what is iran thinking???

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Iranian Vessels Seize 15 British Navy Personnel in Iraqi Waters (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260583,00.html)



WASHINGTON — Iranian naval vessels seized 15 British sailors and marines Friday in Iraqi waters, the Ministry of Defense said.

The British personnel from the frigate HMS Cornwall were "engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters," and had completed their inspection of a merchant ship when they were accosted by Iranian vessels, the ministry said in a statement.

"We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and ... the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office," the ministry said.

"The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."

A fisherman who said he was with a group of Iraqis from Basra in the northern area of the Gulf said he witnessed the event. The fisherman declined to be identified because of security concerns.

"Two boats, each with a crew of six to eight multinational forces, were searching Iraqi and Iranian boats Friday morning in Ras al-Beesha area in the northern entrance of the Arab Gulf, but big Iranian boats came and took the two boats with their crews to the Iranian waters," said the fisherman.

The British Broadcasting Corp. said the British forces were inspecting a ship suspected of smuggling cars. It did not cite a source for the report.

BBC reporter Ian Pannell on HMS Cornwall said the sailors had just boarded a dhow when they were accosted.

"While they were on board, a number of Iranian boats approached the waters in which they were operating — the Royal Navy are insistent that they were operating in Iraqi waters and not Iranian waters — and essentially captured the Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel at gunpoint," Pannell said.

In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the Shatt al-Arab between Iran and Iraq. They were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally.

They were released unharmed after three days.what in the world happened? is there something else you brits know about the situation?

They don`t think..that`s Iran`s problem! They acted provocative again but on a higher level than before. Britons were in Iraqi waters but Iranians said they were in their waters. It looks like they don`t want a peaceful life. Instead of helping Iraq to rebuild they rather sponsor terrorist organisations and steal coallition soldiers..

Perhaps they are upset about armed British pirates boarding Iranian vessels. My bet would be the brits were in Iranian waters since they have done the same thing in the past.

what? the previous sailors admitted to doing so BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED TO! are you taking the iranian gvt's word at face value?

This story of alleged spying by the Brits is similar to the story of the five Iranians being held for allegedly spying in Iraq by the Americans.

what? the previous sailors admitted to doing so BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED TO! are you taking the iranian gvt's word at face value?
Why not? Blair is hopping mad and now says the Iranian actions were wrong, unaccepable, and illegal. The irony leaves you rolling on the floor. The facts are this: The British government, and the American one too, have repeatedly lied about Iraq. The lies have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, and still Blair or Bush do not have the moral integrity to own up to what they have done. Seymour Hersch has reported that Coalition forces are engaged in crossing the Iranian border to gather intelligence . Bureaucracies by nature lie first and dribble out the truth later. The ownership of waters in that area is so convoluted that it makes one wonder why the British were putting themselves in such a situation, especially when there was an earlier incident. Why would anyone believe the British government about this?

I also wonder why the brits need to board Indian vessels to search for smuggled cars. It seems like the Iraqis should be perfectly capable of such mundane work.

I can`t agree on that.
These are the facts:
1. Americans and Britons are not responsible for deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians. The insurgents are! That`s what the world still didn`t realise! War in Iraq..I mean the War itself (1st month) didn`t kill almost anyone innocent...
2. Nobody lied about Iraq. In Saddam`s Iraq nobody knew for sure if he has WMDs or not. It wasn`t a lie it but a wrong prediction!
3. Iran can`t keep it`s nuclear program! Nobody wants them to produce nuclear weapons because nobody trust them! I`m sure you won`t like that as well. Now you`ll probably say why USA can have nuclear weapons? Because they`ll use it only in very last case scenario. Nobody says anything to french about their nuclear weapons. Why? Because whole world can trust them!
People that burn down a dannish embassy because of a newspaper drawing about their religious figure definitely can`t be allowed to have nuclear weapons!

I can`t agree on that.
These are the facts:
1. Americans and Britons are not responsible for deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians. The insurgents are! That`s what the world still didn`t realise! War in Iraq..I mean the War itself (1st month) didn`t kill almost anyone innocent...
2. Nobody lied about Iraq. In Saddam`s Iraq nobody knew for sure if he has WMDs or not. It wasn`t a lie it but a wrong prediction!
3. Iran can`t keep it`s nuclear program! Nobody wants them to produce nuclear weapons because nobody trust them! I`m sure you won`t like that as well. Now you`ll probably say why USA can have nuclear weapons? Because they`ll use it only in very last case scenario. Nobody says anything to french about their nuclear weapons. Why? Because whole world can trust them!
People that burn down a dannish embassy because of a newspaper drawing about their religious figure definitely can`t be allowed to have nuclear weapons!
Wow. Who knew Bush was smart enough to use the Internet.

Must be nice to have a moral view that allows you to start an unprovoked, illegal war and then claim you have no responsibility for the consequences.

Wow...don`t be provocative if you don`t have anything good to write back..

It`s not illegal to free people from a tyrant. Maybe a true reason was oil but consider that if there won`t be insurgency, people would live a lot better than before. And insurgency is the only real illegal thing in whole Iraq war story! Still, after everything that happened in past 4 years, half of Iraqis say their lives are better now.

The problem is that media show only bad things happening in Iraq and not the good changes because of fall of Saddam`s regime. Don`t read only cnn.com. Read something different from a first hand. (http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/)

That became too much of an off-topic...

...Because they`ll use it only in very last case scenario. Nobody says anything to french about their nuclear weapons. Why? Because whole world can trust them!...1985 - Rainbow Warrior? Yeah, very trustworthy! Sorry, but I'd have to disagree.

Greenpeace was opposed to testing and had planned to lead a flotilla of yachts to the atoll to protest against the test, including an illegal incursion into French military zones.That tells enough...

That tells enough...Difference being - Rainbow Warrior expedition's planned "incursion" had no intention of blowing anything (or anybody) up - French commando's planned and executed incursion into New Zealand territory, using false Passports, did, and succeeded in causing death in the process.
French Government then went on to claim that they had no knowledge of the operation.
French Government then went on to acknowledge that they did plan and sponsor the operation (Oh dear, they must have just forgotten).
French Government then went on to request that the perpetrators of the illegal killing serve their time in a jail in the territory of French Polynesia.
French Government then went on to provide early releases for the perpetrators of the illegal killing, one of which was on the basis of the female commando having become pregnant whilst in jail.
French Government then went on to herald the perpetrators as heroes.
Of course we should trust the French Government - They have been such bastions of the Truth, or at least their everchanging version thereof.

Why not? Blair is hopping mad and now says the Iranian actions were wrong, unaccepable, and illegal. The irony leaves you rolling on the floor. The facts are this: The British government, and the American one too, have repeatedly lied about Iraq. The lies have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, and still Blair or Bush do not have the moral integrity to own up to what they have done. Seymour Hersch has reported that Coalition forces are engaged in crossing the Iranian border to gather intelligence . Bureaucracies by nature lie first and dribble out the truth later. The ownership of waters in that area is so convoluted that it makes one wonder why the British were putting themselves in such a situation, especially when there was an earlier incident. Why would anyone believe the British government about this?
Tell me why I should trust the Iranian government statements? After all they are the ones telling us the Holocaust never happened.

OK that went too far...what I want to say is that the French are not a threat to throw an atomic bomb without a good reason. Consider that it is a year 2007, 1985 is quite a history now..

Tell me why I should trust the Iranian government statements? After all they are the ones telling us the Holocaust never happened.thanks for getting us back on point.


and exactly. even if you're suspicious or outright pissed about the brits participation in iraq, do you really put more faith in the word of the iranian leader vs the british gvt regarding this matter?

OK that went too far...what I want to say is that the French are not a threat to throw an atomic bomb without a good reason...If I were a fish swimming around Muraroa Atoll, I may think differently......Consider that it is a year 2007, 1985 is quite a history now..Maybe, but France was the last nation to carry out a Government-sponsored military attack on New Zealand. I can't remember the last time the Iranians attacked us - must've been before '85.
Don't worry, V, I'm just being facetious, but I do have around zero percent faith that the French Government would ever consider my interests in any decision that they made. They've certainly taken a front seat when it comes to supply of armaments to some of the less savoury leaders of various factions.

I think this is a classic case of all the right not being on one side. I'm no fan of Iran and would support moves to disarm their nuclear aspirations. However, having said that, it's not fair to demand Iran complies over the nuclear issue till we in the West admit we have no real business in the Gulf and in Iraq. I think the "mistakes" over the WMD issue should be addressed and troops removed from Iraq.
Iran should be pressured into dropping the nuclear program, once they no longer feel threatened and boxed in.
I recall Clinton urged Yeltsin to negotiate and compromise over Chechnya so why not negotiate with Iran before the missiles start to fly. The snag here is if the U.S. had Iranian troops patrolling Cuban seas, the U.S. would equally find the situation intolerable (as in the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I did detect some humiliation of those prisoners evident but imagine the uproar if they'd been paraded on T.V. at the end of a dog-leash or covered in fake electrodes while hooded.


Tell me why I should trust the Iranian government statements? After all they are the ones telling us the Holocaust never happened.

Do you really think you can negotiate with Iran? It looks like you can`t. They don`t need food, oil and electricity like North Korea. They function normally.
If I were a fish swimming around Muraroa Atoll, I may think differently...Maybe, but France was the last nation to carry out a Government-sponsored military attack on New Zealand. I can't remember the last time the Iranians attacked us - must've been before '85.
Don't worry, V, I'm just being facetious, but I do have around zero percent faith that the French Government would ever consider my interests in any decision that they made. They've certainly taken a front seat when it comes to supply of armaments to some of the less savoury leaders of various factions.Also, with France I ment all countries with nuclear weapons that are not a threat and nobody wants to disarm them. That`s why I don`t want to continue this "french" topic..

The Iraq War was built on a tissue of lies and it was plain wrong. As a knock on effect it (the war) led to the election of an unpleasant, extremist hardliner in Iran when maybe (had it not been for Iraq) we might have seen a far more liberal Government in Iran.
Vladimir Putin made the very same comment some weeks ago.
We've seen so many things in Iraq that are inexcusable: Humiliation of Iraqi captives by the Coalition, instability within the country, loss of freedom for women, looting of works of art and antiquities (now being traded in London).
In many ways, it reminds me of the slave trade all over again. I don;t think 80 Iraqi deaths every day through the current instability is worth it. Neither do I figure 18.000 wounded U.S. marines is worth overthrowing Saddam for (who ran Iraq better than the Coalition and also stood up to Iran).
Personally I don't wish to see a nuclear Iran but this is now a mess of Bush's making.

Wow...don`t be provocative if you don`t have anything good to write back..

It`s not illegal to free people from a tyrant. Maybe a true reason was oil but consider that if there won`t be insurgency, people would live a lot better than before. And insurgency is the only real illegal thing in whole Iraq war story! Still, after everything that happened in past 4 years, half of Iraqis say their lives are better now.

The problem is that media show only bad things happening in Iraq and not the good changes because of fall of Saddam`s regime. Don`t read only cnn.com. Read something different from a first hand. (http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/)

That became too much of an off-topic...

Wow...don`t be provocative if you don`t have anything good to write back..It's just that your views are so far divorced from reality it is rather hard to find something to say. It would be like attempting to convince Tom Cruise that Scientology is a scam. Anyone who can claim there were no lies about Iraq is a lost cause.

It`s not illegal to free people from a tyrant. Maybe a true reason was oil but consider that if there won`t be insurgency, people would live a lot better than before. And insurgency is the only real illegal thing in whole Iraq war story!International law does not allow an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. It was illegal. You have to love the new defense of the Iraq debacle: The blame the victim defense. Gosh, it's the Iraqis fault. There is an insurgency, and the people are not better than before. Under Saddam you were okay as long as you kept your head down and did not attempt to overthrow the government. Under the Bush/Blair regime, no one can feel comfortable sending their wife to the market. Fighting against occupation is not only perfectly legal, it is honorable.

The problem is that media show only bad things happening in Iraq and not the good changes because of fall of Saddam`s regime. Don`t read only cnn.com. Read something different from a first hand. (http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/)Yeah, that's the ticket. It's the media's fault. They are not showing all the wonderful progress that has been made. When Cheney tried that line he was laughed at. Looks like it's alive and well, though.