Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

There's a few things that don't quite add up:
1.) Why were the soldiers unarmed at the time?
2.) Where was their commanding officer on the boat?
3.) We've seen pictures of them being transported to shore, yet can see a British frigate in the background - why wasn't one of its helicopters deployed?

There's also the idea that the British know where the border on the stretch of water is, yet the fact the Iranians and Iraqis can't agree on it is a tad bizarre. Although why GPS is suddenly proof positive a few days after a story ran about GPS directing somebody's car into a river amuses me.

At this point, you can take it one of two ways:
* You believe it's a conspiracy in order to create some kind of incentive to attack Iran.
* British naval troops are pretty fucking stupid.

I go with the second.

At 4/4/07 09:31 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: There's a few things that don't quite add up:
1.) Why were the soldiers unarmed at the time?

I doubt they were unarmed. of course they were on rubber rafts armed with standard issue guns, vs ships armed with heavy machine guns, they wouldn't have stood a chance.

2.) Where was their commanding officer on the boat?

commanding officers can't be bothered to put themselves in danger

3.) We've seen pictures of them being transported to shore, yet can see a British frigate in the background - why wasn't one of its helicopters deployed?

because they couldn't risk killing their own soldiers trying to rescue them.

At 4/4/07 09:31 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At this point, you can take it one of two ways:
* You believe it's a conspiracy in order to create some kind of incentive to attack Iran.
* British naval troops are pretty fucking stupid.

I go with the second.

Ill leave it up to the poster before me to discredit your first points as he did a pretty good job of it.

At this point you can take it a lot more than 2 ways.
1) Why would Iran play along with a plan that was supposed to create incentive to attack?
2)British troops are well trained enough to know that a head to head with a bigger, better armed ship doesnt bode well for them.

and heres the way I take it:
Iran is throwing it's political weight about. Wether in retalliation to the limitations imposed on its nuclear development im still undecided.

At 4/4/07 11:36 AM, Grammer wrote: I would like to hear what the soldiers have to say when they're not in Iranian custody.

Seems like you'll get your chance. Just heard on CNN that they're planning on releasing them all.

ooh yay! And an online article about it is already up!! Welcome to the Information Age!!

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/845485.ht ml

Well, we shall see what they say. The woman is gonna say they were in Iranian waters because she is afraid for her child I am guessing.

Probably the smart move from the Iranian President, as he was being backed into a corner. Since there were riots outside the British Embassy calling for trials, I am not sure whether or not he will save face with his 'gift to the UK' story.

Good to hear they are getting released. It looks as though Iran realised that their actions were doing more harm than good.

Its good to see that they have been released. I wish we could get a statement from them before they talk to any MOD spin doctors, but I am sure that wont be possible.

I would also like to point out that the Iranians gave the co-ordinates they claim were on the GPS unit when they arrested the Brits, which puts them inside Iranian waters, while the MOD never released any co-ordinates and simply replied that they were in Iraqi waters. There is no agreement on the boundary between Iran and Iraqi waters. Iran wants to go by geographical proximity while Iraq wants special boundaries. The co-ordinates given by Iran are closer to Iran's coastline than Iraq's coastline. And since no agreement is in place I would have to side and I think most people would agree with me on this, abide by geographical proximity.

In any case, at least they are home soon.

At 4/4/07 02:14 PM, JoS wrote: Its good to see that they have been released. I wish we could get a statement from them before they talk to any MOD spin doctors, but I am sure that wont be possible.

I would also like to point out that the Iranians gave the co-ordinates they claim were on the GPS unit when they arrested the Brits, which puts them inside Iranian waters, while the MOD never released any co-ordinates and simply replied that they were in Iraqi waters. There is no agreement on the boundary between Iran and Iraqi waters. Iran wants to go by geographical proximity while Iraq wants special boundaries. The co-ordinates given by Iran are closer to Iran's coastline than Iraq's coastline. And since no agreement is in place I would have to side and I think most people would agree with me on this, abide by geographical proximity.

In any case, at least they are home soon.

I think its been discussed on this thread before that the Iranians gave coordinates ( the same ones as the Brits) that put the British in Iraqi waters first. They then changed the coordinates to make it look like they were in Iranian waters.

At 4/4/07 09:31 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: 1.) Why were the soldiers unarmed at the time?

Where does it say they were unarmed? I have never read that. Anywho, why would it matter if they were unarmed?

2.) Where was their commanding officer on the boat?

They had a Captain and a Leuitenant on board. I am unfamiliar with the structure of the British military but you would typically have only a First or Second Lieutenant in charge of a group the size that was captured (15 soldiers). To put it in perspective, a Captain typically is in charge of, at the very least, a platoon (20ish to 50ish soldiers depending on the branch and function of the platoon). Even more typically, the captain is in charge of a company which is fourish platoons. So they DID have their commanding officer on board.

Can you say ignorant comment? I know I can.

3.) We've seen pictures of them being transported to shore, yet can see a British frigate in the background - why wasn't one of its helicopters deployed?

I believe there is no way you would have seen a British warship in the background. Territorial waters extend at the least 12 nautical miles and I dont believe you can see a ship from that far off. I dont know for vessels of that size if that is true but I know for the typical fishing ship you would see in, say, Florida (20-40 feet ships), you would not have a bats shot in hell of being able to see a ship that far.

So if you can actually see a British ship in the background, lets see a link. Anyways, a helicopter was deployed, it was in the air while the RIB was still in the water. And to fire on the Iranian vessels would be foolish, their soldiers were in there of course. So what would you have had this lone helicopter do? Attack Iran by itself and make an even bigger international scene?

At this point, you can take it one of two ways:

LOL. You totally missed the most obvious. How about the fact the Iranians are just saber rattling and they dont care either way if they were or were not in Iranian or Iraqi waters? Wait, thats way to obvious.

I go with the second.

Im gonna go with you are a tard who has no idea what hes talking about. Yeah, that sounds right.

Its good to see that they have been released. I wish we could get a statement from them before they talk to any MOD spin doctors, but I am sure that wont be possible.

Probably not. This is a great opportunity to hurt Iran's credibility, and I'm sure the Brits aren't going to waste the opportunity by letting them talk freely.

Shit, I'd do the same thing (as I'm sure the CIA would as well).

The Brits seem to be our only friends right now.

USA and UK forever

Iran's PR campaign.

There trying to show Iranian mercy for letting the sailors off instead of prosecuting them for thier "infringements".

I declare that the people of Iran and the government of Iran -- in full power to place on trial the military people -- to give amnesty and pardon to these 15 people, and I announce their freedom and their return to the people of Britain," Ahmadinejad said

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/04/ira n.sailors/index.html

Well of course it was PR! Releasing them was obviously an insincere political move. But what did you want him to do to them? Behead them on video?

Apparently, the British soldiers are now claiming that they were held in Guantánamo-like conditions and thus falsely confessed to a crime they didn't commit. Parallels, anyone?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6533069.st m

At 4/6/07 12:21 PM, Begoner wrote: Apparently, the British soldiers are now claiming that they were held in Guantánamo-like conditions and thus falsely confessed to a crime they didn't commit. Parallels, anyone?

CLASSIC Begoner. Change the subject back to the hororrs of the USA!! YEAH!!!!

At 4/6/07 12:21 PM, Begoner wrote: Apparently, the British soldiers are now claiming that they were held in Guantánamo-like conditions and thus falsely confessed to a crime they didn't commit. Parallels, anyone?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6533069.st m

LOL, you are such and idiot! Hahaha!

At 4/6/07 12:21 PM, Begoner wrote: Apparently, the British soldiers are now claiming that they were held in Guantánamo-like conditions and thus falsely confessed to a crime they didn't commit. Parallels, anyone?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6533069.st m

Who would have thought that the sailors being held at gun point would have been told what to say? Crazyness.

At 4/6/07 12:21 PM, Begoner wrote: Apparently, the British soldiers are now claiming that they were held in Guantánamo-like conditions and thus falsely confessed to a crime they didn't commit. Parallels, anyone?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6533069.st m

lol you're a stupid person.

At 4/6/07 01:28 PM, Grammer wrote: Uh, no, I don't believe that has ever happened in the US since Abu Graib

No, much more grievous transgressions occur daily at Guantánamo Bay. The British sailors were held for two weeks without a trial; those at the US naval base are held indefinitely and many have been detained for years. The Iranians did not employ sleep deprivation; the Americans oftentimes do. Furthermore, disgusting methods of torture, such as water-boarding, are used by the US against its detainees but not by Iran. There clearly can be no comparison between the two.

At 4/6/07 01:38 PM, Engelsman wrote: Who would have thought that the sailors being held at gun point would have been told what to say? Crazyness.

Exactly; they may have been coerced to lie. Their "confession" was achieved through a week of detention and interrogation without any physical punishment. How valid do you think that the confessions that are extracted from detainees at Guantánamo Bay are, given that they are subjected to much more brutal conditions for much more extended periods of time?

I am glad they are home and okay. I am just curious how we know though that they are telling the truth now? I am not denying there was likely some pressure on them while in Iran, but how do we know what they say now is the absolute truth as well? Its not unheard of for spin doctors to tell captured soliders what to say or to make up lies about conditions.

At 4/6/07 02:33 PM, Begoner wrote:

No, much more grievous transgressions occur daily at Guantánamo Bay.

I love how you get a hard on when terrorist is mentioned. I also love how you can never back up what you say.

At 4/6/07 03:13 PM, Grammer wrote

Okay, name one for each day last week.

That would be hard to do, given that the press is not given access to the site, but it doesn't take a genius to suspect that a wondrous human rights situation wouldn't be kept hidden from the press.

The only problems that ever occured at Gitmo was Abu Graib

You do know what Gitmo is, right? Just to refresh your geography skills, Cuba is not near Iraq.

When you're a terrorist, you are not a soldier in uniform, and you are not subject to the same rights under the Geneva convention as our military is.

Who says that they are terrorists? Have they been given a fair trial? No, many people are detained in Guantanamo Bay without being given any type of trial whatsoever. If Iran decided to claim that a British soldier was a "terrorist" and hold him for an indefinite period of time in a Tehran prison without allowing the media to communicate with him, the press would be screaming bloody murder. But hundreds of prisoners are being held that way in the US and it's not really mentioned.

April 6 (Bloomberg) -- The 15 U.K. sailors and marines who were held in Iran for 13 days said today they were kept in solitary confinement for much of the time.

Most detainees in Guantanamo are also held in isolation. However, in addition to that, they are often deprived of sleep, a technique which the Iranians did not employ against their prisoners.

Water-boarding is not torture, you whiney commie. I've seen TV reporters undergo water-boarding to see what it's like.

Do you mean the FOX reporter who only lasted a few seconds? He, too, called the procedure "torture." And, mind you, this is a reporter for FOX who called it torture. To try to make light of such an abhorrent procedure is revolting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Xd0Q2Auz4

Listen to what Murat Kurnaz, a man who was detained for five years before being released, has to say about the place.

Shock rooms: "(In Guantanamo) I was subjected to severe torture. For three months, I stayed in these cold-hot shock rooms. When you go into the room they pump very hot air inside. After that, they pump extremely cold air. It is a horrifying kind of torture. There were various sorts of torture methods including electrical shocks, drowning in water tanks, depriving of food and water, chaining and hanging to the ceiling."

"I witnessed people dying": "They brought a tub full of water. They dipped our heads and held them in water. There I witnessed many people die. They stripped us of our clothes, chaining and hanging us to the wall. I was kept hung to the wall for 4-5 days. Then doctor used to come and check if we could stand more or not. We were not given any food for 20 days. They only gave us one piece of toast, one carrot or one apple per day."

"Psychological Torture": "When none of these torture methods worked, they applied psychological torture. They threw the Qur'an to the floor and kicked it around, throwing it in the toilet. They were playing Adhan along with other music and dancing to it. They made religious insults. Once I could not feel my feet or hands due to the cold. Then I felt a gun barrel at my head. The soldier was yelling at me saying that he was going to kill me. I started laughing. All other detainees started laughing, too. Because I felt that I was already dead. If they killed me, they would be doing me a favor.

"Sign this document": "One day, they brought this document to me and told me to sign it. For example, there were sentences saying that I would guarantee that I would not get involved in terrorist activities. I told them I never did anything like that anyway, and I would not sign it. I was told that I would not be able to get out of there if I did not sign it. Then they packed my bags and sent me back to Germany."

"All Guantanamo camp footage is fake": "After I was released I saw a lot of photos and video footage of Guantanamo detainment camp. Those are all fake and full of lies. Americans were selecting 2-3 detainees for the footage. They were giving mattresses, blankets, prayer beads and skullcaps to these detainees and were recording these videos. The documentary The Road to Guantanamo is a good work. But it is only telling 20 percent of what happened there. It is hard to show everything that happened over the years in one movie".

If you can't see how atrocious and vile what is happening at Guantanamo is, you are devoid of any moral sense whatsoever.

At 4/6/07 03:15 PM, Grammer wrote: Have you been to Gitmo? Can you prove any of these "brutal conditions" that are supposedly existant in Gitmo? Of course not.

Umm...US officials have acknowledged that they used water-boarding in Guantanamo Bay. Here's the full UN report on the station, if you're interested.

http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/docs/
62chr/E.CN.4.2006.120_.pdf

At 4/6/07 04:38 PM, Begoner wrote: Umm...US officials have acknowledged that they used water-boarding in Guantanamo Bay.

Waterboarding isn't torture, hell, I'd call it college hazing.

At 4/6/07 04:23 PM, Begoner wrote: But hundreds of prisoners are being held that way in the US and it's not really mentioned.

Check the Geneva Convention definition of a soldier. Guess who doesnt fit the bill. You got one freebie.

They threw the Qur'an to the floor and kicked it around, throwing it in the toilet.

O RLY

Those are all fake and full of lies.

Yes, indeed, I am going to trust this person over my government. LOL.

At 4/6/07 04:38 PM, Begoner wrote:

Umm...US officials have acknowledged that they used water-boarding in Guantanamo Bay. Here's the full UN report on the station, if you're interested.

It's just too bad for you, it isn't torture. Uh-oh!

At 4/6/07 05:45 PM, Demosthenez wrote: Check the Geneva Convention definition of a soldier. Guess who doesnt fit the bill. You got one freebie.

Guess to whom human rights laws apply. You get one freebie. Ah, hell, I'll even give you a hint: it's right there in the name, and it's not "rights." Do you have it yet?

O RLY

Yes, really. What I quoted was the first-hand account of a detainee. Just because a news show retracted a story it based on a government source doesn't mean anything at all.

Yes, indeed, I am going to trust this person over my government. LOL.

Your government is engaging in some grievous abuses of human rights and throwing hundreds of people in jail without a trial and torturing them. You damn well better be sure you trust those people rather than their captors. Do you trust the official Nazi version of what happened at death camps or the story of Jewish survivors? Don't pretend to be so naive, because you're not.

At 4/6/07 06:19 PM, Grammer wrote: Oh okay, so you can't prove there are any travesties in Gitmo. Okay, cool.

No, I said I couldn't prove that such travesties occur daily, troll. Even the US government admits that it has tortured (ahem, "forcefully interrogated") detainees and numerous human rights reports (such as the one I linked to) catalogue the human rights abuses that frequently occur.

Then I guess I don't know of any travesties that have happened at Gitmo. Seems like your arguments lose credibility every day :|

What the hell are you talking about? My arguments aren't credible because you think Guantanamo Bay is in Iraq?! How is your ignorance my fault?

Oh gee, what would you call the insurgents killing innocent men, women, and children, who are fighting for Islamic jihad, and are not in uniform for any particular country?

Oh, gee, what happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? What about the right to a fair trial? You know, the whole Constitution thing. Furthermore, insurgents are not killing innocent men, women and children; that task is delegated to sectarian militias and assorted other groups.

Many have been. Khalid Shiehk Mohammed was given a military tribunal, in which he admitted to planning 9/11.

The British soldiers admitted on TV that they crossed into Iranian waters after being detained for a week. Mohammed was held for a much longer period of time. His admission is completely worthless, as was that of the British soldiers. He was given a military tribunal only after he was held for such an extended period of time that he was willing to say anything to end it all.

Good. They'll get a trial eventually just like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has.

Lol, "eventually"? Some have been in there for years without being given a trial (and those that have been given a trial have not been given a fair one, as set forth in the Constitution). The guy I mentioned was held for 5 years and then allowed to go free. Can you imagine being confined to the same cell for 5 years of your life because of an unfounded suspicion -- in the US, no less? It's abhorrent.

They're not protected by the Geneva Convention, so I honestly don't care.

Human rights apply to everybody. Unless they're extraterrestrials, they have the right to a trial and to better conditions.

It's kind of sad you put the British marines and sailors who didn't even enter Iranian waters on the same level of terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children.

You're beginning to sound like a broken record with that "innocent men, women, and children" bit. Who the fuck knows whether they did it or not? Many so-called "terrorists" have been released because it was discovered that they were innocent. Also, they probably did enter Iranian waters, but there's insufficient information to back up either side of that issue.

He called it "torturous"

Are you splitting hairs between "torture" and "torturous," an adjective which means "like torture"? LOL. Anyway, he later claimed that it was torture.

but he also said it was efficient.

Chopping off hands is efficient. Sticking needles in eyes is efficient. Should we do that to innocent people, too?

I see you whining more about what America does to terrorists then what terrorists do to Americans.

Terrorists aren't a developed nation which claims to have "liberty and justice for all." The terrorists haven't subjugated other nations. We all know that beheading and killing innocent civilians is wrong, yet the US pretends that it's the "good guy," even though it has killed a hell of a lot more innocent civilians than the terrorists have and it has used some cruel and brutal methods to extract confessions, just as the terrorists have.

Also, media reporters have actually been to Gitmo, such as Bill `O Reilly, and he did not note any abuses at Gitmo at all.

Well, it would have been hard to see the conditions at Gitmo considering his head is pretty far up his ass.

and the far left human rights organizations.

Yes, because any organization which believes that people shouldn't be tortured and should be given a fair trial is obviously "far left."

The Pentagon report

Lol.

So what are we talking about here? Some minor cases of abuse, that's what.

I don't consider torture a "minor case of abuse"; nor do I consider violating the Constitution (and blatantly, too) a small matter.