Hostage Crisis: Who’s to Blame?

Posted by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist in Media.
Apr 2nd, 2007 | 4 responses

“A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines…” More here…

Another news item says: “Iran and Britain signaled possible ways out of the standoff over 15 detained British soldiers Monday, with Tehran promising to stop airing video confessions and Britain saying it was willing to discuss ways to avoid future boundary confusion in the Persian Gulf.

“The somewhat conciliatory tones from both capitals raised hopes the 11-day standoff might be solved soon…” For more click here…

4 Responses to “Hostage Crisis: Who’s to Blame?”

1. Marlowecan says:

   April 3, 2007 at 1:12 am

   The Telegraph story is illogical. They provide no source for the causal link between the two events.

   Why this event and not, for example, the defection of the former Iranian MOD to the US?

   For the Telegraph to make this link they need an Iranian source. There is no source mentioned.

   I suspect this story needs context. There is a lot of finger-pointing going on in the UK at the moment over this hostage-taking. MOD is probably floating this to take the heat off them, and blame the always-blameworthy Yanks.

   An important fact is that the Iranians have seized British marines in those waters a couple of years ago? They have a track record of doing this, they know it can be done easily…but given this:
   Why did the helicopter support take off so quickly back to the ship?
   Why did the troops operate of out line of sight of the Cornwall, and without radio contact?

   The Telegraph story hints at this issue in its closing line, referencing how the Brits were “apparently considered a more vulnerable coalition target than their American comrades.”

   Why would the Brits be an easier target than the Americans?

   Yesterday was the 25th Anniversary of the Falklands War. This anniversary was noted in the UK, with people wondering if this situation would have come to pass under the Iron Lady.
2. Entropy says:

   April 3, 2007 at 5:52 am

   The entire telegraph piece is a farce. They have ZERO evidence to link this event with any other, particularly the Irbil raid, yet they conclude the two are related as if it were fact. I don’t often agree with Hot Air, but in this case, they have it completely right:

   “The raid in Arbil was a far more serious and aggressive act. It was not carried out by proxies but by US forces directly. The abortive Arbil raid provoked a dangerous escalation in the confrontation between the US and Iran which ultimately led to the capture of the 15 British sailors and Marines - apparently considered a more vulnerable coalition target than their American comrades.”

   No source whatsoever for that last boldfaced part. No sources for the two other boldfaced parts either, which are actually phrased as speculation, which is what this all is. Read it and see for yourself; it sounds like a guy talking himself into believing his own too-clever-by-half theory — not unlike when I try to read the tea leaves about Sadr and the Mahdi Army. It’s not a news article, in other words, it’s a blog post. And it’s on the front page of the Independent and the top of the page at Drudge. Embarrassing.
3. Laura says:

   April 3, 2007 at 6:57 am

   Iran is to blame, period. Or perhaps the west’s feckless way of dealing with Iran.
4. Murtazin says:

   April 13, 2007 at 4:13 pm

   We suggest cheapest prices for sildenafil citrate. Be sure
   Follow the links:

   Generic Viagra
   cheap levitra
   cheap cialis
   buy propecia