UK captives tell of ill treatment

Originally posted by avro

Originally posted by IAF101
Are we to believe that the once mighty Royal Navy cannot search even merchant ships now?? Getting captured should be shameful enough I would think but defending their captors and criticizing their own people is inexplicable.

you do your fellow country men a great diservice by adopting this unfriendly attitude toward an ally lets face it you ain't got many right now

It is no disservice if I chose to deflate British ego by a few notches by pointing out a new perspective. The situation needs to be seen objectively. Not doing so would be disservice.

Originally posted by avro
IF YOU WANT PEACE YOU HAVE TO PREPARE FOR WAR; Winston Churchill

IF YOU WANT PEACE YOU DON'T START A WAR; Me.

Originally posted by IAF101
Are we to believe that the once mighty Royal Navy cannot search even merchant ships now?? Getting captured should be shameful enough I would think but defending their captors and criticizing their own people is inexplicable.

The news stories so far (the British news media at least) seem to be focusing on the 'trauma' of the event but none of the news media in Britain have questioned the actions of these 15 sailors who claim to side with the enemy for fear of their lives. If that was all that it took, why did they join the marines in the first place ?

According to reputation the Royal Marines are said to some of the finest, yet not 1 but 15 of them acquiesced to Iranian threats. The woman first and then the rest of them one-by-one folded. I dont see how people can sympathize with them when they openly criticized their own and sided with their captors ?

[edit on 6-4-2007 by IAF101]

In my personal opinion, it was because a female was in the group and it was their way of protecting her.
I've said before that if it had've been 15 male sailors then the whole thing would've been handled differently from the word go.
I've been very proactive in my support of womens rights to join the military but after seeing this whole episode, I'm having my doubts.
The Iranians seemed to have exploited the female more than the others too.
So, I think their power to respond was compromised with the woman involved. I don't expect anyone to agree with me on this. But it's what I strongly suspect.

Originally posted by Flighty

I've said before that if it had've been 15 male sailors then the whole thing would've been handled differently from the word go.

Huh?

Women can be as though as any male.

That statement is just very much sexist and ignorant.

But that's just my opinion.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by selfless]

We've got people who think the treatment doled out at Gitmo is completely justified saying the treatment given to these soldiers was reprehensible. That is completely hypocritical, and the converse to Skadi's point (which is valid).

But since "ill treatment" is subjective it needs to be put into context, hence the obvious comparisons to Gitmo. So to say Gitmo is off topic is hamstringing this thread into one persons personal belief of what constitutes ill-treatment vs. another's personal belief, and we know where that will lead.

The psychological treatment given to these 15 soldiers was comparable to the treatment given to prisoners in interrogation rooms in Police Stations. They were separated (standard western police practice), they were questioned at length (standard western police practice), they were made to think their physical safety was at risk (standard western police practice) they were released after less than two weeks. There was no rough treatment or allegations of torture. So if we class their treatment as "ill treatment" then we would have to condemn our police forces for using the EXACT tactics.

Compare this to the acknowledged treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay by the US. They are separated, questioned at length, made to think their and their families physical saftey was at risk including actual physical and psychological torture including water-boarding, sleep deprivation, sexual degradation, stress-positions and religious desecrations. And the coup de grace, they are still being held over 5 years later!

Now here's the crux of the matter. If you consider both of the above examples unacceptable then you get a free pass to condemn the Iranians (as far as I am concerned) because you're upholding a commendable ideal. But for those who think the Gitmo example is acceptable, to claim that Iran has ill-treated my compatriot Royal Marines, I say you're the epitome of hypocrisy! You have no right to criticise the Iranians who've done comparatively little ill-treatment compared to what you find the US to have done.

So yeah, if you want to criticise Iran go ahead. But forgive those of us who see the same posters who support the Gitmo situation acting like bleeding hearts when Iran does something much much less worse. We just find it laughable.

[edit on 6/4/07 by subz]

subz, I agree with you 100%

And i thank you for taking the time to write it down so clear.

Originally posted by selfless
subz, I agree with you 100%

And i thank you for taking the time to write it down so clear.

Thanks buddy, you're welcome

There's valid scope to criticise Iran here. I just wanted to clarify who should be able to criticise Iran, and who can not without standing out as beacons of hypocrisy.

it's like if a moose attacked a hunter to defend his life and someone would say, oh look that moose is so evil.

Great post subz, exactly what i was trying to say, i just don't have a way with words

You have voted subz for the Way Above Top Secret award.

Great job subz.

I could try to explain my point again but it still wouldnt come out half as good as you wrote it out.

Thanks for the kind words, I'm a bit rusty (haven't been around here any where near as much as I used to). Appreciate it

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I see no signs of mistreatment. Scare tactics, definately. But that should be expected if you are taken as a prisoner, thought to be spies. The fact they did no physical harm to anyone to me says that they didn't go to far. They didn't do any sort of pyschological torture techniques either. They may have scared the soldiers out of their witts, but they didn't mistreat anyone.

If they caused physical harm or used some sort of torture like "simulated drowning" then that would be a different case. The worst thing I saw was blind folding them and cocking guns to scare the life out of them to confess. They didn't shoot anyone or injure anyone.

Do you hear yourself????? No mistreatment, no psychological torture ......but no mistreatment.

Never mind the fact that they were well within Iraqi waters. What about the parading in front of TV's and the forced confessions and statements? So it's ok that they blindfolded them and the Iranian guards cocked their guns since they didn't shoot or kill them??

What is wrong with people who can't seem to see that this should not be acceptable behavior from an Illegal kidnapping of military personal by Iran? Was nothing Iran did wrong in this situation? Why do you seem to condone the treatment of these sailors by Iran. Last time I checked Iran and the U.K. were not at war. Please correct me if I am wrong on that.

Please help me to fathom your logic without comparing it to Gitmo or Abu Gharib. If something is wrong, it wrong. Don't play the "Well look what the US and UK do" card, two wrongs still do not make a right. Your moral ambivalence is troubling to me.

Originally posted by subz


Now here's the crux of the matter. If you consider both of the above examples unacceptable then you get a free pass to condemn the Iranians (as far as I am concerned) because you're upholding a commendable ideal. But for those who think the Gitmo example is acceptable, to claim that Iran has ill-treated my compatriot Royal Marines, I say you're the epitome of hypocrisy! You have no right to criticise the Iranians who've done comparatively little ill-treatment compared to what you find the US to have done.

Just a simple question, were any of the people that are in Gitmo captured in full military uniform, clearly marking them as members of a Nation's armed forces? It's a yes or no question by the way.

Originally posted by subz
But for those who think the Gitmo example is acceptable, to claim that Iran has ill-treated my compatriot Royal Marines, I say you're the epitome of hypocrisy!

Now I don’t support what is going on down at Gitmo, however you are wrong. Close, but no cigar.

Those in Gitmo were ACTUALY FIGHTING coalition forces. No matter if the war is right or wrong, you have to see the difference.

Briton as a nation, and those soldiers specifically, have not engaged in open warfare against Iran.

The prisoners at Gitmo have openly engaged coalition forces in warfare.

Big difference.

Again, without showing bias one way or the other as to the war, an objective analysis will lead you to the opinion that the Iranian hostages are in fact different than the coalition prisoners.

The only way to validate your point is to lump all muslim dominated nations into one group, one society, and I don’t think you are willing to rob Iran of its right to be listed as an independent nation, an independent people.

Now had those soldiers been kidnapped by Iraqis, your argument would be more valid.

Also of note is the fact the definition of the two groups of detainees are different. The Gitmo detainees ARE NOT hostages, as to take a hostage one must demand something for the return of the hostage. I think it is obvious to us all that the Gitmo detainees will not be released, nor has the US demanded or requested anything in order to secure their release.

Iran, on the other hand, did make demands before the release of its HOSTAGES would take place.

ITs ridiculous to say GITMO is the same thing as what IRAN has done. The people in Gitmo are terrorist and their collaborators, while Iran captured British soldiers, do you consider both of them to be the same thing ?

In Gitmo there is no way you or anybody else can prove that there is any "sexual" assaults on the prisoner. There are merely hearsay and conjecture. Also all and any deviation from standard detention procedures is considered by the US as wrong and disciplinary actions are taken to prevent them.

Finally, the prisoners at Gitmo have mostly been captured as terrorists or detained for suspected terrorist activity. None of them were shanghaied and taken as hostages, paraded on public television to sooth the local mobs and made to give out testimonies in their defense on public television. I guess in that respect the terrorists have more courage than the British Marines as at least I doubt they would betray their beleifs at the hint of danger!

Such abductions on Irans part are common place now. I would like to beleive that cowardice on the part of Coalition soldiers isnt standard operating procedure any longer.

Even if the 15 sailors didnt confess, I dont think Iran would execute them. That would be disastrous for them diplomatically. Instead they played it out beautifully and were able to outdo Britian by gaining the upper hand diplomatically. I doubt any RN ships or people would stray anywhere close to Iranians waters anytime soon.

The ignorance and the hypocrisy is over whelming some times.

For those of you who thinks that only people who did something wrong are being held at Gitmo...







Another innocent person released from Gitmo
by Mary Shaw | Apr 4 2007 - 8:15am | permalink
article tools: email | print | read more Mary Shaw

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has referred to Guantanamo prisoners as "the worst of the worst". Yet we continue to see a trickle of these "worst" characters being released upon discovery that they have no ties to terrorism.

The most recent case that I'm aware of involves Bisher al-Rawi, an Iraqi with residency rights in Britain. According to an article by Agence France Presse, "[h]is mother, who has campaigned for his release, claims he was there to help his older brother Wahab set up a peanut oil processing business."

I've heard many similar stories of innocent men and boys who have been detained because of mistaken identities, translation errors, or the lies of greedy bounty hunters.

And then these innocent people are forced to live in deplorable conditions and endure inhumane treatment and sometimes torture, all in the name of national security.

Furthermore, another article by Agence France Presse quotes Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, as stating that military officers had told him that the interrogations at Gitmo had revealed "virtually nothing" of useful intelligence. Think about that.

One can only guess how many other innocent people remain at Guantanamo who have not had the lucky opportunity to prove their innocence.

The ironic thing is that, in fact, none of us will be secure as long as this kind of thing is allowed to continue.




Source www.smirkingchimp.com...

Here's some more.

www.homelandstupidity.us...

I could probably get like 50 different stories about how some people in Gitmo are innocent but i won't bother i think the point is made.

You can't say it's different for the British Soldiers then the people held at Gitmo simply for the fact that there were innocent people released from Gitmo and there will continue to be innocent people being CAPTURED and kept HOSTAGE in Gitmo even though some of them are INNOCENT.

Basically, if you are a Muslim walking down the street and you like life and want peace in the world and you get grabbed by the military and you are taken to Gitmo for the sake of national security, you won't see the people who were outraged at the British people being held captive in Iran be outraged so what does that say about these people? It says they are hypocrites.

No one should be held captive of course but the hypocrisy remains valid.