THE 15

memor · Post by **memor** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:22 pm

I am loathe to criticise our Armed Forces. They are doing a great job.

But why the Hell did they give in without a fight.

They were armed !!!

To say that the six Iranian ships took them unaware is ludicrous.

Do they not have eyes. When they were in the wheel house of the merchant ship they were searching did no one look out of the windows and say.

"Look there are six Iranian ships lets not go back to our boats but make a stand and call for back up."

No they just walked down the ladders and gave up.

If these fifteen had been part of the Israeli Armed forces they would have fought to the last man (or woman).

Now they have made it worse for all our other Service Personnel, lets kidnap a Brit they're a push over.

When the Soviet Union were going strong a Russian was kidnapped in Iran the Soviet Minister for Foreign Affairs called for the Iranian Ambassador and said that if their comrade wasn't delivered safely to the Russian embassy in Tehran........ He took off his expensive wristwatch and placed it on the floor and stood on it till it crunched. Holding it up he continued .... this is what will happen to your holiest shrine....

The Russian was returned unharmed four hours later.

rossinisbird · Post by **rossinisbird** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:29 pm

If these fifteen had been part of the Israeli Armed forces they would have fought to the last man (or woman).

You mean just like they did for the soldiers taken by Hezbollah? Where are those soldiers now?

memor · Post by **memor** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:32 pm

The soldiers Kidnapped were one or two on their own .

ITS FIFTEEEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

On the sea in a bloomin large merchant ship. Lots of cover and with back up only a few minutes away

rossinisbird · Post by **rossinisbird** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:47 pm

The soldiers Kidnapped were one or two on their own .

They were part of a patrol totalling seven soldiers in two vehicles if you want numbers. Doesn't support your position that Israel would "have fought to the last man".

Pilot · Post by **Pilot** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:03 pm

From what I have heard they were totally out gunned, rifles against grenade launchers and totally out numbered, opening fire would have meant certain death and we are not at war with Iran, this way they will get home again.

memor · Post by **memor** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:12 pm

Dont you believe it Pilot this is going to go on for a very long time.

I just cant believe that they didn't call the Iranians bluff they should have

been able to see that there were Iranian ships about instead of going

down the gang plank with their hands up..

Its not a case of being outgunned they could have used the ship they

were on as cover and called for support.

Its one thing to be in the streets

of the Gazza strip and not know whats round the corner, its another to be

on the high seas and not see bloomin big ships bearing down on you.

Jim_in_France · Post by **Jim_in_France** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:41 pm

Maybe with the cut backs, our warships did not have radar, so they did not know the iranian ships were there? Or maybe the lookout was blind? Did they not come from a very large warship that was near and who could have given assistance? Or does our navy now consist of 15 men in a boat?

sacrifice!

sherri · Post by **sherri** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:43 pm

[quote="memor"]I am loathe to criticise our Armed Forces. They are doing a great job.

But why the Hell did they give in without a fight.

They were armed !!!

To say that the six Iranian ships took them unaware is ludicrous.

Do they not have eyes. When they were in the wheel house of the merchant ship they were searching did no one look out of the windows and say.

"Look there are six Iranian ships lets not go back to our boats but make a stand and call for back up."

No they just walked down the ladders and gave up.

If these fifteen had been part of the Israeli Armed forces they would have fought to the last man (or woman).

Now they have made it worse for all our other Service Personnel, lets kidnap a Brit they're a push over.

When the Soviet Union were going strong a Russian was kidnapped in Iran the Soviet Minister for Foreign Affairs called for the Iranian Ambassador and said that if their comrade wasn't delivered safely to the Russian embassy in Tehran........ He took off his expensive wristwatch and placed it on the floor and stood on it till it crunched. Holding it up he continued .... this is what will happen to your holiest shrine....

The Russian was returned unharmed four hours later.[/quote]

The rights and wrongs of how they were taken, i don't really know much about.
But the interesting thing is the mind set of those who do the taking-obviously at times people might be vulnerable to attack-but how game are others to actually attack, what repercussions do they think will follow?
That is the question.
I can recall way back in about the 70's when hijacking on planes was rife. They didn't try it on Russian planes too often so i once read, because most hijackers were afraid Russian military would blow them out of the air, passengers on board or not.

It isn't so much the actions-(and you can't always stop a rogue attack)-but overall it is the perceived possible consequences that determine how far groups will go in an attack and what they think they can get away with.

So...the iranians might have the hostages. Now what will they be game to do with them? If they do eg kill them, what consequences or repercussions can they expect?

memor · Post by **memor** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:55 pm

They wont kill them they'll just use them to twist the Lions tail.

My whole point though is are we employing BLIND SERVICE PEOPLE.

The questions I want answering is why didn't they hold of the Iranians till help came.

Why didn't anyone see the Iranian Boats. They dont just appear from nowhere. They have to come from somewhere and a good lookout should have spotted them.

These are the points I would like answering.

THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE SURRENDERED.

The Americans called the French "Cheese eating surrender monkeys."

What are our troops going to be called.

"Roast Beef eating surrender jockeys."

I could spit.

Jim_in_France · Post by **Jim_in_France** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:12 pm

memor wrote: The Americans called the French "Cheese eating surrender monkeys."

Maybe! But the French navy have RADAR!

Beachbum · Post by **Beachbum** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:35 am

Jim_in_France wrote:
memor wrote: The Americans called the French "Cheese eating surrender monkeys."
Maybe! But the French navy have RADAR! :lol:

That gives them time to drink all the wine and change into clean underwear before they surrender.
The next day the French newspapers are telling everyone about the great French victory and arranging a parade.

Pilot · Post by **Pilot** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:06 pm

I think the main points are, we are not at war with Iran, the 15 are still alive and I'm sure they will be set free in the fullness of time. If they had confronted the Iranians they would now be dead, HMS Cornwall was ten miles away, the British were in rigid inflatables, armed with pistols and rifles, the Iranians were in fast patrol boats armed with rocket grenade launchers.
Its easy to be brave when sitting at home in front of the computer. the consensus of opinion of the people in the know is that they did the right thing. This ain't the movies folks, these are someones children.
Of course on a lighter note we could send Mr A in, he would no doubt bore them to death and the Iranians would release their prisoners just to get rid of him.

memor · Post by **memor** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:57 pm

Your missing the whole point Pilot THEY WERE ON THE MERCHANT VESSEL WHEN THE IRANIANS TURNED UP

They walked down the gangplank and gave themselves up.

They should have called the Iranians Bluff.

We are not at war with the Iranians So why should we give ourselves up to them.

If the Icelanidics or Norwegians had been in the position of the Iranians would we have given ourselves up. NO we'd have told them to p iss off.

So why didn't we do the same to the Iranians ?

I think that on their return the fifteen should be court martialed for cowardice.

Pilot · Post by **Pilot** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:10 pm

Some of them may well have been onboard the merchant vessel, but not all they send the Marines onboard to do the search and leave the regular crew of the inflatables to man their boats. There would have been continuous contact with the Ops room onboard HMS Cornwall and the instruction to give themselves up almost certainly came from there. To suggest they are tried for cowardice is not worth a response.

Cisco · Post by **Cisco** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:12 pm

We went to war against Iraq under a barrage of lies to help the Americans hang on to their cheap oil.
Yet against a total act of aggression and kidnapping of British service men
we do nothing, we should have went in their with all guns blazing.
Who cares if innocent men and woman get killed they should have thought of that before they did what they did.

andysfootball · Post by **andysfootball** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:15 pm

it sounds as if their leader wasn't the best

and

an early press report says

they followed the rules of engagement

they may have been in iranian waters

that being the case

they may have done the right thing

memor · Post by **memor** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:40 pm

Cowards. I'll say it again.

THEY SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH COWARDICE IF THEY EVER RETURN.

Jarrow Pete · Post by **Jarrow Pete** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:22 am

I read that due to the current rules of engagement HMS Cornwall was not allowed to open fire.The Iranians knew exactly what they were doing and knew what our negative response would be. Now that Tony and his cronies have imposed cut back after cut back to the armed forces we are unable to threaten Iran with military power so will have to rely on other countries to support us. The UN whose mandate we were operating under have refused to back Britain 100% as we asked them to. The sensible thing to do when this is eventually resolved is to pull ALL our armed forces out of THE MIDDLE EAST AND LET THEM BLOW THEMSELVES TO KINGDOM COME.
In the BNP manifesto they state that they will not put British lives at risk by involving us in armed conflict in situations where we should not be involved and will utilise the armed forces only for the defence of Britain. IF elected their first action would be to bring all our servicemen and women home.

northern · Post by **northern** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:38 pm

memor wrote:Cowards. I'll say it again.

THEY SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH COWARDICE IF THEY EVER RETURN.

Memor, i look at what you say and you have the right to do so.
Firstly one cannot get charged for cowardness whilst following
orders.
secondly, to call the British tommy a coward is a slur against all
the british forces i can assure you the tommy will keep to the rules
of engagement because of his professional training, they are not
gung ho merchants or vigilanties.

Thirdly , never underestimate the British forces for when they have
there backs against the wall they are a force to be reckoned with.

Fourthly, i can assure you 200% i know what i am talking about.

jarrajock · Post by **jarrajock** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:13 pm

yes but once again the rules of engagement dont favour the british squaddie

South Shields Sanddancers Forum

THE 15

THE 15

Re: THE 15