Isn't it great that Iran detained those British invaders?

Question

They should be charged with espionage. If the situation were reversed, and it was Iranians in or near British or US waters, they surely would be detained. But everyone is biased against Iran and brainwashed into automatically siding with the US or Britain. You all think that Iran is evil but the US is just as bad if not worse.

Answer 1

I sort of agree. Look at how the USA treats detainees at Guantanamo - no lawyers, no rights, no habeas corpus hearings, no access to US courts...

What we (USA) are doing is way worse than this.

Answer 2

They might attempt to use them as leverage to get people to back the f**k up off of them.

Those have got to be some paranoid mofos over there after they just watched their neighbors get invaded and the dictator that the US installed in the first place was removed. (Well, at least after they got done celebrating because we removed their #1 enemy).

Of course it's not actually paranoia when there are people actually out to get you. Iran has the same problem as a lot of the middle east, fanatical devotion to religion (though the western world isn't far behind).

An armed conflict with Iran would definitely be more bloody and lengthy than the Iraq 'war'. They have an actual army, and some seriously devoted fanatics to their cause.

That won't stop dubya and co. from attempting the same crap they pulled in Iraq. They have been itching for a reason to invade Iran for some time now.

Answer 3

There is no doubt about the location. On Sunday, the Iranians released the coordinates of the location the hostages were taken. It was 1.7 miles inside Iraqi waters. They amended this on Tuesday, moving it 2 miles East into Iranian waters but the cat was out of the bag, they were in Iraqi waters. Second, the Indian merchantman that had been stopped by the sailors has stated they were in Iraqi waters. The Iraqi fishermen have said they were in Iraqi waters. So, everyone says they were in Iraqi waters, even the Iranians initially, so why should there be any doubt?

You are too biased and prejudiced to know the truth if it bit you.

Answer 4

I agree with you to a certain extent. Because, I don't know if they were actually in Iran's waters.

I also believe that the British do not know for sure if they were in Iran's waters. That's probably why they are not taking any action against Iran.

It is unnecessary to compare the US with Iran.

The important thing to remember is that the UN unanimously made serious Resolutions against Iran. That certainly must give you a hint as to Iran's madness.

I can't recall the UN ever making any Resolutions against the US.

It would seem to me that Iran is certainly one of the "Axis of Evil".

Answer 5

Yes they would be detained, but released when the truth was discovered. Just because one Country has done something improper doesn't justify another one doing something similar. If it's wrong for one, it's wrong for all. Being better than the majority in morality or criminality is a problem most Countries in the Middle East never have to worry about. Deeply paranoid and intolerant is an earmark of most Governments in that region.

Answer 6

Just great!!! However, I doubt their intelligence as they didn't take the time to ask Argentina what happens when you mess around with anything English. The English don't rush in right away; they build up a massive fleet and troop concentration and then smash the opposition into little bitty pieces. Hells Bells, the English are mostly descended from the Danes and all they know how to do is fight and destroy. Pity Iran; they now have a tiger by the tail and it will have them for breakfast.

Answer 7

Were the soldiers Iraqi? no. An invading army has no right to travel freely within the waters of an occupied territory. Particularly when those waters have been historically disputed. The UK has no right to interfere in the diplomatic issues of Iraq and Iran, they have no right to decide where the frontier ends. An invading army has no rights, only responsibilities. They were not invited to the territory, they are unwelcomed by the population and behave as if they own the land because they carry the bigger guns.
An aggressor is responsible for all the evil that follows after invasion (under Nuremberg). That means that an invading army has the responsibility to avoid confilcts, protect civilians and procure the earliest date for departure, under the same law used to judge the nazis.
So, I would have to disagree. It is terrible that the US/UK axis is bullying Tehran into a conflict. It is terrible that we must see more deaths so that the new fascist empire may satiate its thirst for oil. And it is even sadder that the US population is collaborating with its blood thirsty government after all the fanfare they make about freedom and good intentions.

Answer 8

the iranians had to change the grid reference to suit their justification in capturing the sailors and marines when they can actually tell the truth on where the sailors were then i might agree to your pathetic little statement but at present no they should not of captured those men and woman who at the end of the day wouldnt have been there in the first place if it wasnt for tony blair and george bush playing god

Answer 9

i don't know, let's send a team to your work place and kidnap you for simply doing your job. then they will torture you until you tell them that you are the father of Anna Nichole Smith's baby and that you were the one that killed her. then maybe you might be a good person to ask if "Isn't it great that Iran detained those British invaders?" until then, let's pray for the safty these men and women.

Answer 10

the problem is the British sailors were no where near Iranian waters.

get your facts straight before making a comment/question about a current event.