James Bond was caught by Iran.

[hool10]

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Fifteen British Royal Marines on patrol in the Persian Gulf have been "seized" by the Iranian navy, the British Ministry of Defense said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/23/iran.uk/index.html
Yeah sure....Royal Marines. :upstare: Why were they on Iran soil then hmm? Iran doesn't want to start shit with the USA or England so why would they deliberately "kidnap" them? Well these 15 people were on Iran soil so Iran has every right for taking them in for questioning. I think they were some royal secret service people. Now England is pissed and USA too because they want their men back.

 

[CyberPitz]

We all know there were 16 units over there....one got away.

Wonder which one that was?

 

[Maxi]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/23/iran.uk/index.html
Yeah sure....Royal Marines. :upstare: Why were they on Iran soil then hmm? Iran doesn't want to start shit with the USA or England so why would they deliberately "kidnap" them? Well these 15 people were on Iran soil so Iran has every right for taking them in for questioning. I think they were some royal secret service people. Now England is pissed and USA too because they want their men back.

They were not on Iranian "soil" they were in ships, on the sea. And it's disputed wether or not they were in iranian waters.

 

[CptStern]

the US and the UK have been supporting anti-government groups in iran for years now ..it's no secret they have operatives working in iran

 

[gick]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/23/iran.uk/index.html
Yeah sure....Royal Marines. :upstare: Why were they on Iran soil then hmm? Iran doesn't want to start shit with the USA or Britain so why would they deliberately "kidnap" them? Well these 15 people were on Iran soil so Iran has every right for taking them in for questioning. I think they were some royal secret service people. Now Britain is pissed and USA too because they want their men back.

Get it right. (Sorry, pet hate of mine)

 

[Qonfused]

We Americans cannot comprehend the vastness of the European areas.

 

[Ennui]

I want to be a secret agent, how ****ing cool is that?

 

[hool10]

Get it right. (Sorry, pet hate of mine)

I don't get why you guys don't call yourselves England but rather Britain. All I know is you guys have The Beatles, Harry Potter, and Def Leppard. Meh your probably over there laughing at this line of text right now.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Don't act like you're inferior to them. WE ARE SUPERIOR.

 

[Absinthe]

Don't act like you're inferior to them. WE ARE SUPERIOR.

Hell yeahz. Let the Queen suck on her tea and crumpets. We're above that.

 

[repiV]

Funnily enough, I met a guy in the pub on Wednesday. He was in the Special Boat Service for 15 years - apparently he took part in operations on Iranian soil during the Iran-Iraq war. Quite fascinating really.

 

[G-Dub]

Meh your probably over there laughing at this line of text right now.

Correctomundo.

 

[Nemesis6]

The first problem is that they've captured Brits. The second problem is: How will they understand what they're saying when the interpreter can't recognize the language? :-S

 

[hool10]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/24/iran.uk.sailors/index.html
Not looking too good now.

 

[Gray Fox]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/24/iran.uk.sailors/index.html
Not looking too good now.

What exactly makes you so happy about Iran kidnapping British military men.

 

[Laivasse]

Funnily enough, I met a guy in the pub on Wednesday. He was in the Special Boat Service for 15 years - apparently he took part in operations on Iranian soil during the Iran-Iraq war. Quite fascinating really.

"Oldest game in the world, yeeih. 'Ad to give it up in the end - terrible back injury."

 

[hool10]

What exactly makes you so happy about Iran kidnapping British military men.

I don't think it's good at all. I never said I was happy in the first place. I think it's ironic though Britain keeps saying they were in Iraq waters when they were really in Iran waters. They keep saying it too even though the sailors said they were in Iran waters.

 

[Gray Fox]

I don't think it's good at all. I never said I was happy in the first place. I think it's ironic though Britain keeps saying they were in Iraq waters when they were really in Iran waters. They keep saying it too even though the sailors said they were in Iran waters.

No, the Iranian government is saying the sailors confessed, and even if they did confess it's a meaningless since they can be coerced.

Now logic would leave me to believe that if you are infiltrating a foreign country you do that at night and try to avoid anyone, not go and board ships.

 

[hool10]

No, the Iranian government is saying the sailors confessed, and even if they did confess it's a meaningless since they can be coerced.

Now logic would leave me to believe that if you are infiltrating a foreign country you do that at night and try to avoid anyone, not go and board ships.

Well it could be they are looking for a way to start a war with Iran. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/muty-o18.shtml That happened a long time ago but it still showed us with our pants down. Kudo's go to those men btw.

 

[Ytse Jam]

I want to be a secret agent, how ****ing cool is that?

Actually, the tech/library guy at my high school is a retired spy agency employee, but I have yet to ask him if he was actually an agent. It would be so cool if it turns out he was.:afro:

 

[jondy]

"Oldest game in the world, yeeih. 'Ad to give it up in the end - terrible back injury."

Fast Show?

 

[Laivasse]

Fast Show?

youre winner!

 

[hool10]

Actually, the tech/library guy at my high school is a retired spy agency employee, but I have yet to ask him if he was actually an agent. It would be so cool if it turns out he was.:afro:

Probably gonna be like "If I told you then I would have to kill you."

 

[Absinthe]

Fast Show?

****ing win.

 

[Gunner]

Why were they on Iran soil then hmm? Iran doesn't want to start shit with the USA or England so why would they deliberately "kidnap" them? W

Simple. Because the US delayed Ahmadinejad's visa for the UN sanction meeting on Iran. So they attacked the weak link in the coalition.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Originally Posted by hool10
Why were they on Iran soil then hmm? Iran doesn't want to start shit with the USA or England so why would they deliberately "kidnap" them?

Iran would have a motive to make a kidnapping although I don't exactly think the Revolutionary Guard thought out the Political/Military ramifacations.

Explained Reasons for Kidnapping

The sanctions were progressively getting worse and worse. Monitoring counter-insurgency operations on the water border between Iran and Iraq, the Revolutionary Guards decide to setup shop on a merchant vessel anticipating its eventual search by Coalition Soldiers. The reasoning? To ambush and capture the searching Sailors and Marines. The purpose? To be used as bartering chips in Irans worsening internal and external political affairs.. Since the sanctions completely limit the Iranian Military Economy, the only asset to theoretically break the Economic Siege, would be a simple hostage taking. Usually used in Political and Military stand-offs between Israel, the Revolutionary Guards would resort to an old tactic that, when played right, could alleviate the sanctions altogether or give a possible feigned reasoning to use stronger political or military involvement in the Iraqi conflict, or over Middle Eastern affairs altogether.

It's as traditional as a Quizno's sub. Warring clans or farming communities, aswell as Middle Eastern royalty, would always settle skirmishes or squabble by the taking of hostages, used to exchange for a end of hostilities or the trade of food, water, etc.

Samething, but on a much larger scale.

However, there might additionally be something else to this picture. Perhaps the soldiers were behind enemy lines, perhaps with different motivations involved.

1. Motivation One - To spy on potential Shia Insurgency Support groups operating somewhere in the Iranian border, or to observe possible weapons smuggling operations at they're local source; perhaps to figure out the when and where of they're departure and arrival to ultimately, intercept them right as they made it into Iraqs border zone.

Although, they're arrival inside Iranian territory is illegal. Apply the current ramification of the Sailors and Marines being captured.

2. Motivation Two - Understanding the possibility of capture, the Coalition attempting to drum up support for the war, send Sailors and Marines deeper and deeper into the Iranian Merchant Waters to not only spy and attempt to thwart Insurgeny Smuggling but even if, captured, act as a crook to possibly dictate worse sanctions over Iran or possibly, even a military invasion.

The possibility of either of these to me is extremely high and I have'nt exactly decided which possibility is more real. Yet, there is also a third.

3. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard staged a mock cross-borders operation against Maritime Sailors and Marines. Instead of the Coalition alledgedly violating its borders, they instead, violate the Iraqi border, seizing what they've been watching for several months on end as an arms smuggling interception force.

Removing these Marines and Sailors in the third instance would, at least tell us, the Iranians wanted to sneak something big around and could'nt have the Coalition putting its nose in places where it was not supposed to be. Or, merely for the sake of putting this group out of action to ease weapon shipments throughout the area.

However, I believe, the Iranian defensive strategy against the Coalition would be a rapid re-invasion of Iraq, or quite possibly, a attempted stalwart hold out against a two prong offensive if it came, using Irans natural mountain ranges and steppes to make pushing into the country by land, difficult. The problem facing the Coalition would be numbers and thats something they don't have. Instead, they would use an intense amount of long-distance artillery, precision weapons, and Aircraft to bomb any stationary, incoming, or outgoing Iranian military presence. What would be the tip off for such a Coalition strategy? The relocation of a second Aircraft Carrier to the Persian Gulf.

Since the Coaltion is already straining on military number, it would be a total and complete gamble for any physical ground offensive to take place. 30,000 Soldiers would not occupy a large Iranian city with much success, likely however, that they probably would'nt even make it. Border defenses against an incoming Iranian Force, if it were, would be the only option of the United States and its allies. Hoping for the Iranians to trap themselves in their own mountain passes, the Coalition would use distance as they're advantage but with one kick: They could not let the Iranians take any Iraqi city. Though debatabley loyal to some Coalition Forces, the presence of an actual Arab/Shia Military would be more likely to rally citizens for the Iranians cause. It would almost physically sever the country, politically, and militarily. Risking to leave the Iraqi cities to its police, militia (Government sponsored), and the National Guard,the Coalition would gamble itself as a border controlling force with mixed Iraqi National Guard units. However, this would unbalance the presence of an absolutely western peace keeping force in key locations, allowing the Insurgency to grow in strength and plan attacks that would ultimately sabotage the security of cities or vital Iraqi assests.

If the Iranians even came accross the borders, Shia insurgencies would be or would've been already contesting the power of cities between they're own militias, that of Sunni militias, and of course, whatever else organizations are flying flag. Iraq would likely crumble into a worse state, if any.

 

[Rupertvdb]

What bothers me is the fact that the British navy lads didn't see the Iranians coming. No one has really explained how they were they suprised on open water.