Back page?

About time.

Maybe now they won't be invaded on Friday?

Did you see the pictures? They all looked and acted like celebreties.

When do you get the chance to meet with the elected President of a country.

Sure looks like they were treated very well.

Why are we supposed to collectively hate and fear Iranians?

Oh that's right, our government tells us to.

"""Blair added, "To the Iranian people I would simply say this: We bear you no ill will.""""

Iranians to Tony: fuck you lapdog, keep your zodiacs out of our waters.

Gift to Britain
Ahmadinejad said he had pardoned the sailors as a gift to the British people and to mark the birthday of Islam's Prophet Muhammed and Easter.

Guess what Ahmadinejad, your people still think you're a stupid man!!

And now the British people do too.

Hey, they Brits were almost out of this war and you yank them back in.

All without a bullet or missile being fired.

Bushco must be livid that Tony has apparently robbed them of a chance to make their cronies even richer.

Blair to Bush: Shut the fuck up and keep out of this.

Bush to Blair: whimper....piddle...hide

Why are we supposed to collectively hate and fear Iranians?

Oh that's right, our government tells us to.

Posted by Manypaths at 2007-04-04 03:58 PM

So you believe the Iranians version of whta waters they were in? Do you really think these 15 people decided on their own to go into Iranian waters? Since they were accused and threatended with trial. Not the British or navy.

BTW just like 1979 another act of war going unpunished. Don't think for a moment Iran won't do something again down the road.

... and you yank them back in.

No pun intended.

"""So you believe the Iranians version of whta waters they were in?"""

Can you actually deny it?

""BTW just like 1979 another act of war going unpunished."""

Well, Ronnie RAygun was president when they were releasee so why didn't the great St. Ronnie do something, or when the Marine barracks was blown up????

Iran will probably do something again down the road, it might be smart for the US to have the same diplomatic channels that Brittain did when that time comes.
If all we have is bombs then I fear that any American hostages won't come home in one piece. But hell, brave patriots sitting behind their computers spouting war talk don't fear that cuz they are real men.

Manypaths - Kidnapping someone and them letting them go does not make one a good person.

The president of Iran may be elected but he's a figurehead. Iran is a theocracy ruled by unelected mullahs. The president you so admire is also a holocaust denier who routinely expresses interest in starting a nuclear war.

I neither hate nor fear Iranians. That doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to their government just because it annoys Bush, who I loathe. It is partisan hacks like you that made Carl Rove's job so easy.

After all that has been revealed, are you telling me that you believe the Bush Administration?

Bush has lied to me more than Iran has lately. I honestly don't know who to believe. How do you decide Crispee?

Damn I was getting ready for the nightly fire works on the news.. Oh well we will eventually fuck them up..

Manypaths - Kidnapping someone and them letting them go does not make one a good person.

There you go with that word again, kidnapping. This article properly referred to them as being detained.

I'd say the hostage situation was a very small retaliation for the 20 some years the iranian people had to endure your shit (i.e. coup d'tat to replace a democratically-elected gov't with the shah...sound familiar?).

LOL!!!

The Iranian people must have a very short memory. They loved the Shah and await another coup d'tat!!!

Well, Ronnie RAygun was president when they were releasee so why didn't the great St. Ronnie do something, or when the Marine barracks was blown up????

Because idiots like you would have complained about it.

You can't win for losen, Danni.

YEAH!

Pelosi brings them home when Bush couldn't!

"(i.e. coup d'tat to replace a democratically-elected gov't with the shah...sound familiar?)."

Pancho - Are Iranians inferior to us in some way that I'm not aware of?

If not, then why do you think they had nothing to do with this coup? Yes, we should have minded our own business, but nobody can force a coup where it doesn't have any local support. Regardless of the motivation (which was probably greed in most cases), Iranians supported the coup.

Nobody ever improved their lot in life by scapegoating others. The Iranian coup was mostly the repsonsibility of Iranians. A handful of CIA agents couldn't possibly have done it on their own, despite the apparent immense regard you have for their abilities.

All this Ward Churchill bullshit really just boils down to bigotry. There is no other way that people can really believe that Americans are this all-knowing, impossible to resist bogeyman.

Bush has lied to me more than Iran has lately. I honestly don't know who to believe. How do you decide Crispee?

Posted by Manypaths at 2007-04-04 04:24 PM

I don't think Bush has really said anything. I tend to believe the British version as well as the GPS readings. These sailors don't go out on their own and board ships in hostile waters. Now if the navy brass ordered them to check out a vessel knowing it was in disputed waters... I would probably lean the same way as you Many.

"This article properly referred to them as being detained."

Taking people against their will where you have no authority to do so and then holding them by force is kidnapping.

Kidnapping someone and them letting them go does not make one a good person.

Neither does nuking millions of people who have never done any harm to him or to his country make one a good person.

News reports today said that ONLY BUSH was using the word "hostage" -- it figures.

Because idiots like you would have complained about it.

You can't win for losen, Danni.
Posted by LastAmerican at 2007-04-04 04:30 PM


YEAH! And you perpetually act like a 9 year old who has run dry on the "burns"!

Kidnapping someone and them letting them go does not make one a good person.

Trespassing does not make a good person either, but then I wouldn't be calling it kidnapping.

What do you call all those people in Gitmo if it isn't kidnapping.

It seems you don't have the educated know the difference when you're being a tool.

The Iranian people must have a very short memory. They loved the Shah and await another coup d'tat!!!

Posted by LastAmerican at 2007-04-04 04:29 PM | Reply |

Of course last, everyone loves to have their elected gov't overthrown by a foreign power so that said power can get their grubby hands on natural ressources which don't belong to them. How silly of me.

YEAH!

Pelosi brings them home when Bush couldn't!

Posted by Redneckville at 2007-04-04 04:32 PM

Is that the same SOTH who wouldn't even allow a condemnation bill come to the floor? Pray tell how your new hero got the sailors released? Did she sleep with a mullah? Did she threaten not to cover her mug in public?

BTW just like 1979 another act of war going unpunished
yeah, Blair shoulda kicked Iranian ass just like Bush did when the godless commies highjacked our spyplane back in 2001!
oh wait. Shoulda read, I wonder of Blair kissed Iranian ass like Bush did.

Anyways, I called this release long ago. Simple tit for tat over Bush kidnapping Iranian government officials.

"It seems you don't have the educated know the difference when you're being a tool."

Yeah, let me get me some of that "educated" you claim I need.

Moron.

It seems you don't have the educated know the difference when you're being a tool.

Posted by moneywar at 2007-04-04 04:41 PM |
Nice one Money. Is that english?

What do you call all those people in Gitmo if it isn't kidnapping

I don't know... Captured combatants?

"but nobody can force a coup where it doesn't have any local support"

Perhaps, but...

"Of course last, everyone loves to have their elected gov't overthrown by a foreign power so that said power can get their grubby hands on natural ressources which don't belong to them. How silly of me."

Their own military took down the elected government.

"But mom, the CIA told me to do it".

Pathetic.

Yeah, let me get me some of that "educated" you claim I need.

Moron.

Apparently you appear to be content.........moron!!!!

moron!!!!



Posted by moneywar at 2007-04-04 04:49 PM

Four exclamation points. Wow he really showed you.

sully,

instead of name-calling, you should read a bit of your country's history.

Hans -

I'm not defending US involvement. I'm pointing out the obvious: This stuff did not happen without local support.

Scapegoating the "Great Satan" is alot easier than examining one's own actions. I can understand why the Iranians feel the way they do.

But people who don't have an emotional attachment to the events and who still blame the US bogeyman entirely are just being small minded bigots.

Taking people against their will where you have no authority to do so and then holding them by force is kidnapping.

Well said David Hicks.

GZ are you done with that giant fucking mirror yet? We need it in the Cuba section. Thanks!

"instead of name-calling, you should read a bit of your country's history."

I'm not the one misrepresenting history, you are.

If you don't like being called a bigot, stop being one.

DAMASCUS, Syria - Syria played a key role in resolving the standoff over the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, two government officials said Wednesday.

"Syrian efforts and the Iranian willingness culminated with the release of the British sailors," said Information Minister Mohsen Bilal.

He said Syria had been asked "to help positively in the issue of British" crew members since their March 23 seizure by Iran in the Persian Gulf.

He did not elaborate.

Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told reporters that "Syria exercised a sort of quiet diplomacy to solve this problem and encourage dialogue" between Britain and Iran.

Al-Moallem, who also did not give any details on the Syrian mediation, spoke at Damascus international airport before the departure of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for Saudi Arabia.

A Foreign Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media, said Iran's decision to release the Britons was "right," and that Syria "sees it as an example of the positive results for adopting dialogue and diplomacy among states."


"Thanks, Nanc, have some fish & chips, deary! - Tony Blair

But people who don't have an emotional attachment to the events and who still blame the US bogeyman entirely are just being small minded bigots.

And people who blindly exonerate the U.S. are small minded racists!!!!

The blinded faith you show is clear, truth is not what you seek.

"The river tells no lies, but the dishonest man standing on the shore still hears them!"

Is that the same SOTH who wouldn't even allow a condemnation bill come to the floor? Pray tell how your new hero got the sailors released? Did she sleep with a mullah? Did she threaten not to cover her mug in public?
Posted by crispee_oc at

YEAH!

All she had to do was speak in complete sentence's!

Ohh!

Pancho - thousands of innocent Americans have been murdered because people who think like you have convinced an entire region of the globe that all their problems are the fault of the Great Satan. Their own self-serving governments are never held to task for the poverty of the region.

So forgive me for not blowing off your anti-American non-facts that tend to encourage the type of scapegoating that leads to mass murder. I would be able to blow off your misguided beliefs as quaint if they didn't carry consequences.

"You mean like in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and those black sites around the world including Ethiopia as we just found out today?

That kinda kidnapping?

Or do you mean like General Asgari?"

I was never for our taking prisoners out of Afghanistan, although I did support that invasion as 100% necessary.

I never supported the Iraq War.

I don't know why people think strawman arguements are so impressive but trust me, they aren't.

"And people who blindly exonerate the U.S. are small minded racists!!!!

The blinded faith you show is clear, truth is not what you seek."

I never denied US involvement or that it was wrong, as you may or may not have bothered to read. I just ask that all the guilty parties be blamed.

People have been murdered because an entire region now believes that all their problems are the fault of the US.

Sully,

You do understand that the people who think like you in Iran are called Fanatics right.

The problem is that there are people over there who think about us the way you think about them.

The problem isn't the US or Iran, it is the people within these countries that share your mentality. Us against them.

They have them, and sadly, so do we.

Can you actually deny it?

Posted by panchovilla at 2007-04-04 04:16 PM

Considering that the Iranians first published GPS Coordinates that put them in Iraqi waters (oops) then retracted them, yes. In a court of law, that's called an admission against interest, and is given greater weight then a later statement that contradicts it. Given the fact that those coordinates matched the ones that the Brits said was the location of the boat at the time of the seizure, then I think that they might have been where the Brits say they were.

BTW, I thought that the cannucks were supposed to side with other members of the Commonwealth...what's your problem?

I don't know... Captured combatants?

Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-04-04 04:44 PM | Reply

They are ALL combatants?

And you know this how?

Re: where the sailors really were. These sailors were involved in a stop and search of a vessel with potentially dangerous crewmen aboard. Their attentions were hopefully on the situation aboard the boat.

Unlike on land, a boat that is 'stopped' will drift with the winds and current. It is doubtful they would have taken the time to allow the boat to anchor and the Britts definitly would have preferred not to anchor their own boat in that situation.

The reports I've seen claim the sailors were detained at a point 500 meters inside Iranian waters. If the boat was stopped and boarded in Iraqi waters near the border, it is very possible that they could have drifted much farther than 500 meters in the time a thorough search would have taken. Even in a light 2 knot current a boat will drift 1,850 meters in 30 minutes. I don't have current charts for that part of the world, but given the rivers converging around there, I wouldn't be suprised if there were much stronger currents all over the place.

Given the stress of the situation, the helmsman's mind was probably on watching his mate's backs instead of watching the GPS. I hope this guy doesn't get hung out to dry over this if it turns out they actually were where the Iranians claim.

What authority did the Brits have in boarding the ship in the first place.

Was it in UK waters?

"You do understand that the people who think like you in Iran are called Fanatics right."

No, they aren't. People are not allowed to think like me in Iran.

"The problem is that there are people over there who think about us the way you think about them."

No, I don't blame any of my problems on Iran or Iranians.

"The problem isn't the US or Iran, it is the people within these countries that share your mentality. Us against them.

They have them, and sadly, so do we."

You either don't understand my position or are deliberately misrepresenting it.

Frankly, I think its the latter.

All you right-wing, chickenhawk, Faux watching, neo-con nutjobs can start crying now. " NO NEW WAR FOR YOU"

Support the Troops. They won the war, time to come home.

No, they aren't. People are not allowed to think like me in Iran.

Thank GOD!

Of course the class knows that you just pulled this statement out of your ass, but please continue. I find it amusing.

What else do you have shoved up there?

Sully to Spud...

"I was never for our taking prisoners out of Afghanistan, although I did support that invasion as 100% necessary."

Good to hear.

Spud agrees 100%.

"I never supported the Iraq War."

Still batting 1000.

"I don't know why people think strawman arguments are so impressive but trust me, they aren't."

Okay, now you lost me.

If you believe, as you say, that taking prisoners out of afghanistan was a bad and that you do not support the involvement in Iraq then why is it so difficult to believe that the illegitimacy of the operation in Iraq makes all detentions there about as legal as kidappings?

Spud didn't say you held any particular view just that Spud was curious if you could see your own definition of "kidnapped" being used against the US.

Spud did presuppose that you might think that this deal to let the sailors go involved only the 15 sailors and that could be construed as a straw dog but as you haven't actually defined your view on that one it's kinda moot.

That's all.

Be Well.

The best way to explain what I'm trying to say about Iran is this:

I think that if President Bush were a traitor trying to fuck this country over, there is nothing he could have realistically done that would have been worse than miring us in Iraq at a time when our real enemies could have been defeated with the right resources

Now let's say we find out that the whole time, he was being manipulated by the Chinese. I'm sure many Americans would feel humiliated.

But who is more to blame? The Chinese or the Americans who went along with them? Would it make sense for Americans to literally start equating the Chinese with Satan and chanting for their death at daily religious services - even decades for now? Would placing the blame 100% overseas accomplish anything or ensure it wouldn't happen again? Or would it make more sense to pick ourselves up and make sure it doesn't happen again by looking at how we allowed ourselves to be manipulated?

Why should Iranians be held to a different standard than I would hold myself or anyone else?

"then why is it so difficult to believe that the illegitimacy of the operation in Iraq makes all detentions there about as legal as kidappings?"

Iran has no legitmate reason to go into Iraqi waters and detain anyone, that is why.

Pancho - thousands of innocent Americans have been murdered because people who think like you have convinced an entire region of the globe that all their problems are the fault of the Great Satan.

10,000s of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died because people who think like you have convinced themselves an entire region of the globe whoever Bush chooses to blame instead of facing the harsh truth that we are supporting both al queda and its financiers in Ryadh is to blame for 9-11.
And for the record, 9-11 was a saudi/egyptian sunni attack based on our whoring our military to saudi arabia to be their mercenary army. No Shia, no Iranians, no Lebanese and no Iraqis. But because Bush says so, we need to kill them all. And cover up for the saudis.

""""I'm not the one misrepresenting history, you are.

If you don't like being called a bigot, stop being one."""

I'm reporting facts sully. It has nothing to do with being a biggot. To say that the u.s. fucked around in iran in the early 50s makes me a biggot? Christ on a stick. If the facts don't mesh with your concept of reality, that's not really my problem.

Can you actually deny what happened in iran in the 50s-60s-70s? If you've got another take on what happened, please show me were I can read up on it. If not, refute my argument and if you can't do that, well...

Or would it make more sense to pick ourselves up and make sure it doesn't happen again by looking at how we allowed ourselves to be manipulated?


Hey, we elected W. TWICE.

All I am saying is that we have our own problems.

Face it, Bush is just pissed off because its becoming clear that he was suckered into invading Iraq by Iranian intelligence agents like Chalabi.

We handed them Iraq and didn't even ask for some rags to wipe up all our blood.

And now, Bush is looking like a dick for kidnapping Iranian officials in Iraq without even bothering to tell the Iraqis, including our best Iraqi friends, the hurds.

I don't know... Captured combatants?

Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-04-04 04:44 PM | Reply

They are ALL combatants?

And you know this how?

Bush told him so. And he also told him all the ones we set free since 9-11 have apologised for being a mad terrorist, converted to Christianity and promised not to be mad terrorists ever again.

What authority did the Brits have in boarding the ship in the first place.

Was it in UK waters?

Posted by MANYPATHS

The authority is from the UN.

Anyways, I called this release long ago. Simple tit for tat over Bush kidnapping Iranian government officials.

Posted by northguy3 at 2007-04-04 04:42 PM

actually, as far as I know, those Iranian officials are still captive, with no end in sight. And no justification. Sounds like a kidnapping to me.

Will they be home in time for Easter?

Stay tuned.

"10,000s of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died because people who think like you have convinced themselves an entire region of the globe whoever Bush chooses to blame instead of facing the harsh truth that we are supporting both al queda and its financiers in Ryadh is to blame for 9-11."

OK Northguy, let's put your money where your mouth is. I will find posts where I oppose the war in Iraq. You look for ones where I support it.

I will give you $10,000 for every post you find. And you give me $1,000 for everyone one I find.

Deal?

Of course not. So go shove your fucking strawan up your ass.

"""Pancho - thousands of innocent Americans have been murdered because people who think like you have convinced an entire region of the globe that all their problems are the fault of the Great Satan. Their own self-serving governments are never held to task for the poverty of the region."""

Sully,

thousands of innocent americans have been murdered because of america's int'l policies of intervention...it sometimes blows up in your face, as much as you hate to admit it. Iran was to nationalize their oil to have the ressources to make their country viable in the 50s, but the uk and us decided that ressource was theirs.

Those are facts...hard to swallow but they are there...not anti-american, just facts that unfortunately cast the u.s. in a not-too-favorable light.

It behooves you guys to try to understand why there might be anti-american sentiments in the ME and stop playing the offended virgin.

The authority is from the UN.

You guys only mention the UN when in suits you.

The UN never approved of this illegal invasion.

When did the UN give the Brits this authority?

"To say that the u.s. fucked around in iran in the early 50s makes me a biggot?"

That isn't what you said. And it is your overall pattern of constantly posting anti-American half-truths that formed my opinion of you.

"Christ on a stick. If the facts don't mesh with your concept of reality, that's not really my problem."

Reality is what it is. That the US overthrew and elected government in Iran is not entirely true. The Iranian military did it with the help/manipulation of the US. I find it an important distinction for reasons I've previously outlined.

"Can you actually deny what happened in iran in the 50s-60s-70s? If you've got another take on what happened, please show me were I can read up on it. If not, refute my argument and if you can't do that, well..."

I haven't denied anything. I've only placed blame on all the actors involved, unlike yourself.

The authority is from the UN.

Suddenly the right is a big fan of the UN.
Now when the UN says stop with the secret prisons and torture, they're a bunch of useless pinkos. Is that what you call a flip-flop?


'actually, as far as I know, those Iranian officials are still captive, with no end in sight. And no justification. "
They are non-enemy non-combatants being held as people we don't like our kurdistan allies consorting with. We didn't liberate Iraqis just so they could go off and do what they want to. We've got lines for them to toe.

"Iran has no legitmate reason to go into Iraqi waters and detain anyone, that is why."

Agreed that's why they waited for the Brits to make a slip with their GPS (Spud is be kind here) before they did this. The boundries are disputed but set and "crossing into the neutral zone" so to speak, and beyond, is a familiar intimidation tactic at the onset of hostilities. The Brits did this and got caught. The Iranians wouldn't do this without proof they could show to the world despite wotever counter claims emerged from the west. They're crazy but they aint that crazy. It's not like it's the first time they've done this typa thing, you know.

Be Well.

BTW, I thought that the cannucks were supposed to side with other members of the Commonwealth...what's your problem?

Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2007-04-04 05:13 PM | Reply |

No problem. Blind support to anything or anyone is not something I abide by. In the info war of the last decade, I've learned that most times, neither side should be trusted with closed eyes. If you have actual proof of where the brits were when they were intercepted, show me. All I've seen up to now is "he said she said". I have no proof that they WERE in iranian waters, but I don't have proof of the contrary either, so how does that figure in the "court of law"?

The authority is from the UN.

Suddenly the right is a big fan of the UN.
Now when the UN says stop with the secret prisons and torture, they're a bunch of useless pinkos. Is that what you call a flip-flop?
Posted by NorthernGuy

Hahaha -- you're too funny.

Oh, and yes, Gitmo prisoners are enemy combatants. You asked who says so--the answer is the Geneva Convention.

"It behooves you guys to try to understand why there might be anti-american sentiments in the ME and stop playing the offended virgin.
"

Pancho - So we can safely say that it is OK to hate Americans for what happened 50 years ago. I happen to think that Iranians are really angry about their current lot in life and only blame the "great Satan" because they are told to by every authority figure in their lives. But you can go on believing they are angry about events that occured before they were born. That makes oodles of sense.

Tell me this, how long is it safe to go back to find a reason to hate a country of millions of people? You can find a reason to hate anyone if you lump them into a group of millions and dig far back enough.

See, it isn't that I don't know of these events. It is that I reject the notion that they are any reason to hate strangers living thousands of miles away in the present. How you can defend digging back decades to find a reason to hate a general group of people without wanting to be called a bigot is beyond me.

YEAH!

Did you notice her scarf? All full of color (like life)!

And did you see whup-me, whomp-me Bush's scarf (laura)? Black --- just like her soul!

No wonder the twins are nothin' but drunkin' sluts that have to be hidden from sight (a southern tradition)!

I happen to think that Iranians are really angry about their current lot in life and only blame the "great Satan" because they are told to by every authority figure in their lives

And I think you think this way for the very same reason.

That's all.

"The Brits did this and got caught. The Iranians wouldn't do this without proof they could show to the world despite wotever counter claims emerged from the west. They're crazy but they aint that crazy."

A government that denies the Holocaust cares what The West thinks?

Sorry, not buying it.

But we can agree to disagree on the location of the sailors if that is the only place where we diverge.

Sully, don't be silly. We should never stop being offended by historical injustices. We shall forever hate the Russians, Japanese, Germany, Britain, France, Spain yada yada yada. WE MUST NEVER FORGET.

Of course, I kid -- it just points out the hilarity of PanchoVilla's position. You shouldn't get caught up in debating crazies.

'actually, as far as I know, those Iranian officials are still captive, with no end in sight. And no justification. "
They are non-enemy non-combatants being held as people we don't like our kurdistan allies consorting with. We didn't liberate Iraqis just so they could go off and do what they want to. We've got lines for them to toe.

Posted by northguy3 at 2007-04-04 05:49 PM

Great answer, NG. I'd give it a flag but I can't find the "profound" entry in the drop-down menu.

I also don't understand how the flags work or what they're good for, but that's irreverent.

"And I think you think this way for the very same reason."

Show me where I said anything negative about Iranians in general other than that they are being taught to hate.

I criticized their government but I do that to my own government every day. Even on this thread.....

"""That isn't what you said. That isn't what you said. And it is your overall pattern of constantly posting anti-American half-truths that formed my opinion of you."""

Sully, seriously, my original post stated that the 1979 crisis was maybe retaliation for something the states had done to iran, because some other poster had said that that "act of war had gone unpunished", as if that was the start of the conflict. If that constitutes an anti-american half-truth, then you're really thin-skinned, because I'm only presenting historical facts, not half-truths, facts. I will admit that I put your country's nose in its own messes when I have an opportunity, but in most cases, its responding to an extreme post, or americans putting down other cultures. That is not really anti-american, it's just not having a parade to celebrate your int'l policies. The shitty part is: I present truths and facts, I'm not making this shit up.

"""Reality is what it is. That the US overthrew and elected government in Iran is not entirely true. The Iranian military did it with the help/manipulation of the US. I find it an important distinction for reasons I've previously outlined. """

Question: had the u.s. not interfered, would have there been a coup d'tat? Answer: no. Would the u.s. controled shah have governed for 2 decades? no.

So you can argue semantics af overthrow vs help-manipulate, but the burden of guilt is the same, the end result is the same, the plan stemming from the same objective: control of oil.


"""I haven't denied anything. I've only placed blame on all the actors involved, unlike yourself."""

Funny, that's all I'm trying to do as well: point out that all actors are to blame, not just the iranians or iraqis. The u.s. is a great country, but no one deserves a blank cheque.

YEAH!

I wonder what Bush is going to think about while on a long Easter vacation?

Will he think about the endless war and termoil he started based on fake documents and claims (that were known bogus when he made them)?
Will he think about all those who have died becuase of his actions (actions that were of his "pleasure")?
Will he worry about how he has destroyed our reputation as a society of law and liberty?

sully,

I don't have an anwer to your "time" question, though the crisis came to a head 30 years ago, not 50. What is appropriate? a day? a week? a month? decade? century...don't know.

My question would be: how long has the u.s. really stopped meddling in iranian affairs and are some iranians still suffering from past uk and us actions?

Oh, and yes, Gitmo prisoners are enemy combatants. You asked who says so--the answer is the Geneva Convention.

Posted by cc40988 at 2007-04-04 05:54 PM

Whiz! Bang! ... that one almost flew right past me! Can you elaborate on that a little? Because it doesn't make any sense the way you used it.

The GC is being held up as the criteria for identifying "enemy combatants"? Show me in the GC where that fantasy Bushism is even mentioned.

The Supreme Court told the (pouting) White House that Gitmo detainees will be treated according to the standards set out in the GC but that's a far cry from whatever it is you seem to be positing.

"Sully, seriously, my original post stated that the 1979 crisis was maybe retaliation for something the states had done to iran, because some other poster had said that that "act of war had gone unpunished", as if that was the start of the conflict."

And you told that poster that Iranians had to put up with decades of his or her shit. Are you aware of what this person has done to harm Iranians?

Or were you generally ascribing crimes to an individual who may or may not have existed at the time based solely on nationality?

I understand why you think I'm being a nitpicker. Where you live, people can generally be anti-American without taking it to a violent level. Unfortunately, that is not the case everywhere. So when it comes to the Middle East, where people chant "Death to America" daily in their mosques and dance in the streets on 9/11, I find it very important to make what you think of as inconsequential distincitions.

Iranians don't hate America. On the contrary, many of them envy Americans to an unrealistic degree and think of the US as a paradise, a land where no problems exist.

Posted by Manypaths at 2007-04-04 06:07 PM

They might love us, but they won't give us their oil for FREE, dammit. They gotta be blowed up.

"how long has the u.s. really stopped meddling in iranian?"

I'd say they stopped allowing us to meddle when the Islamists took over. Not that we haven't tried. The bottom line is that we can't force them to do anything.

"and are some iranians still suffering from past uk and us actions?"

Anyone who has been crippled or has lost a loved one has a lifetime reason to be angry. I would bet that is a tiny minority.

There has been enough time that any other injustices could have been corrected, if the Iranian government
were at all interested in doing so. I don't believe in spending a lifetime blaming others for my problems.

If you have actual proof of where the brits were when they were intercepted, show me. All I've seen up to now is "he said she said". I have no proof that they WERE in iranian waters, but I don't have proof of the contrary either, so how does that figure in the "court of law"?

Posted by panchovilla at 2007-04-04 05:52 PM

As Axe pointed out, "proof" of where a boat is while drifting in current is a nebulous concept. However, given the stated positions both by the Brits and by the Iranians, coupled with the fact that once it was pointed out to the Iranians that their initial stated position was in Iraqi waters they changed the coordinates, would be prima facie evidence that they were, in fact, in Iraqi waters.

Iran Frees British Sailors

Iran blinked. I wonder why.

The short answer seems to be that the extremists in Iran overplayed their hand and this is a big win for the Iranian moderates.

Winners:

Iranian moderates.
Syria (if they really were instrumental in getting the hostages released)
Tony Blair

Losers:
The Iranian extremist mullahs.

Ahmadinejad

The British Military- It suffered a huge embarrasment and lost a lot of prestige. The sailors capitulated to their captors demands far too easily.

Iran blinked. I wonder why.

Pelosi's balls!

Hard to believe Bush didn't make it up, right!!!???

Further, I didn't suggest how people should be treated. Again, I was answering a question about what they're called. Read above to get some more context. Must be tough knowing now that Bush didn't make it up. Hate to hurt your feelings and what you thought you knew.

Posted by cc40988 at 2007-04-04 06:26 PM

Well, you got me on the definition of the term "enemy combatant". I really thought that was created after 9/11, could swear I've read that, too. Oh well. No, it's not tough at all. I'd rank it at about a 15% on the relevant scale.

My side comment about enemy combatant being a Bushism was just that, a side comment.

My real question to you was how is the GC being applied to identify EC's?

That was the comment you made, or your implication anyway. And that's the part I wanted you to elaborate on.

And my other question was, where does the term "Enemy Combatant" appear in the GC(s), not in decisions made by the US Supreme Court.

I'll remind you:

Oh, and yes, Gitmo prisoners are enemy combatants. You asked who says so--the answer is the Geneva Convention.

Posted by cc40988 at 2007-04-04 05:54 PM

I'll rephrase so you see how I'm reading your words. "Detainees at Gitmo fall under the definition of "Enemy Combatant" in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Geneva Convention(s)"

My question, again, is, how is the GC used to identify and define who is or is not qualified as an "enemy combatant".

For what it's worth, I think a lot of ppl at Gitmo are there illegally and without proper justification, regardless of the documents or guidelines used to identify them.

But... it's almost 1am here, so I'll have to wait till tomorrow to read your answer.

ttfn

You shouldn't get caught up in debating crazies.

Posted by cc40988 at 2007-04-04 05:57 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e




This should be the DR motto.

Pelosi's balls!

That's the best "spin" I've heard in a long time.

LOL.

and, just like roaches, You know If it's posted here once, that means the same comment has been posted thousands of times already as the "talking-point-du-jour' on the left-wing blogs.

Iran blinked? they got a detainee freed from Iraqi jails that sounds like tit for tat to me.

Iran blinked? they got a detainee freed from Iraqi jails that sounds like tit for tat to me.

really?

OK then truth. If you think that's tit-for-tat then I'll give you $100 and you give me $1500 back.

Deal?

BTW truth, I don't believe that there is any evidence that the Iranian who was released a few days ago by the Iraqis had anything to do with the negotiations for the release of the hostage sailors.

What's your evidence for making the connection between the relased irabnian and the british hostages?

"...just like roaches..."

Speak o' th' devil...

I thought you were gonna give us a break from yer bullshit, bonehead.

I thought you were gonna give us a break from yer bullshit, bonehead.

Wow dave, I didn't know you were such a fan of mine.

yes bowa the guy was released and then all of a sudden the iranians change their tone and within 3 days the brits are released, all just a coincidence.

what's that, attacks in Basra were up the past 2 weeks couple of brits killed in the past week? yep just a coincidence.

btw I like the fact that diplomacy worked.

yes bowa the guy was released and then all of a sudden the iranians change their tone and within 3 days the brits are released, all just a coincidence.

Hmmm... what a lame defense of your comment. So basically truthhurts you have no other evidence to prove your point ---and remember, we can all play the "coincedence" game. It doesn't make it factually true. Not even close:

For example, How about if I said, "yes truth, President Bush uses the term "hostages" to describe the captured sailors then all of a sudden the iranians change their tone and within 3 days the brits are released, all just a coincidence."

I mean, unless there is evidence to support the connection you are making, then it really is nothing more then wild speculation.

btw I like the fact that diplomacy worked.

Truthhurts, I'm not so sure that diplomacy was the driving force here. It seems more likely that it was an internal struggle between the extremist and moderate factions in Iran. The moderates won.

To Britains credit, they had "cool heads" and seem to have kept the lines of communication open, letting Iranian moderates who believed the mullahs had overplayed their hand put pressure on Ahmadinijad.

But real Diplomacy, in which both sides work out some "tit-for tat" arrangement so that they can resolve the conflict does not seem to be present in this case.

BOWA,

Your ignorance is humorous to watch.

You go ahead and keep thinking Bush did this, it does your body good!

"Your ignorance is humorous to watch.
You go ahead and keep thinking Bush did this, it does your body good!"

I don't believe it!!!

I was making a point. That it is ridiculous to use "coincidence" as factual proof. Just because Pelosi happened to be in Syria when the sailors were released, or Bush called them "hostages' a few days ago, or The Iraqi's released a single Iranian last week doesn't mean that there is a causal relationship to the release of the sailors today.

Over the next few days I am sure we will find out more about how the release came about. And maybe it wil be discovered that there is some onnection to one or more of the above "coincidences'. But until then, it is just wild speculation.

"Your ignorance is humorous to watch.
You go ahead and keep thinking Bush did this, it does your body good!"

I don't believe it!!!

I was making a point. That it is ridiculous to use "coincidence" as factual proof. Just because Pelosi happened to be in Syria when the sailors were released, or Bush called them "hostages' a few days ago, or The Iraqi's released a single Iranian last week doesn't mean that there is a causal relationship to the release of the sailors today.

Over the next few days I am sure we will find out more about how the release came about. And maybe it wil be discovered that there is some onnection to one or more of the above "coincidences'. But until then, it is just wild speculation.

It was fun.

"""And you told that poster that Iranians had to put up with decades of his or her shit. Are you aware of what this person has done to harm Iranians?"""

Sully, here's my original post:

Take a read. Considering what your country did to the iranians in the 50s up to the 70s, I'd say the hostage situation was a very small retaliation for the 20 some years the iranian people had to endure your shit (i.e. coup d'tat to replace a democratically-elected gov't with the shah...sound familiar?).

This was posted in response to this short-sighted post:

"""BTW just like 1979 another act of war going unpunished. Don't think for a moment Iran won't do something again down the road."""

My response said "your" to a person obviously a) unconscious of u.s. history in iran, or / and b) supports blindly to the point of being an apologist.

"""Or were you generally ascribing crimes to an individual who may or may not have existed at the time based solely on nationality?""""

And his support or point of view.

If you want to take me to task about challenging a person supporting a pov directly vs. challenging the nation's policy which he supports, yeah, I would say that qualifies as nitpicking.

Also, I want to underline a crucial point: I can be against u.s. policies without nec. being against the u.s., unfortunately, the last 7 years of u.s. policies have given many people ample reason to resent the u.s.. I can make a clear difference between a gov't and its people, all I ask is that some try to do the same when viewing countries other than their own.

"""As Axe pointed out, "proof" of where a boat is while drifting in current is a nebulous concept"""

Bullshit. A gps reading is precise whether in current, at anchor, full speed, slow, whatever.


"""However, given the stated positions both by the Brits and by the Iranians, coupled with the fact that once it was pointed out to the Iranians that their initial stated position was in Iraqi waters they changed the coordinates, would be prima facie evidence that they were, in fact, in Iraqi waters."""

Not sure if you agree that they are in or out of iranian waters. The original point I was making is that neither iran or u.k. should be taken as ultimate truth. If anything, the last decade has hopefully educated many in the art of disinformation.

According to british TV the 15 were 1500 metres inside iraqi waters. After the last 4 years I am unsure if I trust british intelligence more than iranian?

Apologies for not slagging anyone off or dounting "ahem" internet links but I am very pleased this has been resolved diplomatically and hope that new channels of government communication have been opened up for the imminent face off, friday perhaps?

"Now, the problem today is that terrorists don't seem to fall into any of the categories identfied by the GC. The reason they don't fall into the category is probably because they were not contemplated."

Contmeplation has nothing to do with it. the GC provides for several categories of detainees. The most well known, POW, is reserved for combatants that have adhered to the commonly held laws and customs of war set forth by the GC. While enemy combatant isn't a defined category, the GC does state what rights a non-POW detainee has under the GC, most notably the right to humane treatment, and the right to a trial in due dilligence.

the problem with the GC is that they only work when all sides adhere to them. In the case of the Brit detainees, they Iranians should have treated them as peacetime detainees. They should not have been used interrogated or used in propaganda videos, even if they were legally in Iranian Waters. At the same time. the Brit detainees should be stripped of their uniforms immediatley for allowing themselves to become willing propaganda pieces. The statements they made would be inexcusable to a US servicemen, and would likely (and rightfully) be punished under the UCMJ.

With respect to enemy combatants, there is a long and distinguished history of leftist groups pushing for the recognition of illegal combatants (read, terrorists) as legitimate prisoners of war. During the 1970's, the ICRC made a push to legitimize marxist groups like Baader-Meinhoff, the Red Brigade, and the PFLP by having thier detainees treated as and afforded the rights of POW's, despite the fact that the nature of their actions didn't really fall under ther parameters outlined in the GC.

If one wants to treat an illegal combatant as being legitmate, then one has to recognize that all sides have the right to that kind of behavior, and shouldn't be penalized for engagin in it. The west has a far greater ability to employ terror as a weapon, but We like to avoid it becuase most of the time it is ilegal under the GC, and it tends to kill the innocent along with the guilty The US could easily wipe out every village Osama ever stepped foot in, probably inside of a week. We could also do it without every putting our troops at risk.

We could...but we don't. Not yet anyways. But if such behavior was determined to be an acceptbale method of warfighting, you might see it happening more.

MadBomber, I think you're right -- the GC did contemplate it but didn't want to provide protections for those who don't follow the rules of war.

If you ask me, Bush affords these terrorists far more rights than they're entitled to. Of course, it makes great political sense (domestic and abroad), but highlights to the terrorists how weak we can be.

What would you do with the detainees in Gitmo?

The Geneva Conventions DO protect Unlawful COmbatants It is in Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions. Articles 43 and 44 Deal specifically with this.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

Larry

I wonder if it was just a coincidence that these British sailors were released by the Iranians only ONE day prior to the widely publicized alleged date of U.S. attack on Iran -- Good Friday, April 7th -- as was alleged by that Russian journalist and publicized around the world.

Oops, prior post is to Larry...

They are still recognbized by the Geneva COnventions therefoer they are entitled to Article 3 protections.

Larry

No Larry, that's not how it works. A country must first ratify a treaty before it is bound to it. Otherwise, we could just draft treaties and bind other countries to them without their agreement.

And of course Iran is going to get punished for their actions--right?

They keep doing this themselves or by proxy and get away with it.

And now the story is out that one Brit was held in solitary the entire time they were kidnapped.

There will be other stories that are not so rosy.

But will the Left believe the Brits or Iran?

Liberalism is a mental disease.

Murphy

Liberalism is a mental disease.

Thanks for the diagnosis, Dr. Lucy. Here's your nickel.

LETS QUIT TALKING ABOUT 'TERRORISM.' ITS A GEORGE BUSH MADE-UP WORD.

We don't have world terror. We have a war underway between ISLAMIC JIHADISTS bent on collapsing western society. Nothning new, its all in the Koran and they say honestly what they're up to.

TERRORISM is only a tactic in a war usually done by belligerents who dont have forces to fight headon. Brits did it by having Indians slaughter settlers shortly after 1800 in the US. The VC did it when we invaded Vietnam. The Free French did it when Germany invaded France.

We're not fighting TERRORISTS. We're fighting ARAB Jihadists. Who are they? They're like the conservative wing of Islam. LIke our fundamentalist Christians but these guys have no value for life, like Christians who hanged nigg.rs from trees in the South just fifty years ago.

Now that we have that in perspective, just know that some states support the anti-western Islamic Jihad, and Iran is one of those states.

The capture of the Brits was just an other skirmish, not unlike the Germans sinking the Lusitania or all those guys hitting the WTC on 9-11.

Hope this helps give you perspective. It's bigger than Bush. We've been at war for a very long time, since Clinton days, since before. We just didnt' know we were at war during the Beruit Barracks bombing back in about 80 or 81. We were too busy trying to evict Clinton for lying about a bl..w job. So there's plenty of blame all around.

The problem here is that we're paralyzed by our political correctness. One day they'll piss us off ENOUGH, we'll cast that all off and be able to say "A-RABS" like we used to say "JAPS." We have to get nuked before that happens because we require some sort of a Pearl Harbor.

We don't understand these people and their values. We can't understand suicide bombers, or kamakazi's because that's so against our westerm values. This is in part why this is so hard for us.

Personally I think GWB attacked the wrong country, lost a lot of world sympathy we had after 9-11 but the war against the Jihadists can't be blamed on him. It was already underway..and it took 9-11 for us to realize what we were dealing with. I supposed it's possible Clinton could have figured this out, but his biggest problem seemd to be Republicans hell bent on impeaching him, rather than building up our Intelligence abilities.

Neither president understood this until 9-11.

We have a lot of trouble ahead. Europeans have even more toruble ahead because the Jihadists have heavily infiltrated their populations.

Don't get confused by the litttle, political stuff. This is going to be a very hard war to wage--and we're not quite ready yet to do what it takes to win it. But it'll have to do with firing nuclear weapons at arab cities. The Jihadists have risked their entire society...and they may lose everything because of their zealotry.

The developed western world maybe slow to anger... but it will come. We're not goign to put up with their shit forever.

This is going to be a very hard war to wage--and we're not quite ready yet to do what it takes to win it. But it'll have to do with firing nuclear weapons at arab cities. The Jihadists have risked their entire society...and they may lose everything because of their zealotry.

I guess the British sailors ran out of people to write apologetic letters to, extolling the virtues of the Iranian government, the kindness of their kidnappers, and the comforts of a 12th-Century wardrobe. On the other hand, I'm completely unsurprised that the EU (of whom the sailors are notional citizens)and the UN (for whose benefit they were performing the board and search mission) did exactly nothing to secure their release. So Tony Blair unheroically offers up an Iranian detainee in return, and all is back to normal again in the Middle East: the Islamists act in contravention to international law, and the UN, the EU, and other Western powers play along. And in a few months, we'll repeat it all again.

I am just glad they made it home.

But you believe Iran? Once free the soldiers said they were tortured and forced , by violation of the Geneva Convention. But you approve. What a bunch of whining hypocrites. You disdugst the average American.

Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn douche bag!???

I dare you to read the link Bani

I did...spining well today:>)



It will be interesting to see whether the British government will allow the rest of the freed sailors to speak freely to the press.

Guess you deceided NOT to read the link or comment POS

1.If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.

2.Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

3.O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself.

4.Thou answeredst them, O LORD our God: thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions.

5.Then Samson prayed to the LORD, "O Sovereign LORD, remember me. O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes." 29 Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other, 30 Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines!" Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.

6. 23And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.
24And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
25Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

7. 8Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
9But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

8. 20Behold, O LORD, and consider to whom thou hast done this. Shall the women eat their fruit, and children of a span long? shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?
21The young and the old lie on the ground in the streets: my virgins and my young men are fallen by the sword; thou hast slain them in the day of thine anger; thou hast killed, and not pitied.
22Thou hast called as in a solemn day my terrors round about, so that in the day of the LORD's anger none escaped nor remained: those that I have swaddled and brought up hath mine enemy consumed.

Dave, it is pretty incredible how so many people here are willing to take our enemies side before they take our own, or in this case our ally, the Brits. There is no doubt that some people here see the US, Brits, and Israel as far worse and more dishonest then Iran, Syria, or any of the terror regimes and groups the US has aligned itself against.

It's well to remember what Ulysses S. Grant said in his memoirs about those Americans who take the sides of our enemies agaisnt their own country,

"Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate war, pestilence, and famine,' than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun. The history of the defeated rebel will be honorable hereafter, compared with that of the Northern man who aided him by conspiring against his government while protected by it. " -- Ulysses S. Grant, "Personal Memoirs"

I dont think the US Marines who were in the South Pacific, say around Iwo Jima, would have acted like these pussies. How far we have come. Then again look at that faggot Alfred E. Newman libscumbag so what do you expect.

I dont think the US Marines who were in the South Pacific, say around Iwo Jima, would have acted like these pussies

Well, seeing that there weren't too many Iranians in the South Pacific or even Iwo Jima during WWII I'm guessing the Marines would have had nothing to fight back against, and eventually, out of boredom, would've turned homo...

thanks for the wisdom(kg) Kum Guzzler. Do you think the US Marines would have fought back, maybe a little?

RADIO-
re: Don't get confused by the litttle, political stuff. This is going to be a very hard war to wage--and we're not quite ready yet to do what it takes to win it. But it'll have to do with firing nuclear weapons at arab cities.

The shorter RADIO:

'Nuke the ragheads, all of 'em. Women, children, etc. (This outburst of inhumanity and preference for genocide is quite alright, and shouldn't offend, as I'm an Independent voter)'