UK troops captured by Iran, page 6

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 03:49 PM

link

Originally posted by stumason
Zep, isn't the Civil Contingencies Act for home based event's, or does that cover war with another nation? I know I can look this up for myself (and will) but just in case you know off the top of your head..

The act is applicable to UK-specific events, but does also apply to times of war:

From here (Emphasis mine)

When emergency powers may be used

The Act states that emergency powers can only be used if an event or situation threatens: serious damage to human welfare in the UK, a devolved territory or region; serious damage to the environment of the UK, a devolved territory or region; or the security of the UK, from war or terrorism. They can be used if such a situation is occurring, has occurred or is about to occur.

I am sure that Parliament, if needed, would produce an Act to require conscription. But it has to be said, in both world War's, we waitied a while before invoking any draft as volunteer young men (and women) were in plentiful supply. Not sure if that would happen these day's (I would, but I am 24 so I am not sure about younger people though)

I agree, in the event of a global war or catastrophe, Parliament certainly would be in a position to produce such an act. It would have to be a pretty major event though, which is unlikely to happen at the current time. However, who knows what lies in wait around the corner in the next few years.

Cheers,
Zep

JacKatMtn

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:03 PM

link

Here is an article on the disputed waterway, quite a history here to be sure:

Waters divide foes more than land

Tehran: The waters where 15 British naval personnel were seized by Iran on Friday are among the most dangerous and disputed on the planet.

They have been a source of friction between Arabs and Persians since the Middle Ages.

The disagreement remains so acute that the two sides cannot even agree on names.

Iranians do not refer the Arabian Gulf being fed by the Arvandrud river by that name, while Iraqis and other Arabs refer it as the Arabian Gulf and the Shatt Al Arab.

In the 17th century, Ottomans and Persians fought over the river and its associated eyots, peninsulas and coastal territory.

C21H30O2I

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:07 PM

link

ya well now the iranians say the soldiers admit to being on the iran side of the debated imaginary water line, that they've, "saddam" and iran's been fighting over for years. and they say they have GPS coords to prove it.
imo the iranians are doing tit for tat sh*t. because of the higher up's the us troops caught in Iraq. btw what was iranian generals doing in Iraq?
i say no release in the comming hours, The brits and the EU turn Iran to glass.

infinite

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:22 PM

link

We will see action taken.

Iran is making the whole problem worse.

I feel that Iran has a week, but due to the new sanctions being placed on them and the whole international community now strongly against Iran it seems that they have nothing to loose.

infinite

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:26 PM

link

Iran: British sailors 'bargaining chips'

An Iranian military official said Saturday afternoon that the 15 detained British sailors "confessed" to illegally entering Iranian waters.

The sailors, taken at gunpoint Friday by Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Al Quds soldiers were captured intentionally and are to be used as bargaining chips to be used for the release of five Iranians who were arrested at the Iranian consul in Irbil, Iraq by US troops, an Iranian official told the daily paper Asharq al-Awsat on Saturday.

In addition, a senior Iranian military official said Saturday that the decision to capture the soldiers was made during a March 18 emergency meeting of the High Council for Security following a report by the Al-Quds contingent commander, Kassem Suleimani, to the Iranian chief of the armed forces, Maj.Gen. Hassan Firouz Abadi. In the report, according to Asharq al-Awsat, Suleimani warned Abadi that Al Quds and Revolutionary Guards' operations had become transparent to US and British intelligence following the arrest of a senior Al Quds officer and four of his deputies in Irbil.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Jpost

spencerjohnstone

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:55 PM

link

I disagree. There is no chance that the sanctions will be dropped over 15 people. My guess is that after a few days the Iranians will blink. They have no support from other nations in this, and they know that they're not going to win.

I do not think the Iranians are going to blink over this first. They are stead fest in interrogating those servicemenwomen, is actually makin alot of people in the UK concerned about this. But I wonder what the Iranian president will do then, kill them (if he does would cause tensions to soar beyond the diplomatic process, or would the UK retaliate by attacking a major Iranian City.. Or would Tony Blair or Gordon Brown bottle it. Watching the news all day all I can see is all talk and no action. The families must be going through hell right now as well as thoe captured....

Would the poster who mentioned this care to cite sources for this?

One or Two of the soldiers captured in 2004 have been interviewed on UK news, openly discussing, the mock execution, you can watch it either on the BBC news site or Sky News.

BeyondPlanetEarth

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 05:16 PM

link

Originally posted by stumason

Q.
"I don't know about the "grave digging" and "fake executions" mentioned, first time I ever heard it in fact was in this thread. Would the poster who mentioned this care to cite sources for this?"

A.
This has been on TV before and mentioned a few times on Sky news & BBC News 24.

BBC website: "Christopher Adams, who was seized with seven others, after allegedly straying into Iranian waters, said it was a "very scary" experience.

He said they were given food and water, but told of a terrifying mock execution they were subjected to in the desert. "

This was told in more detail by Admiral Sir Alan West on Sky news yesterday.

And as for being in Irans water in 2004 :`"The then Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said the crews were "forcibly escorted" into Iranian waters."

A few links at the BBC give a brief outline of events here -

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 24-3-2007 by BeyondPlanetEarth]

malganis

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link

Originally posted by infinite

Iran: British sailors 'bargaining chips'

The sailors, taken at gunpoint Friday by Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Al Quds soldiers were captured intentionally and are to be used as bargaining chips to be used for the release of five Iranians who were arrested at the Iranian consul in Irbil, Iraq by US troops, an Iranian official told the daily paper Asharq al-Awsat on Saturday.

In addition, a senior Iranian military official said Saturday that the decision to capture the soldiers was made during a March 18 emergency meeting of the High Council for Security following a report by the Al-Quds contingent commander, Kassem Suleimani, to the Iranian chief of the armed forces, Maj.Gen. Hassan Firouz Abadi.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Jpost

Crap. Well if this capture was pre-meditated rather than just a misunderstanding then the Brits aren't going to be happy one bit. It sounds like Iran aren't planning on giving these guys back to us too easily.

Do you think NATO/EU would risk a rescue mission?

infinite

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link

Originally posted by malganis
Do you think NATO/EU would risk a rescue mission?

Thats why they have been moved me thinks. A simple snatch and grab mission by the SAS is going to be near impossible now. Any rescue mission is going to involve afew airstrikes, threats of invasion and potential threat of a nuclear weapon.

zeeon

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link

That is definately a turn of events.
In response to mal - I don't think so. Althought I wouldn't rule one out because its obvious we have intel inside Iran and possibly operatives.

I wonder what britain has to say about this bargin? Not to happy I bet.

[edit on 24-3-2007 by zeeon]

infinite

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link

Originally posted by zeeon
I wonder what britain has to say about this bargin? Not to happy I bet.

Well, its the Americans that hold their officers, not us.
So there is no deal.

malganis

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by malganis
Do you think NATO/EU would risk a rescue mission?

Thats why they have been moved me thinks. A simple snatch and grab mission by the SAS is going to be near impossible now. Any rescue mission is going to involve afew airstrikes, threats of invasion and potential threat of a nuclear weapon.

Good point, it would be a bit hard to extract 15 of our men from inside Tehran, and you can bet they're a heavily guarded 'prize' by now. Airstrikes/nukes would be a veeerrrryyy last option because using them would just be for revenge, and not to get the 'hostages' (if we could call them that now) back.

infinite

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link

Originally posted by malganis
Good point, it would be a bit hard to extract 15 of our men from inside Tehran, and you can bet they're a heavily guarded 'prize' by now. Airstrikes/nukes would be a veeerrrryyy last option because using them would just be for revenge, and not to get the 'hostages' (if we could call them that now) back.

IF one of them is harmed or dies (heaven forbid) in Tehran then expect the UK Army to be calling for Iranian blood.

Ste2652

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link

Originally posted by infinite
IF one of them is harmed or dies (heaven forbid) in Tehran then expect the UK Army to be calling for Iranian blood.

I think it'll be the UK - and much of the international community - as a whole.

I can't imagine what it's like for the service personnel and their families and friends right now. The fear for both must be excruciating. I encourage you all to spare a thought for them in what must be a perilously difficult time.

Will the UK attack Iran? The possibility is moving ever closer. I don't think the Iranians are giving us much of a choice to be honest.

I wonder if Ahmedinejad cancelled his UN visit because of this, making up something about the US delaying visas? According to the jpost.com story this course of action was decided almost a week ago. He would almost certainly have had to explain this to the Security Council - something he obviously didn't want to do.

[edit on 24/3/07 by Ste2652]

brill

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link

Doesn't this strike anyone as being just a tad too convenient. It is widely accepted that the US wants to attack Iran no question there. However given the problems in Iraq a US initiated attack without the ideal provocation seems unlikely, until now. The pentagon must be frothing at the mouth over this because if the UK, for whatever reason, were to attack Iran its obvious the US would follow as others have pointed out to support NATO. It's not even a question of who was at fault here I think the cards have been dealt. I just question if this is a setup.

brill

Ste2652

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link

NATO can't get involved as an alliance over this due to its Charter.

Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty states that:

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all..." (emphasis mine)

Article Six goes on to be a bit more specific, but basically emphasises that NATO operates as a defensive alliance in Europe and North America only.

This means that for NATO to get involved there has to be a direct attack on a NATO country (i.e. its home soil - 9/11 saw NATO involvement in its aftermath because it occurred in the United States, which is covered by the North Atlantic Treaty. There's also nothing to stop NATO working outside Europe/North America in response to an event which occurred inside the NATO zone, for instance Afghanistan).

Since this incident didn't happen in Europe or North America, NATO as an organisation technically can't get involved. This is why NATO didn't get involved when the US embassy staff were held hostage by the Iranians after the Iranian Revolution, for instance.

However, that's not to say that numerous NATO members aren't willing to get involved if necessary.

[edit on 24/3/07 by Ste2652]

Zep Tepi

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link

I would just like to point out the following again:

1. The British servicemen were operating as part of UNSCR 1723 and were well within Iraqi territorial waters.

2. The forces that captured them were members of the Iranian Republican Guard naval section, not the regular Iranian navy who normally patrol in that area.

I fail to see in light of this how these actions can be considered a setup on the part of the US/UK? To suggest so is preposterous in the extreme!

My belief is the Iranians will attempt to use these servicemen as leverage to gain an advantage in a particular area. Be it the release of their people, sanctions or whatever. That part is still an unknown. It could also be part of testing the resolve of the international community, but more specifically the US and the UK. I also believe the Iranians think they can get away with (murder?) because they have done so thus far. They probably think that while the hawks in the USG would like to see conflict with Iran, the US or her allies are in no position to prosecute such a conflict.

They are dipping their toes in the water IMHO. I think it' time Ahmadinejad is shown that unacceptable actions do carry consequences.

If these guys aren't released by the middle of next week, I would say all bets are off. However, I predict they will be released either Monday or Tuesday. Even he can't be that stupid.

Cheers,
Zep

MikeboydUS

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link

I posted this link in the "Are we hours away from war with Iran?" forum.
It appears things are more serious than we think. Considering the Persian Gulf States are going on alert and expect this to only get worse.

www.debka.com...

I have a feeling Iran may be stupid enough to try to use these personnel for concessions. As I said before if they do that then all hell is going to break loose. Lucky for us the Gulf States are about to build a new oil pipeline that bypasses the Straits of Hormus.

www.worldtribune.com...

I honestly wonder if Iran knew that the endgame was coming and chose to act first. With the end of Russian cooperation, the Gulf States spending billions to expand and advance their militaries, the new pipeline, and plenty of other signs I think they may be making a last desperate attempt to stop the inevitable.

[edit on 24/3/07 by MikeboydUS]

MikeboydUS

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link

Now it looks like the Sailors and Marines may face Trial in Tehran. That is stupid on Iran's part. If they send them to trial and do something even more idiotic like sentence them to prison or death then Iran is done .

observer.guardian.co.uk...

Seized Britons face prosecution after Tehran claims 'confession'

Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Sunday March 25, 2007
The Observer

Iran defiantly rebuffed international demands yesterday for the release of 15 seized British naval personnel, claiming that the sailors and Royal Marines had confessed to entering its waters in an illegal act of aggression, and were now to be prosecuted in the Iranian capital

UM_Gazz

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
observer.guardian.co.uk...

According to that report the 15 Britons are to be prosecuted, if that happens, I wonder if they will be tried under the guidelines of international law and the Geneva conventions?

Anyone know where Iranian law stands on issues like this?