Sailors and Marines to possibly get cash for their stories?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazell B

I cannot be bothered messing about with loads of quotes, but shall ask one thing. Where did I say the UK and Iran got together on this? I didn't, you just jumped to that with no evidence. You see, people have ideas when they get information, as you've just proved.

My idea was that it appeared staged. I didn't say who by, other than the UK government. Yours was different. It just happened to pop into my tiny female brain when I first heard about them being taken. Feel free to patronise me about it - I'm capable of taking it :laugh:

I think the UK's leading people allowed some sailors to be out there just to see what would happen. It would test the water with Iran and with us at home. Some of the Navy may have known what was happening, but I don't think those on that ship did. For all I know they may have been trying to get Brit hostages taken for months and failed until now. The US have said they thought US personnel where being lined up to be taken, but had covered their backs (I saw this on a News 24 item, so how true it is is anyone's guess) and that Iran had been trying to take either UK or US Navy staff hostage for some time.

I'm fairly sure I'm entittled to my views, or is that too far-fetched? As for being proved right when the papers come out, I don't care either way. By then worse things will have happened and been covered up or opened up.

---

I wasn't attempting to be patronising — just to disagree with you. I think I'm entitled to that. You are quite right to say that you didn't suggest collusion between the UK and Iran, and for that I apologise.

However, I still think that none of the questions you posed afterwards offer any sort of evidence that it was set up by anyone. All the answers are perfectly straightforward.

If it was an attempt by the British military/government to see what would happen (which I don't think it was), it has backfired spectacularly. It is certain that there is now much less sympathy than there was for those involved, though having just seen a particularly absurd comment from Richard Littlejohn on the front of tomorrow's Daily Mail, as shown just now on News 24, not all of the criticism is fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

However, I still think that none of the questions you posed afterwards offer any sort of evidence that it was set up by anyone.

---

Questions don't tend to offer evidence. They offer questions ... ;)

Quote:

---

.... not all of the criticism is fair.

---

It never is, whatever the subject.
Which is exactly why I don't buy newspapers and do question stories now. Anna Nicole Smith wasn't doing illegal drugs, Brad Pitt isn't the perfect man, the grassy knoll wasn't a knoll because Shergar was buried under it and the UK government has some smart, motivated, secretive guys working us like muppets at times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazell B

Questions don't tend to offer evidence. They offer questions ... ;)

---

Fair enough, but as I said, the factual answers to those questions demonstrate that there was no conspiracy on anyone's part.

How do you know they are facts?

It's rather like saying the whole Navy are happy with stories being sold. They plainly aren't, yet at first we were told they were. I'm pretty sure some sailors on board that ship won't be pleased if details about them come out, yet we won't hear about it. Facts aren't always facts these days, they're half stories and quotes taken from half a comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazell B

How do you know they are facts?

It's rather like saying the whole Navy are happy with stories being sold. They plainly aren't, yet at first we were told they were. I'm pretty sure some sailors on board that ship won't be pleased if details about them come out, yet we won't hear about it. Facts aren't always facts these days, they're half stories and quotes taken from half a comment.

---

To me, the answers are quite obvious. The reason they were allowed to tell their stories is because the MoD thought it would be good publicity. That's enough of a dodgy ulterior motive as it is; I can't see any way in which it indicates a set-up. The circumstances of the incident strike me as being normal, if unfortunate, and it is normal practice for us to know that such things happen and then the names of those involved. I simply don't get how any of those elements of the story indicate something more 'sinister'. Questioning the official line is great, as I said, and I'm all for it as you know, but there are limits.

Oh, and we already know that one of the people involved was unhappy with the idea of the stories being allowed to be sold. You are quite right when you say that any disagreement among them on that score will be pushed to one side by the MoD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

the factual answers to those questions demonstrate that there was no conspiracy on anyone's part.

---

The only factual answers we have are those which have been released by the government. That is not to say that they are the truth. One thing is for certain, it took the focus away from Iraq for a while.

As Carl says, the 'facts' are only what we are told. We have no proof either way.

David Kelly would be the man to ask on that score ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CarlMetro

The only factual answers we have are those which have been released by the government. That is not to say that they are the truth. One thing is for certain, it took the focus away from Iraq for a while.

---

I know that this is not to say that the official answers are the truth. As someone who has, in a previous job, been involved in looking into the actions of Government departments, this is something of which I'm fully aware.

All I am saying is that none of the circumstances of this incident and the way in which details of it have been brought into the public arena indicate to me that there was any great conspiracy afoot here. It is fact that incidents like this happen, as unfortunate as they are — after all, they have occurred before. It is fact that we always get to know about these incidents and the identities of those involved. None of these things are unusual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazell B

As Carl says, the 'facts' are only what we are told. We have no proof either way.

David Kelly would be the man to ask on that score ....

---

But it is possible to consider whether those facts are indicators of a conspiracy, and I don't think they are. The way in which the stories were allowed to be sold does indicate an attempt to manipulate the situation, as I have said all along, but the fact that we knew that the incident had happened and the fact that we got to know the names are perfectly normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

It is fact that we always get to know about these incidents and the identities of those involved.

---

No, it isn't :mark:

I'm pretty sure that 22 Troop, or whatever the SAS are called, don't tend to talk much :laugh:

It's fact that we don't always get to hear about what happens. I can live with that. So long as I don't feel I'm being fed bull to make me take another war quietly.