15 British Royal Marines seized by Iran
hailhailkc
Posts: 582
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/23/iran.uk/index.html
LONDON, England (CNN) -- An Iranian naval patrol seized 15 British sailors who had boarded a vessel suspected of smuggling cars off the coast of Iraq, military officials said.
The British government immediately demanded the safe return of its troops and summoned Tehran's London ambassador to explain the incident.
The Royal Marines and ordinary naval officers were believed to have been apprehended by up to six ships from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy who claimed they had violated Iranian waters.
British naval officials said the sailors, using small boarding craft, had completed an inspection of a merchant vessel in Iraqi waters when the Iranians arrived.
Commodore Nick Lambert, commander of the HMS Cornwall -- the frigate from which the British patrol had been deployed -- said the incident did not involve fighting or use of weapons.
"We've been assured from the scant communications that we've had from the Iranians at the tactical level that the 15 people are safely in their hands," he said.
The British defense ministry said that it was pursuing the incident "at the highest level."
There was no immediate comment from Iranian officials.
Lambert said the British sailors had been on a "normal, routine boarding" of a vessel that had aroused suspicions as it navigated the Shatt al-Arab, a disputed waterway that marks the border between Iraq and Iran on the shores of the Persian Gulf. (Location map)
British military patrols have been given authority to board vessels in Iraqi waters under United Nations mandate and with the permission of the government in Baghdad.
He said the captain of the merchant vessel had been cleared to proceed and the two British inflatable patrol boats were readying for departure when they were surrounded by the Iranian navy and taken into Iranian waters.
Lambert said there is "absolutely no doubt in my mind" that the marines were in Iraqi waters. But, he said, "The extent and the definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated... We may well find, and I hope we find, that this is a simple misunderstanding at a tactical level," he said.
"There hopefully has been a mistake that's been made, and we'll see early clarification and early release of my people."
Lambert added that the marines were doing critical work, "protecting the oil platforms to ensure the economic future of Iraq."
He described the Iranian navy as "a multi-headed organization" that generally stays within its territory doing its business, "and we stay inside Iraqi territory doing our business."
The British defense ministry said: "We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office.
"The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."
CNN's Aneesh Raman in Tehran said there had been no mention of the incident on Iranian TV and calls to officials had not been answered.
It was not immediately clear where in Iran the British personnel were taken.
There was a previous similar incident in 2004, when Iran stopped three British boats and seized eight sailors and six marines.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry said at the time the three boats had crossed into Iran's territorial waters. The detained servicemen appeared on Iranian television blindfolded. They were released after Iran said it determined they had mistakenly crossed into Iran's waters. (Full story).
LONDON, England (CNN) -- An Iranian naval patrol seized 15 British sailors who had boarded a vessel suspected of smuggling cars off the coast of Iraq, military officials said.
The British government immediately demanded the safe return of its troops and summoned Tehran's London ambassador to explain the incident.
The Royal Marines and ordinary naval officers were believed to have been apprehended by up to six ships from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy who claimed they had violated Iranian waters.
British naval officials said the sailors, using small boarding craft, had completed an inspection of a merchant vessel in Iraqi waters when the Iranians arrived.
Commodore Nick Lambert, commander of the HMS Cornwall -- the frigate from which the British patrol had been deployed -- said the incident did not involve fighting or use of weapons.
"We've been assured from the scant communications that we've had from the Iranians at the tactical level that the 15 people are safely in their hands," he said.
The British defense ministry said that it was pursuing the incident "at the highest level."
There was no immediate comment from Iranian officials.
Lambert said the British sailors had been on a "normal, routine boarding" of a vessel that had aroused suspicions as it navigated the Shatt al-Arab, a disputed waterway that marks the border between Iraq and Iran on the shores of the Persian Gulf. (Location map)
British military patrols have been given authority to board vessels in Iraqi waters under United Nations mandate and with the permission of the government in Baghdad.
He said the captain of the merchant vessel had been cleared to proceed and the two British inflatable patrol boats were readying for departure when they were surrounded by the Iranian navy and taken into Iranian waters.
Lambert said there is "absolutely no doubt in my mind" that the marines were in Iraqi waters. But, he said, "The extent and the definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated... We may well find, and I hope we find, that this is a simple misunderstanding at a tactical level," he said.
"There hopefully has been a mistake that's been made, and we'll see early clarification and early release of my people."
Lambert added that the marines were doing critical work, "protecting the oil platforms to ensure the economic future of Iraq."
He described the Iranian navy as "a multi-headed organization" that generally stays within its territory doing its business, "and we stay inside Iraqi territory doing our business."
The British defense ministry said: "We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office.
"The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."
CNN's Aneesh Raman in Tehran said there had been no mention of the incident on Iranian TV and calls to officials had not been answered.
It was not immediately clear where in Iran the British personnel were taken.
There was a previous similar incident in 2004, when Iran stopped three British boats and seized eight sailors and six marines.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry said at the time the three boats had crossed into Iran's territorial waters. The detained servicemen appeared on Iranian television blindfolded. They were released after Iran said it determined they had mistakenly crossed into Iran's waters. (Full story).
MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
agreed..
Of course the US is trying to figure how to best take advantage of it.
i was wondering how long that would take...
surprised no one has accused neo-cons wearing iranian disguises
bush did it
ebay isn't evil people are
The South is Much Obliged
Do you think the Marines wandered into Iranean waters?
Well certainly you should expect that from a president that has repeatedly shown can not be trusted.
A president incidentally who chooses not to speak to Iran.
Maybe an Iranian civilian airliner will get shot out of the air by mistake, again.
There was something in the article that said Huggie Bear happened to be rowing a canoe and witnessed that they were clearly in Iraqi waters.
That was Bill Self rowing the boat, after another Kansas victory...which you should be familiar with, since Self beat Texas twice this year...and I believe Bill Self witnessed that you were leading the raid on the Royal Marines while chanting "Terrorism no exist unless America do something, then terrorists are real and called American white people!!!"
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
He's a terrorist sympathizer / apologist, I didn't think it would take long either.
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
I do believe so, although. I dont think Iran would do anything to harm these Sailors, Iran already has enough dirt on their shoulders. And from what i read they were taken non-violently.
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
The title for your thread was too sensationalistic.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
How would it "come in handy" at a time like this?
hmmm, let's see...
perhaps a unified front against Iran and the shit they are pulling...perhaps russia and china helping to turn the screws on them, rather that sitting back and thinking "well, you got yourself if, get yourself out"....
you know, stuff like that....
You mean like China and Russia's recent votes in the Security council against Iran? Stuff like that?
We could discuss the situation with Iran. Learn what they are after. We need them badly in Iraq - and we don't even talk to them.
You do understand the value of communication between two parties with conflicting interests?
Hehe...did it ever occur to you that they don't need us?
Do you understand what "conflicting interest" means?
yup...stuff like that...which was the first time both China and Russia advocated anything against Iran...so it's a start...if memory serves me right, they blocked sanctions and such in the past...
I'm curious...what do you think should be done...?
Done about what?
um...how about dealing with Iran "in a time like this"...?
did you read through this thread at all...are you with us...? what's up ffg, your normally on top of things...
I wouldn't deal with Iran in a time like this. Their interests are opposed to my own and they have nothing I want. That said, I certainly wouldn't be belligerent towards them -- I have no reason to do so.
There are many issues mentioned in this thread. I simply didn't know which one you were referring to.
Untill their will grows tired
They need lots from us.. Your cute little answer doesn't change that fact that you even know that. For example, they want us to leave Iraq. The list of things they'd like us to do or stop doing is very very large.
It goes the same the other way. We want them to stop their nuclear program. We want them to discourage those that oppose the new Iraqi government.
Conflicting interest - you know - I want the window open because I am hot - you want it closed because the wind blows your papers around. I can open the window and you can close it - then I open it and you close it and tension builds. An alternative would be for us to discuss the issue and look for a solution that works for both - like perhaps rearranging the office to protect you from the wind - while still cooling the office.
George Bush is a damn fool to think we could not resolve many issues through negotiation.. Probably, just like you, he chooses not to see this very simple and very obvious fact - because it conflicts with some other of his secret agenda.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
They do want us to leave Iraq. But we're not going to do that because of Iran. Our being in Iraq, for better or worse, should have absolutely nothing to with Iran. And to negotiate our presence in Iraq based on Iranian concerns is the height of idiocy. We'll simply end up trading one problem for another. Furthermore, American aims in Iraq stand directly opposed to Iranian aims in Iraq. A near-complete conflict of interests exists.
Similarly, we do want them to stop their nuclear program. Are they going to stop it? Of course not. Should they stop it? Most definitely not. So what would possibly be accomplished through "negotiation" on that topic?
That's not a conflicting interest. Wanting things cool and not wanting things breezy are not mutually exclusive. Getting an air conditioner would solve our problems quite easily.
If you want conflicting interest, try this one:
Let's say you have a daughter. Let's say she's hot. And let's say I'm a jackass, as you called me in the high-brow private message you just sent me. And I'm kind of a slimy dirtbag too, and I want to sleep with your daughter. You, being a good father, don't want this to happen. Now we have a conflicting interest. I'm not going to stop being a slimy dirtbag, and you're not going to stop being a caring father. No amount of "communication" is going to result in a "compromise", because there is no compromise possible. One of us will get our way, the other will not.
Hehe..."secret agenda"? As far as Iran goes, I don't think George Bush has a "secret agenda". Now, he is a damn fool. But not wanting to "negotiate" with Iran isn't foolish. A negotiation implies honesty and common interest. There is little common interest between American and Iran, and neither side can really lay claim to the "honest" title.
If you believe you are so wise, that you know all you need to know about Iran and their desires without talking with them, then either you are wrong, or I am not worthy of your attention.