British sailors held by Iranian navy

[Vincent]

British sailors held by Iranian navy

March 23 2007

London - About 15 sailors from a British warship were seized by Iranian naval vessels in the Gulf on Friday, the Ministry of Defence said, demanding their immediate release and seeking urgent clarification from Tehran.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett summoned the Iranian ambassador over the incident, which comes amid mounting tension between the Islamic republic and the West over Tehran's nuclear plans.

"The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment," the ministry said, underlining that the sailors had been engaged in "routine" anti-smuggling operations in Iraqi waters.

The abduction of the British servicemen came as the United Nations Security Council prepared to vote on new sanctions aimed at forcing Tehran to curb its nuclear programme.

Source

[Crvena zvezda]

As far as I see, the Brits got what they deserve. I mean, the whole war in Iraq is pointless and Saddam's regime was one of the only decent regimes in the Arab world.

[Errigal]

This could be a deliberate provocation by the British government so that Iran looks bad just before the vote on sanctions being held today at the UN. The more threatening Iran looks the better.

[Lucas Corso]

Originally Posted by A Few Acres of Snow

This could be a deliberate provocation by the British government so that Iran looks bad just before the vote on sanctions being held today at the UN. The more threatening Iran looks the better.

I agree especially beacuse the border between Iraq and Iran in the Shatt El Arab zone is really uncertain...

[Menydh]

Iran has justified the capture of the British soldiers because they were on Iranian territorial waters. I think it highly unlikely that Iran would even think of capturing them outside their territorial waters, given the current situation of threat against Iran.

The Jerusalem Post calls them "abudctees" in its frontpage:

Iran: British sailors \'bargaining chips\'
Teheran says 15 abductees "confessed" they were in Iranian territorial waters.

The EU is demanding Iran to free the British invaders:

EU tells Iran to free UK troops
The EU has told Iran to free fifteen British sailors who were captured after allegedly straying into Iranian waters near the Iraqi city of Basra.

"The presidency of the council of the European Union calls upon the Iranian Government to immediately release the 15 British seamen detained yesterday," Germany foreign ministry said in a statement.

Germany, which currently holds the EU presidency, said on Saturday that it had earlier raised the matter with the Iranian foreign ministry.

With the pro-American German presidency of the EU, I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to implicate the EU against Iran.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Iran has justified the capture of the British soldiers because they were on Iranian territorial waters. I think it highly unlikely that Iran would even think of capturing them outside their territorial waters, given the current situation of threat against Iran.

The Jerusalem Post calls them "abudctees" in its frontpage:

The EU is demanding Iran to free the British invaders:

With the pro-American German presidency of the EU, I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to implicate the EU against Iran.

The EU has always been slave of the Yankee Judaea. It is an illusion to see EU as anything different than Washington. The only exception maybe being France, maybe....

[Errigal]

New sanctions imposed on Iran | Reuters

Also:

Irish Examiner> Sailors Confessed, Claims Tehran

[Franze]

But I think that with many pressure measures, Iran will be more menacing and for that less probable to attack, is North Korea attacked? in addition Irak had a joke army.

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Iran has justified the capture of the British soldiers because they were on Iranian territorial waters. I think it highly unlikely that Iran would even think of capturing them outside their territorial waters, given the current situation of threat against Iran.

The Jerusalem Post calls them "abudctees" in its frontpage:

The EU is demanding Iran to free the British invaders:

With the pro-American German presidency of the EU, I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to implicate the EU against Iran.

This time they might be used as bargaining chip, but I read that two years ago there was an incedent like this and the caputred soldiers were just released after admiting they violated iranian soveirgnity. The british did not report them then. This is obviously a deliberate ploy to get international condemnation of Iran. Iran will release them, it just depends when and on what terms. The British should be happy they get released, if something like this happened at a time without tensions the Iranians probably would have executed them.

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by Peter

But I think that with many pressure measures, Iran will be more menacing and for that less probable to attack, is North Korea attacked? in addition Irak had a joke army.

I wouldn't say they had a joke army. They expected an attack from the bnorth from Turkey and the Kurdish regions sicne Kurds are pro-American and their were indications of an attack from Turkey. Also, when bombing started the U.S. invaded the U.S. released all prisoners so tropps abondoned their positions to defend their families since child molesters, rapists and murderers were releasded and given order to attack families of soldiers.

[Lucas Corso]

However the news as reported is a bit incorrect: the group captured comprised eight sailors and seven marines.
The key point in my point of view are the presence of royal marines (or SAS?!?), i think they were preparing an infiltration in iranian territory...
It is useful to note also that after the first flash news with the correct composition of group, now in the italian tv they're saying just 15 "sailors" (disinformation???

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Lucas Corso

However the news as reported is a bit incorrect: the group captured comprised eight sailors and seven marines.
The key point in my point of view are the presence of royal marines (or SAS?!?), i think they were preparing an infiltration in iranian territory...
It is useful to note also that after the first flash news with the correct composition of group, now in the italian tv they're saying just 15 "sailors"

It may just be a problem with translation. The Royal Marines are infantry under the command of the Navy; like France's Fusiliers Marins or Italy's San Marco Regiment. (I'm not sure of the Italian example but the description on Wikipedia matches the role of the Royal Marines.)

Marine corps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Lucas Corso]

Originally Posted by A Few Acres of Snow

It may just be a problem with translation. The Royal Marines are infantry under the command of the Navy; like France's Fusiliers Marins or Italy's San Marco Regiment. (I'm not sure of the Italian example but the description on Wikipedia matches the role of the Royal Marines.)

Marine corps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The italian example is right, i don't think is a problem of translation, in the first news they said clearly "Otto marinai e sette royal marine tra cui una donna" then they became just "quindici marinai"

However i was more questioning about the possiblity of an infiltration maybe to bring weapons to the arabic separatists group of the Shat el Arab delta...

Originally Posted by Lucas Corso

However the news as reported is a bit incorrect: the group captured comprised eight sailors and seven marines.
The key point in my point of view are the presence of royal marines (or SAS?!?), i think they were preparing an infiltration in iranian territory...
It is useful to note also that after the first flash news with the correct composition of group, now in the italian tv they're saying just 15 "sailors" (disinformation???

Marines are part of the Royal navy, and Navy special forces are the SBS. In GB it would not be an unusual mistake to refer Marines as sailors due to there affiliation to each other.

The SAS are part of the Army, SAS do not operate at sea.

The SAS and SBS are very small units and would not be wasted in this kind of operation.

If special forces where going into Iran they would not use one of the worlds busiest sea lanes that has Iranian Naval exercises going on, they would cross into Iran from Iraq as the boarder is large and easily crossed without being seen.
Marines would not be used to infiltrate Iran as they are sea born raiders, in and out to sea very quickly. Marines are used to board ships, this is a major part of a royal Marines role. A British Royal Marine is nothing like a USA Marine, the USA Marine Corps is a Army within a Army, capable of toppling a nation.

What does amaze me is the fact they were taken by surprise so easily, basic military training states that a guard is posted to warn of a contact with the enemy, thus I suspect they where in Iraqi waters as they where not following protocols used in enemy territory.

Back to the SAS.
I would expect that the SAS and USA special forces to have been operating in Iran for a year or two. The SAS have years of experience of operating in the middle east, with many of it's members able to speak the different languages of the region.
The role behind lines would be to identify targets for attack, such a lines of communications, early warning systems and surface to air missile systems.

[Errigal]

Mutiny in the Gulf?

Friday, March 30th, 2007 in News by Justin Raimondo|

Tony Blair rails against the shameless parading of the 15 captured Brits with his usual vigor, but what really takes the air out of his rhetoric is the alacrity with which the detainees have turned against their own government.
It’s been less than a full week since they were taken into custody, and already the woman, Faye Turney, has written three letters, two of them overtly critical of the British government and its foreign policy. Both Ms. Turney and Nathan Summers have gone on television, admitted to being in Iranian waters when apprehended, and apologized profusely to the Iranian people. They don’t appear to have been coerced, although, of course, their very presence in Iran is hardly voluntary: no doubt they’ll be judged victims of the “Stockhold syndrome” upon their return.
Blair avers that the Iranians “aren’t fooling anyone” with this exhibition of prisoners, and their clearly staged “confessions,” and yet one has to wonder why these frontline soldiers turned so quickly. It’s embarrassing. No signs of torture, no glassy-eyed stare, no Morse code eyebrow movements signifying extreme distress, all perfectly calm and even natural:
“I ask the representatives of the House of Commons, after the government have promised that this type of incident would not happen again, why have they let this occur, and why has the government not been questioned over this? Isn’t it time for us to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?”
That doesn’t sound at all like the stilted propaganda spiels coerced out of prisoners during, say, the Vietnam war. It sounds like an ordinary disgusted British citizen who blames her own government, rather than her captors, for her present predicament. “Why has the government not been questioned over this?” — indeed. In yet another letter recently released, Ms. Turney declared: “I’m writing to you as a British serviceperson who has been sent to Iraq, sacrificed due to the intervening policies of the Bush and Blair government.” The accusatory nationalist undertone, implying not too subtly that Blair is Bush’s poodle, is unmistakable and, under the circumstances, astonishing. Next we hear of Ms. Turney, she’ll be running for Parliament alongside George Galloway on the “Respect” ticket, and booked solid for a speaking tour of America.
I don’t mean to be disdainful of either of these two, whose predicament I can only imagine, but I think their behavior says something about the tenuous hold the official ideology has over our own centurions. One has to assume that the views of this bunch are, while expressed under duress, at least to some extent, a) sincere — how else to explain Ms. Turney’s eloquence? — and, b) fairly representative. If so, one has to wonder how long before their loyalty to the War Party is exhausted. The “coalition” hasn’t even attacked Iran yet, and already the troops are rebelling. Can we look forward to a full-scale mutiny if and when it comes to war?

Source