British marines seized by Iranians?

[DroppinScience]

What do you make of this incident? It feels very "he said, she said." Iran goes: "They were trespassing" and Britain's all like: "We were just inspecting stuff."

So it's hard to know what to believe right now.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/24/iran.uk.sailors/index.html

[QueenAdrock]

I saw this on the news when I was at the gym. From what I could gather, my feelings are that Britain shouldn't be anywhere near Iranian waters.

[Schmeltz]

From what I've read, that's kind of the issue - I guess there are areas of the Gulf where it's tough to tell where Iraqi waters end and Iranian waters begin, since the treaty that originally set out the demarcation was rendered null by the Iran-Iraq War and there's been no formal arbitration since. The Admiralty seems to think their forces were well within Iraqi waters, while the Revolutionary Guard seems to think the opposite. Probably neither is right and neither is wrong, technically speaking.

Even so, you have to wonder at the Iranian decision-making process. Everyone's aware of how high the tension's running between Iran and the USA, rumours of impending war have been floating around for months now. For the Revolutionary Guard to take British sailors into custody, and ratchet the tension up even higher, seems like a pretty clumsy misstep by the Iranians. Ditto with today's suspension of Iranian participation in the UN, and Ahmadinejad's last-minute cancellation of his trip to New York (alleged visa obstruction aside). This is a course of action that isolates Iran even further from the rest of the world. If the object is to defuse a dangerous and volatile situation, it certainly isn't helping.

[DroppinScience]

But word is they were seized in Iraqi waters. I saw a little diagram of where the action took place, and it's pretty darn close between the official Iraqi water territory and Iranian water territory. It's anyone's guess, really.

[JobDDT]

They were trespassing and got caught.

Too fucking bad. They should learn to live with the consequences.

[Schmeltz]

It's interesting that neither side seems willing to reveal the exact coordinates of where this happened, though it would seem that doing so would logically provide a solid basis for the settlement of the issue. Is nobody confident enough in their version of the story to state their case explicitly? Very curious.

[Ali]

Even so, you have to wonder at the Iranian decision-making process. Everyone's aware of how high the tension's running between Iran and the USA, rumours of impending war have been floating around for months now. For the Revolutionary Guard to take British sailors into custody, and ratchet the tension up even higher, seems like a pretty clumsy misstep by the Iranians. Ditto with today's suspension of Iranian participation in the UN, and Ahmadinejad's last-minute cancellation of his trip to New York (alleged visa obstruction aside). This is a course of action that isolates Iran even further from the rest of the world. If the object is to defuse a dangerous and volatile situation, it certainly isn't helping.So Iran should just ignore Coalition activity off her coast?

Seems to me that with all the shit being thrown at Iran lately, that they are sending out a very clear signal: DFWU.

[Echewta]

IRAN WONT RELEASE BRITISH SEAMEN.

[Freebasser]

At least they weren't held by the Iraqis.

That shit be painful (n)

[roosta]

British soldiers were forever "accidentally" wandering over our side of the border back in the day.

At the same time though, as little as i trust the Brit army, i probably trust the Iranians even less.

[Ali]

British soldiers were forever "accidentally" wandering over our side of the border back in the day.British soldiers wandered all over the globe, back in the day.

[chromium05]

Apparently, the sailors/marines were equipped with satellite positioning units which the government say will show the soldiers were in Iraqi waters. I wonder if there is any way that this data can be manipulated to show what they want it to?
The only people who knew where they were are the ones right at the centre, an those with access to the genuine GPS data.

Oh...in case anyone missed it, apparently the US is planning air strikes on Friday 6th April beginning 4am against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities, thier government buildings and various other targets. Friday is the muslim equivalent of our Sunday - no work. So the buildings/targets will be on minimal staff and a lower casualty count. apart from setting back Iranian nuclear research a few years, the other aim is to weaken the Iranian power structure, install another pro-US government and rob another country dry of it's resources (OIL!!)

Go US!!! (you f@ckers*)

* - meaning Bush and all the other insane war mongering, constitution bukkake'ing SOB's. The Hague waits - you sh*ts!!!

[JobDDT]

Oh boy, "controlled air strikes". So how many years until they start massive car bombs within this country?

[Schmeltz]

in case anyone missed it, apparently the US is planning air strikes on Friday 6th April beginning 4am against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities


If you haven't missed it, I doubt the Iranians have. Pretty shoddy planning by the US military to release their plans two weeks in advance.

[chromium05]

^^ The US didn't reveal it. Someone else did. Which will explain why there is a 2nd aircraft carrier hovering around the persian gulf.

Don't shoot the ufcking messenger. I hope it passes with no action whatsoever.

[Whatitis]

Friday is the muslim equivalent of our Sunday - no work. So the buildings/targets will be on minimal staff and a lower casualty count.


And they say the US military doesn't care. :rolleyes:

[Monsieur Decuts]

honestly though....really? Honestly? O RLY? Do you realllly think you are in possession of the exact date of engagement ? Howdy God complex

[chromium05]

Oh...in case anyone missed it, apparently the US is planning air strikes on Friday 6th April

Who said it was a fact?

So no, honestly though....really! Honestly! I do not think I am in "possession of the exact date of engagement".

So don't be a patronising cnut.

[Schmeltz]

It might help if you posted your source for that information, which is really quite specific. If it isn't a fact, and only an idle rumour... why bother posting it at all?

[DroppinScience]

honestly though....really? Honestly? O RLY? Do you realllly think you are in possession of the exact date of engagement ? Howdy God complex

You know, I STILL remember when fucktopgirl posted some PrisonPlanet-type conspiracy crap claiming the impending war with Iran would take place on our TV's starting March 20-something... of 2006. Didn't happen. I've been heartbroken ever since.

[QueenAdrock]

Oh yeah, I forgot about that (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=63055). She promised me, too. :(

[DroppinScience]

Oh yeah, I forgot about that (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=63055). She promised me, too. :(

You know what? What if they actually meant March 28th... of THIS year. That'd be tomorrow. I guess the conspiracy theorist's fat cheeto-encrusted fingers accidentally hit "6" instead of "7." Oh, typos. :p

[JobDDT]

I'm so sick of this fucking machismo "show of force" around Iran, and these comments from a general that "if Iran would've seized OUR troops, we would've went to war!"

What a load of horseshit. The problem is, 90% of this country doesn't even know that the British marines were likely snooping around in Iran's shit. If Iranians were discovered snooping around in our shit, they'd be jailed for an eternity.

[Ali]

It might help if you posted your source for that information, which is really quite specific. If it isn't a fact, and only an idle rumour... why bother posting it at all?
Here you go. (http://news.google.co.uk/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-36,GGLJ:en&q=april%20attack%20iran&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn)

Nothing official, but where there's smoke, there's an oil well!

[gorilla]

Why did Iran take these soldiers hostage? Are they trying to film a sitcom?
Is there no local talent in Tehran?

[JobDDT]

This is ridiculous, the way the cable assclowns are covering this story. Somehow, anytime someone says there is a possibility that this is the U.K.'s fault, they're accused of treason and "should be hung by rope" (Danny Bonadouche on MSNBC).

Can't people admit that we don't know what the fuck happened, and that if they were snooping they deserved to be jailed for breaking international and U.N. law?

It's not like they're being raped. They're eating hot food, they're fraternizing with each other, and thats just from the released footage. They look like the happiest prisoners on Earth.

[roosta]

It's not like they're being raped. They're eating hot food, they're fraternizing with each other, and thats just from the released footage. They look like the happiest prisoners on Earth.

funny thing is propaganda....

[Carlos]

the fact that it was on the biggest holiday weekend Iran has (they would have a greatly scaled down operational strength) makes me rather suspicious, not to mention that HMS Cornwall has some of the most advanced radar, and so should have had plenty time to warn the crews to get back on their boats and scarper. Or that they were being monitored by a helicopter - again which should have seen the Iranian boats coming.... or that there just happened to be an embedded journo who also just happened to film Faye whats-her-name hours befre being captured...

in other words it could have been avoided, and so we must ask the question; why wasn't it??!!

My feelin is this will be resolved peacefully within a couple days - its purpose is to just add to the list of things the US and UK need to strike at Iran. As this is what Iran wants, and nobody in the UK would accept a military solution.

Tony Blair is using every opertunity he can to bleet about how disgraceful this was etc.. but its pertinently clear that there s NO CLEARLY and agreed line that divides the water way. And so such bleeting has only 1 purpose, to drive up the tension and observed threat from Iran.

Which we know is utter bullshite :eek:

[Schmeltz]

You know, Carlos, there isn't an ulterior motive behind everything that happens in the world. World leaders and politicians do not deliberately engineer everything that happens, and not every event has some nefarious purpose lurking in the shadows right behind it.

Yes, this incident could have been avoided. Why wasn't it? Probably because the people involved screwed it up, as happens very frequently.

[Drederick Tatum]

imagine if Iranian warships were sailing just outside Portsmouth or Boston.

[Carlos]

You know, Carlos, there isn't an ulterior motive behind everything that happens in the world. World leaders and politicians do not deliberately engineer everything that happens, and not every event has some nefarious purpose lurking in the shadows right behind it.

Yes, this incident could have been avoided. Why wasn't it? Probably because the people involved screwed it up, as happens very frequently.

quite possibly Schmeltz.. however given what i have researched, I wouldn't be surprised at all if there is a little more to it than we are being told by the MSM..

Rather than being so sure that "there isn't an ulterior motive behind everything that happens in the world.." maybe you would put aside your preconceptions and ask why I would take such a view.. Or not look at your belief system that allows for fuck ups, but not pre-planned fuck ups, with a pre-planned solution for the fuck up? They call it ORDO AB CHAO, or order out of chaos, if you create the chaos, and then the order, you have total control over a situation!

It has been clearly documented that there are elite groups that opperate beyond the scope and authority of governments and infact these groups shape the political environment - have you heard of the CFR: Council of Foreign Relations? They wrote the PNAC document, which has been the driving force behind Bush's whole presidency..... Oh and also said that they wouldn't be able to carry out their proposals "unless there was a catastrophic and catalysing event such as a new pearl habour".. and in less than 18months we had 911!! Honestly, once you look, it all starts to make real sense, these guys are obsessed with control, and maintaning power over the masses, with whatever means necessary.

Here's a taste of the sort of tings they're into:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards WORLD GOVERNMENT. The supra national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller, to the Council on Foreign Relations, June 1991

schemltz does that not clearly indicate that a lot of things in this world are not quite as accidental as you seem to think them to be? Especially major events.. check out this interview with Aaron Russo (creator of movie Trading Places) regarding what the NWO plans are:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609&hl=en-GB

[Schmeltz]

Honestly, once you look, it all starts to make real sense


World history and events make plenty of sense to me without the need to rely on conspiracy theories and wild speculation.


schemltz does that not clearly indicate that a lot of things in this world are not quite as accidental as you seem to think them to be?


Mmmm... no.

Also, more on topic: The Brits are going home! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain) Now this is a great move by Ahmadinejad - dress them up in (presumably) free business suits, shake their hands, get them on camera testifying as to the quality of their treatment while in captivity, and then send them home as a "gift" for Easter. It makes Blair and his government look like blustering fools, and it seems to have earned a slight concession as to the status of the Iranians detained in Iraq. Smooth.

[kaiser soze]

The release of the soldiers is an amazing gesture in light of the senseless killing of muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan and the abuses of Gitmo and Abu Grahib

(y) to Iran for doing something right, I hope this opens the eyes of bush and blair

[Carlos]

World history and events make plenty of sense to me without the need to rely on conspiracy theories and wild speculation.


I'm sure they make perfect sense - but so did going to war with Iraq for millions of your countrymen, didn't make it right, or an intelligent thing to do though did it?

Unless you look at all the evidence rather than being constrained with fear of being a conspiracy theorist then really you are no different to those that chose not to look at the blatent evidence that going into Iraq was always gonna be a disaster - never limit yourself or your awareness. That's what freedom is. You are afraid of being lablelled in the way that you are so quick to label me.

couple questions:

Are you denying that Bush's political strategy has not been dominated by the CFR's PNAC document, and an elite around him?

Are you denying that a world elite, including all the presidents of the last 100 yrs, gather in a remote country estate called Bohemian Grove, and hatch plans such as the manhattan project.... As well as carrying out mock human sacrifice rituals?

Or does that sort of thing not bother you... or did you just not have any idea that it exists?

If someone told me about Bohemian Grove without me seeing it for my own eyes, I would have just assumed it to be wild speculation.
Once you start to piece together certain bits of information, then what orriginally looks like wild speculation, then becomes reality.

A little example how you should throw your rigidity out the window, as your pre-conceptions will limit your awareness of the world.

[fucktopgirl]

This exchange is getting interesting!!!

[Schmeltz]

Are you denying that Bush's political strategy has not been dominated by the CFR's PNAC document, and an elite around him?


No, I think that's very clear. But it's hardly extraordinary.


Are you denying that a world elite, including all the presidents of the last 100 yrs, gather in a remote country estate called Bohemian Grove, and hatch plans such as the manhattan project.... As well as carrying out mock human sacrifice rituals?


Richard Nixon called Bohemian Grove "the most faggy God damned thing that you would ever imagine." It's Carnival - a social outlet mechanism - and networking. Really rather mundane, actually.


Unless you look at all the evidence rather than being constrained with fear of being a conspiracy theorist then really you are no different


Ah, but you are incorrect. Thinking individuals are under no responsibility to examine each and every existing point of view on any issue, still less to accept them all as gospel. In fact, a characteristic strength of intelligent people is the ability to sort through large amounts of information quickly and discard out of hand those things not immediately relevant to their search for knowledge. Yes, one has to be discerning - but one also has to be critical, and there's where conspiracy theorists typically fall flat.


This exchange is getting interesting!!!


I really wish you were right.

[Carlos]

No, I think that's very clear. But it's hardly extraordinary.


so you do admit that there such things that could be labelled as a conspiracy . As by definition the CFR and such groups 'conspire' to create a political climate.


Richard Nixon called Bohemian Grove "the most faggy God damned thing that you would ever imagine." It's Carnival - a social outlet mechanism - and networking. Really rather mundane, actually.


So killing an efagy of a child in klu klux calan style robes, with eerie pagan voiceover, mixed with political deciession making on huge global issues, is mundane - fair enough, wouldn't like to come round your neck of the woods :p lol



Ah, but you are incorrect. Thinking individuals are under no responsibility to examine each and every existing point of view on any issue, still less to accept them all as gospel. In fact, a characteristic strength of intelligent people is the ability to sort through large amounts of information quickly and discard out of hand those things not immediately relevant to their search for knowledge. Yes, one has to be discerning - but one also has to be critical, and there's where conspiracy theorists typically fall flat.


If you are in pursuit of knowledge then we do have a responsibility to look at information (not points of view!!!) that challenge our beliefs.
Also it is a characterristic of arrogant people, and not intelligent people, to sift through information quickly and come to a decision based on their pre-conceptions. That is nothing near to knowledge i'm afraid.

But my point to you was, when you label cetain things as "conspiracy theory', and use it a a badge of distrust, by definition you are limiting your awareness. To right off an avenue of information becasue it would come under the 'CT' umbrella.

I would argue the so called 'C. theorists' are just as likely to be critical than anyone else, in some ways probably more so, because they reject a large amount of what is pushed on them by the MSM.

I good example of this is the no plane hologram theory regarding 911, there are some that espouse that no planes hit the towers and pentagon, but it was missles dressed as planes by use of holograms. The majority of 911 investigators reject that completely, and even rather angrily - this is testiment to the fact that most CT'ers won't just accept any old thing, but only what the evidence suggests. And trust me there is so much evidence, evidence that would be accepted in a court of law. But becasue of the subject invovled it just is wild speculation.

[Schmeltz]

As by definition the CFR and such groups 'conspire' to create a political climate.


Sure. So does the Democratic Caucus. So did the First Triumvirate. But "conspiracy theory" is more of a colloquialism than a relevant definition of any legitimate political activity.


So killing an efagy of a child in klu klux calan style robes, with eerie pagan voiceover, mixed with political deciession making on huge global issues, is mundane


It's certainly a lot more mundane than lots of other human activities and rituals I can think of. What is it actually, Carlos - clear and direct indication of the domineering influence of occultic Satan worship on the minds of political and business leaders? Give me a break.


But my point to you was, when you label cetain things as "conspiracy theory', and use it a a badge of distrust, by definition you are limiting your awareness.


Again, while intelligent people have a responsibility to take into account perspectives that challenge their biases, they also have a responsibility to examine information critically instead of accepting it out of hand simply because it runs against those biases. Your awareness is always going to be limited, simply because it is impossible to take every facet of reality into account. That doesn't mean you have to accept as absolute truth every single piece of information you can possibly get your hands on. It means you have to be critically judgmental in selecting the information on which you base your perspectives. That means "righting off" avenues of information that fail to meet typical standards of assessment - like the notion that everything that happens in the world takes place solely at the discretion of a handful of Satanists and pagans.

You're confusing rational skepticism with wide-eyed lunacy.

[D_Raay]

I would hardly call Carlos a wild-eyed lunatic, no offense, I just wouldn't. Neither would a reasonable person I would guess.

What of the ramifications of simply dismissing "theories" out of hand? Could be disastrous. As a matter of fact, they probably already have been.

[Schmeltz]

Well, when Satan's demonic hordes are finally summoned by Dick Cheney to claw their way from the scorched and bloodied earth and lay waste to all nations of the globe, you guys can blame me.

[D_Raay]

Hehe, not exactly what I meant Schmeltz.

It's hard to simply dismiss anything nowadays, despite the intellectual NEED to.

[EN[i]GMA]

I would hardly call Carlos a wild-eyed lunatic, no offense, I just wouldn't. Neither would a reasonable person I would guess.

Well, as the board's resident "reasonable person", I call him a wild-eyed lunatic.

In fact, I heard he was in cahoots with the Bilderbergers


What of the ramifications of simply dismissing "theories" out of hand?

It depends entirely on what the theory is.

If the theory is that the reanimated corpse of Joan of Arc destroyed the towers, I wouldn't feel the slightest smidgen of shame in discounting it out of hand. And I rate 'theories' about mass hypnosis and holographic planes little above that one.

You tell me the ramifications of discounting stupidity of hand or not: do hours upon hours of research into the 'Joan of Arc theory', and waste your precious time. Or don't, and make a reasonable inferance from the existing evidence.


Could be disastrous. As a matter of fact, they probably already have been.

Some ideas simply aren't worth discussing. Some people aren't worth discussing ideas with.

[EN[i]GMA]

Hehe, not exactly what I meant Schmeltz.

It's hard to simply dismiss anything nowadays, despite the intellectual NEED to.

Oh no, it's actually very easy. Watch, as I dismiss your advice.

Voila!

[D_Raay]

GMA']Oh no, it's actually very easy. Watch, as I dismiss your advice.

Voila!
Well, of course I am not talking about wild theories that are easily dismissed by even the most dense of perusers.

I am rather referring specifically to some raised by Carlos. You know the same theories accepted by a large number of people? I don't suscribe to any theory, either by the theorist or the naysayer, without knowing all of the facts.

That being said, I don't merely dismiss them out of hand simply because they seem too improbable. As I have said before, the present state of the world never ceases to surprise or shock me. Every week there is something new that defies a reasonable person's sense of what SHOULD be and what IS.

The breadth and level of power abuse in our government is both improbable and surreptitious at the same time. Quite a dangerous combination. It is like the Global Warming debate, we can't simply dismiss something so potentially harmful to all of us.

[EN[i]GMA]

Well, of course I am not talking about wild theories that are easily dismissed by even the most dense of perusers.

But I am.


I am rather referring specifically to some raised by Carlos. You know the same theories accepted by a large number of people?

Yes, and a lot of people believe there's a personal God that talks to them and helps them to make free throws during basketball games, but that doesn't make it so.

People are deluded, people in groups often moreso.

I don't suscribe to any theory, either by the theorist or the naysayer, without knowing all of the facts.

So you don't subscribe to the theory of evolution? The theory of gravity? You're too skeptical even for me!


That being said, I don't merely dismiss them out of hand simply because they seem too improbable.

Yes you do. You just admitted you did: Well, of course I am not talking about wild theories that are easily dismissed by even the most dense of perusers.

Am I missing something here?


As I have said before, the present state of the world never ceases to surprise or shock me. Every week there is something new that defies a reasonable person's sense of what SHOULD be and what IS.

The breadth and level of power abuse in our government is both improbable and surreptitious at the same time. Quite a dangerous combination. It is like the Global Warming debate, we can't simply dismiss something so potentially harmful to all of us.

Well, it's like the global warming debate in one aspect: the deniers of global warming remind me starkly of the 'theorists'.

[D_Raay]

Well, whatever E, pardon me for taking anything seriously...

[EN[i]GMA]

Well, whatever E, pardon me for taking anything seriously...

No need to be offended, most of my jibes are meant to be jocular anyway.

I just don't see the need to exalt people who are, in all probability, wrong. They may be right, but they've yet to demonstrate it. That's what matters.

[Ali]

Sorry to interrupt, but surely if those sailors HAD really been in Iraqi waters, then that fuckoff great warship that they had come from could have blown the Iranian boats clean out of the water before they had got near?

Surely this, alone, is evidence enough that they were in Iranian waters when they were apprehended?

Oh well, at least the British declined the kind offer from the US to launch airstrikes... I'm sure that would have speeded things up.

[Tone Capone]

Surely this, alone, is evidence enough that they were in Iranian waters when they were apprehended?


OMFG...

[Ali]

OMFG...OK, then. Why did HMS Cornwall not intervene when the Iranian boats approached the boat which was being boarded by her Sailors? Surely a Royal Navy Type 22 frigate has not only the capacity to track any vessel in the area for hundreds of miles, but also the firepower to do something about it...

... unless the boats she's trying to protect are in an area where they have no jurisdiction. It's the only logical conclusion.

C'mon, Tone. You are a military man. Why did HMS Cornwall stand by and do nothing?

[Schmeltz]

Q: What are the rules of engagement in this type of situation?

A: The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting. The reason we are there is to be a force for good, to make the whole area safe, to look after the Iraqi big oil platforms and also to stop smuggling and terrorism there.

So we try to downplay things. Rather then roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away.

- Admiral Sir Alan West, Former First Sea Lord (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6491581.stm)


I imagine the Cornwall held fire because the British Ministry of Defense told it to do so in order to avoid escalating a hostage situation into an act of war. I don't think it proves that the Brits knew they were in foreign waters where they apparently think it's OK to board ships, but not to fire on any opposition.

[Ali]

I imagine the Cornwall held fire because the British Ministry of Defense told it to do so in order to avoid escalating a hostage situation into an act of war. I don't think it proves that the Brits knew they were in foreign waters where they apparently think it's OK to board ships, but not to fire on any opposition.That's what we've been told by the Royal Navy.. so of course it's true.:rolleyes:

[Schmeltz]

If cavalier insubstantiality like that actually won arguments, I'd call this your victory. Unfortunately, however...

[Ali]

If cavalier insubstantiality like that actually won arguments, I'd call this your victory. Unfortunately, however...Yeah, a substantial lie beats an insubstantial supposition any time.