The reaction of the British captives to the Iranians
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Possums, I've been watching this entire thing from a very long distance, in a completely disinterested manner. The entire episode leaves Iran smelling like a rose and Britain smelling of????
1. Sailors and marines captured by surprise.
2. It's news to the RN that the border is ill defined where they were operating.
3. Sailors squawk on Iranian TV and apologise.
4. Realisation sets in that there are no military options available to Britain.
5. Diplomacy applied, and surprise surprise, certain Iranians in U.S. custody released or at least made visible.
6. Americans incoherent with rage over "lilly livered" Brits (not me - read the NeoCon rubbish).
7. Iranians announce release of the prisoners as a gesture of peace and friendship just before the religious festival of Easter.
8. Sailors released after photo opportunity with Ahmenwhatsit. they are wearing very very bad suits and carrying Iranian gift bags. The tailoring of the suits alone are a causus belli.
9. Sailors return to universal joy - then the backbiting immediately starts.
10. "We wuz intimidated and locked up" is the universal cry. Iranians respond with video of happy smiling captives eating dinner and playing ping pong in detention.
11. "I'm getting seventy thousand quid for my story". Hello magasine starts planning its photo spreads.
12. "No further sales of stories allowed" from the MoD.
Question: Is there anything in this entire soap story that reflects well on the British Government or the RN, absent the return of the sailors?
I think not.
Maybe Blair should hire some Iranian spin doctors, come to think of it, Bush could do with a few as well.
1. Sailors and marines captured by surprise.
2. It's news to the RN that the border is ill defined where they were operating.
3. Sailors squawk on Iranian TV and apologise.
4. Realisation sets in that there are no military options available to Britain.
5. Diplomacy applied, and surprise surprise, certain Iranians in U.S. custody released or at least made visible.
6. Americans incoherent with rage over "lilly livered" Brits (not me - read the NeoCon rubbish).
7. Iranians announce release of the prisoners as a gesture of peace and friendship just before the religious festival of Easter.
8. Sailors released after photo opportunity with Ahmenwhatsit. they are wearing very very bad suits and carrying Iranian gift bags. The tailoring of the suits alone are a causus belli.
9. Sailors return to universal joy - then the backbiting immediately starts.
10. "We wuz intimidated and locked up" is the universal cry. Iranians respond with video of happy smiling captives eating dinner and playing ping pong in detention.
11. "I'm getting seventy thousand quid for my story". Hello magasine starts planning its photo spreads.
12. "No further sales of stories allowed" from the MoD.
Question: Is there anything in this entire soap story that reflects well on the British Government or the RN, absent the return of the sailors?
I think not.
Maybe Blair should hire some Iranian spin doctors, come to think of it, Bush could do with a few as well.
Tam,frankly a pile of cack!
Those in the anti UK/US block still feel the same,those who believe Iran to be politically beyond the pale still believe it.Entrenched view points have changed by not one iota!
As to a diplomatic coup,your talking out of your hat!
Those in the anti UK/US block still feel the same,those who believe Iran to be politically beyond the pale still believe it.Entrenched view points have changed by not one iota!
As to a diplomatic coup,your talking out of your hat!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woptb, I agree with you that the Iranian Government are beyond the pale.
The trouble is Public opinion in many (Arab) countries is that Iran has just handed Britain its @ss.
IMHO this does not make anyone's jobs any easier because it encourages troublemakers.
The trouble is Public opinion in many (Arab) countries is that Iran has just handed Britain its @ss.
IMHO this does not make anyone's jobs any easier because it encourages troublemakers.
The fact that joe public believes anyones ass has been handed to anyone else does not make it so. The affair & Ahmadinejad's involvement was all about posturing, face & the complexity of Iranian politics.
Despite that posturing & the faux diplomacy a series of illegal & extremely questionable acts remain just that.
Despite that posturing & the faux diplomacy a series of illegal & extremely questionable acts remain just that.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A report that thinks we actually came out quite well and it was Iran who shot itself in the foot:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index....D=1&subID=1301
If that report is correct, I have to say that I think the MOD is doing its best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with its policy of U-turning its policies!
As for "absit invidia" (Let there be no ill will), I hope the ar*e that started this thread and others attacking the armed forces chokes on the dictionary he swallowed. Implied threats of execution may not seem like ill will to you, but they do to me!
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index....D=1&subID=1301
If that report is correct, I have to say that I think the MOD is doing its best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with its policy of U-turning its policies!
As for "absit invidia" (Let there be no ill will), I hope the ar*e that started this thread and others attacking the armed forces chokes on the dictionary he swallowed. Implied threats of execution may not seem like ill will to you, but they do to me!
What about the futures of the fifteen individuals involved? Unless their shipmates are of the same quality I cannot see a future for them in the "Senior Service". Even if they are posted to other units they will not be able to shake off the smell that will follow them around.
I predict a flurry of PVRs and P45s.
I predict a flurry of PVRs and P45s.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: W England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ali, don't call me an ar$e mate, you don't now anything about me. Read the thread. I am in the Armed Forces and have served in the Middle East for a large portion of my time in. I am perfectly at liberty to "attack" the Armed Forces as I am a member of same.
You are entitled to disagree with my opinions, but resorting to insulting me does you no credit. If you do read the thread (and any number of British national newspapers) you will see that many,many people agree with the viewpoints expressed by me and others.
Indeed, I don't think that there would be any issues at all were it not for the fact that such a large proprtion of people consider that the hostages' behaviour fell below that which could reasonably have been expected of them. I might be wrong, and I will be prepare to admit it when and if I change my viewpoint, but, until then, there it is.
You are entitled to disagree with my opinions, but resorting to insulting me does you no credit. If you do read the thread (and any number of British national newspapers) you will see that many,many people agree with the viewpoints expressed by me and others.
Indeed, I don't think that there would be any issues at all were it not for the fact that such a large proprtion of people consider that the hostages' behaviour fell below that which could reasonably have been expected of them. I might be wrong, and I will be prepare to admit it when and if I change my viewpoint, but, until then, there it is.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Political acumen:
.....This account is entirely compatible with our earlier assertion that the publication was orchestrated entirely by the Admiralty and does not in away way contradict our contention that it was part of a broader attempt at a cover-up, throwing the hostages to the media "wolves" as a way of diverting attention from the operational failures resulting from decisions made by senior officers.
That there were such failures is endorsed in The Daily Telegraph today by Allan Mallinson, a soldier for 35 years and former commander of the 13th/18th Royal Hussars. The affair started with a straightforward but entirely avoidable tactical military cock-up, he writes, adding:
The 15 sailors and Marines were operating in sensitive waters, with unclear rules of engagement, no reserve and inadequate military intelligence. For this, the local tactical commanders must answer. There must be a board of inquiry and the results nailed to the mast, signalled round the fleet, read out to troops on parade - as would have happened in braver days.
However, further up the chain of command, in the Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) in Northwood, and in the MOD itself, some very senior officers indeed must answer this question: why, when our troops are in daily and deadly contact with Iranian-supported insurgents in Basra, and with the experience of the 2004 abduction of the Marines on the Euphrates, were these boarding operations being conducted so casually?
The Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Commitments), Vice-Admiral Charles Style, the MOD officer directly responsible for issuing the operational directives to the forces through the PJHQ, said on television last week that it was because they had conducted so many boardings recently without incident. This is breathtaking complacency that betrays a lack of understanding of the most elementary principles of force protection, the first duty of any commander, and even more of the unawareness of tactical-strategic linkage…
Having been placed in an absurd situation, the boarding party chose to surrender. This tactical decision should not be loosely criticised, but there are legitimate questions: what were the orders "on contact" with Iranian patrol boats, and were they followed? Was the decision not to offer armed resistance in any part due to the presence of a female sailor? The party's conduct after capture also begs questions, but again it needs cooler examination.
Mallinson then picks up on "the rush to judgement" by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, who endorsed the hostages' action in a painful interview with John Humphrys on Friday's Today programme, and by personally shaking hands with the returning sailors and marines. This, he writes, "is puzzling to say the least", asking: "Was it embarrassment at the failures at the strategic (MOD) and operational (theatre) levels?"
It is this behaviour, above all, that has raised our suspicions. Any sensible First Sea Lord should, one would have thought, have distanced himself from the incident, and relied on a Board of Inquiry to elucidate the details of what had transpired. His unprecedented decision to waive the Board and to rely on a watered-down "lessons learned" inquiry, plus this "rush to judgement", shrieks of a guilty man with something to hide.
The behaviour of Band, of the MoD operations' staff and of subordinate commanders like Commodore Nick Lambert, must therefore be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. Only then, if it can be shown that the officers involved were handicapped by political rather than operational considerations, or were genuinely constrained by issues which only the politicians had the authority to resolve, should the blame be directed at the secretary of state.
There is, however, one important proviso. It is Des Browne's responsibility to find out what went wrong and to take steps to ensure that the necessary remedial actions are taken. Thus, demanding his resignation – as some of the Tory Tribe are doing – before even blame has been properly apportioned, is premature. But, if he fails in his own responsibility, he should go.
.....This account is entirely compatible with our earlier assertion that the publication was orchestrated entirely by the Admiralty and does not in away way contradict our contention that it was part of a broader attempt at a cover-up, throwing the hostages to the media "wolves" as a way of diverting attention from the operational failures resulting from decisions made by senior officers.
That there were such failures is endorsed in The Daily Telegraph today by Allan Mallinson, a soldier for 35 years and former commander of the 13th/18th Royal Hussars. The affair started with a straightforward but entirely avoidable tactical military cock-up, he writes, adding:
The 15 sailors and Marines were operating in sensitive waters, with unclear rules of engagement, no reserve and inadequate military intelligence. For this, the local tactical commanders must answer. There must be a board of inquiry and the results nailed to the mast, signalled round the fleet, read out to troops on parade - as would have happened in braver days.
However, further up the chain of command, in the Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) in Northwood, and in the MOD itself, some very senior officers indeed must answer this question: why, when our troops are in daily and deadly contact with Iranian-supported insurgents in Basra, and with the experience of the 2004 abduction of the Marines on the Euphrates, were these boarding operations being conducted so casually?
The Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Commitments), Vice-Admiral Charles Style, the MOD officer directly responsible for issuing the operational directives to the forces through the PJHQ, said on television last week that it was because they had conducted so many boardings recently without incident. This is breathtaking complacency that betrays a lack of understanding of the most elementary principles of force protection, the first duty of any commander, and even more of the unawareness of tactical-strategic linkage…
Having been placed in an absurd situation, the boarding party chose to surrender. This tactical decision should not be loosely criticised, but there are legitimate questions: what were the orders "on contact" with Iranian patrol boats, and were they followed? Was the decision not to offer armed resistance in any part due to the presence of a female sailor? The party's conduct after capture also begs questions, but again it needs cooler examination.
Mallinson then picks up on "the rush to judgement" by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, who endorsed the hostages' action in a painful interview with John Humphrys on Friday's Today programme, and by personally shaking hands with the returning sailors and marines. This, he writes, "is puzzling to say the least", asking: "Was it embarrassment at the failures at the strategic (MOD) and operational (theatre) levels?"
It is this behaviour, above all, that has raised our suspicions. Any sensible First Sea Lord should, one would have thought, have distanced himself from the incident, and relied on a Board of Inquiry to elucidate the details of what had transpired. His unprecedented decision to waive the Board and to rely on a watered-down "lessons learned" inquiry, plus this "rush to judgement", shrieks of a guilty man with something to hide.
The behaviour of Band, of the MoD operations' staff and of subordinate commanders like Commodore Nick Lambert, must therefore be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. Only then, if it can be shown that the officers involved were handicapped by political rather than operational considerations, or were genuinely constrained by issues which only the politicians had the authority to resolve, should the blame be directed at the secretary of state.
There is, however, one important proviso. It is Des Browne's responsibility to find out what went wrong and to take steps to ensure that the necessary remedial actions are taken. Thus, demanding his resignation – as some of the Tory Tribe are doing – before even blame has been properly apportioned, is premature. But, if he fails in his own responsibility, he should go.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: oop north
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi troll
well folks its hard not to ,as almost all of his supporting points r in fact wot really happened....i,m still serving and have a real problem with anti comments about telling the real truth and not some kind of paparazzi immitation.......do not forget the bottom line is this was military stories told out of proper context to provide the tellers with a financial reward (outwith their agreement to serve without recompense,other than the rate of pay)....oh yes not forgetting the abysmal bravo 2 help me for gods sake as the pension is crap reporting that we know the present govt allows as a fob to providing ( or indeed any uk govt) a realistic financial incentive for any member of the armed forces not to jump at the kind of of money a premiorship footballer on a saturday would do to dive in the box...........on another note how much is the leading seaman, woman,things box worth now.......the sun has great photographic contacts....i,ve seen them ...they must be true!!!!!
well folks its hard not to ,as almost all of his supporting points r in fact wot really happened....i,m still serving and have a real problem with anti comments about telling the real truth and not some kind of paparazzi immitation.......do not forget the bottom line is this was military stories told out of proper context to provide the tellers with a financial reward (outwith their agreement to serve without recompense,other than the rate of pay)....oh yes not forgetting the abysmal bravo 2 help me for gods sake as the pension is crap reporting that we know the present govt allows as a fob to providing ( or indeed any uk govt) a realistic financial incentive for any member of the armed forces not to jump at the kind of of money a premiorship footballer on a saturday would do to dive in the box...........on another note how much is the leading seaman, woman,things box worth now.......the sun has great photographic contacts....i,ve seen them ...they must be true!!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daily Show
