They will get it right though, you fail to see anything don't you? You are so busy defending terrorists like Bush and Blair that you cannot even see what is happening right in front of your very nose.
Naturally they would be armed, your point is meant to be; why didn't they shoot correct? the simple answer is they have no need to shoot, they were in Iraqi waters (as Iran said also) & were being approached by Iranians, i'm pretty sure the protocol is not to fire on anyone unless there is a good reason to, esp when out gunned everything is getting dark, dark, dark, really dark I agree
What weapons did the Iranians have? If you was in the situation, wouldn't you feel surprised and try to avoid combat? It's kinda dangerous to think like you. If your country was under attack and many people went around and blamed the Bush, Blair, Cheney, Bigfoot or Illuminati, it would affect your combat moral negatively and give your real enemy an advantage. Think about it. Think about all the times you were wrong when it came to details about 9/11. You're obviously wrong on this one too.
British rules of engagement are set so as to not to escalate the situation. In the situation, british soldiers are supposed to surrender and not fight back. So, assuming, they kept their guns as AGS said. The soldiers posed no threat to the Iranians. They weren't -allowed- to fight. It's a brilliant conspiracy AGS, though. You should start a website about it.
So your position is that Iran is so irrational that it'll abduct UK soldiers because of US action against some "diplomats". Now -that's- an interesting take.
thats quite different from the story of some "anonymous iranian officials"...I read that they were kidnapped to get revenge for the top officials that deserted about a month ago...
Is there any certainty on those officials? I've heard the US has them. The US doesn't have them. Then they do again. Who knows what's up there. I haven't heard anything about it in weeks.
Anyway here's a question for the moonbats; If Iran is releasing the "Female British Captive" & she was doing the same things the guys were doing & they were all in the same boat, then why is she the only one Iran is talking about releasing?
Maybe she was sitting in the far end of the boat and it had not yet crossed into Iranian waters and being good and moral people they discovered their error and decided to let her go.
Actually it was a blood test that proved she is part of the illuminati bloodline, they are not allowed to hold onto her. They almost blew the whole deal because of her.
Well, when Iranian officials are detained and a general "defects" while on a visit to Turkey (BTW, I haven't seen this guy on TV saying he defected--maybe after a few months at GITMO) you have to realize crying foul when your troops are abducted is sort of weak. But the main point I meant by, "what comes around goes around," is that it is pretty sad that the UK is reliant on the Iranians to behave a lot better than the US has behaved toward POW's. That's why you don't act like sadists when you have captives, and then use tortured logic to explain why the mistreatment doesn't count as torture, or the Geneva Convention doesn't apply or whatever. As for the Iranians' motives, it depends on what really happend. I have a few scenarios: a) The British really did wander into Iranian territory by accident, and were detained, b) The Iranians were mistaken in thinking the British were in their territory, c) The Iranians came out and kidnapped them on purpose to get bargaining chips, or d) The British goverment set the these guys up as bait. BTW, why interdict shipping at that point, and leave your guys in rubber boats with no real support while they do it?
You are really grasping at straws to defend Iran here. Why is that? Again, the US has the general, not the UK. So you still claim Iran is that irrational - or can't tell the difference between the two countries. Which is it, really? GPS evidence show this didn't happen. Why are you even bringing it up? Ding ding. We have a winner. I like how you separate this in your post, as if its the most likely of the 4 events you posted. Nice tactic there, but if the British government set this up, why would they release GPS data that shows the soldiers were in Iraq waters. That's a pretty shitty conspiracy.