About Tehran's Hostages Page 3
|March 28th, 2007||#21|
| || |
I can see you and P80 obviously went to the Bulldogg school of English comprehension which I can only assume is an off shoot of the Fox school of journalism and the McDonalds university of burgerology.
Can I suggest you take it upon yourself to find a dictionary and get a definition for the term hostage and what you will see is that they by definition are not hostages any more than anyone that has been arrested is a hostage by international law they may be being illegally held by Iran I am not disputing that and some time in the future they may become hostages but right now they are only being held by Iranian forces.
As I said earlier if you are going to continually attack the media for scaremongering, bias and over sensationalising everything then at least show enough clarity of thought not to emulate them with every post.
We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
|March 28th, 2007||#22|
| || |
MontyB is right. They are not Hostages, at least not yet. That is of course subject to change.
The difference between a hostage and a prisoner is that a hostage is held as collateral in exchange for something else. For example money, freedom of self or others, political demands, etc. One wouldn't call inmates in a State Prison hostages would you? Of course not.
In this case, Iran has not made any demands for the Royal Marines release yet. Therefore the UK Marines are only prisoners.
"My center is giving way, my right is in retreat situation excellent. I shall attack." -Foch
I am from NYC. I fly a French flag because I work in Paris.
Last edited by mmarsh; March 28th, 2007 at 21:05..
|March 29th, 2007||#23|
| || |
Inmates in a state prison are there legally having been arrested, charged and convicted of a crime. The soldiers in question were not. They were taken captive in international waters by a country that there are no open hostilities with at this time.
Demands for their release need not be explicit nor public to meet the definition of being hostages.
"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." - John Steinbeck
|March 29th, 2007||#24|
| || |
|March 29th, 2007||#27|
| || |
If for example Iran suddenly decided that they wanted UN sanctions dropped, prisoners released or 40 tons of weapons grade Uranium per captive then yes I would agree that they are hostages.
On a more topic related note though there seems to be a lot of inconsistencies with the stories both sides are pushing in this argument seriously if they were 3km inside Iraqi waters (and I suspect they were in Iraqi waters not International waters) then why didn't the British frigate do something, 3km is a lot of water to cover to get back to the relative safety of your own border especially when the thing you are running from can blow you out of the water from a much longer range. Makes you wonder what the RoE are for these vessels.
|March 29th, 2007||#29|
| || |
Cogito ergo sum
|March 29th, 2007||#30|
| || |
Its only surprising if one never suspects the worse in a regime.
As for the demands and maximum effect. I'd argue that a thinking enemy would realise that public demands would not be as effective as those delivered in private. Public posturing would back the UK into non-compliance (we dont make deals with terrorists et al) as the public support required in a democracy would vascilate and work against the demands being met.
|70 Hostages Freed As Violence Continues|
|Sudanese hostages reported free in Iraq|
|US demands immediate release of Iraq hostages|
|Congratulations: UN hostages released without any deal|
|Afghans Again Extend Deadline for UN Hostages|