|
Those pesky Iranians at it again. (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pmoisse |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Does Iran actually think they are fooling us with these fake confessions?
|
Well, they seem to be fooling the media who's totally lost sight of the fact that this is what happens to hostages in this area of the world. They are told to read statements condemning their homeland, etc etc.
This happens with journalists and aid workers all the damn time! Do you see the same amount of outrage to try and get those people back? Hell no.
Of course these statements are written by the Iranians. The captured soldiers would be fools NOT to read them since avoiding further confrontation in this case keeps you safe. |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by pmoisse
While I'm certainly not in favour of the Iranian regime and it's collection of nutjobs, the troops were shown to be in good health, and I think that even the Iranians aren't foolish enough to screw up this latest case in the public relations war.
|
The inherent problem with using the "look fine" arguments in regards to coercive interrogation tactics is that not all of them will cause outward signs of ill-health. Especially at the beginning of the process.
You can make people extremely uncomfortable without harming them, enogh so that they will tell you what you want if they believe it will get them out of the situation.
I don't know if there are such tactics being used here, but I find it highly unlikely that these sailors would start suddenly all coming out and saying this after a week instead of right away if it were indeed a situation of "oops sorry, we crossed the imaginary line on the way back to our ship, apologies mate."
MrS |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by pmoisse
Well, they seem to be fooling the media |
Fool the media??! *gasp*
Say it isn't so! :p ;) |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Recent Russian intelligence report on American military build-up around Iran:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html
Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border
| quote: | MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.
"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.
He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."
He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.
A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.
The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.
The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.
|
Also:
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070330/62861432.html
| quote: |
U.S. ready to strike Iran in early April - intelligence source -1
MOSCOW, March 30 (RIA Novosti) - Russian intelligence has information that the U.S. Armed Forces have nearly completed preparations for a possible military operation against Iran, and will be ready to strike in early April, a security official said.
The source said the U.S. had already compiled a list of possible targets on Iranian territory and practiced the operation during recent exercises in the Persian Gulf.
"Russian intelligence has information that the U.S. Armed Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory," the source said.
American commanders will be ready to carry out the attack in early April, but it will be up to the country's political leadership to decide if and when to attack, the source said.
Official data says America's military presence in the region has reached the level of March 2003 when the U.S. invaded Iraq.
The U.S. has not excluded the military option in negotiations on Iran over its refusal to abandon its nuclear program. The UN Security Council passed a new resolution on Iran Saturday toughening economic sanctions against the country and accepting the possibility of a military solution to the crisis.
The source said the Pentagon could decide to conduct ground operations as well after assessing the damage done to the Iranian forces by its possible missile strikes and analyzing the political situation in the country following the attacks.
A senior Russian security official cited military intelligence earlier as saying U.S. Armed Forces had recently intensified training for air and ground operations against Iran.
"The Pentagon has drafted a highly effective plan that will allow the Americans to bring Iran to its knees at minimal cost," the official said.
Russian Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week the Pentagon was planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.
"I have no doubt there will be an operation, or rather an aggressive action against Iran," Ivashov said, commenting on media reports about U.S. planned operation against Iran, codenamed Operation Bite.
A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf. The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006. The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, however, was rather optimistic about the situation and said he ruled out a military resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem.
"We are constantly working on how to resolve the situation around the Iranian nuclear program and other conflicts peacefully," Lavrov said. "This policy is unchanged and we will pursue it in the future."
Russia and the U.S. are two of the six negotiators on Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran says is aimed at generating energy.
|
|
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| Lets get ready for yet another major up by the Americans in the middle east:rolleyes: but this one is gonna hurt them for a looooooooong time. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by pmoisse
Why is the UK pissed that video of the detained sailors and marines was shown on TV? They're concerned this was "coerced". Now, while the one girl's statement was obviously written by the Iranians, they were clean, being fed, apparently not abused, and also being held together in their own uniforms (apart from her headscarf).
I find it odd that they're pissed, yet enemy combatants get held in Gitmo for years, without trial, charge, access by their consular officials...hell, they even get flown around the world on an unmarked plane while they get beaten! Also, how well has the intel resulting from US coercion worked for them?
The hypocracy on both sides of this situation is absurd. |
Well:
1) It's the US not the UK who run Gitmo.
2) We stated we were against it many times. (but we have terror laws which are pretty bad in some ways but you get a lawyer and so on... 'rendition' flights do pass through the UK.. but I've got a feeling the US has many flights that pass through with similar status but don't have people on board)
3) We are pissed because it's against international law to breach someones human right by parading them around and using them for political ends when they under your care (i.e. you are holding them).
The thing thats started to solidify my opinion on this is that the female was going to be released and then because "the people in London are arrogant" and "they are trying to get other nations against us" (going to the UN... since it was UN business they were on...) she was kept.
Now tell me if I'm wrong but if they were all "guilty" why release only one? If you are going to release one but change your mind because of political reasons... how can you say your actions are based upon justice? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
When you have a rouge state not playing by international rules, what does one do? :mad:
| quote: |
Whatever happened to name, rank and serial number?
By Defence Correspondent - More by this author » Last updated at 08:36am on 30th March 2007
Comments Comments (9)
The sight of Faye Turney reading a statement on Iranian television starkly illustrates the shift in military doctrine over how British prisoners should behave.
Until the last few years UK personnel were ordered to reveal only their name, rank and number if captured — the minimum required under the Geneva Convention.
Scroll down for more...
Faye Turney
Faye Turney: 'She has to try to placate her captors'
But in the post-Cold War world a more subtle approach to 'Conduct After Capture' has been adopted, designed to fit the kind of operations UK armed forces now carry out.
Today's servicemen and women are more likely to be captured by fanatical insurgents or a rogue state faction with no interest in obeying international law, rather than the professional armed forces of a foreign state.
A British prisoner must still avoid betraying secrets, but is now trained to co-operate with their captors if they think it will help. The extent to which captured personnel choose to co-operate is a matter for their own judgment, according to defence insiders, depending on the circumstances they face.
Whatever the advantages, the new doctrine makes it easier for captors to exploit prisoners for propaganda purposes.
Mrs Turney was paraded on television on Wednesday and made to read a Wednesday and made to read a statement 'apologising' for supposedly trespassing into Iranian territorial waters — a false confession according to British officials.
She praised her Iranian captors as 'friendly and hospitable', although body language analysts believe she was acting under duress.
With the latest statement said to be issued on her behalf — calling on Britain to withdraw from Iraq — the Iranians may believe they have scored a propaganda victory.
But UK defence sources claimed yesterday that such blatant exploitation of prisoners may backfire and provoke anger and distaste among neutral observers.
In 1991, there was international disgust as two RAF officers John Nichol and John Peters were captured after their Tornado bomber was shot down over Iraq. They were paraded on Iraqi television clearly showing injuries from being beaten by their captors and forced to read out prepared statements.
Yesterday, Mr Nichol said he felt 'a sense of depression' when watching Mrs Turney on television, and recalled his sense of shame at 'letting the side down' when he was forced to make a similar broadcast.
He said: 'You can see she doesn't want to be saying those things. It's a very difficult position. She has to try to placate the people who have captured her and try to keep the whole group safe. It's fallen on her shoulders at this time.'
During the Second World War and the Cold War personnel were most likely to be captured on the battlefield and held by a foreign power which — broadly speaking - observed the Geneva Conventions.
However, Iraqi insurgents or the Taliban in Afghanistan, can be expected to torture and kill any captives. Unpredictably hostile countries such as Iran may not go so far, but they will break international laws by parading prisoners in public.
During a full-scale war the traditional aim is to keep silent for at least 48 hours, after which any information on current operations is out of date and harmless.
But in this situation there is no secret about HMS Cornwall's mission — the details are published on the Ministry of Defence website — and little to be gained from confrontation with the Iranian captors.
The real priority is the safety of the prisoners themselves. Admiral Sir Alan West, former head of the Navy, said this week: 'Our guidance to anyone in that position would be to say what they want you to say.
'Don't tell them secrets, clearly, but if they tell you "Say this", well if that's going to get you out, then do it. It means absolutely nothing, what they say, to be honest.' In fact, Mrs Turney and the other sailors have had virtually no training in Conduct After Capture — probably only a lecture or video. The Marines will have had at least two days' training including a mock interrogation..
|
>>Source<< |
|
|
| CHRles |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Lets get ready for yet another major up by the Americans in the middle east:rolleyes: but this one is gonna hurt them for a looooooooong time. |
And yet, the amount of mistakes America makes pales in comparison to those made by Iranian officials.
Personally I'll take Bush anyday over Ahmedanijad, but hey if you support Iran so much you're welcome to move there. None of us will miss you :) |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
To be fair with Iran, so far from what I've read Iran is only asking for an apology from UK and a promise that such border aggression will not happen again, or an apology and provide Iran with documentation that says that UK marines were in Iraqi waters, not Iranian (much more complex).
If UK agrees to this, then Iran says they will release the marines and hand them over to UK. Not too much to ask, I guess, except Iran wants to gain a political victory here and gain domestic support ... |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
This whole situation is convoluted to hell, because we're dealing with a bunch of people that no one can trust.
I don't *know* the Iranian government, only what I see on TV, and the difference between the truth from their side, the truth from our side, and the actuality of the situation, is completely subjective.
Blair has openly stated that they weren't in Iranian waters. IF they were, would he let the media know?
WHY were those soldiers in Iranian waters? You don't send troops into countries you do not declare war on.
I will note that the United States has been sending troops into Africa...
That's the question I want to know the answer to, but can't, which would put all of this into proper perspective. However, it is rather strange that the UK doesn't just apologize and get their men back...
As of now, instead, all I've got is an incident that for all I know is a planted catalyst for some sort of planned future altercation. |
|
|
| CHRles |
Iran - a hellhole, backwards, ignorant, uber-religious country
U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe - great places to live in with tolerance, steady economies, and where both sexes are treated equally.
All Iranian lovers/anti-western lovers are urged to move to Iran ASAP. Oh, and try not to let the door hit you on your way out :) |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by CHRles
Iran - a hellhole, backwards, ignorant, uber-religious country
U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe - great places to live in with tolerance, steady economies, and where both sexes are treated equally.
All Iranian lovers/anti-western lovers are urged to move to Iran ASAP. Oh, and try not to let the door hit you on your way out :) |
| quote: | Originally posted by CHRles
hey if you support Iran so much you're welcome to move there. None of us will miss you :) |
So you are actually this ignorant that you can't even stop and look at what you just typed out to us objectively?
I understand that you're from Tenneesee, and my expectations for you are not high at all, but please, please, please tell me what ed up definition of "tolerance" you have been using in that pretty little head of yours?
Last I checked, tolerance wasn't the act of telling people you disagree with to leave "your" country. LOL :haha: |
|
|
|
|
