Iran Guards warn U.S. of "fallout" over bomb attack

[tater]

There is a long standing way for navies to resolve such disputes.

Fight it out. We'll see how that works for Iran. I frankly don't particularly care what Iran's opinion on anything is, they need a good bitch-slapping.

Maybe we should secretly arm all the gays in Iran (that don't exist)—they might as well shoot it out, since the alternative is being hung from a crane on the back of a truck (along with women who have the temerity to hang out with men).

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Iran is well-armed eough to make an oinvasion of it and groundwar on its territory a thing so compolicated that it makes Afghanistan and Iraq looking easy. And this ability is what counts. If they accheivbe it with traditional jets and tank fleets, or via guerilla warfare, asymmetricl war and all that beefed up with scores of missile systems, does not really matter.

Still nothing preventing a major air offensive. Any Iranian counter attack by land would be in to deserts (both on the east and west of Iran) where US forces could do "Mother of all battles part II". increased guerilla warfare in Iraq or Afghanistan simply becomes a situation of "the same $h!t, just more of it".

Originally Posted by tater

Maybe we should secretly arm all the gays in Iran (that don't exist)—they might as well shoot it out, since the alternative is being hung from a crane on the back of a truck (along with women who have the temerity to hang out with men).

Or have you wiener cut down the middle and turned inside out. Seriously Iran is second only to Thailand in sex reassignment surgeries. Unfortunately the US armed gays will have to fight it out with the Iranian armed Pedophiles (That's legal over there along with most of the ME).

Having known a girl who was raped as a young child I have no problem with US troops castrating every prisoner they got in Gitmo or where else with rusty bayonets.

It is established. The current location of the established boundary is unknown.

If a boundary has no known location then it isn't established.

Colition forces operated under the most recent known location of the established boundary

Bull. Plus they specificly were not allowed to opearate in disputed territory.

Where?

In what they were saying.

False and in error are two different things, false implies malice.

Deliberatly misleading clearly implies the malice element if you want to put it that way, and the claims made were deliberately misleading

How were the British lying?

Ask them, thats what their own inquiry said, deliberatly misleading is the term.

Having known a girl who was raped as a young child I have no problem with US troops castrating every prisoner they got in Gitmo or where else with rusty bayonets.

Wow I didn't know Gitmo was being used for convicted sex offenders, did they have to change its purpose as they were they having problems getting enough real terrorists to lock up?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Still nothing preventing a major air offensive. Any Iranian counter attack by land would be in to deserts (both on the east and west of Iran) where US forces could do "Mother of all battles part II". increased guerilla warfare in Iraq or Afghanistan simply becomes a situation of "the same $h!t, just more of it".

That may be like you say - or not, but one thing I am certain of, and have said so since years: you canot destroy the Iranian bomb program from the air alone as long as you do not will the sue of socalled mini-nukes. Precise target coordinates simply are not avialable to the needed ammount for precisely bombing key installations and subterranean hardened constructions that are jhidden inside a prhibited area of lets say 20x50 km.

You can delay it a bit by doing some damage - but you canot stop it from the air, even more so since the psychlogical facts of wetsern soceities you must pay attemtion to sooner or later. and the truth is that no western country would accept to have a major air strike on Iran every couple of years.

Iranian retaliation would not be limited to Iraq and Afghanistan, btw. We also talk about civil unrest9nside Israel sponsored by Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iranian activity in Gaza, terror sponsoring worldwide, and to be expected Iranian-sponsored terror strikes throughout the world. So, a conventional air war not only would not acchieve the military objective of destroying the bomb program (and I accept no other objective than destruction of it - delaying it is soemthing I am not willing to call to war for), but it possibly also would cause extremely costly fallout.

Either go for the destruction of the program - no matter the cost, no matter the means needed - or put the whoole idea of ,military punishement of iran away and prepare to accept a nuclear armed iran plus all the negative consequences this would be followed by. I can't say I am a fan of any of these two options, but as I said: I do not accept another Pakistan become reality, so air-strike Iran for the sake of the global interest and mini-nuke the critical installations of their research and construction facilities, additonally contaminating the places in any way so that they cannot be accessed and put back to use again.

With this opinion I will not become popular in Western politics, I'm sure. I'm violating a taboo.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If a boundary has no known location then it isn't established.

Never heard of a undefined boundary?

Bull. Plus they specificly were not allowed to opearate in disputed territory.

The law says otherwise. (See below.)

In what they were saying.

Care to cite an example of incorrect radio procedure?

Deliberatly misleading clearly implies the malice element if you want to put it that way, and the claims made were deliberately misleading

Deliberately releasing information reported in error not known at the time or partial information is not an act of malice. It maybe an act of stupidly or jumping the gun but not malice.

Ask them, thats what their own inquiry said, deliberatly misleading is the term.

Considering that the IRGCN routinely operates in Iraqi waters and that both the Origional Iranian and British locations of the capture of the Zodiac were in Iraq waters its not hard to assume that the findings of whatever inquiry you are citing were political motivated.

Which I find strange because I have the MOD report on the 27 March 07 incident in front of me and it says:

At 0745hrs on 23 Mar 07 a boarding team consisting of 2 x RHIBs, 15 personnel and CRWL’s Lynx departed CRWL to board the [redacted]. En route to the [redacted] the Lynx over flew the MV HANIN and reported that they had identified a potentially illegal cargo of motor cars aboard the MV HANIN. A decision was made to re-direct the boarding to this vessel which was located outside the Buffer Zone 1.5nm from the Op Line.

BTW the Op line is...

The 1975 Algiers Accord drew a line down the centre of the navigable channel and made provision for 10-yearly reviews to account for silting. To date, no review has been undertaken and beyond the mouth of the Shatt al Arab...



... the coalition tactical demarcation (the Op Line) is used as a notional TTW boundary. It is a US NAVCENT construct based on an extension of the Algiers Accord demarcation line beyond the mouth of the Shatt al Arab into the NAG.

So the Op line is an extension of the existing line. Does Iran claim waters beyond that line? They have not published any claim beyond it, routinely operating their boats in the waters does not make it theirs. Occupying an Iraqi crane barge they sunk near the Shatt doesn't make it theirs. I think they would they claim the whole gulf if we were not their to stop them.


it goes on to say...

The crew of the MV HANIN became agitated and the captain told the boarding party that he did not want them to leave as he was fearful of Iranian reprisals.

Reprisals? Why would that be? Why would they fear IRGCN forces? Could it be that the IRGCN isn't out there handing out cupcakes but engaging in state sponsored Piracy?

I read an email published by a sailor who served in the NAG aboard USS Underwood. Here is probably the most important part of it:

I also DO mean TERROR CREWS because nightly we would hear fishermen begging for help over the civilian radio as they were attacked in what can only be viewed as state sponsored piracy, usually in Iraqi waters. Lots of stuff from that time still piss me off.

I don't give a $h!t what waters you are in! Neither does Black's Law Dictionary. In combating piracy lines on a chart do not matter, Coalition forces have Universal Jurisdiction when it comes to combating piracy.

Wow I didn't know Gitmo was being used for convicted sex offenders, did they have to change its purpose as they were they having problems getting enough real terrorists to lock up?

Hamas a known terrorist group routinely organizes mass child weddings. Considering that Saudi clerics also support Child Marriage I would not be surprised Whabbist groups also conducted such acts.

Terrorism supports Pedophilia

Where can I get that on a T Shirt?

If I made one would you buy one Skybird?

With this opinion I will not become popular in Western politics, I'm sure. I'm violating a taboo.

Well I'm not a politician I'm a tactician and I agree with most of what you said. One thing to consider as part of an "Air War" against Iran is Airborne forces. Basically bombing a site, dropping in paras to clear out any bunkers then flying them out on helis or using a captured airstrip for Hercs. Against any counter attack by IRIA or IRGC forces use B-52s armed with GBUs or Spectre/Spooky Gunships to provide some area denial.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

One thing to consider as part of an "Air War" against Iran is Airborne forces. Basically bombing a site, dropping in paras to clear out any bunkers then flying them out on helis or using a captured airstrip for Hercs. Against any counter attack by IRIA or IRGC forces use B-52s armed with GBUs or Spectre/Spooky Gunships to provide some area denial.

I can imagine that only for sites very near the coastline or borders with a country that supports such a military operation. It would be high risk operations, and it would be better to avoid such operations whereever possible. On the border issue, I think you can forget about Turkey now. Russia also would anot allow that, I suppose. Leave you with Afghanistan only. However, many known prhibited areas where parts of their production program are located, are scattered around Teheran and the heart of the country. I think that rules out to go there with helicopters - going there from the Gulf anyway.

Never heard of a undefined boundary?

Yes, its a boundary that isn't established.

The law says otherwise.

What law?

Care to cite an example of incorrect radio procedure?

Who said anything about proceedure?
I mean the contradictory statements made by the radio Op.
Those same condtradictions were repeated in the post incident circus by the military and politicians.
Its to do with the legal status of the waters and the vessels.

Deliberately releasing information reported in error not known at the time or partial information is not an act of malice

But releasing information that you have just made up and presenting it as factual is.

Considering that the IRGCN routinely operates in Iraqi waters

Disputed waters.

both the Origional Iranian and British locations of the capture of the Zodiac were in Iraq waters

Disputed waters

Which I find strange because I have the MOD report on the 27 March 07 incident in front of me and it says:

So you are trying to say that it says the operation didn't take place in waters that are not internationally recognised as Iraqi
Would you say that it also doesn't say that the event was the result of a lack of an agreed boundary

BTW the Op line is...

A line made up by the US Navy that has no status.

So the Op line is an extension of the existing line.

So the Op line is a made up line of no legal standing that is claimed to be an extension of a line that isn't established.

A simple question to settle for once and all your attempt to make a non existant thing a real thing.
You cite the report which mentions the US invented line as a notional boundary......what does notional mean?

I don't give a $h!t what waters you are in!

Really, so laws don't matter?

Neither does Black's Law Dictionary. In combating piracy lines on a chart do not matter, Coalition forces have Universal Jurisdiction when it comes to combating piracy.

Errrrrr....combatting piracy is down to law, but you just said laws don't matter which means there is no piracy. besides which this incident was a matter of alledged smuggling of vehicles which is a police and customs mater an had bugger all to do with piracy.
But I understand your point, when the legal footing you are basing your stand on gets washed away you feel the need to say the laws don't matter.

[tater]

Nice to know we have someone here we can depend on to defend the territorial claims of a country that murders people for things like sexual orientation.

Nevermind all the violence in Iraq since 2003 stirred up (or actively aided) by Iran.

Nice to know we have someone here we can depend on to defend the territorial claims of a country that murders people for things like sexual orientation.

It has nothing to do with defending Irans claims, its just saying that Britains and Americas claims about the incident were pure bollox and their claims about international law were ludicrous.
If the British were in the right then there would be no problem, but the fact is they initially claimed they were in the right and were fully justified when they knew full well theat wasn't the case and their justification was bogus.
Its nice to know that you cannot address the actual issue tater and instead choose to build a strawman

[tater]

From a legalistic standpoint, the US has been at war with Iran since they declared war on us by invading sovereign, US territory (our embassy) in November, 1979. Legalistically, what does that mean for a fellow NATO country, when one member is declared on by another country?

From a legalistic standpoint, the US has been at war with Iran since they declared war on us by invading sovereign, US territory (our embassy) in November, 1979.

Really? then where is this war?
I could have sworn that ships were reflagged during the Iran/Iraq war so they could claim neutral status. I wonder which sort of flags they chose as surely from a legal standpoint they wouldn't choose a neutral flag that was not a flag that was at war.

Legalistically, what does that mean for a fellow NATO country, when one member is declared on by another country?

Is Britain part of NATO?
Did NATO go to war against Argentina?

[tater]

Not sure we are required to reciprocate. Still, in the absence of peace treaty, a state of war still exists between us by virtue of the attack on us. I was fine with the Falklands, and supported the UK 100% back in the day. I'd say that we should have joined in, actually.

If they chose not to follow the nato guidelines, and nato was fine with it, I guess so be it. Doesn't change the de facto declaration of war (unresolved) by attacking our embassy. Not that an attack on an embassy is particularly egregious, since it telegraphs the notion that no negotiation is forthcoming (the negotiators having been removed/attacked).

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Really? then where is this war?
I could have sworn that ships were reflagged during the Iran/Iraq war so they could claim neutral status. I wonder which sort of flags they chose as surely from a legal standpoint they wouldn't choose a neutral flag that was not a flag that was at war.

Yet the vessels were still attacked by the IRGCN and the IRIN. Attacking ships is an act of war.

Is Britain part of NATO?
Did NATO go to war against Argentina?

The US supplied missiles, tankers, logistical and SIGINT support.

Who said anything about proceedure?
I mean the contradictory statements made by the radio Op.
Those same condtradictions were repeated in the post incident circus by the military and politicians.

You mean the transmissions on TWO different channels? One which they are REQUIRED to monitor and is used by ships approaching one another of which five were approaching the US TF each one possibly equipped with radios.

Its to do with the legal status of the waters and the vessels.

Ah are you you are talking about the US forces in INTERNATIONAL waters engaged in transit passage or about the unflagging boats operated by a known terrorist origination?

But releasing information that you have just made up and presenting it as factual is.

Who says they made it up?

Disputed waters.


Disputed waters

Iran has published no claim over the waters. Nether had Iraq. Both sides agree WHERE the line is but nether side will conduct the survey as to where the line currently is. Vessels in the waters were heading to Iraq and running aground indicated the shipping channel have moved NE in to what was Iranian waters.

Not disputed just not known.

So you are trying to say that it says the operation didn't take place in waters that are not internationally recognised as Iraqi
Would you say that it also doesn't say that the event was the result of a lack of an agreed boundary

The boundary is agreed on. Coalition forces operated according to the current known boundary.

A line made up by the US Navy that has no status.

Neither does the Iranian boundary.

So the Op line is a made up line of no legal standing that is claimed to be an extension of a line that isn't established.

The line is established. It down the center of the Shatt's shipping channel.

A simple question to settle for once and all your attempt to make a non existant thing a real thing.
You cite the report which mentions the US invented line as a notional boundary......what does notional mean?

You are splitting up the term, Notational Boundary is a boundary assumed to exist.

Really, so laws don't matter?

No borders don't matter. Pirates and Tortures are considerd "Hostis humani generis" that is enemies of all mankind. Jurisdiction does not matter all nations have an obligation to stop such activity regardless of jurisdiction.

Errrrrr....combatting piracy is down to law, but you just said laws don't matter which means there is no piracy. besides which this incident was a matter of alledged smuggling of vehicles which is a police and customs mater an had bugger all to do with piracy.

The captain and crew were worried of Iranian interference with their ship or cargo incl. theft of said cargo (Something that commonalty occurs among Iraqi fisherman). Theft of cargo, inhibiting of trade or disrupting maritime communication are considered Piracy.

So in a routine check for contraband a threat of piracy was discovered changing the legal standing of an operation already in Iraqi waters. Subsequently small craft operated by a group known to engage in piracy forcefully captured the a vessel and crew of the Royal Navy.

Is there a reason you support nations engaged in state sponsored piracy Tribesman?

[tater]

Tribesman supports anyone or any organization he sees as being against the US as far as I can tell. That's the litmus test. The worse it is for the US, the better for him.

Pick a topic, and check it out... defending against violent criminals illegally entering the US? Pro-criminal.

etc

Not sure we are required to reciprocate. Still, in the absence of peace treaty, a state of war still exists between us by virtue of the attack on us.

Does it ? Where?
If it existed the US vessels in that video cannot have hasd a right to inniocent passage through Iranian territorial waters which they use every time they enter or leave the Gulf(though the radio operator did get confused and claimed contradictory rights)

Who says they made it up?

The British government and the British military.
You said you had the report??????
It was a notional line made up by people who had no legal standing to make the descision which is why it is notional. It was presented to Paliament as beyond dispute and unquestionable when they knew full well it was very disputed and so questionable it was a joke.

Iran has published no claim over the waters. Nether had Iraq.

The absence of a published claim or validated agreement by the relevant people means it is an unresolved issue and as such is disputed.

Not disputed just not known.

Errrrrr.....if a boundary is not known and agreed then it is disputed

The boundary is agreed on. Coalition forces operated according to the current known boundary.

Make your mind up, you just said again that it is not known.
Besides which the coilition had no authority to make up a pretend boundary of its own as the boundary is an issue between the two states.

Neither does the Iranian boundary.

That is a matter between Iraq and Iran.

The line is established. It down the center of the Shatt's shipping channel.

Once again, make your mind up

You are splitting up the term, Notational Boundary is a boundary assumed to exist.

??????????
Since this is a matter of legal jurisdiction and soveriegnty then imaginary lines with no legal standing made up by states who have no right to do so cannot assume anything as they havn't the faintest notion of being valid.

No borders don't matter. Pirates and Tortures are considerd "Hostis humani generis" that is enemies of all mankind. Jurisdiction does not matter all nations have an obligation to stop such activity regardless of jurisdiction.

But it wasn't an issue of piracy was it.

So in a routine check for contraband a threat of piracy was discovered changing the legal standing of an operation already in Iraqi waters.

Once again your whole arguement comes from the false assumption which even those involved no longer claim is true.

Is there a reason you support nations engaged in state sponsored piracy Tribesman?

If someone writes supporting piracy and claiming it was all nice and legal they will get the same treatment as you are getting.

Tribesman supports anyone or any organization he sees as being against the US as far as I can tell. That's the litmus test. The worse it is for the US, the better for him.

Pick a topic, and check it out... defending against violent criminals illegally entering the US? Pro-criminal.

Once again you fail badly, if you look at the topic you refer to my arguement all along has been that the legislation in question is bad for the US and very bad for Arizona.
The reason the US gets more crticism is simply because of the amount of people who will try to justify things from a national view when they cannot really be justified.
If there was more Iranians posting here with the "my country right or wrong" attitude then Iran would get more of a slating on those issues raised.

oh .....

Is Britain part of NATO?
Did NATO go to war against Argentina? The US supplied missiles, tankers, logistical and SIGINT support.

....did Nato go to war with Argentina?
That was the question after all and it was directly in response to your claim.