Iran captures British Sailors

[Raz]

Which bit of forcing prisoners to lie, make false confessions, write forced letters etc,etc,etc is NOT treating the prisoners badly, oh and let's not forget the fake executions to the last lot.
How can you say "they don't treat prisoners badly".

No one has said they're not being treated badly, but you're comparing writing a letter to being beaten.

have you SEEN mistreatment by Iranian guards? Have the sailors been shown on TV with bruises?

And I love the way you took a sentence out of context, I would say shame on you but I doubt you have any.

what I said:

"Iran may not love the Taliban or AQ, but in a way they may want to use this opportunity to further show that they at least do not treat their prisoners bad"

 

[Raz]

Iran's treatment of our service men and woman has been quite frankly embarassing for them. I gave Iran some respect in past but certainly not now.

Where is this leading exactly? What can Iran do with our troops? Continue to release letters tainted with clear translations?

Exactly.

 

[Raz]

Why would they lie about this? They might have done, but why would they, to what end, for what purpose? Or do you think they prefer to lie than tell the truth no matter what?
Whether they lie or tell the truth there is a reason for their choice of "facts".
So tell me why would they lie?

"Yes...we did have sailors in your waters, but don't worry about it. You're just being paranoid what with all the bullying we're doing to you."

And Iran could lie too.....

"yes...we kidnapped your people from Iraqi waters, then tried to cover it up...oops"

 

[VIRII]

No one has said they're not being treated badly

"Iran may not love the Taliban or AQ, but in a way they may want to use this opportunity to further show that they at least do not treat their prisoners bad"

How do forced confessions show good treatment of prisoners.....

but you're comparing writing a letter to being beaten.

I am? When? Where?

have you SEEN mistreatment by Iranian guards? Have the sailors been shown on TV with bruises?

So why are they writing false letters and making false confessions? Is beating the only way to treat a prisoner badly? There are 15 prisoners, how many have you seen recently? Write this or we'll torture him some more maybe?

And I love the way you took a sentence out of context, I would say shame on you but I doubt you have any.

What did I take out of context and how? I think your lack of english is letting you down so I'd keep the insults at bay if I were you.

 

[perplex]

Has anyone seen the comments from Americans on BBC? It's quite nice to know that every comment I've read is in strong support of UK. However, they all seem to want to see blood . Maybe we're too soft or forced to be? I'd bet that if this happend to US soldiers there would be no Iran after this many days.

Also, to those who say that we should apologise (even if we did nothing wrong) because of 15 lives isn't that quite cheap when an entire country's reputation is at risk? The Americans are probably losing that weekly in Iraq.

 

[VIRII]

Quote:
Originally Posted by VIRII
Why would they lie about this? They might have done, but why would they, to what end, for what purpose? Or do you think they prefer to lie than tell the truth no matter what?
Whether they lie or tell the truth there is a reason for their choice of "facts".
So tell me why would they lie?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Raz

"Yes...we did have sailors in your waters, but don't worry about it. You're just being paranoid what with all the bullying we're doing to you."

And Iran could lie too.....

"yes...we kidnapped your people from Iraqi waters, then tried to cover it up...oops"

Does that even vaguely answer my question? Nope.
Why would the british govt lie, what would they gain from it?

 

[XPE]

true, I do mostly agree with you but consider other issues: We have seen prisoners in guantanamo being treated in harsh conditions, and being tortured - without being found guilty. Iran may not love the Taliban or AQ, but in a way they may want to use this opportunity to further show that they at least do not treat their prisoners bad, and hence all the media reports about them may not actually be 100% true...

WE don’t the yanks do they just happen be British citizens, bit of a nit pick I know.

 

[Raz]

WE don’t the yanks do they just happen be British citizens, bit of a nit pick I know.

yeah I know.

fair point, however Iran would probably have had a better chance of having a dialogue with the UK rather then America. This is going to put a strain on the relationship that these countries have.

 

[XPE]

Can’t argue with that

 

[miracleboy]

Can’t argue with that

I'm sure someone will.

 

[Visage]

I'm sure someone will.

Who would be so churlish?

 

[miracleboy]

There seems to be a lot of people diametrically opposed in this discussion with pre-existing opinons and external forces defining their arguments so let's just re-iterate the facts and the not-so-facts from this situation.

FACTS

• Royal Navy are operating in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate.
• UK forces boarded a suspicious Indian freighter to inspect.
• Iranian forces surrounded the freighter as UK forces disembarked.
• Iranian forces detained UK forces as they disembarked.
• International law dictates that forces in territorial waters with no permission should be escorted out (no more, no less).
• UK provides evidence of GPS position.
• Iran provides evidence of GPS position.
• Iran changes GPS position.
• UK forces taken against their will to Tehran.
• UK forces displayed on Iranian TV.
• Faye Turney provides confession on Iranian TV.
• Iranians provide letter to UK government purported to be from Faye Turney.
• Iranians provide second letter to UK purported to be from Faye Turney
• Iranian TV shows second confession from different sailor
• UN refuses to act in case of UK hostages

DISPUTED/UNCLEAR

• UK claim ship was in Iraqi waters.
• Iran claim ship was in Iranian waters.
• UK sailors are covered by Geneva Convention.
• Authenticity of Turney confession.
• Authenticity of first Turney letter.
• Authenticity of second sailor confession.
• Authenticity of second Turney letter.

I'm not sure that many of the facts are disputed but if anyone does please shout.

As for the disputes, my own opinion is that the first 2 are unclear (the disputed line doesn't help, but I have to say that the Iranians did themselves no favours by changing the co-ordinates - why did they do this?), the convention question I'm still not sure about and the authenticity of the 2 interviews and 2 letters are seriously in doubt - the interviews are clearly under duress and the letters are 100% fake, they aren't even written in clear English.

 

[calnen]

You've managed to not mention the context of the whole thing - Iran is under increasing pressure from the UN to stop enrichment and this is an attempt at a distraction from that, and to gain leverage.

 

[miracleboy]

You've managed to not mention the context of the whole thing - Iran is under increasing pressure from the UN to stop enrichment and this is an attempt at a distraction from that, and to gain leverage.

I quite understand the context but was trying to get agreement on the facts.

 

[perplex]

This synergy aspect is quite interesting. Iraq and Afghanistan with Iran between. Pakistan after Iran?

 

[miracleboy]

This synergy aspect is quite interesting. Iraq and Afghanistan with Iran between. Pakistan after Iran?

North Korea is next after Iran in the 'Axis of Evil'.

 

[perplex]

North Korea is next after Iran in the 'Axis of Evil'.

Maybe, but look at the geography of it. That's what I was trying to imply.

 

[MookJong]

This synergy aspect is quite interesting. Iraq and Afghanistan with Iran between. Pakistan after Iran?

If we were going to bomb anyone it should have been Pakistan, they paid for 9/11 and setup the Taliban in Afganistan.

 

[Raz]

How difficult do you find it to follow a simple train of conversation?
The word "IF" in capitals at the beginning of my post is really rather clear isn't it? IF the whole world is telling you that you are wrong then maybe you are. Of course you responded with "no"............

If a rash statement has been made then it was made by you with your "no matter what the rest of the world thinks they aren't wrong" or was that an attempt at being facetious?

1) Where is my statement where I said:

"no matter what the rest of the world thinks they aren't wrong"?

It could be there, knowing my memory I did probably say it, but please show me anyway

2) Not that difficult as I replied to your "IF.." question with an answer - what did you not understand?

 

[Raz]

If we were going to bomb anyone it should have been Pakistan, they paid for 9/11 and setup the Taliban in Afganistan.

[joke]

going by that we should bomb America for helping to set them up in the first place