Kidnapped soldiers may face trial in Iran

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

The Iranian News Agency, IRNA, claims that the British soldiers kidnapped in Iran may be facing a trial in Iran.

The Iranian Ambassador to Iran has apprently told a Russian TV station that the soldiers will face trial and be punished if found guilty in Iran but the last the Iranian Foreign Minister had to say on the subject was a week ago when he said they were considering it.  The Ambassador has apparently suggested that the legal process has already started but didn’t say what they were being charged with.

One side saying one thing, one side saying another.  Kind of backs up the theory that there are at least two different factions in the Iranian government involved in all this.

One comment

  1. Sean Lynch (80 comments) says:

    Thing is Wonko, it was bertie big bollocks bliar by hanging on to bush’s coat tails that got us into this ridiculous situation in the first place. He’s probably waitng on the Yanks to get him out of this mess, but they are scornful of his governments ‘softly, softly’ approach to international affairs, with John Bolton adding that the obvious weakness of the British had emboldened the cheeky Iranians to the point that they knew they could take our forces with no response from us.
    At PM’s questions and lies and none answers last week, David Cameron shocked the bliar by raising the issue of the basic military Rules of Engagement, WHY OH! WHY did our forces not fight back, no plausible answer from the nobody in a shirt (there would have been losses, blah, blah) excuse me for being a simpleton, but isn’t that what the military do??. What is the point of them being there if they are just going to surrender at the first sign of conflict.
    In fact, what is the point of ‘armed’ forces that are unwilling to fight.
    This country is a laughing stock, it has no leadership and no guts, they were there as a TOKEN presence for the sake of a liar and a fake in his delusional world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.