Quote from: David JohansenWell, I'm really glad this went down peacefully.

I wonder what Iran got?  Something good that they're not telling us.  I think that's a pretty safe assumption.

Anyhow, Nox, you enjoy it and you do it on purpose.  There's a word for that kind of behaviour and it rimmes with poll.

Actually I often find the slings and barbs of lesser minds tiresome.

Y'know, I almost hope that the fucking islamofascists do take over the fucking west someday. I mean, I won't be around to see it because I'll have died fighting those barbarians, but for those here, and on other forums, who take any criticism or warning about the dangers of islamofascism as "RACISM!!!" and who simply let themselves be conquered and dominated by them, I can only imagine them as every aspect of their lives is subject to dark age theocractic laws looking back and saying:

 "Oh God, how I wish I'd listened to Dominous Nox! He tried to warn us! WHY DIDN'T WE LISTEN??!?!?!?!"

And I'll be in the hereafter, laughing my ass off at you.

Those evil fucking Iranian bastards!

Combatants in a conflict in which Iran is not directly involved wandered across into a poorly-defined border area and the Iranians interned them as is their duty under international law (like Allied and German airmen shot down over Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland in WWII). And they treated them as normal internees, interrogating them without violence, feeding and clothing them, and what's more, rather than interning them for the duration of the conflict, let them go after 13 days!

Fucking bastards! Why couldn't they send them to a secret inteligence agency prison in some other country, stack them naked in a human pyramid and set dogs on their genitals, and try them in a kangaroo court on retrospective charges like a civilised country?!

Dirty dogs. I wish we'd listened to Dominus Nox, and started a war over the lack of mistreatment of the internees. There's every danger that their filthy, Geneva-Conventions-respecting behaviour is going to make us look bad!

Quote from: Dominus NoxActually I often find the slings and barbs of lesser minds tiresome.

So there's not many slings and barbs you find tiresome then?

Seriously though, all of Islam is a threat to western civilization and the moderates more so than the fascists and terrorists and fundamentalists.

Why?

Because they increase and we decline.  It's that simple.  One day they'll inherit the earth and we won't.

The guys who are blowing up buildings and kidnapping people just need to learn some patience.

Quote from: Dominus NoxI mean, I won't be around to see it because I'll have died fighting those barbarians

But droog, he's an internet warrior! What better way to fight "islamofascism" than by typing angry things online?

I have a new theory. Nox is an islamofascist who seeks to disarm the people by representing opposition as completely ridiculous.

Quote from: droogI have a new theory. Nox is an islamofascist who seeks to disarm the people by representing opposition as completely ridiculous.

"Resistance is humorous. You will be assimiliated."

?

So - why capture the sailors instead of just a polite (or even rude) warning that they were in Iranian waters and tell them to move along?

Quote from: droog

That's a good lookin' poster.

And here we have someone who is saying the EXACT same thing I've said since this thing started, and ended: Iran won, clearly and unambiguously:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/331879,CST-EDT-STEYN08.article

Quote from: JimBobOzCombatants in a conflict in which Iran is not directly involved

Except for those who have been picked up in Iraq for being directly involved...

Quote from: JimBobOzwandered across into a poorly-defined border area

"wandered across?" I think the Brits differ with you, and have GPS to prove it.

Quote from: JimBobOzand the Iranians interned them as is their duty under international law (like Allied and German airmen shot down over Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland in WWII).

Duty?  You mean they couldn't have just approached the Brits and informed them of their alleged "wandering across," exchanged pleasantries and maybe a cuppa and a smoke, and then gone about their merry ways...

Quote from: JimBobOzAnd they treated them as normal internees, interrogating them without violence, feeding and clothing them

Normal internees that they paraded on TV for humiliation/PR purposes, coerced into providing TV "confessions," separated, and informed (as in the female's case) that the others had been sent home; cocking guns as threat - yeah, they were saints.

Quote from: JimBobOzand what's more, rather than interning them for the duration of the conflict, let them go after 13 days!

As you pointed out, there is no conflict for which there would be a duration. So what, again, were they detaining them?

Quote from: JimBobOzFucking bastards! Why couldn't they send them to a secret inteligence agency prison in some other country, stack them naked in a human pyramid and set dogs on their genitals, and try them in a kangaroo court on retrospective charges like a civilised country?!

Ahhh..now we get down to it - JimBob's hatred of the US. How many of the Iranians are going to be brought up on charges for how they treated the Brits, eh?  I'm guessing more alolng the lines of "treated like heroes." And I'd love to hear the support for the "kangaroo court on retrosepctive charges" bullshit - but perhaps another thread since this one's about how the Brits would respond it Iranian provocation.

Quote from: JimBobOzDirty dogs. I wish we'd listened to Dominus Nox, and started a war over the lack of mistreatment of the internees. There's every danger that their filthy, Geneva-Conventions-respecting behaviour is going to make us look bad!

Yeah, see, you might want to check those conventions again...just, ya know, just to make sure. How would you classify the Brits? Were they enemy soldiers? Then they were mistreated according to conventions. So they couldn't have been enemy soldiers by your calculations (they weren't mistreated). So what were they?

None of this is to say that I agree with Nox. But JimBob is driving dangerously close to the Anti-Nox edge. There are many reasons to denounce the stupidity of saying we should nuke them without claiming the Iranians were without fault.

I believe, JimBob, you call that the fallacy of the extremes or something - like there's no middle ground. Practice what you preach, brother.

Since the story is technically OVER , I'm surprised the thread is syill open.

 Or does the conversation horse have to be a tad more dead and beaten a bit more ?
- Ed C.

Quote from: WerekoalaSo - why capture the sailors instead of just a polite (or even rude) warning that they were in Iranian waters and tell them to move along?

Four reasons.

The first is that the Iran-Iraq sea border is disputed. Normally sea borders are determined relative to coastlines, but the Persian Gulf has shallow waters, and sandbars mean the coastline changes. In 1955, Iran and Iraq agreed to meet every ten years to sort out what the borders were. They met in 1965, and 1975, and negotiated the borders. In 1979 Iran had a revolution, and not long after Iraq invaded Iran, the war lasting from 1980 to 1989, so they didn't meet in 1985 - Saddam and the Ayatollah were establishing the borders by means of battle. Iraq isolation after the 1990-91 war against Kuwait and the west meant that they didn't meet in 1995, and Iraq was occupied by foreign powers in 2003, and since then has been in a state of civil war.

So the sea borders haven't been established since 1975. Now, there are two ways of establishing borders - by negotiation, or by force. One can lead to the other. If you capture people in one area, saying that's within your borders, and if they respond to that by stopping all military shipping in the area - as the Brits have - well then it effectively is within your borders. Now the Brits and Americans are quite keen to negotiate with the Iranians to establish exactly where the sea border is. Force has led to negotiations.

The second is that Iran has been under sanctions from the United States and parts of the West since their revolution in 1979, and they'd like to remove those sanctions - free trade, and all that. So the Iranian government has a policy of throwing its weight around a bit to try to gain some leverage against the US and the West, to remove the sanctions and just get on with developing their country. Their nuclear programme is one part of this, and this  sea border business was another.

The third reason is that since the revolution in 1979, Iran has had a record birth rate - that's what locking women up at home does. So they've a very large population of people under 25. These people want change, and reform, and liberalisation. There's every danger that Iran will suffer another revolution - though what government will come out of it after that, who knows, certain the 1979 revolution didn't begin as Shi'ia Islamic, it got grabbed by them (a bit like the Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917). What to dow when your people are upset with you? Shakespeare told us, "be it thy course, Harry, to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels." By seeking confrontation with countries like Britain and the USA - who the Iranian people dislike anyway - the Iranian leadership keeps them distracted from thoughts of domestic troubles and change.

The fourth and least important reason is that under international law, if you're neutral in a conflict - for example, the ongoing conflict in Iraq - if combatants from either side happen to go into your territory, your legal duty is to intern them for the duration of the conflict. So for example during WWII, Allied and Axis airmen shot down who happened to land in Switzerland, Sweden or Ireland, were interned together in camps for the duration of the war. It may be argued that Iran is not truly neutral in the Iraq civil war, but then neither were Sweden and Switzerland (pro-Axis) or Ireland (pro-Allies).

Quote from: James J. SkachExcept for those who have been picked up in Iraq for being directly involved...

As I said, no country is ever entirely neutral in a conflict. The USA and the IRA come to mind.

Quote from: James J. Skach"wandered across?" I think the Brits differ with you, and have GPS to prove it.

As I mentioned, and as any wide reading of the news stories relating the incident would tell you, the border is disputed, and poorly-defined.

Quote from: \James J. SkachDuty? You mean they couldn't have just approached the Brits and informed them of their alleged "wandering across," exchanged pleasantries and maybe a cuppa and a smoke, and then gone about their merry ways...

I think you'll find that only happens between countries which are friendly. If for example Mexican troops wandered across the US border, they'd get that cuppa. If a Cuban armed patrol boat drifted a few miles off the coast of Florida, there might not be a cuppa in it for the Cubans.

Quote from: James J. SkachNormal internees that they paraded on TV for humiliation/PR purposes, coerced into providing TV "confessions," separated, and informed (as in the female's case) that the others had been sent home; cocking guns as threat - yeah, they were saints.

I didn't say that they were saints. I said they were treated normally, more or less following international law and the Geneva Conventions.

There's a thing called "capture shock", a recognised psychological condition. Typically, when a person is made prisoner of war, they're shocked and scared - they don't know what's going to happen to them. At this point, the prisoner will do and say almost anything they're told to. This capture shock will usually fade away after 24-48 hours. It'll fade away more quickly if the prisoner is allowed to stay with their fellow soldiers/etc, contact home, etc. It'll persist somewhat if the prisoner is blindfolded, if people shove them around a bit, keep them alone in a cell and so on. It's not considered torture or mistreatment to fail to cure their capture shock, and to make use of it. They're scared, you let them stay scared. It's not very nice, but it's not torture, or "humiliating and degrading treatment" under the Geneva Conventions as they stand.

It's also a lot nicer than we treat our prisoners of war and detainees.

Displaying them on television, it's arguable if that's a war crime or not. Technically, you can't show them publicly at all. However, this is rarely followed by any country. The aim of the prohibition against their public display is to avoid things like parading them in a victory parade where the public jeers and throws cabbage at them. Having them smiling for the cameras while they confess their minor sin of crossing the border, it's pretty harmless. Was it "humiliating and degrading"? Well, they were shown while in capture shock. It's like filming someone wailing at a scene of a truck bombing, screaming and flinging themselves on the remains of their deceased friends and relatives. You're publicising someone's mental shock and distress. I would say it's "humiliating and degrading", but I don't get to decide what should be shown on tv. These things have to be judged by community standards.

Quote from: James J. SkachYeah, see, you might want to check those conventions again...just, ya know, just to make sure. How would you classify the Brits? Were they enemy soldiers? Then they were mistreated according to conventions. So they couldn't have been enemy soldiers by your calculations (they weren't mistreated). So what were they?

They were combatants in a conflict in which Iran is not a direct and official participant. The Iranian duty under international law is to intern them for the duration of the conflict.

Let me be clear - the Iranians are not saints. But they're following international law and the Geneva Conventions, pretty much.

We're not.

Quote from: JimBobOzAs I said, no country is ever entirely neutral in a conflict.

Then don't use terms like "in which Iran is not directly involved."  It sure makes it seem like you're making it seem like Iran is, well, the aggrieved party in all this – just standing around minding their business when suddenly these ugly Brits come invading.  It's bullshit.  It's all part of the political game that's going on, as you yourself point out.

Iran is involved in Iraq. They used this episode as a bargaining chip. It's not unheard of to find a real shootin' match to explode out of an incident like this. Why did the Iranians risk it?  They did a cost benefit analysis and found the benefits outweighed the chance of the Brits going off (I'm betting they were actually more worried about the Americans).

So don't say one thing, and then try to minimize its impact with some banal statement like "no country is entirely neutral in a conflict." Iran is either involved or not – otherwise you're arguing for the "a little pregnant" designator.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe USA and the IRA come to mind.

Keep on track here, JimBob.  We're talking about the Iranians and the Brits. I'm not sure what bringing up the US (particularly with the IRA) has to do with whether or not Iran is involved in Iraq.

Quote from: JimBobOzAs I mentioned, and as any wide reading of the news stories relating the incident would tell you, the border is disputed, and poorly-defined.

Again, you used the term "wandered across."  The point of my post was to point out the Brits would dispute the term "across." So you can't claim the Brits wandered "across."  You seem to agree that it's poorly defined, so perhaps "were operating in a region in which the naval border is in dispute" would work better.  But, see, that doesn't have the same impact; it makes the Iranians look bad for overreacting to a disputed naval border, yeah? So it looks better to "imply" that the Brits were actually violating Iranian waters.

Quote from: JimBobOzI think you'll find that only happens between countries which are friendly. If for example Mexican troops wandered across the US border, they'd get that cuppa. If a Cuban armed patrol boat drifted a few miles off the coast of Florida, there might not be a cuppa in it for the Cubans.

I don't know if the Cubans would get a cuppa (chances are they'd be begging to some to the US), but I doubt we'd inter them for 13 days during which we would parade them on TV, coerce them into making false confessions, etc. Unless of course they were planning to blow up a dirty nuke in Miami...

Quote from: JimBobOzI didn't say that they were saints. I said they were treated normally, more or less following international law and the Geneva Conventions.

Then say that. Then we could discuss as to whether or not that's the case.  I know it's fun to harsh on Nox, but to make the assertions you did are beneath you. Doing so in response to Nox only feeds the rush to the extremes.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's not considered torture or mistreatment to fail to cure their capture shock, and to make use of it. They're scared, you let them stay scared. It's not very nice, but it's not torture, or "humiliating and degrading treatment" under the Geneva Conventions as they stand.

What, the Iranians don't have to live up to the "tantamount to torture" measure?

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's also a lot nicer than we treat our prisoners of war and detainees.

An assertion worthy of another thread to be sure.

Quote from: JimBobOzDisplaying them on television, it's arguable if that's a war crime or not. Technically, you can't show them publicly at all. However, this is rarely followed by any country. The aim of the prohibition against their public display is to avoid things like parading them in a victory parade where the public jeers and throws cabbage at them. Having them smiling for the cameras while they confess their minor sin of crossing the border, it's pretty harmless. Was it "humiliating and degrading"? Well, they were shown while in capture shock. It's like filming someone wailing at a scene of a truck bombing, screaming and flinging themselves on the remains of their deceased friends and relatives. You're publicising someone's mental shock and distress. I would say it's "humiliating and degrading", but I don't get to decide what should be shown on tv. These things have to be judged by community standards.

What if it had been the US?  Would the world remain silent while the Americans paraded them on TV? Wouldn't the world be up in arms over televising (obviously coerced) confessions about the minor sin of crossing the border?  Of course.

So don't let the Iranians off the hook now, it just weakens your position when you claim Geneva abuses by others, like, say, the US. Reasonable people might not agree on where the line is, but either side is only bolstered by applying the standard consistently. Otherwise next time you harp on US treatment of enemy combatants, you'll get written off as the guy "who ignored it when it was the Iranians doing it."

Quote from: JimBobOzThey were combatants in a conflict in which Iran is not a direct and official participant. The Iranian duty under international law is to intern them for the duration of the conflict.

Let me be clear - the Iranians are not saints. But they're following international law and the Geneva Conventions, pretty much.

We're not.

See, you're letting them off the hook for not being an "official" participant in the conflict.  The fact is they mistreated the prisoners. It's OK to say that and still believe a full scale nuclear conflict is not the proper response. But you can't bring yourself to state they mistreated the prisoners for reasons I could speculate about, but don't have an Internet Psychologist License to assert.

Since the topic of the thread has really shifted to "What England DID"  is it possible to discuss some other angle of the whole situation?

 Maybe turn it into more of a generic roleplaying scenario and start a thread up in the Role playing section?

Version 1 : The players are soldiers in a raft who aren't sure if they have drifted into enemy waters or not. What do they decide to do ?

Version 2: The players  are coast patrol who believe an unknown or enemy craft has trespassed into their territorial waters. What do they do ?

Version 3: The players are officers onboard a ship ...members of their crew are captured by another nation's military. The other nation is not in a "shooting war" with the ship's home country. What do the officers decide to do ?

- Ed C.