Support us at Patreon

Politics Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

Nothing to do with the UN. Iran wants the money the UK's still holding for the Shah's tank order and she was stupid enough to go there having been a BBC journalist putting out what they (probably rightly) view as anti-regime propaganda.
 
send 'their
Royal said:
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

Nothing to do with the UN. Iran wants the money the UK's still holding for the Shah's tank order and she was stupid enough to go there having been a BBC journalist putting out what they (probably rightly) view as anti-regime propaganda.
Click to expand...
send 'their' money back in cruise missile form (Y)
 
Mike1976 said:
And then the UK government can organize new elections because the Iranians sent back her head in a box.
Click to expand...
and why would that be an issue - don't go to places like this and expect to be treated with western values - once she had got out she shuld have stayed out until there is a regime change or you need a radiation suit to visit
 
BCNTM said:
and why would that be an issue - don't go to places like this and expect to be treated with western values - once she had got out she shuld have stayed out until there is a regime change or you need a radiation suit to visit
Click to expand...

It's not what people on a military forum think that matters it's how it's perceived by the general public. Leaving your citizens to rot and endanger their lives through military action that isn't aimed at getting them out doesn't go down well because citizens expect their government to do anything it takes to keep them safe no matter how stupid they behave.

Like the people that thought it was a good idea to go camping in West Africa and got kidnapped. Publicly stating that you're not going to lift a finger is going to rapidly erode confidence in the government, telling the terrorists to go f*ck themselves, lob some missiles at their infrastructure and having the result posted on Liveleak even more so. Two members of the Commando Hubert ended up paying the price for the trust in the government that people demand.
 
Mike1976 said:
It's not what people on a military forum think that matters it's how it's perceived by the general public. Leaving your citizens to rot and endanger their lives through military action that isn't aimed at getting them out doesn't go down well because citizens expect their government to do anything it takes to keep them safe no matter how stupid they behave.

Like the people that thought it was a good idea to go camping in West Africa and got kidnapped. Publicly stating that you're not going to lift a finger is going to rapidly erode confidence in the government, telling the terrorists to go f*ck themselves, lob some missiles at their infrastructure and having the result posted on Liveleak even more so. Two members of the Commando Hubert ended up paying the price for the trust in the government that people demand.
Click to expand...
1- She is not one of our citizens - she is Iranian. She just married a Brit. The same is if I married a German - I wouldn't be Jerman

2- I don't think the 'British' people give a flying *uck about her to be honest - you only see her husband on TV bleating about her

3 - Don't shout your mouth off about Iran and its 6th Century rulers and then go there - muppets mistake
 
So what do we do, eh?

At the end of the day she is to all intents and purposes held as part of the "hostage diplomacy" currently employed by the Iranian government. Royal has also hit the nail on the head in his comment. So what?

1. "We don't negotiate with terrorists, go fxck yourselves" - nothing changes. Likely that in two years time another set of manufactured charges are laid against her with the requisite guilty verdict a done deal.
2. We acknowledge the fact she is held as leverage against the tank debt in order to pressure the UK government to release the funds owing. Problem is - current sanctions preclude settling this - nothing changes, plus "we don't negotiate with terrorists". We complain at the situation and insist that they should not be tied. The Iranian goverment say "we don't know what you're on about" in a continuation of their own "Go Fck Yourself" policy.
3. We somehow find a humanitarian way to settle the debt that evades the sanctions constraints and skirt around the issue that Nazanin is leverage in the hope that the situation resolves itself. Risk is that she is too useful a pawn to release.
4. Let's stage a rescue! Capable as UKSF is, this is unlikely and absolutely fraught with unacceptable political risk. For all the grandstanding both sides of the fence we all know that this is not something that will end well for either faction.
5. Political pressure via diplomatic channels. It's been effective so far...
6. She's just an Iranian masquerading as a Brit. Annoying but low priority and she should've known better. Husband's campaigning will be tolerated but ultimately treated as a sideshow. Tolerate the odd media bluster article.
7. In a fit of impotent rage mallet various Iranian facilities at range. May cause some fireworks and short-term impact placating the Express and Mail readership, but lets be serious for a moment...
8. Just pay the fxcking debt, eat crow and move on.

All being equal, pragmatism tends to item 3 or even in extremis point 8, with the hope of a reciprocal action from the Iranian government to release Nazanin.

But at the end of the day, in today's He-Man we learned that you should do your homework and not to travel to countries where you place yourself at risk of abitrary detention - especially if you are connected in any way, shape or form with an activity likely to piss off your hosts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top