British sailors arrested at gunpoint by Iranian navy.

[FastEddy]

Fasteddy'

This horses#$t bsuiness with the "pink" is starting to bore me to high heaven

That you were an MP, you musta been tired of the MEATHEAD monicker.... soooo... knock it off

You may chose to dissagree with what I think
I may chose to dissagree with what you think
That's life

Ya got a problem with that?

Ahhhh ! "geo" I'm afraid the above is completely off Topic.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Folks take it to PMs.....

Army.Ca Staff

 

[Iron Oxide]

"The Chinese didnt shoot down the P-3 did they ? The Chinese didnt force the plane to land in their territory did they ? In fact despite the declared in flight emergency the Chinese almost didnt allow the plane to land.
Very different circumstance to what we see in Iran today."

The P-3 was rammed over international waters by a chinese fighter acting illegally. The crew was then held hostage and their equipment was confiscated while the chinese made crazy demands for apologies from the americans. I believe, although I might be remembering incorectly, that they were paraded in front of the cameras by the chinese.

In this case the sailors/marines were captured illegally. They are now being held hostage and their equipment has been confiscated while the Iranians make crazy demands for apologies from the brittish. These sailors/marines are being paraded in front of the cameras by the Iranians.

You're right there are absolutly no similarities between the two cases, how could I have doubted the great Victor Davis Hanson.

 

[geo]

+1 IO.... and there is also the other point.... neither country was at war with the other at the time of the incident.........

..... uhhh... possibly rogue element within the service acted on their own - looking to please his master - same as the China incident?    Who knows?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

The P-3 was rammed over international waters by a chinese fighter acting illegally. The crew was then held hostage and their equipment was confiscated while the chinese made crazy demands for apologies from the americans. I believe, although I might be remembering incorectly, that they were paraded in front of the cameras by the chinese.

In this case the sailors/marines were captured illegally. They are now being held hostage and their equipment has been confiscated while the Iranians make crazy demands for apologies from the brittish. These sailors/marines are being paraded in front of the cameras by the Iranians.

You're right there are absolutly no similarities between the two cases, how could I have doubted the great Victor Davis Hanson.

What?  The F-8 did neither ram the EP-3, nor was either party acting illegally.  The collision was an accident, all that was contested was whose fault it was (in case you weren't aware, "ramming" isn't really a tactic in aerial warfare).  The Americans then indisputably flew to and landed at Hainan Island, which is Chinese territory.

Neither the US nor China disputed that the other was acting legally (okay, they argued about who had the right-of-way).  Neither disputed that the immediate cause was an accident, and neither disputed that the EP-3 subsequently entered Chinese airspace and landed.

From a BBC report at the time:

View from US

On 1 April 0915 (local time), the EP-3 plane was on a routine surveillance mission in international airspace over the South China Sea.

It was intercepted by two Chinese fighter aircraft. US Admiral Dennis Blair said such encounters were not unusual.

''They come up, take a look, report what they see and fly back. It's pretty routine,'' he said.

...

View from China

After detecting a US plane conducting surveillance off the city of Sanya, two Chinese F-8 fighter jets took off and carried out ''routine tracking'' of the aircraft.

At 0907 the all the planes were flying in the same direction, 400m apart with the US plane on the right. ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1260290.stm

Just because the outcome is superficially similar, doesn't mean that the causes were the same!  Sheesh!

VDH: +1

 

[geo]

John... in that event, the US did not come out shooting - as has been suggested by certain members of this forum.  There is time to shoot from the hip and there is time to shoot from the mouth.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

John... in that event, the US did not come out shooting - as has been suggested by certain members of this forum.  There is time to shoot from the hip and there is time to shoot from the mouth.

I think people are saying that the UK should have at the very least made a show of an effort (the proverbial shot across the bow) to stop their sailors from being kidnapped.  In the case of the Hainan Island incident, the American plane was forced to land in Chinese territory for mechanical reasons: if we assume that the Americans had time to launch F-14s or Tomahawks (or whatever would have been available), one can't help but to wonder what would they be shooting at ...

And secondly, illegally entering another country's territory to kidnap soldiers is clearly a provocative act: detaining soldiers who have landed (uninvited) on your own territory is not nearly the same thing (and don't forget the Chinese lost a jet in the incident, which would tend to support the idea that it was an accident, notwithstanding the 'ramming' theory).

 

[eerickso]

If the CO needed to contact MOD, would it be correct to assume that he didn't have the ROEs to react? If this saga continues any longer, I'm sure British ships will be getting them soon.

Obviously, self defence is a standing ROE and my gun would definately be blazing if Al-Qaeda was on the horizon.  However, personally, I would'nt feel the need with Iranian gunboats.

 

[FascistLibertarian]

esp since the countries are not at war.
neither side wants to fire the first shot.

 

[tomahawk6]

After seeing the video of the capture on TV, the IRG craft werent much larger than the ribs the Brits were in. They mounted a machine gun on the bow. One can only wonder if the warship had fired a shot near the craft the IRG would have had to make their own tough call.

 

[eerickso]

Yeah, I agree. Some warning shots and a go %#$@ yourself by the boarding party should have been allowed.

 

[KevinB]

The P3 issues is in no way even close to this issue -- as the fact of the matter have been described above.

The British ROE allowed them to destroy the IRG watercraft, if they believed them to be a threat etc.  Given my observation of Iraqi marksmanship techiniques I have no doubt the RN and RM personnnel would have done quite well -- the issue to me is moot now since the MOD stepped in when the Capt was giving the SITREP.

No doubt the next time - the SITREP will read -- destroyed two insurgent watercraft - proceeding on mission

 

[navymich]

Iranian official: Sailors may be tried

By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer 12 minutes ago

TEHRAN, Iran -
Iran's ambassador to Russia renewed a threat Iranian officials made earlier this week, saying 15 British sailors held by Iran could be tried for violating international law, Iran's state news agency IRNA reported Saturday.

Gholam-Reza Ansari told Russian television Vesti-24 on Friday that Iran had launched a legal investigation of the British sailors. "They will be tried if there is enough evidence of guilt," Ansari was quoted by IRNA as saying.

Britain's Foreign Office said it was checking the claim that the sailors were facing trial, but noted that the ambassador's comments didn't alter their view of what was needed to resolve the standoff.

"This doesn't change our position, we have made it perfectly clear that our personnel were in Iraqi waters and we continue to request immediate consular access to them and their immediate release," said a spokeswoman for Britain's Foreign Office, speaking on customary condition of anonymity in line with government rules.

Ansari's talk of the sailors and marines possibly being tried echoes comments made earlier this week by Ali Larijani, the main negotiator in Iran's foreign dealings.

If Britain continued its current approach to the standoff, Larijani told Iranian state radio, "this case may face a legal path. British leaders have miscalculated this issue."

On Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip that the case had entered a legal investigation phase, state television reported.

Ansari also reiterated Iran's stance that the British government could resolve the crisis by admitting the sailors entered Iranian waters.

"If the U.K. government admits its mistake and apologizes to Iran for its naval personnel's trespassing of Iranian territorial waters, the issue can be easily settled," he said.

The diplomat claimed the British government had escalated the crisis by taking the matter to the
U.N. Security Council rather than resolving it on a bilateral basis.

Britain has frozen most contacts with Iran and referred the issue to the U.N. Security Council, which expressed "grave concern" on Thursday over Iran's seizure last week of the Britons.

The British sailors were detained by Iranian naval units March 23 while patrolling for smugglers near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway that has long been a disputed dividing line between
Iraq and Iran.

Iran appears intent on sending a message of strength as it faces mounting U.N. Nations sanctions over its uranium enrichment program, which the U.S. and other nations suspect the Islamic Republic is using to develop nuclear weapons.

On Friday, a captive Royal Marine was shown in new TV footage apologizing for being in Iranian waters, and Tehran made public a third letter supposedly written by the only woman prisoner among 15 Britons seized by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Faye Turney.

Britain sharply denounced Iran over the treatment of the captives — a clear sign both sides were hardening their stance as the crisis entered its second week.

 

[observor 69]

Article source?

 

[Mike Baker]

Article source?

Iranian official: Sailors may be tried

There on top of her post.

 

[army outfitters]

, "ramming" isn't really a tactic in aerial warfare). [/quote]

Can somebody tell the Germans at the end of WW2 about this as it was used as a aerial tactic by them against of all things American Bombers. Go figure

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

, "ramming" isn't really a tactic in aerial warfare).

Can somebody tell the Germans at the end of WW2 about this as it was used as a aerial tactic by them against of all things American Bombers. Go figure

That was more of an act of desperation then anything else...

 

[army outfitters]

Be that as it may it is still considered a tactic of aerial warfare. Maybe I am nitpicking but I don't think so

 

[CougarKing]

Since Airmich forgot the article source, here is pretty much the same article with the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_re_mi_ea/british_seized_iran

Iranian official: Sailors may be tried By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer
46 minutes ago



TEHRAN, Iran -        Iran's ambassador to Russia renewed a threat Iranian officials made earlier this week, saying 15 British sailors held by Iran could be tried for violating international law, Iran's state news agency IRNA reported Saturday.

ADVERTISEMENT
- 
Gholam-Reza Ansari told Russian television Vesti-24 on Friday that Iran had launched a legal investigation of the British sailors. "They will be tried if there is enough evidence of guilt," Ansari was quoted by IRNA as saying.

Britain's Foreign Office said it was checking the claim that the sailors were facing trial, but noted that the ambassador's comments didn't alter their view of what was needed to resolve the standoff.

"This doesn't change our position, we have made it perfectly clear that our personnel were in Iraqi waters and we continue to request immediate consular access to them and their immediate release," said a spokeswoman for Britain's Foreign Office, speaking on customary condition of anonymity in line with government rules.

Ansari's talk of the sailors and marines possibly being tried echoes comments made earlier this week by Ali Larijani, the main negotiator in Iran's foreign dealings.

If Britain continued its current approach to the standoff, Larijani told Iranian state radio, "this case may face a legal path. British leaders have miscalculated this issue."

On Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip that the case had entered a legal investigation phase, state television reported.

Ansari also reiterated Iran's stance that the British government could resolve the crisis by admitting the sailors entered Iranian waters.

"If the U.K. government admits its mistake and apologizes to Iran for its naval personnel's trespassing of Iranian territorial waters, the issue can be easily settled," he said.

The diplomat claimed the British government had escalated the crisis by taking the matter to the        U.N. Security Council rather than resolving it on a bilateral basis.

Britain has frozen most contacts with Iran and referred the issue to the U.N. Security Council, which expressed "grave concern" on Thursday over Iran's seizure last week of the Britons.

The British sailors were detained by Iranian naval units March 23 while patrolling for smugglers near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway that has long been a disputed dividing line between        Iraq and Iran.

Iran appears intent on sending a message of strength as it faces mounting U.N. Nations sanctions over its uranium enrichment program, which the U.S. and other nations suspect the Islamic Republic is using to develop nuclear weapons.

On Friday, a captive Royal Marine was shown in new TV footage apologizing for being in Iranian waters, and Tehran made public a third letter supposedly written by the only woman prisoner among 15 Britons seized by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Faye Turney.

Britain sharply denounced Iran over the treatment of the captives — a clear sign both sides were hardening their stance as the crisis entered its second week.

They can't seriously have this Kangaroo Court trial that will end up with their being convicted by backward-looking Ayatollahs! And please tell me that the punishment according to Shariah law isn't stoning for foreign soldiers for trespassing in foreign waters? 

 

[Mike Baker]

Since Airmich forgot the article source

Look at the top of her post, the link is there. It reads "Iranian official: Sailors may be tried"