TheRPGSite

Ok, the islamofascist terrorist state of Iran seizes about 14 english sailors in international waters and holds them hostage. They humiliate the only female member of the group by forcing her to cover her head in a submissive manner, same as they treat their own women. They force them to make speeches condemning their governments and display them on TV.

What is england going to do?

Seriously, I hope england grows a pair and takes concrete action, along the lines of "Release them within 24 hours or we start taking out your naval ports. Harm them and we take out your oil facilities and vital government buildings. Kill them and we take out your infrastructure, starting with the water plants you depend on. Then we force you to pay reparations for the dead personnel."

I doubt they'll do it, but I can hope. I know we have some englanders here, is the BBC allowed to tell the english public about this situation and if so how do people in england feel about it?

I'm not an Englander, though I have had sex with many English girls, but as a British person I'm shocked and dismayed at this news which has clearly been repressed by the evil monarchist state. I would speak more but I can hear the boots of the suede-demin secret police fast approaching. If you don't hear from me again remember me in your prayers and keep up the good fight Noxboy some of us know you as a true champion of freedom.

I think we'll quietly negotiate while muttering fervent hopes under our breath that the US don't do anything stupid.

I'mm all but certain that British and American dictionaries have different definitions for the word 'Diplomacy'.

What will England do?


Nothing.

Well they'll keep negociating and name calling until the boots are on the ground.

Iran wants them to make an offensive move.  Britain's strategists know this.  Iran's strategists know Britain knows this.  If it takes too long, Iran will torture these guys (but only to the extent that we could get away with, nothing that'll turn the other Muslims against them) because they know damn well that bluffing won't get them the response they want.  The only real question is how long it takes for Britain's intelligence to figure out where the soldiers are.

Quote from: Dominus NoxWhat is england going to do?

They could always take an idea from Jimmy Carter's playbook and threaten to boycott the Beijing Olympics in 2008 unless China gets with the program and puts pressure in Iran. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Dominus NoxWhat is england going to do?

Have a nice cup of tea?

Nox, why are you still posting?  Didn't you get the despatch?  You should be base jumping into Bahrain right about now! How else are the poor sailors going to be freed if our top agent isn't on the job?

What SHOULD they do? Threaten to seize Kharg Island in 48 hours if the soldiers aren't released, followed by bombing Iran's only gasoline refinery 24 hours later if they haven't been released.

What WILL they do? Beg the UN to apply "stern pressure" while staring at paintings of Britain's glorious past and weeping silently.

It's win/win for Iran, even though world opinion of them isn't exactly being bolstered by this. They know that any largescale military action isn't forthcoming due to commitments elsewhere. They know that any kind of airstrikes will play into radicals' hands and increase trouble in Iraq for allied forces, as well as solidify opinion in Iran against us (which, really, isn't there for most of Iran's population. Before the Iraq war, they were actually one of the more reformed nations in the region). So, they are milking this for as much as they can before they release them. In the unlikely event that they just continue pushing and pushing, then that may be another matter, but i'm at a loss as to what could logistically be done. Maybe a punitive airstrike as a cover for an inteligence operation to retreive the soldiers.

It's pretty much guarenteed that both the US and UK have intelligence operatives already in Iran. I'm guessing they are working at getting the holding location just in case a retreival is necessary.

Opinion i've seen in the country is pretty gung-ho really. Which doesn't really match up with the reality that our armed forces have been continually reduced for decades, making any unilateral action pretty much impossible now. We probably couldn't take back the Falklands today if Argentina decided they wanted it back.

Still, we get free healthcare with the saved money.

Quote from: WerekoalaWhat SHOULD they do? Threaten to seize Kharg Island in 48 hours if the soldiers aren't released, followed by bombing Iran's only gasoline refinery 24 hours later if they haven't been released.

What WILL they do? Beg the UN to apply "stern pressure" while staring at paintings of Britain's glorious past and weeping silently.

Guy, I respect your first option there and like the way you think.

While I disliked maggie thatcher for a lot of reasons, I admit she would have handled this situation in a way that would have at least been close to right.

Iran needs to be careful because:

1. Bush is crazy.
2. We don't need an invasion force to bomb them into oblivion.

Interesting column:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/321825,CST-EDT-steyn01.article

Quote from: One Horse TownWe probably couldn't take back the Falklands today if Argentina decided they wanted it back.

Dude, Argentina doesn't even have fuel for its tanks, let alone its fleet. ;)

Meanwhile, in Israel... (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/01/olmert.peace.ap/index.html)

Israel understands the threat of radical islam better than america, england or any western nation, although some countries are waking up to it slowly.

Quote from: JongWKMeanwhile, in Israel... (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/01/olmert.peace.ap/index.html)

 We've seen attempts at that before. Be nice if they ever had a success with it.   There is no perfect solution for those guys - either side of it.


- Ed C.

Quote from: WerekoalaInteresting column:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/321825,CST-EDT-steyn01.article

What a load of bollocks. The EU has already issued formal demands for the sailors' return.

Quote from: CaudexWhat a load of bollocks. The EU has already issued formal demands for the sailors' return.

fap fap fap, as it were.

The point is that's ALL the EU will do, or ever does.

Yeah, sorry, let's send the gunboats.

Quote from: WerekoalaInteresting column:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/321825,CST-EDT-steyn01.article

Heh, I just posted that on another board. At any rate, the article is spot-on. The EU won't do a damned thing to get them out except talk. It's utterly worthless just like the UN at getting anything done.

Quote from: CaudexYeah, sorry, let's send the gunboats.

Abducting soldiers, in most countries, is considered an Act of War.

I've got an idea - how about the UK grab a few Iranian soliders, see how well that goes over?

Quote from: WerekoalaAbducting soldiers, in most countries, is considered an Act of War.

I've got an idea - how about the UK grab a few Iranian soliders, see how well that goes over?

That's what I would do. Actually no. I'd give them 24 hours to release the hostages or commence bombardment.

Quote from: ZalmoxisThat's what I would do. Actually no. I'd give them 24 hours to release the hostages or commence bombardment.

Bombardment...where exactly?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RBombardment...where exactly?

Regards,
David R

Everywhere.

Quote from: joewolzEverywhere.

That's the spirit...EVERYWHERE.

Regards,
David R

As to bombardment, I'd start with their naval bases and that island that's so vital to them.

Since iranians like mining waters so much, perhaps the britts could use a submarine to deploy some mines near their vital waterways, after, of course, warning everyone that those waters were mined. After all, the british are expected to be civillized.

Quote from: David RBombardment...where exactly?

Regards,
David R

Key infrastructure. Cripple the country.

Quote from: David RThat's the spirit...EVERYWHERE.

With Israel sitting on around 200-300 nuclear weapons, how do you think this is going to end when Iran goes nuclear if something else doesn't budge first?

Destroy their gasoline refinery (yes, they only have one). They're a very oil-rich country, but they have to IMPORT gasoline. Impose a blockade. That'll be a good start.

In the long term, economic devastation might be a good thing for iran. Under the shah, they had access to western culture and such, the problem was the shah was a tyrannical secular despot who ruled with an iron fist but allowed the people some cultural freedom and access to western goods.

They tossed him out and got a tyrannical theocractic regime that was even more repressive and oppressiven than the shah, and didn;t allow them any cultural freedom. In other words they went from a bad secular dictatorship to an even worse islamofascist one.

Young iranians listen to their parents talk about the shah's regime, and it's the good old days as far as their concerned.

I've heard that the iranian hardliners are actually paying foreign islamic hardliners to come in and keep order as so much of the populace is dissatiffied with the current reime in iran. Now, if the west were to cripple iran's economy, espcially after the government provoked it with kidnapping western sailors, it might make it impossible for the hardliners to pay enough thugs to stay in power and their system could collapse.

Now, hopefully the iranian masses won't let another hardliner islamofascist regime replace it, so they end up with a more tolerable regime, and the west ends up with a more tolerable, less dangerous, iran.*

So yes,  using this as a justification to seriously take down iran might be best for everyone.


*Of course there's no gurantee that the iranians won't let another islamofascist terrorist reime take over. But if they're stupid or weak enough to le that happen again after decades of ther current regime then we should just  bomb them back to the stone age.

Quote from: John MorrowWith Israel sitting on around 200-300 nuclear weapons, how do you think this is going to end when Iran goes nuclear if something else doesn't budge first?

Good to hear that the "hostage"  situation is already being thought of by some (not surprising) as a "something does not budge situation*". Israel should (and can) take care of it's own problems.

*With regards to Iran's nuke situation.

QuoteOriginally posted by Zalmoxis
Key infrastructure. Cripple the country.

Because this has already worked so well in the region.

Regards,
David R

Same thing we did last time:

Send a few pointed notes, rattle a few sabres, issue an insincere apology and get those men (and a woman this time) back

Edit: typo

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonSame thing we did last time:

Send a few pointed notes, rattle a few sabres, issue an insincere apology and get those men (and a woman this time) back

That's the ticket.


Edit: Hastur's typo. :)

Quote from: David RBecause this has already worked so well in the region.

Regards,
David R

Depends on what the goals are. If the goal is to take over a nation and move it towards democracy, bombing doesn't work so well. If the goal is to cripple a nation and cause chaos, bombing works smashingly.

hopefully they don't try a copter rescue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw) again.  that only works in video games (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Choplifter.png)...

Quote from: kregmosierhopefully they don't try a copter rescue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw) again.  that only works in video games (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Choplifter.png)...

Exsqueeze me! That was the Americans (and thank fuck they didn't follow it up with Operation Credible Sport (aka Operation Honey Badger - no I'm not joking), the plan to land three rocket-powered Hercules in a football stadium - and I'm not joking about that either)

When we do a helicopter-born operation, we just land our troops in the wrong place (and still complete the mission successfully)

As Iran knows quite well, we're already overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan so lack the forces to fight a third war.  The public lacks faith in the government (the letters pages of the paper this morning had letters openly questioning whether the government was telling the truth about where the boat was when captured, drawing explicit parallels with lies told in the run up to the Iraq war) and has no appetite for another fight.

In addition, America is currently holding without trial or access to consular officials five Iranian diplomats found in Northern Iraq, and of course the American public has no more appetite for a new war than the British.

And finally, both Britain and the US currently have lame duck leaders.

So, there's fuck all we can do.  That's why this has happened, because the Iranians know there is fuck all we can do.

We busted our flush on Iraq, we are now pretty much at the mercy of whatever the Iranians want to do.

Pork bombs. Find out where the sailors are being held and drop tons of shredded pork on everything.  Follow up with rescue troops who will then have free run of the streets as the enemy cowers in fear of accidentally touching the pork, and they will be able to move about unopposed right to where the prisoners are being held.

No one gets hurt, and the infrastructure is even left intact.

England will expect every man to do his duty.

-clash

Quote from: TechnomancerPork bombs. Find out where the sailors are being held and drop tons of shredded pork on everything.  Follow up with rescue troops who will then have free run of the streets as the enemy cowers in fear of accidentally touching the pork, and they will be able to move about unopposed right to where the prisoners are being held.

No one gets hurt, and the infrastructure is even left intact.

Brilliant!:D

It's true, we can't invade iran, but we sure as hell can bomb their vital facilities, their water plants, their government centers, their oil facilities, their bridges, their power plants, etc.

Forget negotiating with these fanatics, just tell them to release the hostages or else. No negotiation, no dealings, just "Do this or suffer the consequences."

If they kill the hostages, see to it that at least a thousand iranians die for each one of them.

You can't deal with fanatics like you would sane people, you can't deal with barbarians like they were civillized people.

Quote from: flyingmiceEngland will expect every man to do his duty.

One of them's a woman

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonOne of them's a woman

Well obviously.
Since we outlawed slavery, one can't expect to send fourteen chaps off alone in a small boat for hours on end and not have someone to make the tea, what?

I'm at a loss to explain what the captain of HMS Cornwall was doing during the kidnap.
If I was captain of a warship and got a report that a few miles away, fifteen of my crew were being taken prisoner, my first words would have been "All ahead flank" followed by "Battle stations."

Quote from: O'BorgI'm at a loss to explain what the captain of HMS Cornwall was doing during the kidnap.
If I was captain of a warship and got a report that a few miles away, fifteen of my crew were being taken prisoner, my first words would have been "All ahead flank" followed by "Battle stations."

Shallow water can be a real bitch.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonOne of them's a woman

Didn't matter at Trafalgar. There were several women there. :D

-clash

Quote from: CaudexShallow water can be a real bitch.

They had a helicopter, you know.

Well, dosn't matter now - looks like President Bob wins the PR battle without a shot fired. I wonder what Old Blighty gave up in exchange for ending the dog-and-pony show?

One of the things that might have d-fused the situation is the GPS info that was released a couple of days ago.  According to GPS the Brits were in Iraqi waters.
 Soon as I heard that , I suspected a peaceful resolution was more likely than not.  Iran had to face the fact that most nations today trust that GPS thing.

- E.W.C.

This wasn't done for the benefit of "most nations" - it was done for the Islamists. There's no GPS in 7th centruy societies, except maybe in President Bob's BMW. They believe what they want to believe, and what their leaders tell them, and they want to believe the Lesser Satan invaded their soverign waters, and Iran stood up to England and got away with it. That's functionally equivalent to England admitting fault.

England is officially done as even a regional power now. Blair's already a lame duck, and this will be the last nail in the coffin of a once-great military power. They'll be gone from the Middle East by the end of the summer, mark my words.

Quote from: KoltarOne of the things that might have d-fused the situation is the GPS info that was released a couple of days ago.  According to GPS the Brits were in Iraqi waters.
 Soon as I heard that , I suspected a peaceful resolution was more likely than not.  Iran had to face the fact that most nations today trust that GPS thing.

- E.W.C.

Not quite that simple.
The dividing line is draw from the Shatt-Al-Arab waterway, the course of which changes over the years enough that Iran & Iraq used to meet yearly to decide where exactly the border was.
Which of course hasn't happened since Iraq was invaded, so everything is a few years out of date.

I'm trying to work out exactly how these sailors, military personnel to a body, were captured off a god damn ship doing what it was supposed to be doing (debates as to WHERE it was doing it notwithstanding) with a bloody firefight?  It's not like the Iranians sent an overwhelming naval fleet to force surrender, they used the same tactics as modern pirates... fast small boats.

Fuck the hostages. They obviously got exactly what they wanted.  Fuck the British Navy if this is the sort of force they have available.  

Iran's actions are pointlessly stupid show off tactics. The kid who steals a coffee cup from the teachers lounge to show how cool he is to the other kids.

Only, the teachers are proving rapidly not to be worth the effort either. Paper fucking tigers more stripes than teeth.

Preach it, brother.

What an amazingly interesting picture of the soon-to-be-released Brits:

http://tinyurl.com/39dogj

$5 says the three guys on the right are officers.

Quote from: WerekoalaPreach it, brother.

"Preach" what?  Ignorant misrepresentations of what actually happened?  :confused:

Quote from: Akrasia"Preach" what?  Ignorant misrepresentations of what actually happened?  :confused:

I'm sorry... Did I miss the news story where the secret Iranian Armada overwhelmed the tiny British fishing boat?

Ah, armchair Generals. Gotta love 'em ain't you? Don't see either of you two out there.

I'm guessing there wasn't a firefight because they didn't want a diplomatic incident that really could have caused another war that no-one can afford. Instead, they got a diplomatic incident that made both sides look a bit stupid.

I hope the actual reasons for the incident come out soon, if for no other reason than to highlight any incompetence by the Navy. Still, that kind of incompetence is preferable to being so trigger-happy that you end up with 'blue on blue' situations and then try to hide the evidence or have soldiers in your army so brutal that they murder and rape young women for kicks and thrills or a government that condones torture trying to 'export democracy and moral values' to the world.

We have a lot to learn about civilised society from our American cousins it seems. Still, our navy didn't shoot a few ragheads when provoked. We're crap!

Return volley fired sir! :evillaugh:  Prepare for incoming...

Quote from: WerekoalaWhat an amazingly interesting picture of the soon-to-be-released Brits:

http://tinyurl.com/39dogj

$5 says the three guys on the right are officers.

Ha! I think you could be right there. :D

Quote from: SpikeI'm trying to work out exactly how these sailors, military personnel to a body, were captured off a god damn ship doing what it was supposed to be doing (debates as to WHERE it was doing it notwithstanding) with a bloody firefight?  It's not like the Iranians sent an overwhelming naval fleet to force surrender, they used the same tactics as modern pirates... fast small boats.

Fuck the hostages. They obviously got exactly what they wanted. ...

Your ignorance is both painful and annoying.

The British were operating under a UN mandate that forbade them from firing upon others unless fired upon first.  The Iranians did not fire on the British.  Moreover, the hostages were in a vulnerable position when captured (returning to their ship after searching another ship).  For the HMSS Cornwall to have fired on the Iranians would have ensured their death (as well as sparking a major international conflict).

Blaming the hostages for their plight is morally repugnant.  They were simply obeying their orders.  

Feel free to express outrage at the UN, though, and British political leaders.  But there's no need to 'blame the victims' in this tragic farce.

Quote from: SpikeI'm sorry... Did I miss the news story where the secret Iranian Armada overwhelmed the tiny British fishing boat?

:rolleyes:
No, you just missed the basic (widely reported) facts.

Quote from: One Horse TownAh, armchair Generals. Gotta love 'em ain't you? Don't see either of you two out there...

:confused:
I'm not engaging in any 'armchair General' behaviour.  I'm just noting the facts (viz. the UN directives under which the British were operating, the position of the hostages when captured, etc.).

Quote from: Akrasia:confused:
I'm not engaging in any 'armchair General' behaviour.  I'm just noting the facts (viz. the UN directives under which the British were operating, the position of the hostages when captured, etc.).

I wasn't refering to you, but Spike and Werekoala. The time between starting my post and finishing it saw a few more posts in the thread than when i started...

Quote from: One Horse TownI wasn't refering to you, but Spike and Werekoala. The time between starting my post and finishing it saw a few more posts in the thread than when i started...

Okay, cool.  :cool:

Its not just the British, One Horse. Not at all. Need I remind you of the US Embassy hostages? Armed mobs overran an Embassy without a shot fired. Or the US troops captured in Bosnia not so long ago? They had a 50 caliber machine gun on their truck and they were captured by 15 men hiding in straw piles.  They didn't fire back.


I'm sorry, but any sane Rules of Engagement handed down include the internationally recognized right to defend yourself against hostile actions.  



Akrasia: It has taken some doing, given the human interest in the story is more on the state of the hostages rather than how they became hostages, but I get this: Their boat was surrounded and they were escorted back to shore. In other words, they complied, presumably without orders from their higher level commander, with orders given by a hostile force, given options.  Sure, the Iranians didn't shoot at them.  So they don't have to shoot back. They also don't have to meekly return to Iran to be disarmed.  Which is what they did.   Who, exactly, ordered them to surrender?

The Iranians did.  I guess we have a new way to end wars, just order the other guys to surrender. It'll work like a champ!

And believe me, my bile is not restricted to the hostages. Not by any measure.

Quote from: One Horse TownAh, armchair Generals. Gotta love 'em ain't you? Don't see either of you two out there.

I'm guessing there wasn't a firefight because they didn't want a diplomatic incident that really could have caused another war that no-one can afford. Instead, they got a diplomatic incident that made both sides look a bit stupid.

I hope the actual reasons for the incident come out soon, if for no other reason than to highlight any incompetence by the Navy. Still, that kind of incompetence is preferable to being so trigger-happy that you end up with 'blue on blue' situations and then try to hide the evidence or have soldiers in your army so brutal that they murder and rape young women for kicks and thrills or a government that condones torture trying to 'export democracy and moral values' to the world.

We have a lot to learn about civilised society from our American cousins it seems. Still, our navy didn't shoot a few ragheads when provoked. We're crap!

Return volley fired sir! :evillaugh:  Prepare for incoming...

Oh, the old "You're not there fighting so you can't comment on it" line. How original.

You missed one salient point though - obviously the BRITS weren't fighting, either, so I AM just as qualified as them to comment on it.

What exactly do you think the situation was? The Royal Marines were boarding and searching dhows and other ships looking for contraband. Up motors some 50 yeard old (judging by their pics getting medals from President Bob) Iranian Coast Guardsmen in a speedboat. With guns, presumably. Nearby, a large British "warship" looms, with officers no doubt looking on as they add a lemon slice to their tea.

"Pardon me, old chaps," the Coastguards enquire, "would you mind terribly coming with us? We believe you've strayed into our waters!"

The Brits, in their inemitable style, of course assented, no doubt looking forward to a few week's R&R in Teheran. They got some good food, some new clothes, and all they had to do was to "admit" to what everyone else on Earth knows to be a lie. In exchange, President Bob got to show the Islamic world once again that the West is a paper tiger whose soldiers won't even RESIST when confronted by ENEMY SOLDIERS. He can abduct he men and women CHARGED WITH DEFENDING ENGLAND (and presumably themselves), with nothing more to fear than a "stern letter" from Downing Street.

Whoop-ty Fuck.

I'm glad it ended well for the soldiers, but it ended HORRIBLY for England and by extension, the West. I'll say it again - England is DONE. You may as well scrap what's left of your military. I imagine the Argies will get frisky again one of these days. That'll be a sight to behold.

Nice job, guys.

As an aside, it is challenging to define 'Armchair General' in definite terms. Urban Dictionary doesn't have it, and most Google searches are overwhelmed by the presence of a magazine that has that name. Since I would not use a self serving source for any term, I am forced to generalize.

Quotearmchair warrior: someone who has never served in the military, but who rah-rahs a war

from a slightly different term.

Amazingly enough, that would make One Horse Town speaking out of his ass.  I am certain that he has absolutely no knowledge of my profession, work history or for that matter the life story of Werekoala.  For all he knows we are both active duty special forces operators speaking from locations that shall not be named.  That would pretty much invalidate the Armchair thing.

As for general... well, you don't have to be a general to say what a soldier/sailor/marine should or should not do.  

This is article two of the United State Soldier's Code of Conduct.  I imagine british military forces should have something similar.

QuoteI will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist

EDIT::::I found this from Australia, actually, regarding proper behavior once captured... It seems very relevant.

Quote2. AVOID CAPTURE if possible - use your fieldcraft training to evade the enemy - even if it means lying up for days.
(2) GIVE THE INTERROGATOR ONLY YOUR:
(a) NUMBER.  
(b) RANK.  
(c) NAME.  
(d) DATE OF BIRTH.  
(3) Australian military law, as well as loyalty to your country and your mates, demands that you give no more. To give more purely personal and non-military information may show up some weakness which a skilled interrogator can exploit.  
(4) You cannot be expected to decide what information is and is not useful to an experienced interrogator so you must refuse to answer after giving your:
(a) NUMBER.  
(b) RANK.  
(c) NAME.  
(d) DATE OF BIRTH.  
f. DETAILED INTERROGATION. To wear you down with repetition, threats of punishment and promises of rewards.
g. INDOCTRINATION. Linked with interrogation. To play on your personal weaknesses and criticize democracy in order to undermine your loyalty and get you to give information and inform on your fellows.

Sad to say, but constant reports of the hostages critisizing the war, admitting to fault and other such activities DO NOT fall under that.

Quote from: Spike...
And believe me, my bile is not restricted to the hostages. Not by any measure.

Your bile shouldn't involve the hostages at all, as far as I'm concerned.  I think that being angry at them is just plain ignorant, given the UN directives under which they were operating, and the specific circumstances under which they were kidnapped (viz. to fight back would have killed them immediately).

Beyond that, though, I think that I share your irritation with the overall situation, namely, that the British should never have agreed to the UN directives in the first place, and that British forces should be operating under more robust rules of engagement in general (in order to better protect their men and women in the execution of their duties, and their national interests).

Akrasia:

I have been to Iraq. They behead hostages over there. Why should the British expect any difference when they were captured?  

Why, they shouldn't!  They have no way of knowing if their captors will treat them humanely, or if they are really working with the insurgents.

Thus, they are already under threat of death, the differences being in one way they have a chance to escape and fight another day, or at least die with some dignity and honor, the other way they become yet another propaganda tool before dying as helpless lambs being lead to the slaughter.  You have seen the same beheading footage I have or you have avoided it utterly, it is no way to go, no way at all.

Just being captured without a fight is bad enough. Not enough maybe for bile and venom, but it is discraceful.  If the UN regulations don't allow them to attempt to flee, or to fire back if fired upon, then the UN regulations are actually illegal orders given the international Law of War... under which you do have the right to defend yourself.  

And while I know that the footage being shown of the hostages is carefully selected for maximum impact, they still had no business saying the shit they were saying. THAT is where they earn my bile.  If they are so terrified for their lives that they are willing to pay any price to save them they have no business in the military.  Look again at the Australian Code of Conduct for Prisoners of War.  You don't say shit. You don't admit your country is wrong, you don't say you are sorry.  You tell them who the fuck you are and you keep your fucking mouth shut.  THAT is where they earned my bile. Their surrender is only icing on the cake at that point.  


Of course, like most people I would dearly love to learn more of exactly what went down out there that let them get captured in open water. Did they not see the boats approaching? Did they run out of fuel? Or did their immediate commander realize that his life was on the line and turn into a quivering pile of jello?  I don't know, but the first two seem pretty improbable.   That means they had working vehicles, open water means that there were places to go (I HAVE seen the Iranian boats, they aren't so big as to prove an obstacle to other vessels), freindly ships in the neighborhood. I can only assume, given certain acceptable assumptions (military personnel engaged in potentially hostile actions... interdicting potential smugglers) that they were armed, thus they could shoot back.     So, I put to you the question: Why the fuck did they surrender in the first place?

Quote from: Spike.

Amazingly enough, that would make One Horse Town speaking out of his ass.  

Absolutely, i'm speaking out of my arse. The irreverant last sentance and evil chuckle smilie should have been a clue that i wasn't being entirely serious.

I agree that this doesn't reflect well at all. I'm British for fucks sake. I gather you two ain't and werekoala gets out the 'don't critisise America or American lives if you aren't American or have never lived there' whenever someone says something he sees as out of line. Practise what you preach lads.

Quote from: One Horse TownAbsolutely, i'm speaking out of my arse. The irreverant last sentance and evil chuckle smilie should have been a clue that i wasn't being entirely serious.

I agree that this doesn't reflect well at all. I'm British for fucks sake. I gather you two ain't and werekoala gets out the 'don't critisise America or American lives if you aren't American or have never lived there' whenever someone says something he sees as out of line. Practise what you preach lads.

I have pointed out that I have the same response to US soldiers who are captured without fighting back. In fact, in my initial entry into this thread I leveled by shotgun of hate at the entire western world, more or less.  

The mentality of sending people with guns into warzones with instructions that 'force' them to be sitting targets is... well, I'm not entirely sure I have a word that truely incompasses the insanity of it all.  The entire situation is looking more an more like a case of 'overdeveloped civilization' or something...:mad:

Quote from: David JohansenIran wants them to make an offensive move. Britain's strategists know this. Iran's strategists know Britain knows this. If it takes too long, Iran will torture these guys (but only to the extent that we could get away with, nothing that'll turn the other Muslims against them) because they know damn well that bluffing won't get them the response they want. The only real question is how long it takes for Britain's intelligence to figure out where the soldiers are.

Two questions: Why prompt Britain to act offensively? What makes you believe Iran would torture them? The latter strikes me as a bit odd. Iran has taken hostages before, and wasn't so atrocious about it. Also, they seem alright in the tapes or what have you.

Quote from: One Horse TownIt's win/win for Iran, even though world opinion of them isn't exactly being bolstered by this. They know that any largescale military action isn't forthcoming due to commitments elsewhere. They know that any kind of airstrikes will play into radicals' hands and increase trouble in Iraq for allied forces, as well as solidify opinion in Iran against us (which, really, isn't there for most of Iran's population. Before the Iraq war, they were actually one of the more reformed nations in the region). So, they are milking this for as much as they can before they release them.

Sounds about right. Iran doesn't have much to gain by war, but by turning popular opinion against the West they can put more hardcore fanatics in power.

Quote from: WerekoalaI've got an idea - how about the UK grab a few Iranian soliders, see how well that goes over?

Yeah, let's just nab some of those Iranian soldiers floating along on the English Channel... oh, wait...

Quote from: Dominus NoxUnder the shah, they had access to western culture and such, the problem was the shah was a tyrannical secular despot who ruled with an iron fist but allowed the people some cultural freedom and access to western goods.

Been brushing up on your history, eh? That's good. No, really. You got the Shah's regime in a nutshell.

Quote from: Dominus NoxThey tossed him out and got a tyrannical theocractic regime that was even more repressive and oppressiven than the shah, and didn;t allow them any cultural freedom. In other words they went from a bad secular dictatorship to an even worse islamofascist one.

Young iranians listen to their parents talk about the shah's regime, and it's the good old days as far as their concerned.

I've heard that the iranian hardliners are actually paying foreign islamic hardliners to come in and keep order as so much of the populace is dissatiffied with the current reime in iran. Now, if the west were to cripple iran's economy, espcially after the government provoked it with kidnapping western sailors, it might make it impossible for the hardliners to pay enough thugs to stay in power and their system could collapse.

Now, hopefully the iranian masses won't let another hardliner islamofascist regime replace it, so they end up with a more tolerable regime, and the west ends up with a more tolerable, less dangerous, iran.*

Crippling the economy will what now? I don't care who's paying who; if Iran doesn't eat, that's free PR against us, and a little more effective than a foreign hardliner I might add. Iran's got a constitution with room for ammendment; there's room for peaceful and gradual change (or at least internally initiated).

Quote from: Dominus NoxIt's true, we can't invade iran, but we sure as hell can bomb their vital facilities, their water plants, their government centers, their oil facilities, their bridges, their power plants, etc.

Forget negotiating with these fanatics, just tell them to release the hostages or else. No negotiation, no dealings, just "Do this or suffer the consequences."

If they kill the hostages, see to it that at least a thousand iranians die for each one of them.

You can't deal with fanatics like you would sane people, you can't deal with barbarians like they were civillized people.

And again with the fallacy. I know you were probably just in the mood for hyperbole, but there aren't too many thousands of Iranians about and the vast majority of them are not fanatics.

Both Spike and Werekoala appear to be missing the point that the Iranians were not enemy soldiers. Firing on them would have been incredibly stupid.

- Q

Quote from: QuireBoth Spike and Werekoala appear to be missing the point that the Iranians were not enemy soldiers. Firing on them would have been incredibly stupid.

- Q

Not leaving the area with their own boats was incredibly stupid.  If the Iranians boarded by force, not shooting them would have been incredibly stupid.

A kidnapper is not an enemy soldier, but I'd still expect a kidnappee to fight back using any means available, up to and including gunfire.  

And hostage takers are essentially kidnappers, both in practice and under most legal defintions.


Thus you are missing MY point: The hostages did not take reasonable steps to defend themselves, therefore the hostages are stupid. Had they taken reasonable steps one of two things would have happened: They would not have been kidnapped and left the area under their own power, or the Iranians would have opened fire to stop them and there would have been a firefight.  

From a military perspective either one is preferrable by a large margin to throwing up one's hands and going 'woe is me, oh all is woe.. whatever shall I do? How about I badmouth my own nation on television? Won't that be nice? Maybe I shall get tea and crumpets!'

Quote from: One Horse TownI gather you two ain't and werekoala gets out the 'don't critisise America or American lives if you aren't American or have never lived there' whenever someone says something he sees as out of line. Practise what you preach lads.

Do what now?

Quote from: O'BorgThey had a helicopter, you know.

A single Lynx against six ships with AA weaponry? Only in videogames, maybe...

IIRC, the British were ambushed, plain and simple. Fifteen marines armed with pistols and rifles in two inflatable boats, against six Iranian patrol boats with RPG launchers and machine guns. No wonder they didn't try to fight back.

Quote from: beejazzAnd again with the fallacy. I know you were probably just in the mood for hyperbole, but there aren't too many thousands of Iranians about and the vast majority of them are not fanatics.

Or run away screaming because of pork....but Gung-Ho was not just a silly movie, it's the raison d'etre of this thread.

Regards,
David R

They were not kidnapped. They were not taken hostage. They were arrested for being armed in territory they had no right to be in (regardless of the reality of where they actually were). Fleeing would have escalated the situation. Resisting arrest would have escalated the situation. Responding with force would have been incredibly stupid.

In short, Spike, they acted exactly as they should have done. Any other intepretation seems, frankly, hysterical.

We've no idea what kind of pressure was put on them, but I'd much rather they had chosen to stay silent rather than allow themselves to be manipulated for the Iranian propaganda machine.

However, the sum result is that Iran has scored some very odd and nebulous propagada points (rather like a tiny yapping dog that thinks it scared off a Rottweiler), and the personnel are safe. It really does seem like a positive resolution to me.

- Q

I think maybe One Horse has you and I mixed up, WK.  I'm the one who usually expresses surprise that people in Europe or South America are more well versed in American daily life than Americans.

Resisting Arrest? They weren't kidnapped but were taken hostage? They had no right to be there?  According to whom?

Now I am unsure as to what their mandate was, but I gather from these posts that they were under UN mandate - and that's the first mistake. But I think it's a bit...umm...exhuberant to claim they had no right to be there.  From the litle I've seen/heard, the GPS seems to indicate otherwise.

My only concern, quite honestly, was that the US did not stick it's nose in without express request - publicly - from the UK. This was all just a small skirmish in the large Iran versus the West showdown going on right now.

There's an interesting post (http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2007/04/speculating-about-irans-motives.html) on Tigerhawk blog speculating about the options of how it went down and why Iran might have done it. Tigerhawk is generally a right-of-center blog, though this particular post is fairly apolitical - and an interesting (IMHO) lead.

The soldiers did exactly what they should have done, as per their instructions from higher. The real cock-up here is that British brass would send them out there and allow them to be taken hostage when they had the means to resist and, in all likelihood, end up victorious.

Well, if england's got any balls left (Doubt it.) thye'll set up an incident and let a bunch of iranians try to seize another group of sailors, and this time blow them to hell in little pieces.

Quote from: Dominus NoxWell, if england's got any balls left (Doubt it.) thye'll set up an incident and let a bunch of iranians try to seize another group of sailors, and this time blow them to hell in little pieces.

They won't do that because the vast majority of the English public doesn't want their soldiers in the region anyway.

Quote from: James J SkachThey had no right to be there?  According to whom?

The Iranians. It's not my claim, and according to UK military they were in Iraqi waters, but that's the Iranians' story. Them, famous for their exuberance and everything.

- Q

What I really want to know is why Prince William was amongst the captives, and why wasn't the British public told?!?! Guy on far right:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42766000/jpg/_42766389_group_getty203i.jpg

- Q

Quote from: WerekoalaDo what now?

Ah, apologies. It's all James's fault. His name and avatar are far too similar to yours.

Quote from: One Horse TownAh, apologies. It's all James's fault. His name and avatar are far too similar to yours.

:raise: :idunno:

Gee... wonder why the AP cropped the photo so that it only shows smiling hostages and not the three I originally comment on?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264181,00.html  (click on the photo to see the official AP wire version)

Can't have anyone thinking they're anything less that happy-go-lucky vacationers, eh?

I'm SO glad the media isn't biased at all. And I would expect Fox to use the full picture, if anyone would.

I read that the picture was part of a photo op from Iran's government and that the three refused to shake hands or wave - hence the hands in the pockets and non-cheery expressions. So I guess the AP decided to make sure President Bob got the picture he wanted flashed around the world.

At least the UK paper showed the whole thing.

(edit: Crap, now its gone from the link I posted yesterday. Well, at least SOMEONE saw it before the memory-hole swallowed it up. George Orwell, you had NO idea!)

Quote from: Dominus NoxWell, if england's got any balls left (Doubt it.) thye'll set up an incident and let a bunch of iranians try to seize another group of sailors, and this time blow them to hell in little pieces.

You fucking disgust me ye wee glaikit piece of fat shite. You know there's peeps I disagree with and peeps I dislike but I run across very few peeps like you that actually want to see people hurt. Are you njot aware that wanting shit like that is a fucking bad thing you drolling sack of obnoxious idiocy? You talk about being some sort of hero for opressed females but what exactly have you done but bitch on a fucking roleplaying board? Have you ever even marched for something you believe in? Have you ever decided to check that the nation you're attacking is the right one?

How do you manage to feed yourself?

I'm sorry for all this I really wanted t drop by and mention how my players deliberately ignoring the obvious has enruched my WFRP campaign. It's really cool likesay.

Quote from: Garry GYou fucking disgust me ye wee glaikit piece of fat shite. You know there's peeps I disagree with and peeps I dislike but I run across very few peeps like you that actually want to see people hurt. Are you njot aware that wanting shit like that is a fucking bad thing you drolling sack of obnoxious idiocy? You talk about being some sort of hero for opressed females but what exactly have you done but bitch on a fucking roleplaying board? Have you ever even marched for something you believe in? Have you ever decided to check that the nation you're attacking is the right one?

How do you manage to feed yourself?

I'm sorry for all this I really wanted t drop by and mention how my players deliberately ignoring the obvious has enruched my WFRP campaign. It's really cool likesay.

Ah, another member of the Dominus Nox fan club.

If you want to side with iran, a country who's leader has vowed to destroy israel, the only real democracy in the mid east, a country that practices torture to enforce it's religious dark age laws and declares religious death sentences against people who write books they don't like, you just go right ahead.

BTW, if my posts are sooooo offensive to you, why not just use your IL instead of cluttering up the board with your juvenile rant, you bandwidth wasting walking argument for sterilization? Don't know how? Why not get your dad, or at least the 6 or so most likely candidates, to help you figure  out how to work the IL?

Well, 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.

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

(http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/army.jpg)

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."

?

:p

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(http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/army.jpg)

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.

Quote from: James J SkachThen 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.  

If I had meant that "Iran is, well, the aggrieved party in all this – just standing around minding their business when suddenly these ugly Brits come invading", then I would have said, "Iran is, well, the aggrieved party in all this – just standing around minding their business when suddenly these ugly Brits come invading."

Instead, I said that the Iraq civil war is a conflict in which Iran is not directly involved. Direct or indirect, it's an important distinction. The US has agents in Iran attempting to destabilise the Iranian regime, but they don't have troops there - they're indirectly involved in Iranian civil conflict, such as it is.

Quote from: James J. SkachIran 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).

I'm certain that's so. Your point? The Iranians are evil because they mix force with diplomacy? If so, there are a lot of political leaders they'll share company with in Hell.

Quote from: James J. SkachSo 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.

Things admit of degrees. Conflicts are one of those. If things don't admit of degrees, then Britain should have declared war on the United States in the 1970s, since the USA was involved in the conflict in Northern Ireland, largely funding the IRA. "The USA is either involved or not - otherwise you're arguing for the "a little pregnant" designator." Of course that would have been absurd. And that's because things admit of degrees. A country can be involved in a conflict, directly or indirectly. The difference is important in international affairs, even if it's not important to you. If it weren't, we'd see a lot more open wars spring up. So thank God our leaders don't see things in black and white like you.

Quote from: James J. SkachKeep 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.

It illustrates the difference between "direct" and "indirect" involvement in conflicts.

Quote from: James J. SkachI 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...

History seems to show they'd be returned to Cuba - to Guatanamo Bay, there to languish for just enough years that when finally charged, they'd confess to anything just to be able to get it over and done with, and perhaps go home, even if only home to prison.

Quote from: James J. SkachWhat, the Iranians don’t have to live up to the “tantamount to torture” measure?

If our countries treated prisoners of war as the Iranians did for those 13 days, I'd have no complaints at all. These sailors are wailing and crying because they got locked up in cells, and someone told them fibs that their mates had been sent home. Boo fucking hoo. That's normal PW treatment. Fuck with their heads, keep that capture shock going, see what you can find out from them, and get them to confess to whatever you can for the propaganda value.

Nobody was flown to secret prisons in third countries where they were tortured. Nobody had dogs set on them. Nobody was stipped naked. Nobody was beaten. Nobody had their families threatened. Nobody was starved. Nobody was stacked in human pyramids. They all were given access to the ICRC.

They were paraded on tv, sure - but this had a benefit. Firstly, it let their families know they were physically okay, and if psychologically harmed, not seriously. Secondly, it meant the Iranians weren't going to just take them out and shoot them. Once publicly shown like that, the Iranians couldn't do them serious harm. That shuold have acted as reassurance to the sailors.

For contrast, see the treatment of Iranians seized by the USA, and held in limbo, described here (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1892391.htm). Note that the families are asking for video of their people made prisoner. A recent film of someone reassures you that they're alive and not seriously harmed. Do the Geneva Conventions say you can't make that video public? Probably. Would the families care, so long as they knew their loved ones were safe? Nope. Would I care? Nope. The Conventions' aim is not to prevent any pictures at all being broadcast, their aim is to prevent things like, as I said, PWs being dragged along in a victory parade and pelted with rotten cabbage. Smiling and sucking up to their captors, it's embarassing for them, but they'll live. It's not the sort of thing I'd bother having war crimes trials over.

It seems that most of the sailors weren't trained to deal with capture. Reading a BBC account here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6537901.stm), Leading Seman Turney talks about them coming in and measuring her up for a coffin. It's classic stuff - don't threaten, just hint and let their imaginations do the rest. (Actually, they were probably just measuring her for clothes, btu she her woodcutting and assued it was for a coffin - if they realised this, I'm sure they'd encourage it.) Most infantry would be told about this sort of thing, sailors not so much.  Note that Capt Air of the Royal Marines said, "I think it [selling their stories to the newspapers] can be part of the process to get things off their mind. To be honest, it didn't seem that traumatic at the time to me and I don't think it's going to affect me in a terrible way." That'd be because a Royal Marine is trained to deal with exactly this kind of psychological manipulation after capture.

If that was the worst we did to our PWs, frankly I'd be delighted.

Quote from: James J. SkachWhat 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.

I dunno about the world, but I wouldn't give a shit. I'm more worried when the prisoners are kept hidden away somewhere. Amnesty International had a slogan once, "it's amazing what they won't do when they know you're watching them." Things being public may be embarassing for the prisoners, but at least it limits the terrible things that may be done to them. No regime in the modern day is going to have them smiling next to the President, and then put electrodes on their testicles afterwards. I'd rather have them on tv than in secret prisons.

Quote from: James J. SkachSo 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.”

If we're talking about where to draw the lines, and consistent standards, I have those. If the USA captures people, does them no physical harm, taunts them a bit and keeps them in cells alone and tells them their mates have gone home, does that sort of stuff - I don't care. If they want to parade farmer Achmed next to the US President, and have Achmed stand there and say how grateful he is to Meestur Boosh for his good treatment, and then send him home without a fucking scratch, where he can sell his story to the newspapers for a six-figure sum (like Leading Seaman Turney has), well then I'll say, "go USA!"

But secret prisons, detention without trial, kangaroo courts, torture, and uninvestigated homicides in those secret prisons - no. That's too fucking far.

I'm not worried about minor shit which is merely embarassing to PWs. I'm worried about major shit which properly-trained soldiers couldn't be expected to handle.

All countries have committed war crimes. During the Iran-Iraq war, both countries committed hideous war crimes against one another. In the Iraqi civil war now ongoing, war crimes and crimes against humanity are being carried out by insurgents every single day. That absoluely dwarfs what we've done to PWs. But what we've done to PWs dwarfs what the Iranians did. We at least have committed felonies, theirs have only been misdemeanours.

I hold us to higher standards than that. We have to be better than our enemies - well, we have to be if we're going to go around claiming the right to invade countries for their own good!

Sadly, we are not better than our enemies. If we had a major war with Iran, I've no doubt we'd be better than them in treatment of prisoners of war. Judging how they behaved in the Iran-Iraq War, they'd be dreadful to PWs. But at this stage, we're not better than them in treatment of PWs. We're much, much worse.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf things don't admit of degrees, then Britain should have declared war on the United States in the 1970s, since the USA was involved in the conflict in Northern Ireland, largely funding the IRA. "The USA is either involved or not - otherwise you're arguing for the "a little pregnant" designator."

It wasn't just in the 70's.  If any posters from the States have ever been in a Irish bar on St. Patricks day and, without thinking, stuck money in a collection tin that someone was rattling around, there's a pretty good chance you've helped the Provo's in their attempts to blow me up.  Not that I'm bitter or anything - we've all done stupid things when we're drunk

Small point JimBob, but, as an Englishman of Irish descent, I think it's important to distinguish between the honorable men and women of the Irish Republican Army and the bunch of Marxist thugs who took their name.  I think "Provo's" (short for Provisional IRA) is a better word unless you're actually taking about the comrades of Michael Collins

Quote from: JimBobOzNote that Capt Air of the Royal Marines said, "I think it [selling their stories to the newspapers] can be part of the process to get things off their mind. To be honest, it didn't seem that traumatic at the time to me and I don't think it's going to affect me in a terrible way." That'd be because a Royal Marine is trained to deal with exactly this kind of psychological manipulation after capture.

I think that's the biggest lesson that the Navy has to take from this.  Some level of SERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SERE) needs to be given to all service members in a combat role.  As has been shown, it makes the difference between just going "lads, I think we're going to be executed." and vomiting in fear when you here a weapon being cocked behind your back

Jimmy B:

Just want to correct one of your misapprehensions. The AVERAGE Iranian actually LIKES the USA and Americans. Not enough that they won't go to war with us if we did something stupid like invade.

Now, I'm not Iranian, not even by descent, so I'm strictly speaking second hand here, but their attitude to the US is fairly well documented.



that said: Who the fuck cares if it the damn 'sea border' is out of date. It doesn't put Iran in the right. It was a naked political ploy. They won a major battle without a shot fired.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf I had meant that "Iran is, well, the aggrieved party in all this – just standing around minding their business when suddenly these ugly Brits come invading", then I would have said, "Iran is, well, the aggrieved party in all this – just standing around minding their business when suddenly these ugly Brits come invading."

You say that JimBob.  But you're a bit of a stickler for being very clear on the Internet as it doesn't translate to normal speech very well, yeah?

So what I'm saying to you is that what you wrote to mock Nox (a worthy effort, no doubt) implied that.  Oh, you may claim it's not what you meant to say, but you're better than ignoring what your words imply, aren't you? So why did you use "Iran is not directly involved" and "across" for?  I went back to rread it yet again, and it's interesting to note that leaving the word "across" out is very close to wht I offered as an alternative. So why use the word "across?" It's either a mistake, or it's meant to imply the Brits were in the wrong, or....what?  I'm open to your explanation.

Quote from: JimBobOzInstead, I said that the Iraq civil war is a conflict in which Iran is not directly involved. Direct or indirect, it's an important distinction. The US has agents in Iran attempting to destabilise the Iranian regime, but they don't have troops there - they're indirectly involved in Iranian civil conflict, such as it is.

What would it take for you to be convinced that it's a little more than not being neutral or being "indirectly" involved in Iraq when there have been Quds members captured? Iran is directly involved in Iraq in both personnel and equipment.  To claim some sort of neutrality that would allow them to treat the Brits like Allied pilots shot down over Switzerland is a bit – disingenuous. Besides, a better comparison would be if Switzerland forced the planes to the ground and took the pilots captive because they claimed the pilots violated air space. If your claim is based on the fact that there are no declared hostilities it just ends up perverting the Geneva Conventions as it favors those who don't declare War.

Quote from: JimBobOzI'm certain that's so. Your point? The Iranians are evil because they mix force with diplomacy?

Nope. But you can't feign outrage when someone wants to mix force right back. When he puts one of your guys in the hospital, you put one of his guys in the morgue. And be consistent. It's OK for Iran to use force as part of their diplomacy; it's OK for others to do the same. My point is Iran mixed force in so they can and should expect reprisal. Often a shooting match breaks out.  To act indignant or outraged that it gets suggested is silly.
 

Quote from: JimBobOzThings admit of degrees.

Time out.  This is not meant as mocking or patronizing; I'm honestly curious.  Is "admit of" an Australian thing? I've never heard it used that way before. So I'm generally curious if you or anyone else knows. OK, back to the discussion at hand.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf things don't admit of degrees, then Britain should have declared war on the United States in the 1970s, since the USA was involved in the conflict in Northern Ireland, largely funding the IRA. "The USA is either involved or not - otherwise you're arguing for the "a little pregnant" designator." Of course that would have been absurd.

Actually, no, it's not.  If the United States Government had backed the IRA in Northern Ireland, Britain would have had cause. Did people in the US, private citizens, give money to the IRA?  Sure did.  And as far as I know the US Government, if it had knowledge of such, tried to put a stop to it. Again, a better comparison would hold if a bunch of private Iranians had accosted the Brits.  But it wasn't, it was the Iranian Navy.

Quote from: JimBobOzAnd that's because things admit of degrees. A country can be involved in a conflict, directly or indirectly. The difference is important in international affairs, even if it's not important to you. If it weren't, we'd see a lot more open wars spring up. So thank God our leaders don't see things in black and white like you.

Nice rhetorical trick.  The fact that we disagree about where the line is means I only see things in black and white.  See, you can have sex, that doesn't necessarily make you pregnant.  You can even have successful fertilization of the egg.  That doesn't make you pregnant, either. A series of things has to occur to make you pregnant. But once you are – you are. That part is black and white.  I'm surprised I have to explain this to you, JB – you've got a SO and everything. You're just leaving out all the rest because it makes you feel good to say "I see shades of Gray, I'm so evolved."

Quote from: JimBobOzIt illustrates the difference between "direct" and "indirect" involvement in conflicts.

No, it's an attempt to obfuscate with examples that have no impact on the discussion at hand.

Quote from: JimBobOzHistory seems to show they'd be returned to Cuba - to Guatanamo Bay, there to languish for just enough years that when finally charged, they'd confess to anything just to be able to get it over and done with, and perhaps go home, even if only home to prison.

Nicely implied "everyone in Gitmo is innocent and just confessing....blah blah blah" bullshit. History shows that if you take part in a battle against the US as part of a non-standard conflict without uniform our recognized military structure, bad shit is going to happen to you. And if you support the people who do the same, best of luck to you. None of that applies to Cubans who "wander across into poorly-defined border area."

Quote from: JimBobOzIf our countries treated prisoners of war as the Iranians did for those 13 days, I'd have no complaints at all. These sailors are wailing and crying because they got locked up in cells, and someone told them fibs that their mates had been sent home. Boo fucking hoo. That's normal PW treatment. Fuck with their heads, keep that capture shock going, see what you can find out from them, and get them to confess to whatever you can for the propaganda value.

Wow, you really are a mean SOB, JB. Except, of course, that they weren't POW's. They weren't enemy combatants.  They weren't any of those things.

Your assumption appears to be the Brits got what they deserved, anyone in Gitmo is a horribly mistreated innocent farmer just caught up in the mad world around them.

Quote from: JimBobOzNobody was flown to secret prisons in third countries where they were tortured.

Jury is still out on that assertion. There's lots of "reports" that this occurred.

Quote from: JimBobOzNobody had dogs set on them. Nobody was stipped naked. Nobody was beaten. Nobody had their families threatened. Nobody was starved. Nobody was stacked in human pyramids.

As I've said, can you tell me how many will be brought up on charges for threatening the British prisoners? I mean, I know the reference is to Abu Ghraib. Do you know people were put in jail for that?  Enough? I'd say no. But at least some effort was made to correct the wrong.  I'll ask again – anyone being brought up on charges for the mistreatment of the Brits? Nah...pssst...it's a secret, but those aren't Amercians, so we don't get quite as upset about those abuses.

Quote from: JimBobOzThey all were given access to the ICRC.

Can you provide a source for this?  I honestly went looking and couldn't find one. As far as I can tell, they weren't given ICRC access – at least that seems to be implied by this (//%22http://www.cfr.org/publication/12977/beyond_the_british_captives.html%22).

Quote from: JimBobOzThey were paraded on tv, sure - but this had a benefit. Firstly, it let their families know they were physically okay, and if psychologically harmed, not seriously. Secondly, it meant the Iranians weren't going to just take them out and shoot them. Once publicly shown like that, the Iranians couldn't do them serious harm. That shuold have acted as reassurance to the sailors.

This would fall under the "you sure have a lot of rationalizations to avoid saying it was wrong."

Quote from: JimBobOzFor contrast, see the treatment of Iranians seized by the USA, and held in limbo, described here (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1892391.htm). Note that the families are asking for video of their people made prisoner. A recent film of someone reassures you that they're alive and not seriously harmed. Do the Geneva Conventions say you can't make that video public? Probably. Would the families care, so long as they knew their loved ones were safe? Nope. Would I care? Nope. The Conventions' aim is not to prevent any pictures at all being broadcast, their aim is to prevent things like, as I said, PWs being dragged along in a victory parade and pelted with rotten cabbage. Smiling and sucking up to their captors, it's embarassing for them, but they'll live. It's not the sort of thing I'd bother having war crimes trials over.

That's all you interpretation of them. It's a nice, rosy picture you've painted.  But it's still all just your explanations for why the Iranians weren't really that bad.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt seems that most of the sailors weren't trained to deal with capture. Reading a BBC account here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6537901.stm), Leading Seman Turney talks about them coming in and measuring her up for a coffin. It's classic stuff - don't threaten, just hint and let their imaginations do the rest. (Actually, they were probably just measuring her for clothes, btu she her woodcutting and assued it was for a coffin - if they realised this, I'm sure they'd encourage it.) Most infantry would be told about this sort of thing, sailors not so much.  Note that Capt Air of the Royal Marines said, "I think it [selling their stories to the newspapers] can be part of the process to get things off their mind. To be honest, it didn't seem that traumatic at the time to me and I don't think it's going to affect me in a terrible way." That'd be because a Royal Marine is trained to deal with exactly this kind of psychological manipulation after capture.

I love it.  It's the Brits fault they were treated badly! It was all really in their heads!

Quote from: JimBobOzIf that was the worst we did to our PWs, frankly I'd be delighted.

Yes, well, our POW's, which aren't POW's, did more than "wander across into a poorly-defined border area" now, didn't they.

Quote from: JimBobOzI dunno about the world, but I wouldn't give a shit. I'm more worried when the prisoners are kept hidden away somewhere. Amnesty International had a slogan once, "it's amazing what they won't do when they know you're watching them." Things being public may be embarassing for the prisoners, but at least it limits the terrible things that may be done to them. No regime in the modern day is going to have them smiling next to the President, and then put electrodes on their testicles afterwards. I'd rather have them on tv than in secret prisons.

See above reationalizations...

Quote from: JimBobOzIf we're talking about where to draw the lines, and consistent standards, I have those. If the USA captures people, does them no physical harm, taunts them a bit and keeps them in cells alone and tells them their mates have gone home, does that sort of stuff - I don't care. If they want to parade farmer Achmed next to the US President, and have Achmed stand there and say how grateful he is to Meestur Boosh for his good treatment, and then send him home without a fucking scratch, where he can sell his story to the newspapers for a six-figure sum (like Leading Seaman Turney has), well then I'll say, "go USA!"

What, exactly, do you think goes on in Gitmo? I mean, really?

Quote from: JimBobOzBut secret prisons

Again with the secret prisons? A lot of talk, not so much on the facts; not you, per se, but there's a lot of accusations with the "we'd know more but they are secret prisons, after all."

Quote from: JimBobOzdetention without trial

Who is being detained without trial? When did enemy combatants get the right to a trial? Are you talking in a regular old courtroom in the US or something?  You've lost your fucking mind.

Quote from: JimBobOzkangaroo courts

Wait – if they're not getting trials, how can they be can a kangaroo court?

Quote from: JimBobOztorture

Wherein the people doing the torture are brought up on charges. Unless, of course, we're talking about the "tantamount to torture" standard which only applies to the US and the West.

Quote from: JimBobOzuninvestigated homicides in those secret prisons

Secret Murders in Secret Prisons with Secret Investigations! If a prisoner is secretly murdered in a secret prison – does a tree fall in the woods? You're starting to sound like Nox.

Quote from: JimBobOzI'm not worried about minor shit which is merely embarassing to PWs. I'm worried about major shit which properly-trained soldiers couldn't be expected to handle.

Of course you're not – unless it's the Americans who are doing it – then it's TANTAMONT TO TORTURE!!!!

Quote from: JimBobOzAll countries have committed war crimes.

And there we have it – the relativist theory of international relations. Combined with the Black and White Argument and we have the simple formula.  If America does it – BAD!!! Anyone else – eh, it's not a big deal...

None of which is to say we or the Brits should have gone gonzo on them - I don't agree it was that point yet. But to just write off what they did because "it's not as bad as the Americans" or "it was the Brits fault for not being better prepared" is just...well...it's beneath you JimBob.

And the real  (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/070406iranoil.aspx)reason the Iranians do this shit (it's a theory I've heard before, along with osme other interesting ones).

EDIT: While I reserve the right to change my mind, I'll leave the last word to JB - these posts are too damn long.  I guess if you write enough, people just get worn down into submission...it's torture, I tell ya...

Quote from: SpikeJimmy B:

Just want to correct one of your misapprehensions. The AVERAGE Iranian actually LIKES the USA and Americans. Not enough that they won't go to war with us if we did something stupid like invade.

.

So? The average iranian doesn't run the country, so his opinion is irrelevant. The government is what decides what iran does, so it's what matters.

The average german wasn't in favor of the holocaust, it happened anyway. The average iranian may not be in favor of iran getting into a war, but if the government is, that's what'll happen.

Quote from: Dominus NoxSo? The average iranian doesn't run the country, so his opinion is irrelevant. The government is what decides what iran does, so it's what matters.

So one should blame US citizens for everything the US goverment does?

QuoteThe average german wasn't in favor of the holocaust, it happened anyway. The average iranian may not be in favor of iran getting into a war, but if the government is, that's what'll happen.

Actually the last thing the Iranian goverment wants is a war. But then again you're the guy who wants/hopes for a genocide against Muslims, so I wouldn't expect a guy like you to appreciate the nuances of foreign policy. (But off course when it comes to your views on Muslims, you do have your fans)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RSo one should blame US citizens for everything the US goverment does?



Actually the last thing the Iranian goverment wants is a war. But then again you're the guy who wants/hopes for a genocide against Muslims, so I wouldn't expect a guy like you to appreciate the nuances of foreign policy. (But off course when it comes to your views on Muslims, you do have your fans)

Regards,
David R

Actually there could NOT be a "genocide" against muslims, you typing abnegation of intelligence. Genocide is directed against a race, not a religion.
Islam is a religion, not a race, so you can't commit genocide against islam.

Now, "Theocide" would be the intentional destruction of a religion and the killing of all its followers, as the catholics practiced against the Gnostics, the Cathars, etc.

There are millions of Muslims around the world who go about their lives, day by day, and are no threat whatsoever to the US or anyone else. When you go after "Muslims" you fail to make a distinction between those folks and the rabid, violent hate mongers we are really against.

That does no one any good.

Skach, I must give you credit. You must be a man of great honour, to be so profoundly embarassed by the conduct of Western forces, to go to such efforts to defend them - when even your own head of state has said our forces have done wrong - and to go to such efforts to compare normal treatment of internees/PWs with horrendous mistreatment.

To be so embarassed, to wriggle and quibble so much about it all, shows great honour. I salute you.

Now add to your honour courage and humility, and you will be the most admirable of men. Courage and humility are required to sort it out when we've fucked up, otherwise we keep fucking up.

On the other hand, the continued presence among us of a poster who advocates genocide, and when pressed on it, has as his only defence is that it's not genocide if it's only Moslems, does no credit to this place.

It's worth noting that several of our posters live in countries where "incitement to genocide" is a crime. So if you remove porn and IP piracy because it might get you into legal trouble, then you had better consider what to do about people who incite genocide. Or else allow porn and IP piracy. Give me a day, I can install Bitorrent, download some rpg book scans and put them up. Speech should be free, right?

Now hold on there a second, JimBob, that last sentence indicates an activity thatvwould cut into the business of brick & mortar stores - like the one I work at . (yeah I know you were being humorous)

 The rest of the thread?
 Appears to be an overly topical political thread that has now become outdated by current events.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Dominus NoxActually there could NOT be a "genocide" against muslims, you typing abnegation of intelligence. Genocide is directed against a race, not a religion.
Islam is a religion, not a race, so you can't commit genocide against islam.

Now, "Theocide" would be the intentional destruction of a religion and the killing of all its followers, as the catholics practiced against the Gnostics, the Cathars, etc.

Ah but see Nox, I'm on to you (admittedly not really a difficult thing to do). With you, Muslims = Race, probably Middle Easterners, probably African Americans (since if I'm not mistaken they are the largest group converting to Islam at the moment) and off course various Asian ethnic groups...colored no doubt. So when you say for instance this

Quote*Of course there's no gurantee that the iranians won't let another islamofascist terrorist reime take over. But if they're stupid or weak enough to le that happen again after decades of ther current regime then we should just bomb them back to the stone age.

and this:

QuoteIf they kill the hostages, see to it that at least a thousand iranians die for each one of them.

and this:

QuoteYou can't deal with fanatics like you would sane people, you can't deal with barbarians like they were civillized people.

and this:

QuoteWell, if england's got any balls left (Doubt it.) thye'll set up an incident and let a bunch of iranians try to seize another group of sailors, and this time blow them to hell in little pieces.

It leaves very little doubt, that you are not talking about a religion but a group of people who you have issues with. Comitting genocide against the Iranian people for the capture of 15 soldiers may not mean much to you...you after all are racist ...but I for one would rather you peddle your shit, some place else. It's a good thing for you, this board is tolerant of lawncrappers.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JimBobOzOn the other hand, the continued presence among us of a poster who advocates genocide, and when pressed on it, has as his only defence is that it's not genocide if it's only Moslems, does no credit to this place.

I think that it is fair to say that I am not a fan of Dominus Nox.  That being said, the tiff upthread was what to call such an act, not an endorsement of said act.  Again with the rhetorical tricks, JB?

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's worth noting that several of our posters live in countries where "incitement to genocide" is a crime. So if you remove porn and IP piracy because it might get you into legal trouble, then you had better consider what to do about people who incite genocide. Or else allow porn and IP piracy. Give me a day, I can install Bitorrent, download some rpg book scans and put them up. Speech should be free, right?

And it is worthy of note that some of our posters are potentially from countries in which criticism of the government is a crime.  Unless you want your ability to talk about anything interesting threatened by the long march towards covering all objects in nerf foam, I suggest that you do not walk down this road...


TGA

Saying that you're a "RACIST!!!" because you hate islamofascism is like saying you're a "RACIST!!!" because you hate nazis. After all, nazis were predominately one race, so by the "logic" of some people here hating them must be racism...

Quote from: The Good AssyrianI think that it is fair to say that I am not a fan of Dominus Nox.  That being said, the tiff upthread was what to call such an act, not an endorsement of said act.  Again with the rhetorical tricks, JB?

Not really. Any thorough reading of Dominus Nox (as painful as that may be) will reveal he's a fan of genocide. Let's just ask him:

Dear Nox, do you think it's a good idea for the USA to

• kill millions of Moslems in Iran?
• kill millions of Moslems in Iraq?
• kill millions of Moslems in Saudi Arabia?
• and so on?

By "kill millions" I mean whatever means you see fit - bombing from above, lining up beside a ditch and shooting them into it, whatever you like.

Or how about,

Dear Nox, if Dubya were to launch several nuclear missiles at Iranian cities, right now, causing the deaths of, say, eight million Shi'ia Iranian Moslem people, would you a) cheer, or b) be sad and upset? If a), do you encourage Dubya to do it right now?

Quote from: The Good AssyrianAnd it is worthy of note that some of our posters are potentially from countries in which criticism of the government is a crime.

Name these posters.

Quote from: JimBobOzNot really. Any thorough reading of Dominus Nox (as painful as that may be) will reveal he's a fan of genocide.

Frankly, I really don't care what the fuck Dominus Nox thinks...

Quote from: JimBobOzDear Nox, if Dubya were to launch several nuclear missiles at Iranian cities, right now, causing the deaths of, say, eight million Shi'ia Iranian Moslem people, would you a) cheer, or b) be sad and upset? If a), do you encourage Dubya to do it right now?

Hey, Nox:

(http://www.fivedigits.net/pix/phun/itsatrap.jpg)

Quote from: JimBobOzName these posters.

My oh my, you are really playing games today...

OK, I'll dance your little dance.  I know that there are several posters who are in China.  Accordingly, should we not criticize Chinese human rights abuses on these forums?  That might make the Chinese government mad, after all, and they have laws against that kind of stuff.

You see, that is the problem with trying to define what constitutes free and responsible speech in a global setting such as the Internet.  In my view, limits on ideas, even ones that I think are shitty, are morally wrong.  Thus, in my opinion we should maintain certain community standards such as preventing universally illegal acts from taking place on the server, but we have no moral obligation to make governments or individuals "feel emotionally safe" from our opinions.  Fortunately for my enjoyment of the forums, the management of this site largely seems to agree with my interpretation.

And JB, since you seem to be setting yourself up in the business of deciding which opinions should not be tolerated here for extraordinarily nebulous legal reasons, please provide a list of these unacceptable beliefs for our review.


TGA

Quote from: The Good AssyrianAnd JB, since you seem to be setting yourself up in the business of deciding which opinions should not be tolerated here for extraordinarily nebulous legal reasons, please provide a list of these unacceptable beliefs for our review.

Incitement to and promotion of things which are crimes under international law. About all that is, is copyright stuff, kiddy porn and genocide.

There are other things whcih shouldn't be here because they don't help therpgsite's image as a place for rpg talk - like pr0n, blatant racism and sexism, etc. Personally I can tolerate those things if the game talk is good, but therpgsite as a whole isn't well-served by them. Makes us look bad, puts people off the place. If you have puerile mud-slinging, for example, then you'll just end up with yet another forum of one guy and his buddies and the occasional visitor who never stays, like Animalball forum. If you want to doom therpgsite to hopeless obscurity and irrelevance, then hey, by all means, bring on the KKK talk and post up pics of h4wt chixxorz nekkid.

Amazingly, when people come to a forum to talk rpgs, and see someone promoting genocide (Nox), or saying that women are all lying bitches (RPGPundit), it puts them off the place. Amazing, that, eh?

I would only outright ban expressions of genocidal racism, copyright infringement, and pr0n (kiddy or otherwise). I'd probably want to leave the forum itself to deal with the blatant racism and sexism. When mods do it, they're not very good at drawing the line in an appropriate place, it either becomes a free-for-all like Animalball, or an oversensitive place like rpg.net.

Quote from: JimBobOzIncitement to and promotion of things which are crimes under international law. About all that is, is copyright stuff, kiddy porn and genocide.

There are other things whcih shouldn't be here because they don't help therpgsite's image as a place for rpg talk - like pr0n, blatant racism and sexism, etc. Personally I can tolerate those things if the game talk is good, but therpgsite as a whole isn't well-served by them. Makes us look bad, puts people off the place. If you have puerile mud-slinging, for example, then you'll just end up with yet another forum of one guy and his buddies and the occasional visitor who never stays, like Animalball forum. If you want to doom therpgsite to hopeless obscurity and irrelevance, then hey, by all means, bring on the KKK talk and post up pics of h4wt chixxorz nekkid.

Amazingly, when people come to a forum to talk rpgs, and see someone promoting genocide (Nox), or saying that women are all lying bitches (RPGPundit), it puts them off the place. Amazing, that, eh?

I would only outright ban expressions of genocidal racism, copyright infringement, and pr0n (kiddy or otherwise). I'd probably want to leave the forum itself to deal with the blatant racism and sexism. When mods do it, they're not very good at drawing the line in an appropriate place, it either becomes a free-for-all like Animalball, or an oversensitive place like rpg.net.

Before I reply to this, let me make it clear that I'm responding only as a user and not as any statement of the site's vision.  My "tech admin" status only pertains to fixing technical problems with the site and removing spam.  Your opinion on this issue is worth as much as mine.  With that understood:

Dominus Nox has not been banned.  Hell, RPGPundit hasn't banned himself either.

Their contributions to this site are positive and real.  The teeming masses of people who would post here if only the site got rid of them are purely hypothetical.

***SIGH***

Let's try it ONE MORE TIME.....

Being muslim is NOT an issue of race, it is a RELIGION.

Speaking out against islam is not RACIST as it is NOT an issue of RACE.

Just because most of the members of a religion, or a political group, are one race does not make disliking that group RACISM.

Hell, I don't like nazis, most nazis are of european ancestory, ergo I am an anti european racist for not liking nazis by the defective logic of some people here.

Anyway, it's over, the britts didn;t step up to the plate, iran humiliated a western power once again, making eventual war with them even more inevitable. AFAIC the thread's over as the situation it addressed is over.

So, Nox do you think it would be a good idea to kill heaps of Moslems, or not? If your President were to nuke six Iranian cities tomorrow, killing several million Iranians, would you cheer, or be angry and sad?

Quote from: Dominus NoxBeing muslim is NOT an issue of race, it is a RELIGION.

Yes, so why are you advocating genocide against a race of people who belong to said religion.

QuoteSpeaking out against islam is not RACIST as it is NOT an issue of RACE.

I thought you were speaking out against Islomafacism...

QuoteJust because most of the members of a religion, or a political group, are one race does not make disliking that group RACISM.

Then why do you keep wanting them (innocent members of the religon) nuked back to the stone age

QuoteHell, I don't like nazis, most nazis are of european ancestory, ergo I am an anti european racist for not liking nazis by the defective logic of some people here.

But you admire the Klan as in Klu Klux, they admire the Nazis, but that's okay right Nox, because they are white. (Edit: You're equating Muslims with Nazis...)

QuoteAnyway, it's over, the britts didn;t step up to the plate, iran humiliated a western power once again, making eventual war with them even more inevitable. AFAIC the thread's over as the situation it addressed is over.

Yeah, those dirty brown foreigners (I'll add Mexicans becaue I know you have a problem with them too) humiliated a white power.

David R

Quote from: JimBobOzIncitement to and promotion of things which are crimes under international law. About all that is, is copyright stuff, kiddy porn and genocide.

You're right, JB.  We obviously need a team of lawyers to legally differentiate "incitement to genocide" and being a "mouth-breathing dumbass".  That sounds like a good use of our time.

Maybe it is a cultural disconnect here.  As an American (and a naturalized one, at that), I have a basic assumption that I should be able to say what I want to.  That means that others should be afforded the same courtesy, even if they turn out to be assholes.  The community I live in puts limits on this ability for free speech, but these limits are (or at least should be) tied to actual potential harm.  In this case, on an Internet forum about RPGs, I would contend that it is hard to make a case that some random fool's opinions on international affairs or religion do much actual harm other than make you feel uncomfortable.

Frankly, it is also a practical matter for me.  I firmly believe that if people with  repulsive ideas are not given the chance to embarrass themselves in public, then we do the community a disservice.  By making a martyr of them and their whack-job ideas, we are simply giving them the credibility that they do not in any way deserve.  They should be ridiculed and pelted with the digital equivalent of rotten tomatoes.  And, if all else fails, you can always just ignore the stupid fuckers.

Quote from: JimBobOzI would only outright ban expressions of genocidal racism, copyright infringement, and pr0n (kiddy or otherwise). I'd probably want to leave the forum itself to deal with the blatant racism and sexism. When mods do it, they're not very good at drawing the line in an appropriate place, it either becomes a free-for-all like Animalball, or an oversensitive place like rpg.net.

You know, overall I agree with you.  I also agree that it would be great if people would refrain from talking about their own sperm, but it is the job of the community to decide what will be tolerated.  I try to do my part by expressing my opinion on things that bother me.  I know that it is not a sexy as citing international case law to win points on an Internet forum about RPGs, but I do what I can.


TGA

I think Islamofascism is a useful term to describe certain groups, though honestly most Fascists states were rather quick to embrace technology. Few of the groups referred to as "Islamofascist" could be referred to as being "pro-technology."They look backward, not forward. I think it would be more accurate to describe them as Islamoconservatives.

Regarding freedom of speech, and banning racist motherfuckers, I have posted in a more appropriate thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=93698#post93698).

Quote from: Dominus NoxAnyway, it's over, the britts didn;t step up to the plate, iran humiliated a western power once again, making eventual war with them even more inevitable.

Or perhaps they aptly displayed why diplomacy takes the day instead of arm-chair chickenhawks who'd embroil the UK, and inevitably the US, in yet another over-extended, unwinnable conflict in the Middle East.

!i!

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Just to provide the view of the average member of the armed forces in reaction to this debacle, I was sitting in the medical centre of the RAF base I am stationed at, waiting for a variety of innoculations, when the news of the release of the hostages came on TV. The first thing anyone said (a female doctor, of all people) was 'court-martial the bastards'. And I have to say that I agree.
Conduct After Capture, at its lowest level, is a 40 minute long briefing. Everyone gets it in recruit training, and it is very clear on the no-cooperation aspect of capture. It explicitly says that under no circumstances are you to agree to make any form of TV or radio broadcast, let alone look like you're having a whale of a time.
I don't know what I would have done in that situation, but I like to think that any of the officers or NCOs I serve with (in an RAF Regiment Field Squadron) would have had the presence of mind to send a contact report, return to their own boats and refuse to obey Iranian commands (or even call their bluff and make a break for it), for as long as possible. Even if taken into captivity, they should be providing leadership to their men that prevents the kind of Conduct After Capture breaches we saw here. All 15 should be seriously considering whether they belong in the armed forces, especially thetwo who sold their stories to the press.

Quote from: actusreusJust to provide the view of the average member of the armed forces [...] The first thing anyone said (a female doctor, of all people) was 'court-martial the bastards'. And I have to say that I agree.
Conduct After Capture, at its lowest level, is a 40 minute long briefing. Everyone gets it in recruit training, and it is very clear on the no-cooperation aspect of capture.

That's true. But then, for the people on the ground - or in the water - there's that 40 minute lecture, and then there's a couple of dozen excitable jundies dancing around waving their AK-47s at you and poing through your rucksack and nicking your favourite bits of kit.

Quote from: actusreusI don't know what I would have done in that situation,

And that's about where we ought to leave it. It's very easy to judge. I think for example of General (later Field Marshal) Blamey berating the Aussie militia survivors of the Kokoda battles, who'd stood against eight times their number of Japanese before falling back with 90% casualties, calling them "running rabbits."

There's a thing called "capture shock". Possibly your female doctor might know a military psychologist who knows about it, or maybe you could look up someone in Intel Section if you have one, they'll tell you about it. Basically the whole moment of capture shits you right up, you can't help your reaction to it anymore than you can help your heart rate going up if someone starts brassing you up - it's a physiological reaction which only the strongest of indidividuals can resist. If they leave you alone, it passes after about 24 hours; if they're nice to you, it stops after 6 or so hours; and if they're right cunts, it might last 72-96 hours. One of the ways you recover more quickly from capture shock is to hang about with your mates from your section or crew, esprit de corps and all that. That's why SOP for intel on getting PWs is to separate them.

During capture shock, you've no idea what's happening to you, if they're going to slot you or what, so you try to buddy up to your captors and co-operate fully. It's the uncertainty that does your head in - if you know they're going to come in and beat your bollocks with their rifle butts again tonight, that's easier on you than if you just don't know what they'll do to you, or if your mates are still alive, or what.

The training for CAC and E&E is obviously going to prepare you a lot better for capture shock than, say, a few weeks learning to swab the decks, or whatever it is they do in the Navy.

You'll notice that in the group, the blokes from HM Jollies said, "well, it wasn't that bad." Whereas your sailors trembled in their undies. So I'm guessing the relative difference in level of training for capture shock was the difference.

In this, it's no different to any other military situation. We can't really fault the sailors for giving in to the jundies any more than we could fault them for being bad shots, or not knowing how to use a howitzer - it's training.

Quote from: actusreusbut I like to think that any of the officers or NCOs I serve with (in an RAF Regiment Field Squadron) would have had the presence of mind to send a contact report, return to their own boats and refuse to obey Iranian commands (or even call their bluff and make a break for it), for as long as possible.

Depends on their RoEs, doesn't it?

Quote from: actusreusEven if taken into captivity, they should be providing leadership to their men that prevents the kind of Conduct After Capture breaches we saw here.

They were separated from them, kept in individual cells. You can't be a leader to people who don't know if you're dead or alive.

Quote from: actusreusAll 15 should be seriously considering whether they belong in the armed forces, especially the two who sold their stories to the press.

That's not relevant, their careers are over already. If you're some RN brass who beaches their ship, doesn't matter if it was your fault or not - that's your career over. Likewise, if you ever become a PW, your career's over, more often than not.

Those who sold their stories were actually encouraged to do so by the DoD. That's what our seppo mates say is "a bad call". There's also the fact that sometimes when you get famous, the press just will not leave you alone until you do sell your story to someone. They're going to camp outside your home or barracks until you tell them everything they want to know. At least if you say you've given an exclusive to someone they might bugger off and leave you alone.

I'd like to think I'd have done better in their position, but I can't really say. I think I'd probably co-operate as they did, just to get my ugly mug on telly so my family knew I was alright. Then after that I'd come back and tell the media to fuck themselves, and in revenge they'd dig up all the dirt on my past and make the whole country hate me.

My take is this:

In a war situation, those servicemen would be the shame of the Commonwealth. Period.

But there is no war with Iran.
Is a soldier up to deciding to open shooting with a country you are at peace?

Look, in former times, any self respecting nation would defend their pride with rifle bullets and gunboats. You mess with armed forces of the Empire, you die!
The soldiers back then could rely on their government to back up anything they did, to defend the honour of their country.
Now, how much backing does a modern western soldier get from his government? In this case the british? Does britain still fight for honour, everytime, everywhere?

In former times, when embassies were burned down, that was a casus belli. Not so today.

The troops who let themselves be captured can´t really be blamed. Without honour, you´re bound to Realpolitik and opportunism. Why get yourself killed, when nobody appreciates, and honour isn´t even at stake? Let alone any real military goal?

Thusly, they played it safe, because they couldn´t rely on anybody appreciating or even backing use of force under all circumstances. And once you are captured: What JimBob said.

EDIT: It might also be smart and an actual improvement, that we go to war because of honour these days. That´s a value question everybody best answers himself.

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's not relevant, their careers are over already. If you're some RN brass who beaches their ship, doesn't matter if it was your fault or not - that's your career over. Likewise, if you ever become a PW, your career's over, more often than not.
.

I can't speak for Australia or the UK, but the US Army and other armed forces do not necessarily end your career simply because you are a POW.  Factors include being fit to continue fighting (many POW's, those with long incarcerations and subject to torture say, would have to be medically retired) and of course, the end of your enlistment/the war.

However.  Many do continue to serve, teaching SERE school, for example. I know the pilot from Blackhawk Down still works with the 160th SOAR (his unit), though he could no longer fly and is now, I believe, retired from active duty (civilian contractor in the Simulator as I recall)... or at least was five years ago, long after Somalia.  There is no regulation insisting a soldier leave service simply for being captured.

Likewise, I can't speak for the "40 minute lecture' either, in the US, the code of conduct and 'stress situations' used to be routine.  While the army is changing it's basic entry training, a least a few years ago you went through 6 weeks of extremely stressful 'captivity' simply as a part of joining up.   Sitting around eating a nice meal with a dozen of your mates was a real luxury.

As for the constant chants of 'but the ROE...', i strongly doubt any ROE ever written said 'if men with guns tell you to go quietly, you go quietly'.  State of war be damned, they had the means to move under their own power, they had the ability to fight back if shot at. They gave up without a fucking peep.  Then they denounced their country and their service on television.  

And I seriously doubt their treatment was any more strenuous than the treatment of POW's in Vietnam and WWII, most of whom made it through with honor intact, if not dignity.  

Frankly, Jimbo, given that you have served (as far as I recall...I don't track your history) that you've taken the position you did.  That would make you the only service or former servicemember I've heard speak positively about them. Most say nothing or denounce them with some venom.

Quote from: SpikeI can't speak for Australia or the UK, but the US Army and other armed forces do not necessarily end your career simply because you are a POW.  [...] There is no regulation insisting a soldier leave service simply for being captured.

Similarly, there is no regulation that a commander who beaches their ship must leave the Navy, or that a male schoolteacher accused and then cleared of paedophilia quit his job, or that a bank manager who had their bank robbed by tellers quit their job. However, most do. In any career, military or civilian, there are things which will effectively end your career, more often than not. It's not certain, but it's very likely.

Quote from: SpikeAs for the constant chants of 'but the ROE...', i strongly doubt any ROE ever written said 'if men with guns tell you to go quietly, you go quietly'.  

You are obviously unaware of the RoE of many of the UN force in Bosnia in the 1990s... even when being shot at directly, some of the national contingents had to get permission from UNHQ to fire back. It's quite possible for RoE to be more restrictive than the normal civilian rights of self-defence.

Quote from: SpikeState of war be damned, they had the means to move under their own power, they had the ability to fight back if shot at. They gave up without a fucking peep.

We've not yet heard the exact details. How many people and ships were they confronted by? We've not been told. Did they surrender to a guy with an AK-47 in a rowboat, or was it half a dozen patrol boats who fired 30 cal machineguns and four inch shells across their bows?

Again, what were their rules of engagement? Were they told, "any jundie gives you shit, brass him up!" or, "if you find yourself confronting the Iranians, avoid a firefight, even if you have to surrender to do so." We don't know - this stuff hasn't been made public.

It's very easy to judge when you know nothing of the situation, but the judgment won't be a well-founded one, and will perhaps look silly when the details come out later.

Quote from: SpikeThen they denounced their country and their service on television.

No, they didn't. They said that they'd gone across into Iranian waters by accident. As I noted above, the border is uncertain and disputed, so for all they knew, they were speaking the truth.

Quote from: SpikeAnd I seriously doubt their treatment was any more strenuous than the treatment of POW's in Vietnam and WWII, most of whom made it through with honor intact, if not dignity.

Many of the PWs in those wars collaborated far more than these guys, and in general were not punished for it. Some were, occasionally - including one poor bastard who was a PW of the Communists for 13 years, and on his return to the USA was court-martialled.  

Quote from: SpikeFrankly, Jimbo, given that you have served (as far as I recall...I don't track your history) that you've taken the position you did.  That would make you the only service or former servicemember I've heard speak positively about them. Most say nothing or denounce them with some venom.

A failure to condemn is not praise. That I don't think they should be court-martialled does not mean I think they should be given a medal.

I've not spoken positively of them. I've said that those who complained about their treatment were a bit wussy, really - their treatment was, from what we've heard so far, well within the Geneva Conventions and Protocols on PWs (which also apply to internees). I've noted that those trained to deal with capture - the Royal Marine officer - dealt with it better than those not trained for it - the RN sailors. I've said that you always deal better with something you're trained for than something you're not.

As to service, well, different kinds of service provide different perspectives. What I've found is that bravado and macho is inversely proportional to the proximity to the two-way rifle range. It's easy to talk tough when you're, say, a doctor on an airbase in a distant country. It's a bit different when a bunch of excitable jundies are looking keen to slot you.  

I know that in these sorts of things everyone is keen to condemn someone or other as the devil himself. Sometimes we want to condemn the USA for their conspiracy to wage aggressive war, or their war crimes; sometimes we want to condemn the insurgents for their war crimes and crimes against humanity; sometimes we want to condemn the Iranians for patrolling a disputed border and firing on and capturing those near it; sometimes we want to condemn the internees for crapping themselves and co-operating with their captors.

I've consistently said that all these people are human and imperfect, and none of them are perfectly good, nor any of them perfectly evil. Just because many people in this thread and elsewhere are looking for saints and devils does not mean that I am.

I'm no lawyer, Jimbo, but regarding the RoE you love to trot out, to the best of my knowledge the International Law of War (it's a proper noun... that is, just as real as the Geneva Convetions) state that a Military person, in the performance of their duties, has the right to shoot back. More succinctly, you have the right to defend yourself against hostile forces.

For all I know, the right to defend yourself is in the universal Bill of Rights the European posters love to trot out.  


We do know quite a bit about what happened out there on the water. Shallow water limits the size of the vessels used, and it was the Iranian Coast Guard, not the Navy.  Not that it matters much, Coast Guards are recognized (at least here) as a branch of the military, on the other hand, they tend to lack heavy anti-ship weapons.  We HAVE seen video footage of the 'internees' being escorted back to Iran, and the initial news suggests they drove their own boats ashore.  We also know that a cordon is useless at sea unless you are willing to engage the other guy with hostile force... you just can't block ocean that throughly.  

I'll admit freely that some, even several POW's broke down.  Hell, I read most of the autobiography of the 13 year dude you mentioned.... I think.  Doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean we don't treat them, within the military community certainly, with the contempt they diserve.  It's like Nox, we don't want that sort of behavior being 'acceptable', so we condemn it, vilify it and the people who perpetrate it.  

Someone did have a curious bit to point out: photos of the 'internees' being released were largely cropped. Uncropped photos (the first run) show several of the marines looking very upset, the rest of them (the ones easy to see in the cropped photos) are all smiling and cheerful as they shake 'Bob's' hand.   While it may be unfair to tar those who did not cooperate with the same brush as those who did, we don't know enough about them to seperate them out. Guilt by assossiation.

As for your rebuttal to my 'condemnation comment': bollocks.  They admitted they, and their nation was in the wrong. Meanwhile, the PM and the British Navy were claiming otherwise.  Guess what, that's condemnation, that's making a liar out of your nation and service. It is most certainly providing care and comfort to 'the enemy' and only a lack of a declared state of war between Britian and Iran saves them from going to Courts Martial as Traitors.  That and I assume there are 'mitigating factors' for POW's and possible torture.

Maybe I overstate my case.  Subtlety does not seem to make the point.

EDIT:::

EDIT::: Removed for personal reasons, since Jimbob has already had a chance to read it.

In Europe, the UK and Australia, typically the RoE are more restrictive than the laws of war generally, or bills of rights or whatever.

For example, in the US-led mission in Somalia, and the UN mission in Rwanda, and the Australian-led intervention in East Timor, Australian troops had rules of engagement which said, broadly,

If someone fires on you, you may fire back. If they present their weapon as though to fire, you must warn them, and only after the warning may you fire back. Once they stop firing or presenting their weapon in that threatening manner, you must also stop firing - so you cannot shoot at them while they're changing magazines, running away, or running to a new firing position further away from you.

[Somalia and Rwanda had, but Timor did not -] You may only fire in defence of yourself and your unit. You may not fire in defence of civilians.

These sorts of rules are more restrictive than the civilian rights of self-defence and protection of others. In civilian life, if someone attacks me with lethal force, I can keep attacking him until he gives up - I can have a go at him when he's running away because he might be running off to be a threat to someone else, too. I can also use lethal force to protect an unarmed person who's under threat.

So the RoE there give you less rights to use force than in civilian life. These RoE meant that in Somalia and Rwanda Australian soldiers witnessed massacres of civilians, but were permitted to do nothing. But they also meant that the largest firefight in the Timor intervention, between an Australian company patrol and an Indonesian, was stopped without serious casualties, and did not lead to a larger conflict. Incidentally, that Aussie-Indon firefight started because the Indons, using Dutch maps from 1947, thought the Aussies were on the Indon side of the border... the Aussies had more up-to-date maps.

Had the patrol been a section patrol instead of a company patrol, it may have happened that the Indon company surrounded the Australians, and presenting their weapons as though to fire, demanded the Australian section surrender. The Aussies' only chance of escape would have been to fire first and charge out of the ring of troops around them; this would have violated their RoE, so they'd have had to surrender.

War's a complicated thing. That's why we have Boards of Inquiry - because it's not possible to judge things properly without all the facts. I realise that we all enjoy a nice trial by media, but as I've said before, the media has a problem with premature speculation. Let's not follow them there.

Yes, I get that, Jimmy. You seem, however, to be missing the point. The British Marines who were taken in did not have to fire first, they still had the right to shoot if attacked. They could have, SHOULD have, attempted to break contact, and then if necessary legally defended themselves.

As we have no accounts of shots being fired, or anyone being injured or killed, they did not.  You keep saying 'well it was that dratted NATO ROE'.

And I keep saying 'bullshit'.  Going on about different ROE's doesn't change the fact that they were not helpless in the face of agression from Iran, they had no orders to surrender without a fight (which in this case includes attempting to move to freindly filled waters). They chose to give up instead. And then they compounded that with poor decisions that have been discussed at length here.

That darn NATO ROE is not an excuse to surrender without trying anything.  We could go around and around what 'might have happened out there'...

From a military standpoint their actions were deplorable bordering on appalling.  Better than Abu Ghraib, sure. From a political standpoint it was a disaster for Britains government, one they apparently managed to work with reasonably well.

The only person who came out of it with any smiles is Bob, who we all know is a hardline, fundamentalist Islamist with a serious anti-western point of view. Forgive me if I'm not willing to congratulate him on his gamesmanship, nor go 'oh, good, those stupid fuckers got out unhurt'.

And you're missing the point that we don't know exactly what happened on the day of their contact.

This is why the military has Boards of Inquiry. Several senior officers, with hearings of several hours a day over several weeks or even months, go over every detail of the events in question. They interview all witnesses, all commanders involved directly or otherwise, and take submissions from interested parties (family members, qualified servicepeople, etc). After that, they issue a report with recommendations for charges (if any) and/or changes to procedure.

Whereas we're getting a few media reports and judging by them. We just don't have enough information.

I'm reminded of Borat, where old Borat went and got himself in trouble at a rodeo - he spoke up and said that he hoped George Bush would kill every man, woman and child in Iraq, and leave not even a lizard - most of the crowd cheered. Then he messed with the national anthem, and had to be escorted out by security for his own protection. Then the local tv station reported the incident, and showed him making the speech about Iraq - but the tv news report cut it off there, and did not show the crowd cheering him.

So there's a good and obvious example of the imprecision, sloppiness and bias of the media. It's an excellent example of why we should not have trial by media.

We just don't know enough to judge. When US soldiers are accused of some new atrocity, everyone says, "wow, if true, how terrible... but we don't know, we can't judge yet, we can't have trial by media, let the military follow its regular procedures to investigate." Why should it be different for UK sailors and marines?

You're heading back into harm's way soon, you tell us, Spike. And your country's servicemen are distressingly regularly accused of pretty terrible things. So you might want to hold back on that support for trial by media.

Let's wait until we have all the information needed to judge.

Quote from: JimBobOzWhen US soldiers are accused of some new atrocity, everyone says, "wow, if true, how terrible... but we don't know, we can't judge yet, we can't have trial by media, let the military follow its regular procedures to investigate."

You're kidding, right?

Quote from: James J SkachYou're kidding, right?

Well, by "everyone" I mean, "patriotic Americans."

On the other hand we've got America-haters who just assume that US troops are constantly committing atrocities, that Dick Cheney blew up the WTC towers, etc. Again, it's people mistaking "media premature speculation" for "evidence."

But the American patriots tend to automatically cleanse their own guys, while automatically condemning everyone else. The slightest questioning of US policy or military actions is taken as vicious condemnation. Failure to condemn the latest enemy as the Devil himself is taken as praising him. "You're either with us or against us." And so it goes, Americans aren't not too different to other countries in this regard.

I'm suggesting a more balanced view. We here on the internet have access to a wide variety of news sources - with a small effort, we should be able to see where there's a broad spectrum of opinion represented, and where the same non-stories are repeated again and again. Fabrication, speculation, it's hard to tell sometimes which is which. "Private Jessica Lynch went down firing from the hip at the hordes of attacking Iraqi soldiers who then raped and tortured her..." "Saddam's WMDs will be found soon..." "Illegal wiretaps..." "Al Gore has won the Presidency..." "Australia's nuclear plans will never involve weapons..."

Fabrication and speculation. It's wise to look with a critical mind on the stories we're presented with. It's hard to spot outright lies, but we can usually spot when we're simply not being told things. Which is what's relevant to this particular case - what were the UK's RoE in the Persian Gulf? What forces did they have nearby, and what were they confronted with? We don't know. That's a big gap in the story.

That's a big gap which some people discussing it here have filled with their premature speculation. I'm offering a kleenex for them to clean that up, leave it there and it might get smelly.

Quote from: JimBobOzBut the American patriots tend to automatically cleanse their own guys, while automatically condemning everyone else.

Wait, so let me make sure I understand you. Saying to wait and not have a media trial is cleansing the subjects?

Isn't that what you're doing with the Brits here in this discussion with Spike?  You're saying let's wait until we have more information and not have a media circus drive our decisions? Then aren't you "cleansing" the Brits?

Dangerous when you start hurling invective JB.  You are so reflexively anti-American that you can't even stop yourself from getting caught in your own circular argument.

And this is from someone who sees Spike's argument and your argument as both having some merit. Spike's weakness is that he's basing it on certain assumptions. However, his overall argument is not necessarily reliant upon them. Your argument has the common sense benefit of saying "we don't have the whole story." However, as you may have not meant to point out - we may never know. We may only get speculation as the governments involved might never release the specifics.  And once they do, the other side will have "proof" of it's own that contradicts. So finding the objectively true answers to the questions you pose may lead to a lot of murk, something Spike might already have accounted for (a survival instinct in America these days) and so based his opinion on his specific knowledge.