15 British Sailors Seized By Iran

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The sailors have admitted to being in Iranian waters.

...according to their Iranian captors.

The waters themselves are very disputed territory, so only the Iranians believe that it's their territory.

These soldiers were kidnapped for political purposes.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,238
6,338
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The sailors have admitted to being in Iranian waters.

...according to their Iranian captors.

The waters themselves are very disputed territory, so only the Iranians believe that it's their territory.

These soldiers were kidnapped for political purposes.

Apparently the soldiers agree with the Iranians.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The sailors have admitted to being in Iranian waters.

...according to their Iranian captors.

The waters themselves are very disputed territory, so only the Iranians believe that it's their territory.

These soldiers were kidnapped for political purposes.

Apparently the soldiers agree with the Iranians.
Like I said, according to their Iranian captors.

If you were being held by the Iranian IRGC, I wonder what you'd agree to...
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
The same thing they did when the US *kidnapped* them Iranians in Iraq a month ago


Big difference this was armed Iranian military cought well inside Iraq and they were not there by mistake.

The sailors were in Iraqi water according to the UK

Hence the armed Iranian military were captured the sailors were kidnapped

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a clue Socio, an embassy and any satellites offices thereof of any nation are a nest of foreign spies. And when you catch em playing games too overtly---you expel them---its just a time honored diplomatic custom---we went ballistic when Iran did it to us in 1979---it got very slowly resolved--and they were finally freed--now GWB does the same thing ---and Iran has its bargaining chips now. This question of right or wrong ends up being a matter of opinion---and in the war of words that follows---the real truth gets lost in the shuffle.

Wise and prudent leaders of countries seek to ratchet the tensions such conflicts generate down. Bad leaders use such incidents to beat their chests and tell their own version of lies to their general public. And as they say--it takes two to tango. No one, even in Iran, considers their leader wise and prudent anymore----and I sure would not award Bush with the wise and prudent label either.

Face the facts---for both Iran and the USA---the leader we got sure looks nothing like the campaign promises many thought we were voting for.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,682
40,041
136
While I'm usually inclined to suspect everything concerning the Iranian leadership and/or the Revolutionary Guard, a very similar incident happened not too long ago - I vividly recall pics of the sailors (who apparently were packing some hardcore gear as well) being forced to march in circles under the midday sun. There were also a couple close calls involving British Tornadoes back during the invasion I think, seems they strayed and had some AA fired at them. Just seems like Dubya-style 'strategery' to taunt an overwhelmingly more powerful opponent when he's on your front door step with all his toys ready to go.




The Brits have been snooping for awhile, and get caught every now and then.
Anyone know if there have been similar incidents with American forces?

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,238
6,338
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The sailors have admitted to being in Iranian waters.

...according to their Iranian captors.

The waters themselves are very disputed territory, so only the Iranians believe that it's their territory.

These soldiers were kidnapped for political purposes.

Apparently the soldiers agree with the Iranians.
Like I said, according to their Iranian captors.

If you were being held by the Iranian IRGC, I wonder what you'd agree to...

But your assertion they were in Iraqi waters comes from the British.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The sailors have admitted to being in Iranian waters.

...according to their Iranian captors.

The waters themselves are very disputed territory, so only the Iranians believe that it's their territory.

These soldiers were kidnapped for political purposes.

Apparently the soldiers agree with the Iranians.
Like I said, according to their Iranian captors.

If you were being held by the Iranian IRGC, I wonder what you'd agree to...

I hope you're not trying to imply that there might be something wrong with confessions obtained under torture, or with people being held in shadowy military installations for indefinite periods of time...
 

libs0n

Member
May 16, 2005
197
0
76
Ah, came across the article again. Iran asserting its sovereignty or a smuggling inspection gone awry are the most likely explanations, however if this was indeed a premeditated act I believe this article sums up a candidate rational. Iran believes there is currently an ongoing operation to abduct high level members of its armed forces for intel purposes, and has threatened retaliation. This is a different matter than the Iranian consulate members previously arrested by the US in Iraq.

Iran to hit back at US kidnaps
Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv
From The Sunday Times
March 18, 2007

IRAN is threatening to retaliate in Europe for what it claims is a daring undercover operation by western intelligence services to kidnap senior officers in its Revolutionary Guard.

According to Iranian sources, several officers have been abducted in the past three months and the United States has drawn up a list of other targets to be seized with the aim of destabilising Tehran?s military command.

In an article in Subhi Sadek, the Revolutionary Guard?s weekly paper, Reza Faker, a writer believed to have close links to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, warned that Iran would strike back.

?We?ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks,? he said. ?Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.?

The first sign of a possible campaign against high-ranking Iranian officers emerged earlier this month with the discovery that Ali Reza Asgari, former commander of the Revolutionary Guard?s elite Quds Force in Lebanon and deputy defence minister, had vanished, apparently during a trip to Istanbul.

Asgari?s disappearance shocked the Iranian regime as he is believed to possess some of its most closely guarded secrets. The Quds Force is responsible for operations outside Iran.

Last week it was revealed that Colonel Amir Muhammed Shirazi, another high-ranking Revolutionary Guard officer, had disappeared, probably in Iraq.

A third Iranian general is also understood to be missing ? the head of the Revolutionary Guard in the Persian Gulf. Sources named him as Brigadier General Muhammed Soltani, but his identity could not be confirmed.

?This is no longer a coincidence, but rather an orchestrated operation to shake the higher echelons of the Revolutionary Guard,? said an Israeli source.

Other members of the Quds Force are said to have been seized in Irbil, in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq, by US special forces.

?The capture of Quds members in Irbil was essential for our understanding of Iranian activity in Iraq,? said an American official with knowledge of the operation.

One theory circulating in Israel is that a US taskforce known as the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG) is coordinating the campaign to take Revolutionary Guard commanders.

The Iranians have also accused the United States of being behind an attack on Revolutionary Guards in Iran last month in which at least 17 were killed.

Military analysts believe that Iranian threats of retaliation are credible. Tehran is notorious for settling scores. When the Israelis killed Abbas Mussawi, Hezbollah?s general secretary, in 1992 the Quds Force blew up the Israeli embassy in Argentina in revenge.

Despite the Iranian threat to retaliate in Europe, Iraq is seen by some analysts as a more likely place in which to attempt abductions.

?In Iraq, the Quds Force can easily get hold of American ? and British ? officers,? said a Jordanian intelligence source.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The sailors have admitted to being in Iranian waters.

...according to their Iranian captors.

The waters themselves are very disputed territory, so only the Iranians believe that it's their territory.

These soldiers were kidnapped for political purposes.

Apparently the soldiers agree with the Iranians.

You cant be that naive, can you?

 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
it was obviously just a mistake by the Iranians.
Thier inability to read a map is a result of poor schooling and training;)
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,866
1,515
126

How far away from the the Cornwall were these inflatable boats when they were intercepted? Didn't the Brits see Iranian boats on radar? According to the article, the Iranian boats were 'big'....for that matter, did the marines/sailors on the boats even see the Iranians coming? One would think they would have radioed back to the Cornwall that two Iranian naval vessels were approaching them...

Just curious since it 'seems' they were overtaken so quickly...
 

Pandaren

Golden Member
Sep 13, 2003
1,029
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The sailors have admitted to being in Iranian waters.

...according to their Iranian captors.

The waters themselves are very disputed territory, so only the Iranians believe that it's their territory.

These soldiers were kidnapped for political purposes.

And Moonbeam has admitted to being a Republican frakkup. Must be true because I said it, right? Saying it is so doesn't make it so. I think I'll wait for this whole thing to shake out before making up my mind.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,007
136
Originally posted by: libs0n
Ah, came across the article again. Iran asserting its sovereignty or a smuggling inspection gone awry are the most likely explanations, however if this was indeed a premeditated act I believe this article sums up a candidate rational. Iran believes there is currently an ongoing operation to abduct high level members of its armed forces for intel purposes, and has threatened retaliation. This is a different matter than the Iranian consulate members previously arrested by the US in Iraq.

Iran to hit back at US kidnaps
Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv
From The Sunday Times
March 18, 2007

Your argument is that it is an intentional act of war.
 

tommywishbone

Platinum Member
May 11, 2005
2,149
0
0
On a positive note; the Captain of the Cornwall said, "...The sailors were inspecting a ship, with a cargo of potentially illegal cars..."

Great, Cal Worthington is going to start WWIII.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
To Jackalas,

If you want to trot out every newspaper and blog that supports your viewpoint--so be it----but meanwhile my heart goes out to the people who are captives---some but not all may deserve their fate may be the worst case viewpoint---but now they are mere human beings really captive to the vanities of their respective leaders---and they suffer in limbo while their leaders cynically call their opponents all wrong and themselves 100% in the right.---and meanwhile puff out their feathers in outraged indignity while denying their actions were at least partially responsible for the captives being held in limbo.

If you want to know the entire truth about this matter and which parties are really to blame---get a clue---it ain't going to happen---the truth on this will be forever KIA.

For the sakes of the captives---lets keep emotions down.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,238
6,338
126
Originally posted by: Pandaren
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The sailors have admitted to being in Iranian waters.

...according to their Iranian captors.

The waters themselves are very disputed territory, so only the Iranians believe that it's their territory.

These soldiers were kidnapped for political purposes.

And Moonbeam has admitted to being a Republican frakkup. Must be true because I said it, right? Saying it is so doesn't make it so. I think I'll wait for this whole thing to shake out before making up my mind.
Congratulations, that was my whole point. Everybody has a motive to lie if they were where they we not supposed to be. We may never know the actual truth unless there are satellite images etc, and even those could be doctored.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Iran: U.K. troops admit to illegal entry

TEHRAN, Iran - The Iranian military questioned 15 detained British sailors and marines Saturday and said they had confessed to illegally entering Iranian waters in an act of "blatant aggression."

Britain has demanded the return of the sailors and marines and denied they had strayed into Iranian waters while searching for smugglers off Iraq's coast.

The eight Royal Navy sailors and seven Royal Marines were brought to Tehran for questioning, and a a top military official, Gen. Ali Reza Afshar, said they "confessed to illegal entry into Iran's waters."

"The said personnel are being interrogated and have confessed to aggression into the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters," Afshar was quoted as saying by the state news agency IRNA and the semiofficial ISNA news agency. He did not say what would now be done with the sailors.

The British marines and sailors, who included at least one woman, had just searched a merchant ship when they and their two inflatable boats were intercepted by Iranian vessels Friday at around 10:30 a.m. near the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway, U.S. and British officials said. The Iranian vessels surrounded them and escorted them away at gunpoint.

The seizure of the British sailors came at a time of heightened tensions over Iran's nuclear ambitions and over allegations that Iran is arming Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq. Still, Britain was treating it as a mistake rather than a provocation.

In London, the British government summoned the Iranian ambassador for the second time, demanding the safe return of the sailors and Royal Marines.

Lord Triesman, a Foreign Office under-secretary, spent more than an hour with Rasoul Movahedian, and sought assurances about the group's welfare and consular access, the British government said.

The European Union also called for the "immediate liberation" of the captured sailors.

Iranian hard-liners called for the 15 Britons to be held until Iran wins political concessions from the West.

Several conservative student groups have called on the Iranian government not to release sailors until five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in Iraq earlier this year are freed and U.N. plans for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program are canceled. Some 500 Iranian students gathered on the shore near where the soldiers were captured, shouting "Death to Britain" and "Death to America," the Fars news agency reported.

The U.N. Security Council was scheduled to vote Saturday on new sanctions against Iran over its refusal of U.N. demands that it suspend uranium enrichment. The U.S. and other nations suspect Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons. Iran denies that and insists it will not halt the program.

With tensions running high, the United States has bolstered its naval forces in the Persian Gulf in a show of strength directed at Iran. U.S. officials have expressed concern that with so much military hardware in the Gulf, a small incident like Friday's could escalate into a dangerous confrontation.

In his comments on the sailors, Afshar added a warning that the United States would not be able to control the consequences if it attacks Iran.

"The United States and its allies know that if they make any mistake in their calculations ... they will not be able to control the dimensions and limit the duration of a war," Afshar said.

In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the same waterway. They were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally, then released unharmed after three days.

Earlier this week, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, warned this week that if Western countries "treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack."

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini accused the British of "violating the sovereign boundaries" of Iran, calling the entry a "blatant aggression."

He accused Britain of trying to cover up the incursion, saying it should "refrain from putting the blame on others."

The seizure of the Britons took place in an area where boundaries between Iraqi and Iranian waters have long been disputed. A 1975 treaty set the center of the Shatt al-Arab ? the 125-mile-long channel known in Iran as the Arvand River ? as the border.

But Saddam Hussein canceled the 1975 treaty five years later and invaded Iran, triggering an eight-year war. Virtually all of Iraq's oil is exported through a terminal near the mouth of the channel.

Britain's Defense Ministry said the Royal Navy personnel were in Iraqi territorial waters when they were seized. Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet in Bahrain also said it was "very clear" they were in Iraqi waters.

"We've been on operations there for several years," Aandahl said. He said coalition vessels respect the 1975 treaty.

The sailors, from the frigate HMS Cornwall, are part of a task force that maintains security in Iraqi waters under authority of the U.N. Security Council.

The Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said he hoped the detention was a "simple mistake" stemming from the unclear border.

But the Iraqi military commander of the country's territorial waters said the British boats may not have been in Iraqi territory.

"We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control," Brig. Gen. Hakim Jassim told AP Television News in the southern city of Basra.

"We don't know why they were there," he said.

The news agency Fars said navigational equipment on the seized British boats "show that they (sailors) were aware that they were operating in Iranian waters and Iranian border guards fulfilled their responsibility."

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

Open and shut case. The British troops were in Iranian waters, and Iran had every right under international law to seize and detain them. The Iranians have as much right to control their seas as we do ours.
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Iran: U.K. troops admit to illegal entry

TEHRAN, Iran - The Iranian military questioned 15 detained British sailors and marines Saturday and said they had confessed to illegally entering Iranian waters in an act of "blatant aggression."

Britain has demanded the return of the sailors and marines and denied they had strayed into Iranian waters while searching for smugglers off Iraq's coast.

The eight Royal Navy sailors and seven Royal Marines were brought to Tehran for questioning, and a a top military official, Gen. Ali Reza Afshar, said they "confessed to illegal entry into Iran's waters."

"The said personnel are being interrogated and have confessed to aggression into the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters," Afshar was quoted as saying by the state news agency IRNA and the semiofficial ISNA news agency. He did not say what would now be done with the sailors.

The British marines and sailors, who included at least one woman, had just searched a merchant ship when they and their two inflatable boats were intercepted by Iranian vessels Friday at around 10:30 a.m. near the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway, U.S. and British officials said. The Iranian vessels surrounded them and escorted them away at gunpoint.

The seizure of the British sailors came at a time of heightened tensions over Iran's nuclear ambitions and over allegations that Iran is arming Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq. Still, Britain was treating it as a mistake rather than a provocation.

In London, the British government summoned the Iranian ambassador for the second time, demanding the safe return of the sailors and Royal Marines.

Lord Triesman, a Foreign Office under-secretary, spent more than an hour with Rasoul Movahedian, and sought assurances about the group's welfare and consular access, the British government said.

The European Union also called for the "immediate liberation" of the captured sailors.

Iranian hard-liners called for the 15 Britons to be held until Iran wins political concessions from the West.

Several conservative student groups have called on the Iranian government not to release sailors until five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in Iraq earlier this year are freed and U.N. plans for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program are canceled. Some 500 Iranian students gathered on the shore near where the soldiers were captured, shouting "Death to Britain" and "Death to America," the Fars news agency reported.

The U.N. Security Council was scheduled to vote Saturday on new sanctions against Iran over its refusal of U.N. demands that it suspend uranium enrichment. The U.S. and other nations suspect Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons. Iran denies that and insists it will not halt the program.

With tensions running high, the United States has bolstered its naval forces in the Persian Gulf in a show of strength directed at Iran. U.S. officials have expressed concern that with so much military hardware in the Gulf, a small incident like Friday's could escalate into a dangerous confrontation.

In his comments on the sailors, Afshar added a warning that the United States would not be able to control the consequences if it attacks Iran.

"The United States and its allies know that if they make any mistake in their calculations ... they will not be able to control the dimensions and limit the duration of a war," Afshar said.

In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the same waterway. They were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally, then released unharmed after three days.

Earlier this week, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, warned this week that if Western countries "treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack."

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini accused the British of "violating the sovereign boundaries" of Iran, calling the entry a "blatant aggression."

He accused Britain of trying to cover up the incursion, saying it should "refrain from putting the blame on others."

The seizure of the Britons took place in an area where boundaries between Iraqi and Iranian waters have long been disputed. A 1975 treaty set the center of the Shatt al-Arab ? the 125-mile-long channel known in Iran as the Arvand River ? as the border.

But Saddam Hussein canceled the 1975 treaty five years later and invaded Iran, triggering an eight-year war. Virtually all of Iraq's oil is exported through a terminal near the mouth of the channel.

Britain's Defense Ministry said the Royal Navy personnel were in Iraqi territorial waters when they were seized. Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet in Bahrain also said it was "very clear" they were in Iraqi waters.

"We've been on operations there for several years," Aandahl said. He said coalition vessels respect the 1975 treaty.

The sailors, from the frigate HMS Cornwall, are part of a task force that maintains security in Iraqi waters under authority of the U.N. Security Council.

The Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said he hoped the detention was a "simple mistake" stemming from the unclear border.

But the Iraqi military commander of the country's territorial waters said the British boats may not have been in Iraqi territory.

"We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control," Brig. Gen. Hakim Jassim told AP Television News in the southern city of Basra.

"We don't know why they were there," he said.

The news agency Fars said navigational equipment on the seized British boats "show that they (sailors) were aware that they were operating in Iranian waters and Iranian border guards fulfilled their responsibility."

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

Open and shut case. The British troops were in Iranian waters, and Iran had every right under international law to seize and detain them. The Iranians have as much right to control their seas as we do ours.

Wow... you're an idiot...

Open and shut case? are you that assanine? An Iranian.... STATERUN-news agency says what? The Iranian officials say what? and you just buy it wholesale...

Amazing... You'd buy lead candy if Bush said you shouldn't...

I'm curious to see what you say when the nuke from Iran finally falls... Hopefully both of us will be around to comment.

Naive fool...

-Max
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Doboji
Wow... you're an idiot...

Open and shut case? are you that assanine? An Iranian.... STATERUN-news agency says what? The Iranian officials say what? and you just buy it wholesale...

Amazing... You'd buy lead candy if Bush said you shouldn't...

I'm curious to see what you say when the nuke from Iran finally falls... Hopefully both of us will be around to comment.

Naive fool...

-Max

And yet you guys just as easily digest the "military intelligence reports" from the US and British governments. How is our military propaganda (WMDs, imminent doom, yellow-cake uranium) any different than theirs?

Iran will never issue an unprovoked nuclear strike on any target. It's a deterrent, just like it is for Israel, Pakistan, India, USA, and Russia. Get over yourself and your zany crystal ball predictions. No state would open themselves up for being targeted for a retaliatory nuclear strike.
 

tommywishbone

Platinum Member
May 11, 2005
2,149
0
0
"I'm curious to see what you say when the nuke from Iran finally falls... Hopefully both of us will be around to comment"

On a less fearful note; it's nice to see that your keyboard reaches all the way under your bed.
 

libs0n

Member
May 16, 2005
197
0
76
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: libs0n
Ah, came across the article again. Iran asserting its sovereignty or a smuggling inspection gone awry are the most likely explanations, however if this was indeed a premeditated act I believe this article sums up a candidate rational. Iran believes there is currently an ongoing operation to abduct high level members of its armed forces for intel purposes, and has threatened retaliation. This is a different matter than the Iranian consulate members previously arrested by the US in Iraq.

Iran to hit back at US kidnaps
Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv
From The Sunday Times
March 18, 2007

Your argument is that it is an intentional act of war.

No, I wasn't arguing anything at all, in fact I tried to phrase what I wrote in such a way to show that I consider the first two options presented as the most likely scenario, with the article as just something interesting I wanted to throw out there that probably isn't the case at all but is still relevant to the discussion; a bit of background into the low level subtext of actions being taken against Iran which include the sponsorship of rogue elements inside Iran, as well as the funding of extremist Islamic radicals as a sort of counter to expanded Iranian influence in the region. It is far too often the case when an incident like this comes up that the public awareness is only on the topic at hand and excludes awareness of motivating factors, not that I'm saying that that's the case in this instant.

Any action or incident can be spun as the trigger for war by those with a motive to do so. You're looking for a rhetorical line to frame the issue as an absolute case of an Iranian transgression that would therefore justify all that comes afterwards and even actions beforehand as well as how you've already lined it up in your head.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,226
5,803
126
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The sailors have admitted to being in Iranian waters.

...according to their Iranian captors.

The waters themselves are very disputed territory, so only the Iranians believe that it's their territory.

These soldiers were kidnapped for political purposes.

Apparently the soldiers agree with the Iranians.
Like I said, according to their Iranian captors.

If you were being held by the Iranian IRGC, I wonder what you'd agree to...

I hope you're not trying to imply that there might be something wrong with confessions obtained under torture, or with people being held in shadowy military installations for indefinite periods of time...

hehe
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,226
5,803
126
Originally posted by: tommywishbone
On a positive note; the Captain of the Cornwall said, "...The sailors were inspecting a ship, with a cargo of potentially illegal cars..."

Great, Cal Worthington is going to start WWIII.

not Cal, his "dog" spot. It's an evil shapeshifter!!!
 

dualsmp

Golden Member
Aug 16, 2003
1,627
45
91
Bomb Them! Nuke Them! Glass Parking Lot!!!!

Glass Parking Lot!!!!
Glass Parking Lot!!!!
Glass Parking Lot!!!!


Whoops, thought I was a mindless Neo-Con for a second. Sorry. :eek: