lampard10 Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 Why is it that when a group of British people sail into Iranian waters they get arrested and locked up. Yet when a group of Iranians sail into British waters they each get a free council house and 200 quid a week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter991 Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 lampard10: It's not just in England. It applies to quite a few other countries too. Maybe this could be moved to the Visas Section. There's 3 classes in Australia - Migrants, Refugee and Asylum Seekers. If I want to LIVE in Thailand, I think I have to be over 50 years of age, be married to a Thai woman (a bit hard as I am gay and was 'married' to my Thai BF), have an income of at least 40,000 baht a month, have a certain amount of money in the bank - and still do border crossings! Maybe I can apply for Asylum in Thailand? Theoretically, a Thai person could apply for asylum in Australia, in which case they would be eligible for a Bridging Visa that allows them to remain legally in the country while their application for refugee status is being considered. If their application was made within 45 days of arrival, they are also entitled: • to apply for a work permit; and • to receive Medicare assistance. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeebusjones Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Why is it that when a group of British people sail into Iranian waters they get arrested and locked up. Yet when a group of Iranians sail into British waters they each get a free council house and 200 quid a week? I think you've missed the point. It was a group of British soldiers that sailed into Iranian waters. If a group of Iranian soldiers sailed into British water, you can bet they would be detained as well. There's a pretty substantial difference between soldiers and civilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I think you missed the main point: They didn't sail into Iranian waters. Iran doesn't recognise Iraks border at sea and as such reguarly go into their territory. Ofcourse they had to backpeddle from this fact by altering the location of the bording when being confronted with the facts - hence why they suddenly moved tthe locations a couple of miles in their official statement. In my book, going into another countries waters and kidnapping soldiers as an act of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajarnmark Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I think you missed the main point: They didn't sail into Iranian waters. Iran doesn't recognise Iraks border at sea and as such reguarly go into their territory.Ofcourse they had to backpeddle from this fact by altering the location of the bording when being confronted with the facts - hence why they suddenly moved tthe locations a couple of miles in their official statement. In my book, going into another countries waters and kidnapping soldiers as an act of war. Come on TAWP, get a life. We are already facing so many "useless" wars and you are backing yet another war. Didn't we have so many wars in just 100 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head Snake Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Maybe I'm missing the point but that british girl in the scarf is way too irresistable not to kidnap. THey were just having a laugh not commiting an act of war. You can tell when a Iranian is joking by the way their mustache twitches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeebusjones Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Maybe I'm missing the point but that british girl in the scarf is way too irresistable not to kidnap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maizefarmer Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 (edited) Why is it that when a group of British people sail into Iranian waters they get arrested and locked up. Yet when a group of Iranians sail into British waters they each get a free council house and 200 quid a week? Like hel_l a bunch of Iraian soldiers sailing into UK waters during a conflict time would be given a council house and 200 quid - in fact I'd be suprized if they got treated any different to how the Brit's were treated - in fact, if the "occupiers" track record is anything to go by they may well land up been forced to perform perverted acts on each other, while the captors stand around with cameras in hand to record said act!! er.... not quite how the UK soldiers were treated now was it. Not withstanding the rights or wrongs of it - no question that it was a cool properganda success for the Iranians, who played it out in the Mid East media for all it was worth. MF Edited April 10, 2007 by Maizefarmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadow99dancer Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 What a joke!You just have to PINCH them a little bit and they will squell like little PIGLETS. Imagine...they are from one of the best trained army in the world.I wouldn't dare to picture if they are from one of the developing countries in S.E.A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naka Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I think you missed the main point: They didn't sail into Iranian waters. Iran doesn't recognise Iraks border at sea and as such reguarly go into their territory.Ofcourse they had to backpeddle from this fact by altering the location of the bording when being confronted with the facts - hence why they suddenly moved tthe locations a couple of miles in their official statement. In my book, going into another countries waters and kidnapping soldiers as an act of war. And it's not even 3 o'clock yet Naka. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie11 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Iran can kidnap me if they want so I can sell my story for a six figure sum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzydom Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 The point is Britain is not at war with Iran, imagine if Oz were to arrest every yank sailor who sailed into Sydney harbour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave111223 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Why is it that when a group of British people sail into Iranian waters they get arrested and locked up. Yet when a group of Iranians sail into British waters they each get a free council house and 200 quid a week? I agree the situation is totally ridiculous. But there is not much we can do...except for beat the sh*t out of any Iranian looking blokes at the pub (joking) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I think you missed the main point: They didn't sail into Iranian waters. Iran doesn't recognise Iraks border at sea and as such reguarly go into their territory.Ofcourse they had to backpeddle from this fact by altering the location of the bording when being confronted with the facts - hence why they suddenly moved tthe locations a couple of miles in their official statement. In my book, going into another countries waters and kidnapping soldiers as an act of war. Come on TAWP, get a life. We are already facing so many "useless" wars and you are backing yet another war. Didn't we have so many wars in just 100 years? Perhaps you need to eat more vitamins. I'm not backing any war with Iran. I'm merely pointing out that entering another countries maritime water and kidnapping soldiers is considered an act of aggression and can be counted as an act of war. Perhaps you need to ask yourself is why Iran wants to push the envelope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendix Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 A more pertinent question: Why did this group of British sailor/soldiers let a bunch of Iranian navy people board their boat with no resistance? Did they surrender, and if so why? Why are a bunch of captured soldiers lauded as heroes in the UK? Why are these professional military people now being allowed to sell their story to the media - is it to reward mediocrity? What would the British army personnel in Basra be thinking about this? Should they, too, try to get captured so they can sell their stories to the media? It's a strange state of affairs for Britain's military history when military people are financially rewarded for, basically, screwing up and making a laughing stock of the myth of British military might. Shameful. Truly shameful. (and nothing to do with Thailand, to boot) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattaya_Fox Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I think that the answer to the op`s question is nowhere as this topic is not Thai related and therefore is closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts