BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 07:44 AM

BBC report

First BBC report with maps and locations.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 07:42 AM

Now that's perfectly clear isn't it? Nobody could have been confused then.... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 07:34 AM

Games the Iranians appear to be playing: source: ABC news.

According to British Vice Admiral Chester Style, the Iranians "provided a position on Sunday, a location that he said was in Iraqi waters"--1.7 nautical miles. By Tuesday, Iranian officials "provided a revised position 2 miles east, placing the British inside Iranian waters."

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 07:14 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6492705.stm
This is a report by a journalist on the Cornwall at the time.
It gives a background to the incident.
The Navy has now released co ordinates of the locations.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 06:44 AM

teribus - I asked a question. Why did the Brits board an Iranian vessel? It was not a statement. (Dianavan)

Dianavan,
you have asked a presuppositional question. Such questions cannot be answered in any meaningful sense. The polite way of reacting to such questions is to correct the statement made in the question. That's what Teribus has made. Just to repeat the question including the statement under dispute after the correction makes you look as if you had not read Teribus' post.

If the vessel was actually Japanese as Teribus' post says the question why the Brits board an Iranian vessel is complete nonsense. If you have information that the vessel was actually Iranian post it here.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 05:19 AM

Some commentators are saying that British forces may have been selected by the Iranians because their stricter rules of engagement made them a softer target.
The US forces were much more likely to defend themselves.
Had the Cornwall been on the spot, she could only have tried to block their course, not fire on them.
The Iranians would view the greater concern for life as a weakness to be exploited.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 05:05 AM

Ard, you just feel that youngsters will find it even harder to cope.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 04:24 AM

Keith 15 YOUNG sailors? what the hell good would 15 old sailors be, why always add YOUNG soldiers, sailors, they wouldn`t do much climbing the rigging if they were ancient mariners, they would have been safe and sound on Lake Windermere, and that IS guarding the home waters.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 04:15 AM

According to Terri Judd's article, the "Cornwall's" Helo had overflown the Japanese vessel and reported that all was well. The helo was ordered to continue its surveillence duties in another area. The boarding party then completed their inspection of the vessel and returned to their boats. At this time "Cornwall" lost radio contact with the boarding party and the helo was ordered back to check out the situation. As it flew over the Japanese ship the helo pilots saw the crew of the ship waving and pointing towards the Iranian side of the waterway to where six Iranian patrol boats were escorting the two British RIBs towards Iran.

After all the dust has settled, and hopefully after "Cornwall's" crew members have been returned unharmed, I trust that the Ministry of Defence fully investigate the circumstances that led to this incident. Personally I feel that the Officer in Command of the situation, and the Commanding Officer of HMS Cornwall should be brought to book for it, everything about the whole episode sounds as though this boarding party were sent off in a very slap-dash manner and that sufficient measures were not put in place, and kept in place, to ensure their security - in a potentially hazardous or dangerous situation that is inexcusable.

I would imagine, or least hope, that the OIC has drastically reviewed procedures for searching suspect vessels and put in place strong measures to deter interference by third parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 03:45 AM

Amnesty report on Iran

The 15 young sailors are being held an interrogated by these people.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 03:45 AM

What's the matter Baz? Dog came off the "sidewalk" and bit you?

It looks strongly as if the boats knew where they were, so the only argument that they were in Iranian water would be an unexpected location of the border, if I may put it like that. That strongly hints at an Iranian intention to provoke.

Next unanswered questions - where was the Cornwall? Where were the Iranian vessels that got to the freighter before the Cornwall did? Why did no-one see them coming?

The argument that the Cornwall and other shipping should have stayed off any water the Iranians could conceivably have taken a fancy to is unacceptable for it is a licence for territorial aggression.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 03:40 AM

To compare a Muslim with a dog is seen by Muslims as a very strong insult. Interesting that this word came to your mind, Barry, when thinking of Iran.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 02:40 AM

T, I'm not from the UK

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 02:35 AM

"Either way Baz the owner of the dog is in trouble and the dog stands a damn good chance of being put down." T

Not in the US. 'Junk yard dog' in the US is in a category all its own.

Of course, the dog would not be tied outside; he would be inside the fence. But if some idjit climbed inside the fence and got mauled, it wouldn't be the dog that got in trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 02:29 AM

UK abbreviation of the name Barry - Baz.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 02:17 AM

The owner may be in trouble or may be able to talk their way out of trouble & the dog may get put down, reguardless you still have the bite. Was it worth it when all that was needed was to just stay a bit farther off. Simple.

PS; T, call me Barry, Bar, Bellboy, beachboy, bellyboy anything but Baz, at first I was wondering what you were talking about & then it hit me YUK.

Thanks
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 02:11 AM

Either way Baz the owner of the dog is in trouble and the dog stands a damn good chance of being put down.

Now we shall wait and see what excuses come to the fore when it is proved, as I am certain that it will be, that the Republican Guard Patrol Boats entered Iraqi/International Waters to abduct RN Personnel who were acting within the mandate of a dully authorised UN Security Council Resolution and providing protection, safeguard and security for such as pass on the seas upon their lawful occasions.

But there's one thing I am certain of Baz, the junk yard dog, or dogs won't be poking their noses out of their kennels for some time to come. I think they are fully aware of the reception that might be waiting for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:56 AM

When you walk past a junk yard dog & don't know exactly how long it's leash is, go ahead get close & when the dog bites you start yelling no fair the leash wasn't supposed to be that long.

The Brits got bitten & no ones sure whose to blame becasue the dog may or may not have stepped off the side walk.

Well fool, if you weren't sure you should've stayed far enough away. And you may have been sure but if you weren't pestering the dog in the 1st place you wouldn't be crying about it's bite now.

So well have to wait & see. If the Iranians were wrong hopefully they'll give back the sailors & be done with it. What about if they're right, what then?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:34 AM

teribus - I asked a question. Why did the Brits board an Iranian vessel? It was not a statement.

The villain linked a recent article that should help straighten out this mess:

"BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins said the UK could confront Iran directly with satellite pictures and other evidence to show the personnel had not strayed into Iranian territorial waters."

I can see why it is disputed. If you look at the maps at the bottom of the page, it wouldn't take much one way or another to be stepping on someone's toes.

What do the Japanese say about this?

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Rasener
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:03 AM

The latest BBC News on the subject.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6501555.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 12:52 AM

"By Terri Judd, aboard HMS Cornwall in the Persian Gulf
Published: 24 March 2007

In the black of night, our patrol boat skimmed across the Shatt al-Arab waterway, looking out for intruders on the disputed waters.

I was accompanying a Royal Marine patrol as it cruised Iraqi waters looking for suicide bombers trying to attack the two oil platforms that export 90 per cent of the country's oil. The patrol was also hunting smugglers bringing arms and contraband into the country.

Until this point, our only contact with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards had been polite, but stiff, contacts over the radio. On Thursday, when HMS Cornwall spotted an Iranian ship on the Iraqi side of the waterway, she approached to warn them off. The Iranians slunk into the blackness without demur.

All changed dramatically yesterday morning when 15 Royal Marines and Navy personnel, including one woman, approached a JAPANESE merchant ship suspected of smuggling second-hand cars into the country without paying tax. Suddenly, their inflatables were surrounded by boats of the Revolutionary Guards and they were overpowered and taken into Iranian national waters."

An Iranian ship dianavan?? Above is an eyewitness account.

The following quote lifted directly from your post speaks volumes about you dianavan:

"Doesn't that just burn you, teribus, when those sand niggers outsmart you and end up looking like the cat that just ate the mouse?"

You poor bitter little thing you.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 12:44 AM

Of course, dianavan, I bow to your superior wisdom and knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 12:27 AM

teri - I never 'believed that the Brits were stealing cars'. Early on I said that I heard that story and was asking if anyone else had.

I never even commented on the April 6th prediction. Please direct your comments appropriately.

If Shat-Al-Arab is an international waterway, why did the Brits board an Iranian vessel? Could it possibly be that they wanted to provoke an international incident? I'm actually glad that Iran had the balls to confront them and kidnap their soldiers. Doesn't that just burn you, teribus, when those sand niggers outsmart you and end up looking like the cat that just ate the mouse?

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 11:59 PM

6th April, Dianavan - can't wait - to hear all the excuses why nothing happened followed by all the speculation about the next most likely date selected at random. IIRC Little Hawk's prediction is sometime late April, early May.

When states start abducting the citizens of other countries it normally shows a certain degree of desperation. The one thing that has not been discussed but I believe does come into play is that the Shat-Al-Arab is an international waterway and cannot be closed by any party who might lay claim that it, or parts of it, are within territorial waters. To do so is considered by the UN to constitute an act of war (This is what initially sparked off the 1967 "Six Day War")

I take it now dianavan that you no longer believe that the British personnel involved were "stealing" cars? How anybody could have given that lunacy any credence at all given the circumstances surrounding the incident I haven't a clue, I mean they would have to barking mad.

I also like the way the Mudcats "Fellow Travellers" automatically switch to the "Guilty until proven innocent, and even then we won't believe you" mode - So ludicrously predictable.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 11:35 PM

Its not too soon to say they were in disputed waters. Read heric's link. Those waters have been disputed for a long time and since the Brits knew the boundaries were unclear, they should not have provoked the incident. In fact, it appears the Brits were being bullies and Iran called them on it.

btw teribus - I never said that Iran possessed an 'abundance of peaceful intent'. I do think they are more advanced than Britain when it comes to intelligence and military strategies and, without a doubt, they are much smarter that you. Trouble is teribus, you're thinking follows a predictable pattern. You can't seem to think outside the box. That enable Iran to run circles around your western mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 11:32 PM

ooops - from http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070327-1151-iran-wherestheborder.html

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 11:32 PM

from

"Without such an agreement, international law requires countries not to extend their territorial waters "beyond the median line with neighboring states," said Martin Pratt of the University of Durham in Britain.

But defining that line is difficult because of conflicting claims to rock formations, sandbars and barrier islands in the shallow waters of the northern Gulf, Pratt said.

As a result, there may be "legitimate grounds for arguing for a different definition" of those median lines, Pratt said.

"Until a boundary is agreed, you could only be certain that the personnel were in Iraqi territorial waters if they were within 12 miles of the (Iraqi) coast and, at the same time, more than 12 miles from any island, spit, bar or sand bank claimed by Iran," said Craig Murray, former chief of the Maritime Section of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

That means ships operating near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab – where marshes and sandbars make navigation difficult and where "ownership" of the water is ambiguous – could easily run into trouble. "

""There's a lot of room for making mischief, if that's what you want to do," Schofield said. "

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 09:40 PM

It's still too soon to say that they were in the disputed waters - we just don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 09:24 PM

"Barry, they have Iraqi consent AND a UN mandate to monitor shipping there.
They were acting legally."

Not if they were in Iranian waters. Therefore they should've steered clear of disputed territorial waters just knowing that the trouble it would impose. As far as boarding shipping for inspection does the UN sanctions provide a clause for blockading of Iranian ports & whom & what does it restrict in it's trading, cars, from where? Will it be food next?
Bottom line is that they (the Brits) knew the boundries were disputed & they should have steered clear of those areas so as not to provoke an international incident. They didn't, they pushed the envolope, so there you go, where else does the fault for starting this lay?

No matter what anyone says, no foreign military belongs inside the borders or waters of Iran.

Barry

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 06:55 PM

Barry, they have Iraqi consent AND a UN mandate to monitor shipping there.
They were acting legally.
Dianavan, those were not my sentiments, but those of the Executive Editor of the Iran News.
full interview here

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 06:47 PM

I have been wondering if the backup firepower also saw a need for a low-key approach to the circumstances, beyond just a diplomatic mien on the part of its commander. Just speculating.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 06:00 PM

Interesting piece that heric gave the link to. Clearly it's not quite as clear as has been suggested by Tony Blair. But then that is hardly surprising.

Whatever the actual facts it seesm pretty clear that a low key approach is more likely to end up with a happy outcome for the poor bloody sailors cuaught in the middle. Perhaps an invitation by the British to the Iranians to set up joint anti-smuggling patrols in these disputed waters, to avoid future misunderstandings...

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 05:40 PM

At the very least the Cornwall should not have been in disputed waters, if it was. But boarding a foriegn vessel for any reason in either another nations territorial waters or in international waters is illegal unless they were flying a British flag. Of course with Iraqi consent that's a different story. But smuggling cars? That's doubious!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 04:54 PM

The article heric recommends is worth looking at. Here's an interesting quote:


A 1937 treaty gave Iraq full rights to most of the Shatt al-Arab and fixed the border on the Iranian shore. Iran resented the terms, maintaining it accepted them only under pressure from the British. Lingering bitterness over the treaty may have influenced last week's Iranian action.

"The fact that British forces were involved made the (latest) incident especially sensitive for Iran," says Simon Henderson of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "Iran resented this display of British dominance."


(Me again). There are layers upon layers of history in this region - and some of it does not reflect well on Britain and the US, from my limited knowledge of the whole thing ...

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 04:45 PM

To MGOH: Here is the best answer (such as it is) to your question.

I probably haven't read enough, but do we know where the Cornwall was in relation to the incident?

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Blindlemonsteve
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 04:25 PM

I bet the Iranians dont give back the GPS equipment they have nicked, like they didnt last time, you can be sure that the British forces would have outgunned them, but its a political hot potato, the last thing either the U.S or the U.K want is an armed conflict with Iran at this moment, that would cause an escalation of conflict.

But.....they had better release them very soon, reading between the lines...there could be a very serious penalty for the Iranian captors if they dont.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 01:35 PM

"And the Khomeni "hostage crisis" was all staged by the CIA."

Some backing for this statement would be useful.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: GUEST,skeptic
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 01:14 PM

A couple of years ago the CIA employed "students" to run through the streets of Tehran setting fires, etc. I could look that up if necessary, but the CIA admitted at the time that the students were operatives. And the Khomeni "hostage crisis" was all staged by the CIA. Anytime you see "students" in an Iranian bruhaha, just sub CIA for students.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 01:05 PM

Re: US attack on Iran April 6, 2007

Those who cannot read the French in Donuel's link can read it here in English.

I still don't believe it for a second.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 12:52 PM

They do seem awfully keen on chanting "Death to" things don't they, for people that possess the abundance of peaceful intent that dianavan and others on this forum would have us believe. Odd.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Peace
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 11:48 AM

From the www

"In Iran, a crowd of hardline students chanting "Death to Britain" gathered on Tuesday on the shoreline close to where the Britons were captured and demanded firm action against the sailors, Iran's semi official Mehr news agency reported."

SSDD

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 11:44 AM

"the situation is that this (abduction) could be a reaction to the UN sanctions which were passed two days ago... the revolutionary guards had promised that some sort of reaction would be forthcoming from Iran." (Keith)

You got that right. So when the opportunity presented itself, Iran saw the opportunity.

On Britain's part, it was "...a blatant move to provoke an incident." (Barry)

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 08:30 AM

Or maybe there was more than one patrol operating, and the ship could not be in two places at once?

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Charley Noble
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 08:15 AM

Barry-

Your reasoning makes more sense to me then what's been reported by the British. But maybe the crew aboard the Cornwall were taking a break for tea or grog while the Iranians slipped in. Maybe the Iranians were cleverly hiding behind the freighter being inspected all the while.

Only time will tell!

Sorry, Peace, if I ruffled your pin-feathers.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 08:15 AM

The Executive Editor of the Iran News, published in Teheran, said "My understanding of the situation is that this (abduction) could be a reaction to the UN sanctions which were passed two days ago... the revolutionary guards had promised that some sort of reaction would be forthcoming from Iran. "
With respect, I value his opinion over yours Barry.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 07:42 AM

With the dispute being known & I'm sure that there were notices to mariners on all available charts there should've been no one within the disputed area. Who's the fool now? Or do Navies not read charts? Naval GPS is not accurate in yards it's accurate in feet. It seems to me more of a blatant move to provoke an incident. Why else would the Cornwall stand off out of site unless to allow the incident to happen. The Iranian gun boats would never have taken the sailors with the Cornwall within siten or range & the Cornwall would've most likely stoped it, what choice would they have in plain veiw of all hands watching. I'd say that this was no error in anyone's judgement but a power play on the part of the coalition to stir up the waters & to try & find a way to use the incident to their advantage. What do they care for 15 sailors if the ploy works.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 07:24 AM

The co ordinates have yet to be releaed, but in any case the exact position of the border is unclear.
It was defined as the centre of the channel, but because that changes with time it was agreed to reassess it every ten years.
That was before the Iran/Iraq war and the reassessment has never been made.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 05:18 AM

Good Friday is a pretty "significant date" for others too...

A day long associated with Death and Destruction...

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:53 AM

The link claims that "a Russian weekly newspaper" claims that the US will 'hit' Iran in the first week of April and speculates that it may be on April 6 because of its being a significant date for the Muslims. It does not give a source for any of its 'information'.

It may be true. It may be false. We'll soon know. I do get tired of people who make questionable blanket statements in the guise of being factual.

Subject: RE: BS: Sailors kidnapped by Revolutionary Guard
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 11:34 PM

"Lets hope they get released BEFORE April 6th, which is the planned invasion date of Iraq nuclear facilities by the United States of America. "

Anyone wanna bet WHERE the guys are now being held - Saddam is not the only one with bright ideas.... :-)