Captured Sailors

Originally posted by Songsheet+Apr 8 2007, 01:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Songsheet @ Apr 8 2007, 01:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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. [/b][/quote]
I assume you mean Iran? whose actions you're not condoning? Iraq has no involvement in this episode.

Last time I knew, we weren't at war with Iran? hence it being difficult to describe the waters as a 'battle zone' or indeed a 'war story'. If it was, it's doubtful that HMS Cornwall would still be afloat without American Carrier protection.

Essentially maintaining a patrol is no different to what the RAF are doing in the Falklands. It's not a de-facto 'battle zone' but a sensitive area with a restricted zone, which the Argentines periodically still probe even today. The crews have their 'rules of engagement' which permits interception and shoot down once violated. HMS Cornwall by contrast had to contact Northwood and London for guidance it would appear, which to my mind is a tacit acknowledgement that they weren't on a war footing with Iran.

The Iraqi insurgency can rig up a host of roadside IED's but are a long way from taking the war on to the seas. Even if Iran was able or prepared to supply them land based anti-ship missiles, (doubtful in itself), transporting one, assembling it, loading and programming it, and then firing it from Iraqi territory would be a huge undertaking, and massive risk. It's not like smuggling small arms and semtex across a porous border.

Indeed in the first Gulf War, when the waters could be legitmately described as a 'war zone' one such attack did take place when a Silkworm missile was indeed fired at the USS Wisconsin (their crew were sunbathing on deck at the time, oblivious to what was about 30 secs away). It was their RN escort HMS Gloucester that picked it up and shot it down. That the crew were kept on a state of war readiness can be gleaned from the fact that they were required to wear anti-flash clothing in sweltering conditions, something which the footage from Cornwall clearly shows her compliment aren't wearing.

I'm slightly curious about your oblique reference to the Captain of Essex County Cricket Club having his own faction supplying terrorists though :rolleyes:
 
IraN is mostly Shi'ah, Islamwise, so it won't have any qualms about supply the IraQi Shi'ites with weapons with which to disturb their erstwhile tormentors, the IraQi Sunnis. I would imagine that there would be enough satellite tracking evidence to prove or disprove overland supplies, and the reconaissance of ports' activities would reveal whether any really major goods, such as missiles, were being exported from Iran to Iraq. Once again, like the heated tales of WMD and nuclear projects in Iraq, I'd like to SEE a lot more evidence before I believe a lot more Western propaganda. The bogeyman of Iran as a nuclear power should be viewed in the same way as India as a nuclear power and Pakistan as a neighbouring and usually hostile nuclear power, and Israel as a nuclear power. To the best of my limited knowledge, there are no plans to invade any of these countries to overwhelm their facilities, is there?

One point I must take up with you, Warbler: there was only one Gulf War. This debacle is not the second. Iraq did not declare war on, or invade, another country this time. Much as it was popular to try to pass this off as the Second Gulf War, it wasn't, and isn't.

If the West could only play its cards right this time (but it won't, of course, preferring always self-righteous posturing), it could turn the Iranian trick around quite nicely. It should be congratulating Iran on its civilized way with the sailors (and not sweating the detail of in/out of whose waters), and working very hard now to squeeze through the slightly open door with warm, not cold, diplomacy, to strengthen, not abandon, ties with the country. After all, at some point Wee Ahmadasabat will step down from the presidency, and it's usually canny to already be a welcome guest at the door for the next incoming. Let the highly-paid FO earn its money for a change. Iran is only a threat if we want to keep insisting that it is one. Getting alongside one's perceived enemy is a far more enlightened approach for the future avoidance of more dead servicemen and women, let alone vast amounts of civilians, who really just want to make a buck like the rest of us, see their kids grow up, and worry about who stole their hubcaps overnight.
 
Name , rank and serial number only applies in war situations

Second, it was abolished after the torture of John Nichols and the other captured airmen by Saddam - sadly recognising , that like Iran last week - all too many countries now , including the US, have no respect for international law .

I think allowing them to sell their stories is profoundly ill-advised but at the root of it seems to be to allow them to respond to the disgraceful criticism directed at them by armchair military "experts" like max hastings and a number of unnamed desk johnnies in the army - present day Captain Darlings .

I am still waiting for someone to tell me what they should have done instead that would have seen them released . Or would forumites be happier if they wer still locked up subjected to duress so long as they were keeping stiff upper lips ? :ph34r:
 
Que? Who's the 'brave' bit aimed at, Cap'n Ardross? I've always thought the old name, rank and serial number was a load of tosh. Think of the dreadful real tortures that men and women endured through any number of wars because of that Blimpishness. By the time you've been held a day or night, belted about a bit, not fed, not slept, your comrades have most times moved their positions and are nowhere near where you were found. Of course your mission is to destroy enemy installations and/or troops - what would any interrogator hope to find out that was different? You were a badly-disguised Girl Scout trying to sell cookies?

It's probably time that the public, though, were let in on all the changes to what the military tell their service people to do, so that we're not all assuming 'shock and awe' at the temerity of mere grunts to tell their stories, while, let's face it, any amount of relevant politicians, retired generals, squadron leaders, admirals, have made, and continue to make, a tidy bundle writing vast tomes on their brilliant careers - which usually included 'sacrificing' X number of 'gallant' service personnel in order to achieve them.

We don't use mangonels any more, and the Persians don't fire Parthian shots at us from the backs of their sturdy ponies, so why shouldn't ALL aspects of modern matters military alter to meet the changed world of warfare?
 
Alright Faye Turney is no Violette Czabo that much we can safely say, and the hundreds like her who were systematically tortured without saying a word before being executed. But then they faced a genuine war situation against a genuine enemy, where as this lot were involved in what amounted to a stunt, and realistically weren't likely to ever be seriosuly mal-treated. Sure they'd play a few pyschological games, but then obtaining information under duress has its problems too, if the captive is telling you anything you want to hear to stop the pain. etc

In effect there's little that they could tell the Iranians about a Type 22 Frigate that they couldn't find in a copy of Janes, and since Cap't Air seemed to have no qualms about telling Ch5 that they were conducting "intel operations", and the UK Government didn't seek to D notice the interview, there's a limit as to what they could tell Iran that would jeopardise operations and personnel I'd have thought.

I couldn't help snigger at thsi one though, taken from a snippet on the BBC site.

Arthur Batchelor, 20, the youngest of the British sailors to be held captive, told the Daily Mirror about his "nightmare" at the hands of his captors and how he "cried like a baby" in his cell.

He told the newspaper: "A guard kept flicking my neck with his index finger and thumb. I thought the worst, we've all seen the videos. I was frozen in terror and just stared into the darkness of my blindfold."

FFS, people pay good money for less than that. Now I've heard of teeth and fingernails being extracted, electrodes attached to genitals, and Andy McNab was made to eat his own shite without giving up any accurate info. But to cry because someone was flicking your neck.

I'm curious to know what videos the RN have been supplying their crews with incidentally? The one about the savage Iranian neck flickers hey?
 
Warbler[/i]@Apr 9 2007 said:
FFS, people pay good money for less than that. Now I've heard of teeth and fingernails being extracted, electrodes attached to genitals, and Andy McNab was made to eat his own shite without giving up any accurate info. But to cry because someone was flicking your neck.

I'm curious to know what videos the RN have been supplying their crews with incidentally? The one about the savage Iranian neck flickers hey? [/b]
Click to expand...
I imagine - he might have thought it was either a cocked pistol or before having his throat cut.

Once again - I find it remarkable that people who have never been anywhere near such a situation have the nerve to abuse these servicemen .

I find compelling what John Nichols who was physically tortured in the 1990 Gulf War said that it was disgraceful to abuse these servicemen and women- that you have no idea what the Iranians are going to do , they were isolated in solitary confinement , with guards who do not speak English , in a hostile country with an unpredictable government and revolutionary guards not even necessarily under Govt control .
 
Hang on a bit, Ardross! I don't recall hearing of your riding expertise over jumps or in a 5f sprint, but you're one of the first, with a fair few other non-riders on here, to denigrate a jockey's ride, tell them exactly how they should have ridden, and get deeply annoyed when Shadow Leader or any other forumite with riding ability tells you you've never been in that situation, so you have no right to judge. You then roundly tell them that that's nonsense, and everyone's entitled to have an opinion, whether they have any experience or not! Now, I'm sorry, but I see a hint of a double standard here.

This is a forum, with a variety of viewpoints (hell, I ought to know after the Brian Wright debate!) - many people don't see anything wrong with putting aside a blind 'loyalty' to our troops, our police, or our train drivers, when they get things wrong. It ISN'T always 'my country, right or wrong', as history should inform us - painfully, at times.

We may not be in the position of military personnel, but neither have we been police caught in a gunfight, train drivers who are overtired, or truck drivers who accidentally kill a family in their little car. We are NOT a great deal of people, but we should feel free to discuss their relative merits - good, bad, or indifferent - without being told that because we don't have their experience (let alone their training) we have no right to hold an opinion (presumably unless it's a positive one approved by you).

That's one of the advantages of living in a relatively free society - we can discuss such matters openly, without it being implied that we're traitors of the State if we do.
 
"Once again - I find it remarkable that people who have never been anywhere near such a situation have the nerve to abuse these servicemen ."

A bit like McCoy asking how many winners Lydia had ridden.
 
In other words then, Terry Waite, John McCarthy, Brian Keenan, Jackie Mann et al endured a lot worse as civilians, plus the Americans of course, some of whom were killed.

All 4 seem to have bared up much better then our so called trained and professional military people. All 4 were hooded for days at a time, routinely subjected to mock executions, kept in solitary for a considerably longer time, were held by groups with whom we had no dialogue, and groups who of course did kill their captors periodically, and were damn sight more unpredictable for it, and held in what were infinately worse conditions.

Indeed after a few years Brian Keenan was given an Orange to eat, (not a slap up meal with his shipmates, complete with chess and table tennis) and was so fascinated by the colour of it, (having been subjected to sensory deprivation techniques for so long) he just wanted to stare at it and couldn't bring himself to eat it.

I'd imagine all four would gladly have swapped their ordeal for someone flicking their neck with their fingers for 24hrs.

Nb

the inclusion of the emoticon was an accident and not a gesture of flippancy. It would appear that typing the word, appears to trigger a default
 
Yes, if you type the word c-r-y, it comes up with the emoticon, which is a bit confusing, if not unintentionally misleading.
 
I think Ardross has an interesting perspective. But the more I think about soldiers the more I think that we’d be better off without the lot of them whether they are five foot-two, or six feet-four, whether they fight with missiles or with spears. Whether they are thirty-one, or only seventeen, they have been around thousand years. Whether they are Catholic, Hindu, Atheist, or Muslim, Buddhist or Baptist or Jew. They know they shouldn't kill, but it seems they always will, kill for me and you. They may be fighting for Britain or for France, or for the USA, or the Russians, or Iran, but they’ll never put an end to war this way. They may be fighting for Democracy, or fighting for their Gods, for peace for all. But he's the one who must decide, who can live and who can die and he needs to see the writing on the wall. Without him, how would Hitler have built Dachau? Without him Caesar would have stood alone, he's the one who gives his body as a weapon of the war, and without him all this killing can't go on.
 
Originally posted by Warbler@Apr 9 2007, 06:50 PM
In other words then, Terry Waite, John McCarthy, Brian Keenan, Jackie Mann et al endured a lot worse as civilians, plus the Americans of course, some of whom were killed.

All 4 seem to have bared up much better then our so called trained and professional military people. All 4 were hooded for days at a time, routinely subjected to mock executions, kept in solitary for a considerably longer time, were held by groups with whom we had no dialogue, and groups who of course did kill their captors periodically, and were damn sight more unpredictable for it, and held in what were infinately worse conditions.

Indeed after a few years Brian Keenan was given an Orange to eat, (not a slap up meal with his shipmates, complete with chess and table tennis) and was so fascinated by the colour of it, (having been subjected to sensory deprivation techniques for so long) he just wanted to stare at it and couldn't bring himself to eat it.

I'd imagine all four would gladly have swapped their ordeal for someone flicking their neck with their fingers for 24hrs.

Nb

the inclusion of the emoticon was an accident and not a gesture of flippancy. It would appear that typing the word, appears to trigger a default
Click to expand...
When were any of them given any sort of option ? Of course they weren't . It was all about survival . They had no method by which they could obtain their earlier release from those terrorists in the Lebanon. Admirable as they all are/were I don't doubt for one moment that they would have done something similar for their release and I should have applauded them for doing so .

There is no question that any of these service personnel had anything significant to disclose nor did they disclose any sensitive info . They did what they could to be released and it was quite proper for them to do so . They were under significant duress. Ms Turney was apparently asked " do you want to see your daughter again ? "

I find the idea that this is analogous to criticising the ride of a horse - utterly bizarre .

Even the Wildensteins haven't threatened their jockeys with seven years of chokey !!!

I am and always have been very opposed to us being anywhere near blasted Iraq or the disputed waters with Iran .I wish we weren't yet I find criticism of the personnel which basically accuses them of cowardice from a comfy chair - despicable .

I am still waiting for someone to tell me what they should have done instead ? Or the Govt - sent a gunboat perhaps or bombed Tehran ???
 
"I find the idea that this is analogous to criticising the ride of a horse - utterly bizarre ."

But my post wasn't about the riding of a horse, it was about the idea that one can't have an opinion about something until you have been in that position.
 
I tend to agree with Ardross, that it's difficult to see what they could have told the Iranians that they hadn't already told Ch5, or what the Iranians didn't already know, and did indeed post to that effect earlier. In that respect the obvious thing to do was go along with them in order to secure their own release as i can't really believe they were putting too many comrades at risk.

I imagine Chris Air however, must have been kakking himself knowing that he'd given that interview to Ch5 a couple of days earlier, and then being taken prisoner by them (I'm not sure you could really call it hostage, as there weren't any demands made above that of an acknowledgement and apology). Ultimately he had no way of knowing whether the tape had been broadcast or not, or whether Ch5 would exercise their good judgement to 'keep it in the can', as the UK media isn't exactly renowned for its discretion. The reprecussions of broadcasting its content should have been understood by him, and it would have led me to do what was ever necessary to get out ASAP. Quite simply it's broadcast whilst they were in detention, would have given the Iranians the excuse they needed to not only detain all 15, but to try them too, and with that admission on tape, he'd be hard pressed to put up a convincing explanation. I susepct he's one very lucky Marine Captain this evening, (and knows it).

The Iranians now have an acknowledgement that a British ship with a limited anti-aircraft capacity is operating just outside their territorial waters gathering information on them.......urm. Without support air cover now, I can see the seeds for a potential future incident here have been sown.

I think the only thing that's irked me (quite apart from the whole military cock-up in the first place) is the melodrama and hyperbole that's unfolded. "Do you want to see your daughter again?" For crying out loud, it's YTS interrogation/ threats, surely they prepare people for that kind of thing. Grown men breaking down in tears because someone's flicking their neck. The mock building of a coffin etc They really should have known that the chances of them being executed were next to zilch, despite all the mind games that they were playing. They weren't tortured afterall, which should have told them that the Iranians weren't after information, or probably knew what they needed to anyway.

If we were at war then they might have had grounds, but this was always likely to be gesture and grandstanding and they should have been tougher than that however intimidating it might have been, (and there's no way I'd have admitted that to the Daily Mirror :laughing: ). I can only imagine they'll be laughing their heads off in Colchester.

I can however, completely concur with what Ardross suggests on the other level. I'd have told them what they wanted to know, safe in the knowledge that I had nothing of any value, and prepared to gamble that the Iranians knew that too (as I'm sure they did, hence the absence of torture). For such time as that video tape existed that had the potential incriminate the lot of them, I'd have worn a headscarve myself and stood in front of a map and confessed to being picked up in Abadan if necessary. Writing a letter condeming Tony Blair and George Bush? Well I think I'd still be there finishing it.
 
Your attempt to play the ingenu serves you ill, Ardross. You know perfectly well that the riding - as well as the mention of other dangerous jobs - was an analogy. You particularly have less right than many on here to try to muzzle people's opinions on the grounds that they're sitting at home watching events and not at risk. Otherwise you'd be first in line for being called 'despicable' for sitting at home watching jockeys risking paralysis, painful injury, or even death, while you comfortably criticise them from your chair, as if you know anything about riding, which you don't.

The point made by me, and by Colin, is that in this country people still have the right to speak to their mind, whether anyone agrees or not, and not to simply fall in line for fear of ostracism or vilification.

It's more than ironic that one of the most frequent armchair critics of jockeys is you - and you have the nerve to moralise to the forum because certain views contradict your own!

I think I've made my own view on the matter clear. Warfare, regrettably, that perennial fascination of mankind, continues to evolve and, as it does, so do some of its old tenets. What has evolved, far less regrettably, is the licence given to this country's population to make up its own mind and speak freely as it finds, and not be cowed by State or Church, or their military apparatus, as once it was. Fortunately, we no longer throw those we despise into the fire - we may not agree with them, but they are allowed their own voice. Which is a liberty you enjoy, even unto criticising the Queen's jockey!

Warbler: spot on. And may I say, you do look very fetching in that pretty pale blue headscarf! :luv:
 
Sorry K but that is plain nonsense in my opinion.

It is a desperately weak analogy to suggest there is any possible comparison between suggesting that Richard Hughes gave a horse too much to do - and suggesting that a scared stiff and very young serviceman being threatened with violence or imprisonment ought to have said name rank and number and taken several years of chokey and to not have done so was a coward .

Of course - Sir Max Hastings has every right from his armchair to imply that they were cowards- I have every right to regard those remarks as despicable .
 
Honestly, I'm about to take the night train and come up there and knock seven bells out of you!! IT'S AN ANALOGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

You've actually just confirmed my riding analogy. You say it's all right to sit at home and complain that R. Hughes has given a horse too much to do, yet you miss the bigger picture - a person involved in a very dangerous job. One that you can't do, won't do, don't want to do, thank you. Yet you are quite happy to have ten shades of an opinion on any rider.

It's the same with the services (putting aside these 15 for a moment). As far as I know, none of us on this forum are serving in the armed forces, or other very risky jobs such as the police, fire service, et al. Again, they're jobs we either can't do or won't do, yet we can still form opinions about the EXECUTION OF THE JOB.

In both cases, you sit at home and diss a jockey, who is putting possible serious injury on the line every time he's legged up. You're free to do that! But as soon as anyone has a contrary opinion to yours on the service issue, they're 'despicable'. But they're also free to voice such an opinion - but not, apparently, given your prior posting.

If you can't see the parallels, I'm sorry, but I will put new batteries in the tazer and get Mogo out of his cage...

I've agreed that the old N/R/SN stuff is outdated, and I made the point that if Turvey sobbed for her kids often enough, she'd be released anyway. I DO take the point that none of these young people knew what the Iranians had in store for them, but that's probably because they're very badly informed about the countries they're sent out to flirt with. The present Iranian government has toned down the previous power of the mullahs quite a bit and I believe that it would like to reach a rapprochement with the West. You know, just like in those good old days when America couldn't wait to sell it arms to fight those pesky Eye-rackies?

In fact, if America was capable of thinking this through, and Britain didn't have its nose up Bush's trousers, it makes perfect sense to approach Iran, mega-Shi'ah stronghold of the Middle East, and say let's stop all this aggro. You're sensible, educated, intelligent people. Let's talk about how we hand over power in Iraq and high-tail it with some dignity intact. Could we work on some projects in partnership? Could we ask you to intercede with the Shi'ites in Iraq? What's the best way for the country to be governed? Would you like a favoured status deal on your exports? The old bartering skills of the rug souk shouldn't be beyond Iran, so maybe it's time we got a little less precious and a bit more down-to-earth, and broke out the coffee cups?
 
Originally posted by krizon@Apr 10 2007, 12:40 AM
Honestly, I'm about to take the night train and come up there and knock seven bells out of you!! IT'S AN ANALOGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

You've actually just confirmed my riding analogy. You say it's all right to sit at home and complain that R. Hughes has given a horse too much to do, yet you miss the bigger picture - a person involved in a very dangerous job. One that you can't do, won't do, don't want to do, thank you. Yet you are quite happy to have ten shades of an opinion on any rider.

It's the same with the services (putting aside these 15 for a moment). As far as I know, none of us on this forum are serving in the armed forces, or other very risky jobs such as the police, fire service, et al. Again, they're jobs we either can't do or won't do, yet we can still form opinions about the EXECUTION OF THE JOB.

In both cases, you sit at home and diss a jockey, who is putting possible serious injury on the line every time he's legged up. You're free to do that! But as soon as anyone has a contrary opinion to yours on the service issue, they're 'despicable'. But they're also free to voice such an opinion - but not, apparently, given your prior posting.

If you can't see the parallels, I'm sorry, but I will put new batteries in the tazer and get Mogo out of his cage...

I've agreed that the old N/R/SN stuff is outdated, and I made the point that if Turvey sobbed for her kids often enough, she'd be released anyway. I DO take the point that none of these young people knew what the Iranians had in store for them, but that's probably because they're very badly informed about the countries they're sent out to flirt with. The present Iranian government has toned down the previous power of the mullahs quite a bit and I believe that it would like to reach a rapprochement with the West. You know, just like in those good old days when America couldn't wait to sell it arms to fight those pesky Eye-rackies?

In fact, if America was capable of thinking this through, and Britain didn't have its nose up Bush's trousers, it makes perfect sense to approach Iran, mega-Shi'ah stronghold of the Middle East, and say let's stop all this aggro. You're sensible, educated, intelligent people. Let's talk about how we hand over power in Iraq and high-tail it with some dignity intact. Could we work on some projects in partnership? Could we ask you to intercede with the Shi'ites in Iraq? What's the best way for the country to be governed? Would you like a favoured status deal on your exports? The old bartering skills of the rug souk shouldn't be beyond Iran, so maybe it's time we got a little less precious and a bit more down-to-earth, and broke out the coffee cups?
Click to expand...
I know it is an analogy - I just think it is a rubbish one .
 
One is a criticism of how an activity of choice is conducted - one of conduct as a prisoner.
 
But the analogy was simply to draw you to the point, Ardross, that you stubbornly maintain that it's all right for you to criticise critics of one scenario, but that others should never criticise you for pontificating on issues of which you have no first-hand experience. It's actually immaterial whether we're talking about members of the RN or the Women's Institute or the Institute of Glassblowers.
 
Back
Top