Iran's act of war?

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by bass_virus

Why would they do this? Don't they know how hard we're working to keep sir bombsalot from pressing the big red button that says nuke? I know the sailor's are English, but the English aren't pansies like the French, they are mroe than willing to march ides on Irans ass.

Somebody's been keeping up with The Daily Show!

But yeah, my bad, I keep forgetting that world leaders have to turn everything into a pissing contest. Britain can't just admit that maybe their troops did get a bit too close to Iranian waters, and Iran can't just release the prisoners without the British government singing the "I'm Very Sorry Song".

I'm so very glad that a bunch of bratty, spoiled children are what stand between the world and nuclear annihilation.

[Tendronai]

It's not just the fact that international image has to be maintained, it's also due to the fact that Bush and Ahmadinejad firmly believe God to be siding with them. As such, they don't see any need to back down because "God will step in and save us". The same thing kind of happened during Reagan's presidency. Reagan was so convinced that Jesus would rapture him off the planet should nuclear war break out that the USSR had to back down, since Reagan wouldn't.

Now, I'm not saying all religion is a bad thing. I'm just saying that people with the power to initiate a process which could end so many lives shouldn't think that there's an invisible man in the sky who will not only protect them, but ensure that their enemies die.

[Mannix]

Originally Posted by Tendronai

It's not just the fact that international image has to be maintained, it's also due to the fact that Bush and Ahmadinejad firmly believe God to be siding with them. As such, they don't see any need to back down because "God will step in and save us". The same thing kind of happened during Reagan's presidency. Reagan was so convinced that Jesus would rapture him off the planet should nuclear war break out that the USSR had to back down, since Reagan wouldn't.

Now, I'm not saying all religion is a bad thing. I'm just saying that people with the power to initiate a process which could end so many lives shouldn't think that there's an invisible man in the sky who will not only protect them, but ensure that their enemies die.

well, in a democracy the leaders are supposed to represent the people, and isnt' it something like 80% of americans identify themselves as christian? you can be a crazy, button happy ass, religion or no. i don't think we should be worrying about whether or not our leaders are religious, but whether or not they're intelligent, reasonable human beings. you can be both, one and not the other, or neither.

[Death by Stabbing]

Those Iranians love taking hostages, huh?

I agree...the issue is not whether or not a person is religious...I'm worried more about some one who's batshit insane

Unfortunatly some people identify religion with being crazy...

[Tendronai]

I don't know, though. Something about how they both believe the fact that there's going to be some big rescue makes them less cautious than someone who believes that nuclear Armageddon is a nuclear Armageddon.

I mean, I'm not saying all religious people are insane, but the fact that both Bush and Ahmadinejad think that they could somehow escape with everyone else who deserves to would make them act less cautious. I prefer that someone in charge not believe that there's a convenient escape hatch from God should they decide to blow the world up.

[Demetrius]

Dude, if you want to bring religion into this you're asking for a bannination. Drop this tangent and move toward the actual politics of the situation. Politics like how Iran changed the reported coordinates of where they took the Brits.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Then again, from the reporting I'd seen on CNN, even the coordinates aren't a lock in favor of the British. The exact boundaries of what is & what is not Iran/Iraq waters has gone through a few back & forths over the years, plus the river mouth that is used as a guideline for the boundaries, well it isn't exactly static.

Both sides got into the rhetoric game fairly early on, and had too big heads to at least admit its a tough call to make, when talking about boundaries in the water.

Also, remember the US still has 5 Iranians under arrest from when we went into their Iraqi embassy. Then there was apparently a botched attempt at kidnapping more Iranians.

Then there was that kidnapped Iranian diplomat.

Big mess all around.

SWB

[bass_virus]

Well looks like it's over. Iran has promised to release the sailors. as long as they make good on that promise this will all get swept under the rug. Apparently it's an Easter gift.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17944210/

[Fifthfiend]

The botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis
Exclusive Report: How a bid to kidnap Iranian security officials sparked a diplomatic crisis
By Patrick Cockburn
Published: 03 April 2007

A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines.

Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.

In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.

Better understanding of the seriousness of the US action in Arbil - and the angry Iranian response to it - should have led Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly vulnerable Navy search parties in the Gulf. The two senior Iranian officers the US sought to capture were Mohammed Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, according to Kurdish officials.

The two men were in Kurdistan on an official visit during which they met the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, and later saw Massoud Barzani, the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), at his mountain headquarters overlooking Arbil.

"They were after Jafari," Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff of Massoud Barzani, told The Independent. He confirmed that the Iranian office had been established in Arbil for a long time and was often visited by Kurds obtaining documents to visit Iran. "The Americans thought he [Jafari] was there," said Mr Hussein.

Mr Jafari was accompanied by a second, high-ranking Iranian official. "His name was General Minojahar Frouzanda, the head of intelligence of the Pasdaran [Iranian Revolutionary Guard]," said Sadi Ahmed Pire, now head of the Diwan (office) of President Talabani in Baghdad. Mr Pire previously lived in Arbil, where he headed the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), Mr Talabani's political party.

The attempt by the US to seize the two high-ranking Iranian security officers openly meeting with Iraqi leaders is somewhat as if Iran had tried to kidnap the heads of the CIA and MI6 while they were on an official visit to a country neighbouring Iran, such as Pakistan or Afghanistan. There is no doubt that Iran believes that Mr Jafari and Mr Frouzanda were targeted by the Americans. Mr Jafari confirmed to the official Iranian news agency, IRNA, that he was in Arbil at the time of the raid.

In a little-noticed remark, Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, told IRNA: "The objective of the Americans was to arrest Iranian security officials who had gone to Iraq to develop co-operation in the area of bilateral security."

US officials in Washington subsequently claimed that the five Iranian officials they did seize, who have not been seen since, were "suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces". This explanation never made much sense. No member of the US-led coalition has been killed in Arbil and there were no Sunni-Arab insurgents or Shia militiamen there.

The raid on Arbil took place within hours of President George Bush making an address to the nation on 10 January in which he claimed: "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops." He identified Iran and Syria as America's main enemies in Iraq though the four-year-old guerrilla war against US-led forces is being conducted by the strongly anti-Iranian Sunni-Arab community. Mr Jafari himself later complained about US allegations. "So far has there been a single Iranian among suicide bombers in the war-battered country?" he asked. "Almost all who involved in the suicide attacks are from Arab countries."

It seemed strange at the time that the US would so openly flout the authority of the Iraqi President and the head of the KRG simply to raid an Iranian liaison office that was being upgraded to a consulate, though this had not yet happened on 11 January. US officials, who must have been privy to the White House's new anti-Iranian stance, may have thought that bruised Kurdish pride was a small price to pay if the US could grab such senior Iranian officials.

For more than a year the US and its allies have been trying to put pressure on Iran. Security sources in Iraqi Kurdistan have long said that the US is backing Iranian Kurdish guerrillas in Iran. The US is also reportedly backing Sunni Arab dissidents in Khuzestan in southern Iran who are opposed to the government in Tehran. On 4 February soldiers from the Iraqi army 36th Commando battalion in Baghdad, considered to be under American control, seized Jalal Sharafi, an Iranian diplomat.

The raid in Arbil was a far more serious and aggressive act. It was not carried out by proxies but by US forces directly. The abortive Arbil raid provoked a dangerous escalation in the confrontation between the US and Iran which ultimately led to the capture of the 15 British sailors and Marines - apparently considered a more vulnerable coalition target than their American comrades.

The targeted generals

* MOHAMMED JAFARI

Powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, responsible for internal security. He has accused the United States of seeking to "hold Iran responsible for insecurity in Iraq... and [US] failure in the country."

* GENERAL MINOJAHAR FROUZANDA

Chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the military unit which maintains its own intelligence service separate from the state, as well as a parallel army, navy and air force

So, there's that.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Fifth, just to point out, but I already mentioned that. I just didn't quote. Plus, I pointed out the 5 ppl taken from the Iran embassy in Iraq, plus the recently released Iranian that was captured.

SWB