| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran | |
| Iranian TV shows captured British troops | |
| 2004-06-22 | |
| IRAN’S state-run television today broadcast images of eight members of Britain’s Royal Navy blindfolded after their arrest for straying into Iranian waters near Iraq. The new footage broadcast by the Arabic-language satellite channel Al-Alam - a branch of the Islamic republic’s official television network - showed the eight troops in a more uncomfortable position than shown in previous broadcasts. The troops, detained yesterday by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, were shown sitting on the ground in a small room with their eyes covered by cloth. Their hands and feet were not bound, and they were dressed in military fatigues. In previous images shown by the channel, the eight men were shown sitting on sofas in what appeared to be an office.
The channel also showed images of captured equipment, including an array of weapons, communication equipment and cameras. | |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #37 you guys aren't much admirers of internaional law huh? They entered Iranian waters illegaly they were arrested. End of story. Actually, the waterway in question has long been disputed territory. Professionals might have handled it differently. But the IRG are selected based on their ideology, not professionalism. If they're found not to have been spying or conducting some operation they'll be released. I would expect that to be the case. There might be a bit of... difficulty otherwise. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-06-22 8:52:08 PM |
| #36 These guys aren't out yet? I'm not in charge but, if I was, it'd be a bad, noisy night in Teheran tonight. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-06-22 8:10:45 PM |
| #35 international law?? now that is funny in anything connected with iran - TGA - now that is bet that will never be paid... |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-06-22 5:53:11 PM |
| #34 Capt America - That only applies to the US. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2004-06-22 4:13:03 PM |
| #33 But wait! Aren't these Brits prisoners of war protected by the Geneva Convention from having photos and videos taken of them? |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-06-22 4:03:31 PM |
| #32 Al-Adel isn't the biggest fish in Iran, LH. Feel free to e-mail me. 90% of this stuff is open-source, so don't worry about anything. It's just a matter knowing which sources are true and which aren't. |
| Posted by: Dan Darling 2004-06-22 2:05:33 PM |
| #31 well the one thing I dont understand Dan, is why the admin has said not a word in public about Saif Al Adel and Saad Bin Laden being in Iran. I can only presume that the intention is to stabilize Iraq before "laying out a case" against Iran, meanwhile hoping that Iran will solve itself through internal dissent. But it would seem to me that waiting too long will undercut the credibility of the material. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-22 1:55:19 PM |
| #30 If the British soldiers are lucky, the worst that will happen to them will be what happened to those at AG. |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-22 1:53:36 PM |
| #29 Anybody who can find a connection between "International Law" and Iran is entitled to a free stein of Bavarian beer! |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-06-22 1:50:20 PM |
| #28 Here again, the Ledeen stuff is accurate as far as the boats are concerned (which is why the Iranians detained them, even at the risk of damaging relations with the UK), though RWV is also right on the bigger picture. I e-mailed Fred some interesting tidbits (though not on this particular subject) a couple days ago, but let me try and make this as clear as I can with respect to the other parties you named: * Venezuela is more or less through Chavez’s Cuban connections and one of Castro’s best buddies these days are the Iranians. * In Saudi Arabia, the al-Qaeda activity (with assistance from some royals) is being actively directed by Saif al-Adel. And where is he? Iran. * The same forces that helping al-Qaeda to stir up shit in the Magic Kingdom are the same people pushing for sha’riah in northern Nigeria – the Nigerian Taliban was their opening round with a little help from the Sudanese. One of the things that you learn very fast once you get access and start working on the inside is just how right we Rantburgers were on so many points. Cookies all around. |
| Posted by: Dan Darling 2004-06-22 1:47:41 PM |
| #27 you guys aren't much admirers of internaional law huh? They entered Iranian waters illegaly they were arrested. End of story. If they're found not to have been spying or conducting some operation they'll be released. Your answers in every single thread is "Uh let's just bomb 'em'" Take up boxing or loose your virginity. It could go a long way in reducing your xenophobia!! |
| Posted by: Ali Abdel Hafiz ben americani al ignorami aziz el alb mahmoud mustafa ben shoo bee doo 2004-06-22 1:45:41 PM |
| #26 Blindfolded? You mean like in G'bay sensory deprivation loss of human rights kind of blindfold? Or the Abu G type of black hood to emasculate you better kind of blindfold? |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2004-06-22 1:28:01 PM |
| #25 Amazing that the Iranians would alienate their most powerful ally -- the British Foreign Office. Unless the latter's further gone into dhimmitude than I thought. |
| Posted by: someone 2004-06-22 1:19:18 PM |
| #24 RWV...You are partially correct. But Ledeen's larger point is this: Destabilize Iraq...Bush does not get elected...region destabilizes under Kerry's desire to fail...therefore oil prices in the long term go up... |
| Posted by: Dragon Fly 2004-06-22 12:57:04 PM |
| #23 The Ledeen thesis makes sense only if the actions towards Iraq are a small part of the plan. Loss of Iraqi production alone will not do that much to affect the price of oil. Disruptions to Iraqi production seem to be already factored in to the price. It only becomes significant in the event of a perfect storm: civil war in Venezuela, Saudi, and Nigeria. Then, if they really want to cause trouble, they should attack Pemex, |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-06-22 12:36:03 PM |
| #22 These guys were captured in a river (Shat al Arab) in inflatable boats that they were delivering to the Iraqis. This is the kind of bush league stunt that you expect from the North Koreans and reflects a Lord of the Flies mentality. Unfortunately this will probably play out much as the Sino-American confrontation over the P3 that the Chinese rammed and then forced to land. I don't think that either the US or the UK is ready to pull the pin on the Iranians just yet. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-06-22 12:27:59 PM |
| #21 even if no war (and there are already reports Iran has agreed to release the men) this doesnt improve UK-Iran relations at a sensitive time in the nuke discussions. The politics on Iran has been different than Iraq - UK has been siding WITH France and Germany, taking a softer line than the US. All 3 have been embarrassed by the Iranians, and have moved to a slightly firmer position - for Iran to piss off UK now seems like a bad move - which is why I will trust Dan, for now. The Ledeen thesis at least provides SOME explanation. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-22 12:15:13 PM |
| #20 Ledeen's point was that the price of oil isn't being driven by current supply and demand, but rather by fear of a diminished supply in the future Without disagreeing with that point, I think Liberalhawk makes the big picture point that the Iranians are missing. $60/per gallon oil bursts the dream bubble of the liberal left - they tend to think of things in idealistic rather than realistic terms. When it hits their pocketbook, they will be the first to scream that it's Bush's fault for not finding domestic sources ...sooner. Perhaps the Iranians don't grasp that a Bush loss in November doesn't mean that the Representatives in the Senate and the house won't call to immediately open Alaska or TN, or to locate other sources. Good ol' American ingenuity dictates that we will suddenly tap solar, hydrogen, gas and other fuel sources incrementally with the decreases in our thermostats. The faster the thermostats go down, the faster we'll get there. Iranians will learn the true nature of competitive markets just like the buggy makers did in the 1900s. |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-22 12:13:36 PM |
| #19 If ever there was a tailor made causus belli, this is it. It goes beyond belief how Europe considers whatever financial gain to be had from arming Iran as something that outweighs the insane danger of the mullas gaining possession of nuclear weapons. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-06-22 12:11:37 PM |
| #18 I seriously doubt that this will end up with shooting. This isn't a big enough deal to come to blows over. The Iranians would have to do something crazy like execute these guys before any war could be justified. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2004-06-22 12:06:23 PM |
| #17 Last comment, and I hate to say this. When you slash the military budget every year, eventually it catches up with you. Seems like the UK's military options are limited here, unless the US helps out. On the other hand, that wouldn't have stopped Britain in other times. |
| Posted by: Infidel Bob 2004-06-22 12:05:08 PM |
| #16 PS -- I noticed the Brit prisoners were wearing military fatigues. Do any of you UK readers know if this is RN policy? Or were these guys Marines? |
| Posted by: Infidel Bob 2004-06-22 11:47:38 AM |
| #15 They Brits can give them a longer deadline (emphasis on the "dead", here) if they set sail from Britain rather than uncorking the whoopass from the locally positioned forces. More sporting that way. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-06-22 11:41:34 AM |
| #14 It will be interesting to see how Blair plays this. I think it was a planned slap in the face at Britain. On the one hand, there wasn't much these eight guys could do but surrender; on the other hand, the Royal Navy isn't used to taking crap from ragbag countries like Iran. Looks like Blair wants to stall for time, which may be the prudent move. Checked the on-line Brit papers and, except for the Telegraph and Guardian, they're all chockablock with Euro 2004 and nary a peep about this incident. Jeez. So much for national pride. If the Iranians put these guys on trial, Blair's in a pickle. Hate to say it, but I agree with Anonymous 4021 and Howard. I don't think Blairs got the balls to do anything. They wouldn't have pulled this s**t if Maggie was still PM. Also agree with various other posters -- the showdown with Iran is coming. This would be the perfect time to get it under way. |
| Posted by: Infidel Bob 2004-06-22 11:35:14 AM |
| #13 Dan: Ok, I'll trust you ;) RC: My sense is its the uncertainy about Saudi flow thats creating the risk premium. The market know Iraqi production can go down, and does temporarily from time to time. Is the market really going to take a terror attack on Iraqi facilities as a sign of a possible attack on Saudi facilities? I dont know. I really should follow the oil market more closely. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-22 11:19:01 AM |
| #12 $60/bl oil? Maybe. You see it doesn't take a vast number of people to change this election. All you need is a few idiots with a lack of perspective in a few states with enough electoral votes to cause Kerry to win. These voters, with brains resembling starchy vegetables, are the philosophical descendants of the people who brought down the Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th century AD. You see these are the kinds of folks who supported the general whou would bring the circus to town. So, General Kerry brings the circus to town, and a few years later the town is overrun, and all women are forced to wear burkas at the point of a gun. These voters shouldn't have the right to vote because they haven't the intellectual capacity to vote. They would have us all killed. They don't care about the future. Only about the fact that if We and Britain microwave some Iranian mullahs, gas may be $3.50-$4.00/gal for awhile. But, it will pass if we do the right thing. The mainstream of the Jackass party want their special interest groups to get a handout, and us to become like the Europeans. What's happening to Europe? France? Germany? The lowly Low Countries? Socialandistanavia? Yeech! So Kerry has serendipity. There is 35% (the sycophants) who Hate Pres Bush. The next 30%, mostly shallow retards, would take us down because the immediate price of gas is high and they want to blame the wrong people. So, I say this. F*** it. Give the Towel wrap heads 48 hours to free the Brits and their boats, or, the precious nuke plant is glowinmg rubble. Period. Then if the whineasses in the congress make trouble. Let them. We still have 4-1/2 months before the election. We have time to make a point, and set things right. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-06-22 11:17:39 AM |
| #11 I think it was foolish of them to arrest these guys because they strayed 1/2 mile into their territory. Thats only a 1000yds. Not allot. They could have easily escorted them out. If I were calling the shots, I'd have aircraft and larger ships like frigates cross a 1/2 into their territory - but then again I would have invaded Iran first instead of Iraq because they are a larger, more open sponser of terror than Iraq ever was. These guys will be paraded on TV and in court. Iran will find them guilty. They will be used as barganing chips to buy time for their nuke program and then "graciously" released in a good will jesture. This is similar to the situation we had with the Chinese and our P-3 having to land on Hunan Island. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2004-06-22 11:16:02 AM |
| #10 And would losing Iraqi oil really drive the price to $60? As the price goes over $40 you create all sorts of incentives for additional production, for conservation, etc. Shutting down the flow from Iraq will demonstrate the terrorists can shut down the flow from elsewhere, and the fear of that will drive prices up. Ledeen's point was that the price of oil isn't being driven by current supply and demand, but rather by fear of a diminished supply in the future. An attack on Iraq would increase that fear and thus increase the "terror premium". And I'm still curious as to the price point that will re-open American wells. Still lots of them around... |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-06-22 11:01:48 AM |
| #9 The question now is, what is GWB's response to this development? |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-22 10:58:23 AM |
| #8 He has evidence for the sensors. Trust me on this one. |
| Posted by: Dan Darling 2004-06-22 10:49:40 AM |
| #7 Nice snag Dragon Fly, you beat me to it. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2004-06-22 10:44:58 AM |
| #6 does Ledeen have ANY evidence for the sensors? And would losing Iraqi oil really drive the price to $60? As the price goes over $40 you create all sorts of incentives for additional production, for conservation, etc. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-22 10:44:28 AM |
| #5 Read this: Ready for $60-a-Barrel Oil? The Iranian election strategy at work. |
| Posted by: Dragon Fly 2004-06-22 10:31:38 AM |
| #4 #1 got to remember the whinning, victimized losers we are dealing with... iran is really playing her hand badly - a week after the EU slaps iran about her nukes this happens..all iran is doing is making it easier for Bush for the eventual confrontation... really stupid from their perspective..there are many avenues to strike back that are less overt.. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-06-22 10:30:20 AM |
| #3 My thoughts entirely - I really wish we still had balls though - looks like Jack Straw's being all cosy with the Iranian Ambassador. Just go bomb their nuclear site if we get nowhere, Jack. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-06-22 10:26:35 AM |
| #2 Iran, you do NOT fuck with Britain. That is a BAD IDEA. And especially not when they've already got military forces in the vicinity. This is almost as stupid as those Palestinians punching armed IDF soldiers. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4021 2004-06-22 10:15:34 AM |
| #1 Ain't it a warcrime when the US lets prisoners be shown on TV? Eh? |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2004-06-22 10:09:57 AM |