Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
Iran's Failed Aussie Hostage Attempt
littlegreenfootballs.com — Apparently, when Iran captured those British sailors it wasn't their first attempt; they went for an Australian Navy boarding team first: Iran 'unable to take Australians'.
Glynth- 64 diggs
- digg it
- Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22The Australians and the Americans (as related multiple times when retired and current military leaders were interviewed regarding the British sailors hostage situation) know how to deal with kidnapping attempts. Too bad the British have forgotten how the military is supposed to act when attacked. (Make no mistake - the British sailors were armed and could have done much more than they did, including repelling the attack entirely according to sources in the British navy widely used in the media, so don't tell me they had no choice but to surrender.)
- Troika37, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11But you must remember, the British military can't attack the Iranians. That would be bad, and contrary to our world view of Kumbayah. The British did all they could, then surrendered in order to play chess and make home movies. All in all, sound decision.
/***** crazy moonbat and Iranian apologist off
- Troika37, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11But you must remember, the British military can't attack the Iranians. That would be bad, and contrary to our world view of Kumbayah. The British did all they could, then surrendered in order to play chess and make home movies. All in all, sound decision.
- Poovey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23Well what do you know, The Iranians quickly back down when confronted with force. We might have avoided a possible current conflict with them if we would have tried that 30 years ago.
- opiniastrous, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Here's another article. @Glynth, why don't you read the end bit...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/22/1958650.htm- JimmyTheClam, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13I read the bit at the end and that BBC reporter seems like he is trying too had to cover for his own countrymen.
Those Brits made some serious operation security errors and when you do that you do either get captured or massacred.
The point is not to make those errors in the first place.
- JimmyTheClam, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13I read the bit at the end and that BBC reporter seems like he is trying too had to cover for his own countrymen.
- IkeWillis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Make no mistake about it: this may not've been laboratory-conditions-comparable, but it's still a big embarassment when some pissant, backwater nonentity's navy (Do Iran even have a navy?) managed to make a fool of the Royal Navy like that. Especially given the fact that Britain used to police the word using its navy as a stick to the colonies' donkey. Nice work Australia. And I hope the people in charge took due note of that hostage-capturing episode and are busy closing down the channels that allowed something like that to happen.
- DanThePainter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11To: opiniastrous
>..."They had no choice, the Brits, to put down their weapons.
"They were caught at such short notice, they were surrounded, if they had put up any resistance and opened fire they would have been massacred.....> source:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/22/1958650.htm
So why were they in that position? No backup? Inattention? - sashav133, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6"...warned them to back off, using what was said to be “highly colourful language”."
I like Aussies!
That is how an opposing force is to be dealt with. Aussies did it, Americans did it (Iranians attempted a (failed) land-based kidnapping before trying anything on water).
The fact that Brits failed, is their own doing. To have no choice, as the article above states, is a BBC pathetic apology--how can you not notice a boat traveling on open water? Were they captured in a submarine?
The fact is, their commandeers gave the soldiers no choice other than surrender. Brits had orders not to engage Iranians--they could not even shoot the rifles they had, or they would have been court marshaled.
When anything like this happens, I'm willing to bet that 90% of the time the fault lies with the commanding staff and their politics at play, rather than the foot soldier. - Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1596816.ece
How could the British forces have been caught so unawares? They should have been alerted months ago by the Balad Ruz clash to the heightened threat of an Iranian assault. They might even have read subsequent warnings – reported in The Sunday Times as recently as two weeks ago – that Tehran was threatening to kidnap “a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers”.
As Iranian radicals rejoiced at their propaganda triumph last week, even some of Britain’s friends were scathing in their condemnation of military impotence and political incompetence.
“Wimping out on Iran” was one of the more polite commentaries in the New York Daily News. John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, dubbed the British government’s performance as “pathetic”.
The crisis has reduced Tony Blair and several of his officials to the status of irrelevant foghorns, issuing empty warnings about “stepping up the pressure” and “moving to the next phase”.
Such is the shambles that senior Royal Navy officers at the fleet’s operational headquarters have been directed to review the rules of engagement for naval boarding parties. If necessary they will recommend changes to ensure Britain’s forces are never again seized so easily without a shot being fired.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is