muddysmind.com

These POWs were so stupid. This had to be the most bizzare "kidnapping" of "POWS," of all time.

How the hell does a small ship with a dozen ore more people in "international waters" allow themselves to be boarded and taken prisoner?

Were they out there in the middle of the sea with a freaking dingy?

This story doesnt add up and is highly suspicious. First off, the fact they were captured without protest, without helicopters or Tornados, SOMETHING trying to rescue them or fireing warning shots, fly overs, is bizzare.

The British Navy doesnt have any Destroyers or battleships? No quick reaction forces? They have no aircraft carriers or helos with mounted machine guns?

The US navy has a battle group of ships right over in the same area. They couldnt send an SOS signal and have f18s be scrambled and flying strafing runs within 20 minutes?

Your not going to tell me, with all the satellites, radar, sonar and what not, that the US or Brits dont know Every Iranian vessle that is out there in the ocean? They keep track of all that stuff.

The story doesnt add up, and you dont have to be a conspiracy buff in order to see there are far too many unanswered questions and inplausible situations that occured.

No. The story doesn't "add up". Well, more accurately, it was Ahmadinejad (or as *I* like to call him - "I'm-in-need-of-a-job" OR "I'm-in-need-of-a-b-1-0-w-job") who is the shady character in this. Besides, when someone accuses you of being in waters you're not supposed to be in - no matter how bogus the accusations are - you probably don't want to push your luck with the calculating, evil man. You probably just want to comply because you don't want to give him any reason to do anything else. No matter how full of s**t "I'm-in-need-of-a-real-job" truly is.

First mooseboy, they weren't POWs. To be a POW, you have to be in a state of war in the nation who is detaining the persons in question. Second, they were in Iraqi waters, that Iran disputes as Iraqi Waters. Third, really easily taken...bigger, more heavily armed boat says stop or we'll shoot, if you value your life, you stop. That simple.

Why no QRF? Easy, because that would have PUT us in a state of war with Iran, and then you'd be bitching about that! Please mooseboy, when you understand military ops and diplomacy, then start commenting, for now, you just sound like a bigger jack ass than you are.

As for the POWs being stupid...how do you figure? According to nearly every NATO nation's code of conduct it is your duty not to cooperate with your captors and to defy them whenever possible.

I asked the question yesterday, and ill ask again.

Were they out in the middle of sea, in a Dingy?

If "a bigger more heavily armed boat says stop or well shoot" then if im on the British ship, im sending SOS signals or doing something, so an even LARGER British ship, with Bigger guns comes to my defense. Thats how its supposed to work at least.

I understand military ops and diplomacy well enough. You can drink the cool aid and try to glaze over glaring untold holes in this story, but I wont.

I never contested them not "cooperating" with their captors. I want to know how the hell they got captured in the first place!

Oh, and since you bring that up, Ill just link you to a headline, where some in the group of, "hostages of war" said some members may have cooperated "too easily."

www.express.co.uk/posts/view/3998

I imagine they did send out an SOS or a Mayday or some other emergency signal..hence why we found out about it so quickly. But again, if the British had attacked, we'd be in a state of war with Iran, and you'd be bitching about that too.

They're not hostages of war, they were just flat out hostages. BTW, the Geneva Convention defines them as detainees. And no, you still don't understand military operations.

And yay, they co-operated to easily? ok? so first, define to easily. In most SERE-style schools, they teach the students to hold out until they believe continued defiance will cause them harm.

If they co-operated immediately and violated their code of conduct, then the British military should deal with them in a manner consistent with other such cases.

Since you understand military operations so well, i'll ask you a softball question:
What are the three levels of war and their definitions.

Three levels of war, huh? Shows how much *I* know. Well, I cheated and looked it up (don't know how accurate it is but I made the effort) so if moose doesn't answer after a while - I'll try my hand.