'Had they resisted there would have been a major fight and "one we could not have won."'

An epitaph for all of us. Thanks Little Britain.

Posted by: Dane at April 6, 2007 5:26 PM

So those cheap polyester suits for the men and the flowery headscarf for the lady were just for show?

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at April 6, 2007 5:27 PM

I gather the result is to further alienate the British public from America ("they put us in the situation in the first place") but perhaps to increase the sense that Great Britain must be able to defend itself -- the EU surely will not. A small shift to the isolationist right is the best one can hope for.

Will there be stronger British domestic stance against Islam? Only if the Muslims start smoking and are therefore "a bad influence on our youth," which (and I paraphrase) is why a Health Minister found the pictures of the woman sailor so appalling. National humiliation? No so important.

Is it the end of the world? Not with a bang, but a burkha.

Posted by: StillBreathing at April 6, 2007 5:37 PM

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm

watch the stoning video ... it could have been worse. Wonder if Islam will so be the law of the land in Europe?

Posted by: Ameriki at April 6, 2007 5:44 PM

Never resist, never fight, because after all we cannot win! The classic dhimmi position; this item should be cross-posted at dhimmiwatch. The battle didn't even begin, because you surrendered at the start.

These are extraordinary statements by the grandiloquently named Royal Marine Captain Chris Air. Absolutely surreal. But at least Royal thingymajig Chris Hotair is being absolutely clear about the default position of Her Majesty's soldiers and seamen.

Tony Blair is the avatar of British weakness. An empty suit, to compensate for the fully stuffed polyester suits donated to these Little Britishers on their enforced holiday in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I'd like to cut Royal Moron Chris Sea Air and his comrades a little slack, but just listen to what he said, and let it sink in. Slowly.

Posted by: Dane at April 6, 2007 5:45 PM

Sorry for banging on, but it gets worse. Read the BBC article

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

Jiminy H. Cricket.

'Fighting back would have caused a major international incident and an escalation of tension within the region'

These people are not soldiers.

Posted by: Dane at April 6, 2007 5:53 PM

You have to know the sanctimonious, grinning, passive-aggressive, slime-ball personality of many Iranians (I know a Christian convert, so not all Iranians) to understand the following quote from the same article cited above:

"Some of the Iranian sailors were becoming deliberately aggressive and unstable."

Deliberatey unstable?

I'd like to square off mano a mano with one of those deliberately unstable Iranian sailors. 10 minutes. Mano a mano.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at April 6, 2007 5:59 PM

I still don't understand how they could have been captured in the first place.

1) Iran is a hostile nation, that has been made plainly clear.
2) Raids into enemy territory to capture hostages are not unheard of in military history.
3) Don't the British have command of the international force in that area?

Where was the mission support for the 15 sailors?

So, was this error by the British navy due to arrogance or incompetence?

btw
Here's a link of how one can track by satellite the migration path of turtles:
http://www.oneocean.org/ambassadors/track_a_turtle/

My suggestions is that in all future missions every British sailor carries a turtle in they backpack.

Posted by: raven_ at April 6, 2007 6:02 PM

A army is only as good as its leaders...

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at April 6, 2007 6:04 PM

I’m sorry but while all this rhetoric is perhaps technically true in a perfect world it is not tactically sound and any deviation from what happened or infact an act of force would under the circumstances result in a blood bath. The soldiers were out gunned and out numbered and operating out of a frigate that was designed not for maritime interdiction but rather for anti-submarine warfare. Yes this is a flaw at the British tactical side and yes the navy needs to get these issues sorted out but in no way are the personnel responsible for these issues. They acted under duress, they avoided a blood bath, and they potentially stopped a larger conflict from unfolding. They were smart soldiers and were any of these arm chair generals in their position I don’t believe you would have acted so differently with the same training. The problem in my opinion was tactical preparation and general lax of initiative at the top of the chain of command. These are the issues that need to be addressed if this isn’t going to happen again. I asked the same questions and said "We should have nuked the bast...ds” but realistically after all the facts I know there’s more to every story.

Posted by: angle at April 6, 2007 6:06 PM

No, I imagine they did not fight back because they were hopelessly out-numbered and out-gunned. Resistance would indeed have been futile.

I cannot blame the officer in charge for taking this view and it is, in my opinion, deeply unfair to label him a 'dhimmi' for refusing to fight back. One of the key duties of an officer is to protect his men (and woman), not order them to sacrifice their lives in a futile and unwinnable firefight.

Let's leave the inshallah fatalism and the love of death to the jihadists, shall we?

And one cannot really make an analogy between the situation in which these military personnel found themselves and the craven dhimmitude of western institutions.

Posted by: A Nonny Nonny at April 6, 2007 6:11 PM

Contrast the photos of these Brit captives with that of the crew of the USS Pueblo. The crew members of the Pueblo defiantly had their middle fingers extended in the photo the North Koreans took of them. The Brits all smiles and flashing teeth for their Iranian captors.

Who are the real heroes? Definitely not these British blokes!

Posted by: TheOmegaMan at April 6, 2007 6:12 PM

‘Like all of us, she’s been exploited.’
-Royal Marine Officer in news conference

‘None of us know how we’d behave; it’s a survival mode.’ ‘They need to open up with professional help to get through this.’
-Dr. Ashton, medical expert on FOX News

'This principle of excellence is one which Americans seem to be losing, and at a time when the Nation stands in need of it. A lack of excellence implies mediocrity. And in a society that is willing to accept a standard of mediocrity, the opportunities for personal failure are boundless. Mediocrity can destroy us as surely as perils far more famous.'
-Hyman Rickover, 1979

'I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.'
-Winston Churchill

'Israel Must Be Wiped Off The Map.'
-Ahmedinejad

'We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace.'
-Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

'The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.'
Isaiah 17:1

Interesting times, we are lucky. I'd keep a gun in the cellar with some food.

Posted by: pez at April 6, 2007 6:12 PM

The problem with lying is when does one know when you are telling the truth?
In Iran these people in uniform were espousing the most degrading of things on British peoples and now in the comfort of England the Iranians are boogies.

See Americans when held captive did little things in Iran like PUNCHING THE GUARDS. When on display they were not grinning like baboons and when they left there was not back slaps on ole Khomeini.

These British ilk and they are ilk and not soldiers as they are a disgrace to the uniform.
They whine about being blindfolded and guns were cocked. Well try the original Great Escape British officers who kept fouling the Nazi machine until the SS took them out and machine gunned them to death.

Americans in Vietnam prisons blinked out distress messages. They did not smile and they did their utmost to foil any attempt at looking like propaganda.

These British ilk in uniform could have:

1. Not smiled

2. Mispronounced words to show duress.

3. Could have worn their ties all on the outside or tied off to the left to send a signal.

4. They could have looked down.

5. They could have shifted in the chairs and asked during statements for clarification if that is what was wanted said.

etc... etc... etc....

But they did nothing just like their navy did nothing like all Europe does nothing in throwing up white flags and surrendering.

This is beyond the pale when I consider the hell Brits went through in history as much as Americans endured being broken in the worst possible ways of hanging people from the ceilings and bouncing them as their joints popped to the Japanese making a soldier hold a rock over his head until his arms gave out as they poked him with a knife.

These Brits had BOO said to them and they gave it all up. Every Muslim now sees what cowards the west is. They believe the words in Iran and now state the statements in England are because of threats from Blair.
One can have compassion on soldiers who at least put up a little resistance until they can not cope, but this ilk was singing propaganda at the first praise allah.

Consider American civilians on Flight 93 fighting for their lives unarmed and dying as free people.......then consider these creatures from England cowards to the core.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at April 6, 2007 6:12 PM

Angle, they are at home now. They are safe. And still they talk as if they are yoked. Can't they fight even now, if only rhetorically? Where is the condemnation of Iran? Where is the fabled British bulldog spirit? Why is it only non-British who are upset about this?

Posted by: Dane at April 6, 2007 6:15 PM

Reality check here. I wonder if the fact that there was a woman and not only a woman there, but a pregnant one changed the behavior of the male sailors? I don't know about you, but I think it may have changed the way I would have responded, because now you are not only responcible to protect this woman in your ranks, but also an unborn child. I wouldnt be so gun-ho if i thought I'd get this womans unborn child killed.

Posted by: Ameriki at April 6, 2007 6:20 PM

Come on People!!! Why is everyone getting bent at the Brits? They survived and are back and the truth is out.The Britis have always stood with us and done a fine job and when highwater comes again they will be on board. No allies are better. Hell, Blair is a liberal for petes sake. The Iranians dig thenselves a little deeper each time. Look at those asshat clowns and how they conducted themselves.Laughing stock of the world.Iranians are a bunch of tin horn, bullies carried away with self importance. Legends in their own minds.These dipsticks will go on to pull more stunts then will cross the line then all that pomposity will disolve under a first stike of cruise missles that will make shock and awe look like a second rate fireworks display. Sit back and watch it unfold...and enjoy.

Posted by: solomonpal at April 6, 2007 6:28 PM

I saw this link earlier today and it explains a lot. The UK Armed Forces "Conduct under Capture" was changed after the Cold War. They're now taught to cooperate to some extent with their captors:

Whatever happened to name, rank and serial number?

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.

Posted by: Burgundy Infidel at April 6, 2007 6:31 PM

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25041_Col._Jack_Jacobs-_Brit_Sailors_Disgraceful&only

Col. Jack Jacobs: Brit Sailors "Disgraceful"

Retired Army Col. Jack Jacobs calls the British sailors’ press conference the most disgraceful thing he’s seen in 40 years.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 6, 2007 6:32 PM

Hey Dane, yeah they are home and safe and if the British sailors suddenly started rhetorically fighting back where would that put them? In my opinion it would portray cowardice, the same cowardice Iran shows and has shown for the past 20 years, they have for example vowed to wipe Israel out for decades and yet never have, there is mounting evidence for Iranian involvement In IED attacks in Iraq and this illegal detention that was premeditated and back handed shows the nature of the Iranian government. The fact the British held firm in what they said and actually got out of it alive and well and will go back to serve shows intelligence. Tell me Lame Cherry what use is a dead serviceman, what use is freedom when your are not alive to enjoy it, no you see it is intelligence and living to serve and protect another day that not only saves money but saves lives and countries. Sic transit gloria mundi, the popes of the world are told this and it’s true. A nation needs its soldiers not 15 more coffins with 15 medals.

Posted by: angle at April 6, 2007 6:34 PM

I guess the question is: these days, why do Brits get so exercised at being criticised by their friends, and do so little comparitively to defend themselves and their friends against common enemies?

Any chance of a hooley when Blair goes? He's an absolute waste; a disgrace to the office of Prime Minister.

Posted by: Dane at April 6, 2007 6:39 PM

The policies of the Blair government, the defence budget cuts, the relatively outdated hardware and lack of operational support are all to blame. The British Marines are strong and brave, history proves that. Don't Forget it was the resolve of British people and the freedom they yearned, fought and died for that caused the USA to be born. More recently with the Fawkland wars Britain sailed over 3000 miles and spent enough money to relocate all the islanders to the uk and give them a million pounds approx($2,000,000) each yet they fought instead, and kept the islands.It is poor modern leadership not poor pathetic people. I ask not for condemnation at the service people but rather aim it at the current government. I am legally allowed to vote this year and believe me ill do my part to get things changed.

Posted by: angle at April 6, 2007 6:57 PM

First, let us rejoice that these 15 have returned safely.

Second, let us remember that they were subjected to treatment totally counter to civilized rules of warfare (or just plain civilized rules).

Third, the precedent of the Pueblo incident does not apply. Had the captors of the Pueblo crew had a better understanding of American culture, the defiant actions of the crew would have got them killed. The Iranians, many of them educated in the West, would have picked up on any overt double meaning or subtle hint of defiance.

Fourth, I would point out that Her Majesty's government has invested a significant amount in the training of these sailors and marines and that that investment would have been wasted had the captives engaged in some vainglorious action that got them all dead or slapped into an Iranian prison for who knows how long. Their duty was to survive and get back to their own lines ASAP by whatever means necessary. It was not their duty to throw their lives away just to tweak the noses of their captors.

I would bet my immortal soul that each and every one of them would come back from the grave to take part in a meaningful action against Iran.

I was just as disgusted by what I saw during this episode as anyone else, but I will not condemn these people. My disgust is aimed at Iran and it's corrupt leadership.

Let us all hope that our leaders will "adapt, adopt and improve" and surprise the living hell out of our enemies the next time they try a stunt like this.

Posted by: USBeast at April 6, 2007 7:08 PM

Also don't forget these sailors know they have a government that would rather prosecute them for defending themselves than deal with any unsavory international political intrigue over the incident. This goes for the American military as well. If I was in the military I'd want a lawyer with me at all times to advise me on the rules. Don't think for one minute military personell aren't becoming more trigger shy due to our media and letiginous governments. You shouldn't be mad at the servicemen. Be mad at the liberals in your media and government that not only put servicemen in this situatoin, but don't support them with proper rules of engagement and or deamonizes them every time someone makes a mistake in the heat of battle.

Posted by: Ameriki at April 6, 2007 7:15 PM

lets hope that all you arm chair warriors do a better job than our british armed forces (minus the ones that were killed in basra friday)

so arm chair warriors, when's your next tour of duty in iraq? or is mommy's basement to frickin warm for you?

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 6, 2007 7:16 PM

I think the goon was forced to release the hostages because the Nimitz was in their waters at that time.

Posted by: The Resistance at April 6, 2007 7:19 PM

This was an intelligent and diplomatic thing to do.
These people where obviously thinking about the thousands of others who would be effected if this had been the spark that set off a regional conflict.

This over the top reaction of people on this site and elsewhere is typical of American and western culture. You want your fast food NOW. You want to sit at home and have soldiers die for you so YOU can feel big.

You are angry at them because they have embarrassed you. Now you can't walk past the Muslims in the street feeling smug and satisfied cos you feel like they've got one over you.

I just can't believe you all have that much respect for Iran to view this as there victory. They are a bunch of backward thugs, who cares what they said to them.

Posted by: BlowHammed at April 6, 2007 7:22 PM

On top of all the other horror stories, I have inside information that the Persians also yelled at the Brit Marines. And I mean harshly.

Thank gawd the stiff uppper lip Brit military professionals hung tough and escaped with their lives.

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

The Shiites are still sore about the rough treatment in Basra. Apparently some British lieutenants yelled at Moslems last year.

Tit for tat, that's what this whole mess is about.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 6, 2007 7:23 PM

On the one hand, I understand the tremendous empathic exasperation over this incident, since in a sense we're all held hostage by having to effectively pay jizya every time we fill 'er up.
On the other hand, keep in mind that the battle over jihad can only be won if enough people understand the threat, and incidents like these, along with Pope-rage, cartoon-rage and other hilarious episodes of the Islam Show, are highly educational, negatively inspiring and good for recruiting.

Posted by: jewdog at April 6, 2007 7:26 PM

lol, this could have been the spark to set off a regional conflict? Man what cave have you been hiding in Blowhammered? This conflict has been going on since the 70's a least, cause i was 19 when jimma carter let the irianians screw him.

Posted by: AMartinez at April 6, 2007 7:30 PM

Hi all, I'm solidly with Angle on this one. The soldiers did right, and they proved for anyone willing to understand the writing on the wall that the British, for one, are not strutting around looking for a fight with anyone and everyone -- they are there to enforce peace. They are careful about human life, and they are not in the middle east to provoke shootouts. The difference between the Iranian behavior and the British is clearcut and will be very difficult for Ah-my-dinner-jacket to spin in his favor.

Of most importance is that the truth about the treatment of the Brits be broadcast to every satellite dish in the middle east. This whole affair was staged by the Iranian leadership to increase their stature in the Ummah, but their behavior shows them to be Bohemians (sorry to anyone actually from Bohemia here, for the unfortunate collateral slander).

More importantly it shows that they have violated some of the sacrosanct principles in Islamic law for the treatment of prisoners. Iran is not (officially) at war with England -- they have no grounds in International or Islamic law for their actions, and I believe they understand that the whole affair has just exploded in their faces. If the media does it's job the way it SHOULD (huh!) it will have, in fact, an effect exactly opposite effect to what they wanted.

As for the Brits' behavior, I do not consider myself cowardly but if their story is true, I think I am certain I would have chosen the same. Maybe the outcome was a bit of luck -- who's to say they wouldn't be executed? But had they fought back, there would just be an oil slick in the water and the Iranians would be heros in the middle East for their "successful raid on the Infidel forces". As it is they have egg on their face!

Some of you guys sound like you're too steeped in Rambo movies to have any sense of reality. The more you show yourself just itching for a wild-west shootout, the harder it is to tell you from the Jihadists.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at April 6, 2007 7:40 PM

There are many equations here, first of all the British commanders are totally ignorant of who they are fighting. Did not the iranians say they they would take on the blonde, blued eyed Brits and feed them to their cocks? Now with those iranians captured in Iraq, the Brits should of been expecting some retaliation. These British soldiers do not have the grit or belief their commanders would fight for them, so giving up was their only option. their morale is not very good, from what they said when the iranians acted when they were being boarded.
These sailors,marines should of had backup right up close, especially since they were so close to the border of iranian waters. The Brit sailors also parroted to the iranians about having the right to do what they were doing as mandated by the UN! now how immature of these Brit sailors to think the iranians would say oh my you are right, sorry and leave. The British do not realize who they are fighting as well as most liberal Democrats, and even some of the generals fighting this war. look at how the stupid generals who told US fighters to repect the funeral of Taliban! why if you wanted to knock out key taliban people this gathering at a funeral was a gift! l know that is why most who supported this war are totally disgusted with the ones who are in charge, as they need lessons on military tactics and balls.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at April 6, 2007 7:46 PM

"Lame Cherry"

"Consider American civilians on Flight 93 fighting for their lives unarmed and dying as free people.......then consider these creatures from England cowards to the core."

Come on now...

You do remember 1979? Should the embassy staff mad a last stand chucking pencils at the mob. Remember the marines who were guarding the staff taken captive.

God if go back in history we have had our share of bad examples...

Battle of Bladensburg 1814 ring a bell. Our capital city got torched by those very same Brits you are making fun of and you know why?

We Americans got in a big line and the Brits got in a big line. We fired one volley and they fired one volley... and that was it. The American troops did not stop running until they on the otherside of D.C. with Madison and his wife hot on their heels.

It was called....The Bladensburg races.

So lets give the Brits a break ok.

We all have had our bad days...

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at April 6, 2007 7:47 PM

'Fighting back would have caused a major international incident and an escalation of tension within the region'

I need to reinforce what Nonny x 2 wrote. Has anyone ever thought that this was the rule of engagement for this mission. "Do no fire unless fired upon." Don't blame Capt. Air, he most likely followed orders.

Will the Royal Navy decide to protect its boarding parties with sufficient force in the future?

Will the Royal Navy stop searching ships?

Posted by: Pelayo at April 6, 2007 7:48 PM

I'd like to square off mano a mano with one of those deliberately unstable Iranian sailors. 10 minutes. Mano a mano.

My attitude also, but I doubt that you would have that option. After all, you and I might win as would most of these sailors.

The thing is to avoid capture. The Royal Navy did not provide sufficient cover as they should have done.

The pregnant woman was see to be "defective" as specified in the quaran, and was exploited as the weakest link.

Happily, these folks are home in any case. Let's hope the Royal Navy does not allow this to happen again -- cover your people when you send them into harms way!

Posted by: witness at April 6, 2007 7:54 PM

I know that is why most who supported this war are totally disgusted with the ones who are in charge, as they need lessons on military tactics and balls.

You don't know the half of it -- you're on the mark with this one!

Posted by: witness at April 6, 2007 7:58 PM

"why do Brits get so exercised at being criticised by their friends"

I tell you what, Dane, I'll explain it to you.

British people don't like it when people seek not to criticise in a constructive and productive manner, but merely use the opportunity to insult and denigrate our country and it's peoples in their entirety. Spouting their little tirades without so much as a nod in passing to such concepts as reason or objectivity.

These are the same people that will drone on incessantly about anti-Americanism and how offended they are, while at same time engaging in viciously offensive rants against my nation without so much as a sniff of the hypocrisy they exude.

These are the same people that when some twit politician or personality plays a blinder at home and make themselves look a right idiot or promotes something that would be in our view not a good idea, they attack the action and the individuals political, or personal, motivations for the action. But when it comes to Blighty, it's just a matter of waiting for the usual suspects to start lashing out at everything that is British. Well, it's easy when you don't have to think, isn't it?.

We have a saying in English football: "Play the ball, not the man". Simply put, if you make the tackle and play the ball, fair tackle; If you play the man, foul. Too many idiots on this forum find it less intellectually straining to seek out a broader view on any issue when it comes to Britain, too lazy to even bother chasing the ball.

Instead, they take the easier and nastier option: They play the man instead.

With that in mind, I'd like to congratulate Lame Cherry after reading his latest posting above. He has now entered the Guinness Book of Records for having talked the most shite without actually choking on it. Well done, you're a winner.

Posted by: Wishbone at April 6, 2007 7:58 PM

"Royal Marine Captain Chris Air, 25, from Altrincham, Cheshire, explained why they had not fought back when confronted by the Iranians while carrying out a routine operation."

"Let me be absolutely clear, from the outset it was very apparent that fighting back was simply not an option".

--------------------

This is a Marine??? LOL!

If this is what constitutes a Marine on "patrol" it would have been much cheaper to send some girl scouts instead.

Brit will go with nary a whimper, but hey, they all will get free "goody bags" - my first prayer mat, my first prayer beads, and some halal hummus.

Posted by: Arm A. Geddon at April 6, 2007 7:59 PM

Someone in another thread on this same subject talked about us "keyboard warriors."

My idea of mano y mano is a GPS guided 2,000 punder from 35,000 feet. Or a 30-06 from 100 yds.

I'm 60 yrs old and 165 lbs, gimme a break.

Posted by: Pelayo at April 6, 2007 8:02 PM

British people don't like it when people seek not to criticise in a constructive and productive manner, but merely use the opportunity to insult and denigrate our country and it's peoples in their entirety. Spouting their little tirades without so much as a nod in passing to such concepts as reason or objectivity.

So, no one has the right to critizes or opin about your little island -- even when you are wrong.

My family members still live in Britian (our family has lived there for centuries) and they have been far more critical of Britian than any yank I know especially over this incident.

Take England back from the damned socialist appeasers regardless of what party they are affliated with -- and make Englan the proud country it should always have been!

Posted by: witness at April 6, 2007 8:08 PM

Wishbone you brought it home there well done and as for Arm A. Geddon i think it plain to see that you would be no use to your country in the situation. First of all you and your men would be dead, Second Iran would have a material victory against you and thirdly you’d cause you country problems in getting your bodies shipped home in coffins, let me reiterate by previous statement what good would you be dead? A dead marine with a medal isn’t value for money from a national point nor is it useful on a tactical standpoint. Get real please, if the world worked in the way you think it ought to we'd all be dead no doubt.

Posted by: angle at April 6, 2007 8:10 PM

Here is my response as my other "self" on littlegreenfootballs that sums up my postition on this whole mess..

I stated this below when someone said the Brits behaved like the French by not defending their country...

"They were not defending their own country. They are defending ungrateful Arabs. I personally am not going to die for a bunch of Iraqi muslims (Shia or Sunni). Nor am I going to die for any of the Arabian states. Lets be honest what this is all about. If we are going to bomb Iran because they threaten the U.S. then lets turn them into rubble but if we are going to do patrols and naval parades up and down the Persian Gulf so the House of Saud can feel safe count me out."

The point is the average "grunt" and "marine" is losing faith in this war and it don't matter if you are from the UK or the US. Who are they fighting for etc? This is a bad mind set for putting up a strong fight and being ready for battle. Add to that the stupid rules of engagement and you have the makings of furthur hostage takings.

Look at this picture in the link below..

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/ahmadinejacket_iraq_1.jpg

What does the average soldier think when he or she sees that? What is the mission about? The reasons the Iranians are bold is becuase we are in Iraq just as Hugh has said. They know we can't counter them or risk losing the Shia for good (My opinion is we already have lost them and never had them to begin with....its Islam stupid).

Bad trees give bad fruit...

Now we have to eat it.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at April 6, 2007 8:14 PM

Think of these famous battles: Somme, Ypres, Dieppe, Alamien, Dunkirk, and Arnhem. Now think of March 23, 2007.

Posted by: Pelayo at April 6, 2007 8:14 PM

"Let me be absolutely clear, from the outset it was very apparent that fighting back was simply not an option"

--------------------------------------------------

Maybe it was not an option but it appears they rolled over at the very THOUGHT of harm being done to them. The Sailors were smiling and confessing within a day or two. With no harm being done to them i am disapointed that they would admit wrongdoing so easily.

Posted by: MoBlows at April 6, 2007 8:15 PM

Why are we in NATO? This is one of the most disgusting displays I have ever seen (the behavior of the Brits). We need to retrench and protect ourselves. I realize we are much of the reason they are there to begin with, but then, they drew the borders of the nation(of Iraq), so who is without blame in this mess? Obviously there could be more to this that I could never know, but as the recounts of the Pueblo incidents were cited above, at least we didn't wet our pants. I won't ever forget the British resolve during WWII when they stood alone. Where is it now?

Posted by: Greg McClellan at April 6, 2007 8:16 PM

Wishbone, without denigrating the whole British nation, let me say this.

I thought that giving a Dutch rub to your fellow Marine on national Iranian TV is bit much. You might differ on that.

Posted by: raven_ at April 6, 2007 8:18 PM

Islams Peace PR campaign is working. It seems that the West is so fearful of receiving a Islamic Beheading or "Harshness" being done upon them that even professional Servicemen will cower and give in without even veing hurt. I'm sorry but a Cocked weapon and a Blindfold should not be enough to have you betray your countries mission.

Posted by: MoBlows at April 6, 2007 8:19 PM

Greg McClellan, Where is the British resolve? Hell where is the desire of all freedom loving peoples to squash this bug islam?

Posted by: AMartinez at April 6, 2007 8:20 PM

MILITARY PEOPLE ARE MILITARY PEOPLE, some not as highly trained as others or as highly committed to the cause as others, but you must keep an eye on the larger picture of outlasting your enemy no matter what it takes even when it is unpopular to do. A lot of intelligence was gleaned from these people that will come in handy for future training,now the question is what will be the response the next time this happens and there will be a next time!!!!

Posted by: OLD SARGE at April 6, 2007 8:22 PM

Greg McClellan

"Why are we in NATO? This is one of the most disgusting displays I have ever seen (the behavior of the Brits)."

Not even close to the most disgusting display...

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/bush_hand_holding.jpg

Come on nothing can out do that!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at April 6, 2007 8:27 PM

This was just, as one of the servicemen put, 'a media stunt.'Unfortunately, it will be one that will be perceived in the middle east as one in which the UK was humiliated and its military weakness highlighted. The fact that Iran acted like a cheesy, third world rogue state in seizing hostages and then subjecting them to abusive treatment is a detail lost on people who identify solely with their fellow Muslims.More significant was the death, today, of four British servicemen (two of them women) in Basra, killed by a roadside bomb employing technology supplied by the Iranians. It's disgraceful that Blair has done nothing to punish Iran for its aiding and abetting murders like these that have been going on for at least a year. My personal view has always been that, while they should not be deliberately killed or injured, severely inconveniencing the citizens of an enemy state is a fair act of war. Power stations, waterworks, telephone systems, sewerage services should be breaking down all over western Iran while bridges and electricity lines should be, unaccountably, falling down. Blair should, in a discreet and deniable sort of way, let the Iranians know we are annoyed, materially.

Posted by: wallyUK at April 6, 2007 8:29 PM

I won't ever forget the British resolve during WWII when they stood alone. Where is it now?
Posted by: Greg McClellan

the problem is that they dont realize they are under attack by islam. otherwise iran's navy, nuke sites,etc would be smoldering right now.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at April 6, 2007 8:29 PM

the question is what will be the response the next time this happens and there will be a next time!!!!

Posted by: OLD SARGE

-------------------------------------------------

There will be a next time thanks to the way this looks in the M.E. anyone who knows anything of Islam knows this is being viewed as cowardly and weak.Silence is a great way to resist. in all the documentaries, books, and movies i've seen this behaviour would get you court marshalled or sho for treason. Say nothing rather than say your country is wrong. there needs to be more education in the West as to how our actions are viewed OVER THERE, in Islams eyes. It's sad that the fighting forces in the West know nothing of Islam.

Know thy enemy!

They do , we don't , or won't

Posted by: MoBlows at April 6, 2007 8:30 PM

Remember ,defeat your enemy with not only might but with intelligence!!!!!

Posted by: OLD SARGE at April 6, 2007 8:31 PM

Greatcometof1577, there is another aspect of all this; the Iraq invasion has been going on for 4 (four, IV) years. We've been fighting in Afgahnistan about five. The American Civil War lasted about four years, The US participation in WW2 was about four years, Korea was about three. There has been no tangible progress since Saddam's capture. Afghanistan is slipping back into the standard Afghan traditions.

Another reason that the Atomic Bomb was dropped was there was a real concern that the GIs in Europe would mutiny if they were sent to the Pacific to invade Japan. This "adventure" in the Middle East cannot last much longer.

What we are witnessing is much like the malaise that infested the US Army in Vietnam in '69-'71.

Posted by: Pelayo at April 6, 2007 8:34 PM

I agree . The intelligent thing would have been to say Nothing and not easily admit your nation is at fault . That's the thing for me , how fast they caved . if they were in captivity and we were hearing stories of violence and torture who could fault them . but we haven't heard of violence or torture. The concern is for the message. they see us as willing to jump ship to save our asses. to discredit the cause. i doubt it would be as easy to get the same result out of an Iranian sailor. imagine what THEY are taught?

Posted by: MoBlows at April 6, 2007 8:35 PM

What I don't understand is, why with the technology we have as Americans we've not taken stronger actions in iraq, and therefor iran also.

Posted by: AMartinez at April 6, 2007 8:38 PM

Lets do this thing our way,we are good at warfare, our country is founded on battle, these -animals may have a head start on killing groups of people but we have a exceeded their wildest dreams on distruction on a larger scale if needed!!!!!

Posted by: OLD SARGE at April 6, 2007 8:38 PM

British people don't like it when people seek not to criticise in a constructive and productive manner, but merely use the opportunity to insult and denigrate our country...

Of course, this is nonsense.

The performance of the UK marines and sailors was, and is, embarrassing. Prez Mach-Mood is doing a high-5 right now. Trouble is, our leadership (George, Tony, Nancy, et al) are so stupid that we're not receiving the signal. There is no dial tone to announce their dumb-assedness.

Military cowardice has been a problem since the the bone got picked up 2 million years ago in the Olduvai Gorge in East Africa.

The British Navy is over. Done. Finished.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 6, 2007 8:43 PM

Witness-

You'll note I said: "...to criticise in a constructive and productive manner"

We don't mind that. Wouldn't even mind a ribbing about our issues as long as people stick to the golden rule of "If you're going to call me that, smile". Banter between friends is good. But that sort of thing requires a little basic respect for other people and their views and I've seen precious little of that lately.

Raven-

You say I may differ. But maybe I don't, mate. It raises a fair question and I don't mind in the slightest it being put that way. A lot of what's been seen in the media surrounding this whole affair has indeed been a bitter pill to swallow for a lot of we Brits. I'm immensely relieved that the 15 are safe now, but the view I take is that of wondering just what the bloody hell sort of command puts these personnel in a position whereby the Iranians were practically invited to do what they did.

The whole military aspect of the initial operation raises a whole slew of questions in itself. Yet considering that their commanders left them out there without any support, they couldn't have sent a more hapless and unprepared bunch. They didn't have a clue what to do and for that I truly pity them. Be that as it may, it was still cringeworthy at times and yes it does leave a sour taste.

Posted by: Wishbone at April 6, 2007 8:50 PM

Let's hope that this case is the hair on the camel's back that makes some in the UK become activists to stop immigration into the UK. The UK government likely has many tapes of mosques and of phone calls of Muslims saying hateful things about non-Muslims.

A goal for activists is to try to get the government to admit they have such tapes. Then they need to have them admit that of the times they tape, over half the time, they find negative opinions of non-Muslims compared to positive opinions.

Some of these tapes could be played or at least transcripts made, even if preserving the person speaking.

One reason that Labour has reduced the independence of the House of Lords is to keep them learning of and getting a hold of such tapes and exposing this information to the public. There are likely such tapes in every non-Muslim country including the US and EU countries.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 6, 2007 8:52 PM

That was preserve the secrecy of the person speaking or identity from disclosure.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 6, 2007 8:53 PM

We are finished if the shower that post on this site are our allies.

Time for the British to look after the British if you ask me, the sectarian violence in Iraq is a good thing, so it is in Afghanistan.

Americans never say thanks, so why bother? Dead Brits mean nothing to these people.

Posted by: Mert at April 6, 2007 8:54 PM

From above : The concern is for the message. they see us as willing to jump ship to save our asses. to discredit the cause.

MESSAGE, MESSAGE, what the hell do you think the message was after 9/11 when we took out afganistan, irag, thats the message we sent these animals, grabbing a few soldiers and sailors, blowing up buildings is nothing compared to what we can and will do to these subhumans!!!!

Posted by: OLD SARGE at April 6, 2007 8:55 PM

The Code of Conduct (feel free to substitute British for American in the future)
I: I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
II: I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
III: If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
IV: If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
V: When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
VI: I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
First, I’m glad they are back and maybe they have given us an example of how not to behave.
Second, The Pueblo crew knew exactly what they were doing even if the norks didn’t. I’m sure it crossed the Pueblo crews minds that they could and might be found out.
Third, don’t talk about the Geneva comicbook, no one ever respects that with us.
Denton blinked his eyes in Morse Code, repeatedly spelling out a covert message: "T-O-R-T-U-R-E". The interview, which was broadcast on American television on May 17, 1966, was the first confirmation that American POWs in Vietnam were being tortured.
http://dentonfoundation.org/biography.htm
And lets not forget Korea or WWII and a hundred other unknown hellholes.
I have heard rumors that the islamists sing like birds when isolated. It makes sense it is all up to alla in the end so whatever they tell us and whatever happens as a result, if alla wills it, it will happen. So why not say anything you wish.
The day may come that we march the lawyers in front of us toward the enemy, briefcases and law degrees in hand.
Cmon Mert, don’t be that way a lot of us appreciate you.

Posted by: tgusa at April 6, 2007 9:00 PM

Okay - all you "sea lawyers" and world-wide-web warriors -please answer a few questions:

When did UK and or Iran declare war on one another? Not yet? Uh oh.

What international laws do civilized nations abide by in time of war and or peace time -and REQUIRE THAT THEIR MILITARY PERSONNEL ABIDE BY ALL THE TIME in PEACE AND WAR? Remember above question - Iran and UK not officially declared war on each other? Oh no.

Here's a starter and a few key articles (you want more - go find them - as all military personnel must do (at least among the civililzed nations...).

and a few question to keep in mind while pondering the international laws:
- who broke which international laws and who did not; what would have been the consquences of breaking these laws... don't forget to consider the enemy media (every damn bit of the mainstream media is and influences globally); which brings up another question: had the 15 Brits (GOD BLESS THEM AND ALL GOOD BRITS (to hell with the cultural marxists and their damned barbarian allies) - broken the first Article - how would the international press and opinion of ellite come down upon them - that is as the international press is now self appointed court, judge, jury and executioner...Yeah - the 15 would have been held up as heros and doing the right thing... yeah right.
BIGGEST question - why are so many good JW/DW followers swallowing -hook, line and sinker the global leftists/purple press and islamonazis' propaganda b.s. game and bashing one of the best allies the USA has (excluding the cultural marxists and islamonazi now inside the gates and among them)?!
Final question: Agree with it or not - OUR PEOPLE ARE IN THE mid-east HELL HOLE -and required to ABIDE BY ALL NOT ONE SET OF LAWS, BUT MANY (military their own, those required internationally, as well as UK/USA/etc civilian laws, Iraqi laws, as well as all the unwritten requirements placed upon their already overburdened backs by useful idiots, cultural marxists and held to the fire of a hostile media -24/7/365 and such people FULLY DESERVE and REQUIRE OUR SUPPORT and RESPECT - ALL OF THE TIME, not just whenever they smoke the enemy. Those who can't - are frickin' supporting the islamonazis and their dhimmi allies.
Special question to the non-islamo appologists/sympathizers here: Do you really expect any person in the military to break the (international) laws and conduct of warfare at anytime they so might desire and get away with it? Why do you expect 100 percent out of these fine humans (with their souls on the line for your freedoms and benefits) when you don't quite know/understand all the rules, all the games and all the constraints they are under and are to which they are BOUND -BY MILITARY AND CIVILIAN LAW TO FOLLOW TO THE LETTER - OR FACE PRISON...
Do you get it?

They are DAMNED IF THEY DO AND DAMNED IT THEY DON'T do your civilian happy comfortable ass way.

Bag off the BRITS and especially the 15!

And all you vets - you better damn well know know what rules, laws and fighting conditions must be kept in mind-all the time or else hell will be paid. If you don't you not being honest.- Further - "Rambo, Hollywood" bull byproduct - is just that...and you all know that the real deal is noting remotely like the movie fantasies.

Oh yeah, a littel of international law of warfare to be followed to the letter by civilized nations.

"CONVENTION CONCERNING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS IN MARITIME WAR – XIII HAGUE, 1907

ARTICLE 1

Belligerents are bound to respect the sovereign rights of neutral Powers and to abstain, in neutral territory or neutral waters, from all acts which would constitute, on the part of the neutral Powers which knowingly permitted them, a nonfulfillment of their neutrality.

ARTICLE 2

All acts of hostility, including capture and the exercise of the right of visit and search, committed by belligerent vessels of war in the territorial waters of a neutral Power, constitute a violation of neutrality and are strictly forbidden."

Simple, straight-forward little articles -no? How much b.s. and how much time would have been expended by Iran - supported by international press and Western dhimmi elite "leaders" and law experts to turn these things into a complex confusion of obfuscating pusillanimity -until everyone would give up, throw hands into air and declare - "yeah - it was all the fault of UK... Uk brought on the war with Iran, which was only defending itself and its territorial waters from the aggressor British commando raiding team..." etc.

By not acting - as so many think they should have the 15 DID NOT GIVE IRAN, ISLAMOFACSIM and GLOBAL LEFTISTS WHAT THEY ALL WANTED - A PRETEXT/EXCUSE TO CLAIM AGGRESSION BY UK Against them -i.e. an act of war - which is what it would have been -under international laws of warfare - had they opened fire upon Iranian pirate kidnappers.

Don't like the realities. Appeal to the media for playing the Iranian propaganda photo/vid ops. non stop -until even the rational and sane start believing their crap. Don't like the laws of warfare - appeal to the international court and get the laws changed, but don't hold the military up to their noses in bullcrap - in the mid east - to speculate on this or that nuance of legalities - especially when about to come under fire (hey, maybe that's one of the problems after all...maybe, no?)
And until these are changed modified, etc. then without following these laws - to at least a minimum - we are not civilized - we then become just like the islamoterrorists.

Final question for all - or observation: Those -bashing the actions of the 15 and UK in general - just handed a massive battle victory to the enemy - and if you don't think this war doesn't include the info-war - then you might as give up now - get your prayer rug, don your burkas, face east...

Support any and all of Western Civilization - particularly all good Brits and even more so those in the uniform. Or else you default suport the alternative...(is that what you're really all about).

Posted by: TINBH at April 6, 2007 9:01 PM

Alarmed Pig Farmer-

I'm talking nonsense?. You quote me and then dismiss my view as nonsense. Then you proceed to rationalise your dismissal pontificating about a subject completely out of context with the original quote.

Interesting. Nonsensical, even.

Posted by: Wishbone at April 6, 2007 9:02 PM

Well one thing this does have the Brits and Americans squabbeling over how this was executed. Maybe that was ole ackminaninnutjobs desire!

Posted by: AMartinez at April 6, 2007 9:03 PM

Mert: "shower" = rhyming slang?

I'm not sure if we all follow you.

Posted by: MarisolJW at April 6, 2007 9:04 PM

Mert-

"Americans never say thanks, so why bother? Dead Brits mean nothing to these people."

Mert I know you're ticked off mate, but that isn't a true generalisation and I know you know that. I've had words of support and friendship from many a Yank before today and come across many with whom it is a pleasure to find that our views are shared and we can each draw parallels from our respective societies' troubles and discuss them.

Which is generally a lot more interesting.

Posted by: Wishbone at April 6, 2007 9:13 PM

Perhaps Iran is not as powerful as the arrogance of its leaders and propaganda would have you believe. Here is an excerpt from an April 4 NewsMax.com report from Kenneth Timmerman concerning the release of the British sailors:

The order to capture the British sailors and marines was given by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself, NewsMax sources believe.

Khamenei's top advisers argued that by striking out against a U.S. ally in Iraq, they would be sending a message to other European nations to step back from supporting the U.S. strategy of increasing pressure on Iran over its nuclear program. They saw the move as a clear test of Western resolve.

But as Britain refused to apologize for the behavior of its boarding party, continuing to insist that they were operating in Iraqi waters – not inside Iran's territorial waters, as Tehran alleged – some of Khamenei's advisers began to have second thoughts.

Adding to those doubts were reports that the USS Nimitz was steaming toward the Persian Gulf – making it the third Carrier Strike Group in the area.

The Nimitz is expected to join the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the USS John C. Stennis, both currently in the Persian Gulf, in the coming weeks.

On Friday, March 30, Khamenei's top advisers met in an emergency session of the Supreme Council on National Security, chaired by Ali Larijani. Larijani is the regime's top nuclear negotiator, and is a confidant of the Supreme Leader, while maintaining close ties to President Ahmadinejad.

At that meeting, Revolutionary Guards commander Maj. Gen. Rahim Safavi reported that the deployment of the Nimitz suggested that a U.S. military invasion of Iran was being prepared for early May. He urged the Council to order the release of the British hostages as a gesture to defuse the tension in the region.

The next day, however, the head of the Political and Cultural bureau of the Revolutionary Guards, Dr. Yadollah Javani, called Safavi a "traitor" for proposing the release of the hostages.

While this internal dispute raged, Revolutionary Guards intelligence officers in charge of guarding the hostages continued intense debriefings, aimed at eliciting "confessions" from the British captives that were aired on Iranian television.

The intention was to build a legal "case" against the captives and haul them before a Revolutionary court. During the trial, the regime intended to use forced "confessions" from some of the hostages who alleged they had personal knowledge of British government support for Iranian separatist groups operating in Arab-dominated Khuzestan along the Iraqi border and in Sistan-Balouchestan province, next to Pakistan.

The first inkling that the faction urging release of the hostages was winning appeared on Tuesday evening, when the influential Baztab Web site, run by former Revolutionary Guards commander Gen. Mohsen Rezai, reported that the British captives would soon be released.

"It can now be said that the politicians who are for continuing relations with London have got the upper hand," Baztab reported. Fars News Agency also reported on Tuesday that a prominent cleric, Hojatt-ol eslam Ghorbanali Najafabadi, was urging the public prosecutor not to pursue a legal case against the British sailors, but to solve the hostage crisis "through international diplomatic channels."

For now, Tehran's leaders have backed down. Why? My bets are on the Nimitz.

Unless Iran already has nuclear warheads, a direct military confrontation with the United States would most likely provoke a popular uprising against the regime. And retaining power is the one thing that Ayatollah Khamenei and his clerical cohorts actually care about.

Compare that report to an excerpt from my most recent post on a related thread on this blog:

So why release the sailors now? I believe the Iranian leadership is more scared of the West's military capability than it's showing publically. They know that the U.S. has two carriers in the Persian Gulf with enough aerial firepower to destroy their most precious assets. Holding the sailors made no more sense because Iran not only wasn't going to get anything from Britain (did the Brits apologize formally for their craft being in "Iranian" waters? Of course not, because it *wasn't* in Iranian waters), but could well provoke legitimate reprisal.

Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito at April 6, 2007 9:15 PM

Knock knock: She got in!

Yvonne Ridley is in Australia, in a 'conference' that just so happens to coincide with Easter:

update, scroll down:

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/04/06/kick-out-british-muslim-convert-says-labor/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 6, 2007 9:15 PM

Rather...interesting take on the issue by a former Danish soldier. (contains profanity)

Posted by: Audacity at April 6, 2007 9:16 PM

Perhaps Iran is not as powerful as the arrogance of its leaders and propaganda would have you believe. Here is an excerpt from an April 4 NewsMax.com report from Kenneth Timmerman concerning the release of the British sailors:

The order to capture the British sailors and marines was given by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself, NewsMax sources believe.

Khamenei's top advisers argued that by striking out against a U.S. ally in Iraq, they would be sending a message to other European nations to step back from supporting the U.S. strategy of increasing pressure on Iran over its nuclear program. They saw the move as a clear test of Western resolve.

But as Britain refused to apologize for the behavior of its boarding party, continuing to insist that they were operating in Iraqi waters – not inside Iran's territorial waters, as Tehran alleged – some of Khamenei's advisers began to have second thoughts.

Adding to those doubts were reports that the USS Nimitz was steaming toward the Persian Gulf – making it the third Carrier Strike Group in the area.

The Nimitz is expected to join the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the USS John C. Stennis, both currently in the Persian Gulf, in the coming weeks.

On Friday, March 30, Khamenei's top advisers met in an emergency session of the Supreme Council on National Security, chaired by Ali Larijani. Larijani is the regime's top nuclear negotiator, and is a confidant of the Supreme Leader, while maintaining close ties to President Ahmadinejad.

At that meeting, Revolutionary Guards commander Maj. Gen. Rahim Safavi reported that the deployment of the Nimitz suggested that a U.S. military invasion of Iran was being prepared for early May. He urged the Council to order the release of the British hostages as a gesture to defuse the tension in the region.

The next day, however, the head of the Political and Cultural bureau of the Revolutionary Guards, Dr. Yadollah Javani, called Safavi a "traitor" for proposing the release of the hostages.

While this internal dispute raged, Revolutionary Guards intelligence officers in charge of guarding the hostages continued intense debriefings, aimed at eliciting "confessions" from the British captives that were aired on Iranian television.

The intention was to build a legal "case" against the captives and haul them before a Revolutionary court. During the trial, the regime intended to use forced "confessions" from some of the hostages who alleged they had personal knowledge of British government support for Iranian separatist groups operating in Arab-dominated Khuzestan along the Iraqi border and in Sistan-Balouchestan province, next to Pakistan.

The first inkling that the faction urging release of the hostages was winning appeared on Tuesday evening, when the influential Baztab Web site, run by former Revolutionary Guards commander Gen. Mohsen Rezai, reported that the British captives would soon be released.

"It can now be said that the politicians who are for continuing relations with London have got the upper hand," Baztab reported. Fars News Agency also reported on Tuesday that a prominent cleric, Hojatt-ol eslam Ghorbanali Najafabadi, was urging the public prosecutor not to pursue a legal case against the British sailors, but to solve the hostage crisis "through international diplomatic channels."

For now, Tehran's leaders have backed down. Why? My bets are on the Nimitz.

Unless Iran already has nuclear warheads, a direct military confrontation with the United States would most likely provoke a popular uprising against the regime. And retaining power is the one thing that Ayatollah Khamenei and his clerical cohorts actually care about.

Compare that report to an excerpt from my most recent post on a related thread on this blog:

So why release the sailors now? I believe the Iranian leadership is more scared of the West's military capability than it's showing publically. They know that the U.S. has two carriers in the Persian Gulf with enough aerial firepower to destroy their most precious assets. Holding the sailors made no more sense because Iran not only wasn't going to get anything from Britain (did the Brits apologize formally for their craft being in "Iranian" waters? Of course not, because it *wasn't* in Iranian waters), but could well provoke legitimate reprisal.

Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito at April 6, 2007 9:17 PM

Pelayo

I agree 100%.

In fact I am getting sick of people who use that as an excuse as to why we should stay in Iraq. They will say things like: "If we had done that in WWII we would have lost the war". Well no shit. Then again our leaders bombed the hell out of our enemies. We firebombed whole cities. We drop to atom bombs on Japan. We faught the total war up to an including killing German and Japanese prisoners. So people stop comparing them becuase our leader (G.W., both dems and republicans in the US, Blair, Euro leaders, etc etc etc...) will not allow our armies to fight that way. We beat the crap out of their people until they yelled uncle (man, woman and child). Today in Iraq we have to ask the local imam if we can arrest somebody or get premission from our Iraqi "friends" if we can go into a neighborhood to chase Sadr who we have yet to capture even though every day he gives speeches right in front of our troops.

Stop blaming the 15. They did best they could under the rules we are playing by. Their minds were conditioned to do what they did. Blame our leaders because they are fools and blame ourselves for electing them.

Now if we did fight this war like we did in WWII then we would well...I won't say it because CAIR might use it and claim Robert said it...

Hell see even I have have a pc bug...

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at April 6, 2007 9:18 PM

Marisol-

Shower: Collective term, generally meaning a group of people. For example: "Tell that shower to stop laying about and get back to work". Usually assumed to have a mild to medium pejorative aspect.

Local example from my home town: "They're a right shower that lot". Translated as "That group there are of questionalble character".

Posted by: Wishbone at April 6, 2007 9:19 PM

I don't fault the Brits exclusively ,(This same incident and subsequent confessions could have come from any Western nation's military ) this is indicitive of the much larger problem , lack of education and Playing right into the enemies hands They spun a hostage taking as a act of compassion and brotherhood and we look cowardly and self serving .

Posted by: MoBlows at April 6, 2007 9:20 PM

I absolutely love how this whole machine slowly rumbles forward. Iran is given more and more reasons to be bold and courageous. Slowly they’ll think they can do whatever they want in the middle east and Bush will not have to explain to the press why Tehran got bombed. Bravo! I just hope Iran gets their nuclear weapons in time to make this one really pretty.

Posted by: Nordic Freedom at April 6, 2007 9:25 PM

Yvonne Ridley should be the fourth wife of some sheik in sowdi, let the curtains fall over that cow!
l have no words to describe how stupid cow like that could ever ever become a muslim! that is how infected the liberal feminist mind has festered.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at April 6, 2007 9:51 PM

Wishbone, our cable TV provider has BBC America, I used to watch it a lot. Now I can add a new word - "shower."

When Hugh Laurie started the "House" series on Fox, I was pleasantly surprised.

Posted by: Pelayo at April 6, 2007 9:53 PM

Marisol, "shower" a common British phrase for a group of people. ( not an insult )

Posted by: rookie at April 6, 2007 9:54 PM

Remember ,these animals have been blinded by their belief in a cult, we as a free nation are not that gullible and have advanced way beyond their capabilities or comprehension to take this fight to the next stage and win!!!

Posted by: OLD SARGE at April 6, 2007 9:55 PM

Yes but Sarge, I often wonder as America become lax in its resolve too?

Posted by: AMartinez at April 6, 2007 10:01 PM

Think of these famous battles: Somme, Ypres, Dieppe, Alamien, Dunkirk, and Arnhem. Now think of March 23, 2007.

Posted by: Pelayo

Well, those famous battles were all parts of a declared war, werent they? We are not officially at war with Iran - yet. I can understand some confusion as to how to react.

Posted by: freedomschool at April 6, 2007 10:03 PM

Even that acid tongued Harpy,Marina Hyde at Liberal Guardian has joined in to castigate 15
'holiday makers' back from Iran.[Only wish we could send her,demented Madeleine Bunting,& half
dippy Journos from BBC to Iran-Jeez those Revolutionary Guards would be on their knees,howling for mercy in no time!]
It is all very fine to be a 'hero' but I wonder how brave we are going to be when faced with Ninja Turtles wielding shining,sharp beheading knives?? And we are definitely 'going to get the opportunity' to find out as Global Jihad cranks up.
Whether U.S or Britain [for all Blair's delusional dreams Britain has never been a world power since WW2 when it was in hock for decades to America for tanks,guns etc] stay or leave Iraq
the wicked Islamic Genie is out of the bottle-
learning how to humiliate & defeat Infidels.
Just as U.S funded & trained Taleban as did 'Iron Lady' Margaret Thatcher[more secretively],funded & sent weapons to Kosovo Liberation Army of Albanian thugs-all these 'grateful Moslems' don't just want some icing off the rich Western Economic Cake-they want to
have it all!!
And who says they will not munch their way through large swathes of Europe & old Blighty
before they are stopped.Before any more Brits are
bashed-take a good look at U.S Leaders-stress LEADERS like Clinton not your average American-whose disastrous Foreign policies are responsible for this apalling MESS.
Their stupidity resembles the British King who enlisted Saxon Warlords Heigst & Horsa to fight on his side in order to defeat another British King. When the Saxons saw how rich England was & how badly defended-well these guys thought lets get rest of Bros,wives & children over from Germany, Frisia & Jutland and conquer these wimpy
Brits...First to keep old English King happy & not suspicious,Saxons defeated his rival.Just when the old boy thought he could make merry-his
Saxon mercenaries turned on him,slaughtering British males of an age to be troublesome-able to
fight in other words.[For some JW Posters & Marina Hyde,old King died a hero's death in suitable blood 'n' gore].Saxons took over the 'Little Island' in no time at all,pushing surviving Brits off best farmland into places like Cormwall & Wales where they've harboured a grudge against Anglo-Saxons ever since.
Suspect many of them,along with Palestine & other Muslim Extremists are working at BBC.

Posted by: Morgane at April 6, 2007 10:14 PM

Freedomschool, whether we are at war or not doesn't matter. In early 1941, before Pearl Harbor, the US began escorting convoys from the US to Britian. There was more than one incident when Germans attacked American destroyers. The US Navy shot back, and we were not yet at war with anyone.

Posted by: Pelayo at April 6, 2007 10:17 PM

My guess is that what was on their minds and shaped some of their actions was the fact that one of their collegues was a young mom with young children.

Posted by: Abby at April 6, 2007 10:51 PM

Freedomschool - declaration and state of war -in accordance with all civilized international rules, laws, conventions does matter.
Only barbaric uncivilized terrorists and their supporters ignore need for any and all such laws.
While in non-territorial waters i.e. high seas - which by international agreement belong to no state, but any state's vessels at sea can lawfully conduct any and all actions of security and defensive nature at any time, per international regulations, conventions, laws - at all times -i.e. with or without formal declaration of war i.e. the USN, or naval forces of any nation can fire upon any beligerent/hostile/attacking vessel at any time in international waters in response to attack.

Posted by: TINBH at April 6, 2007 11:06 PM

War?

This is fast going beyond just war. The destruction of Europe is happening right before our very eyes.

The blindness and greed of politicians in the USA -- swiftly bringing us into a similar sphere of despair.

The Middle Class is strangling on too many work hours and ridiculous taxes. In its place, hundreds of thousands of illiterate illegals stream across the border to fill the coffers of both major political parties.

Billions of U.S.$$s flow into the hands of thieves from the United Nations to the banks of Iraq.

Saudi Arabia buys our nations right out from under us and fuels the book-learned hatred of the Unbelievers who host them.

Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk.

Thank God I'm young enough to do more than talk when the time comes. I'm sick to death of Evil running roughshod over simple, decent, Good people.

It's time for Westerners to remember why we live free: Blood, sweat and tears.

We Westerners owe the Muslim and Third Worlds NOTHING. If we are swept away this world will turn into a cesspool again. Another Dark Ages will return with a Caliph at the head. If that reality comes about, I hope the followers of this massive lie prey on each other until not one is left standing.

Posted by: Foehammer at April 6, 2007 11:12 PM

I was listening to Michael Savage who has been very hard on these servicepeople. A Vietnam war veteran called disagreeing with Savage and said "you do what you are told." He also brought up the point about the mother ship.

None of us civilians could imagine how we would react under such pressure.

Our military doesn't fight back the way it used to because we are too p.c. while trying to fight a polite war. I heard they were just following their "rules of engagement."

Posted by: pigtails not veils at April 6, 2007 11:20 PM

Missiles should fly before the end of April. If we allow Iran to attain nuclear power and weapons, damn us all for fools and cowards.

Posted by: Foehammer at April 6, 2007 11:22 PM

Why don't you people get off your tired old rant about what these soldiers should have done and what they did do that was so wrong.

every ounce of ill willed energy should be thrown into the direction of the terrorist state of Iran.It needs go no further than the rant on these goons.

Except of course you decide to rant on the U.N.,the sack less worthless,no good whatever it's supposed to be.

While your at it you may want to toss some of that ill will towards china and russia for thier support for the terrorist regime of Iran.

Any fool here that believes these people should have started a fire fight with no hope of winning,in rubber raft boats,with side arms is just that a fool.

Now if you want to rant that the british gov. and the world community in fact allow the whole ordeal to pass as if nothing really happened and that it's the norm because it's what we come to expect from the cretons then rant on.

If you want to fume over the fact that Iran has the balls to say "see how wonderful we are? we released our abductees now you should release all of our prisoners of war you have in IRAQ". Then fume on.

I do not appreciate any one of you saying see how the Americans did this and that.Or saying you brits are a bunch of sissy girls because you didn't kill yourselves for nothing.The last i checked the west hasn't been brainwashed into suicide missions.

What guarantee is there that any small battle (one that would have lasted about 3 seconds)would have done a dimes bit of good?Wouldn't it have been more likely to just lead to more "condemnations" or more "hollow and toothless warnings"?

Be realistic.These soldiers were preventing the smuggling of banned items into iraq and probably Iran too.The U.N. should have been all over this.

Iran may have won the propaganda war at home but any fool not in irans dream land knows the real score.Anyone with an iota of sense knows the truth.

All one has to do is wait just long enough and then all the words and condemnations in the world run out and the only other alternative comes to light.Ask saddam,if one could.Whether right or not to be in iraq now it was right to remove saddam.The same goes for the evil in iran.As they chip away or as they continue to push others around so the bully finds the nerd with the ability to stand up and kick it's ass,kicks it's ass.

As it is the ineveitable is inevitable,these type of people are not happy with the inch or the mile they desire the lightyear.Therefore thier time will arrive,those sweet little smiles of the nut job will never be seen from then on all can be assured of that and the world will have far less "heroes and lions' of which to gaze upon.

You fools can fight amongst yourselves just do it amongst yourselves.In your quite times though search for the clue that escapes you so horribly.

The only thing one needs to be better than is islam and thats a given so focus there.Britian is in trouble and as they fall so do we.

Allies to the death in my eyes as is Israel and anyother person place or thing that intends to fight against the thing that shouldn't be,islam.

End rant
And all that jazz.

Posted by: Dar al-harb at April 6, 2007 11:25 PM

Screw CAIR ....i don't have a p.c bug and i said that not Robert or Hugh,it was all me!

Hey CAIR can you guess what i am thinking? Bet you Can't.We do not think alike.I am infedel hear me roar BIAAAAAATCHES.

And double all that jazz.

Posted by: Dar al-harb at April 6, 2007 11:35 PM

Hi All,

Just speculating, but suppose we start from the Iranian President's reaction to the movie 300. Then a question arises. Was the Iranian President afraid that the response of King Leonidas to certain death might reverberate in the post-modern West? What if the British captain shouted an update of "Spartans, prepare for glory"?

Now we all know.

Magooey

Posted by: magooey at April 6, 2007 11:36 PM

i'm sick of all you arm chair warriors that never served in the army bitching false bravado on how they would act if captured by muslim forces.

you cowards shoudl be ashamed of yourselves, you are aiding the enemy by putting down your greatest friend and ally.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 6, 2007 11:40 PM

pigtails not veils

and to finish off, savage (though i respect him normally) never served and avoided the vietnam draft!

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 6, 2007 11:41 PM

and at least abdullah and naseem had the courtesy to not get in the iranian debacle and put down british troops, what does that say about you arm chair warriors and chickenhawks?

you are truly sad and have damaged our british american alliance. lets hope that muslim extremists do not use your posts for al queda propaganda on how to damage our two countries future alliance.

think before you type next time.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 6, 2007 11:47 PM

Torn between having the Brits sail a fully armed battle group( by mistake) into Iran's waters by 1.4K.M., and stay for 21 days.

Or, hoping they now understand and will fully protect the search operations from this point on.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at April 6, 2007 11:49 PM

As a soldier, when foreigners come at you with guns in a hostile action, you raise yours. You don’t have to shoot first, but you certainly do not lay down your arms.

In Britain, it seems the soldiers are taught to lay down their arms – to save their lives.

On one hand we can’t blame these fresh-faced kids for their lack of joie de guerre. Their government, their culture, their nation has been so above the fray for such a long time, that fighting is not something that comes naturally to them – unless it is football, they are drunk, and the game is over. Then watch out. Then they fight even with each other.

So it would appear that the secret to getting royal sailors and marines to fight when approached by muslims with guns, is to up the ration of grog allotted to them. Because they surely do not wish to fight sober.

After all, had they resisted, there would have been a gunfight, and they surely would have lost. So they would have been killed in battle. And these days, it is just not right for military people to die in battle – it is considered a mistake - sort of like putting a pregnant girl in a dingy, dressing her in a uniform, and thinking she's a military asset.

Nonetheless, if we take the actions of these servicemen and women as indicative of British policy, then the purpose of British servicemen and pregnant women is not to defend their country’s interest. No, according to this wisdom, the point is to get back alive. Which begs the question: If the point is to stay alive, why join the military? There’s the rub. By joining the military in a combat position, you are ostensibly saying that you are prepared to die to defend your country’s interests.

But the reason for critical analysis does not end there. Having surrendered, rather than engage in a Mexican standoff, or fight, they then engaged in propaganda for the Iranians, with little in the way of torture or even threats of torture. The most dire threat they faced was 7 years in jail. Indeed, the prospect of jail, made them decide that acting in a propaganda film for Iran, was a pretty good paying job.

Then in the presence of the Iranian president, they apologized and thanked him for their freedom. Not with glum resoluteness and a gnashing of teeth, a muttering under the breath, but with smiles. Genuine smiles. There’s the second rub.

Then after being told of their release, they happily dug into their gift bags for treats. Rather then shun such treats as part of the propaganda tools they were, they accepted them as would a child at a party. They would not dare risk offending their hosts, lest it diminish their chance of freedom.

All in all, the British sailor and Marines behaved not as soldiers, but as civilians. Indeed, I would expect more belligerence on the part of Susie homemaker than was exhibited by these neophytes-to-world-politics.

Not only did these soldiers value their lives more than the interests of their nation, but they even valued their physical freedom, and their quick release to such freedom, more than the interests of their nation. There’s the third rub. That’s the unkindest cut. This is what one would expect from a civilian hostage in bank robbery. A secretary, or customer perhaps. Do as you are told to get out alive. Say what is required to get out as quickly as possible. Have no honor, no pride. No higher purpose than physical survival.

This then is the problem of the west in a microcosm. Not just economically and politically, but militarily, from the top brass, down to the lowly sailor and marines. Expediency not only in our daily lives, but also in the face of muslim aggression, is the default action when faced with a problem.

Don’t do the right thing. Do the smart thing.

And these soldiers did the smart thing.

Unfortunately, when a litmus test comes between doing what is right and doing what is smart, and we choose to be smart, we survive, but we lose our identity in the process. That’s the final rub.

What these dhimmiwatch pages document over and over again, is that islam presents the west with a non-stop series of litmus tests. Every challenge, from not scanning bacon, to pointing their guns at our military people, is a litmus test. And more often than not, almost all of the time in fact, the west decides to do what is expedient – what is smart – rather than what is right.

Death by a thousand cuts.

Posted by: jihadwatcher at April 6, 2007 11:54 PM

Soldiers?

Half of the personnel were sailors, not soldiers and under the limited protection of the rest of the smaller vessels occupants: marines.

The IRGC had them outgunned and surrounded due to one factor: NO BACK UP!

Had the "mother ship" been under noble command, we would instead be discussing how justified the British were in defending 15 sailors and marines well worth saving.

Instead, the "15" were not only subjected to God knows what in Iran, but are now castigated for not "Saving the Queen" themselves!

Get off the "15". They were thrown to the wolves by commanders afraid to do the right thing rather than the PC thing. From that point forward, the commanders are responsible for having the force at their disposal to deal with the threat to those under their charge. They will probably be promoted when they should be demoted.

Even if it meant possible court martial or whatever the Brits call it, prison, or declaration of war by Iran, they should've protected and defended the "15". Then most of the western world would be singing their praises instead of trying to lay blame.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at April 7, 2007 12:16 AM

In Britain, it seems the soldiers are taught to lay down their arms – to save their lives.

mate, seriously, we are taught in the army that if ou are overwhelmed adn you know that you can fight another day then it is far more useful to surrender than to die, needlessely. take for example the british marines at port stanley, 1982, when argintinas special forces and marines took port stanley. the british marines advised the govenor of the falklands that they should all vacate to the mountains and fight a guerilla war. the governor refused and bid a surrender. those marines were paraded in front of hte worlds cameras press yet in less than 6 months those same marines were the first into port stanley after fighting battles which wouldve wiped out most professional 1st world armies, totally outnumbered teh marines led baynot charge after baynot charge and finally flew the british flag again over port stanley, yet those same captured prisoners had returned.

believe me, those marines will get revenge on those iranians.

i'm sickened by the anti-british comments on this site, i think that they must be from closet jihadists.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 7, 2007 12:35 AM

XRDC

well said mate, thank you

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 7, 2007 12:37 AM

"Have no honor, no pride. No higher purpose than physical survival. "

please ban this pro-jihadist from this site.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 7, 2007 12:39 AM

Britain and the US are allies, and will be allies as this conflict plays itself out. For whatever its worth, I’m having a hard time reconciling the ac