Captured Sailors

Well since the same Captain has been daft enough to tell the BBC that part of his mission was gathering intelligence on Iran, and the Government daft enough not put a D notice on the broadcast, heaven help the next one's they take, as one suspects they will most definately be held for trial on some kind of spying charge, and with Cap't Air's interview appearing as the star witness.

With this admission now, I'm tempted to wonder what rights Iran has regarding the mounting of a land based air strike against HMS Cornwall. Doubtless the UK would say that it's operating under a UN mandate, but then there's no shortage of resolutions that other countries don't recognise when it suits them, or select some what discriminatorily when they want to try and invoke or support them.

Splitting groups is standard interrogation procedure as Kriz says. The Police do it in this country as normal practice. It also makes any rescue mission impossible. Indeed the only thing some Daily Mail inspired "send in the SAS" would have achieved would have been another dozen or so detainees.

I still maintain that this was a military 'cock up' and shouldn't have happened, and its these questions that need asking. It's all very well Cap't Air saying he was out gunned and out numbered and so did the sensible thing. I'm sure that's true, and I've never disputed it. But this isn't Star Trek. 8 off shore patrol boats don't suddenly get beamed along side your boarding party!!! Doubtless the British will review the situation and insist on Helicopter cover for future intelligence gathering missions. Unfortunately I've got bad news for them. A Lynx helicopter is no match for a MiG 29, which could be on them within a matter of minutes, provided an incident could be staged. Indeed if they carry out in the same ham fisted way, HMS Cornwall won't even be within range to be able to defend its helicopter.

All of which means stationing a serious Carrier uncomfortably close to land based anti-ship cruise missile batteries. As we don't possess such a ship, are the Americans likely to risk providing cover thus? I'd say we've got some serious thinking to do about the viability of maintaining these patrols. I do however think that Iran might have made a mistake in the longer term, and can only deduce that their actions have brought the prospects of bringing about attacks on their nuclear research facilities, which will spark a wave of global terrorist activity by way of retaliation
 
How many Iranians are getting to hear 'our' side of the affair or what the captives are now saying. Gye few, I imagine.

Still, it must have been worth it all for one of those suits. I imagine Primark will be on to the suppliers.
 
Yeah, Warbs, and remember the last time the USA stationed a nice big warship in the Gulf? The Vincennes shot down an Iran Air Airbus full of civilian passengers right over the Gulf. "Jeez, cap'n, I coulda swored that thar was an enemy war plane... " Please, NO, no more US frig... ates!
 
Not sure the Vincennes would qualify as a 'nice big warship' it wouldn't be massively different to Cornwall (the ship not the English county) albeit apart from the fact it's missile systems are more numerous, versatile and accurate. Nor would it be the 'last time' either, they've been omni-present for decades, and had to rely on oil tankers to escort them when the Iranians mined the sea lanes, in the Iran/ Iraq war as they were big enough to absorb a hit, where as the warships weren't. :laughing: One of the more amusing role reversals as the USN entered the Persian Gulf to protect the tankers, but hadn't reckoned on something quite so low-tech as a good old sea mine, and the tanker looked the safer ship to be on all of a sudden. Incidentally, didn't this war used to be called the Gulf War once upon a time?

On a slightly different note, the Vincennes has been de-commissioned now, which says a lot about our respective navy's. I think it was Ticondagoa class (doubtless a spelling mistake) which was state of the art 20 years ago (and would still out perform anything we've got today) but after 20 years the USN decided it was obsolete. :what: God alive knows what that makes some of our stuff. Mind you they were allegedly prone to keel over in very tight turn, or so the story goes, though none ever sank i believe thus. "Hard to Starboard. No not that hard!!! - splash".

It's not too difficult to foresee a re-enactment of this whole episode in the future, on what I suspect could well be a Gulf of Tonkin type incident, which this time might involve aircraft. The similarities are uncanny.

Intelligence gathering destroyers in sensitive waters (USS Maddox & later joined by another destroyer) were supposidly engaged by North Vietnamese fast off shore torpedo patrol boats, (the Maddox had been a couple of days earlier), when it beat a retreat thus. It wasn't so much stage managed there was a lot of confusion on the night due to a quite vicious swell, and poor atmospherics playing havoc with the communications, as well as a nervous crew opening fire on fog banks which their radar couldn't distinguish from MTB's apparently. By the morning LBJ knew that no such encounter had taken place, as was being reported all through that night, but nonetheless the US was launching strikes against North Vietnam the next morning, having whipped their publci into a frenzy with lies about what had happened. Sound familiar?. The rest as they say, is history.
 
It really doesn't matter what they're called, what they weigh, or whether they're armed with popguns or Cruise missiles, does it, Warbler? The Americans get things tragically and spectacularly wrong at times, no matter what the refinements to the systems are.

The invasion of Iraq was initially played up like some Rambo film sequel, as Gulf War II, until too many people realized it was nothing of the sort. But I have yet to recall hearing any politician in office call it an invasion. Like the word 'genocide', if it doesn't fit with the audience you want to play to, it doesn't get used.
 
I am not ususally a fan of Kevin Myers, but an interetsing piece in todays Irish Independent.

----------------

No wonder the Royal Marines broke under such an intensive barrage of tea and civility
Friday April 6th 2007

NO DOUBT you, like me, were deeply impressed by the counter-interrogation skills of the Royal Marine Commando officers while they were prisoners of the Iranian Republican Guard. Why, they resisted a diet of tea and civility for over a week before they decided to spill all, and admitted on television, like schoolboys caught helping themselves to a slice of apple-pie in the larder, that yes, they had actually strayed into Iranian waters after all, sorry, deepest regrets, et cetera.

Royal Marine Sergeant PLY/X665 Sam Wallace, a Dubliner captured during a Special Boat Squadron canoe-borne attack on German vessels in Bordeaux harbour in December 1942, must still be spinning in his unknown grave. Sergeant Wallace was shot by firing squad without ever having breathed a word to his Gestapo interrogators about his sabotage mission or the number of his fellow-saboteurs, some of whom were still at large, and who, thanks to his silence, were able eventually to escape with their lives.

Am I being unfair? Of course I am. It's not like with like. Sam Wallace knew he might be spared if he betrayed his comrades, and didn't: but the Royal Marine officers of today were certain they would not be shot, whatever they did, yet nonetheless they babbled away on television, in very happy-chappy tones.

However, even that depraved performance did not match in ignominy the almost instant capitulation of Leading Seaman Faye Turney, the single female member of the boat-party, who appeared in almost daily news conferences, Islamically-scarved, sometimes smoking, praising her captors and denouncing her government's policies.

It gets worse. The Iranians now how have 15 extra British combat uniforms, rifles and combat kit. So who would now be a British sentry in Basra, as through the dusk a file of uniformed Royal Marines appears?

That is a hypothetical question. Others are not. Why was a young mother, untrained in infantry fighting, put on an operation in one of the most contested pieces of brine in the entire world? Why was there no air cover? Why did the Marines' mother ship, HMS Cornwall, not use open-access Channel 16 to warn the Iranians to sheer away, sheer away, or it would blow them out of the water? Were the crews of the inflatables told, if approached by Iranian naval forces a) to avoid captivity at all costs, including life itself, or b) to surrender meekly?

Actually, since b) actually happened, the Royal Navy might just as well have deployed a boating-party from the Much-Swiving-on-Thames Branch of the Women's Institute. They would have been equally effective in policing the waterways - and you can be sure that the Beryls and Violets of much derided middle England would rather go skinny-dipping in public than denounce their government on hostile TV.

Of course, much of this presumes that the Royal Navy boat-parties had rules of engagement which were related to their mission, which in turn presumes that there was such a thing, with specified goals. But I can see it now: okay, right guys - as everyone is now referred to in Blair's la-la-land - let's have a presence in Shatt-Al-Arab, but hey guys, let's not be too precise about who's going to do what, okay? And yeah, of course, we're gonna send women service personnel into this combat zone: it's important the Islamic world sees our she-guys fight every bit as tough as our he-guys. Right?

Right. Yet despite the debacle, the utter debacle, of the group-solidarity of the British captives collapsing after just a day when the sole woman member did a deal with her captors, do you think the imbecilic feminisation of the armed forces of western countries is going to be halted? Of course not. The only probable change in Britain is that one of those ghastly, simpering viragoes in Blair's gang is going to suggest that henceforth the term "seaman" be dropped as sexist and replaced by "seaperson". No, I'm not joking. Just watch.

All in all, game set and match to the Iranians. But why not? They know what they want, and touchy, feely, indecisive, wordy, unprincipled, cynical, treacherous Blair and his despicable cronies haven't got a clue. And comparably diseased characteristics - though you might add "infantalised" - infected BBC news coverage of the affair, which actually referred to "the 13 long days and nights of captivity" of the Royal Navy party. Thirteen long days and nights? Jesus Christ, the US hostages of 1979 spent 444 days in captivity, and not one broke ranks.

Moreover, I am sure of this. No US Marines would have been captured so easily, no US Marine, man or woman, would have changed sides so quickly, and no US Marine officer would so cheerily have given a news conference organised by what was effectively the enemy.

I am proud to declare that I am an honorary member of the US Marine Corps, in which arm the warrior-spirit of that brave Irishman, Royal Marine Sergeant PLY/X665 Sam Wallace, SBS, RIP clearly lives on, rather than of Her Britannic Majesty's Corps of Royal Marines, in which it is apparently extinct.

Kevin Myers
 
Not to begin to mention the YEARS spent in extreme conditions in Viet Nam by so many American troops, some of whom returned home alive, if permanently damaged. Or even any of our own (British) servicemen who spent lengthy periods in prison camps after capture by Germans in the Second World War, and simply gave name, rank, and serial number in exchange for near-starvation rations and the occasional clout for fun.

I get the sense that Myers is not a huge fan of Tony Blair, then? As for women's roles in matters military, he shouldn't forget that it was mostly women assembling munitions during the last world war, who stood the best chance of being blown to kingdom come by German bombers, and the SOE had no qualms about sending female operatives to Occupied France to be betrayed, tortured and executed, just like their manly counterparts.

Myers doesn't grasp that being a mother of two (or 15) is no different to being a father of two (or 15) - a lost parent is a lost parent, whether it's in direct battle, following capture and interrogation by real interrogators, or just doing one's duty on the home front. I've no idea if Turney was particularly girly about being captured, but if playing the poor-mummy-misses-her-babies card got them all home quickly, then what was wrong with that?

The (real) Gulf War saw a significant number of extraordinarily tough-looking female grunts from the US taking on identical duties to the men. I'm pleased to say that when one of them was accosted by a member of the 'religious police' in town for wearing combat fatigues, she decked him with a single haymaker. Now, that's what I call equality.
 
Presumably they've been briefed on what they can and can't divulge.

It's a strange move and probably designed to maximise propaganda that Iran was in the wrong to take them captive in the first place. Iran will have got plenty of coverage of their 'generosity' in releasing them and if most of the 15 (I noticed one's identity was never released as a photograph) tell largely the same story of 'torture' (although it sounds pretty mild compared to what's been portrayed in fact-based war stories) to a wide range of media then maybe there's more chance of people worldwide seeing through Iran's magnanimity.

I don't think it should be made public, though.
 
I personally would NOT pay ANY price to read such stories I really think they have it wrong!! Unless any monies made would or could be donated to those soldiers sailors & airmen that have been maimed or severly injured in combat.............. :suspect:
 
I don't care what extreme measures were employed in their 'interrogation' - these servicemen signed up to the Armed Forces in the certain knowledge that it ain't Disneyland in any battle zone and I really don't think that they have lived up to the tradition of being a Marine. As has been mentioned elsewhere in the press, name/rank/serial number served previous generations of the Armed Forces well enough - what's changed?

As to them being able to sell their stories - I am in total disbelief over this one. Right on Mr Myers! Selling their stories denigrates the memories of 'proper' service personnel who have gone before them and actually died for their country before being ready to risk their comrades' lives. I don't care even if these Marines' stories' (and somehow, I doubt they'll potray the actual truth - it will be 'embroidered' for sure) are sold in aid of charity - it's still wrong! And I bet Max Clifford will be keeping his 'take'....
 
It is just political posturing. The Government want the general public to harbour a dislike for Iran in case it feels the need or desire to impose sanctions/commence military action/insert blank against them in the future.

They know that they cannot create this feeling themselves as they do not have the public's trust so they engineer it so that we hear it from the horse's mouth - cue human interest angle/press frenzy/public reaction etc.

Big deal.
 
Conspiracy theory time.......................is Washington involved in this decision at all?

SORRY I copied and pasted don't know what happened there?????? are I see I took it of the threads posted and your name was at the bottom of Colins thread.......... :nuts:


NO but I bet our TONY!!! is, no doubt, looking to go out on a high if that's what it's supposed to be???????????? :eek:
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by betsmate@Apr 8 2007, 12:18 PM
It is just political posturing. The Government want the general public to harbour a dislike for Iran in case it feels the need or desire to impose sanctions/commence military action/insert blank against them in the future.

They know that they cannot create this feeling themselves as they do not have the public's trust so they engineer it so that we hear it from the horse's mouth - cue human interest angle/press frenzy/public reaction etc.

Big deal.
Click to expand...
:clap:

An astute reading of the situ
 
Originally posted by Merlin the Magician@Apr 8 2007, 01:35 PM
SORRY I copied and pasted don't know what happened there?????? are I see I took it of the threads posted and your name was at the bottom of Colins thread.......... :nuts:
Click to expand...
No problem Merlin. Next time just click the Quote button at the right hand side of the message you want to respond to, on the subsequent page leave it in its own box at the bottom of the screen and type your message in the larger empty box at the top. Voila! It even puts it in a nice box for you.
 
Originally posted by Warbler@Apr 8 2007, 01:17 PM
Am I missing something?

This isn't a 'war story' or 'battle zone' etc
Click to expand...
Disingenuous Warbler - what on earth do you classify Iraq as? And why were the Marines where they were - to prevent illegal arms supplies by Iranians to subversives in Iraq. And why are certain Irani factions hell bent on supplying these terrorists? Because our troops are in Iran....

I am not condoning Iraq's actions - no civilised country should behave as they have but again, the behaviour of this Government is also highly questionable and you cannot deny that our illegal entry into Iraq was bound to generate a multitude of incidents such as this from other countries with their own agendas.

Betsmate's summing up is about right as far as I am concerned - it's all Government spin, smoke and mirrors and it is deeply unpleasant.
 
Unpleasant or not, it is a tactical decision in the circumstances and I'm sure it's better than resorting to armed retaliation. Misinformation and disinformation have been used as tactics for thousands of years. I agree it's no big deal.

The MoD obviously believes the Iran 15 possess little in the way of sensitive intelligence.
 
Back
Top