Posted on 04/04/2007 9:42:54 AM PDT by balch3
Once again, it's me and Ralph Peters on the same wavelength, deploring the cowardice of the British sailors and marines kidnapped by Iran. When it happened, I said I hoped the ones who'd shamed their country would be court-martialed on return to Blighty, and given dishonorable discharges after a couple years breaking rocks in the Outer Hebrides (which, believe me—I've been there—have a LOT of rocks). Now, I confess, I wouldn't shed a tear if some worse fate befell them.
The only coherent response I get to these sentiments is: "How do you know what they've been through? How would YOU stand up?" To which the obvious reply is the one Dr. Johnson gave in some similar case: "I may criticize a carpenter who makes me a bad table, though I cannot make a table myself. It is not my job to make tables." It is the job of a Royal Marine to fight, and if necessary suffer and die, for his country. They know that when they go in. It's what they are told! I nurse a quiet hope that if put to the test, I would stand up as well as any Marine. Whether or not I would, however, is irrelevant. Whether or not I could stand up well to torture, I expect Marines to.
And in any case, there was no evidence of torture or mistreatment in any of the filmed cases I have seen. They look just fine. You can't fake that. The girl sailor had that headscarf on within hours. From what I've heard of torture, even weaker cases can hold out for a few days.
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
Do you have any solid evidence that their orders included "apologizing" on camera and wearing hijab if/when told?
Indeed, but that doesn't mean Derb is wrong, as he points out.
Exactly. According to one earlier report, before the British government spin artists got things under control, the rules of engagement were said to have instructed British forces not to fire at Iranian forces.
The report further said that the captain of the escort vessel radioed his superiors (unnamed) for permission to fire, explained the nature of the emergency, and was refused permission to do anything.
And the head of the admiralty was quoted the next day as saying something to the effect that it was better to use restraint than to “escalate” things.
Britain lost face even if no one "took them seriously". Perhaps especially if, because it showed that Britain could be coerced into anything. It may not be logical that it works like that, but it does.
“Article III states : If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available, and I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
Article V states: When questioned as a POW, I am bound ONLY to give Name, Rank, Service Number and DOB. I will evade answering further questions to the UTMOST of my ability. I will MAKE NO ORAL or WRITTEN statements disloyal too my country and it’s allies or harmful to their cause.”
This is exactly what I was trained to do. The expectation is that under torture, everyone breaks. The whole point though, is to resist as long as possible, never knowingly give anything to the enemy, and to confuse the enemy as much as possible, for as long as possible.
I may be wrong, but it’s my impression that absolutely none of this was done by the sailors and marines involved.
There's 15 of them, and it's more than curious that all 15 weren't included in the photo-op farce following Ama-jerk's press conference (I can only count seven).
Perhaps some were not able to put on a happy face? If not, why not?
Doesn't mean he is right either. Based on everything I've been reading, sounds like these hostages did what they were told to do by their superiors. If that is the case, would Derbyshire have them disobey their superiors?
Again, it is very easy for him to talk sitting behind a computer keyboard.
As I said, I have read news reports posted here that the British troops were instructed that if they were taken prisoner they should go along with what their capturers demanded, so as to avoid being killed or making diplomatic waves. But I don’t know for certain if that is true.
Difficult to be sure in any case, because they could have been told one thing in basic training and in normal military S.O.P., and something else while they were on their mission in Iraq.
I agreed with most here in the first few days. After that, the extensive video clips began to look like reality TV shows. How humiliating for the British, and now that the 15 are to be released, I am sure that the circus will continue. Faye is a bona fide TV star now.
Derbyshire is correct in using the carpenter analogy, IMHO.
Somebody should be turning a jaundiced eye on the captain of the HMS Cornwall, but that will probably get the “hurry up and forget” treatment too.
I have seen it reported that they are ordered to “cooperate”...
Anyhow. The Iranians are still churning out propaganda videos with the sailors.. Apparently they are at some sort of reception. News released just now is that they will not be released today afterall. Will be freed tomorrow instead.
I think he is right. If you don't, feel free to make a counterargument. "Easy for him to say" is not a counterargument, as Derb, and now I, have pointed out, and as you have conceded.
Based on everything I've been reading, sounds like these hostages did what they were told to do by their superiors.
The surrender is what they were told to do by their superiors, sure. But does that include all the "apologies", wearing the hijab, etc.? Do you have evidence for that? Let me know if/when you do.
If that is the case, would Derbyshire have them disobey their superiors?
If the superiors indeed gave them orders not only to surrender but to "apologize" if/when told, and say/do whatever the Iranians tell them to do, then the accusation of "Brit wimpiness" may not apply to those individual soldiers, true. But it would still apply the Brit nation.
Again, it is very easy for him to talk sitting behind a computer keyboard.
And again, that's not an argument for anything either way.
Good point. Sorry about the incorrect number, i realized as soon as I hit the Post button. It wouldn’t surprise me if Brits are now given orders to cooperate.
Would being made national heroes be a "worse fate?"
Because that's what's going to happen to them in that poor benighted country.
The islamonutjobs served by al JaQaeda TV certainly took what they said seriously, and that's what "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" is all about.
They wimped out; they suffered not much more than they do when they're on leave back home, and they gave the enemy a fair-sized propaganda victory.
Before deciding whether to send the 15 to break rocks in the Outer Hebrides, how about flogging around the fleet (or what’s left of the fleet) those who wrote the rules of engagement?
LOL!
I could think of oh, 50 or 100 movies that fit that same desription!
They missed a helluva good chance today to kill their captor instead of shaking his hand.
The point is, you have no idea what type of coersion may have been used. So hold your judgement until they are returned and debriefed.
remember: talk is cheap....
Yeah, but Patton knew that you're not going to make the "other bastard" die if you're not willing to fight him. George Patton's great military leadership has been supplanted by a woman-like, liberal mentality, "don't let anybody die if you don't have to, and always ask yourself before you engage in battle, 'what will the world think'?".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.