Iran," Air added.

Sky News said on its Web site that it withheld the story until after the sailors' release to avoid giving the Iranians evidence for prosecuting the captives. (Timeline)

In a statement published by the Ministry of Defence's Web site on Thursday, the group said they were "extremely happy" to be back home.

"The past two weeks have been very difficult. But by staying together as a team we kept our spirits up, drawing great comfort from the knowledge that our loved ones would be waiting for us on our return to the UK," the statement said. (Watch the former detainees back on British soil )

No deals
Speaking in Downing Street as the British Airways flight carrying the 15 landed in London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair welcomed their release but reiterated that no diplomatic deals had been done to secure their release.

Blair said the group's homecoming was a reason to "rejoice" but noted that their arrival back to the UK came amid news of the deaths of four British soldiers in Iraq.

"We are glad that our service personnel return safe and unharmed from their captivity, but on the other, we return to the sober and ugly reality of what is happening through terrorism in Iraq," he said. (Watch Blair's remarks on the 15's release )

Blair said the group's sudden release vindicated the UK's "dual-track strategy" of pursuing bilateral dialogue while mobilizing international pressure, adding that their return had been secured "without any deal, without any negotiation, without any side agreement of any nature whatsoever."

He said the crisis had opened up new channels of communication with Tehran that it would be "sensible" to pursue, and he said it was the "right moment" to reflect on relations with Iran.

"But there cannot be any misunderstanding of the basis upon which that communication takes place," said Blair. "We have to hold absolutely firm in relation to support from any aspect of the Iranian regime for terrorism."

Responding to the claim by Ahmadinejad that the UK had sent a letter of apology to Tehran vowing not to intrude into Iranian territorial waters, Blair noted that the allegation was "nothing new" since British forces should not have been in Iranian waters, adding "obviously it's our contention that they weren't," in reference to the 15 marines and sailors.

Blair also dismissed suggestions that any deal had been made involving the release of Iranians held in Iraq.

"Let me make it absolutely clear: No, there are no agreements about any Iranian elements that may be held in Iraq because they're being held in Iraq as a result of the wrongful interference with the business in Iraq," Blair said.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: jimlad9
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 04:34 AM

Thank God that a peaceful conclusion has been reached.

I will try to be modest about the part I played in the situation.

I bet Mr Ahmadinejad is a catter and he read my other thread threatening to send him 4 cruise missiles.

As the immortal Corporal Jones said "They don't like it up 'em Sir".