Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

15 captured British soldiers -- Iranian or Iraqi territory?

168 replies

Eleusis · 28/03/2007 12:44

The news coverage on the BBC presents this as they were in Iraqi water and the Iranians captured them at gun point. But, a colleague of mine has just told me that the borders are actually in dispute. Is this so? Does anyone know the story on the dispute?

BBC coverage

However, I must say though even if they did stray into Iranian waters, is that justification to capture them at gun point? I wouldn't think so!

OP posts:
foxinsocks · 29/03/2007 13:03

well the timing of the capture was interesting - day before the UN security council was meeting to discuss more sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme.

Also, I think the 'why the British and not US soldiers' question is quite pertinent - you could argue that Ahmadinejad (when I hear his name, I can't help thinking 'I'm a dinner jacket') is directly targetting Bush by hurting his closest allies - had it been US soldiers, I'm sure the response would not have been as diplomatic as ours.

littleEasterlapin · 29/03/2007 13:07

Plus, as I said before, it is currently OUR remit to be patrolling there... as Royal Navy ships do all over the world, including the Mediterranean and the Caribbean, because they are trying to prevent piracy and smuggling...

yellowrose · 29/03/2007 13:07

Oh dear:

"The more I think about it the more I think Iran is the one lying".

Glad you are so very very sure Eleusis

Have a good lunch everyone, need to take ds to the library !!

yellowrose · 29/03/2007 13:13

fox - well, yes, perhaps it was because they couldn't trust the US navy not to shoot/bomb the shit out of them whilst being captured, whereas they knew the Brits. are less likley to get their knickers in a twist and esclate the whole thing into WW III.

Remember the Iranian airliner that was shot down "by mistake" over the Persian Gulf with 250 Iranian CIVILIAN holiday makers on board, in the 1980's I seem to recall ? I wouldn't trust the US navy either.

yellowrose · 29/03/2007 13:15

littel - much of the Persian Gulf, is NOT international waters and the Iranians have never required any one to come and help them patrol it. They have been patrolling it with the Arabs for centuries, long before we came along.

foxinsocks · 29/03/2007 13:19

The US are holding some Iranians at the moment (from a while ago - need to google to find the date) that they captured in Iraq. I think everyone is just holding their breath to see whether the Iranians will bring this up with reference to them holding our soldiers.

(Fwiw, I don't think our troops were in Iranian waters)

foxinsocks · 29/03/2007 13:21

I think, from memory, we were patrolling those waters on behalf of Iraq.

paulaplumpbottom · 29/03/2007 13:23

Are they still going to release the female soldier?

Original poster
Eleusis · 29/03/2007 13:24

On the BBC now:

Iran insists they were picked up in its waters and an official said Ms Turney's planned release may be delayed because of the UK's "incorrect attitude."

OP posts:
paulaplumpbottom · 29/03/2007 13:25

What exactly is the correct attitude to take when your people have been taken hostage?

foxinsocks · 29/03/2007 13:26

no, not at the moment (her release has been delayed)

Original poster
Eleusis · 29/03/2007 13:27

correct attitude = admit to the world that you were in the worng even if you weren't.

OP posts:
foxinsocks · 29/03/2007 13:31

yes, they want us to say we were in Iranian waters

paulaplumpbottom · 29/03/2007 13:35

It would be stupid for the UK to do that. It would only encourage the Iranians to pull the same sort of stunt again.

suejonez · 29/03/2007 13:37

yellow - you didn't answer my question about what the UK has done in breach of geneva convention?

suejonez · 29/03/2007 13:38

UN sec general is now intervening personally to tyr to arrange release

foxinsocks · 29/03/2007 13:48

we won't do that

Iran has so many problems itself anyway - dreadful economic situation, growing unease internally with Ahmadinejad, the nuclear stand off with the West - I just wonder if they have captured the soldiers to pre-empt an 'attack' (whether by the military or more sanctions) on them. As if to take the first move in a game of chess rather than being the one to have to respond iyswim. Still, it seems a spectacularly stupid thing to do because it will only serve to antagonise the West even more.

Sue - some people argue that us being party to Guantanemo Bay (even though it is run b the US) means we have been in direct breach of Geneva (as they don't/didn't apply the Geneva convention to those prisoners).

littleEasterlapin · 29/03/2007 13:48

Yellowrose -

"much of the Persian Gulf, is NOT international waters and the Iranians have never required any one to come and help them patrol it. They have been patrolling it with the Arabs for centuries, long before we came along."

Well done, you have hit upon the point. The Navy were not in Iranian waters, as Iran are claiming. They were in IRAQI waters, patrolling IRAQI territory, as requested by IRAQ.

paulaplumpbottom - this is the second time Iran have done this anyway, they did it in 2004.

Enid · 29/03/2007 13:56

just wondering how many civilians died in Iraq today and yesterday....

suejonez · 29/03/2007 13:57

would absolutely agree that guantanamo bay is in contravention of GC - are we really party to i? I don't know the answer to that by the way, just not sure if we are any more party to it than other US allies.

Theres somehting about Yelloroses arguments that irritate me - can't put my finger on it. I was (and am) antiwar/bush/blair but she makes me feel like I am defending USA's foreign policy.

Perhaps I am a simple fool by seeing the argument about these captured service personnel as being one of the clearer issues in the region at the moment. They were in Iraqi waters with the approval of the Iraqi govt they ewre taken by a foreign power, they should be released.

suejonez · 29/03/2007 14:00

can I wonder that Enid and still care about teh captured sailors or are the two mutually exclusive?

littleEasterlapin · 29/03/2007 14:01

I happen to think that the Iraq war has been a monumental cock-up, as Enid said, the Iraqis are losing people left right and centre, they don't have even basic utilities in many places, it has been a total clusterf**k from start to finish.

However, I still don't see how Iran are justified in kidnapping our personnel from Iraqi waters. Especially if they are concerned about the same thing happeneing to them as Iraq - if you don't want to be attacked, why on earth make a pre-emptive strike?!

suejonez · 29/03/2007 14:04

I'm with you, LEL, think I've had my say no point saying any more (and have to do some work...)

foxinsocks · 29/03/2007 14:10

wrt Guantanemo - we've done nothing to secure the release of the UK prisoners there.

I don't know (re the pre-emptive strike) - I'm just trying to rationalise it. I mean, we must have been able to see the Iranians approaching our vessels and we did nothing to stop them taking our soldiers. If they have been taken to be a trade for the Iranians the US captured, it seems strange that it's not been mentioned yet.

Also, their response hardly seems to have been pre-planned. They (Iran) got those co-ordinates wrong at first and they don't seem to agree on what they are going to do with the hostages (re releasing Turney etc.).

Enid · 29/03/2007 14:18

the soldiers are safe, they won't be harmed

sorry I cannot work up much sympathy for them