BF2S Forums UK sailors captured at gunpoint by Iran

samfink wrote:

CameronPoe, the only iranian soldiers that have bene taken prisoner by the US have been in iraq, i believe, trying to support the insurgency. thus, taking them prisoner is in fact legitimate, as thye posed a threat to US forces. while this was apparently not an act of self-defense, but an act of war.

Hmmm...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 530527.ece

IRAN is threatening to retaliate in Europe for what it claims is a daring undercover operation by western intelligence services to kidnap senior officers in its Revolutionary Guard.

According to Iranian sources, several officers have been abducted in the past three months and the United States has drawn up a list of other targets to be seized with the aim of destabilising Tehran’s military command.

In an article in Subhi Sadek, the Revolutionary Guard’s weekly paper, Reza Faker, a writer believed to have close links to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, warned that Iran would strike back.

I don't know of many mobile ant-air missle systems that are effective a 50k feet.

Kmarion wrote:

I don't know of many mobile ant-air missle systems that are effective a 50k feet.

Me neither, but these look shit hot!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … /sa-15.htm

and they have loads.

David.Podedworny wrote:

Guys please dont flame and get this thread locked.

I hardly think the Mods are going to stop us discussing one of the biggest news events of the week which could have wide reaching reprecussions.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

This is quite interesting. My bro works in the foreign office and he's disputed this. He says the Iranians, to save face, will not admit that apparently they've all defected, one being a Major in the Revolutionary Guard. Iran are so pissed off because they brought a whole load of sensitive documents with them, documents apparently indicating all the secret nuclear sites, which the US probably knew about anyway, but more importantly the ground to air missile systems. The Brits now have a comprehensive record of all static missile sites and details of most, if not all, the mobile ones which pose a threat. No doubt the US now has this too.

No offense Richard, but your bro could get fired or go to jail for not distributing the Foreign office's particular version of the events, even if you are family. Tis his job after all.

There isn't going to be any exchanging of prisoners going on. Just massive pressure on Iran to 'release them or else'. Hopefully Iran will be sensible enough to comply.

I think I'll make a few calls to my Prior Service Recruiter, being the good- Evil, oil-hungry, conservative, blood-thirsty, baby seal eating, concealed handgun owner, voulnteer that I am, just to see if any slots need filled. I'm bored...

I was pretty surprised the Iranians pulled this move. . . .

They are certainly playing with fire, the USA is already accusing them of aiding the insurgents, now they pull this on the Brits. . . .

I personally dont think this is a wise move for the Iranians.  The British government should stay tough and negotiate, a military move here would be bad.  I know that they (UK) want their troops back, but this seems to be a politically motivated move by Iran, that should be responded to with politics not war. 

If Iran threatens to harm these troops, and sets irrational conditions for release, then we are dealing with a very voilatile situation.

Either way you could cut the tension with a knife!!! I am gonna watch closely to see how this plays itself out. . .

Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-03-23 12:41:39)

usmarine2007 wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

If Iran threatens to harm these troops, and sets irrational conditions for release, then we are dealing with a very voilatile situation.

Surgical Strike anyone?

I'm afraid your right!! We (the USA) are looking for any excuse to bomb those Iranian facilities/army!!

Not too mention the reaction from Britain if indeed these troops are harmed. . . War is certainly on the table at this point. I mean the UK wouldnt sit idle if their troops were killed/tortured in any way.  It would be a gross act of war by the Iranians that would command a harsh response.

fadedsteve wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

If Iran threatens to harm these troops, and sets irrational conditions for release, then we are dealing with a very voilatile situation.

Surgical Strike anyone?

I'm afraid your right!! We (the USA) are looking for any excuse to bomb those Iranian facilities/army!!

Not too mention the reaction from Britain if indeed these troops are harmed. . . War is certainly on the table at this point. I mean the UK wouldnt sit idle if their troops were killed/tortured in any way.  It would be a gross act of war by the Iranians that would command a harsh response.

I meant a few Tornadoes or some SAS.

Braddock wrote:

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

I find it utterly amazing with some of the peoples of the internets, trying to put out there their own assessments of US Department of Defense capabilities. OK maybe not amazing, just utterly moronic. By the way, how did you come to that conclusion? BBC,NBC, CNN Intl., New York Time, etc.??

BBC, CNN, RTÉ, IRISH TIMES, LONDON TIMES, REALITY... The days of the WWII style big victory are gone, modern conflict is tough, gritty and nasty and the US haven't got a good record at it. The US lost in Vietnam, had a big failure in Somalia (acting on behalf of the UN in that case), are ostensibly losing more and more ground to the Taliban everyday in Afghanistan and appear to be losing in Iraq, what makes you think they'd perform any different if they attacked Iran?

I'll admit you could annihilate them if you used nuclear weapons but that would be game over for all of us.

And what about the victories we had over Iraq twice in a matter of a month or two? If I remember correctly Iran had quite a bit of trouble in it's war with Iraq. The failures do not come from destroying the opponents military, it comes from what we plan to do after. Sustained occupation and nation building are not the jobs of the military. In our successes in previous years we did not make it a habit of completely removing the previous infrastructure and starting from scratch. Don't think that a nuke is required to win when there is two carrier groups sitting off the coast right now capable of leveling Iran with conventional means (Cruise missiles, bombers). (Not at all what I think we should be doing right now)

Operation restore hope was a humanitarian effort in which we lost 18 soldiers. I'd call it more of a change in policy (Clinton) rather than a military defeat.

You are right on the money with regards to Killers with cameras though.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-23 12:54:13)

Braddock wrote:

(Te)eflon(S)adow wrote:

I'd like to add this, just for CameronPoe: God Bless the Pre-Emptive Strikes!" Just saying that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Seriously.

You know 9/11 could be considered a preemptive strike.

What is the point of this post, besides making another subtle jab at America?

UGADawgs wrote:

Braddock wrote:

You know 9/11 could be considered a preemptive strike.

What is the point of this post, besides making another subtle jab at America?

I'm just pointing out to (T)eflon(S)hadow that although he may like making off the cuff remarks to wind people up if he actually thought about what he was saying he'd realise that preemptive strikes (from all nations, not just America) are often the cause of most of the world's problems and sadness.

For the record, before anyone accuses me otherwise I consider 9/11 a tragedy, thousands of innocent people being killed as part of a political beef that religious extremists have is not justifiable.