[QUOTE=FRDE]
@ClairObscur I had forgotten that you are French, well I’ve learnt something.
The reason for rubber boats is that they don’t show up so well on Radar, most ships are equipped with Radar, so it seems sensible to use them for intercepting suspicious vessels.
[/QUOTE]
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
[QUOTE=Elsie]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Speed - not so sure - those Iranian patrol boats had the edge
otherwise they would have been off in a cloud of smoke and aluminium flakes
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.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
@ClairObscur
The reason for rubber boats is that they don’t show up so well on Radar, most ships are equipped with Radar, so it seems sensible to use them for intercepting suspicious vessels.
I really don’t think those guys were spying, for a start there is not much to spy on there, and if they were up to no good the Iranians would have been exhibiting special equipment.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Latro]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Six boats went in to investigate a Dhow molestation
they found 14 guys and a lass
Seal, Commando or SBS would have resulted in a firefight
[QUOTE=FRDE]
Six boats went in to investigate a Dhow molestation
they found 14 guys and a lass
Seal, Commando or SBS would have resulted in a firefight
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Elsie]
oh go away, you silly person.
[/QUOTE]
This message board is asynchronous
it is wiser to either quote the person you are replying to or do something like @Elsie
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 …
[QUOTE=Latro]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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]
[QUOTE=Elsie]
What has Iran got to achieve by treating people badly ?
There’s an an enormous amount to be gained from treating the well, and being seen to treat them well i.e. contrasting how they treat ‘detainees’ with how ‘the west’ treats Muslim detainees.
Don’t apply our leaders and standards. Really, the Iranians aren’t that stupid.
[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
In order to be clearer : What I found ironical was the rant about Iranians in Iraki waters being “people entering someone else’s territory” when British in Iraki waters are equally in someone else’s territory.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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.
[/QUOTE]
No, Iran is afraid you might invade yet another country, namely theirs.
So they’re a bit edgy..
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Latro]
No, Iran is afraid you might invade yet another country, namely theirs.
So they’re a bit edgy..
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Elsie]
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.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Elsie]
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
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Since when has America needed to be provided a casus belli ? We’ll simply make one up, if we feel like bothering.
