As currently interpreted the Geneva Conventions only apply to individuals bent on destroying America. Individuals who blow up elementary schools, kidnap children, attack churches and mosques, kill invalids in wheelchairs, plan attacks on skyscrapers in New York, behead journalists, detonate car bombs with children to camouflage their crime, or board jetliners with explosive shoes — all while wearing mufti or even women’s clothing — these are all considered “freedom fighters” of the most principled kind. They and they alone enjoy the protections of the Geneva Convention. As to Americans like Tucker and Menchaca or Israeli Gilad Shalit — or these fifteen British sailors for that matter, it is a case of “what Geneva Convention?” We don’t need no steenkin’ Geneva Convention to try these guys as spies. That’s the way the Human Rights racket works. Don’t go looking for any Geneva Convention in Somalia, Darfur, Basilan or Iran. Try Guantanamo Bay.
Soooo you really prefer this little weasel over the Mullahs?? I can see an Iranian election coming immediately after an MI6 sniper narrows down the presidential candidacy by one.
Will something like this wake anybody up? I doubt it. I will say yet again, several cruise missiles down the throat of the government in both Damascus and Tehran and maybe you have a new start. Can’t be much worse and maybe, just maybe, the people will take over and displace the mullahs. Very little expense, no ground troops and no long term commitment.
Western Canadian, hopefully those countries will be turned into glass floors and there won’t be any people left to take over. Remember the Terminator movies? The machine will just regenerate itself if you don’t liquify it. It’s not like we’re talking about human beings here.
Lady Thatcher would be assemblying the fleet by now. It should have been done two years ago when the previous kidnappings occurred.
If I were one of those sailors/marines, I’d be quite disappointed that the mother ship hadn’t pursued my captors, consequences be damned.
Iran is the activist, the key troublemaker, in the ME, as it tries to use the tensions created by the conflict between the old political mode of tribalism and the emerging political mode of civic democracy, for its own imperialist ambitions.
Iran wants to rule the ME. It would, I suggest, like the West to attack it, so that it could mobilize not just Iran but the entire ME – naturally under its control.
Iran cannot on its own directly attack and take over Arab states in the ME, but, it can attain its imperialist ambitions by having the West attack it – and it would ask other ME Arab states to protect it. Or, it would, in the chaos of a war, invade the other Arab states and take them over.
It has been taunting the West again and again, with this hope of a Western attack. Such an attack and above all, such a defense (Iran mobilizes the entire ME in defense!!) – would destroy democracy in the ME, and put all the ME nations under Iranian rule.
These ‘red flags’ to the flag, hoping for a violent response have included everything from open nuclear ambitions, its arming of and support for Hezbollah and Hamas, its key role in inciting internal tribal war between the Sunni and Shi’ites in Iraq, to a Holocaust denial conference.
Meanwhile, Iran continues to indirectly attack the Arab states in the ME, trying to incite unrest and prevent democracy from emerging. Iran is behind the insurgency in Iraq, its take-over of Hezbollah and Hamas is used to try to get the West to attack it. The Lebanon War was such an incitement – but resulted in only Israel attacking Lebanon, rather than the US/UK, ie, the Iranian tactic didn’t work.
The Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon) have no desire to be under Iranian imperialism but they are not doing enough to prevent this; they are relying on the US to protect them from Iran.
ET, aren’t you tired of your doomsaying?
One more comment, I work quite closely, as I have said here before with an Iranian, and it’s not, I repeat not the Iranian people. They can’t wait to see the last of this current leader and the mullahs. He is a practicing Muslim as is his wife and family, no Halloween costume for his wife and daughter, his words not mine, absolutely none of the crap you read about, just nice fun people. I am as guilty as anyone in painting them all with the same brush, and it’s just not right. Having said that I am still firmly in favor of some very strong and aggressive action against Iran, but selective.
ET’s analysis is correct I believe: deliberate incitement. See this piece at counterterrorismblog.
Royal Navy “incident”: The larger plan of Teheran’s regime
By Walid Phares
Evidently the mullocracy is under severe pressure internally. The tough question is: Do you demur from a military response because the other party has deliberately provoked you?
Selective as in “tactical nuclear weapon” selective?
If this continues then WW3 is just around the corner. Being “selective” won’t matter for much longer. Most Germans weren’t fanatics either, but that didn’t stop us from carpet-bombing their cities.
ET: “Iran wants to rule the ME. It would, I suggest, like the West to attack it, so that it could mobilize not just Iran but the entire ME – naturally under its control.”
Hardly doomsaying Aaron (what a naive remark). Yes, ET, Iran is causing all kinds of problem and this latest incident was provoked by UN sanctions, just as the summer Israeli/Palestinian war was provoked by UN tearing strip off Iran.
Iran, like many ME states, has no problem seeing its citizens die in a Western attack. It’s the accepted price for formenting hatred and uniting Islamic fascism under their banner.
The solution is quite simple. By all means negotiate now, but at some point, Iran must feel pain. My recommendation is that all Iranian assets in GB be seized (in fact, if some other countries could join, then great), PERMANENTLY. Iran must be isolated politically and economically. Their economic interests worldwide – ships, pipelines, should also be threatend and compromised. Please spare me the niceties of diplomacy and international law; these guys have no respect for those forums and use them when it suits their purpose or justifies their actions. Sometimes good men must do evil, so get over it.
If the worst happens, and these sailors are executed (which I doubt will happen), then yes there should be military action, with two main objectives. One, to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability, and two, to capture and kill their leadership. Islamic fascism leadership share one main characteristic – they send others to be martyrs. I would make it clear, quietly, that Amadmanjihad and his cabal would become martyrs. I yeah, I forgot, it’s Bush’s fault.
WC, obviously that friend of yours isn’t a real practicing Muslim. He is just being selective about what to draw from the religion, like people who go to church twice a year. As has been documented here many times, Islam is all about Borg-like assimilation of all of mankind. It’s a cancer that requires radiation treatment.
1st goal is to get the sailors and marines home safe and sound……easier said than done, but there are many ways to acheive this.
2nd goal is figure out who ordered the kidnapping
3rd goal, punish those who ordered it, severely…
4th goal, set up clear ROE within military so this doesnt happen again (I am bothered by the lack of explaination as to why the Cornwall did nothing, maybe it did do something but failing sailing up the waterway and becoming a sitting duck for missile there may be little it could do.)
Now is not the time to ask why nothing was done but make sure goal number 1 is acheived
I like the suggestion of a commentor over at the Belmont Club: Britian should quietly sink an Iranian sub or some other covert act with plausable deniability. Given the fact that anything that happens over there, from a flat tyre on up will be blamed on Bush and the west, let’s make it interesting.
I am still perplexed as to why HMS Cornwall let this happen in the first place. I doubt if Lord Nelson or even Captain Aubrey would have stood by.
Heart of oak are our ships,
Jolly tars are our men;
We always are ready, steady, boys, steady!
We’ll fight and we’ll conquer again and again.
aaron – What? Kindly explain.
western canadian and buz hogg – as you are undoubtedly aware, in your support for the nuclear bombing of Iran – Canada doesn’t have such capacities. You are therefore relying on the US to carry out this action. Why should you do so and why should the US do so?
Iran would very much like the West to attack it; it could then, in the chaos, attack the Arab states (Iran is NOT an arab state), with the intention of controlling them, preventing democracy and setting itself up as a ME empire.
Again, IF the US were to attack Iran – with or without nuclear weapons – what would be the result?
1) Universal world condemnation – worse even than the Iraq war.
2) Iran would leap for joy and immediately attack the arab states. It has been building up its arms in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq for just such a joyful event.
3) Would other states in the West assist the US? I doubt it – Europe would, as usual, run for cover; the only nations that might help are minor military powers. The UK might help. China, India, etc would stand by and watch.
I am convinced the US would never use nuclear weapons in such a war – and the Iranian intention would be to spread such a war over great territory by attacking ALL the ME states. Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq – and Israel. Israel would be brought into the war – the whole area would explode.
Could you explain to me why the US should sacrifice its young men and women in such an issue?
I prefer Shamrock’s analysis and suggestions. But I’d add that the ME arab states have got to stop relying on the West (US/UK) to protect them from Islamic fascism.
buzzhoag – I disagree with your view of a ‘real Muslim’. You are stating that the only real Muslim is a fundamentalist, which means that you reject their own attempts to change that religion from Wahhabi fundamentalism to a modern version. That would mean that you’d also have to reject the Christian reformation which radically changed the Christian religion from a hierarchical control to a private individual control.
Will Jack Layton and his buddies demand the Red Cross visit the hostages so the Geneva Convention is enforced and none of them were tortured into a confession that they are spies and guilty .
Or does the NDP only apply the POW protection to Hamas,Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda who dress as civilians to blend in and murder mainly civilians , I will say that the Terrorist are fair when they murder because they don’t see a difference from Military people and civilain females and children.
Equality in Islam applies to all aspects as Muhammed declared for his rules of War .
I do not intend to infer I am passing judgement but I am curious. When the navy sends away a bordering party, their ship always remains in the very near vicinity as backup if needed. In fact as the boarding party approaches and actually boards the target the boarding party is very vulnerable to attack and depends heavily on their own ship to closely observe the target and if necessary warn them of danger and even provide covering fire for them in case of attack from the crew of the ship then intend to board. I can’t help but wonder how far away the RN frigate was at the time these unfortunate sailors and marines were kidnapped, but it had to have been very close by. I am also curious as to why, if the RN frigate observed the Iranian navy boats approaching, and it is inconceivable that they didn’t, why they didn’t intravene and take whatever steps were necessary to prevent the Iranians from kidnapping their men. If the RN was truly operating in Iraqi waters, then it would have been entirely legal,and recognized as such internationally as well as being an act of war by Iran, for the RN to first warn the Iranians verbally to stand off. If that warning was ignored then the next step would logically be warning shots. If those were ignored then deadly force would have been entirely appropriate in order to protect its sailors. Was it deemed to risky to forcibly intravene, and better to let the Iranians have their way than to risk an armed confrontation with Iranian navy boats operating illegally and in war mode in Iraqi waters? Did the frigate actually verbally warn the Iranians to back off but upon being ignored refused to escalate the situation and permitted the kidnapping of its men? If this was the case, then the skipper of this frigate should be taken to task for his decision. Perhaps the Iranians believed that the west is weak willed and anticipated our inaction even to protect our own servicemen? These are just honest questions that somebody should be asking, and the Royal Navy should be publicly answering. Where is the media?
ET and others — do not put words falsely in my mouth. At no time did I ever say nuclear or imply such. Selective was in regards to the target.
ET, it isn’t a question of fundamentalist vs. non-fundamendalist Islam. The very raison d’etre for this cult, right from Mohammed on down, was to transform the world, without compromise or moderation on Sharia law. In Orwell’s 1984, the object of power was power. Likewise, the object of Islam is Islam. Robert Spencer has it right. That’s what makes us Christians superior, the fact that we tolerate the odd infidel knowing that Christ died for his sins. I put up with my Jewish and Muslim neighbours because I’m a tolerant man. Islam doesn’t allow such a luxury.
As for the prospects of a nuclear attack on Iran (and the Islamic world in general), it’s a shame that Canada doesn’t have such capability and we have to rely, once again, on the U.S. to look out for us. I have my own thoughts on how the Canadian Forces should be outfitted, but that will have to wait for another day. In the meantime, it’s in the interest of the U.S. (or the U.K., since their arsenal is closer) to consider such action. Nothing else will ultimately put the monster to rest and spare us having to eternally spend blood and treasure to accomplish the same goal.
Domestically, since we have “Muslims” who have enjoyed a taste of Christian-inspired liberty, there is a chance we can keep an eye on them and re-educate them as I’ve suggested in another thread.
Ross & Stephen. Re: where was HMCS Cornwall. Interesting observations and yes, my navy friends tell me, the captain shall be held accountable on this. Truth be told, there could be as multiple boarding teams strewn about a large area. This particular area was in disputed waters, I understand, where a covert operation might succeed. That is if the boarding party didn’t have a 50 cal machine gun, which I’m told is likely the case. Otherwise the Iranians wouldn’t have gotten near them. I think, rather than captain’s error, there was an SOP, and likely too a ROE problem. Like I said, likely corrected, now SOP will be 50 cal with team. That’s what I’ve inferred from my navy buds.
You don’t wait to see if the sailors/marines are murdered before acting. It is an act of war. The fleet should sail.
The orders given seem suspect given no action from HMS Cornwall or resistance from sailors/marines. However, if the orders were good, some floggings are in order. The act of war still needs to be faced regardless.
By the way, forget about the views of the U.S. as their records is horrible in prostrating themselves to the Iranians and others. The U.K. did wrong to allow the U.S. to back it off of Suez and did right to ignore the U.S. on the Falklands.
I like the line from a Clint Eastwood movie where he grabs a Nazi Officer to take in a room and ask questions, the Nazi starts spewing his Rights under the Geneva Convetion for POW’s , Eastwood shuts him up and says “We’re not in Geneva” .
As for Taliban Jack , the Geneva Convention is very clear about civilians declaring war and taking up Arms to fight in Civilain clothes and endanger the lives of other Civilians by mixing among them to use as shields like those gutless weasels in Hezbollah do .
Nice to know that if Jihadist started bombing our subways and office towers while dressing as Civilians, they’ll have the NDP on their side to make sure Canada doesn’t abuse their Charter Rights and Geneva Convention Rules for POW’s , I hope the RCMP and local Police have brushed up on the new tactics to fight terrorist while respecting our laws for presuming someone is Innocent until proven guilty .
The Arar inquiry was not to prove his guilt for ties to Al-Qeada , it was to look at our failed Dual-Citizenship policy where Draft-Dodger from Syria can be stopped before entering the uSA and removed to a Country that will take him.
O.J. was found not-guilty , he was not found Innocent , Justice O’Connor only said that no proof existed to indicate that Canada’s information to the USA was the sole source for them believing Arar had terrorism links, O’Connor also stated that the Arar’s have not broken any laws in Canada and no evidence showed a link to terror groups.
This is the legalise language to speak without really saying anything so you aren’t Sued for implying a guilt just by the lack of evidence to prove someone innocent.
Hans Blix from the U.N. was a master of baffle-gab when reporting on Saddams WMD’s , after 17 UN Resolution to disarm we still heard Blix failing to confirm Saddam didn’t destroy the WMD’s , nor did Saddam admit he didn’t keep the WMD’s.
Saddam caused the Gulf War 1 and 2 , and the Sun is behind the big lie that blames Co2 for global warming.
ET, you are wrong beyond despair. First off, it’s the UK sailors, and the UK does have technical ability to nuke the mullahs. Canadian involvement is irrelevant, I don’t see why you would mention Canada in connection. UK won’t do anything beyond jumping up and dows, so really it boils down to two countries.
Then, majority of Iranians do not support the regime, if you speak to them it’s the same story: ‘The turbans (mullahs) screwed us all over’. Iran won’t dare to attack anything larger than Kuwait. Without internal support for war by the majority of the ordinary people attacking a single ME country will be as suicidal for them, as it was for Saddam.
western canadian – my apologies for the ‘nuclear’ attribution; Canada doesn’t have cruise missiles either. And, though they do carry conventional bombs, they are particularly developed for nuclear bombing.
boz hogg – I disagree with your outline of Islam. My own view of the emergence and development of Islam is outlined in the thread on Bernard Lewis. I think your outline of it as ‘power for power’ is trivial. Such an ideology focused only on power cannot function within a population of millions – and there are millions of Muslims, the majority of whom are not interested in power.
I also disagree with your view of Christianity as ‘superior’, for it is as simplistic and patronizing as your definition of Islam.
And I disagree with your solution of nuclear bombing. Equally simplistic.
Ross – quite possibly, the UK navy, even though in Iraq waters, was officially forbidden to engage in military action even if Iranian forces moved in and tried to do so.
The only problem is that there isn’t much of a fleet left to sail. The Royal Navy has been getting smaller and smaller for a generation. With such a huge welfare bill to be payed to keep illegal immigrants and radical muslims living in a style that a lot of the natives can’t even dream about anymore, there isn’t much money left over for national defence.
Shamrock. I have difficulty accepting the multiple boarding parties strewn about a large area theory. I cannot envision a frigate having ‘multiple’ trained boarding parties for one thing. They might have 2, one for boarding and another retained onboard for backup or replacements if required, but that would be it. Launching multiple teams across large distances would be fool hardy beyond belief for safety reasons alone. Like I said, the boarding party is completely vulnerable while in transit including the actual boarding process, until they take control of the vessel and its crew including the engine room and bridge. Being so low to the water as they transit and given the high freeboard of the target, the boarding party is incapable of adequately observing human activity onboard the target as they transit in order that they could take either self-defence or evasive action in the event of perceived or actual threat. A boarding party is totally reliant on the protection of their own ship during transit, the actual boarding and their safe return to their own ship including as what should have been in this case, from outside attack. I cannot believe for an instant that such a team would ever be sent off to board a ship at such a great distance away that their own ship could not provide them logistical support for reasons I have already described. It would be foolhardy beyond belief to do so. They would be only dispatched to board a ship after their own had positioned itself very near to the target vessel for a number of reasons not the least of which would be so as to keep the transit distance as short as possible for the boarding party and to permit close observation of the target and fire support to the party if necessary. Yours is the first I have heard that this might have occurred in disputed waters. The RN have GPS, if this ship was Iraqi bound, then the obvious course of action would be to just wait until it is clearly in Iraqi waters, why jump the gun? The disputed waters theory doesn’t make sense either ‘unless’ the Cornwall’s skipper or navigator screwed up big time. You might be right on the ROE (Rules of Engagement) though, and that would be sad.
You and ET might both be right on the ROE (Rules of Engagement) issue, but I hope you are not. Talk about abandoning your own people. Again I simply ask where is the media? If they could find a way to blame this all on George Bush and the Americans they would be all over it.
*
As Iran demonstrated so clearly when it seized the American Embassy
back in November of 1979, the Iranian regime has absolutely no respect
for the rule of law.
The seizure of British sailors this week was obviously retaliation for
Iranian operatives previously captured and held by American
forces in Iraq.
“Up to 50 Iranian “spies” have been captured and imprisoned by British
troops in secret operations in southern Iraq in the last four years.”
*
Well, Ross, if RN operates anything like our navy, then there would definitely be up to four boardings taking place within a short time period. The searched ships don’t line up in a row, they are in various parts of a large area. I remember a military poster using phrase “doing more with less.” I know resources are stretched; remember the HMCS Ottawa just returned from Gulf duty. The point of my navy friends is, just in case, have 50 cal machine gun with boarding parties. You can’t warn off a heavily armed intruder with small arms.
Yes, ET it is not as simple as firing off a deck gun and splashing the Iranian gunboats(?). An enemy (yes, that’s what they are)will probe your weaknesses and look for opportunities and the right time. That’s what happened here. They just got another dressing down from UN, acted brave and tough, while launching this likely pre-planned attack. Yes, the Cornwall captain looks bad on this one; I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, for now. Iran has made another miscalculation and they will continue to do so as long as they get concessions or remain unpunished. Stop reinforcing their rogue state behaviour.
IRAN still a outlaw nation belonging to the UN
*
On the other hand… in the wake of a
cataclysmic event, the rest of the hyenas
might prove to be a lot easier to deal with.
To-may-to, to-mah-to.
*
“The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was an alleged pair of attacks by naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (commonly referred to as North Vietnam) against two American destroyers, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. The attacks occurred on 2 August and 4 August 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin.
…
In 1995, retired Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, meeting with former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, categorically denied that Vietnamese gunboats had attacked American destroyers on 4 August, while admitting to the attack on 2 August.[6][7] However, the first engagement was initiated by Maddox entering North Vietnamese waters on an intelligence gathering mission, along with coordinated attacks on North Vietnamese military targets by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force. A taped conversation of a meeting several weeks after passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was released in 2001, revealing that McNamara expressed doubts to President Lyndon B. Johnson that the attack had even occurred. Taking into consideration documents and transcripts released by the U.S. National Security Agency and the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum, the consensus is that this second attack never happened.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident
If england had WINSTON CHURCHILL or MARGRET THATCHER they would have sent in the royal marines and the RAF and would have left TARHAN a smoldering ruin with their big leader haninging from a gallows
ET thanks and no problem.
Should have been clearer, I was referring to the US. They don’t seen to have the political will and staying power, both sides Rep and Dem could, I think, care less what happens so long as they score points on the home front. From day one my concern with the US was just that, will, regardless whether it’s Iran Iraq or whoever.
On FOX news tonight…the Cornwall’s commanding officer had been ordered NOT to intravene to save his own men by higher authority. Well well, that is not surprising.
Sorry Shamrock. Yes, up to 4 boardings taking place within a short period of time, but all at the sametime? There is a huge difference. But would you be suggesting that our Navy sends off boarding parties helter skelter with little or absolutely no backup from their ship? How could a single frigate possibly monitor and provide competent backup for up to 4 simultaneous boardings? Irresponsible, dangerous, amateurish, reckless come to mind if that is indeed the case. With all due respect, I cannot for a minute believe our navy would operate in such a cavalier fashion regarding Canadian sailors lives. If they do, then God help them. This is a theatre of war, not a tiddly winks competition. Do more with less be damned.
I’m not Winston and certainly not Maggy but here is what I would do: I would assemble about three battle group ten miles INSIDE (emphasis mine)Iranian territorial waters. I would dare any Iranian battle ships to come within shooting distance of my fleet. I would then give Amenadadingadong 24 hours to produce my sailors safe and sound or the cruise missiles would be set in motion. I would follow that up with a “nuclear” strike at their refining facilities. It is time to ‘take them out”. We will all greatly regret the day we did not take the opportunity.
I am sure that the Iranians planned this in such a way as to grab these sailors and get away. They’ve been watching the British boardings for weeks (maybe months) and saw a weakness.
I think the right approach is to negotiate for the next few days and if this does not work then some sort of sanctions if that doesn’t work.
Iran is trying to have Britain and the US take their eyes off the ball which is Iraq, Afghanistan, and nuclear weapons. Don’t let them do it. The worst thing for Iran is the success of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot … it’s all Bush’s fault (line stolen from Shamrock).
“Western Canadian, hopefully those countries will be turned into glass floors and there won’t be any people left to take over.”
I’ve seen quite a few comments like this on this blog. I don’t really to take issue with comments like this anymore, this guy is too out of touch with any sense of human decency to bother me. What gets my goat is that none of you take issue with it either.
A bunch of you got into a twist over someone characterization muslims retaking Jerusalem as a “liberation” but you’re totaly cool with someone wishing for the extermination of 20 million people.
Oh my oh my, have we all been taken for fools or what? Rosie O’Donnell in her infinite wisdom has exposed this whole kidnapping as a set up by the Brits and George Bush to give them an excuse to invade Iran. Damn, how could so many people be so gullible, and Rosie be so darn smart. Rosie for President! Barf.
Josee, it’s pinkos like you that are the reason we are losing this fight. You don’t like what I have to say, and you want me censored and censured. Hell hath no fury like a lib woman offended. Sorry babe, but I think you’re upset because you’re uncomfortable with truth. To paraphrase the Goldwater ’64 campaign, in your heart you know I’m right.
“To paraphrase the Goldwater ’64 campaign, in your heart you know I’m right.”
Dream on, you’re a 21st century brownshirt wannabee. But don’t worry, you’ve got plenty of company.
Brownshirt? You think you’re so clever throwing out those typical leftie labels, don’t you Josie? As usual, all namecallng and no substance. Is that the best argument you can come up with? Go troll at the kids’ table – we’re talking about grownup things here.
Bozz Hogg and Jose. What do your posts have to do with this thread?