And for the home audience….
In my post yesterday I talked about the propaganda value the hostages had for Iran:
As I’ve written before, [the propaganda of the event] is a winning situation for the Iranians, both for internal consumption and external. They are made to look first strong and then magnanimous, and the Brits are made to look weak and impotent.
Some in the comments section wondered what I meant; they didn’t see the Iranians as looking strong. I was talking about the following, which Amir Taheri has kindly described and put into historic perspective for us in detail in the Times Online today, to wit:
The seizure of hostages is based on an ancient tradition first practised by early Islamic conquerors. The Arab general Saad Abi Waqqas realised that Muslim fighters were awestruck by the Byzantine soldiers in the early stages of Islamic conquests in the 7th century. He solved the problem by putting captured Byzantine soldiers on show to demonstrate that the “Infidel” were fragile men, not mythical giants…..
[Ahmadinejad] showed that his regime could heighten tension any time. He told his Revolutionary Guards not to be unnerved by the talk of war with the “Infidel”. He enhanced his popularity among Arabs, who now regard him as heir to Nasser, and his dream of wiping Israel off the map. He also used the incident as a smokescreen for a purge of dissidents within the Establishment, putting several prominent figures on trial for “damaging state security”.
Taheri mentions that a similar stratagem was tried last September on American forces near the Iraqi border, but they fought back and were not captured. Interesting. If at first you don’t succeed, try try…on a better target.
The whole point of this Iranian ‘self assertion’ was to demonstrate to the West that they could do it, but more importantly, Iran knows they can push the proverbial envelope even further now. It’s a street axiom that if you can kick someone in the shin and not be hit back, then they can be kicked in the groin if necessary. The Brits were happy to have their own back intact, not missing fingers and eyes and having had holes drilled in their teeth. There was nothing for them to give up and disclose while being held, so of course they would come home in one piece. Admiral Rand of the Brit Navy made a statement, “they gave up nothing”. How obtuse does he think people are? Duhh! What could sailors/marines on a routine search for contraband possibly disclose? Dietary secrets of the Navy? Toilet paper rationing numbers? How about the amount of chocolate they are being alloted while at sea? Tell us how much tea you have in the ship’s galley or we’ll gouge out an eye! We have ways of making you talk!
What about the fact that, after being released, the captain of the released Britons has said that they were “gathering intelligence”, i.e. spying on Iran, when they were captured?
“We Gathered Intelligence”
Updated: 22:05, Thursday April 05, 2007
The captain in charge of the 15 marines detained in Iran has said they
were gathering intelligence on the Iranians.
Sky News went on patrol with Captain Chris Air and his team in Iraqi
waters close to the area where they were arrested – just five days
before the crisis began.
We withheld the interview until now so it would not jeopardise their safety.
And today, former Iranian diplomat Dr Mehrdad Khonsari said if the
Iranians had known about it, they would have used it to “justify taking
the marines captive and put them on trial”.
Rest of story at:
Sorry, the link had gone missing from my previous post.
The rest of the story is .
Imagine the following scenario: if the US Coast Guard had picked up a boat of Iranian sailors off the coast of California, what would the USA have done?
And what would the USA have done if the men admitted later that they had been spying?
The link to the story is here:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1259451,00.html
I guess that would depend, Charlemagne, if the Iranian sailors were in U.S. or international waters. It was quite clear that the British were in Iraqi waters.
The second issue is that the British were acting not as adversaries, but under a UN Mandate, to which Iran is a party.
The third issue is Iran’s flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions in its handling of the prisoners, to which it is/was a signatory. Or, do you happen to believe that only Western governments need to observe the Geneva Conventions?
The fourth issue is the British Government’s total lack of will in protecting its own soldiers. Sadly, there simply is no good answer to that one.
There, does that clear things up?
Danny Lemieux writes: “I guess that would depend, Charlemagne, if the Iranian sailors were in U.S. or international waters. It was quite clear that the British were in Iraqi waters.”
That’s not clear at all. As Craig Murray, , former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, and a former head of the Foreign Office’s maritime section, who was personally involved in negotiations on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, points out (full text at ):
“Tony Blair has let it be known that he is “utterly confident” that the British personnel were in Iraqi waters. He has of course never been known for his expertise in the Law of the Sea. But let us contrast this political certainty with the actual knowledge of the Royal Navy Commander of the operation on which the captives were taken.
“Before the spin doctors could get to him, Commodore Lambert said:
“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in their territorial waters. The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated”.
“That is precisely right. The boundary between Iran and Iraq in the northern Persian Gulf has never been fixed. (Within the Shatt-al-Arab itself a line was fixed, but was to be updated every ten years because the waterway shifts, according to the treaty. As it has not been updated in over twenty years, whether it is still valid is a moot point. But it appears this incident occurred well south of the Shatt anyway.) This is a perfectly legitimate dispute. […]
“Until a boundary is agreed, you could only be certain that the personnel were in Iraqi territorial waters if they were within twelve miles of the coast and, at the same time, more than twelve miles from any island, spit, bar or sandbank claimed by Iran (or Kuwait).
“Until a boundary is set, it is not easy to posit where it should be. It has to be done by negotiation or arbitration. I have participated in these negotiations, for example on the boundary between the Channel Islands and France.
“With a dead straight coastline with no islands, and a dead straight border between two countries hitting the coast at a right angle, you could have a straight maritime border between the two running out from the coast at a right angle. This never happens.”
See full article at:
By the way, the full text of the article by Craig Murray that I quoted above is at:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/murray290307.html
Lemieux writes:
“The third issue is Iran’s flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions in its handling of the prisoners, to which it is/was a signatory.”
The Geneva conventions apply to prisoners of war. Are Britain and Iran at war? Well, no. Why should the Geneva conventions apply here.
The Geneva conventions of course prohibit parading prisoners of war on public display. However, that is not what Iran can be accused of doing, as Iran and Britain are not at a state of war. There is a valid argument to be made that when the soldiers were put on television, it relieved the soldiers’ families to see that they were safe and sound. What’s wrong with putting on tv the soldier from a friendly country with whom one is not at war?
It’s this stupid moral equivalencing that makes me despair for the future of Western civilization. _So what_ if the Brits were in Iranian waters? So what if they were sailing in Ahmedinejad’s personal jacuzzi? Iran is a dangerous fanatic terrorist regime. We shouldn’t be playing nice with them. The Brits and Americans should be operating in Iranian waters all the time — and if Iran tries to respond their entire navy should be blown to matchsticks. Maybe the mullahs might start thinking twice (or even once) about the wisdom of being the world’s top supporters of terrorism.
Iran has been waging war on us, overtly and covertly, since 1979. Pretending that we’re all peaceful members of the world community is asinine. We should be treating them as our enemies and pummeling their thug regime’s headquarters to gravel.
This would be the reasonable response to a generation of hostility, terrorism, and provocation. How are the Iranians reacting to our being nice and treating them like a real country? They have decided that we’re either too weak to respond or too stupid to realize they’re attacking us. Either way they feel nothing but contempt.
The Iranian government is evil. It should be destroyed. Hair splitting over which side of an imaginary line the British sailors were on is missing the point.
But, Charlemagne, capturing soldiers of a nation you are not at war with is an “act of war”. It is also interesting how you rationalize that since the “border line” is in dispute, the Brits “can’t possibly be sure” the sailors were in Iraqi waters; but, somehow, because the “border line” is in dispute, the Iranians “can reasonably believe” the sailors were in Iranian waters.
“The seizure of hostages is based on an ancient tradition first practised by early Islamic conquerors.”
As a young nation in the 1790’s, America’s first encounter with Islam was on the very issue of taking hostages of American sailors on the high seas by the Barbery Pirates. An estimated million and a quarter Europeans and Americans were taken hostage by these hostis humani generis, so termed “enemys of mankind”, and we contended with these 7th century fundamentalist of the words of a caravan raider as we are contending with them today — you face these bully’s with more force than they dish out, you annihilate their ably to reap havoc, and humiliate them into submission. Same thing we should, and I hope would do, if 7th century fundamentalist of the words of a carpenter’s sons start acting inquisitive again — which goes for Judaism, Hinduism, or any religion awry.
Bravo, Chuck! Tolerance of evil is NOT a virtue.
Charlemagne says:
A uniformed soldier cannot, by definition, pying/espionage cannot ‘spy’ or be tried for espionage. They are gathering intelligence or conducting reconnaissance. This gets back to the whole business about treatment of uniformed and non-uniformed combatants in the Geneva Convention.
This is a non-trivial point.
BRD
Charlamagne, what utter nonsense. Ahoy me hearties – today we are going on a spying mission against Iran while staying in Iraqi waters – all you enlisted men need to be privvy, part and parcel of command decisions and national policy – we are going to count the number of Iranian ships our radar picks up at long distance and we will record any sonar echoes that might be Iranian submarines and we will count fishing trawlers that could be super-secret new weapons. Aye me hearties, even though we are supposed to be searching commercial vessels for contraband, it is your inherent right as human beings to know that you are really spying when you take your small craft out on those high waves – leave all the high tech stuff on the mother ship, pretend you are mere 20 yr old sailors when indeed you are covert agents lurking in the waves spying on Tehran and counting mullahs. Next Charlamagne you will claim the Iranians are really peaceful because if they were other than that, they would have televised the torture of those 20 yr old spies who know all the state secrets of England. No wonder the war on terror is transgenerational….
Lee says, “But, Charlemagne, capturing soldiers of a nation you are not at war with is an “act of war”.
Not at all. It’s a “policing” action. Suppose that G.I. from a U.S. military base in South Korea goes to the bar in the town, gets drunk and starts a fight. Then the South Korean authorities would be right to detain the soldier, but it would not have been an act of war.
You also write: It is also interesting how you rationalize that since the “border line” is in dispute, the Brits “can’t possibly be sure” the sailors were in Iraqi waters; but, somehow, because the “border line” is in dispute, the Iranians “can reasonably believe” the sailors were in Iranian waters.
Obviously, neither the British nor the Iranians could “possibly be sure”. Both sides could “reasonably believe”. I am sure you realize that there i sno contradiction here. “Reasonably believing X” is not at all the same thing as “being sure of X”.
So (had the matter not been resolved so quickly as a result of the Iranians’ generosity), the proper way to determine this would have been to conduct an open trial, where all the evidence could have been presented for the world to see (by both parties).
I understand that some of you like to resolve all arguments by force, but — guess what — that’s not the optimal or most intelligent way to resolve contentious issues.
Charlemagne says:
Nonsense. Hogwash. Bull.
A US soldier arrested by local Korean authorities is being detained by (presumably) civilian authorities under civil law, in accordance with the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed with the ROK government.
In the absence of a governing agreement, then, generally, civil law is applied within the context of international law.
1) There is, as far as I know, no SOFA agreement between Iran and the US.
2) Even if we assume that the second set of coordinates that Iran gave accurately reflect the where the sailors were found, that is not a civil matter, open to civil dispute. It’s the incursion of foreign armed, uniformed personnel into national waters – hardly a civil matter.
3) The Iranian Revolutionary Guard are not civil police authorities.
4) The default in international law is Article 95 of the Law of the Sea: “Warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State.” One will note, however, that the provisions for piracy sueprcede this. In fact, if the Iranians seized the vessel for a ‘civil’ infraction, then that runs counter to Article 95. If was seized as a counter-piracy measure, then there are about 3 subsequently apply to the resolution of the dispute.
In other words, it’s not a ‘police action’.
Not to mention, if a “border line” is in dispute, most “rational” nations would settle such matters “diplomatically” to avoid such “accidents”, rather than engaging in “acts of war” and “violating international agreements” for “show trials”(presided where, exactly?) to prove “your claim”.
Then, Char, after the Iranians “used force”, you commend them for “resolving this without force”. What kind of Orwellian doublespeak is THAT?
If the Brits weren’t “gathering intelligence” on Iran, they should have been. And by now, they should be actively engaged in sinking the Iranian navy, which is obviously a threat to their own forces and those of their allies. At some point, in any case, it’s going to be necessary to take out all of the Iranian nuclear facilities.
By the way, Charle here is not merely an Iranian apologist, but obviously a terrorist admirer and wannabe. Arguing with him makes as much sense as arguing with a Nazi.
Charle here is …obviously a terrorist admirer and wannabe
Or, worse, a moral sluggard. I read his smug prescriptions, his lawyerish quibbles and I think this guy is living in the Sim’s world, playing some bloodless abstract game. And by automatically interpreting the rules in favor of the other side, he can say, ” Look how nicely they’re playing. Why can’t you?” So very tidy.
some of you like to resolve all arguments by force, but – guess what – that’s not the optimal or most intelligent way to resolve contentious issues.
In other words, Iran must always be in the right because otherwise I might have to do something.
So when they tried that on an American patrol, they got their slimy little asses kciked? I like that game better.
Speaking of Orwellian…what is truly unfortunate is the corruption of the title “Charlemagne” – Charlemagne was a fighter, not an apologist, appeaser or accommodator, unlike…say, Marshall Petain of Vichy fame. Charlemagne deserves to be revered among Civilization’s heroes, along with his grandfather, Charles Martel. They certainly did not lack conviction in their time.
I find it interesting that the non-war situation of Iran vs. Britain is used to justify not treating the Brits according to the Geneva Convention.
With regard to the folks we capture, the status of war vs. non-war, GC vs. non-GC is as murky as the boundary in the Gulf.
It appears that we are to do whatever we didn’t do, with the opposition in either a war status or a non-war status, with the GC applying, or not applying. The objective is to mix up those factors to prove that, whatever we did, we should have done the opposite and, thus, we are evil and, by extension, our enemy is not.
Charleminima, ol’ buddy. Your schtick is old, lame, worn out, half dead. More to the point, nobody is buying. Quit wasting your time.
Calling himself “Charlemagne” gives us some insight about this commenter. The name is a corruption of “Carolus Magnus” (Latin)= Carolus the Great. Our Charlemagne is inclined to grandiosity.
What a riot – come watch the right wing freaks spin themselves silly!
Spitting mad that we aren’t involved in another illegal war against a innocent, sovereign nation – who incidently are guility of nothing except not cow-towing to Bush’s fascist policies.
You should be praying that war doesn’t break out because it’s your beloved Israel that will be hurt the most.
Idiots…
We should have incinerated Iraq by end of day 9/11/2001 as an example and warning to expansionist Islam in all it’s manifestations. It is not too late to do that.
TC: … a innocent, sovereign nation – who incidently are guility of nothing except not cow-towing to Bush’s fascist policies.
Hey, nobody’s saying saying they need to tow cows anywhere (much less goats, sheep, or parked cars). What they do need to do is stop supporting islamist killers in Iraq, terrorists around the world, stop their WMD programs, and stop taking hostages. And if they don’t stop those kinds of things, war with TC’s beloved medieval theocracy will break out, and that vicious, benighted regime will be exterminated.
Israel, by the way, can and will look after itself.
What a freak-show! Come watch the nazis(TC) jump to the defense of dhimmis(Charl). Worth the price of admission AND more. Anyone ever wonder about the love affair between nazis and muslims? Not surprising they both chose less than 1\10 of one percent of the world’s population as the source off all their problems?(Jews) Notice how NatC can’t wait for a new skin lampshade?
Stupid illinois Nazis.
Must be early. I’m spelling and typing as bas as prod.
Yeah Israel can take care of itself.
Hezbollah anyone?
Well if it was just about regimes I’d love to see all three corrupt, evil losers Iran, Israel and U.S wipe each other out.
Unfortunately it’s only innocent civilians that are going to to die.
Not that that should stand in the way of bloody war or anything.
Why don’t you sign up Sally?
You clearly have the courage of your convictions – why not go over and do us all a favour…
Sally – are you prayin’ for the ‘lypse?
Is that your gig?
Or are you just one hard, shoot-em-up mama?
TC,
Is there anything in particular you see that’s bad about suggesting that Iran:
1) stop supporting islamist killers in Iraq
2) terrorists around the world
3) stop their WMD programs
4) stop taking hostages
Gee, TC, Israsel marched to Beirut; has Hezbollah marched to Tel Aviv? No? Didn’t think so. For that matter, The Nazis were kept out of Jerusalem, too. Poor, frustrated little Hitler Youth TC. Just can’t get ANYONE to do your dirty work for you, huh?
Good ol’ TC says:
“Sally – are you prayin’ for the ‘lypse?”
and then he says,
“Well if it was just about regimes I’d love to see all three corrupt, evil losers Iran, Israel and U.S wipe each other out.”
…but I guess you are, huh? Just us right-wingers who love war, no?
Why should the Geneva conventions apply here.-Charles
Technically the US isn’t at war with anyone either, under that logic, we can execute anybody we “capture” or just take anybody we we want prisoner. I’m good with that logic, how about you Charles? They can do whatever they want if they capture US soldiers, we can do whatever we want if we capture their people. Fair’s fair.
Richard Aubrey Says:
April 7th, 2007 at 9:21 am
I find it interesting that the non-war situation of Iran vs. Britain is used to justify not treating the Brits according to the Geneva Convention.
It’s a weird sort of justification for entropy and war in a way. So long as any conduct is acceptable and nothing is worth fighting, hey why go to war? Just kidnap people and hold them ransom. In point of fact, that’s how people used to do clan warfares back in the age of tooth decay. But that actually starts wars, not ends them. Because it instills grievances to be fought over later, that cannot be resolved any way.
I think you do a good job piecing together the propaganda ramifications and various scenarios, Neo. Of course, we have had a lot of experience with such, haven’t we? Jill Caroll and various others. The more we fight our enemy, the more we learn of him and the more we are able to think like him. This is in essence “becoming more like your enemy”, but unlike the Leftist mantra that refuses understanding and strength, Jacksonians seek greater understanding of enemies in order to both defeat them and to benefit them (and us).
Only by defeating your enemy, Neo, can any true progress ever be made.
stumbley – luv’ ol’ stumbley – missed the “if it was just about regimes” part I guess.
Oops.
Bravo – yeah I have a problem. All of those are either APAIC sponsered/hyped propaganda without any evidence and merit, or ignore the fact that we are being beligerent and making the situation worse.
We did, you might want to remember, illegally invade and destroy a nation that we lied about – right on their border.
So it is us who is the problem in the region – not the Iranians.
And so most of the planet agrees….
And Lee – just so you know(not that I care, but whatever) – I don’t wish for Israel to get pummeled(and I know they are capable of, so…).
But I do know that once an attack on Iran gets underway, Iran will launch everything it’s got at Iraq and Israel. And then Hezbollah will open a front out of Lebanon. And then Syria will launch everything it’s got at Israel too.
And I have my doubts about the little jewish states ability to absorb what will be a helluva alot of rockets.
They didn’t do too well with Hezbollah’s half-assed missle arsenal(which did quite a bit of damage and killed a few people too) the other two nations have more, and much more technologically advanced missle arsenal.
And then Hamas will likely start a full scale attack – then the picture starts to not look so pretty.
For ANYBODY….
And then Hamas will likely start a full scale attack – then the picture starts to not look so pretty.
This is the value of types like TC — they provide a clear insight into the heart of darkness that is the contemporary anti-semitic left. Sure, he pays quick lip service to such sentiments as “I don’t wish for Israel to get pummeled….”, but what really gets him excited is obviously the image of a “helluva alot of rockets” raining down on “the little jewish state”. What he describes with such barely concealed lust is just the fantasy — and hope — of your average war-porn bigot.
But, as always for porn addicts, reality will be disappointing for them, even should war come to pass. Just as in every previous attempt by his beloved gang of theocratic fascists and tyrants to obliterate “the little jewish state”, the primary result will be the loss of their own cannon-fodder, wealth, and territory, permanently.
Oh Sally – you certainly are a silly little twit.
“What really gets him excited is” – LOL!
What really makes me LMAO is comments like that – the pseudo-psycho ‘analysis’ of an uneducated, sociopathic ideologue.
Get some help little sister…..
Sorry, nazi boy(TC), for someone who “doesn’t care” what others think about them, you sure devote a lot of typing “clarifying” yourself and “attacking” those who disagree with you. From what I’ve noticed and read in history, these “tactics” come right out of the nazi playbook. Then you continually sound JUST LIKE the people on websites like “infowars”, “ziopedia”, “American(and Canadian) Free Press”. If you’re NOT a nazi, why do you espouse their ideals? If you’re NOT anti-semitic, why is Israel, the Jewish Lobby, Woolfowitz, Feith, Pearle, Kristol, etc. your only source of ire? If you’re not a nazi, why the swastika? “Methinks thou doth protest too much” Nazi boy.
inthesetimes.comHey Lee – check out these Nazi’s.
Pathetic, I’m sure you’d agree.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3092/an_israeli_refuseniks_good_fight/
“the pseudo-psycho ‘analysis’ of an uneducated, sociopathic ideologue.
Get some help little sister…..”
Pot, meet kettle….
I know you are but what am I.
Na na nana na.
Hitler Youth Pee Wee?
Pingback:gameboys 2007