Iran and the British Prisoners - are they telling us the whole story?
By angelicEmu
@angelicEmu (1311)
March 30, 2007 10:20am CST
So who here thinks the sailors went into Iranian waters? I personally don't think the issue is as cut and dry as the British (and as I understand it, the American) media would have us believe. Hell, even the UN haven't condemned Iran for their actions, nor have they stated that the British troops were legitimately in Iraqi waters. Share your thoughts on the issue. I reckon we don't know the whole story, nor shall we for many years, until the classified records on the matter enter the public domain (if they ever do...).
What I find far worse than the taking prisoner of military personnel for possibly encroaching into Iranian waters, is the US's taking prisoner of Iranian DIPLOMATS and holding them in Iraq. Surely this action goes against all international law and ethics, whereas the taking prisoner of potential spies/military agressors is to be expected, given the volatile situation in the Middle East, with the US constantly threatening War with Iran for over a year now. And this because the US think they ought to be able to decide who's allowed nuclear weaponry in the world, and who's not...
6 responses
@Adrenochrome (1653)
•
30 Mar 07
I think there are several issues here, where the UK media may be being partisan. The actual Iran'Iraq border is not as clear cut as our media would have us believe, there are disputed waters around that area, so both the UK AND Iran may be telling the truth.
I am also surprised that our media is not explaining why America is being so reticent to support the UKs appeals for the troops release; and that is because the US kidnapped and is still holding 5 Iranian diplomats. They were seized in Iraq, and the US has not let anyone know where they are being kept. These diplomats have not even be allowed to be seen by the Red Cross, to verify they are being treated well.
Last night, on Question Time, I heard comments about the fact that the Iranians had used the one female in the party, because of Islamic sexism, and because they might cynically gain more coverage using a woman. Ironic, as she was the only captive the media here had focussed on, prior to the video release from Iran. Perhaps, this reflects the sexism and cynicism of the UK media?
I hope they are released quite soon, once Iran feels it has made its point. I also genuinely believe they shall be fit and well when released. I'm not so sure about the Iranian diplomats though.
2 people like this
@angelicEmu (1311)
•
31 Mar 07
Top notch answer Adrenochrome. I quite agree with the points you make, and definitely with the idea that it's the British media who are sexist. It actually does women's equality no good, if they expect to be the excused from the realities of whatever career they choose, merely because of their gender. I also noticed in today's news coverage that Margaret Beckett's attitude and tone when being interviewed regarding the diplomatic events of the past day, had changed quite considerably from the tub-thumping hard-line aggressive line, to that of a chastened school-child. I think that some developments have occurred, and the tables may have been turned.
@Adrenochrome (1653)
•
5 Apr 07
Do I feel smug, or what! Iran made it's point, and then maintained the moral high ground by releasing them, in good physical and mental health. Hell, they were even given a brand new suit of clothes.
Still awaiting news on the Iranian Diplomats kidnapped by the US.
1 person likes this
@winewhisky (345)
•
2 Apr 07
I have been watching this whole thing with a mixture of sadness and horror, because whatever the truth of the matter, the 15 captured military personnel are innocent.
Two things I really don't understand and I'd been interested if anyone has any theories:
1) Why has Iran done it? What do they want to achieve? 15 people is not an invasion, even if it turns out they were in the wrong waters. Were they actually doing anything agressive?
2) What were the British doing? Were they on their way somewhere? Or what? This doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet.
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
31 Mar 07
The US isn't the one deciding who gets nuclear weapons, the entire world agrees that Iran shouldn't have them, and if you don't see that, its your fault.
The UK insists the sailors were in Iraqi water. Who else knows?
Iran takes hostages but you look to blame others.... Don't you remember that Iran took those US hostages for 444 days after the Islamic Revolution in 1979?
The US didn't capture their diplomats, they captured Al Quds brigade leaders and others that were there allegedly training/helping terrorists. We know Iran fights using terrorism as a proxy because of Hizbollah, of course they are gonna try to do it in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011100427.html
@angelicEmu (1311)
•
3 Apr 07
LOL! Fantastic rebuttal Adreno! But I do feel it will be wasted on Mrniceguy, as fact, logic and reality are all strangers to him, if his past contributions are anything to go by... A + to you :-)
@Adrenochrome (1653)
•
2 Apr 07
The Uk Navy stated 25 years ago, that the Belgrano was within the exclusion zone around the Falkland Islands - we now know that it was outside the zone, and moving away from the zone when we sank it! Western governments always tell the truth?
If the USA is so sure of the status of the Iranian Diplomats, why won't they allow the Red Cross access to them? Why haven't they been charged with any crime? What about the 100s of people kidnapped by the US government and held for far more than 444 days in Guantanamo Bay, who were never charged with any offense?
We know the US government fights using terrorism, too, and was, in fact, the largest sponsor of global terrorism.
Unlike yourself, I do remember 1979 - though you weren't even born then. Didn't your government trade weapons for their release, and lie to the American people about it? Yet more lies from the honest Western governments!
2 people like this
@Smith2028 (797)
• United States
31 Mar 07
I don't think it is as cut and dry as everyone involved would like us to think. But I also want to point out a few fallacies in your comments.
1) THE US HAS NOT BEEN CONSTANTLY THREATENING WAR WITH IRAN. In fact we have said multiple times that there is no plan to go to Iran. Yes we have military in the area, and yes, we perform military manuevers, but that is not threatening war.
2) Any Iranian diplomats the US has detained in Iraq were tied to terrorists or terrorist acts. Furthermore, the diplomats detained were never paraded around on television (which is against Geneva Convention rules) nor were they held for long without a trial. If you can find proof of current detainees that are Iranian diplomats that have been held for longer than necessary I will retract this statement.
@angelicEmu (1311)
•
31 Mar 07
Look mate, there's a big difference between threatening war in the way that governments do, and actually coming out and declaring intent to do so. To declare intent is the same thing as declaring war, and if any other country had made the same noises regarding the US, that the US has regarding their attitude towards Iran, then you can bet your sweet life that the US would be deploying troops to that area. Your government has made it quite clear that they are hostile towards Iran, and whilst they may have come out and said the diplomatic equivalent to "we're not going to invade... TODAY anyway", that's far from being the same thing as "we have no intention to go to war with Iran in the near future, and have only peaceful intentions towards that country".
Your government may claim that the Iranian diplomats they're holding prisoner were terrorists, but then again your government use that excuse to hold pretty much anyone they take prisoner, including several Brits, held at Guantanemo Bay, who were released without charge, having suffered multiple abuses and infringements of their human rights, including breaches of the Geneva Convention. So don't you preach the Geneva convention to me, when your government have such a fluid stance as to when it's applicable, and to whom it's applicable. Thanks for your response, and I hope I've clarified a few things for you there.
@ladymoonstone143 (1507)
• United States
31 Mar 07
The Iranian government is just plain pathetic. They are facing UN sanctions and what can divert the attention from these sanctions? Kidnapping these British personnel and parading them infront of televisions and writing them a letter to be read so the whole world can hear what they want them to hear. Common...do you think people are stupid and doesn't know that it was a scripted letter? All you can hear from Iran's side are crazy rhetorics down to cutting the world's oil supply or blocking the Strait of Hormuz. The rest of the world will not just stand and watch this kind of display.
