-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Iran Captures UK Marines and Sailors
- Thread starter Radio Frequency X
- Start date
Radio Frequency X
World Leader Pretend
Djamila said:
Yes. Muslim countries are incapable of wrong. I forgot.
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
I don't think you can blame Bush or Blair for the acts of Iraqi militia.Djamila said:Yet his decisions have so far killed far more people than Iran's leader.
And you might want to read up on the type of government you are defending;
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/iran12214.htm
Djamila
Bosnjakinja
It's not my intention to defend Iran, I wouldn't move there if you paid me - but it is my intention to hold the West accountable for it's own ****-ups.
Radio has frequently expressed the sentiment of "Oh God, the Muslims won't take ownership of any of their problems" - well, I feel the same way about the West.
The British send a ship up the Shatt al'Arab and act like it's Irans fault when they're arrested? I mean... lol ****.
Radio has frequently expressed the sentiment of "Oh God, the Muslims won't take ownership of any of their problems" - well, I feel the same way about the West.
The British send a ship up the Shatt al'Arab and act like it's Irans fault when they're arrested? I mean... lol ****.
NoahideHiker
Religious Headbanger
I would gladly pay $5 a gallon for gas to kick Iran off the hind teet.
greatcalgarian
Well-Known Member
greatcalgarian
Well-Known Member
TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- An Iranian military official said on Saturday "confessions" and other evidence showed that British naval personnel who were detained in the Gulf had illegally entered Iranian waters.
"The Foreign Ministry's spokesman called the illegal and interfering entry of British forces into Iranian territorial waters a suspicious act and against international laws and rules and has harshly condemned it," IRNA said.
It quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini as saying: "Violating the territory of other countries and non-permitted entrance ... show unusual aims and is against international treaties and there are no excuses for ignoring and not accepting the responsibility for that."
In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the same waterway. They were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally, then released unharmed after three days.
"The Foreign Ministry's spokesman called the illegal and interfering entry of British forces into Iranian territorial waters a suspicious act and against international laws and rules and has harshly condemned it," IRNA said.
It quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini as saying: "Violating the territory of other countries and non-permitted entrance ... show unusual aims and is against international treaties and there are no excuses for ignoring and not accepting the responsibility for that."
In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the same waterway. They were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally, then released unharmed after three days.
greatcalgarian
Well-Known Member
'Blatant aggression'
Earlier this week, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, warned this week that if Western countries "treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack."
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini accused the British of "violating the sovereign boundaries" of Iran, calling the entry a "blatant aggression."
He accused Britain of trying to cover up the incursion, saying it should "refrain from putting the blame on others."
The seizure of the Britons took place in an area where boundaries between Iraqi and Iranian waters have long been disputed. A 1975 treaty set the center of the Shatt al-Arab - the 125-mile-long channel known in Iran as the Arvand River - as the border.
But Saddam Hussein canceled the 1975 treaty five years later and invaded Iran, triggering an eight-year war. Virtually all of Iraq's oil is exported through a terminal near the mouth of the channel.
'Simple mistake'
Britain's Defense Ministry said the Royal Navy personnel were in Iraqi territorial waters when they were seized. Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet in Bahrain also said it was "very clear" they were in Iraqi waters.
"We've been on operations there for several years," Aandahl said. He said coalition vessels respect the 1975 treaty.
Earlier this week, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, warned this week that if Western countries "treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack."
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini accused the British of "violating the sovereign boundaries" of Iran, calling the entry a "blatant aggression."
He accused Britain of trying to cover up the incursion, saying it should "refrain from putting the blame on others."
The seizure of the Britons took place in an area where boundaries between Iraqi and Iranian waters have long been disputed. A 1975 treaty set the center of the Shatt al-Arab - the 125-mile-long channel known in Iran as the Arvand River - as the border.
But Saddam Hussein canceled the 1975 treaty five years later and invaded Iran, triggering an eight-year war. Virtually all of Iraq's oil is exported through a terminal near the mouth of the channel.
'Simple mistake'
Britain's Defense Ministry said the Royal Navy personnel were in Iraqi territorial waters when they were seized. Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet in Bahrain also said it was "very clear" they were in Iraqi waters.
"We've been on operations there for several years," Aandahl said. He said coalition vessels respect the 1975 treaty.
NoahideHiker
Religious Headbanger
All I could think of when reading this was Baghdad Bob standing in front of cameras emphatically stating that the Americans had not pushed through to Baghdad, as you see American tanks in the background.
I believe these jokers about as much as I believe my own government.
darkpenguin
Charismatic Enigma
I don't see why we havn't invaded yet, Iran obviously wants a war so why not give them one, only this time could we please leave the American troops at home until they are trained to know who is friendly and who is not!
I swear we lost more soldiers in Iraq due to 'friendly' fire then we did to the actual opposition!
Ah but not alot can be expected from soldiers who are trained with a computer game from the 90's called Doom, not sure what the excuse was during the 2nd world war though.
Me thinks the term 'friendly' fire should be replaced with gross misconduct.
I swear we lost more soldiers in Iraq due to 'friendly' fire then we did to the actual opposition!
Ah but not alot can be expected from soldiers who are trained with a computer game from the 90's called Doom, not sure what the excuse was during the 2nd world war though.
Me thinks the term 'friendly' fire should be replaced with gross misconduct.
Booko
Deviled Hen
I do, however, believe the British should've learned their lesson the last time this happened. The Shatt al'Arab is disputed between Iran and Iraq and to send your ships up through it, after already having had ships confiscated by the Iranians in 2004, demonstrates either a willingness to provoke, or complete stupidity. In both cases, the ships are better off ashore...
This may have been addressed already, but actually those UK ships are operating under a UN mandate to keep the waterway clear for shipping. The navigible area is a mere 5-6 miles across, and there is a lot of arms smuggling that goes on there.
Which reminds me, this may also have been addressed as well. I don't think that Ahmadenijad had anything to do with this. This was the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, notorious for it's smugling activities, which it guards jealously.
This will probably be a repeat of a few years ago, and in a few days the Marines will be returned.
Unfortunately, as its Nawruz right now (a 13-day long national holiday) it will take longer. Trying to find gov't officials to get the word to the IRG to give the guys back is sort of like trying to find a French doctor during August, even when there's a killer heat wave.
I repeat: UN mandate
The Brits didn't just sail over to harass the Iranians on their own, because they thought it would be fun.
btw, this waterway has been disputed for as long as there's been an Iran and Iraq.
Radio Frequency X
World Leader Pretend
I do, however, believe the British should've learned their lesson the last time this happened. The Shatt al'Arab is disputed between Iran and Iraq and to send your ships up through it, after already having had ships confiscated by the Iranians in 2004, demonstrates either a willingness to provoke, or complete stupidity. In both cases, the ships are better off ashore...
This is insane! Are you telling me that the Iranian hostilities are justified because they've been hostile in the past? I can't believe I'm hearing something like this from you. The Iranians better hand those sailors over or else they are going to get what is coming to them. If they think they stand a chance against NATO, they've really got their heads up their.....
Booko
Deviled Hen
I wouldn't expect NATO to rush off in a military fervor over this, RFX. Even the Brits themselves are not in a rush to start a shooting war (though obviously they would be prepared to do so, if the Iranian gov't proves to be THAT intransigent).
Besides, there are factions in Iran that understand it is not in their nation's best interests to mess around with this business any longer than required to make some political brownie points for themselves, both domestically and regionally.