It’s “parading for the cameras” time
No surprise, really; those British hostages are being shown on Iranian TV apologizing for straying into Iranian waters.
There’s nothing like the propaganda value of a few show confessions in an effort (vain, I hope) to shore up sagging support for the Iranian regime and its chest-thumping. I wonder whether the mullahs feel the least bit threatened by Blair’s response:
It is now time to ratchet up the diplomatic and international pressure in order to make sure the Iranian government understands its total isolation on this issue.
What’s going on behind the scenes must be—interesting.
Those British sailors and marines, by the way, were apparently not considered to be high-risk for Iranian abduction, and were not given any briefings on how to behave in the event of such an occurrence. In this interview with British Admiral Alan West, he states the rules, for what they’re worth:
These particular people would not be trained in counter-interrogation techniques because they are not expected to be captured. But I think our guidance to anyone in that position would be to say what they want you to say, let’s not be silly about it. Don’t tell them secrets, clearly, but if they tell you: ‘Say this’, well if that’s going to get you out, then do it. It means absolutely nothing, what they say, to be honest.
I’m not sure it means nothing to the folks watching on Iranian TV. But perhaps most of them are fully aware of the nature of their own regime, enough to discount any remarks made by the sailors in the course of captivity.
But please, Britain, in the future, change those rules of engagement, and allow these people better protection against any repetition of such an event. And you might want to look into that interrogation resistance training, as well.
This sucks for the hostages. But having Jiminy Carter around would only make it worse.
When captured by people like the Pasadran, you WILL NOT win the interrogation game. Doesn’t matter how much training you receive. That is why we automatically assume that everything someone who has been captured knows has been compromised. What the training does is help you survive the experience with a minimum of guilt and damage to yourself.
Frankly, and I have been put under a modicum of torture – just enough to know myself, I think I’d die before I gave them that statement. Also if they had given some thought they should have realized that the Iranians couldn’t torture them, there would be hell to pay
Pingback:Infidels Are Cool » Blog Archive » Appalling: British Female Hostage Shown In Veil On Iranian TV
I walked into the room today and my father was watching one of the 24/7 news channels (didn’t pay attention to which one) and they were going on about how this may change everything – they admitted it!
After a few minutes of that the anchor did say “Though, one also has to take into account where they are being held” – yea, one might want to do that. Too bad you didn’t bother too for the last 5-10 minutes of “Iranians good, west bad”.
BTW, where are all the complaints and hours upon hours of hand wrangling (not to mention calls for international arrest and trial in Nuremberg) for Geneva Code violations – we had calls for less on Bush (no violent coercion and non-uniformed). Guess I better not hold my breath on that one.
Are you kidding? The people calling for Bush’s head are the ones DEFENDING Iran. And those poor pawn sailors; anyone can see they didn’t really WANT to spy on the peace-loving people of Iran, and only NOW that they’re safely away from their handlers can they freely speak their minds and reveal the truth to the world. I mean, what’s poor Iran supposed to do, considering that evil Bush is just looking for ANY excuse to bomb them into oblivion? They HAVE to defend themselves and do whatever they can to free the poor oppressed people of the West.
Those British sailors and marines, by the way, were apparently not considered to be high-risk for Iranian abduction, and were not given any briefings on how to behave in the event of such an occurrence.
Everyone should know by now that there are no front lines, every soft target is a target.
It’s not like Iran hitting American CA troops detached from the larger army, wasn’t a hint, Neo. Britain’s Navy just doesn’t seem to be on a war footing. But then, the US Navy also has similar problems given the lack of naval wars.
I must’ve been missing this, but where was the cover? I guess I still dont see how the Iranians could have captured anybody here. Im assuming the detachment had a radio and were operating from a larger vessel and/or land base within supporting distance.
Like I said, I must have missed that part of the story.
The ship covering the op requested permission to shoot. The commanders back in London refused.
Jack Aubrey would have taken care of this without asking anybody.
Apparently the British rules of engagement are modeled after the French.
I’ll be praying for the safety of these hostages, but the British planners seem to have thought that these operations are just another walk in the park.
I truly hope this doesn’t turn out to be another Carter-like Iranian hostage siege.
Un-friggin believable.
1. They had to ask permission.
2. It was denied.
Again, un-friggin believable.
OK, so now there in a jamb they wouldnt have been had they woke the f up and realized there’s a war going on.
Oh, kinda like a lot of us in the US, isnt it?
Have they changed the ROE, or is that still in committee?
Un-friggin believable.
They’re (PIMF), sorry
“The ship covering the op requested permission to shoot. The commanders back in London refused.”
Hey, defending oneself may have caused an international situation by making Iran mad. Now that the UN Human Rights council has declared Iran all fine there is *no* reason to do so, obviously those limey Brits are in the wrong and are just being prejudiced against the Arabs (err, Persians – but Arabs makes it more hard hitting).
Also, isn’t Britain one of the countries that says you can only defend yourself with force equal to the attacker (at least for individuals)? Since they do not have those big guns they have to do *something* to make the possible outcome fair, it might hurt their self esteem to be out gunned and just increase the circle of violence.
Meanwhile, back in the United States, the House yesterday passed a revised version of the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 , which gives protection of “John Doe” airline passengers from lawsuits like the ones the non-flying Imams have filed since being booted off a US Airways flight last November.
Naturally, not without the objection of House liberals who think that this will result in a rash of Islamophobic expulsions driven by an American public, who’s judgment liberals cant trust.
You may as well tie yourself to your airline seat as far as they’re concerned.
Or order a 15 person Naval detachment to sail to an enemy harbor and give themselves up.
Miserable squirrel writes: BTW, where are all the complaints and hours upon hours of hand wrangling (not to mention calls for international arrest and trial in Nuremberg) for Geneva Code violations – we had calls for less on Bush (no violent coercion and non-uniformed).
Where is the proof that the Iranians are carrying out “violent coercion” on these detained naval personnel?
strcpy writes: Miserable squirrel writes: BTW, where are all the complaints and hours upon hours of hand wrangling (not to mention calls for international arrest and trial in Nuremberg) for Geneva Code violations – we had calls for less on Bush (no violent coercion and non-uniformed).
Very simple answer. Bush is our president. If he does something illegal and objectionable, it reflects badly on us. If the President of Iran were to do something illegal or objectionable, it does not reflect on us, as we US voters did not elect him.
P.S. Sorry for misreading your name/handle in the previous post — I was confusing you with the commenter from another post.
Actually, the West’s new policy of craven submission may pay some dividends: the Iranians and other terrorist dictatorships will probably give up on taking hostages once they get disgusted with our whining and self-flagellation. At some point the terrorists will find our helplessness and defeatism so disgusting they’ll start insisting we at least _pretend_ to have some courage just so they can stand to take our people hostage.
Whoever said the U.S. Navy isn’t on a war footing because there haven’t been any Naval wars hasn’t paid much attention in recent years. Carrier aviation has been there first in every encounter for a long time now. The U.S. Navy has never been better trained, nor better prepared to fight.
Unless the Royal Navy has changed dramatically since I last encoutered them, they train very well and are fully prepared. However, no Navy (Army, Air Force or Marine Corps) gets to write its own Rules of Engagement. Those are written by people a long way from where confrontation is likely to occur. They are often written by people whose greatest desire is to avoid confrontation–at all costs.
Jack Aubry was not burdened with modern communications. Like all Commanders of the day, he had the privilege and responsibility of making his own decisions. We will never see those days again.
Pingback:The Thomas Chronicles » Britain’s a paper tiger?
“Where is the proof that the Iranians are carrying out “violent coercion” on these detained naval personnel?”
Watch the video. If you do not see it nothing I can do for you.
“Very simple answer. Bush is our president. If he does something illegal and objectionable, it reflects badly on us. If the President of Iran were to do something illegal or objectionable, it does not reflect on us, as we US voters did not elect him.”
I’ll somewhat accept that, even though I think you are stretching quite a bit there (I can not prove it, but I rather suspect you would hold the same views no matter where you lived). Now, how about those in Britain, Sweden, France, and the rest of the ones doing it?
Oldflyer.
Yeah, he had some freedom, it appears. Might have to wait months to find out if he’d done the righ thing and, hell, he could be killed in the meantime.
In my experience, long-range commo equipment could always be counted on to crap out at the decisive moment. It appears the Brits’ is better. Too bad.
Oldflyer,
I’m afraid the Royal Navy just ain’t what it used to be. It was announced in January that they’re scuttling half their fleet.
And while we’re on the topic Britain’s military, the number of Royal Marines, seamen, etc.— across the board— have been in serious decline since 2001. When you look at the MOD’s actual numbers, it’s downright depressing.
Carrier aviation has been there first in every encounter for a long time now. The U.S. Navy has never been better trained, nor better prepared to fight.
You don’t read CDR Salamander then, and you also don’t compare conduct and training between the land forces and the Navy.
Carrier aviation is not what the navy is there for. If you want planes, you could get the air force. Navy’s there to do blockades, blow stuff up and under the water, and secure domination of the seas just as land forces must hold land.
You can’t get the experience of a real naval war in peacetime, which is what the US Navy is setup for right now. At this rate, we’ll be like Britain, we’ll scrap all our ships except for the carriers. I don’t think that’s something called war footing.
The navies have troubles that you just aren’t reading about, OldF.
“Very simple answer. Bush is our president. If he does something illegal and objectionable, it reflects badly on us. If the President of Iran were to do something illegal or objectionable, it does not reflect on us, as we US voters did not elect him.”
Rather like the reasoning of the LA rioters, that. “We can’t attack the cops, because they’d shoot us. We can’t burn the nice neighborhoods, because the cops wouldn’t let us get near them. So we’ll burn our own neighborhoods to the ground, the whole world will respect us then.”
Worked like a charm, of course. The best thing about being a leftist is never having to admit you’re wrong, because you can just redefine right and wrong however you like. Hey, at least the victimized minorities got to take revenge on Reginald Denny the Truck-Driving Oppressor, right?
There are lawyerly/State Department types who believe in every little detail and mechanism of treaties and then there are the people on the sharp end who usually end up dead or permanently crippled because of them. The first type lives in a reality bounded by the words and documents which, to them, are far more real than the dangerous and messy reality the second type faces every day. The words and documents are a shield against reality and chaos but, ambition, conflict, bloodshed and chaos are what are truly real.
Three news items this week tell you pretty much all you need to know about the once proud and capable British navy. News accounts this week report that the British government plans to cut the current shrunken and neglected fleet by half and also plans to suspend officer promotions for five years. The UK’s Independent yesterday “quoted the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, (who) said British rules of engagement were “very much de-escalatory, because we don’t want wars starting … Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away.” “ Could a better recipe for failure and irrelevance be concocted?
No doubt all the money saved will be diverted to welfare benefits for all the Muslim colonists currently occupying various parts of England–housing allowances, medical benefits and various subsidies for their multiple wives (officially listed as cousins, no doubt) and their many children, unemployment benefits so that the men can attend their Mosques–the better to hear Jihad–and refurbishment of more shuttered Anglican churches so they can serve as Muslim welcome centers– the Muslim community in Britain which produced the current crop of subway bombers.
Truly, short of a revolution, I don’t see how England can be saved. I used to think of the Royal family as a backup, ready to take over if the politicians made a complete mess of things but, hey, the royals are even more screwed up that the politicos and the next in line for the throne, Prince Charles, is a mobile cluster-f..k.
I believe Charles had to “renounce” the Crown when he divorced Diana, so the next in line is William(or is it Harry, I can never remember who the “oldest” son is).
I think I meant to say “relinquish”, rather than “renounce”.
Since its birth, the EU has proved itself a disaster in the field of foreign affairs. I wonder if a little of the Brussels’ type of mindset has not spilled over into the thinking of today’s Britain.
The British were once capable, all agree, of standing on their own two feet. Now, the present situation–a stereotype of so many Communist propaganda shows– finds them unable to cope.
royal.gov.ukLee–Unfortunately, Charles is still the heir apparent as can be seen from this the Monarchy’s official website here: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page5559.asp
Would that it were not so but, nutty, ineffectual and enamored of Islam Charles is next in line and will become King unless the queen designates someone else in his place.