BREAKING NEWS -

CNN

• 15 British marines on patrol in the Persian Gulf "seized" by Iranian navy
• Personnel were carrying out "routine" boarding of a vessel when apprehended
• UK government demands immediate and safe return of the marines

Anyway, the article mentions that something like this happened in 2004. The sailors were released.

One would have to state that this qualifies as an "international incident". All we need now is one between Iran and U.S. to really get the ball rolling down the hill until growing like a snowball.

I imagine this won't spark as huge of a problem as one might otherwise think.

Could just be a misunderstanding over territorial water boundaries.

Either way, the British shouldn't even be there.

Yeah, hopefully that's what it is...though incidents like this are somewhat unsettling.

Good to hear that they're well. But what if they're faced with trial? i mean if it was the other way round then the UK would probably charge Iranian sailors but i'm concious that they're more likely to be mistreated over there. And why won't they say where they are? its all very suspicious and as morpheus said its Unsettling.

any thoughts?

Jammy, what are people in Britain saying about this?

I haven't actually seen a newspaper for a few days but i think they are just concerned for their wellbeing as is everyone else. they also keep drawing paralels with the incident in 2004. Lots of interviews from the sailors seized then.

I think people are generally satified with how the UK is dealing with it. \People are behind the way Tony Blair left it to low level diplomacy to begin with before speaking out. But really there is little that can be done right now and as developments are qwuite slow the news is more focused on northern ireland today.

Shut up Jammy, we need a reason to go to war with Iran. You Brits aren't helping the matter by being less outraged than us.

Is america really that outraged?

also Blair has now said that if Iran doesn't co-operate then the matter will be taken to a 'different phase'. Pretty damn vague

"Meanwhile on Tuesday the U.S. Navy started its largest show of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes off the coast of Iran." - CNN

Here's the British report for this incident: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6501555.stm

Iran is just being awkward for the sake of it. This stunt of theirs doesn't really help their image in the international community and won't result in greater leverage in debates about their nuclear programme. If anything, it shows the world that Iran should not be trusted with nuclear technology.

I hope diplomacy, on any level, will help free the soldiers. However if it doesn't it might end up resulting in action against Iran to make their lives difficult, or even possibly war.

How can the world trust Bush and Blair?

EDIT: Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border

The US and UK aren't nuking anyone any time soon, if that's what you're insinuating. Nor do they provide material aid to terrorist organizations - would you trust Iran not to give a nuclear weapon to Hamas or Hezbollah?

Not at all.

All I was suggesting was the following: Why should we trust George W[MD] Bush and Tony Bliar?

Yes they do.

It depends on your perspective, but I would say that the arming of Israel is indeed an example of the West "providing military aid to a terrorist organisation".

If you don't like that example, there are plenty more.

Does the West not allow Israel the possession of nuclear weapons?

Or how about General Musharraf's Pakistan?

If you are following recent events in Pakistan (I know it's hard because Western media does not really like to paint the West's dictators in a bad light), you would realise that this man is a total bastard.

Well, when you use not so witty titles/BBCode like that, how could we trust them? :rolleyes:

But no, I don't particularly trust them, but I trust them far more than I do the current government in Iran.

Which is wrong. But that doesn't justify increased research into Nuclear Arms for other nations, including Iran.

You trust two people who lied to the world and then turned Iraq into the hell-hole it is today, over Iranians who are simply (as there is no hard evidence to suggest otherwise) exercising their rights as a sovereign nation?

Hold on.

"Research into Nuclear Arms".

Where is your evidence that Iran is building such an arsenal?

Under the NPT, which Iran is a signatory to, the development of a civilian nuclear power programme is allowed.

That is exactly what Iran is doing.

Don't tell me that they don't need such development either, when in 1976, the Ford Administration produced a strategy paper stating that the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals".

It was alright then but not anymore?

Oh yeah, the US had the trusty Shah back then.

Anyway, you probably know all this.

But, I cannot understand how you can trust Washington, when already there have been "misleading" and "erroneous" reports on Iran's nuclear programme (US Iran report branded dishonest)?

Most U.S. tips fingering Iran false -- envoys

It's so reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraq invasion that it is scary.

What's most frightening is that many people are beginning to believe the likes of Bush and Blair once more.

To paraphrase Goebbels: If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Quite the unbiased based for the question, but in a nutshell: "Yes."

Not an arsenal, (woo-hoo, I'm witty too) but there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that they are researching into nuclear weapon weapons. And no, I won't post links. Why? Because I don't care to get into a links war with you, again. You know the info, I know the counter info, simple as that.

Oh my gosh, Ford said it, so it must be true!!!1!

It was never alright.

Doubtless thats the case with some people. My statements weren't meant to reflect any trust of the US or UK gov't. Just my massive distrust of Iran.

Iran says they'll let the troops go if Britain admits they were in their waters.

It's a fucking pissing match.

The Iranians already know how to make nuclear weapons, but there is no evidence suggesting that they are attempting to make them.

Even CIA analysis, so far, has found that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

What is wrong in developing nuclear energy?

The whole nuclear debate means nothing anyway.

The underlying issue is that of Washington's determination to take on Iran, just as they took on Iraq.

I just cannot understand why you distrust Iran more than Bush and Blair.

Has Iran attacked a nation on the basis of a lie?

One recent example of why:

Iran provides coordinates for location where British soldiers were captured. Analysis shows that those coordinates were in Iraqi waters. Iran revises the coordinates two days later, placing the sailors two nautical miles east, in Iranian waters.

I mean, come on.

And as for the invasion of Iraq, I do believe that Bush believed that Iraq posed some sort of threat. I don't believe there was a "lie" to begin with - just bad intelligence, and stupid people like him who relied on it. It was more of a misguided sense of "gung-ho". And it didn't help that it was right after 9-11.

Meanwhile, we have Iran's president, who hosts a Holocaust deniers' conference. It takes a special kind of crazy to believe that the Holocaust didn't exist.

And if Iran's nuclear program is so innocent, why would they reject Russian proposals to enrich uranium on Russian soil and export it to Iran? Why are they so insistent on having an indigenous program? Why did they halt cooperation with IAEA inspectors the other day? The only explanation is that they want to have the ability to produce nuclear weapons. And the debate over the nuclear issue IS quite meaningful - if Iran somehow got hold of a nuclear weapon, you can't deny that they might give it to Hamas or Hezbollah, who would consequently use it against civilian populations.

I agree. Intifada, all you are doing is asking questions, yet not answering any questions put to you.

Kidnapping British soldiers is not a right.

Why would George Bush put his parties leadership on the line again just so that he could satisfy some self hatred of Iran?

If you believe that Iran's intentions are nice and good then you need to look at the reality again. History shows that Iran cannot be trusted. The Iranian government revised the British ship's location to make it inside Iranian waters. This is obvious by the fact that they got it wrong the first time.

Releasing the video of the soldiers is the worst thing the Iranians could have possibly done. If this does result in war, the majority of the British will now be behind the British government. What is it that Iran's government wants to achieve by doing this?

That does not compare to what the US and UK have done in Iraq, which was, whether you like it or not, based upon a lie.

Throughout the run-up to the Iraq invasion, the whole world was told by US and UK leaders that Iraq definitely had WMDs. We were told that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat not only to its neighbours but to the entire world, and that it had the capability of launching WMDs "within 45 minutes".

You don't need me to quote the likes of Cheney and Bush, as it is a well known fact.

I will, however, quote Colin Powell who made an interesting statement in a press conference on the 24th of February 2001, during a visit to Mubarak's Cairo. When answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the then Secretary of State said:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbours of Iraq.

Furthermore, on the 15th of May 2001, Powell testified before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programmes Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Here is an excerpt of the transcript from that:

Senator Bennett: Mr. Secretary, the U.N. sanctions on Iraq expire the beginning of June. We've had bombs dropped, we've had threats made, we've had all kinds of activity vis-a-vis Iraq in the previous administration. Now we're coming to the end. What's our level of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs?

Secretary Powell: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

Moreover, it wasn't just Powell who was telling the truth before it became inconvenient. On the 29th of July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.

Rice was asked about the sanctions against Iraq, and she replied:

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

All of this was, incidentally, before September 11th 2001, after which the Bush administration had the opportunity to wage war on whoever they wanted. Indeed, we know now that the invasion of Iraq was planned before 9/11.

Now, what Iran did is indeed suspicious, but compared to the bullshit we were told by the US and UK governments, what the Iranians have done is nothing.

There is evidence that the Bush administration had planned the invasion of Iraq before 9/11.

What he needed was an excuse to go ahead with his plans, and 9/11 gave him the opportunity to sell war to the American people.

Lying was simply part of that job.

Although Holocaust deniers were present at that meeting, so were Jews who are not Holocaust deniers.

Speech delivered by Rabbi Aharon Cohen (International Conference “Review of the Holocaust”, Teheran 11-12 December ’06)

I am still unsure as to whether Ahmadinejad is actually a Holocaust denier or simply questioning the role of the Holocaust to justify the existence of Israel.

On the second day of the conference, he said that elections should be held among "Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner".

It is Iran's right to enrich Uranium.

Why should they have to rely on Russia to enrich it for them?

Would the US accept such a humiliation?

Because it is their right to have one.

Who are you to tell Iranians what they can and cannot do?

This whole situation came about after the US put pressure on the IAEA, after it decided in 1983 to provide assistance to Iran under its Technical Assistance Programme to produce enriched uranium. An IAEA report had stated clearly that its aim was to "contribute to the formation of local expertise and manpower needed to sustain an ambitious programme in the field of nuclear power reactor technology and fuel cycle technology".

It's funny how Washington can now blame Iran for apparent "non-compliance" with the IAEA.

Can you please be a bit more specific?

Even though the IAEA has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme?

I highly doubt such a possibility arising, or that Hamas or Hizbullah would use a nuclear weapon in such an area. In other words, what is the use of killing everyone in the Middle East?

Paper

I just glanced over this topic again, and I cannot see any "questions" that I have ignored.

:rolleyes:

My statement was referring to the right to enrich Uranium.

:rolleyes:

Don't put words into my mouth.

George W Bush, as far as I am concerned, is a bit of a lunatic.

He is capable of anything.

Anyway, it's more than a "self-hatred" of Iran.

Washington is (you only need to look back at history) not keen on countries that do not toe their line.

I have dealt with this issue above when responding to Morpheus.

By the way, what has happened to the six Iranian diplomats that were seized by the US in Iraq?

What goes around comes around...

As a Brit myself, I very much doubt that the population would support a war with Iran.

Well personally I'm outraged about it... the (British) Government seems adamant that the Brits were in Iraqi territorial waters, and I believe that. And Iran's making a mockery of it all in that (correct me if I'm wrong) they are prepared to return the sailors if the British Government admits that the sailors were in Iran's territorial waters.

Nope you got them all in that post.

It was either your lack of clarity and/or my misunderstanding.

I do not believe you can use a comparison between the so called lies of George Bush and the kidnapping of 15 British soldiers to make the kidnapping seem less important than it is.

Things might go around and come around, but two wrongs don't make a right. If Iran wants to play scummy games like this then it aught to be careful. It's currently poking a soft spot.

Simple, when they start kidnapping soldiers of a country, they either hand them back nicely or get their asses kicked by the stronger power. This is not about whether their revenge was moral, this is about the fact that right now they are holding British soldiers, parading them out to make a mockery of Britain. You should no quite well that stubborn British people fight to the end. Who's right is irrelevant here. The British government and people don't like it. The world can't afford to have moral revenges.

I thought this was pretty funny/on topic.

Daily Show: Iranian Hostage Crisis- The Next Generation

[dohtml]<div><object width="425" height="335"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/4JBAT9GDeW78obel2"></param><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/4JBAT9GDeW78obel2" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="335" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1lddk_tdsiranhostagecrisis">TDS-Iran-Hostage-Crisis</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/Deltasix">Deltasix</a></i></div>[/dohtml]

How can you deny a lie as obvious, especially with the benefit of hindsight, as that which the British and American governments tried (with considerable success) to sell in order to invade and occupy Iraq?

Indeed I do not wish to make this event less significant or important, I just cannot understand how people can trust Bush and Blair more than they can trust Iran when one takes into account the not so distant past.

The fact is, none of us know for certain what has actually happened.

I cannot help but think that the British government could be using this whole saga as a way of building up support for an imminent attack on Iran. It's surprising that the British sailors let themselves be captured. There have been reports suggesting an attack by the US on Iran as soon as April the 6th ("US Ready To Attack Iran On Good Friday").

Look at what Britain, France and Israel did to wage war on Egypt. Why is it less plausible that the West will do the same thing now to Iran?

Where there is a will there is a way.

I agree.

Which is one reason to oppose Bush's so-called "War Against Terrorism".

I don't think so.

I believe the Iranians are showing that the British are finished as an Imperial power.

The sooner the British stop acting like they can rule the world with America, the better.

I read an article by Robert Fisk in the Independent newspaper yesterday, in which he explained how the British are being humiliated by Iran.

I agree with his analysis of the situation.

Again you have got the wrong end of the stick.

I was referring to the nuclear energy dispute when I asked Morpheus "Who are you to tell Iranians what they can and cannot do?", because the simple fact is that they have every right to enrich Uranium and develop nuclear energy.

The kidnapping of the soldiers was not the issue I was referring to.

I've had enough of this bullshit.

The British should be thankful that the Iranians are treating them so well.

Look at what happened to Baha Musa when he was under British custody in Iraq, and how so many Iraqis were and still are being treated in prisons like Abu Ghraib.

Why aren't you crying for the innocent people who have lost years of their lives in Guantanamo Bay over nothing. Yesterday, Bisher al-Rawi returned to the UK after five years in Guantanamo Bay. What was his crime? He had a battery charger in his luggage. That was the "suspicious device" which led to his arrest for five whole years.

His lawyer said:

So it was misinformation that started this chain of events, though unfortunately that led to him first being taken by the CIA to Afghanistan to an underground prison of 24 hour darkness with rats everywhere, to then being taken to Guantanamo - and it took years to right this wrong.

Right to the end they treated him with brutality, on the way to the plane in Guantanamo - they knew he was leaving - they insisted still on shackling him, blindfolding him, putting on earmuffs so he couldn't hear a thing and keeping him in the back of a very hot , very confined van on the way to the plane.

The fact is, the so-called "hostages" in Iran have been treated very well.

They have not been beaten.

They have not been hooded.

They have not had dogs barking in their faces.

They have not been subjected to any torture whatsoever.

There is a British programme called "Bremner, Bird and Fortune".

They recently had a sketch on the Iranian nuclear dispute.

It makes a good point, as well as being quite funny.

I found a link on Youtube:

Rory Bremner as Ahmadinejad

BBC

These things always have a precedent. Similar to when the summer Gaza crisis occured and it wasn't revealed in the mainstream media that a doctor and his brother had been kidnapped by the Israeli government days before an IDF soldier was captured, the US and Britain are refusing to acknowledge their own precedent when the US captured five Iranian diplomats (claimed to be "Revolutionary Guard officers" by the US) in Irbil; whom they've also refused to release.

While Iran may be making shit up concerning kidnapping the sailors and airing their "apologies", as Intifada has already pointed out Iran has not done anything to the extent of the US. The US has detained thousands of Iraqis, a number of Iranians and other people without charge for days, weeks and months. Again, as Intifada has pointed out, the Iranian government may be making nonsensical UK sailor "apologies" up but this doesn't even begin to approach the scale of the racist dehumanization by the US and its allies concerning tortured Iraqi hostages, "detainees" and prisoners. Iran is also in a tight corner: whereas the US and UK can really detain whomever they damnwell please, Iran has to be very strategic in stalling or preventing US aggression. Did Iran threaten war and send two carrier groups into the Gulf when their diplomats were seized in Iraq?

In general, and this also pertains to the Iranian nuclear issue, whenever anyone in the West calls for Western intervention and morally upbraids Third World countries for their abuses, alleged and real, it should be remembered that rhetoric about "liberalism", "democracy", "liberty" and "peace" has frequently been tied to Western imperialism and colonization of other lands. Whether you're looking at le mission civilisatrice or today's Western humanitarian rhetoric that's used to justify everything from coups in Haiti to the invasion of Somalia in 1992, it's extremely important to recognize this. This recognition isn't to ignore dictatorships, genocides and other abuses in the Third World, but to recognize that it isn't the West's place to be selectively arguing the case for "humanity." The West has done enough to oppress, control and destroy the world, really people can get along better without the doublespeak that's occasionally used to target "unfriendly" Third World countries.

I have a problem with nuclear weapons. I have a problem with governments. But that doesn't limit me from recognizing who maintains hegemonic dominance in the world system, and who accordingly pretends to universalize themselves and speak for "humanity" and the "international community" when they're actually speaking for their own hegemonic interests. The US's lust for oil might be one.

Intifada has raised several important points about the US and UK having actually attacked and destroyed a country, but I just want to extend that argument and say that history and power are very important things to recognize, as has often been commented on in fields such as critical race theory. You can't criticize without first analyzing what position you're coming from. If you're an Iranian citizen and you disown any nation's "right" to nuclear weapons, that's fair and I'd probably agree. If you're a white Western peacenik and you don't like nuclear weapons either, that's fair, but to a LIMITED extent. Remember, you're coming from a position of power in the West and therefore it's easier for you to say that no one should have weapons because your country or wherever you live already has hegemonic dominance in the world and can basically tell anyone to piss off. You don't have as many choices if you've already been colonized several times in the past century and have been killed by US-made weapons (Iran-Iraq war).

Basically, we need to understand and criticize ourselves before we criticize Iran. This may mean the difference between war and understanding.

"Iranians release British sailors"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6525905.stm

"She [BBC correspondent] says speculation is likely to continue over whether it had anything to do with developments in Iraq, where an Iranian envoy has reportedly been given access to five Iranians captured by US forces, and where a kidnapped diplomat was released on Tuesday."

Well, there you go.

<sigh of relief>