Tehran's Hostages

Wow some people have their head frimly placed up their arse....

I still love how the US moved a Navy force of 10,000 (2 air craft carrier groups) and are doing manuvers in the area (practicing attacking enemy ships)...

I also love how they say it is just coincidence and they are not flexing muscle....

So Monty with your logic anyone that is taken against their will, is what a guest????

-edit


Captives on TV
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17827481/

Ok the British soldiers trespassed...The Iranian government defy the world with its nuclear intentions...I say they wanna play like that, well use your imagination.....


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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

Nothing in what you say meets the definition of a hostage, spin it anyway you like but currently they are only detained or as the British have stated "taken captive".


Demands for their release need not be explicit nor public to meet the definition of being hostages.

Maybe not but there has to be demands to meet the requirement of the term hostage and until there is hostage doesn't apply but keep twisting things I am sure a scenario can be created to fit the story, you don't work for Fox do you?
 
Just because YOU have not heard the demands does not mean there are none, come on this is Logic 101.
 
Just because YOU have not heard the demands does not mean there are none, come on this is Logic 101.

And just because you imagine there are doesn't make it so either, logic would dictate that the UK/US are looking for reasons to justify an attack this almost gives them those reasons and any Iranian demands would add weight to the justifications therefore logic 101 would dictate that any demands would be released for maximum effect.

Donkey said:
They now have demanded and decide to back away from releasing the woman...

Its an interesting twist but I am not sure that an admission of guilt would be enough to make them hostages, I base this off an argument New Zealand had with Israel a couple of years ago when we caught a couple of "agents" operating with fake New Zealand passports and part of their release conditions were an apology and an admission of guilt from the Israeli government and I honestly don't recall anyone insinuating that we were holding them hostage over it.

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.
 
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.

That can only depend on intent. Currently the Iranian government still did not fully disclosed any information of their position on this incident and therefore we can only assume. Nevertheless, this is very surprising and it somewhat suggests that the Iranians decided to adopt a more aggressive policy in confronting with the UK/US.
 
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.
 
Its only surprising if one never suspects the worse in a regime.

No the surprise was how a British Frigate, despite its capabilities, remain passive to an incident like this, just as MontyB pointed out.

And the worst is an actual test of a Nuclear Weapon, not capturing foreign military personnel.
 
One acronym for you... ROE, the rules of engagement and the British penchant for following orders to the letter. With no open hostilities would you have the commander of the HMS Cornwall unilaterally engage in direct action and open hostilities? How comfortable is that armchair Cabal?
 
Iran doesn´t have the balls.
The hostages are in for a rough time, but Iran don´t have the balls to get into an all in fight over this.
I am almost wishing they´d fire a live missile at the battlegroup though..Just to see how ****ed up they´d get. Assclowns.
 
Last edited:
They are demanding a country admit they made a mistake, when that country says it was working within it's rights.

Do you like to admit a mistake?

That is a political demand, they want to do it so they can turn to their people and say see the infidels admit they are stupid...(obviously not in that exact language but I feel I have to say this because some in here can not think outside the box and take everything literally to the "T".)

-edit

Last also not forget they already violated the Geneva conventions.
 
They seriously ****ed up by doing this. If I remember correctly the UK said if we [the US] went to war with Iran we would be on our own. I bet the UK will flip their script real quick after this incident. Its all good though, we are going to keep shooting the little bastards when they are found in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
They are demanding a country admit they made a mistake, when that country says it was working within it's rights.

Do you like to admit a mistake?

Nope I don't think anyone likes admitting mistakes but "if" and I am not saying they have made a mistake but if they have then they are going to have to suck it up and admit it.

Last also not forget they already violated the Geneva conventions.

I am assuming you are talking about showing them on TV well I guess thats technically true but then it is also a double edged sword to a certain extent as it gives several points of reference for the future.
 
I am assuming you are talking about showing them on TV well I guess thats technically true but then it is also a double edged sword to a certain extent as it gives several points of reference for the future.

Who cares..It´s a double whatever. There was a clear breach of the conventions.
Remember way back when the Iraqis where surrendering like flies during the early stages of OIF and one embedded reporter filmed it.
Remember the complaining following that incident?
Why should we treat Iranian breaches of the conventions any different.
Care to explain that to me?

A breach is a breach is a breach..Wheather you are Iranian or US.

My two cents, well worth what you payed for it
 
What the terrorist regime of Iran is doing has no difference with what those individuals do in Iraq or Afghanistan urging the foreigners to leave.
 
Hoax of Rogue Elements within the Iranian Regime

Michael Rubin of AEI:
  • The Iranian government's decision to take 15 British marines hostage is an act of war. The decision was both deliberate and central. The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is not a rogue element. The regime created it to conduct the operations which the leading clerics did not trust the [regular] army to execute.
And I might add that rogue elements are shot in Iran.

Michael Ledeen of AEI:
  • They took the hostages because that is what they do...
 
Back
Top