UK troops captured by Iran

Originally posted by JacKatMtn

That is what Iran wants, to get this war started and have been pushing all available buttons for the past few years, hopefully Iran will repeat their performance when they coerced confessions last time and the soldiers will be released soon.

Seriously, it does seem like Iran is just trying to goad us.

I can't for the life of me understand why though, unless they seriously think that another war will break us.

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Were these confessions coerced?

Of course they were, look at the 2004 incident, the soldier in question said upon return that they were forced to read BS provided to them by Iran in order be released. Typical, Iran captures British soldiers in Iraqi waters forces them to read/sign some prepared statement, parades them on national TV blindfolded etc... so they can pathetically justify this to their mostly ignorant population and then they release the soldiers in question within a few days... Repeat as necessary...

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
I can't for the life of me understand why though, unless they seriously think that another war will break us.

It's not their people, it's their leadership, the one who is trying to start Armegeddon and states the holocaust never happened, if you think real hard you might be able to come up with the answer..

[edit on 2007/3/24 by JacKatMtn]

Just to add some sensible thought to this thread:

The first incident in 2004, we were in Iranian water's by accident. This has been admitted by the MoD and was admitted at the time that the locations were not sertain, but the Iranian's were quite co-operative as then they had a moderate regime.

British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, made some call's to his opposite number in Tehran, whom he had dealing's with in the past and it was resolved.

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?

This time round, in 2007, we have a much more hardline Government in Iran which has been embroiled in the much debated argument we all know about.

Also, it is more or less certain our guys were NOT in Iranian territory. This has been confirmed by the MoD and the USN.

What bother's me is that the USN said they were watching on radar as the Iranians moved in.

What was done to advise those on the boats? Was this "allowed" to happen? Something to think about.

As for the chest beating coming from fellow UK'ers here, especially the one who said "we'll take care of our own problems", I'm sorry, but we lack anything close to the capacity to do much to Iran apart from annoy them slightly. We could mount a rescue, but anything above that and we just don't have the ability.

Our Army is overstretched utterly.

We lack the Naval and Air capacity in the region to offer anything but token strikes. We could move more aircraft in, but that means more support personnel, fuel and ammunition.

To move in anything like what we had in 2003 would take at least a month for the aircraft alone. Ships, at least the same time and the Army, well, enough said about that.

If your all talking War, then we would need at least 6 month's to mobilise all reservists, train them up, equip them and ship them out. That still won't be enough. Regular's and reservists combined, we're talking something in the region of 200,000-250,000 soldier's, max. Want more than that? Well, that's were we need "volunteer's", ladies and gentlemen.

It's a sad state of affairs that the UK cannot conduct any serious expeditionary operations without US support. We even needed them in the Falklands and we were still damn lucky there too.

Don't get me wrong, we have some fine men and women, some great equipment, but we just don't have enough. Things are improving, but we're talking 2015 before the UK can conceivably mount any serious expedition on it's own.

Our own forces are actually designed and orientated around performing as part of a "coallition", here read "under US command". In fact, in the 70's and 80's, the Royal Navy was entirely setup to perform one segment of NATO defence strategy, ie; ASW in the GUIUK gap. It's only recently that we have been rebuilding our blue water capability and that won't be complete for another decade.

Sorry to burst the Jingoistic bubble guys, but we're not the World's Biggest Empire anymore. Number's aside, we just don't have the cash either.

[edit on 24/3/07 by stumason]

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Were these confessions coerced?

Iran captures British soldiers in Iraqi waters ...

And you can provide proof of this statement? It's been said the waters are very divided and that there has always been contention on who owns what so your statement is your opinion I gather ?

brill

Thank you, stumason, for your input. Very informative.

Originally posted by stumason
The first incident in 2004, we were in Iranian water's by accident. This has been admitted by the MoD and was admitted at the time that the locations were not sertain,

I wonder why they went into the same area again, then. Isn't this basically the same place they were captured in 2004?

Do you have a source for the MoD's statements about this case?

Originally posted by brillAnd you can provide proof of this statement? It's been said the waters are very divided and that there has always been contention on who owns what so your statement is your opinion I gather ?

brill

As the news reports state, it is the British Government that said the ships were in Iraqi waters

news.bbc.co.uk...
The British government says the eight sailors and seven marines were in Iraqi waters. It has demanded their immediate release.

Seized sailors 'taken to Tehran'

The 15 Royal Navy personnel seized at gunpoint in the Gulf by Iran are reportedly being questioned in Tehran.

Iranian armed forces spokesman Gen Ali Reza Afshar told Iranian radio the crew were being interrogated and had admitted being in Iranian waters.

He also said they were in "sterling health" and there had been no problems.

The British government says the eight sailors and seven marines were in Iraqi waters. It has demanded their immediate release.

The Fars news agency says the group - including one woman - was flown to Iran's capital and arrived in the Iranian capital at 1200 local time (0830 GMT).

So - after just one day, these UK Marines admitted they were in Iranian waters, and without any injuries, health problems and/or signs of torture?

Someting smells fishy here...

Anyway, the troops are in Teheran now.

Why do I have a funny feeling of a "staged play" here?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Thank you, stumason, for your input. Very informative.

No worries.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I wonder why they went into the same area again, then. Isn't this basically the same place they were captured in 2004?

Do you have a source for the MoD's statements about this case?

I was just reading about that. I was trying to get confirmation of the location this time and it seems identical to the last time, so I do have some doubt over who is telling the truth.

The Shaat-al-arab waterway (where both incident's occured) is disputed (ergo, Iran-Iraq War) and it would seem that the Iranians took the UK sailors and marines prisoner here.

I'm not going to use the term "hostage", as that implies criminality, when it would seem that our boys were at the very least in "disputed" waters. That's not to say were in Iranian waters, but it's like neighbour's disputing over 6 inches on the property boundary. One claim's he owns the other side of the fence and vice versa. Depend's on one's POV, it would seem.

Originally posted by stumason

What bother's me is that the USN said they were watching on radar as the Iranians moved in.

What was done to advise those on the boats? Was this "allowed" to happen? Something to think about.

I've been thinking about that since I read this story...

Just seems kind of odd.

[edit on 24-3-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]

@ stu

nice post mate, but our navy is still the 2nd biggest behind america.

yeah i agree 10 years britain should be once again a blue water navy, but blah all it takes now is one nuke and it will be over in 10 mins j/k.

the sas will sort them out

[edit on 24-3-2007 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus

Originally posted by brillAnd you can provide proof of this statement? It's been said the waters are very divided and that there has always been contention on who owns what so your statement is your opinion I gather ?

brill

As the news reports state, it is the British Government that said the ships were in Iraqi waters

news.bbc.co.uk...
The British government says the eight sailors and seven marines were in Iraqi waters. It has demanded their immediate release.

Well what would you expect from a media agency that represents the same country in question? I was hoping for something a little more unbiased.

brill

Sounds like a "victim" ploy to me, I think they did it for a couple reasons

1. so they can "show" ( the "Mideast countries") that they are not scared

2. So if and when a rescue is attempted they can say "see they attacked us"
and then bring it to the UN ( and get "victim" status )

3. to get the brits to read some statement in front of cameras denouncing the "Western countries" policies

politically it is quite shrewed, even if it does cost them their country

( this is just my opinion )

Originally posted by st3ve_o
@ stu

nice post mate, but our navy is still the 2nd biggest behind america.

yeah i agree 10 years britain should be once again a blue water navy, but blah all it takes now is one nuke and it will be over in 10 mins j/k.

the sas will sort them out

[edit on 24-3-2007 by st3ve_o]

Cheers!

I am not so sure about the 2nd biggest, maybe the 2nd most powerful, but I'm sure the Chinese have more boats than us. I may be wrong though. Also, the US is so far ahead that being 2nd is not much comfort. Their Navy is huge, I mean really Huge! Not as big as the RN was post 1918, but still, very big.

Anyhoo. Here is a snippet:

Iranian forces captured 15 British sailors and marines on Friday at the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which marks the southern stretch of Iraq's border with Iran, sparking a diplomatic crisis at a time of increased tension over Tehran's nuclear standoff with the United States and other major powers. Source

Not sure on the veracity of that. Will try and check.

Originally posted by Souljah

Why do I have a funny feeling of a "staged play" here?

Could you elaborate. There could be several inferences to that statement, just want to make sure I know what you mean

Originally posted by stumason
Could you elaborate. There could be several inferences to that statement, just want to make sure I know what you mean

On one side you have war hungry neo-cons who want war with Iran and are prepared 150% right now, which means that if they decide to attack tomorrow the plans would already be made. On the other side you have the crazed president of Iran, who always does something to piss the west off; I mean could a president of Iran be even more provocative in his actions and words?

See and here is where my gut feelings kicks in - isn't it just too convinent that we have these two "arch enemies" staring at each other? Directly from a bad Hollywood movie. And now this: kidnapped UK soldiers. Iran does not visit UN conference. New carriers steam towards Persian Gulf. Russia pulls out of Iran. You understand where I am getting at?

Originally posted by Souljah
See and here is where my gut feelings kicks in - isn't it just too convinent that we have these two "arch enemies" staring at each other? Directly from a bad Hollywood movie. And now this: kidnapped UK soldiers. Iran does not visit UN conference. New carriers steam towards Persian Gulf. Russia pulls out of Iran. You understand where I am getting at?

Indeedy. I was thinking the whole thing is dodgy myself for those very reasons. I thought you may have been finger pointing at who did the capture.

It's undoubtably Iran that's done it, but for what reason and what about all the other pieces as well?

The only reason I can think of for a Head of State (that is otherwise well and happy) to call off a UNSC address is an emergency at home that need's HIS attention. Not sure this alone would constitute requiring that the President of Iran be there, unless they knew something else was affoot.

Comment's have been made recently about the increase in Naval firepower in the Gulf. A RN commander made efforts to highlight the warfighting capability of the new RN ships sent. Why do we need "warfighting" ships when there is no War?

Why did Coallition naval command allow this to happen in the first place? It is unthinkable to suggest that we didn't know, otherwise we have a serious tactical and strategic problem in Gulf with not being able to see Iranian Vessels!! Besides, the USN said they saw them and the two patrol boats had a helicopter escort as well.

This thing does smell, but I'm not sure of what...It's one of those unknown smells you keep having to sniff, even though you know it's going to turn out to be a lump of poo on your finger......

Originally posted by Souljah


See and here is where my gut feelings kicks in - isn't it just too convinent that we have these two "arch enemies" staring at each other?

I'm with you 100% on this. I even find it even more coincidental that the current Iranian president is the very same one that is supposedlly responsible for the embassy abductions in 79'.

Then again that is old news, just like Iran announcing that it is going to sell petroleum in Euros... but who even remebers such stories anymore?

[edit on 24-3-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]

The former head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Sir Alan West, has done a Q&A for the BBC website which can be found here.

Some interesting snippets include:

This seems to be something that has been orchestrated from Tehran ... Why suddenly should an operation we do every day be aggressive and suspicious? It's absolute nonsense.

They have GPS and they have a system which allows communications. It means they know where the mother ship is and the mother ship knows where they are. GPS means they know their position exactly.

So it's hard to make a mistake... HMS Cornwall would definitely have known if they had strayed into Iranian waters (remember this patrol would probably be constantly monitored). So they would have been warned - in addition, this is apparently an operation they carry out regularly.

These particular people would not be trained in counter-interrogation techniques because they are not expected to be captured ... Don't tell them secrets, clearly, but if they tell you: 'Say this', well if that's going to get you out, then do it. It means absolutely nothing, what they say to be honest.

So take any confessions you hear with a grain of salt. Apparently part of the condition for the release of the sailors last time this occurred was that they 'confessed' to their 'crime'.

Originally posted by stumason
Why did Coallition naval command allow this to happen in the first place? It is unthinkable to suggest that we didn't know, otherwise we have a serious tactical and strategic problem in Gulf with not being able to see Iranian Vessels!! Besides, the USN said they saw them and the two patrol boats had a helicopter escort as well.

Just like to say good posting so far. Love reading what you have to say. I did want to comment on this one particular paragraph though.

I don't think that the coallition naval command LET it happen, it just sort of did. The USN (which I'm a part of, and have been to the persian gulf, many times) saw them on radar, but thats not fishy. Iranians are continually roving their terriortorial waters/borders and its not uncommon to see movement.

Firstly, Your guys ships were indeed close to the line, but not in it. So there really wasn't a whole lot of time to react to the situation.

Secondly, the USN can't do a whole lot. Visbility on Radar is MUCH better than visual. They probably saw the entire event, but are to far away to do much about it.

Thirdly, the helicopters (in the US Navy atleast) main primary goal is to provide air support in the event of a crash or man overboard (aka SAR). This is fact. The patrol boats provide perimeter security of the vessel and also supplements the rescue mission of the helo's. The helo's secondary mission is ASW and other missions include CSAR, vertrep, medical evacuations, etc.

I don't think theres a conspiracy there, the simple fact is that the Iranians were to fast for us (or the uk) to react. It happens.