You tried to claim that Iran would kill these people because :
Which are all things that Al Qaeda did; you are equating the two.
Of course, I could use the same “logic” to claim that we intend to kill all Muslims, because the Christian West committed the Holocaust.
I tried to claim nothing.
I said earlier I wasn’t coming back, I made an error in doing so, I will not make the same mistake again
And there was silly old me thinking there was a good range of reason inc. speed, manoeuvrability, shallow draught (mines) cheap, effective, and ease of storage on the mothership
Oh well.
Speed - not so sure - those Iranian patrol boats had the edge
Manouverability - well a bit bouncy
mines - not expected
cheap - true
effective - demonstrably not
ease of storage - probably easier to store than something larger, but they don’t exactly deflate like a li-lo
I would say that in this case, they were used because they would not show up much on on-board radar - that or they had nothing else, which would be a good candidate 
Personally I would be bricking it in one of those things, while it would not sink, the crew would be dead before they realized that the ship they were approaching was hostile.
oh go away, you silly person.
I see Robert Fisk makes his entry into these waters in this mornings Independent: The War of Humiliation.
He’s a little Am-Dram about it, and doesn’t have as many clear points as would be hoped, but he’s always worth a read.
Wish he’d been clearer about how many aces he thinks Tehran has - and God knows there are several, but his mimicking angle is fun:
Indeed, and as per this thread a page and a half ago.
My guess is that the Iranian coastguard is very much on the alert for SEAL-like incursions. Which could come from rubber boats just outside detectable range.
They went to investigate, on local initiative, took them in and now are kind of stuck.
Six boats went in to investigate a Dhow molestation
Seal, Commando or SBS would have resulted in a firefight
I’m not saying they were, just that rubber boats could look very suspicious, from the Iranian point of view. Something that needs to be investigated agressively.
This message board is asynchronous
If you really think that the fifteen wusses were really up to anything more than reminding a ferry operator that he had better be careful about what he transports, then well …
I agree, and escorted back to the mother ship.
To my knowledge the UK is not at war with Iran, therefore normal rules apply.
[sub]I have met few Moslems that don’t like whisky[/sub]
Can you offer up some evidence as to what “our” “standards” are, or, like tagos, are you trying to argue something without support of fact?
I’m sure you’re aware of what brought the UK into “someone else’s territory.” An official, overt invasion. The U.K. in concert with the U.S. (and others), then proceeded to topple the government of Iraq and set up a new one which is perfectly fine with us in their waters; in fact many countries allow the U.S. and the U.K. access to their territorial waters, just because they aren’t our territorial waters does not give other countries leave to attack our ships there.
So yeah, we aren’t in our waters, but unless Iran plans to invade Iraq (thus entering a conventional war with the United States and the U.K.) I’m not sure they want to be violating the waters of Iraq anymore than the U.S. or U.K. wants to be violating the waters of Iran. So I guess what I’m saying is, we were brought to those waters by an act of invasion, is that what Iran was doing? If not I really fail to see the point.
No, Iran is afraid you might invade yet another country, namely theirs.
So they’re a bit edgy…
No, it’s all a figment of my imagination; whether it’s from the former Chaplain at Guantanamo, the vegetative state of detainees from USA detention centres in Afghanistan, the “like furniture” state of Joe Padiia in a Charlestown brig . . . hundreds and maybe thousands now of zombies.
But while that is the point of the transparent trap you oh-so-cleverly-set for me - you should work in USA Intelligence - it is not my point; * rather perception ]in the Muslim world* are what is in play here, chiefly the simple perception of oppressing, torturing infidels. The distinction between perceptions of USA behaviour towards detainees treatment and the treatment of these sailors creates moral high ground.
Yep, that was my point
One would have to point out that if one were worried about being invaded the last thing you would do is engage in conflict escalation by violating another country’s waters and taking prisoner a third country’s sailors–thus giving said third country and her allies casus belli for the very invasion one is worried about.
Zombies?
If you’re just talking about what perceptions are in the Muslim world, that’s fine, while it’s not in my nature to accept anything without fact, I would not doubt that perceptions are like you suggest in the Muslim world (plus, perceptions are hard to quantify.) However, when you talk about “our standards” you’re making a factual assertion, if we truly have “standards of prisoner treatment” then they are published and listed somewhere.
Since when has America needed to be provided a casus belli ? We’ll simply make one up, if we feel like bothering.
