Of course it was bloody deliberate; Iran's actions after the capture make that quite obvious but the West is so keen to not-fight we're ignoring the repeated insults.
Posted at 2007-03-29 08:40:38 [PermaLink]Can we exchange Rosie for the 15 hostages? I know this would be harsh on Iran, but what the heck!
Posted at 2007-03-29 10:41:48 [PermaLink]When will western leaders get it through their heads that kidnappings and hostage-taking are the islamist's stock in trade?
When will they wake up to the fact that Islam is a practicioner, par excellence, of brigandry?
Modern western leaders have less gut instinct about the Islamic mindset than those dodgey medieval monarchs.
I mean, it's only been 8 or 9 centuries since Louis IX (I believe) of France was taken hostage, transported to Egypt and then ransommed for a sum that amounted to about half of France's treasury.
And it was only last summer that Hamas and co. kidnapped those Israeli soldiers
This is a win-win situation for the mullahs. They waited for their chance, and when it came they pounced on it like wily bobcats
They can now shore up their failing legitimacy by parading the hostages around, much as they did back in 1980.
And if the British decide to take military action, such military action will only galvanize and re-energise that portion of the Iranian population that once supported the revolution, but which has now grown weary with it.
This incident isn't about humiliating The West; it's about a tottering régime attempting to maintain its grip on power.
With this new crop of hostages, Allah now has a meal-ticket.
Even if western leaders decide to blow up some oil refineries or blockade the tankers, they will simply end up giving the Islamist régime a new lease on life.
I put some of the blame for this on the British themselves.
I'm sorry, that may sound crude and even mean, but you'd have to be somewhat stupid to send out military personnel into dangerous waters, knowing what we know about the Mullahs, armed with nothing but a two-bit rifle.
Like the hostages in '79-'80, this show is just going to go on and on and on.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Irans actions aren't desperate, they're calculated.
They're pushing around the British who are seen as a proxy for the Americans. In the end, Iranians caught in Iraq will be returned in exchange for the servicemen kidnapped from Iraqi waters, and Iran will have greater power and prestige in the region. No Arab country will want to stand up to them based on assurances from Britain or the U.S.
And another dangerous precedent will have been set with regard to hostages. For domestic reasons, the British government can neither let this drag on nor be seen as acquiescing too quickly. But acquiesce they will.
In case it isn't obvious, by lady, I am referring to the British government, not you John.
Posted at 2007-03-29 11:00:32 [PermaLink]I am sick of this non stop babble coming from the brit's. This situation is a perfect example of how the right or conservative type governments are constantly getting beat up by the left or radical movement. I consider myself a conservative but the thing I hate about being a conservative is the way we let the other side trash us and treat us like crap and lie and we do nothing about it, which is exactly what Iran is doing. Another example is Ireal, they are still getting bombed even after signing a peace agreement from last summers war. Blaire may retaliate but its too late he missed his chance. More conservatives in higher places need to grow more back bone.
Posted at 2007-03-29 11:33:54 [PermaLink]Instead of properly arming these sailors, their "superiors" probably put the emphasis on sensitivity-training.
Anything larger than a pellet gun would be percieved as an offense by Muslims, a provocation.
And those who still believe that large numbers of moderate Muslims exist are no doubt encouraged by the sight of 1000s of Muslims marching through the streets of Enlgand, Union Jacks flying, denouncing hostage-taking as unislamic.....
People like Jimmy Carter.
Check out this bullshit.
[External Link]
There is an alternative explanation.
Someone in Iran misread a map, thought the British were in Iranian water, and decided that now would be a good time to take a few prisoners for an exchange.
This would explain why the Iranians reportedly gave the British information indicating the British were in fact in Iraqi water and then gave out different coordinates indicating they were in Iranian water.
It still looks like the Iranians have a winning hand to me, though.
That's 3 minutes in which the frigate standing by would have known the Iranians had crossed the border and were speeding straight for their personnel. Three minutes in which a well-armed Lynx -- already airborne -- could have intervened.
Basically it was three minutes of uselessness.
Three minutes to start a war over vessels of uncertain intention.
Posted at 2007-03-29 17:29:43 [PermaLink]'Start' a war? Iran has been at war with the West since 1979.
Posted at 2007-03-29 18:49:01 [PermaLink]Start a war? Are you serious?
The Iranians don't have the ability to wage a war. They import half their gasoline basically through one lightly protected port for Godsakes. The "war" would last five minutes.
What the Iranians do engage in is terror, assassination and kidnapping: in Iraq, in Lebanon, Argentina, Germany, the list is long and growing.
Not to stop them from doing this, even under the nose of one of the most powerful frigates in the world, is mind-boggling.
"The Iranians don't have the ability to wage a war."
Iran was at war with Iraq for 8 years during which they had an estimated half-million casualties and inflicted an estimated 375,000 on the Iraqis. Both sides used poison gas.
Do you want some Navy Commander on a Frigate making that determination in less than three minutes?
Chip and Crispy:
I don't know if you dropped in for a read at the time, but this thread from a few days back discusses some of the ramifications of the obliterate/don't-obliterate-the-Iranian-Navy debate.
[External Link]