Former British hostages speak up....

[grunt]

ROYAL MARINE BASE CHIVENOR, England - The 15 British sailors seized by Iran were kept blindfolded, bound and in isolation by their Iranian captors who threatened them with seven years in jail, they told a news conference Friday.

Lt. Felix Carman said the crew faced harsh interrogation by their Iranian captors and slept in stone cells on piles of blankets.

"All of us were kept in isolation. We were interrogated most nights and presented with two options. If we admitted that we'd strayed, we'd be on a plane to (Britain) pretty soon," Carman said. "If we didn't, we faced up to seven years in prison."

Royal Marine Capt. Chris Air said the crew of 15, which was out on a routine operation on March 23, was confronted by members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

"They rammed our boats, and trained their heavy machine guns, RPGs, and weapons on us. Another six boats were closing in on us," Air said. "We realized that had we resisted there would have been a major fight, one we could not have won, with consequences that would have major strategic impacts. We made a conscious decision not to engage the Iranians."

Operations under review
Britain's top naval officer said boarding operations would be suspended while a review is conducted.

"Coalition operations continue under U.K. command," said Adm. Jonathon Band, head of the Royal Navy. "Currently, our (operations) have been suspended while we do that review."

While much of the country rallied behind the crew's return, others criticized them for offering apologies where none was required -- namely for appearing in videos in which they admitted and offered regrets for entering Iranian waters.

Carman had been pictured on Iranian television apologizing for straying into Iranian waters. At Friday's news conference, he retracted that apology.

"Let me make this clear -- irrespective of what was said in the past -- we were inside Iraqi waters," he said.

[typomaniac]

I can't say that I'm surprised: I remember the media coverage of the "hostage" situation at the US Embassy very clearly, even though I was quite young at the time.

We should have declared war on Iran over that obvious act of war on their part. I believe it to this day. Carter, sadly, was too much of a good Christian to be a good president.

[krisy]

Sounds like the pricks a Guatanemo are treated better. I'm not suprised they were treated this way. How could anyone be naieve enough to exoect anything less? I also don't undrstand how ayone could critsize these sailors for saying what they were told. I can't imagine that terror they were going through.

[LiberalNation]

They weren't treated to bad. We use those kinds of interrogation techniques as well for people we capture.

[LiberalNation]

....

[Mr. P]

They weren't treated to bad. We use those kinds of interrogation techniques as well for people we capture.

For POWs perhaps. Is Iran at war with England?

[LiberalNation]

Nope but I do believe they considered the Brits enemy combatents on their territory.

[Mr. P]

Nope but I do believe they considered the Brits enemy combatents on their territory.

Why would or could they believe that, the British have not attacked Iran.

[LiberalNation]

but they are aiding people who have.

[Roomy]

Different rules apply when you are arrested by a nation you aren't at with with as opposed to one you are at war with.They didn't break the official secrets act or anything they told the Iranians what they wanted to hear and they are home now.If we had been at war with Iran I expect it would have been a whole lot different.

[Mr. P]

but they are aiding people who have.

Who has attacked Iran that they are aiding?

[Mr. P]

Different rules apply when you are arrested by a nation you aren't at with with as opposed to one you are at war with.They didn't break the official secrets act or anything they told the Iranians what they wanted to hear and they are home now.If we had been at war with Iran I expect it would have been a whole lot different.

I think we may find that this incident brought us close to war with Iran.

[Roomy]

I think we may find that this incident brought us close to war with Iran.

I fervently believe that if the Iranians had harmed any of our people they would be regretting it absolutely round about now.The British people would have backed large scale retaliation and the Iranians know it.

[Kathianne]

Different rules apply when you are arrested by a nation you aren't at with with as opposed to one you are at war with.They didn't break the official secrets act or anything they told the Iranians what they wanted to hear and they are home now.If we had been at war with Iran I expect it would have been a whole lot different.

Correct, different rules apply if the countries were at war. Different rules apply for those in uniform and those not, the first representing a country that is responsible, the second either terrorists or fronting for a country or group that doesn't want responsibility.

I think the US moving two carriers into the Gulf, along with the info coming out of UK, let the Iranians know they had milked the cow dry. Any longer, Iran would not have come out on top, which I think they have for the short term.

On the other hand, why did they do it? It was obvious that their waters were not crossed, so why? The fact that Security Council was meeting? That IAEA was about to actually about to make the call that Iran's nuclear program was further advanced and not necessarily for energy?

[Yurt]

but they are aiding people who have.

And Iran is not aiding any in Iraq?

We have discussed this before, but apparently you want to believe that only Iran is good and the brits and americans are bad.

Why is that?

[Roomy]

Correct, different rules apply if the countries were at war. Different rules apply for those in uniform and those not, the first representing a country that is responsible, the second either terrorists or fronting for a country or group that doesn't want responsibility.

I think the US moving two carriers into the Gulf, along with the info coming out of UK, let the Iranians know they had milked the cow dry. Any longer, Iran would not have come out on top, which I think they have for the short term.

On the other hand, why did they do it? It was obvious that their waters were not crossed, so why? The fact that Security Council was meeting? That IAEA was about to actually about to make the call that Iran's nuclear program was further advanced and not necessarily for energy?

If we do anything now with regards to their nuclear programme they can claim the moral high ground and cry retaliation.They are like children, schoolyard tactics at best, IMO.

[Kathianne]

If we do anything now with regards to their nuclear programme they can claim the moral high ground and cry retaliation.They are like children, schoolyard tactics at best, IMO.

I think we are going to have to wait for the long term fallout, maybe make that medium term. As I said, I think Iran came out ahead in the short term, but other nations, including the UN may well see a pattern in the making. The previous Brit hostage taking also coincided with UN activity against Iran. There is more to come. If the Brits and Americans are watching for it, it maybe Russians or French that find themselves dealing with them.

[Roomy]

I think we are going to have to wait for the long term fallout, maybe make that medium term. As I said, I think Iran came out ahead in the short term, but other nations, including the UN may well see a pattern in the making. The previous Brit hostage taking also coincided with UN activity against Iran. There is more to come. If the Brits and Americans are watching for it, it maybe Russians or French that find themselves dealing with them.


I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any other nations than ours doing anything significant against Iran.The Russians dwell in the past and the French are French.

[Kathianne]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any other nations than ours doing anything significant against Iran.The Russians dwell in the past and the French are French.

I agree with that, totally. On the other hand, while lord knows what the Russians would do, the French would probably deal. On the other hand, we might well face less 'international condemnation' in the long term, thanks to this 'Iranian win.' At least that is one of my 'hopes.'

[Roomy]

I agree with that, totally. On the other hand, while lord knows what the Russians would do, the French would probably deal. On the other hand, we might well face less 'international condemnation' in the long term, thanks to this 'Iranian win.' At least that is one of my 'hopes.'


I think us Brits and you Americans need no other validation than our own, we do what we we have to do, all these UN resolutions look nice but they mean nothing in reality, a bunch of rules that get broken quicker than they can write them.Europe nods it's head at us but does fuck all to help, as per usual we go it alone.

[Kathianne]

I think us Brits and you Americans need no other validation than our own, we do what we we have to do, all these UN resolutions look nice but they mean nothing in reality, a bunch of rules that get broken quicker than they can write them.Europe nods it's head at us but does fuck all to help, as per usual we go it alone.
I know that many, if the not the majority of US population think we should withdraw from the UN. What has been happening there for over 30 years is helping to make this a more dangerous world.

From press I understand most Britons feel differently. No?

[LiberalNation]

And Iran is not aiding any in Iraq?

We have discussed this before, but apparently you want to believe that only Iran is good and the brits and americans are bad.

Why is that?

Sure they are aiding people in Iraq. I'm not saying Irans good but I'm also don't saying the west is spotless.

[Roomy]

I know that many, if the not the majority of US population think we should withdraw from the UN. What has been happening there for over 30 years is helping to make this a more dangerous world.

From press I understand most Britons feel differently. No?

Not this Englishman, the Un is an ineffective, spineless, cowardly and apologetic bureaucratic nonsense as far as I am concerned.Waiting for those idiots to make a real decision is like waiting to die.

[Roomy]

Sure they are aiding people in Iraq. I'm not saying Irans good but I'm also don't saying the west is spotless.

Have you been puffing on a spliff?:cool:

[Kathianne]

Not this Englishman, the Un is an ineffective, spineless, cowardly and apologetic bureaucratic nonsense as far as I am concerned.Waiting for those idiots to make a real decision is like waiting to die.

Trust me, we'll both be dead before they make a 'real decision.'

[Roomy]

Trust me, we'll both be dead before they make a 'real decision.'


I know it, Iran might be a sandpit as well.

[Kathianne]

I know it, Iran might be a sandpit as well.

Iran is a sandpit! Whether or not the sand is turned to glass, may well depend upon whether US/UK/AU are willing to let UN dictate if they do develop nukes, which are now said possible in 2 years or less.

[typomaniac]

I can't say that I'm surprised: I remember the media coverage of the "hostage" situation at the US Embassy very clearly, even though I was quite young at the time.

We should have declared war on Iran over that obvious act of war on their part. I believe it to this day. Carter, sadly, was too much of a good Christian to be a good president.One of the other members on this board, Yurt, accused me of being a religious bigot for having made this post (via a reputation message). When I PMed him to ask why he came to that conclusion, he insisted that he'd discuss it only on the board.

So, Yurt, now's your chance. What exactly do you mean by this comment?

[Roomy]

Iran is a sandpit! Whether or not the sand is turned to glass, may well depend upon whether US/UK/AU are willing to let UN dictate if they do develop nukes, which are now said possible in 2 years or less.


I don't think we are going to allow them to do that, do you?

[Kathianne]

I don't think we are going to allow them to do that, do you?

Actually, I really don't know. As for this country, I'll say if a Democrat is elected, no. If a Republican president is elected, while Congress stays Democrat, it's more than possible.

Right now, Congress is of the mindset that they are fighting anything GW. They don't seem to care about the repercussions. At the same time, there is nothing to indicate that they are idiots in general as their past votes indicate. So if the executive branch goes Democratic, they will back the president.

[Roomy]

Actually, I really don't know. As for this country, I'll say if a Democrat is elected, no. If a Republican president is elected, while Congress stays Democrat, it's more than possible.

Right now, Congress is of the mindset that they are fighting anything GW. They don't seem to care about the repercussions. At the same time, there is nothing to indicate that they are idiots in general as their past votes indicate. So if the executive branch goes Democratic, they will back the president.


People power usually wins the day here, governments get the message one way or the other.

[Kathianne]

People power usually wins the day here, governments get the message one way or the other.

While we, (meaning US) often laugh at the Parliamentary systems, we have a serious problem going on. When the Speaker of the House, third in line for the Presidency, decides she can act as a shadow government, there is more than a small problem. We do not have the mechanisms for dealing with that, if Congress will not censure or remove, which is more than unlikely.

I do wonder if the rest of the world understands just how unstable our entire governmental system is right now?

[Roomy]

While we, (meaning US) often laugh at the Parliamentary systems, we have a serious problem going on. When the Speaker of the House, third in line for the Presidency, decides she can act as a shadow government, there is more than a small problem. We do not have the mechanisms for dealing with that, if Congress will not censure or remove, which is more than unlikely.

I do wonder if the rest of the world understands just how unstable our entire governmental system is right now?


From my POV it apppears that your political parties kick each other while you are down, here, when push comes to shove, the different parties reluctantly back each other up in times of war.

[Kathianne]

From my POV it apppears that your political parties kick each other while you are down, here, when push comes to shove, the different parties reluctantly back each other up in times of war.

For the first time ever, that is not happening in time of war. Seriously. Doesn't mean there wasn't dissent in the past, there always has been, but now it's beyond ideology, the Democrats truly are warring with the president, during war. They will gladly bring him down, CIC or not. They do not care about the repercussions to the troops, foreign policy, nothing. As I said, if a Democratic president is elected, it would change on a dime.

Problem is, we are not the same nation, probably will never be again.

[Roomy]

For the first time ever, that is not happening in time of war. Seriously. Doesn't mean there wasn't dissent in the past, there always has been, but now it's beyond ideology, the Democrats truly are warring with the president, during war. They will gladly bring him down, CIC or not. They do not care about the repercussions to the troops, foreign policy, nothing. As I said, if a Democratic president is elected, it would change on a dime.

Problem is, we are not the same nation, probably will never be again.

If that is the case, I worry for the world.

[Kathianne]

If that is the case, I worry for the world.

Well we must all hope that the critics have been right all along and that a world without the US as it's been, will be a better world.

[Mr. P]

For the first time ever, that is not happening in time of war. Seriously. Doesn't mean there wasn't dissent in the past, there always has been, but now it's beyond ideology, the Democrats truly are warring with the president, during war. They will gladly bring him down, CIC or not. They do not care about the repercussions to the troops, foreign policy, nothing. As I said, if a Democratic president is elected, it would change on a dime.

Problem is, we are not the same nation, probably will never be again.

Sad but SO TRUE!

[Gaffer]

I'm watching the movements in the middle east. There were already two carrier groups in the guld when the Brits were taken prisoner. A third is going in now. National Guard are to be activated. Troops that have come home are looking at early redeployment. A surge is in the works in baghdad. But no one says those troops have to be going there. If I were looking to take on iran I would do a build up as quietly as posible along the border. russia has already made a point to tell the iranians and some news organizations that they have detected build ups along the iranian border. So lets put 2 and 2 together and see if we come up with 3.

[Yurt]

One of the other members on this board, Yurt, accused me of being a religious bigot for having made this post (via a reputation message). When I PMed him to ask why he came to that conclusion, he insisted that he'd discuss it only on the board.

So, Yurt, now's your chance. What exactly do you mean by this comment?


Carter, sadly, was too much of a good Christian to be a good president

It speaks for itself

[typomaniac]

It speaks for itselfDo you honestly believe that a good president should "turn the other cheek" when his or her country is attacked?

Yes or no?

[Yurt]

Do you honestly believe that a good president should "turn the other cheek" when his or her country is attacked?

Yes or no?

No. Turn the other cheek is about religious persecution. Do you believe that if your sister is getting raped in front of you that you should turn the other cheek?

yes or no?

[typomaniac]

No. Turn the other cheek is about religious persecution. Do you believe that if your sister is getting raped in front of you that you should turn the other cheek?

yes or no?I'd say no, but then again I am not a Christian. :dance:

The point, Mr. Y, is that in order to be successful as a politician, one must do things that a very religious Christian - or Jew or Moslem - would likely consider immoral. This is not an attack on Christianity, but on politicians.

Especially the hypocritical ones. :nudge: :nudge: ;) ;)