[spacebandit]

After watching the news conference where a statement was made by one of the returnees that after a couple of days they decided to give the Iranians "non sensitive" information about their operations. He later contradicted himself by stating that they were all kept in isolation until the last few days - make of that what you will, I have.

But

Whatever happened to "Name Rank and Serial Number"

i.e. the only information required to be given under international law and the geneva convention.

None of them have been beaten and tortured, and as far as I can gather from the interviews and information released, and no-one is even suggesting otherwise

The level of "psychological torture" was confined to telling them if they didn;'t answer questions they could face up to 7 years in jail, making them wear pyjamas and making them sleep on piles of blankets instead of beds.

and there is no contradiction to that - no-one is suggesting they were beaten.

My god what has the british military come to ?

Take what is regarded as one of the British Militaries finest hours, the Seige of Rourkes Drift. Immortalized in the film Zulu, when a handful of British Soldiers. many sick and confined to a hospital fought off thousands of Zulu warriors, facing what were described as insurmountable odds and certain death.

Today - they would have surrendered - they thought they couldn't have won and didn't want to die.

newsflash - no-one wants to die
But its called doing your duty.


The Charge Of The Light Brigade - they must be turning in their graves, likewise the troops who went over the top in 1914 - 18, and those men who fought in WW2 must be wetting themsleves.

No doubt the navy returnees will all get medals - in the day and age of a government and military leadership who, in the past three years have rendered the Victoria Cross worthless by giving it to people who did far less to "earn" it than in any previous conflict.

then off to civvy street to flog their stories, especially the woman who is living proof to people like me who think women should not be allowed on the front line - too much propoganda value to tug at the heartstrings when they get captured.

[Sunny_01]

Name, rank and number is what soldiers etc give in times of war, we are not at war with Iran. During this kind of situation the brief would be to keep them happy and do all you can to preserve your own life and safety. The only thing they would be told is to ensure no classified information is passed on.

Gone are the days when normal everyday troops would be expected to say nothing. I think this shows that as a team they did what they had to - to ensure they all returned home. Kind of why prod the bull!

As for women on the front line, well my hubby is with you on this spacebandit. He was a serving soldier in the first gulf conflict and feels that he would have felt naturally more protective towards a female troop member. He also feesl that should they be captured during wartime along with male colleagues they would make them more vulnerable. He thinks that if they were tortured the best way to get the men to talk is to subject a woman to interrogation in front of the men who would naturally want to protect her, and would be more likely to give away sensitive information if this were to happen.

[Sticks]

But why were they in Iranian waters in the first place

Remember the same people who bought you the so called GPS evidence are the same people with the 45 minute claim? There is a severe credibility gap.

[rex3]

I think they were sent there, but the ignition for a big bang of media hate on Iran back-fired on Tony Blair.

[spacebandit]

Originally posted by Sticks
But why were they in Iranian waters in the first place

Remember the same people who bought you the so called GPS evidence are the same people with the 45 minute claim? There is a severe credibility gap.

as much as it sticks in my craw to defend Blair and his lying scumbag pack of warmongers - in this case I'm going to.

They clearly were not in Iranian waters, the waters there are disputed and the british stick to the internationally recognised maps. The British had absolutely nothing to gain by having troops snatched - The Americans as an excuse to hit Iran - they had an excuse, and there was no way the could do it on behalf of captured British troops, even a chimp like Bush could see that.

Its blatantly obvious that this was a set up snatch squad - waiting for the right time with a set up crew waiting for the right boarding party to snatch. If it was me, I would have waited for one with a woman in it - [the utter insanity of that piece of politically correct BS never ceases to amaze me] - and thats what they got.

then the iranians get to milk it by playing the humanitarian - make no mistake of what the government of Iran is, religious police checking womens dress, and the subjugation of women and the populace in general as part and parcel of the everday norms.

As for it not being a state of war - actually attacking and taking military prisoners of another country, holding them and interrogating them whilst denying consular access is actually classed as an act of aggression, one step below an actual state of war, and under that state the attacked soldiers could have fought back, and under law the ground commanders could have opened fire in support without Governmental sanction - their fire orders allowed for that. They didn't, they were taken without a shot being fired, as far as I am concerned that is chickens***

For 100 years the dress uniform of the Royal Artillery included a white lanyard worn on the shoulder - this was punishment for an act of cowardice where a gun battery deserted their guns in the Crimea when faced with an attacking force.

As for the 15, they should have given nothing more than what was required under international law, name rank and serial number. I could understand them blabbing if they were physically tortured, at that point all bets are off, everyone has a different breaking point, but they were not.

I'll even predict that they are all quietly discharged, with honours of course, from the military over the course of the next year.

Most will be persuaded to leave "of their own accord" - with buying out procedures waived.

As far as I am concerned surrendering without firing a shot is utter cowardice.

And before anyone asks - I served 6 tours of Northern ireland, Falklands while it was ongoing - and will be in the forthcoming 25 anniversary parade, served in Gulf War One [the legitimate one], left the forces in 1993 and then had my reserve called up in 1995 and off I went to Yugoslavia for 18 months, were I was then wounded [after all that, in a friendly fire accident - not serious but a great scar and a limp that means my days of heavy lifting are over].

The Government of this country, and I do not play party favourites in this makes me sick, in 1982 we were sent 8000 miles to win an election for a tory bitch who had refused the Falkland Islanders British Passports 3 times in the previous year and a half. then six months after it was finished was on TV shedding tears for her idiot son who got himself lost on the Paris Dakar rally, she never shed tear one for the mothers of the 255 Britsih dead in her war of re-election - which wasn't even called a war until it was won.

As a great poet once said, It doesn't matter who you vote for the government wins.

[James]

I think the sailors did the right thing by co-operating. If they'd shot back there's a good chance that some of their number would have been hurt and killed, and the incident would have been much worse internationally.

And as has been pointed out the Geneva convention doesn't apply because Britain isn't at war with Iran.

[Sunny_01]

Originally posted by spacebandit
As for the 15, they should have given nothing more than what was required under international law, name rank and serial number. I could understand them blabbing if they were physically tortured, at that point all bets are off, everyone has a different breaking point, but they were not.

I'll even predict that they are all quietly discharged, with honours of course, from the military over the course of the next year.

Most will be persuaded to leave "of their own accord" - with buying out procedures waived.

As far as I am concerned surrendering without firing a shot is utter cowardice.

And before anyone asks - I served 6 tours of Northern ireland, Falklands while it was ongoing - and will be in the forthcoming 25 anniversary parade, served in Gulf War One [the legitimate one], left the forces in 1993 and then had my reserve called up in 1995 and off I went to Yugoslavia for 18 months, were I was then wounded [after all that, in a friendly fire accident - not serious but a great scar and a limp that means my days of heavy lifting are over].

I respect your opinion, respect your service record but respectfully disagree with your views about what they should have done.

Until presented with that situation it's very easy to say what we "would" have done but these troops did what they felt was right under very difficult conditions. I have to say my hubby is of the same opinion as you spacebandit and some very entertaining debate has taken place in our home over the past weeks!! I suppose it's the pacifist in me that wants everything to be ok, and I do like to look at the world through pink tinted glasses! You even call Gulf war one what my hubby does "the legitimate one"

I often wish that I could be as matter of fact about things but I am a natural ditherer and really like to think the best of people and situations (it's the social worker in me lol)

[lily.]

Ok, I have no service record, but I do have one major opinion in all this, and it's regarding the media coverage.

I think there was far too much attention on the woman. She was all over the papers, yet there was very little coverage given to the men. They are all supposed to be "equal", and clearly they are not.

Also, I object to the term "hero mum". I don't think there is anything the least bit heroic about having a child and then leaving that child with someone else while you go to war. It's very simple. You make a choice. You are either a soldier at war or a mother. You can't do both. If you don't want to be the primary carer of your child, then why bother having one in the first place?

I'm sure this will spark some interesting debate, especially from some of the feminist posters, and I'm sure my views wont prove to be popular, but I call it like I see it.

[rex3]

Originally posted by Stropz
Ok, I have no service record, but I do have one major opinion in all this, and it's regarding the media coverage.

I think there was far too much attention on the woman. She was all over the papers, yet there was very little coverage given to the men. They are all supposed to be "equal", and clearly they are not.

Also, I object to the term "hero mum". I don't think there is anything the least bit heroic about having a child and then leaving that child with someone else while you go to war. It's very simple. You make a choice. You are either a soldier at war or a mother. You can't do both. If you don't want to be the primary carer of your child, then why bother having one in the first place?

I'm sure this will spark some interesting debate, especially from some of the feminist posters, and I'm sure my views wont prove to be popular, but I call it like I see it.

i agree