British Navy Sailors

[ScottSA]

Remember, they held a whack of diplomats (who are supposed to have immunity) for 444 days. The chances of Iran giving up the opportunity to be one of the top stories on the news every night for the next umpteen months, be seen as standing up to the great and little Satan through out the anti western world, is remote.

Now all we need is a Democratic administration, and we can turn back the clock completely. Where's Cotta when ya need him? Maybe we should awake him from his senile slumbers to do some negotiating for us.

[Army Guy]

Argus:

How? You seem to be under the illusion this was a wide, empty, pristine lake. It was not. It was a crowded, busy waterway. What are the normal conditions? Probably freighters, transports, tons of fishing and other small craft everywhere. How long does it take to get from shore to the Iranian "border" in a fast gunboat? Minutes probably.

No, i'm aware of the restrictive nature of the waterway, i've seen the maps and pictures supplied by another poster. What i was saying was ...

That As a skipper of a frig, one would assume , i know thats a bad thing but in this case almost SOP, that prior to launching the Boarding party, his combat center is at a higher alert status...the combat center has indentified all surface contacts, and classified them ie friendly, hostile, Iranian etc etc...ensured his boarding party was armed and had good comms, before leaving the boat, as an extra measure he launches a armed lynx to act as over watch....

Now if those already indentified contacts marked as Iranian started to move pick up speed, thier course could be plotted and indentified well in advance...I guess the piont is nothing could happen on that water way that the frig did not know of within seconds of it happening...plenty of time to have ordered the helo into a blocking postion, and have the boarding party disembark for the frig....

As for precautions, I agree they were lacking. I would escort such rubber boat patrols with something like Apaches, not a Lynx. But even then, imagine how long they would need to get permission to actually open fire on Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessels unless the latter were actually shooting at them

An armed naval Lynx could have sent a clear message, be it by over the radio, or by hovering directly in front of the lead boat, or by a machine gun burst in front of the ship...anything to let them know that they were serious about defending the boarding party...As it sounds they watched the whole thing, and did nothing....It is not clear wether the skipper just failed in his duty to protect his crew, or clearly did not want to provoke the incident further and risk his boat...

NATO roe's for the area have not changed self defense is clearly a no brainer , no permission is needed to open fire. And he clearly had the upper hand in regards to fire power...It only takes less than a minute for the combat center to track and engage numerous targets at the same time...That being said both parties knew exactly where they were, the ships nav sys requires it, and in waters like that try explaining that to your boss, how you grounded a multi mil dollar gun boat on the flats, or sand bar....

But you are right about the lynx, i'm sure they won't being caught with thier pants down a second time...

[DogOnPorch]

Now if those already indentified contacts marked as Iranian started to move pick up speed, thier course could be plotted and indentified well in advance...I guess the piont is nothing could happen on that water way that the frig did not know of within seconds of it happening...plenty of time to have ordered the helo into a blocking postion, and have the boarding party disembark for the frig....

I believe they were taken in their boats on their way back to the HMS Cornwall after inspecting a Japanese frieghter thought to be carrying cars. You should read more before speculating.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.

---Margaret Thatcher

[Army Guy]

DogOnPorch:

I believe they were taken in their boats on their way back to the HMS Cornwall after inspecting a Japanese frieghter thought to be carrying cars. You should read more before speculating.

Actually going to or coming back from does not change anything, The alert level does not change until all are back on board. IE everyone is still tracking contacts, helo still in the air, the entire crew still at thier stations. How is that speculating ? someone fell asleep at the switch and now iran has hostages...

[M.Dancer]

There could and probably are other factors. Perhaps this situation, (iranians approaching RN personal) was not unusual. Perhaps there has even been some form of communication in the past. If so, the change from "oh, here are those Persian blokes" to "OY what's THIS!!!" could have happened in seconds , too fact for anyone to react intellegently.

[DogOnPorch]

Frankly...you don't know if somebody fell asleep at the switch or not. Neither do I. All we do know is that these searches have been going on for years, and as I pointed out with maps & other sources...including the history of the Iran Iraq border...that other ships seem to happily enter 'Iranian waters' without trouble. So if this is merely a case of Iran doing its job, I'd say they've been sitting on their fat butts and letting thousands of ships ply 'Iranian waters' without kidnapping the crews. What gives?? Lazy? Or is it just that they decided that it was high time to make an international crisis in response to unfavorable results re: their nuclear program? I think the latter....think being the operative word.

-------------------------------------------------

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

---Adam Savage: Mythbusters.

[Army Guy]

over a mile inside Iraqi waters, at that distance nothing happens in seconds, atleast not on the water. And if the Iranians regularily are operating in Iraqi waters there is a problem.

I'm just finding it difficult to believe it was that easy to snatch those sailors right under a modern frigs nose and nothing happen.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm just finding it difficult to believe it was that easy to snatch those sailors right under a modern frigs nose and nothing happen.

Really? What's so hard to believe? The Iranians had the initiative (as do most surprise attackers) thus played the first card in the hand.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The heart of a fool is in his mouth, but the mouth of a wise man is in his heart.

---Ben Franklin

[Army Guy]

Frankly...you don't know if somebody fell asleep at the switch or not. Neither do I.

Your right i do not know exactly what happened, but lets face some reality here, the brits have already proven twice thier exact location, once by sat, and once by photo of GPS. which would cross out the brits being in Iranian waters...

so thier either fell as sleep at the switch or willing gave the iranians the sailors, or the brits are lying ..you pick..

All we do know is that these searches have been going on for years, and as I pointed out with maps & other sources...including the history of the Iran Iraq border...that other ships seem to happily enter 'Iranian waters' without trouble. So if this is merely a case of Iran doing its job, I'd say they've been sitting on their fat butts and letting thousands of ships ply 'Iranian waters' without kidnapping the crews. What gives?? Lazy? Or is it just that they decided that it was high time to make an international crisis in response to unfavorable results re: their nuclear program? I think the latter....think being the operative word

So now you are speculating now as well

[Army Guy]

Really? What's so hard to believe? The Iranians had the initiative (as do most surprise attackers) thus played the first card in the hand

Whats so hard to believe is that a warship,designed and crewed not to get surprised ... should have been on a higher alert status, ensuring that this thing did not happen, got surprised by a bunch of amatures.

hence why i said sleeping at the switch....

[Argus]

over a mile inside Iraqi waters, at that distance nothing happens in seconds, atleast not on the water. And if the Iranians regularily are operating in Iraqi waters there is a problem.

I'm just finding it difficult to believe it was that easy to snatch those sailors right under a modern frigs nose and nothing happen.

As far as I know the frigate was tied up in port.

[DogOnPorch]

As far as I know the frigate was tied up in port.

Nope...in deeper water a few km out into the Gulf...see the various maps out now.

So now you are speculating now as well.

About possible causes for letting every other ship that violates 'Iranian waters' go unchecked...speculation is all one can do. You're "speculation" was that the 15 RN sailors were still on the Japanese frieghter when taken prisoner. That's just "speculation" due to not reading.

Let me refresh:

Now if those already indentified contacts marked as Iranian started to move pick up speed, thier course could be plotted and indentified well in advance...I guess the piont is nothing could happen on that water way that the frig did not know of within seconds of it happening...plenty of time to have ordered the helo into a blocking postion, and have the boarding party disembark for the frig....

You seem clever...I just think you need to work on your sources and references. You could have caught that if you'd read the articles at hand.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm.

---Syrus Publilius

[Liam]

With the recent photos of the woman in a head scarf, claiming to apologize for being in Iranian waters (and urging abandonment of Iraq), it makes me wonder what it is about totalitarian states that makes them so blind to their own ham handed approaches to such things. It's reminiscent of Saddam patting that little boy (among a group of British abductees prior to Gulf War 1) on the head -- almost like these despotic regimes don't understand that people in free societies can see right through such forms of media manipulation.

Are the residents and usual consumers of Iranian news so propagandized that they wouldn't see that British military personnel wouldn't voluntarily don head scarves and apologize on behalf of their nation? And are the purveyors of such cr*p so sure of themselves that they think we in the west can be so easily misled?

[ScottSA]

With the recent photos of the woman in a head scarf, claiming to apologize for being in Iranian waters (and urging abandonment of Iraq), it makes me wonder what it is about totalitarian states that makes them so blind to their own ham handed approaches to such things. It's reminiscent of Saddam patting that little boy (among a group of British abductees prior to Gulf War 1) on the head -- almost like these despotic regimes don't understand that people in free societies can see right through such forms of media manipulation.

Are the residents and usual consumers of Iranian news so propagandized that they wouldn't see that British military personnel wouldn't voluntarily don head scarves and apologize on behalf of their nation? And are the purveyors of such cr*p so sure of themselves that they think we in the west can be so easily misled?

As evidenced by this board and countless others across the internet, many people in the west ARE easily misled, and in fact wilfully misled. Many on the left WANT to believe the worse of their own country, and the best of the enemy. It vindicates their own hatred of their own society.

[Canadian Blue]

As evidenced by this board and countless others across the internet, many people in the west ARE easily misled, and in fact wilfully misled. Many on the left WANT to believe the worse of their own country, and the best of the enemy. It vindicates their own hatred of their own society.

Yeah, that's the kind of attitude that makes this country great; and also lead's to persecution of those that disagree with the majority.

[Figleaf]

The Brits would be unlikely to provoke an incident of this sort.

Yeah, we know that Britain has no warlike tendencies whatsoever, that Tony Blair NEVER wants to get involved in any kind of conflict, and that as a close Bush ally Britain wouldn't participate in an international propaganda campaign like falsely accusing another country of having WMDs.

Unthinkable!

[Figleaf]

As far as I know the frigate was tied up in port.

Well thank you for admiting you know absolutely nothing about this matter.

[Liam]

As evidenced by this board and countless others across the internet, many people in the west ARE easily misled, and in fact wilfully misled. Many on the left WANT to believe the worse of their own country, and the best of the enemy. It vindicates their own hatred of their own society.

Actually, I think people in the right winger of western politicas are easily misled by their dear leaders and I almost cringed at the potential hypocrisy of what I wrote (we were all misled by the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Powell media show prior to the war). So don't think you're above it all or better or smarter. If anything, a continued obedience to a mindset that has been proven time and again to be deficient is greater evidence of mental slavery than occasionally questioning the veracity of the powers that be.

[ScottSA]

As evidenced by this board and countless others across the internet, many people in the west ARE easily misled, and in fact wilfully misled. Many on the left WANT to believe the worse of their own country, and the best of the enemy. It vindicates their own hatred of their own society.

Yeah, that's the kind of attitude that makes this country great; and also lead's to persecution of those that disagree with the majority.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

[Wilber]

I think the Brits should grovel, (no one will believe it anyway) get their people back, then tell the Iranians that the next time they try to interfere they will get their asses blown out of the water and mean it.

[Canadian Blue]

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

Not really, their is a history of "patriots" attacking and persecuting people because they didn't agree with a war, or to serve in a war. Mennonites and the Amish were often attacked because of their views on non-violence. When the "patriots" talk of fighting for liberty, they are more than willing to persecute those who don't agree with war. I've even seen on here people calling those who disagree with war as supporters of dictator's, and enemies of western society. In my own view that proves my point, as we see the type of ignorance some have towards differing points of view.

It's history, and unfortunately you're wrong. That's why you can't come up with a better response.

[blueblood]

As evidenced by this board and countless others across the internet, many people in the west ARE easily misled, and in fact wilfully misled. Many on the left WANT to believe the worse of their own country, and the best of the enemy. It vindicates their own hatred of their own society.

Actually, I think people in the right winger of western politicas are easily misled by their dear leaders and I almost cringed at the potential hypocrisy of what I wrote (we were all misled by the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Powell media show prior to the war). So don't think you're above it all or better or smarter. If anything, a continued obedience to a mindset that has been proven time and again to be deficient is greater evidence of mental slavery than occasionally questioning the veracity of the powers that be.

Extremes on both sides of the spectrum are easily mislead. Right wingers have GW Bush and Franklin Graham, Lefties have Michael Moore and Chavez. I don't agree with Bush's foreign policy as it reduces U.S. influence in solving problems and in fact creates some, but I think that what Iran is doing is proposterous and there is sufficient evidence to prove that this is the case. I don't know what side of the spectrum Iran is, but their followers are blind too, the guy holding up the sign saying the 15 Brits should be executed comes to mind. It helps to look at things simply, U.S. invaded iraq for a very poor reason and is wrong in that regard, Iran kidnapped British sailors for a very poor reason and are wrong.

[blueblood]

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

Not really, their is a history of "patriots" attacking and persecuting people because they didn't agree with a war, or to serve in a war. Mennonites and the Amish were often attacked because of their views on non-violence. When the "patriots" talk of fighting for liberty, they are more than willing to persecute those who don't agree with war. I've even seen on here people calling those who disagree with war as supporters of dictator's, and enemies of western society. In my own view that proves my point, as we see the type of ignorance some have towards differing points of view.

It's history, and unfortunately you're wrong. That's why you can't come up with a better response.

In History, the Mennonites and Doukhoubors (sp) were freely able to express their pacifist views, were exempt from conscription, and weren't locked up. And this is in World War 1 mind you without the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Canada we have in our culture to not persecute people concerning this and to make sure that people have the ability to express themselves in this way. Even if groups happened to be persecuted, the government apologizes and compensates.

Persecution in Canada = Politcal Suicide

[bush_cheney2004]

With the recent photos of the woman in a head scarf, claiming to apologize for being in Iranian waters (and urging abandonment of Iraq), it makes me wonder what it is about totalitarian states that makes them so blind to their own ham handed approaches to such things. It's reminiscent of Saddam patting that little boy (among a group of British abductees prior to Gulf War 1) on the head -- almost like these despotic regimes don't understand that people in free societies can see right through such forms of media manipulation.

Are the residents and usual consumers of Iranian news so propagandized that they wouldn't see that British military personnel wouldn't voluntarily don head scarves and apologize on behalf of their nation? And are the purveyors of such cr*p so sure of themselves that they think we in the west can be so easily misled?

Yes....the spectacle is mostly for domestic consumption, not a Pulitzer Prize.

[Canadian Blue]

In History, the Mennonites and Doukhoubors (sp) were freely able to express their pacifist views, were exempt from conscription, and weren't locked up. And this is in World War 1 mind you without the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Canada we have in our culture to not persecute people concerning this and to make sure that people have the ability to express themselves in this way. Even if groups happened to be persecuted, the government apologizes and compensates.

Persecution in Canada = Politcal Suicide

I wasn't referencing Canada, I was referencing the United States. My main point of contention with ScottSA is his firm belief that those who don't support war somehow hate our society. If that attitude is prevalent persecution will surely follow, it's nothing more than hate monering.