NationStates Jolt Archive

The Iranian government could hardly wish for more, after releasing the sailors…

The captain admits intelligence gathering (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1259413,00.html)

I do not know how reliable Sky News is, but somewhere, I can imagine Oceandrive gloating just about now. Still, he should have had better manners than to open a thread with a claim without backing it up.

I read the closed thread and thought; hey I heard that story...

It is not that spectacular, but no doubt will act as a public relations boon for Iran

I do not know how reliable Sky News is, but somewhere, I can imagine Oceandrive gloating just about now. Still, he should have had better manners than to open a thread with a claim without backing it up.

There's a world of difference between 'spying' and keeping an eye on what a potentially aggressive neighbour is up to.

Woah... that guy's going to be a in a load of trouble. First rule about intelligence gathering is that you don't talk to anyone about it other than your superior and who your superior says you should talk to.

Every journalist's question is normally met flat out by a 'It is not our policy to talk about intelligence gathering'. I mean the British government only fairly recently acknowledged that the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) even exists.

There's a world of difference between 'spying' and keeping an eye on what a potentially aggressive neighbour is up to.

Unless you did it in their own backyard,... it's called trespassing, not to mention invasion of privacy.

I don't know about this fact, but didn't the GPS records confirmed that the British did intrude on Iranian territorial water?

Unless you did it in their own backyard,... it's called trespassing, not to mention invasion of privacy.

I don't know about this fact, but didn't the GPS records confirmed that the British did intrude on Iranian territorial water?

The GPS showed conclusively that they were in Iraqi waters. Even the Iranians agreed with that, before they realised their mistake.

The British commander didn't say they were spying. He said they asked the people they met on routine inspections in Iraqi waters if they'd seen anything while they were in Iran. That's simply keeping an eye on things.

The GPS showed conclusively that they were in Iraqi waters. Even the Iranians agreed with that, before they realised their mistake.

The British commander didn't say they were spying. He said they asked the people they met on routine inspections in Iraqi waters if they'd seen anything while they were in Iran. That's simply keeping an eye on things.

I don't know about you, but I find it creepy if my neighbour kept tabs on me. Especially if they had night vision goggles, hi powered binoculars, bugs.

That thought really sends shivers down your spine.

I don't know about you, but I find it creepy if my neighbour kept tabs on me. Especially if they had night vision goggles, hi powered binoculars, bugs.

That thought really sends shivers down your spine.

Well, don't start to build nuclear weapons on your land while saying a nation should be wiped out, then.

Well, don't start to build nuclear weapons on your land while saying a nation should be wiped out, then.

technically it is nowhere near starting to build nuclear weapons, and Ahamdinejad, whose power is limited did not say that Israel should be wiped of the map.

Wipe of the map??! (http://democracyrising.us/content/view/736/164/)

Unless you did it in their own backyard,... it's called trespassing, not to mention invasion of privacy.

I don't know about this fact, but didn't the GPS records confirmed that the British did intrude on Iranian territorial water?

I thought they confirmed they weren't. The Iranians gave one position, inside Iraqi waters, and then changed their minds and gave a position inside Iranian waters. Personally, I think the Iranians were very out of line with this. Not that we're exactly bringers of peace in the Middle East, but if they WERE inside Iraqi waters when they were captured then this was a very risky move.

Well, don't start to build nuclear weapons on your land while saying a nation should be wiped out, then.

I'll try not to then, thanks for the advice. (But, it'd be analogically correct if you had said: Don't start building strange mounds that's littered with human remains).

Anyways,back to the topic, keeping tabs or not. Yes, I'd have to agree that this has spun a positive image towards Iran.

technically it is nowhere near starting to build nuclear weapons, and Ahamdinejad, whose power is limited did not say that Israel should be wiped of the map.

Wipe of the map??! (http://democracyrising.us/content/view/736/164/)

I'll choose to believe the endless BBC sources that quote him as saying it.

I'll choose to believe the endless BBC sources that quote him as saying it.

Media have a habit of quoting other media.... Translations can easily couse misintepretations.

I study Arabic and have studied some persian.. I find the source highly convincing... especially when placed into context...

Media have a habit of quoting other media.... Translations can easily couse misintepretations.

I study Arabic and have studied some persian.. I find the source highly convincing... especially when placed into context...

But let's face it. It's not exactly something he wouldn't say.

There's a world of difference between 'spying' and keeping an eye on what a potentially aggressive neighbour is up to.

All neighbours are potentially aggressive. Not only is there not "a world" of difference, there isn't even a word of difference.

Spying is rational behaviour by any government. If it allows governments to make more informed decisions (even if, more informed, they make stupid decisions) I'm at a loss to see what's wrong with spying.

If we all spied more, to the point that it was pointless to try to keep secrets, wouldn't the world be a better place? You, I, our governments, corporations, terrorists and perverts would all be on a level playing field of complete disclosure. Sounds ok to me.

But let's face it. It's not exactly something he wouldn't say.

On the basis of his other speeches, I do not think he would ever say that " Israel should be wiped of the map"... in the way that we in the west would understand it, namely the total annihilation of Israel and its people, possibly by nuclear means.


Rather he would likely say: to abolish or disband the Jewish state and return the land to the Arabs.

Naturally this is as unattainable as it is unacceptable, but it places the nuclear debate in a rather different context.

Rather he would likely say: to abolish or disband the Jewish state and return the land to the Arabs.


Exactly. But he's still a tad anti-semitic.

I thought they confirmed they weren't. The Iranians gave one position, inside Iraqi waters, and then changed their minds and gave a position inside Iranian waters. Personally, I think the Iranians were very out of line with this. Not that we're exactly bringers of peace in the Middle East, but if they WERE inside Iraqi waters when they were captured then this was a very risky move.

Well, yes and no. The border is hotly disputed. The waterway shifts every few years because of the river and the delta. As such the border shifts too. Now a review is meant to be undertaken every few years to address this and 'renew' the border. That review hasn't happened in quite a while, so both sides could have justification for saying "We were right".

That would explain why both sides agreed to disagree.

On another note, now there are 'concerns' about the treatment of the sailors - were they kept in solitary confinement, was there coercion, threats?

The comeback to that? Guantanamo Bay, naturally.

Exactly. But he's still a tad anti-semitic.

That and a populist,

But it is not a very uncommon position in the Middle East, especially since the establishment of Israel.

Well, yes and no. The border is hotly disputed. The waterway shifts every few years because of the river and the delta. As such the border shifts too. Now a review is meant to be undertaken every few years to address this and 'renew' the border. That review hasn't happened in quite a while, so both sides could have justification for saying "We were right".

That would explain why both sides agreed to disagree.

On another note, now there are 'concerns' about the treatment of the sailors - were they kept in solitary confinement, was there coercion, threats?

The comeback to that? Guantanamo Bay, naturally.

the sad thing is that these sailor were probably better treated than the 6 Iranian diplomats, still in US custody...

And how about their families...

The UK Defence Secretary Des Browne told Sky News it was important to gather intelligence to "keep our people safe".And to that end, you get a bunch of people captured and endanger the entire world's relations to both Iran and the UK?

You fucked up mate. 'Nuff with the double-think.

I do not know how reliable Sky News is, but somewhere, I can imagine Oceandrive gloating just about now. Still, he should have had better manners than to open a thread with a claim without backing it up.
Factually, it's quite alright, but it's afflicted by a toned-down version of the Fox News Virus, which adds a stupendous amount of hyperbole to everything, and demonises the Middle East (unsurprising, since it's owned by Rupert Murdoch also).

And to that end, you get a bunch of people captured and endanger the entire world's relations to both Iran and the UK?

You fucked up mate. 'Nuff with the double-think.

In case you failed to actually read what the Captain said, he stated that the collection of intelligence was a secondary, or tertiary function of their missions. What intelligence they did seek to gather was directly related to the mission at hand, i.e. protection of merchant shipping and civilian watercraft. In pursuit of this mission there is no evidence that they entered Iranian waters, nor did they undertake hostile actions towards any Iranian nationals or military units.

Iran did not have anything remotely resembling a casus belli on this matter, they were just trying to stir the shit.

Basically we speak to the crew, find out if they have any problems, let them know we're here to protect them, protect their fishing and stop any terrorism and piracy in the area.

Secondly, it's to gather int (intelligence). If they do have any information, because they're here for days at a time, they can share it with us

Whether it's about piracy or any sort of Iranian activity in the area. Obviously we're right by the buffer zone with Iran.

Just to clear the matter up even further, here are the Captain's comments, in which he clearly states that the collection of intelligence is the secondary, incidental, function of their mission. Such intelligence is not necessarily on the government of Iran, but on whatsoever might be important to his immediate mission in the area. That primary mission being the interdiction of pirates and smugglers in Iraqi and international waters.

It would had been spying if British had actualy entered to Iranian waters while doing this. Gathering intelligence outside of Iranian territory is completely fine, alternative is of course "shoot first ask questions later" policy.

Olmedreca;12516793']It would had been spying if British had actualy entered to Iranian waters while doing this. Gathering intelligence outside of Iranian territory is completely fine, alternative is of course "shoot first ask questions later" policy.

Indeed...external observation has been long accepted as a legitimate tool of statecraft.

By no means were the sailors running their ships into Iranian waters, guns blazing and dumping teams composed of a dozens of James Bond type fellows onto the beach. Instead, they were seeking to inhibit smugglers and pirates.

Just to clear the matter up even further, here are the Captain's comments, in which he clearly states that the collection of intelligence is the secondary, incidental, function of their mission. Such intelligence is not necessarily on the government of Iran, but on whatsoever might be important to his immediate mission in the area. That primary mission being the interdiction of pirates and smugglers in Iraqi and international waters.

I agree, it is not really an issue. Still, I can immagine that the Iranian government is pretty pleased with this news, following their "gift"

By no means were the sailors running their ships into Iranian waters, guns blazing and dumping teams composed of a dozens of James Bond type fellows onto the beach. Instead, they were seeking to inhibit smugglers and pirates.
They were ostensibly there to inhibit smugglers and pirates. Who the hell knows what they're actually doing?

They were ostensibly there to inhibit smugglers and pirates. Who the hell knows what they're actually doing?

Listen.

If they were undertaking covert actions within Iranian territory, do you honestly think that the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy would permit them to openly talk to a SkyNews reporter about what they were doing? Honestly.

I question the story based on the quotes attributed to the captain. Intelligence is referred to as "int" when combined with another word, as in "communications intelligence" or "signals intelligence" (COMINT and SIGINT, respectively). When used alone, it's generally referred to as "intel."

In my previous life as a journalist covering international military technology, I never once heard a British officer refer to it as "int." Thus, I'm throwing the bullshit card on this "news" story.

There's a world of difference between 'spying' and keeping an eye on what a potentially aggressive neighbour is up to.

QFT

What those sailors were doing was perfectly legal. If the British were actually spying within their borders, I very much doubt they would send some marines to do it.

I question the story based on the quotes attributed to the captain. Intelligence is referred to as "int" when combined with another word, as in "communications intelligence" or "signals intelligence" (COMINT and SIGINT, respectively). When used alone, it's generally referred to as "intel."

In my previous life as a journalist covering international military technology, I never once heard a British officer refer to it as "int." Thus, I'm throwing the bullshit card on this "news" story.

HUMINT and SIGINT are collectively referred to as intel. The abbreviation COMINT isn't really used at all but is under SIGINT. As far as referring to it as int, it is an accepted way of saying intel. But as far as any intel they were gathering, it was most likely nothing more than seeing what kind of cargo the Iranians were importing. At most, if the ship owners were known to be against the Iranian regime then they might ask the chief staff what they saw in port the last time that they were there. Nothing sinister at all.

HUMINT and SIGINT are collectively referred to as intel. The abbreviation COMINT isn't really used at all but is under SIGINT.

Yes, the Corps is rather simplistic like that.

As far as referring to it as int, it is an accepted way of saying intel.

Accepted, sure, but not common parlance.

Yes, the Corps is rather simplistic like that.
:p Then i guess the entire military is also.



Accepted, sure, but not common parlance.

I use it when I'm writing reports but not when I'm talking (it sounds weird to me). But even if most people don't say it that doesn't mean that this individual captain doesn't.

:p Then i guess the entire military is also.

No, the rest of the military recognises COMINT as a subset of SIGINT. COMINT just covers a narrower range of frequencies within the EM spectrum, that's all.

I use it when I'm writing reports but not when I'm talking (it sounds weird to me). But even if most people don't say it that doesn't mean that this individual captain doesn't.

Exactly, it sounds weird, so no one says it that way. I've not heard it spoken once -- ever. And I covered military tech for nearly a decade. It might be written that way sometimes, but all that shows it that the Sky reporter read some stuff. I still question the quotes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6533069.stm

Just a mite bit of further information on the sailors and marines.

No, the rest of the military recognises COMINT as a subset of SIGINT. COMINT just covers a narrower range of frequencies within the EM spectrum, that's all.
Exactly, it's not COMINT or SIGINT. It's either just SIGINT or both. But then again it really doesn't matter at all.


Exactly, it sounds weird, so no one says it that way. I've not heard it spoken once -- ever. And I covered military tech for nearly a decade. It might be written that way sometimes, but all that shows it that the Sky reporter read some stuff. I still question the quotes.
Some younger guys I know say int so it's really not out of the question. I haven't had too much experience with British forces so I really couldn't tell you much more about it. I guess it's your choice but i really don't see a reason to doubt the quote or a reason why the quote matters at all.

I guess it's your choice but i really don't see a reason to doubt the quote or a reason why the quote matters at all.

The quote is the whole basis for the story. Of course it matters.

The quote is the whole basis for the story. Of course it matters.

Then it is a non-story. It is always a goal to gain intel during any mission.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6533069.stm

Just a mite bit of further information on the sailors and marines.Ugh, that is so devoid of infomation. There is a ton of infomation missing from that description.

It makes it sound like they faced a mock execution, when they explicitly said they did not face a mock execution. They mentioned several other reasons other than the loss of life for not engaging the Iranians.

However, the press conference looked scripted. I felt that they had been fed what to say. Kinda like the Iranian interview where they said they were in Iranian territorial waters.

Ow, no one saw that coming :rolleyes:

15 "sailor", on 3 squads of 5 men each (who now became marines) were just fishing in their rubber boats out there in the sea.

The GPS showed conclusively that they were in Iraqi waters. Even the Iranians agreed with that, before they realised their mistake.

The British commander didn't say they were spying. He said they asked the people they met on routine inspections in Iraqi waters if they'd seen anything while they were in Iran. That's simply keeping an eye on things.

It's perfectly legal to do so, and in no way represents any violation of privacy.

As an example, it's perfectly legal to sit in non-Iranian waters with a large ship bristling with antennae, and monitor Iranian military channels, Iranian radar emissions, and such.

It's also legal and OK to talk to ship crews that pass through the area. Nothing illegal there, or even objectionable.

Ow, no one saw that coming :rolleyes:

15 "sailor", on 3 squads of 5 men each (who now became marines) were just fishing in their rubber boats out there in the sea.What? Who told you that?

Ow, no one saw that coming :rolleyes:

15 "sailor", on 3 squads of 5 men each (who now became marines) were just fishing in their rubber boats out there in the sea.

Have you only read the headlines, and skipped the bodies of the articles or something?

I do not know how reliable Sky News is, but somewhere, I can imagine Oceandrive gloating just about now.YEAH.. I can Imagine him slowly drinking a cold beer.. with a big-O-smile across his face.
:D
payback is a beach..
and I love beaches. (i guess they can tell that from my nick-name.. "ocean")

Listen.

If they were undertaking covert actions within Iranian territory, do you honestly think that the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy would permit them to openly talk to a SkyNews reporter about what they were doing? Honestly.
...

Yes, so that they could say "Ah, yeah, routine anti-weapons patrol, and then the Persians came in and rammed us, pointed HMGs at us etc. etc." so that people would be convinced that it was entirely the fault of Iran, and all guilt would be removed, at least as far as PR went.

I do not know how reliable Sky News is, but somewhere, I can imagine Oceandrive gloating just about now. Still, he should have had better manners than to open a thread with a claim without backing it up.bad manners?

The only bad manner word I used was "hookers"
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=523266

hookers are OK.. methinks :D

No there isn't. In fact, that's exactly what spying is all about.

As long as you're not in Iranian waters, on Iranian soil, or in Iranian airspace, spying on Iran is perfectly legal.

That's what spying is all about.

There's a world of difference between 'spying' and keeping an eye on what a potentially aggressive neighbour is up to.

No there isn't. In fact, that's exactly what spying is all about.

Iran decided to pretend the British were in Iranian waters so they could kidnap British sailors and play mind games with them just to fuck with the UK. I think the captain gathering some intelligence is so small it's negligible compared to what Iran did.

On another note, now there are 'concerns' about the treatment of the sailors - were they kept in solitary confinement, was there coercion, threats?

The comeback to that? Guantanamo Bay, naturally.
I don't see how you can use that as a comeback against Britain. Guantanamo Bay is American, not British.

...

Yes, so that they could say "Ah, yeah, routine anti-weapons patrol, and then the Persians came in and rammed us, pointed HMGs at us etc. etc." so that people would be convinced that it was entirely the fault of Iran, and all guilt would be removed, at least as far as PR went.

You are absolutely off your rocker.

Iran decided to pretend the British were in Iranian waters so they could kidnap British sailors and play mind games with them just to fuck with the UK. I think the captain gathering some intelligence is so small it's negligible compared to what Iran did.

You are right one should not play mind games with prisoners, period.

Now these prisoners have faces and we can immagine how it must feel like to be in such a situation, why not take the same moral stance on way the prisoners of "our side" are treated, right?

There's a world of difference between 'spying' and keeping an eye on what a potentially aggressive neighbour is up to.YEAH right.. :rolleyes:

When they do it its "spying"
When we do it its "keeping an eye".. or "intelligence gathering"

the Military (and the Govs) love to spin words like this.. but only idiots buy all that bull.

I don't see how you can use that as a comeback against Britain. Guantanamo Bay is American, not British.the way I see it.. he is not using it against Britain..
but against Blair and Bush.. and all the "War enablers"

Bah. Not an issue at all. Of course they were gathering information. They certainly weren't breaking any rules in doing so. They were asking natives for information. That wasn't spying at all. That's just intelligence gathering. The two are completely different things.

Have you only read the headlines, and skipped the bodies of the articles or something?

irony

noun
1. witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"--Jonathan Swift [syn: sarcasm]
2. incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs; "the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated"
3. a trope that involves incongruity between what is expected and what occurs

Media have a habit of quoting other media.... Translations can easily couse misintepretations.

I study Arabic and have studied some persian.. I find the source highly convincing... especially when placed into context...

You're right. What he actually said when translated correctly was, "Isreal should be slapped on the butt. We should invite them for tea."

Iran's illustrius' president's love for Jews and light sex play with Isrealis is well known. It's shameful of all the lying Western media to purposfully mistranslate his playful sex banter to make him sound like he hates Jews. He obviously LOVES Jews.

irony

noun
1. witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"--Jonathan Swift [syn: sarcasm]
2. incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs; "the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated"
3. a trope that involves incongruity between what is expected and what occurs

Arsehole


noun
1. What shit comes out of.
2. You.

irony

noun
1. witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"--Jonathan Swift [syn: sarcasm]
2. incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs; "the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated"
3. a trope that involves incongruity between what is expected and what occursYou have less than a 1,000 posts. People do not have an established idea of what your views are. Hence it is difficult for anyone to work out if you are using irony or sarcasm.

With the reputation of some posters on NSG you could easily have been expressing your own real views.

Arsehole


noun
1. What shit comes out of.
2. You.


O thats a Goal.....

O thats a flame.....

Fixed for accuracy.

The Iranian government could hardly wish for more, after releasing the sailors…

The captain admits intelligence gathering (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1259413,00.html)

He told Sky Correspondent Jonathan Samuels: "Basically we speak to the crew, find out if they have any problems, let them know we're here to protect them, protect their fishing and stop any terrorism and piracy in the area," he said.

"Secondly, it's to gather int (intelligence). If they do have any information, because they're here for days at a time, they can share it with us.

"Whether it's about piracy or any sort of Iranian activity in the area. Obviously we're right by the buffer zone with Iran."

So now asking sailors if they saw anything while they were sailing through Iranian waters constitutes spying? That's bullshit, like this thread.

Fixed for accuracy.

If something needs 'fixing for accuracy', you'd require a few adjustments yourself, before being allowed carrying out the procedure.

Arsehole


noun
1. What shit comes out of.
2. You.

Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one.

BTW, your opinions mean shit.

If something needs 'fixing for accuracy', you'd require a few adjustments yourself, before being allowed carrying out the procedure.

I'd say what you require, but it's against the rules, as are your sad attempts at flaming me. Pack up your toys and run along. The streetlights are on, so I'm sure it's past your bedtime.

I'd say what you require,.....

"This is my last post here"? O please do.

Rather he would likely say: to abolish or disband the Jewish state and return the land to the Arabs.

Naturally this is as unattainable as it is unacceptable, but it places the nuclear debate in a rather different context.

But un asked statement.

What would we do if the Jews in Israel refused?

Since everyone basicly know that the Israeli jews are only leaving over their dead bodies... That would mean he DOES want them all dead. Because that's the only way to dissolve Israel.

So Genocidal it remains.

What would we do if the Jews in Israel refused?.If the Jews in Israel refuse to clean the cluster bombs they used on civilian areas.. I want Bush to stop giving them a piece of MY taxes.
.
So Genocidal it remains.I dont want my taxes, to be used for stupid religion wars.. and for religion states

.. is that genocidal?

Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one.

BTW, your opinions mean shit.

Aww, now I just feel all warm and fuzzy now, like a little bear.

Seriously though there was no need to act like such an arse to the person who had asked what you were on before you used that irony gag- came across more than a little arrogant and confrontational.

Not that I may not have but meh.

So they were gathering intelligence on another country. That's what countries do, even for countries that are not seen as any kind of threat. As long as they're not in Iranian waters whilst they're gathering intelligence, then the intelligence gathering is of no relevance.

So they were gathering intelligence on another country. That's what countries do, even for countries that are not seen as any kind of threat. As long as they're not in Iranian waters whilst they're gathering intelligence, then the intelligence gathering is of no relevance.

Incidentally, http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91193-1259599,00.html

"...the sailors and marines captured in the Gulf on March 23 said they were subjected to "constant psychological pressure" by the Iranian authorities.

The 15 feared they would be executed during their 13-day ordeal, in which they said they were bound and blindfolded while weapons were cocked"

They're lucky they weren't captured by the US military. Compared to Guantanamo (which the US and UK governments have no qualms about, despite both leaders claiming to be Christians - liars), what these marines experienced was paradise. Iran could have done a lot worse, considering the fact that the US have jailed 5 of Iran's diplomats in Iraq.

The Iranian government could hardly wish for more, after releasing the sailors…

The captain admits intelligence gathering (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1259413,00.html)

geez what did you THINK they were doing out there? a little fishing, maybe?

as long as they were in iraqi waters, gathering info on whatever activity they find on either side of the line is their JOB.

You are absolutely off your rocker.
It's quite plausible.