View Full Version : Sailors held by Iran
j4bberw0ck
26-Mar-07, 12:12
What would you do if you were in charge to get these servicemen their freedom?
How about a diplomatic approach? We could talk to Iran and negotiate their release.
How about a diplomatic approach? We could talk to Iran and negotiate their release.
I think we are doing that, aren't we?
I think Jw0ck could have listed that option though - maybe it comes under "other" ? :confused
The_man_from_del_monte
26-Mar-07, 13:19
If I were in charge I'd order in a crack squad to release the hostages, straight in with some gas rendering them all temporarily zonked.... free the hostages and then finish off their captors...... you did ask ;)
If I were in charge I'd order in a crack squad to release the hostages, straight in with some gas rendering them all temporarily zonked.... free the hostages and then finish off their captors...... you did ask ;)
So do you know where they are then?
I think we are doing that, aren't we?
I think Jw0ck could have listed that option though - maybe it comes under "other" ? :confused
You are right, at least we try.
What I can see at the moment is only one side blaming the other. From both sides. Playing the strong man won't help here.
It might be a better idea to establish the exact position of the place the capture happened and than to sit down together to find a way to ease the tension to release the troops.
There will certainly be some radar plots available to show whether it happened in Iranian or Iraqi waters.
j4bberw0ck
26-Mar-07, 13:58
Interestingly, "playing the strong man" is exactly what Ahmedinejad is doing. His government have executed an illegal arrest and refused to give access to UK Embasssy personnel to the men arrested.
He's trying it on because he knows damn well the UK doesn't have the will or the means to do anything militarily, although I see from the press this morning that an SAS squadron has been put on alert preparatory to being flown out to Cyprus. Just window dressing, I'd think.
Freezing Iranian assets would seem to be an excellent way of getting Ahmedinejad's attention, especially if the US could be persuaded to do the same. Embargoing the country to prevent ships getting in and out would be another positive move. And employing the Soviet-style tactic would be a very tempting option. Reportedly, terrorist organisations only once crossed the Soviets, kidnapping a Soviet diplomat (it was Hizbollah, 1985, Lebanon). The KGB paid a visit to a close relative of a high-ranking Hizbollah official, kidnapped the relative, shot him, cut off his testicles and delivered his body (testicles in mouth) to Hizbollah. The Soviet diplomat was promptly released, with apologies - and it never happened again. Unpleasant, but there is a sort of beguiling simplicity and regularity about it.
I think they should send in the sas.
j4bberw0ck
26-Mar-07, 14:10
I think they should send in the sas.
As rambler points out, it would be useful to have the merest scoobie as to there they're being held.......
The_man_from_del_monte
26-Mar-07, 14:27
As rambler points out, it would be useful to have the merest scoobie as to there they're being held.......
My guess would be somewhere in Iran or possibly Pakistan.
As rambler points out, it would be useful to have the merest scoobie as to there they're being held.......That's true but I am sure they would be able to find out and then, god help the iranians holding them.
My guess would be somewhere in Iran or possibly Pakistan.
What makes you guess they could be in Pakistan?
well i hope this is right but as of yesterday at 6.00pm they were being held in a secure unit facility in Tehran.....The MOD chief is talking with the iranians who are still insisting that the men were in the iranian walters and not the iraq waters....Appently they were searching a boat that came out of iranian waters and they suspected them of smuggling....They were spotted by american helicopters who reported seeing the men being led off at gun point...may their return be quick, and my wishes are with the families...:~(
As we do not have the inside knowledge of what is going on or where they hostages are, we must sit and watch the Diplomats posturing.
Once everything is in place, I don't think we will have to wait long for some decisive action.
We watch with interest.
My answer to the poll - When everything is in place - GO IN AND GET THEM!
Iran is not the backward place some respondents here seem to believe. 'Go in and get them' is not an option, with our forces already over stretched we would get our hides kicked severely.
Iran is not the backward place some respondents here seem to believe. 'Go in and get them' is not an option, with our forces already over stretched we would get our hides kicked severely.
I agree do you rememer this?
http://www.helis.com/featured/eagle_claw.php
we will never know what is going on behind the scene longs they get home safe thats the mane thing.
Interestingly, "playing the strong man" is exactly what Ahmedinejad is doing. His government have executed an illegal arrest and refused to give access to UK Embasssy personnel to the men arrested.
Do you have any evidence that the arrest was illegal? My information is that the waters are disputed territory, assigned to Iraq in a treaty Saddam broke so Iran declared null and void.
I wonder how people here would feel if the Iranian navy started stopping British ships in the English Channel and boarding them, that's probably how the Iranians feel about us.
The easyest way to get the British soldiers back would be to swap them for the five Iranian diplomats kidnapped by America in Irbil a few weeks back.
The easyest way to get the British soldiers back would be to swap them for the five Iranian diplomats kidnapped by America in Irbil a few weeks back.
We shouldn't do that as it would send a message to the world that kidnapping servicemen will lead to diplomatic rewards. Ted Heath made the mistake of releasing terrorists and it led to waves of hijackings. I'd rather see them rot in an Iranian jail than trade them for criminals.
We shouldn't do that as it would send a message to the world that kidnapping servicemen will lead to diplomatic rewards. Ted Heath made the mistake of releasing terrorists and it led to waves of hijackings. I'd rather see them rot in an Iranian jail than trade them for criminals.
Boy the propaganda merchants are working overtime, seems to me there are people who would just love to see the carnage in Iraq escalate to Iran and beyond.
What crime have the Iranian diplomats kidnapped by America been charged with?
Ahh! Cruise missiles - don't you just love 'em? :D
I think our military and politicians have been well and truely snookered.
The only way to get back our people will be through concessions to this very dangerious Iranian Government.
What one would like to do ie; see if our submarine ballistic missles can actualy hit any thing' mind you a nuke only needs to be reasonably close.
I'm sure the cabinet will be furious with the military and asking how these Iranians have managed to pull off this stunt twice ?
If i were the families or troops involved i would be livid and asking the question where was the back ?
How did these boats get so close to capture our troops when a destroyer was 2 miles away, was no one watching the radar ?
Why was the destroyer so far away that it could do nothing except launch a chopper to watch it's crewe taken away ?
What was the captain and his crewe doing, sleeping ?
This whole afare like the war as been a complete disaster purputated by idiots.
Irans behaviour will lead to a major war like the world as not seen before, it may not happen next week or next year but it will happen unless Iran changes direction.
This Iranian Government is only 'dangerous' because we made it dangerous. If we had not helped the idiot Bush in his Iraq windmill jousting Iran would not be in the strong position they are now.
Saddam's Iraq may have been unpleasant, but as a secular nation it kept the region in balance. Now Iraq is being torn apart by sectarianism and Iran has a much increased influence in the Arab world.
j4bberw0ck
26-Mar-07, 22:53
This Iranian Government is only 'dangerous' because we made it dangerous.
That's like saying Hitler was only dangerous because "we" made him so. Ahmedinejad and Hitler, like autocrats and dictators everywhere, are dangerous opportunists.
That's like saying Hitler was only dangerous because "we" made him so. Ahmedinejad and Hitler, like autocrats and dictators everywhere, are dangerous opportunists.
So you are saying Iran's new found influence in the region has nothing at all to do with us removing the one secular government that kept radical theocracy in the region in check?
seems to me there are people who would just love to see the carnage in Iraq escalate to Iran and beyond.
Yes, if it was up to you then you are going the right way about it.
j4bberw0ck
26-Mar-07, 23:12
So you are saying Iran's new found influence in the region has nothing at all to do with us removing the one secular government that kept radical theocracy in the region in check?
Yes, because it's far more to do with Ahmedinejad being within spitting distance of having nuclear weapons. He had nothing to fear from Iraq anyway; they'd been to war before and Saddam wouldn't have been stupid enough to try it again knowing he had nothing like the military strength he needed. Last time, half the Iraqi airforce defected to Iran with their airplanes!
And so, now you've tried (and failed) to deflect my line of questioning, do you deny that Ahmedinejad is a dangerous opportunist?
Irans behaviour will lead to a major war like the world as not seen before, it may not happen next week or next year but it will happen unless Iran changes direction.
What are they going to do, invade America?
How about we change direction and stop invading defenceless countries to steal their oil.
I don't think the British government is losing any sleep over the hostages It was looking like we might be left out of the next round of America's quest for world domination, Bush can pretty much do as he likes but the British government has to sell it to Parliament and after last time that isn't going to be easy unless the incident which sparks hostilities directly affects Britain.
That's like saying Hitler was only dangerous because "we" made him so. Ahmedinejad and Hitler, like autocrats and dictators everywhere, are dangerous opportunists.
Ahmedinejad, Hitler and Bush...especially Bush.
Yes, because it's far more to do with Ahmedinejad being within spitting distance of having nuclear weapons. He had nothing to fear from Iraq anyway; they'd been to war before and Saddam wouldn't have been stupid enough to try it again knowing he had nothing like the military strength he needed. Last time, half the Iraqi airforce defected to Iran with their airplanes!
And so, now you've tried (and failed) to deflect my line of questioning, do you deny that Ahmedinejad is a dangerous opportunist?
I fail to see what that has to do with my original assertion:
This Iranian Government is only 'dangerous' because we made it dangerous. If we had not helped the idiot Bush in his Iraq windmill jousting Iran would not be in the strong position they are now.
Saddam's Iraq may have been unpleasant, but as a secular nation it kept the region in balance. Now Iraq is being torn apart by sectarianism and Iran has a much increased influence in the Arab world.
It is you who is sidetracking.
The_man_from_del_monte
26-Mar-07, 23:23
What makes you guess they could be in Pakistan?
It's as good a guess as any.
How about we change direction and stop invading defenceless countries to steal their oil.
In 2003, Iraq had the 4th largest standing army.
The Iraqis are selling oil rather than being victims of a crime.
The_man_from_del_monte
26-Mar-07, 23:28
What are they going to do, invade America?
Not at all, the Chinese will do that in a few years time ;)
j4bberw0ck
26-Mar-07, 23:34
I fail to see what that has to do with my original assertion:
This Iranian Government is only 'dangerous' because we made it dangerous. If we had not helped the idiot Bush in his Iraq windmill jousting Iran would not be in the strong position they are now.
Saddam's Iraq may have been unpleasant, but as a secular nation it kept the region in balance. Now Iraq is being torn apart by sectarianism and Iran has a much increased influence in the Arab world.
It is you who is sidetracking.
I'm sorry, Jospra, I thought it self-evident from my assertion that last time Iraq failed to make much of an impression on Iran that the stabilising effect probably wasn't that great. Also Iran has for years funded Hizbollah along with Syria and is curently funding and equipping insurgents in Iraq. They haven't become dangerous - they always were.
I'm always cautious about arguing with people who talk so blithely about "the idiot Bush". He may, or may not be, any great shakes as a President or statesman, but I find people who enter a debate with views like that tend to be closed to argument because they already adapted all their views to sit round that one point. Fred'll tell you, I'm sure.
Anyway, it's past my bedtime now, so I'll see yez in the morning :lol:
The_man_from_del_monte
26-Mar-07, 23:37
Totally off topic but is there a yawn smilie here? I can't seem to find it.
I'm always cautious about arguing with people who talk so blithely about "the idiot Bush". He may, or may not be, any great shakes as a President or statesman, but I find people who enter a debate with views like that tend to be closed to argument because they already adapted all their views to sit round that one point.
Oh so very true!:lol:
Totally off topic but is there a yawn smilie here? I can't seem to find it.
Surely there must be...I need one too! :confused
G'night all!
I'm sorry, Jospra, I thought it self-evident from my assertion that last time Iraq failed to make much of an impression on Iran that the stabilising effect probably wasn't that great. Also Iran has for years funded Hizbollah along with Syria and is curently funding and equipping insurgents in Iraq. They haven't become dangerous - they always were.
I'm always cautious about arguing with people who talk so blithely about "the idiot Bush". He may, or may not be, any great shakes as a President or statesman, but I find people who enter a debate with views like that tend to be closed to argument because they already adapted all their views to sit round that one point. Fred'll tell you, I'm sure.
Anyway, it's past my bedtime now, so I'll see yez in the morning :lol:
Oh I see. You think it was an act of genius to invade a sovereign nation, (which had not attacked either the US or Britain), completely destabilise the Middle East, stir up radical Islam, place our troops into unnecessary danger and paint a target on every British and American citizen around the world?
If Bush had stayed focused on what he originally set out to do, remove the Taliban from power and destroy Bin Laden and his followers in Afghanistan, I'd be with him. But he didn't.
Iran's current strength is a direct result of our invasion of Iraq. We are now so deeply embroiled in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that Iran knows there is nothing we can dop to stop their nuclear research, short of starting WWIII.
Who's Fred?
oldmarine
27-Mar-07, 01:17
Iran is not the backward place some respondents here seem to believe. 'Go in and get them' is not an option, with our forces already over stretched we would get our hides kicked severely.
Like what happened to the USA when President Carter tried to organise a helicopter mission to free the 444 Americans held in Iran. It was a total failure. There must be a better way such as negotiation.
j4bberw0ck
27-Mar-07, 08:20
Who's Fred?
Oh, he'll be around and about........
Oh I see. You think it was an act of genius to invade a sovereign nation, (which had not attacked either the US or Britain), completely destabilise the Middle East, stir up radical Islam, place our troops into unnecessary danger and paint a target on every British and American citizen around the world?
......but you'll rcognise him when you see him because he often exhibits a similar debating technique to you, by the look of it. Take a statement, construct something extreme that wasn't said from it, and fling it back. Oh, and he just luuuurves Pres. Bush :lol:
No, jospra, I did not say those things. Neither do I think that Iran is a backward sort of place - far from it. Iran has for years been building up its strength in response to the Israelis because when you start making statements about wiping them off the map, when for years you've funded Hizbollah and supplied weaponry that then gets used against Israel, you've got to be pretty sure that one day, Israel's going to take a poke at you. Especially when Soviet Russia stopped being able to provide a bit of an umbrella. That left Iran in an interesting position when the Iraq War destabilised things - the local strong man. That's why its flexing muscles now.
If Bush had stayed focused on what he originally set out to do, remove the Taliban from power and destroy Bin Laden and his followers in Afghanistan, I'd be with him. But he didn't.I agree, FWIW. I suspect we'd have a few differences on his motivation for Iraq, but probably minor ones.
Yes, because it's far more to do with Ahmedinejad being within spitting distance of having nuclear weapons.
Not the old Weapons of Mass Destruction con again, get the people scared and the'll let you invade any country you want to.
That left Iran in an interesting position when the Iraq War destabilised things - the local strong man. That's why its flexing muscles now.
Funny, I could have sworn thats what I already said:
This Iranian Government is only 'dangerous' because we made it dangerous. If we had not helped the idiot Bush in his Iraq windmill jousting Iran would not be in the strong position they are now.
I agree, FWIW. I suspect we'd have a few differences on his motivation for Iraq, but probably minor ones.
I doubt it, but as that is not the topic here I will not sidetrack the discussion further.
In 2003, Iraq had the 4th largest standing army.
The Iraqis are selling oil rather than being victims of a crime.
The Iraqis are being victims of far greater crimes than Saddam ever perpetrated, probably around a million dead, far more injured, almost two million displaced people inside Iraq and over two million refugees fled to neighbouring countries.
Those are real people, they feel real pain, they suffer just the same as white people do.
If Bush had stayed focused on what he originally set out to do, remove the Taliban from power and destroy Bin Laden and his followers in Afghanistan, I'd be with him. But he didn't.
What Bush originally set out to do was build a pipeline from the Caspian to Pakistan and India. The war on terror and its predecessor the war on drugs were just excuses.
What Bush originally set out to do was build a pipeline from the Caspian to Pakistan and India. The war on terror and its predecessor the war on drugs were just excuses.
Personally I've always thought the pipeline is intended to go the other way, through Iran , Syria, the Lebanon to the much more accessible and friendlier Mediterranean.
But that is off topic for this discussion.
I hope our servicemen (and woman) are home quickly and safely.
I hope our servicemen (and woman) are home quickly and safely.
I think we can be confident they haven't been bundled on a plane and flown off to some secret facility in an out of the way country to be tortured.
Iran wouldn't stoop that low.
Can we(you)?
They are being "interrogated" - what do the Iranians consider to be fair "interrogation"?
A nice chat over a cup of tea in a sunny room over looking the sights of Tehran?
Or maybe in a windowless cell with hands cuffed behind their backs?
Maybe a nice hood thrown in to help loosen the tongue?
We know what happened to the last lot of British sevicemen seized by the Iranians - they were trucked out into the middle of nowhere and made to stand in front of a ditch.
Now is that not a form of torture?
Or do I detect fred playing with us?.....
j4bberw0ck
27-Mar-07, 11:41
Funny, I could have sworn thats what I already said:
This Iranian Government is only 'dangerous' because we made it dangerous. If we had not helped the idiot Bush in his Iraq windmill jousting Iran would not be in the strong position they are now.
Yes, you had already said that, and it's not the same as saying that Iran was dangerous beforehand..... sorry, but Iran's been dangerous since the days of Khomeini.
Not the old Weapons of Mass Destruction con again, get the people scared and the'll let you invade any country you want to.
Fred, can you be the only person in the world who doesn't take seriously Iran's pursuit of nuclear weaponry? They've already demonstrated their delivery capability - at least in principle - which can reach southeast England at the extreme. Course, it being England an' all you may not think it matters :lol:
Totally off topic but is there a yawn smilie here? I can't seem to find it.
http://deephousepage.com/smilies/yawn.gif
I think reference was being made to the rendition of people from Afghanistan and Iraq, to other countries. Where, for the sake of argument lets call them persuasive methods, (such as 'drowning', where people are tied to a board their faces cover and then water is poured over their face to convince them they are being held underwater) are used, out of the jurisdiction of the captors own laws and out of the eye of the international community, to extract information. Although just how accurate information can be that is taken from someone who is speaking only to stay alive, is debatable.
j4bberw0ck
27-Mar-07, 11:43
Totally off topic but is there a yawn smilie here? I can't seem to find it.
Hmmm... can't quickly find a convincing yawn smilie, but wondered if this would do instead:
http://www.deauvilleuk.org/forum/images/smiles/36_11_16%5B1%5D.gif
Those are real people, they feel real pain, they suffer just the same as white people do.
Nicely diverted to bring in the race card, how pathetic.
Fred, can you be the only person in the world who doesn't take seriously Iran's pursuit of nuclear weaponry? They've already demonstrated their delivery capability - at least in principle - which can reach southeast England at the extreme. Course, it being England an' all you may not think it matters :lol:
That is because Fred wants Israel wiped off the surface of the World. Jews feel pain as well I think.
That is because Fred wants Israel wiped off the surface of the World.
That is a pretty wild and nasty accusation! I have just been back through the topic and I don't see anyone anywhere saying, or even implying, such a thing.
It appears to me that everyone here, regardless of their political standpoint, wants the same thing, our people back safely and without bloodshed.
According to Rosie O'Donnell the kidnapping of the 15 sailors has not happened.
On the March 26, 2007 edition of The View, O'Donnell discussed the Iranian seizure of 15 British sailors and marines. She implied that the incident may be a hoax to provoke a war with Iran.
"But interesting with the British sailors, there were 15 British sailors and Marines who apparently went into Iranian waters and they were seized by the Iranians. And I have one thing to say: Gulf of Tonkin, Google it. Okay."
And what else does Rosie believe? Well, she subscribes to the 9/11 "Truth" movement....
That is a pretty wild and nasty accusation! I have just been back through the topic and I don't see anyone anywhere saying, or even implying, such a thing.
Can you give any quotes from fred where he defends Israel's right to live peaceably within its own borders?
Can you find any quotes from fred where he condemn's Iran's persuance of nuclear technology and its president's condemnation of Israel?
Can you find me quotes from fred where he condemn's palestinian attacks on Israel?
Can you find me quotes from fred where he condemns Saddam's attcks on Israel?
Can you find me quotes from fred where he condemns Saddams invasion of Kuwait?
Can you give me quotes where he even acknowledges that Saddam actually made threats to his neighbours?
I could go on and I believe he was banned not so long ago for making anti-semitic comments, now you decide.
And what else does Rosie believe? Well, she subscribes to the 9/11 "Truth" movement....
I don't believe it is the case that just because a person believes one thing, then everything else they say is nonsense.
I disagree fervently with George Bush on Iraq. But I agree with him on global warming not being the result of the industrial revolution.
I would be foolish to discount everything he says because I disagree with him on a particular point.
Can you give any quotes from fred where he defends Israel's right to live peaceably within its own borders?
Can you find any quotes from fred where he condemn's Iran's persuance of nuclear technology and its president's condemnation of Israel?
Can you find me quotes from fred where he condemn's palestinian attacks on Israel?
Can you find me quotes from fred where he condemns Saddam's attcks on Israel?
Can you find me quotes from fred where he condemns Saddams invasion of Kuwait?
Can you give me quotes where he even acknowledges that Saddam actually made threats to his neighbours?
I could go on and I believe he was banned not so long ago for making anti-semitic comments, now you decide.
Can you give me a quote where fred explicitly says he wants Israel wiped off the face of the Earth? Or have you just made assumptions based on his politics? I cannot find you the quotes you ask for because I do not know what topics you are referring to.
All I know is these ugly accusations are wildly off topic here.
Well I agree - I don't discount, as nonsense, what people who believe in a God have to say, just because they believe in a supreme being.
But if they also believed in the diatribe spouted by the "Truthseekers" "TruthTwisters", I might have second thoughts...
Can you give me a quote where fred explicitly says he wants Israel wiped off the face of the Earth? Or have you just made assumptions based on his politics?
Yes, I have made assumptions on his politics as well as his post content. There is a concept in Art called negative space drawing where you draw only what surrounds your subject matter and you end up drawing your subject matter. I think this can be a good analogy for freds posts.
Yes, I have made assumptions on his politics as well as his post content. There is a concept in Art called negative space drawing where you draw only what surrounds your subject matter and you end up drawing your subject matter. I think this can be a good analogy for freds posts.
Sometimes it is better not to read between the lines, because 9 times out of 10 there is nothing there. Assumptions based on nothing only reflect badly on the person making the assumption.
Sometimes it is better not to read between the lines, because 9 times out of 10 there is nothing there.
Reading between the lines is exactly what the "Truthseekers" "TruthTwisters" do - they cherry pick a point here and a point there and try to cobble together a whole argument.
Assumptions based on nothing only reflect badly on the person making the assumption.
Hit the nail on the head there - which is why Rosie O' Donnell looks real stupid right now....
Reading between the lines is exactly what the "Truthseekers" "TruthTwisters" do - they cherry pick a point here and a point there and try to cobble together a whole argument.
Isn't that what all in research have done down the centuries? If Louis Pasteur had not noticed the unusual bare patch around some mould in a petrie dish and hadn't cherry picked a couple of points (as you put it) we would not have penicillin today.
I have looked through this topic again, and fred is not the only person here cherry picking points to cobble together arguments.
People should remember that when they point the finger there are three fingers pointing back at them.
Can you give any quotes from fred where he defends Israel's right to live peaceably within its own borders?
Can you find any quotes from fred where he condemn's Iran's persuance of nuclear technology and its president's condemnation of Israel?
Can you find me quotes from fred where he condemn's palestinian attacks on Israel?
Can you find me quotes from fred where he condemns Saddam's attcks on Israel?
Can you find me quotes from fred where he condemns Saddams invasion of Kuwait?
Can you give me quotes where he even acknowledges that Saddam actually made threats to his neighbours?
I could go on and I believe he was banned not so long ago for making anti-semitic comments, now you decide.Guilt by ommition now that's a new one.;)
Isn't that what all in research have done down the centuries? If Louis Pasteur had not noticed the unusual bare patch around some mould in a petrie dish and hadn't cherry picked a couple of points (as you put it) we would not have penicillin today.
My mistake, of course I mean Alexander Fleming. :roll:
That's like saying Hitler was only dangerous because "we" made him so. Ahmedinejad and Hitler, like autocrats and dictators everywhere, are dangerous opportunists.I think you could add george jnr to that list.
j4bberw0ck
27-Mar-07, 13:52
People should remember that when they point the finger there are three fingers pointing back at them.
Or two, waving, as the case may be :lol:
Welcome to the boards, anyway, Jospra, since I didn't see an introduction anywhere. Have you been here before?
Guilt by ommition now that's a new one.;)
Not really new, Fox news have been doing it for years but in the opposite way.
Kaishowing
27-Mar-07, 15:17
Ah! Fox News! The bastion of republicanism in the American media! It must be such a comfort for the Bush administration to have such a right-wing propaganda machine working 24 hours a day for them.
But as to the question at hand, I voted for freezing the assets....We don't want another mess like when Jimmy Peanut tried to mount a rescue.
Ah! Fox News! The bastion of republicanism in the American media! It must be such a comfort for the Bush administration to have such a right-wing propaganda machine working 24 hours a day for them.
But as to the question at hand, I voted for freezing the assets....We don't want another mess like when Jimmy Peanut tried to mount a rescue.
Come now kaishowing, you cannot compare the sas or sbs with the american delta force, delta force are similar to our T.A only not as well trained.;)
Fred, can you be the only person in the world who doesn't take seriously Iran's pursuit of nuclear weaponry? They've already demonstrated their delivery capability - at least in principle - which can reach southeast England at the extreme. Course, it being England an' all you may not think it matters :lol:
I don't know of any evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
I am far more worried about Pakistan and Israel having nuclear weapons than Iran. Even if Iran had them I doubt they would ever use them except as a last resort if they were attacked. Pakistan may have a leader who is friendly to the wast at the moment but he's only just in control and when he goes anything can happen. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Israel launched a pre-emtive nuclear strike on Iran, they are threatening to and have just admitted to having nuclear weapons for the first time.
Iran is not the aggressor, we have invaded countries on either side of them, we have aircraft carriers in the Gulf ready to attack them and we are refusing to let them pursue their legal right to nuclear power. America is arming and financing terrorist groups inside Iran and American troops have carried out operations in Iran.
In 1953 Britain and America overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and installed a pro-western ruthless dictator then in 1980 we backed Saddam Hussein in the Iran Iraq war. It isn't them who are the bad guys, the people of Iran have suffered a lot from the west trying to control their oil and that is all the current conflict is about, nothing to do with any nuclear weapons at all, everything to do with America controling the worlds oil supplies.
Nicely diverted to bring in the race card, how pathetic.
Well you've never made a secret of your white supremicist beliefs have you?
http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=60331&postcount=176
Can you give any quotes from fred where he defends Israel's right to live peaceably within its own borders?
Israel isn't living peaceably and they are within somebody elses borders.
Can you find any quotes from fred where he condemn's Iran's persuance of nuclear technology and its president's condemnation of Israel?
Iran has a legal right to pursue nuclear technology, they have signed the NPT, which is more than Israel has. Why don't you condemn Israel for the real illegal nuclear weapons they have rather than Iran for the imaginary nuclear weapons they don't have?
Can you find me quotes from fred where he condemn's palestinian attacks on Israel?
How about you condemning Israeli attacks on Palsetine and Lebanon?
Can you find me quotes from fred where he condemns Saddam's attcks on Israel?
I didn't know Saddam had attacked Israel, I know Israel bombed Iraq in 1981.
Kaishowing
27-Mar-07, 21:56
Come now kaishowing, you cannot compare the sas or sbs with the american delta force, delta force are similar to our T.A only not as well trained.;)
No I'm not..I beleive the British armed forces to be the best trained in the world, while the American to be the best equipped......But even with the best training and the best equipment you can't control weather or mechanical failure, as they found out in 1980.
"Jaw jaw rather than war war!!"
All I know is these ugly accusations are wildly off topic here.
That's how the clique works Jospra.
j4bberw0ck
27-Mar-07, 22:27
Fred, can you be the only person in the world who doesn't take seriously Iran's pursuit of nuclear weaponry?
I don't know of any evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
Fred, you keep doing this; apparently answering questions but not really answering them at all. It's an unfortunate habit because it sounds like dissembling - when you apparently answer a question directly but in reality there's some fine distinction drawn. Lawyers and liars do it lots. Politicians, too. Not of course that I'm suggesting you're any of those things.
If you read what I said you'll note I didn't ask if you knew of any evidence. I asked if you were the only person who doesn't take seriously the idea that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. Never mind America and Israel, your two betes noire - the rest of the Arab world takes it seriously. The Saudis are trying right now to get Ahmedinejad to back down and with all due respect I'd suggest they're probably in a better position to know.
j4bberw0ck
27-Mar-07, 22:33
I didn't know Saddam had attacked Israel, I know Israel bombed Iraq in 1981.
That would have been when Iraq launched 40 or so Scud missiles against Israel during the first Gulf War. Remember all the news footage of the Patriot defence system being deployed?
That would have been when Iraq launched 40 or so Scud missiles against Israel during the first Gulf War. Remember all the news footage of the Patriot defence system being deployed?
Fred is good at having lapses of memory when it suits
Well you've never made a secret of your white supremicist beliefs have you?
http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=60331&postcount=176
Ha Ha, nice of you to take a sarcastic comment totally out of context whilst using a single post view facility, well done, comical Ali will be proud of you.
Israel isn't living peaceably and they are within somebody elses borders.That is because the Arabs won't let them live peaceably within their own borders but I am glad they are starting to pull out of the occupied territory.
Iran has a legal right to pursue nuclear technology, they have signed the NPT, which is more than Israel has. Why don't you condemn Israel for the real illegal nuclear weapons they have rather than Iran for the imaginary nuclear weapons they don't have?I won't condemn Israel for having nukes as they haven't used them, they aren't saying that any such Arab state needs to be wiped off the planet and the said weapons have kept the peace and the wolves at bay.
How about you condemning Israeli attacks on Palsetine and Lebanon?Where it is unjust then I will.
I didn't know Saddam had attacked Israel, I know Israel bombed Iraq in 1981.
You need tablets for that selective amnesia.
Is there really any need for all this aggression towards each other? People have different opinions and points of view, that does not give us the right to ridicule or belittle those we disagree with.
Originally Posted by fred View Post
Israel isn't living peaceably and they are within somebody elses borders.That is because the Arabs won't let them live peaceably within their own borders but I am glad they are starting to pull out of the occupied territory.
I didn't say that.
Why don't you just reply in the normal way instead of attributing your words to me and making it impossible for me to reply in the normal way?
Why don't you just reply in the normal way instead of attributing your words to me and making it impossible for me to reply in the normal way?
Why don't you reply in the normal way by answering questions directly instead of putting straw men up as if they are going out of fashion?:roll:
This topic has people deliberately misinterpreting what others say, it has people being deliberately rude to each other, in some cases replies are distinctly hostile.
Are people here so incapable of accepting that others think differently to them?
Fred, you keep doing this; apparently answering questions but not really answering them at all. It's an unfortunate habit because it sounds like dissembling - when you apparently answer a question directly but in reality there's some fine distinction drawn. Lawyers and liars do it lots. Politicians, too. Not of course that I'm suggesting you're any of those things.
If you read what I said you'll note I didn't ask if you knew of any evidence. I asked if you were the only person who doesn't take seriously the idea that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. Never mind America and Israel, your two betes noire - the rest of the Arab world takes it seriously. The Saudis are trying right now to get Ahmedinejad to back down and with all due respect I'd suggest they're probably in a better position to know.
Well the IAEA doesn't take it too seriously, they did a three year investigation and didn't find evidence of "any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices".
So what have we got? Three countries in a row in the oil rich Middle East, one had to be invaded because they were harbouring terrorists who were in Pakistan at the time, another had to be invaded because they had weapons of mass destruction ready to launch at us on 45 minutes notice which didn't exist and guesse what, the third one is going to have to be invaded because they are building a nuclear bomb without any nuclear material in it.
Meanwhile people are maimed and dying at an alarming rate while oil company profits have quadrupled.
That would have been when Iraq launched 40 or so Scud missiles against Israel during the first Gulf War. Remember all the news footage of the Patriot defence system being deployed?
The result -- "A total of 74 people died as a consequence of Scud attacks. Two died in direct hits, four from suffocation in gas masks and the rest from heart attacks (Jerusalem Post, January 17, 1992)"
Probably not enough to register in the fred head....
This topic has people deliberately misinterpreting what others say, it has people being deliberately rude to each other, in some cases replies are distinctly hostile.
Are people here so incapable of accepting that others think differently to them?Apparently so.
Is there really any need for all this aggression towards each other? People have different opinions and points of view, that does not give us the right to ridicule or belittle those we disagree with.
There is only one view allowed on this forum Jospra, the clique's view. I'm affraid if you arn't pro war and anti Muslim you will be harassed and intimidated on every thread.
j4bberw0ck
28-Mar-07, 09:32
Well the IAEA doesn't take it too seriously, they did a three year investigation and didn't find evidence of "any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices"
They did indeed; and since then have been disturbed by some anomalies in what they're being told by Iran.
Iran produces 118 tonnes of uranium hexafluoride / particles of highly-enriched uranium discovered at a university - strange when the Iranians insist they haven't made any (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_07-08/IAEAIran.asp)
IAEA has document detailing conversion of uranium hexafluoride into metal, and the process by which it's formed into hemispheres
(http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Iran-IAEA-Issues.asp)
IAEA Director General asserts that Iran has continued to advance its nuclear program in defiance of UN resolutions (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_03/IAEAIran.asp)
If ElBaradei doesn't trust them, why would anyone else?
j4bberw0ck
28-Mar-07, 09:57
This topic has people deliberately misinterpreting what others say, it has people being deliberately rude to each other, in some cases replies are distinctly hostile.
Are people here so incapable of accepting that others think differently to them?
Deliberate misinterpretation? Deliberately rude? Distinctly hostile? Wow.
Just good knockabout fun. You've handed out a bit yourself, too..... stick around a while and you'll see a little more about how the dynamic works. Or just avoid certain threads; for instance, I ignore the WTC thread because reading it is a profound irritation. You can block people whose contributions you don't want to read, too.
There is only one view allowed on this forum Jospra, the clique's view. I'm affraid if you arn't pro war and anti Muslim you will be harassed and intimidated on every thread.
Poor fred! He does enjoy feeling like an oppressed minority (http://www.carryonline.com/carryonline/Downloads/audio/infamy.wav). Harrassing and intimidating fred is a bit like a mosquito biting a hippopotamus; try as you might you can't get through its thick hide and most times, he doesn't even notice. :lol:
(http://www.carryonline.com/carryonline/Downloads/audio/infamy.wav)
Kaishowing
28-Mar-07, 12:14
Just going off-topic slightly...wondering why Jospra was banned? I've looked through their past posts and found nothing that seems to be against the rules.:eek:
In fact, the last two posts call for less aggressive posting!
I'm affraid if you arn't pro war and anti Muslim you will be harassed and intimidated on every thread.
I was anti-war in Iraq and I still am in principle but pro-war in that troops should stay till Iraq can guide itself to stability.
As for being anti-muslim, I am not, as an atheist I am anti-faith.
As for being in a clique, I am not aware of being in a clique. If being in a clique is being able to reason evidence in a logical way and not take snippets of rubbish and building fantastic scenarios out of them then yes, I am in a clique, but of the sane.
So the sailors were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters when they were seized?
So the Iranians snatched UK personnel from another countries territory?
Or did the Uk move the ship they were searching into Iraq waters before they took the readings? I dare say one or two will put this up as an excuse. The Iranians are of course never wrong.
As for being anti-muslim, I am not, as an atheist I am anti-faith.
Oh dear - I think I might have found the "link" to the allegations of cliqueism -- I too, am an atheist.
Any other atheists amongst us? Identify yourselves for the sake of the Clique Callers so we know exactly who is in the clique....
The GPS will have times as well as the 'track' information recorded. If untampered with, the track info before capture should verify whether the troops entered Iranian waters. Somehow, I think there will be a technical hitch, lost batteries or water has entered the circuitry to prevent us knowing. etc.:roll:
j4bberw0ck
28-Mar-07, 13:37
As for being anti-muslim, I am not, as an atheist I am anti-faith.
Oh dear - I think I might have found the "link" to the allegations of cliqueism -- I too, am an atheist.
Any other atheists amongst us? Identify yourselves for the sake of the Clique Callers so we know exactly who is in the clique....
I'm not anti-faith at all, but that's from my view that faith is - or damn well should be - an intensely personal thing. I'd classify myself as agnostic, I think, but with definite temptation to being atheist; certainly any personal idea of a deity (or something that to us might look like a deity) doesn't include conversations from bushes, conveniently carved stone tablets or Grand Old Men with beards. What I am is anti-religion. The hierarchy of any religious belief system is a political, self-serving, self-perpetuating, amoral cadre of control freaks.
Except Canuck of course http://www.fadbeens.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_huggy.gif who couldn't possibly be described as an establishment anyway!
Does that include me in the clique, then? I do enjoy an off-topic ramble at lunchtime.
BTW has the UN (on whose behalf the imprisoned servicemen were acting) done or said anything yet?
gettingback on line..I have been following the news about the sailors and it has been comfirmed that the men will be paraded on iranian tv, and the female should be released within the next couple of days........:roll:I say that the pm has given an ultimatum,and the iranians are showing us that they are fine and well, but we will have to see what happens....:confused
They did indeed; and since then have been disturbed by some anomalies in what they're being told by Iran.
Iran produces 118 tonnes of uranium hexafluoride / particles of highly-enriched uranium discovered at a university - strange when the Iranians insist they haven't made any (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_07-08/IAEAIran.asp)
IAEA has document detailing conversion of uranium hexafluoride into metal, and the process by which it's formed into hemispheres
(http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Iran-IAEA-Issues.asp)
IAEA Director General asserts that Iran has continued to advance its nuclear program in defiance of UN resolutions (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_03/IAEAIran.asp)
If ElBaradei doesn't trust them, why would anyone else?
I don't see anything in any of those pages to suggest that Iran has produced any weapons grade fisionable material at all.
But even if they had didn't our own government say not long ago that it is essential for Britain to renew our Trident missiles, as a deterrent, even though the cold war is over and we are not actually threatened by anyone? Iran on the other hand is being well and truly threatened so wouldn't it be even more essential for them to have a nuclear deterrent?
I'm sure if Israel were to get rid of all their nuclear weapons Iran would be much easier to negotiate with but if they won't then I believe that the safest world is one where mutual anihilation is guaranteed in any nuclear war.
It would probably be ten years before Iran could make their first bomb, no need for aircraft carriers in the Gulf now and plenty of time for diplomacy. Unless, of course, the reasons for provoking Iran have nothing to do with their nuclear development at all, just as the reasons for invading Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.
BTW has the UN (on whose behalf the imprisoned servicemen were acting) done or said anything yet?
J4B, if fred and roy can be nit picking so can I,
ServiceMEN ??? There is a Jenny Wren there as weel, for a man of your calibre and intelligence I am surprised at your lack of political correctness [lol]
Just going off-topic slightly...wondering why Jospra was banned? I've looked through their past posts and found nothing that seems to be against the rules.:eek:
In fact, the last two posts call for less aggressive posting!
Ah but was he calling for less aggressive posting from the clique?
It's possible he was banned for something he said to someone in a P.M. in which case you wouldn't find it on the board.
j4bberw0ck
28-Mar-07, 22:29
political correctness
Thanks, golach, I understand your point, but political correctness isn't something that worries me greatly if the alternative is correct. "Servicemen" when referring to a mixed male and female group is grammatically correct and will do very well.
But I am of course obliged to you [lol] .
Golach,
In old English and Anglo Saxon the suffix "man" was gender neutral. It had, and still retains the same meaning as person today, referring to all people equally.
To denote gender it was qualified. Thus a male was a "waepman" and a female was a "wifman".
This gender free use of man gives us forms such as chairman, craftsman, fisherman meaning a person of either sex.
Therefore the sexism supposedly implied in the word "man" does not exist.
j4bberw0ck
28-Mar-07, 22:35
I don't see anything in any of those pages to suggest that Iran has produced any weapons grade fisionable material at all.
That's because there's nothing in there that says they've produced any weapons-grade material :roll: . It does say there are some unexplained particles of HEU (which Iran has never admitted to producing - quite the contrary, they've said they never have - which makes the finding of it a little puzzling.
But glossing over that as a plant by the CIA or Mossad :lol: , the reports make clear that the IAEA have concerns about Iranian conduct and cooperation. And if you look back to what I originally said, that's it, in a nutshell.
What you said, which was that the IAEA had given them a clean bill of health, is not so.
j4bberw0ck
28-Mar-07, 22:38
Therefore the sexism supposedly implied in the word "man" does not exist.
Thank you, fellow cliqueyman. :lol: Though I still think golach knows that fine well and was just tweaking my tail. After all, we three at least all went through school when they still taught grammar instead of the semi-intelligible gruntings that pass for the language these days........
Golach,
In old English and Anglo Saxon the suffix "man" was gender neutral. It had, and still retains the same meaning as person today, referring to all people equally.
To denote gender it was qualified. Thus a male was a "waepman" and a female was a "wifman".
This gender free use of man gives us forms such as chairman, craftsman, fisherman meaning a person of either sex.
Therefore the sexism supposedly implied in the word "man" does not exist.
MP I bow to your obvious knowledge of Owld English and Anglo Saxon, just pity a poor owld mannie educated in Kaitness & Carse of Gowrie Scots, and a ex Matelot who will always refer fondly to the female members of the RN & RNR as Jennies or Jennie Wrens [lol]
As an almost-as-owld-mannie who was also edumecated in Kaitness the sharing of a little knowledge (no, I'm not a Black Cab driver - Black Chopper maybe...) is of course my pleasure.
It's just one of those useless bits of fluff that gets shoved into the dark recesses of my mind, that one day I am able to rattle out and impress folk with....
But even if they had didn't our own government say not long ago that it is essential for Britain to renew our Trident missiles, as a deterrent, even though the cold war is over and we are not actually threatened by anyone?
Incorrect.
Our Government is only replacing the platform, not the missiles themselves.
And we are threatened by someone. Have you not heard that Islamic terrorists are threatening us? It is entirely feasible that they will, one day, get their grubby hands on nuclear device especially in the post break up of the USSR. Go check how much plutonium goes missing and how much smuggling of radioactive materials goes on.
If they set one off in the middle of London, do you think the British Government will just sit back and not retaliate against Mecca? I think Bush mooted this in a post 9/11 speech if there was anymore attacks on US soil.
So the sailors were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters when they were seized?
No, the sailors were in disputed waters when they were arrested.
What you said, which was that the IAEA had given them a clean bill of health, is not so.
What I said:
Well the IAEA doesn't take it too seriously, they did a three year investigation and didn't find evidence of "any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices".
is so. There is still no evidence that Iran has produced any weapons grade fisionable material.
No, the sailors were in disputed waters when they were arrested.
I believe the MOD before I would belive the Iranians
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6502805.stm
No, the sailors were in disputed waters when they were arrested.
Hmmm, funny that - the Iranians first position put their boats INSIDE Iraqi TW but this was later changed to move them into THEIR TW.
I guess they place the RN boats in a position where they are outgunned then shepherd them towards Iranian TW where they are surrounded. That might account for the change of position of the Iranian boats - they ambushed the RN boats.
But then They would never do something SOOOOOOOO underhanded would they fred?
Incorrect.
Our Government is only replacing the platform, not the missiles themselves.
And we are threatened by someone. Have you not heard that Islamic terrorists are threatening us? It is entirely feasible that they will, one day, get their grubby hands on nuclear device especially in the post break up of the USSR. Go check how much plutonium goes missing and how much smuggling of radioactive materials goes on.
If they set one off in the middle of London, do you think the British Government will just sit back and not retaliate against Mecca? I think Bush mooted this in a post 9/11 speech if there was anymore attacks on US soil.
So all MOSSAD has to do is nuke Picadilly Circus and we nuke Mecca for them.
By the same token Iran is under threat, if it is legitimate for us to have nuclear weapons on the off chance one day some hypothetical terrorist might get hold of a hypothetical bomb and somehow sneak it past the metal detector at Heathrow then it must be legitimate for Iran being threatened by real terrorists with real nuclear bombs to have them.
BTW I think the Saudies might be a bit peeved with us if we blew up one of their cities, they might even ask for all the money they lent us back.
Jeemag_USA
29-Mar-07, 01:49
I just read an update on Yahoo. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki says Britain must admit to the world that they trespassed in Iranian Waters before negotiations can take place. I can see this becoming something a lot bigger if thats the road we want to go down. I believe the USA took up strategic positions in Afghanistan and Iraq so they could impose themselves on Iran. But now it looks like the UK could inadvertantly be used as the tinder by Iran to start some international trouble. Having a feeling this could end bad but I really hope I am wrong.
j4bberw0ck
29-Mar-07, 08:23
Last time the Iranians came under pressure on their nuclear programme, Hizbollah launched their huge strike against Israel.
This time, it's kidnapping British servicement (though they were deployed on behalf of the UN).
Anything to deflect attention, eh, Fred?
sorghaghtanibeki
29-Mar-07, 09:04
there is a great amount of talking veraciously here. I do not know if this thinking has been said yet here but understanding of international law tells all that when a military sovereign ship trespasses into another country waters it cannot under international law be arrested or stopped but must first be requested to leave? under the algiers accord even if you think the sea there is disputed international law takes over
Valerie Campbell
29-Mar-07, 09:59
I think the Iranians were incredibly heavy handed with our personnel. Ok, so the sea border is disputed. Why didn't the Iranians simply warn the sailors? Or better still, just leave them to get on with their patrol? Instead they break with convention and parade them on tv. it was good to see they were ok but if you watched the body language, they were anxious and unsettled. All diplomatic channels must be pursued first, but after that, what happens? And how long do we leave it before we take another route? We can't go in there all guns blazing yet our personnel deserve their freedom and be returned to their ship. I just hope it's resolved very, very soon.
I believe the MOD before I would belive the Iranians
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6502805.stm
So when the vessel was boarded it was 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters. How long did the boarding take and in which direction did the vessel move? Were was the vessel when the sailors finished their examination and left it again? Assumed the boarding took only 15 minutes and the vessel was going at a speed of 8 knots, it will have moved another 2 miles by the time the marines left. Or was it in a static position? I had a look at an older chart of the waters and there are some strong currents in the positions mentioned. Provided the vessel was not moored it will certainly have drifted somewhere. On the chart I looked at, the position that was claimed the arrest took place is almost above the low water mark. The depth at MLWS is 0.6 metres only which I think is a bit funny. But agreed, sandbanks can shift and my chart is a few years old.
Golach on the link you provided the position is given of the place were the boarding took place.
Where was the vessel when the arrest took place? Certainly not in water with a depth of 0.6 metres?
Hmmm, funny that - the Iranians first position put their boats INSIDE Iraqi TW but this was later changed to move them into THEIR TW.
From the CIA (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html) web site.
Iraq's lack of a maritime boundary with Iran prompts jurisdiction disputes beyond the mouth of the Shatt al Arab in the Persian Gulf; Iran and UAE dispute Tunb Islands and Abu Musa Island, which are occupied by Iran
There is no maritime boundary, the MOD claims the incident occured on the Iraqi side of a line on the map drawn by the MOD, there has never been agreement with Iran about it.
So in the absence of any legitimate maritime boundary the question is did the incident occur closer to Iran than to Iraq? Would you like to answer that question?
So all MOSSAD has to do is nuke Picadilly Circus and we nuke Mecca for them.Hardly unlikely, Mossad being the secret services of the Israelis could never orchestrate such a strike and pin it on the arabs
By the same token Iran is under threat, if it is legitimate for us to have nuclear weapons on the off chance one day some hypothetical terrorist might get hold of a hypothetical bomb and somehow sneak it past the metal detector at Heathrow then it must be legitimate for Iran being threatened by real terrorists with real nuclear bombs to have them.So far it is the Iranians that are doing all the prevarication, kidnapping soldiers, kidnapping american diplomats, making statements that it wants its neighbours wiped off the face of the Earth. Yes, we need the bomb for 'just in case', it is the most effective form of diplomacy.
BTW I think the Saudies might be a bit peeved with us if we blew up one of their cities, they might even ask for all the money they lent us back.
Yes, the Saudis will be peeved, sacrifices are always made in war, but that doesn't mean it is going to happen so long as we have an effective nuclear deterrent.
You quote the World Fact Book from the CIA? How could you? After all that the CIA has been involved in? I'm surprised that you believe that as 'fact'!!!
Sounds like sorghaghtanibeki has answered your question.
I'm sure that if the Iranian boats had strayed into Iraq waters they would have been asked to leave in a typically polite British manner, not capture it's crew and fly them to London.
http://planetsmilies.net/tired-sleeping-smiley-4654.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)http://planetsmilies.net/tired-sleeping-smiley-4654.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)
Last time the Iranians came under pressure on their nuclear programme, Hizbollah launched their huge strike against Israel.
What huge strike against Israel?
This isn't going to be like Saddams "attack" on Israel which turned out to be him firing scud missiles at coalition bases there in GWI would it?
You quote the World Fact Book from the CIA? How could you? After all that the CIA has been involved in? I'm surprised that you believe that as 'fact'!!!
Sounds like sorghaghtanibeki has answered your question.
I'm sure that if the Iranian boats had strayed into Iraq waters they would have been asked to leave in a typically polite British manner, not capture it's crew and fly them to London.
http://planetsmilies.net/tired-sleeping-smiley-4654.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)http://planetsmilies.net/tired-sleeping-smiley-4654.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)
So what happened to the five Iranian diplomats in Iraq legitimately who were kidnapped by America.
Were they asked to leave politely?
So when the vessel was boarded it was 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters.
There is no maritime boundary rambler, the only people who can agree on a maritime boundary there are Iran and Iraq and they never have.
There is no maritime boundary rambler, the only people who can agree on a maritime boundary there are Iran and Iraq and they never have.
The news mentioned an Algiers accord which demarcates the boundary and both Iran and Iraq agreed to after the war. And after the next war they agreed to honour the accord again. How can this be construed as not agreeing to something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_Agreement_%281975%29
fred
Please stop diverting this thread into another one of your anti American tirades. We are talking about UK servicemen (and woman)
The NY Times reports...
Gordon D. Johndroe, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said two Iranian diplomats were among those initially detained in the raids. The two had papers showing that they were accredited to work in Iraq, and he said they were turned over to the Iraqi authorities and released. He confirmed that a group of other Iranians, including the military officials, remained in custody while an investigation continued, and he said, “We continue to work with the government of Iraq on the status of the detainees.”
sorghaghtanibeki
29-Mar-07, 11:40
Hello again
was the vassel drifting? it would be very strange for an Indian registered ship to let itself be drifted into Iraq waters, full of cars. I understand that the ship it was delivering vehicles for Iraq, I am sure the Iran's would take great exception to such a ship in their waters? why not the Irans arrest THIS ship? again the algiers accord holds good? this lady who by the way calls herself 'leading seaMAN' writes that apparently they were in Iraq water. she would not know this. there was just one satellite positioning machine on ONE of the inspecting boats, not a 45 cm plasma monitor for all to see, so only one person maybe would see the position? as in ALL such waterways the sandbanks will very obviously move around. and it is against international law to arrest a sovereign ship.
The lady in question is a coxswain and so, could very possibly be, the one with the GPS system?
And I would take any 'confession' by the lassie with a huge pinch of salt - she looked as if she was being forced to make that statement on video and I dare say her arm was bent (metaphorically speaking) to make the written one, because we know that the Iranians would never stoop so low as to make someone do something they didn't want to....*
And as for her calling herself "leading seaMAN" I refer you to my post 101 which explains the confusing use of the word "MAN" in our language.
I appreciate that your mother tongue may not be English (forgive me if I assume wrongly) so I hope this little bit of trivia is helpful to you in grasping English.
*
In its annual report on human rights practices around the globe Human Rights Watch said that "basic human rights in Iran, especially freedom of expression and opinion, deteriorated in 2004". .....
"Torture and Ill-treatment in Detention" the report read, "With the closure of independent newspapers and journals, treatment of detainees has worsened in Evin prison as well as in detention centers operated clandestinely by the judiciary and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Torture and ill-treatment in detention has been used particularly against those imprisoned for peaceful expression of their political views. In violation of international law and Iran’s constitution, judges often accept coerced confessions. The use of prolonged solitary confinement, often in small basement cells, has been designed to break the will of those detained in order to coerce confessions and provide information regarding associates. This systematic use of solitary confinement rises to the level of cruel and inhuman treatment. Combined with denial of access to counsel and videotaped confessions, prolonged solitary confinement creates an environment in which prisoners have nowhere to turn in order to seek redress for their treatment in detention. Severe physical torture is also used, especially against student activists and others who do not enjoy the high public profile of older dissident intellectuals and writers."
My emphasis...
"Videotaped confessions"? "Denial of access to counsel" (read consul) -- sound familiar?
Hmmm, wonder if the Navy lady was held in solitary?....
And as for her calling herself "leading seaMAN" I refer you to my post 101 which explains the confusing use of the word "MAN" in our language.
MP, the term Leading Seaman, is no longer used in the RN since the members of the WRNS (Wrens) Womens Royal Naval Service, came under the Naval Disclipline Act in the 1980's. The correct term is Leading Rate and is senior to a Able Rate, junior naval personell have always been refered to as Ratings, the Jackspeak term for a Leading Rate is a Killick, a old word for a stern anchor, now used for Leading Rate / Hand because of the single fouled anchor sleeve badge for a Leading Rate.
The term Coxswain is the senior Seaman Branch rating on board a vessel, commonly used on HM Submarines and Minesweepers, where the Cox'n is the senior Chief Petty Officer, especially qualified and selected for the appointment, and who is responsible for discipline and victualling. The word's origins lie in the roots cog (a type of vessel) and suen or swain - husband.
Bet you typed that with a feeling of glee!! ;)
I bow to your knowledge on nautical terms.
If she was responsible for steering the RIB, that they were out in, would she still not be the coxswain? Or just a cox? (Maybe a coxwif?..) especially if she was the senior rating on that 'vessel'?
sorghaghtanibeki
29-Mar-07, 13:26
Hello
Madpict you write: The lady in question is a coxswain and so, could verч possibly be, the one with the GPS system? you are corect, that is my point better, why write she that it was apparently in Iraq waters? she if so above job would know. it is again obvious to me that this was щrite under pressure. I find amazing that earlier on fred writes; I think we can be confident they haven't been bundled on a plane and flown off to some secret facility in an out of the way country to be tortured. Iran wouldn't stoop that low. I think that fred is not man of щorld if he believes such?
"Women Drivers!" Sorry ladies, I just couldn't resist it!
The Iranians are simply making use of an old, old tired and worn out game.
Put pressure on the sailors for a time by making them think that they are going to be kept prisoner for a very long time. (Doesn't need any violence or even threat of it, the Sailors only have what the Iranians tell them to go off.)
Once they begin to accept that is to be their fate you choose the one who can more easily be convinced that it is in everybody’s interest if they are “helpful” and work on that person.
The female sailor is the easy choice, not because she is any weaker than the rest but because convincing her that by keeping her prisoner for an extended period is not really helping ease tension in the situation.
“Your Government is threatening all sorts of retribution over you and the longer you are here the harder it is for us to take the tension out of the situation. Etc. etc.” (You get the picture)
Leave that to sink in, remembering that, as a female, it is easier to justify keeping her separated from the others so she gets no support of feedback.
Then, “ Look, all you have to do to satisfy our own public is to say you were in our waters. They will be satisfied and we can convince them to accept your release. After that we have a good excuse to release you and help calm the situation down because at the moment it is starting to spiral out of control.”
You convince the person that by remaining stubborn and silent the are responsible for a worsening situation which only they can prevent.
If you can get them to comply then you say that you will negotiate to move towards the person’s release.
How terrible everybody, the other side are being totally unreasonable and making it impossible for us to go ahead with any release, it's all their fault!
The hope is that blame for the situation is moved from those who created it to those who suffered it.
sorghaghtanibeki,
What size "Clique" T-shirt would you like? :)
Bet you typed that with a feeling of glee!! ;)
I bow to your knowledge on nautical terms.
If she was responsible for steering the RIB, that they were out in, would she still not be the coxswain? Or just a cox? (Maybe a coxwif?..) especially if she was the senior rating on that 'vessel'?
She would be the Senior Naval Rating on that particular RIB, normally it would be a Royal Marine ( a Bootie) who would be actually steering the RIB, as the Marines are specially trained in the handling of such craft. But I digress yes she would be the Cox'n i.e. she would be the boss not neccessarily the driver.
And no I was not gleeful, just passing on some of my knowledge, I was an instructor of such things lol
sorghaghtanibeki
29-Mar-07, 15:52
Hello
madpict; I am sorry I do not understand, is this I think a group? I look Yandex and google
Hello and apologies sorghaghtanibeki, perhaps a bit cryptic for you as you are such a new member. There is a small element amongst the membership who insist that a "clique" exists - this "clique" is of course totally imagined.
My post was a tongue in cheek way of advising you that you may be accused of being a member of this "clique", but sorry if it went "over your head".
Here is what Wikipedia has to say about "clique"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique
Enjoy and good afternoon.....
Imagine if it was american soldiers that were captured it would be another war for sure
The news mentioned an Algiers accord which demarcates the boundary and both Iran and Iraq agreed to after the war. And after the next war they agreed to honour the accord again. How can this be construed as not agreeing to something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_Agreement_%281975%29
The Algiers accord only dealt with the land boundaries and the Shatt-El-Arab waterway, there was no agreement over maritime boundaries.
The Algiers accord only dealt with the land boundaries and the Shatt-El-Arab waterway, there was no agreement over maritime boundaries.
Where is your evidence to support this or have you just thought that one up?? There seems to be no dispute where the maritime border is.
fred
Please stop diverting this thread into another one of your anti American tirades. We are talking about UK servicemen (and woman)
Yes and considering we just invaded the countries either side and are threatening to do the same to Iran it's understandable them getting a bit touchy about about us stopping ships in their waters and boarding them.
Where is your evidence to support this or have you just thought that one up?? There seems to be no dispute where the maritime border is.
Read the link you posted.
There seems to be no dispute where the maritime border is.
Read the link to the CIA site I posted.
"Videotaped confessions"? "Denial of access to counsel" (read consul) -- sound familiar?
What Guantanamo you mean?
Sounds way too tame for Abu Ghraib.
Read the link you posted.
The waterway was designated as the maritime border as part of the Algiers accord. Both parties agreed to abide by the Accord but they are too dishonorable to honour the agreement.
sorghaghtanibeki
29-Mar-07, 20:06
Hello
Fred, as you are expert on middle east do you think this is genuine? just on Sky News:
This is the latest letter purportedly from captured Leading Seaman Faye Turney to British MPs that was released by Iranian authorities: I am writing to inform you of my situation.I am a British service person currently being held in Iran. The Iranian people are kind, considerate, warm, compassionate and very hospitable. They have brought me no harm, but have looked after me well. I have been fed, clothed and well cared for. Unfortunately during the course of our mission we entered into Iranian waters. Even through our wrongdoing, they have still treated us well and humanely, (for) which I am and always will be eternally grateful. I ask the representatives of the House of Commons after the government had promised that this type of incident would not happen again. Why have they let this occur and why has the government not been questioned over this? Isn't it time for us to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?"
Faye Turney
27/3/07
Jeemag_USA
29-Mar-07, 20:37
She may have written something like this, but I think definately not in those words, this is something cooked up and interpreted by Iran to sound the way they want it to. A British service person would not write a letter like that, and why does it just happen to be the only women in the group they are using? Its ridiculous. Its up to their commanding officer to say whether they were out of bounds or not.
Hello
Fred, as you are expert on middle east do you think this is genuine? just on Sky News:
This is the latest letter purportedly from captured Leading Seaman Faye Turney to British MPs that was released by Iranian authorities: I am writing to inform you of my situation.I am a British service person currently being held in Iran. The Iranian people are kind, considerate, warm, compassionate and very hospitable. They have brought me no harm, but have looked after me well. I have been fed, clothed and well cared for. Unfortunately during the course of our mission we entered into Iranian waters. Even through our wrongdoing, they have still treated us well and humanely, (for) which I am and always will be eternally grateful. I ask the representatives of the House of Commons after the government had promised that this type of incident would not happen again. Why have they let this occur and why has the government not been questioned over this? Isn't it time for us to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?"
Faye Turney
27/3/07
I'm not an expert on the Middle East but from what I've seen nothing is ever genuine or ungenuine there it's always somewhere inbetween.
The statement will have been written by an Iranian and signed by Faye Turney so the British servicemen will all get to come home unharmed and a minor border dispute won't get blown out of all proportions and end up with thousands of people getting killed. It's the best policy in such situations to just admit to everything you're told to, the more the better because the more you admit to the less believable the confession becomes.
The waterway was designated as the maritime border as part of the Algiers accord. Both parties agreed to abide by the Accord but they are too dishonorable to honour the agreement.
You are making even less sense than normal.
The waterway is inland, that is where you tend to get waterways, there arn't too many rivers out to sea, the centre of it is the border between Iraq and Iran.
A maritime border has never been agreed on but it is normal under such circumstances for it to be equidistant from the nearest point of each country.
sorghaghtanibeki
29-Mar-07, 22:35
Hello
I see the UN is as usual 'toothless'
UN Will Not 'Deplore' Iran
Updated: 22:09, Thursday March 29, 2007. Britain has failed to win UN support for a statement deploring Iran's detention of 15 UK sailors and marines and calling for their immediate release. A senior Iranian official suggested Iran may put the British captives on trial. After three hours of talks, ambassadors from the 15 UN Security Council nations were still trying to agree on a watered-down press statement. One compromise that would take note the council's concern about the detentions and call for their immediate release was rejected by Russia, diplomats said. Russia proposed instead that the statement take note of the general situation and call for humanitarian access. The nation, which has strong commercial links with Tehran, raised serious objections to the thrust of the original British statement. The sailors and marines were seized after they allegedly went into Iranian waters - but Britain has insisted the servicemen and woman were in Iraqi waters. The UK had wanted the council to say it deplores Iran's actions, to state that the incident took place in Iraqi waters, and demand the Britons' immediate release of the Britons. Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, said only that he had made "constructive suggestions" and hoped members could agree on a statement.
The waterway is inland, that is where you tend to get waterways, there arn't too many rivers out to sea, the centre of it is the border between Iraq and Iran.
A maritime border has never been agreed on but it is normal under such circumstances for it to be equidistant from the nearest point of each country.
The channel extends out into the sea and this is the boundary. It needs dredging constantly.
Anyway, your petty arguing has little to do with disputed boundaries in the past and more about drawing out a pointless exchange of jibes. The bottom line is that both parties agree where the border is, end of, whether you think that the Iranians should agree to it or not![lol] . The question for the hostages is whether they entered the Iranian side of the agreed boundary or not. I think it is entirely feasible that they did.
Kaishowing
30-Mar-07, 00:05
The MoD seems 100% certain (unusual for them!) on where the RN vessel was when it was boarded. You either believe their evidence or not...What sounds incredibly suspect to me is that the original Iranian official story was given for 72 hours before they decided to change the location of the incident.
I would imagine when talking to the world media that a genuine error would be cleared up much faster than that.
http://img11.picsplace.to/img10/24/Slide2_000.JPG
When the MoD are this open and this certain about their facts, it normally means they truly believe they can't be caught in a scandal.
I am disappointed (but not surprised) in the UN reaction however, as the sailors were carrying out a UN patrol.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ModBriefingShowsRoyalNavyPersonnelWereInIraqiWater s.htm
Trouble is this the map fred is looking at.....
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/4792/fredmapjf9.gif
sorghaghtanibeki
30-Mar-07, 18:03
Hello
I have seen that Fay Turney has щriten three letters, I know чour Royal Navy and I am sure that someone on these Forum would know that what this Sailor has written belo is not the usual words of a british navy person! to us here it is certain these are щords put into her mouth! the world is mocking iran, they are sick and dangerous persons. I think it will not be long before israel will attack first although they have not said they will wipe that country from the face of the earth!
2nd Letter: "I am writing to you as a British service person who has been sent to Iraq, sacrificed due to the intervening policies of the Bush and Blair governments... I believe that for our countries to move forward we need to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and leave the people of Iraq to start re-building their lives....Whereas we hear and see on the news the way prisoners were treated in Abo-Ghrayb (sic) and other Iraqi jails by British and American personnel, I have received total respect and faced no harm...It is now our time to ask our government to make a change to its oppressive behaviour towards other people."
3rd Letter: "I am writing to you as a British service person who has been sent to Iraq, sacrificed due to the intervening policies of the Bush and Blair governments....I believe that for our countries to move forward, we need to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq, and leave the people of Iraq to start rebuilding their lives. I have written a letter to the people of Iran apologizing for our actions.Whereas we hear and see on the news the way prisoners were treated in Abu Ghrayb and other Iraqi jails by the British and American personnel, I have received total respect and faced no harm.It is now our time to ask our government to make a change to its oppressive behavior towards other people."
Why are you even debating that she wrote those letter, it is patently obvious by the wording that she didn't..
Why are you even debating that she wrote those letter, it is patently obvious by the wording that she didn't..
Pretty obviously propaganda, which is convincing nobody, I would have thought :confused
cliffhbuber
30-Mar-07, 20:10
Methinks it is time to start withdrawing ambassadors and shutting down embassies in Iran. (get the Brits out first)
The wild rhetoric by President 'Medieval Two-Twit' supported by the radical anti-West anti-Semitic clerics needs to be stood on its head with diplomatic and economic pressure. Big time!
Which countries will have the gumption to do so?
What lessons of W W II have already been forgotten?
(pass the biscuits- we're getting seasick_
sorghaghtanibeki
30-Mar-07, 20:50
darkman
it is not debate but to show stupidy of persons to think these words are true. we both agree that the words are not hers but there are persons on this forum who would believe these words, I am surprised they have not arisen! why are they so very quiet?
Trouble is this the map fred is looking at.....
I keep telling you there is no map of the Iraq Iran maritime border because no border has ever been agreed on.
I posted a link to the CIA web site which states that.
Here (http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=40008&archive=true) is a link to an article in which Royal Australian Navy Commodore Peter Lockwood, commander of Combined Task Force 158 in the Persian Gulf, says the same thing.
The best thing for the captured servicemen, for the people of Britain, for the people of Iran, is to treat this like the minor border dispute it is and make what diplomatic mumblings are neceessery to resolve the issue. If it escalates then a lot of people are going to be killed.
sorghaghtanibeki
30-Mar-07, 22:33
Hello
I see that the now Nimitz is on it's way to the area, exercise involved? UN and others do not stop Iran in it's quest for nuclear weapons, will Israel?. the very latest letter from Iran to UK does not mention asking for apology, maybe all navy persons will "apologise" themselves and thus will placate iranians? it will be very interesting press conference of them on their return to UK
Hello
I see that the now Nimitz is on it's way to the area, exercise involved? UN and others do not stop Iran in it's quest for nuclear weapons, will Israel?. the very latest letter from Iran to UK does not mention asking for apology, maybe all navy persons will "apologise" themselves and thus will placate iranians? it will be very interesting press conference of them on their return to UK
Israel have nukes so why not iran? George bush will destroy this world so what's the difference?
sorghaghtanibeki
30-Mar-07, 22:42
Israel stable country? not say will wipe country off face of earth? You genuinely, honestly think President Bush will do this? proof?
Israel stable country? not say will wipe country off face of earth? You genuinely, honestly think President Bush will do this? proof?Proof of my opinions?
I genuinely think that this current united states government will cause the beginning of ww3 without a shadow of a doubt in my mind.
Does israel actually need to make such a statement to show their intent?
darkman
it is not debate but to show stupidy of persons to think these words are true. we both agree that the words are not hers but there are persons on this forum who would believe these words, I am surprised they have not arisen! why are they so very quiet?Sorry m8 but who exactly would be foolish enough to believe these are the real thoughts of this woman?
They seem to have been written by manuel from faulty towers.
Kaishowing
30-Mar-07, 23:16
Does israel actually need to make such a statement to show their intent?
Absolutely..remember that it's still official Iranian policy to deny that the holocaust ever happened, so you can imagine what Israeli/Iranian diplomatic relations are like.
Absolutely..remember that it's still official Iranian policy to deny that the holocaust ever happened, so you can imagine what Israeli/Iranian diplomatic relations are like.Is that not just to anger the the israeli's? do they really hold that belief as genuine?
Kaishowing
30-Mar-07, 23:29
Is that not just to anger the the israeli's? do they really hold that belief as genuine?
I have no idea of the motive, only that it is official Iranian government policy.
I expect that the data is out there to research though.
I was watching Storyville:Screamers last night, and it was showing how the people and government of Turkey violently deny the Armenian genocide that was carried out in their country in decades gone by.
If such a national delusion can exist there, why not elsewhere?
I have no idea of the motive, only that it is official Iranian government policy.
I expect that the data is out there to research though.
I was watching Storyville:Screamers last night, and it was showing how the people and government of Turkey violently deny the Armenian genocide that was carried out in their country in decades gone by.
If such a national delusion can exist there, why not elsewhere?
Just as we and America deny the needless and senseless killing of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people believe what they want to believe despite the evidence.
I think the deathtoll had the Japanese defended their homeland would have far outnumbered the numbers killed by the two bombs.
The women were willing to leap off the cliffs in Saipan - even throw their children off the cliffs.
Do you honestly believe that they would have not fought to the last man, woman and child if the Allies invaded Japan?
I think the deathtoll had the Japanese defended their homeland would have far outnumbered the numbers killed by the two bombs.
The women were willing to leap off the cliffs in Saipan - even throw their children off the cliffs.
Do you honestly believe that they would have not fought to the last man, woman and child if the Allies invaded Japan?
See what I mean?
I am neither defending nor condemning the use of the A bombs - I can see both sides of the argument unlike you who seems to be wearing very big blinkers...
The Sailors were acting under the auspices of the United Nations. Iran has in effect seized UN Troops who happen to be British.
The seizure, quite by co-incidence, just happened to be as the UN were about to make a decision about imposing sanctions on Iran.
No doubt there will be those who will insist that there in spite of the "overwhelming evidence" people refuse to accept that they were not seized by the Iranians but by the US in order to create an excuse to invade Ruritania.
Well, I thought I would get in first with an at least semi-believable Conspiracy story before the lunatic fringe get going.
See what I mean?No, please explain.
No, please explain.
Well in the words of Paul Simon "A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest".
See above where Madpict clearly defends the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in one post then says "I am neither defending nor condemning the use of the A bombs" in the next, he has an image of himself as impartial and when reality shows this to be false he alters reality to fit his image.
Well in the words of Paul Simon "A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest".
See above where Madpict clearly defends the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in one post then says "I am neither defending nor condemning the use of the A bombs" in the next, he has an image of himself as impartial and when reality shows this to be false he alters reality to fit his image.
fred,
Your attempts are pathetic.
I did not defend the bombing - I put forward a long argued point that has been mulled over by great military minds and historians since that day. Greater minds than you and me. Well myself at least - I doubt there is anyone as great a thinker as you....[lol]
So twist my words if it pleases you.
And as for the Paul Simon lyric quote - that really does just about sum you up nicely. Cherry pick the tasty conspiracy friendly bits from 9/11 and present that as your damning evidence against everyone BUT the terrorists.
Who, I expect, you have every sympathy for and would no doubt love to see the great Satan (the USA), and it's leaders and anyone else who does not fit your idea of a world (coloured red by any chance?) bombed into dust by 1000's of hijacked airplanes....
YAWN...........
sorghaghtanibeki
31-Mar-07, 13:54
Hello
I am available. I have looked many many postings. my thoughts is that there are people here that believe what ever googol tells them which fits into to their own ideas and disregard what is left. I read here Fred 'was banned for making anti-semitic comments' - fred is this correct? if so i refuse to read your view as it would be wrong.
before continue 'darkman' what does 'm8' mean (is this like lol which I now understand?) I do not understand m8 but I see your rapid postings at 22.50 & 22.52 & 23.10 that your postings were faster than чour thoughts, maybe you were excited?
Israel is surrounded by hostile states Egypt, Jordon, Syria and Lebanon, Iran is an unstable country who has vowed to destroy Israel. as madpict on 29nd at 11.12 says the human rights report it is a bad country. is it any wonder that Israel with Suid Afrika did things in antarctic waters? Roy, 'why are people so outraged about Iran detaining soldiers to interrogate them about what their purpose is over their border and in their territory?' by this do you really mean these present sailors were in Iranian waters? I find it difficult to understand щhy when a Iran General is shown on television with a map showing the border which agrees with the Royal Navy (which fred alone seems to not see - maybe he has spy satellite above?) that even IF these sailors were in Iran waters it is against INTERNATIONAL law to arrest them - do some of you not understand this basic fact. The Iranians must simply ask them to leave. In 2004 the 8 sailors were arrested - you do not mention the horrific weather conditions Roy - this was genuine mistake I understand that in your life you may have not been in this position of confusion. in real life nothing is clear cut, but maybe you do not know this? In Cold War many incursions by USSR into britains airspace, they were not shoot down but directed out. also iran gave wrong position! чou have much information on incursions - this take long time google?
Fred goes away from topic, is he denying millions; both on allies and Japanese, that millions were saved by this Hiroshima and Nagasaki? is he in denial because it 'nuclear' or he щanted bullets to kill? I expect he is expert on Dresden? we must stay with topic.
basic; Royal Navy, UN, EU say sailors not in iran waters, arrest by iran (wrong - against law) they are paraded on TV (wrong) one writes letters (wrong) now Iran tells Russian Ambassador that sailors will be tried.. Is this stupid of Iran or not? if iran WANTS war this is best way - yes?
I am sure you will understand things better when your english improves sorghaghtanibeki.
Did you see where my thoughts went, maybe If I hurry I will catch them?
oldmarine
31-Mar-07, 20:13
I think the deathtoll had the Japanese defended their homeland would have far outnumbered the numbers killed by the two bombs.
The women were willing to leap off the cliffs in Saipan - even throw their children off the cliffs.
Do you honestly believe that they would have not fought to the last man, woman and child if the Allies invaded Japan?
For someone who was not there you certainly have your facts straight. I was there and can give you a first-hand account of the facts to which you subscribe. I fought through the Pacific for 36 months and observed the Japanese forces fighting harder and harder as we neared their homeland.
When our troops entered Japan after the surrender they reported that old men, women and children were prepared to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in defending their homeland. The Japanese Emperor who was a god-like figure made the correct choice when he ordered his country to surrender. Otherwise, it would have been the worse blood bath the entire Pacific war would have seen.
My largest disappointment was when MacArthur protected and covered up many of the atrocities committed by the Japanese war lords, i.e., the cover-up of the experimental going-ons made by Japanese prison camps in Manchuria. These terrible facts have only been hinted at by people who knew and later silenced. MacArthur thought there would be value to the findings of the medical experimentation that occured. Even that never surfaced.
Just as we and America deny the needless and senseless killing of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people believe what they want to believe despite the evidence.I didn't know that we and/or the Americans were denying Bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima or is that just more wishful thinking on your behalf? Neither did I realise that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been moved to Iran.
Is there anywhere else in the World or any other totally unconnected piece of history you wish to drag into the Thread in order to divert it from discussing the actual incident involving Iran and the group of British sailors which the thread is about and hijack it so you can pursue your obsession of venting your spleen on the US?
You are able to make Joe McCarthy look like an outstanding example of being able to give matters studied consideration prior to arriving at a conclusion.
For someone who was not there you certainly have your facts straight. I was there and can give you a first-hand account of the facts to which you subscribe. I fought through the Pacific for 36 months and observed the Japanese forces fighting harder and harder as we neared their homeland.
But how many people who were in Hiroshima or Nagasaki at the time would agree with him?
sorghaghtanibeki
31-Mar-07, 20:36
Old Marine; Unit 731 (sorry I go off topic)
But how many people who were in Hiroshima or Nagasaki at the time would agree with him?
And you can speak for them yet you weren't there?
Hello
I am available. I have looked many many postings. my thoughts is that there are people here that believe what ever googol tells them which fits into to their own ideas and disregard what is left. I read here Fred 'was banned for making anti-semitic comments' - fred is this correct? if so i refuse to read your view as it would be wrong.
I wouldn't believe anything Rheghead tells you without checking if I were you. I have often criticised individuals who were Jewish, I have often criticised the Zionist movement but I defy anyone to produce one post in which I criticised the Jewish race.
But how many people who were in Hiroshima or Nagasaki at the time would agree with him?Are you asking about before the bombings or afterwards when they suddenly changed their minds?
The bombing of Tokyo by conventional weapons killed and injured far more people than at either Hiroshima ot Nagasaki and had no effect on causing Japan to surrender. But that, of course, is conveniently overlookedby the "We shouldn't have done it!" Brigade.
What was that you were saying about Simon and Garfunkel, fred?
Is there anywhere else in the World or any other totally unconnected piece of history you wish to drag into the Thread in order to divert it from discussing the actual incident involving Iran and the group of British sailors which the thread is about and hijack it so you can pursue your obsession of venting your spleen on the US?
Well seeing as you mentioned the US.
On July 3rd 1988 an American ship USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civil airliner over Iran killing all 290 people on board. America claimed the airliner was shot down by mistake, that it was decending towards the ship, that the ship mistook it for a military plane and fired in self defence. They claimed the ship was not in Iranian territorial waters.
The Iranian story was quite different but the western world with their Iranians are evil liars and the west is truthfull and good ideology believed the American account. It was 3 years later that an American General admitted that the ship had actually been inside Iranian territorial waters after all, it was 1996 before America paid out $60 million in compensation to avoid going to court. The plane had just taken off and was ascending slowly not decending rapidly towards the ship, it had identified itself properly as a civilian airliner.
If this board had been here in 1988, given what was being said in the media at the time, how many would have believed the Iranian account?
And you can speak for them yet you weren't there?
I didn't make a statement I asked a question.
And now for something completely different.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2047110,00.html
Well seeing as you mentioned the US.
On July 3rd 1988 an American ship USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civil airliner over Iran killing all 290 people on board. America claimed the airliner was shot down by mistake, that it was decending towards the ship, that the ship mistook it for a military plane and fired in self defence. They claimed the ship was not in Iranian territorial waters.
The Iranian story was quite different but the western world with their Iranians are evil liars and the west is truthfull and good ideology believed the American account. It was 3 years later that an American General admitted that the ship had actually been inside Iranian territorial waters after all, it was 1996 before America paid out $60 million in compensation to avoid going to court. The plane had just taken off and was ascending slowly not decending rapidly towards the ship, it had identified itself properly as a civilian airliner.
If this board had been here in 1988, given what was being said in the media at the time, how many would have believed the Iranian account?
This is another fredism, another diversionary tactic.:roll:
This is another fredism, another diversionary tactic.:roll:
And that was yet another ad hominem attack from Rheghead.
I wouldn't believe anything Rheghead tells you without checking if I were you.
Ad hominem attack? :lol:
And now for something completely different.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2047110,00.html
Terry Jones? I've seen him on the Tele, he's a comedian and writes comedy sketches! No more Monty Python please, fred, my sides are aching with laughing! [lol]
He writes good jokes though!
Ad hominem attack? :lol:
A response to one.
Unless you were to do what you always demand of others and provide proof of your statement, post one quote of me criticising the Jewish people as a race.
sorghaghtanibeki
01-Apr-07, 08:50
Fred: I now see how others mean by not answering a question, again, were you 'banned for making anti-semitic comments' ?. You write this; "I wouldn't believe anything Rheghead tells you without checking if I were you. I have often criticised individuals who were Jewish, I have often criticised the Zionist movement but I defy anyone to produce one post in which I criticised the Jewish race" .
But fred you must know 'the meaning of Semitic does not just include Jews, so fred, please; were you "'banned for making anti-semitic comments' ?. (YOU do ask me to check!)
Fred: I now see how others mean by not answering a question, again, were you 'banned for making anti-semitic comments' ?. You write this; "I wouldn't believe anything Rheghead tells you without checking if I were you. I have often criticised individuals who were Jewish, I have often criticised the Zionist movement but I defy anyone to produce one post in which I criticised the Jewish race" .
But fred you must know 'the meaning of Semitic does not just include Jews, so fred, please; were you "'banned for making anti-semitic comments' ?. (YOU do ask me to check!)
If I have made no anti-semitic comments how could I be banned for it?
Again, can you produce any quote of me making any criticism of the Jewish race or any other race?
Something like your blatant remarks about the people of Persia in #151 (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=207140&postcount=151) perhaps?
the world is mocking iran, they are sick and dangerous persons.
sorghaghtanibeki
01-Apr-07, 10:16
Fred: yes I see you DO pick and choose parts of things, I said "they are sick and dangerous persons". BUT I also stated "I think it will not be long before israel will attack first although they have not said they will wipe that country from the face of the earth!" Fred; you have missed my point. for a country to state officially they will destroy another nation is a sick and dangerous thing and thus the person who said must be thus too.. So Fred were you banned and for what?
Fred: yes I see you DO pick and choose parts of things, I said "they are sick and dangerous persons". BUT I also stated "I think it will not be long before israel will attack first although they have not said they will wipe that country from the face of the earth!" Fred; you have missed my point. for a country to state officially they will destroy another nation is a sick and dangerous thing and thus the person who said must be thus too.. So Fred were you banned and for what?
Iran has not stated it will destroy another nation, Iran has not stated it will wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
No I was not banned I was suspended, here (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=120056&postcount=185) is tha last post I made before being suspended in which I was arguing against racism and pointing out that it was a small number of people, on both sides, responsible for the crimes of history not entire races.
Iran has not stated it will destroy another nation, Iran has not stated it will wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
The Guardian
But Mr Ahmadinejad rejected compromise: "There is no doubt that the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will wipe off this stigma [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world." Recalling the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran's Islamic revolution, he said: "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1601413,00.html
Islam on Line
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Wednesday for Israel to be "wiped off the map, saying it is a "disgraceful blot"
http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=9898
For more information about the comment and that inclused those who try to explain it away by claiming "He didn't mean that" or "He was quoting Khomeini" or "The policy was there before he said it so he didn't start it" and other ways of "excusing" the statement.
As usual, the whole World got it wrong apart from the "Enlightened Few" who really know the "undisputable facts" I think the normal phrase is!
sorghaghtanibeki
01-Apr-07, 21:27
wrong again Fred Google
sorghaghtanibeki
01-Apr-07, 21:34
Fred you wrote this ?!?:
"Your perception of history is wrong. The Germans killed the Jews therefore all Germans were evil and all Jews were good, that is racist thinking, that isn't how it happened.
Most Germans were good people, a small number of Germans who saw themselves as better than the rest took power, it was they who killed the Jews. All Jews were not good, there was a small group who decided they were better than the rest declared themselves leaders of the Children of Israel and they were every bit as evil as Hitler and every bit as responsible for the holocaust.
Antisematism in prewar Germany was part of the Zionist plan, they had a new country they wanted to populate."
Not very nice is it?
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1601413,00.html
Islam on Line
http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=9898
For more information about the comment and that inclused those who try to explain it away by claiming "He didn't mean that" or "He was quoting Khomeini" or "The policy was there before he said it so he didn't start it" and other ways of "excusing" the statement.
As usual, the whole World got it wrong apart from the "Enlightened Few" who really know the "undisputable facts" I think the normal phrase is!
Now show me where Iran said they would "wipe Israel off the face of the earth."
Here (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP101305) is the entire speech translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute. He does not say it.
He calls for regime change that is all, no nuclear holocaust.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually were wiped off the face of the earth and on another thread you are defending it.
Fred you wrote this ?!?:
If it says "fred" at the top then I wrote it.
Not very nice is it?
Neither the leaders of Germany or the leaders of the Zionists were very nice people as history has proved.
Doesn't matter if they were there on behalf of the UN or the UK. They were based on the HMS Cornwall flying the Union Jack as far as I'm aware.
Roy. I do hate it when civilians get their facts wrong.
HM ships only fly the "Union Jack" when they are tied up in port not at sea. The Union Flag is the flag that is hoisted on the mast at the bow of the ship called the "Jackstaff" hence the name "Union Jack".
When at sea all HM ships fly from the stern the "White Ensign" or if going into battle the "White Ensign" is then flown from the highest mast on the vessel.
Roy. I do hate it when civilians get their facts wrong.
HM ships only fly the "Union Jack" when they are tied up in port not at sea. The Union Flag is the flag that is hoisted on the mast at the bow of the ship called the "Jackstaff" hence the name "Union Jack".
When at sea all HM ships fly from the stern the "White Ensign" or if going into battle the "White Ensign" is then flown from the highest mast on the vessel.
Caught out again eh?:roll:
oldmarine
02-Apr-07, 05:30
Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually were wiped off the face of the earth and on another thread you are defending it.
I, for one, would defend it. While I was on Okinawa, after participating in the battle for that island, I was training for the landing on the main Japanese homeland. That battle, along with Iwo Jima, was the fiercest battle of the entire war. The Japanese empire was not about to surrender. Even after the 1st A-bomb was dropped the Japanese emperor and warlords were not about to surrender. I had spent 36 months in the Pacific fighting and island hopping after the Japanese pulled the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. I was prepared for the worse and thought death was inevitable. Then we dropped our only remaining A-bomb on Japan hoping that would do the trick in forcing a final surrender. Thank goodness, the Japanese emperor did not know that was the final one in our arsenal. Over the objections of the Japanese military (they wanted to fight on) the Japanese emperor (who was a god-like figure) ordered the surrender. Some of my comrades who went into Japan and observed their defenses later reported that it would have been a blood bath if we were to fight our way through those defenses. All in my 1st Marine Division were happy that the two A-bombs were dropped. At least we returned home safely.
I, for one, would defend it. While I was on Okinawa, after participating in the battle for that island, I was training for the landing on the main Japanese homeland. That battle, along with Iwo Jima, was the fiercest battle of the entire war. The Japanese empire was not about to surrender. Even after the 1st A-bomb was dropped the Japanese emperor and warlords were not about to surrender. I had spent 36 months in the Pacific fighting and island hopping after the Japanese pulled the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. I was prepared for the worse and thought death was inevitable. Then we dropped our only remaining A-bomb on Japan hoping that would do the trick in forcing a final surrender. Thank goodness, the Japanese emperor did not know that was the final one in our arsenal. Over the objections of the Japanese military (they wanted to fight on) the Japanese emperor (who was a god-like figure) ordered the surrender. Some of my comrades who went into Japan and observed their defenses later reported that it would have been a blood bath if we were to fight our way through those defenses. All in my 1st Marine Division were happy that the two A-bombs were dropped. At least we returned home safely.
While the schoolchildren of Hiroshima never made it to school.
The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.
General Curtis E. LeMay
I thought this post was about the "Sailors held by Iran" and the question posed by Post 1.
What would you do if you were in charge to get these servicemen their freedom?
There is a separate thread which was started about the Atomic Bomb and the Surrender of Japan which occurred not during the last month but over 60 years ago.
Perhaps somebody would care to identify exactly what the link is between that event and a current dispute over the boundary between Territorial Waters in the Gulf.
I, for one, would love to know.
I thought this post was about the "Sailors held by Iran" and the question posed by Post 1.
There is a separate thread which was started about the Atomic Bomb and the Surrender of Japan which occurred not during the last month but over 60 years ago.
Perhaps somebody would care to identify exactly what the link is between that event and a current dispute over the boundary between Territorial Waters in the Gulf.
I, for one, would love to know.
Someone asked the question how could Iranians believe that the Holocaust didn't happen when it obviously isn't true.
I pointed out that Iranians arn't the only ones who believe what they want to believe when it comes to holocausts.
Unfortunately there are still a few people around who don't see anything wrong with incinerating 150,000 innocent civillians.
Unfortunately there are still a few people around who don't see anything wrong with incinerating 150,000 innocent civillians.
What was the population of Japan in 1945?
The Japanese would have fought to the last man, woman and child to protect their emperor without his personal intervention in surrender. That is an awful lot of 'innocent civillians' in line for needless slaughter. So when the Emperor spoke of the 'new Weapon' in the hands of the allies during his surrender speech then I think he got the message.
It goes to show that the Emperor did have a concience afterall and that the new weapon was causal to ending the war.
oldmarine
03-Apr-07, 03:32
While the schoolchildren of Hiroshima never made it to school.
I did not start that frigging war. The parents and grandparents of those school children were a part of starting that war when they bombed Pearl Harbor. Thank god for your parents/grandparents helping us in bringing that war to an end. From the way you appear on this thread I suspect you to be a coward and would not help your own countrymen. I suspect the Islamic nations will eventually get to you. They hate cowards and would put you away in a hurry.
Jeemag_USA
03-Apr-07, 03:34
At the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese fleet was spent. Japan had a new weapon, The I-400 sereis Submarine and the I-401 flying bomb which was to be flown by human pilots. The Submarines were the largest of its kind and the flying bombs had a massive payload (the planes folded up and were contained in tubes on the submarine hull). The problem with Japan was that by that time they were cut off from their allies the Germans and there was no supply route, it had been successfully monitored by the USA and nothing was getting through. Japan were an island nation and the problem for them was they literally had roun out of gas, they had no Diesel to power their fleet. The Japanese had planned to cross the Pacific with the I-400's and I-401's and launch them on american cities of the western seaboard, but at the time they were ready to embark they had to shelve the plans as they had not enough diesel. Instead they loaded them up with what they had and set of for closer pacific islands and were going to launch what they had on the american fleet. During this journey the A-Bomb dropped and the fleet was radiod to stand down. The war was over, but the fact was the Japanese Navy were finished anyway, this would probably have been their last attempt at any kind of attack. The simple fact about Japan was without a Navy they were nothing, they couldn't move and they couldn't fight if they couldn't move troops. The USA and its allies could have easily ended any threat from Japan with conventional methods. The USA had a weapon and need to test it, and they did, end of story. It was not necessary but they did it, it was nothing more than a statement.
Also referring back to an earlier comment by Fred about the japanese people being brainwashed by their emperor is simply not true, you need to understand the Japanese to know that is not true, the Japanese were living by the way their Culture had always taight them. Now it may be that the Emperor was brainwashed by promise of German victory and a constand feed of supplies via their axis partnership and he believed that with Germany's help they could win a war, but it simply was not going to happen. The Japanese people as part of their culture will die for their Emperor, this was not something new just for the Second World War, its had been the way of life for thousands of years and to understand it you have to understand the Samurai. Don't google that, go out and buy these books if you want to learn something.
Hagakure - Yamamoto Tsunetomo
Bushido Way of The Samurai - same author, translated by Justin Stone
Book of the Five Rings - Miyamoto Musashi.
No matter how many ways you look at it, Japan as a small island nation were never going to have the resources to outlast anyone in a war without someone elses help, and without Germany's help, Japan could have easily been overun by an allied force.
But like someone else said, what has this got to do with the Sailors held captive in Iran. You are all so caught up in trying to look smarter than each other you don't know what your talking about! [lol]
Also referring back to an earlier comment by Fred about the japanese people being brainwashed by their emperor is simply not true, you need to understand the Japanese to know that is not true, the Japanese were living by the way their Culture had always taight them.
I have never said that the Japanese were brainwashed by their Emperor.
The Japanese were living by the way their culture had always taught them, the Iranians are living by the way their culture has always taught them and the people of Britain and America are living by the way our cultures have always taught us, everyone has been brainwashed, everyone believes what their leaders tell them rather than what logic dictates.
j4bberw0ck
03-Apr-07, 09:22
While the schoolchildren of Hiroshima never made it to school.
Perhaps their leaders should have contemplated the possibilities better when they decided America was too weak and too corrupt to respond effectively to Pearl Harbour? There are parallels between a nation so convinced of its spiritual purity and god-given right to rule starting a war by bombing Pearl Harbour, and a nation so convinced of its spiritual purity and god-given right to overthrow any who don't bow to its values defying the UN and the rest of the world by developing a nuclear capability.
Fred, you have more fluff in your navel and more time to pick it out, contemplate it and weave complicated little patterns from it - using, I might say, the very finest in 20/20 hindsight, late-20th century "liberalism" and conspiracy theory to add colour and texture - than any other person I've ever come across. I think we all understand that things are done, and have been done, which aren't the best examples of the milk of human kindness. Get over it. Move on. And don't forget.
I'm surprised you've never commented on the reports that a B29 flew over Hiroshima every morning for several days prior to 6 August, and did nothing. The population became used to it and so stayed in the open when the bomb was dropped - providing an unparalleled opportunity to get data and to study the effects of a new weapon on an exposed population.
Was it nice? No. It was appalling, by contemporary standards. Was it justified? In the rationale of the time - in other words, not trying to judge it through 2007 liberal / cynical eyeballs - yes. Were the data collected useful? Yes. Just like data which advanced plastic surgery and studies of hypothermia, obtained from appalling Nazi experiments.
One of us at least is grateful that people 90 years ago and again 65 years ago went to war and did what was necessary - not what was nice - to try to ensure that I wouldn't have to and I'm not prepared to play down the bravery and commitment of those people, in their world, for doing it.
sorghaghtanibeki
03-Apr-07, 14:02
"An Iranian diplomat kidnapped in Iraq in February has been freed, Iran's official news agency, Irna, says Mr Sharafi, second secretary at the Iranian embassy in Baghdad, was abducted from his car in February in the city's central Karrada district by men wearing Iraqi army uniforms. US officials denied any involvement in the kidnapping and said they did not know about the diplomat's release"
Any connection with softening attitude with iran?
(ban. sort with Super Moderator)
Jeemag_USA
03-Apr-07, 15:58
I have never said that the Japanese were brainwashed by their Emperor.
The Japanese were living by the way their culture had always taught them, the Iranians are living by the way their culture has always taught them and the people of Britain and America are living by the way our cultures have always taught us, everyone has been brainwashed, everyone believes what their leaders tell them rather than what logic dictates.
Sorry not that it matters but you certainly did, in the hiroshima/nagasaki thread.
The people of Japan were brainwashed into doing whatever their Emporor told them to do, if he told them to commit suicide they would commit suicide, if he told them to surrender they would surrender.
Sorry not that it matters but you certainly did, in the hiroshima/nagasaki thread.
I said they were brainwashed into doing whatever their Emperor told them to do.
I did not say who did the brainwashing and certainly did not say the Emperor, or any other person, did the brainwashing.
Perhaps their leaders should have contemplated the possibilities better when they decided America was too weak and too corrupt to respond effectively to Pearl Harbour? There are parallels between a nation so convinced of its spiritual purity and god-given right to rule starting a war by bombing Pearl Harbour, and a nation so convinced of its spiritual purity and god-given right to overthrow any who don't bow to its values defying the UN and the rest of the world by developing a nuclear capability.
First you deny the facts of history then you present speculation as fact.
Even at the time everyone agreed that the targetting of civillian populations was a crime, which is why the American government lied to its people and told them Hiroshima was a military target, which is why the bombing of civillian targets was outlawed in the 4th Geneva Convention in 1949.
What gives America and Britain the God given right to be invading middle Eastern countries? What gives us the God given right to hand Iraq's oil over to western corporations? What gives us the God given right to decide that India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel can have nuclear weapons but Iran can't? What gave us the God given right to overthrow Iran's democratically elected government and install our own puppet dictator?
Iran has not started a war in living history, their record is clean while ours is appaling. We even supplied Saddam Hussein with chemical and biological weapons to use on Iranians, they killed over 100,000 people which makes Iran the second worst victim of weapons of mass destruction in history, second only to Japan, what gave us the God given right to do that?
First you deny the facts of history then you present speculation as fact.
Even at the time everyone agreed that the targetting of civillian populations was a crime, which is why the American government lied to its people and told them Hiroshima was a military target, which is why the bombing of civillian targets was outlawed in the 4th Geneva Convention in 1949.
What gives America and Britain the God given right to be invading middle Eastern countries? What gives us the God given right to hand Iraq's oil over to western corporations? What gives us the God given right to decide that India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel can have nuclear weapons but Iran can't? What gave us the God given right to overthrow Iran's democratically elected government and install our own puppet dictator?
Iran has not started a war in living history, their record is clean while ours is appaling. We even supplied Saddam Hussein with chemical and biological weapons to use on Iranians, they killed over 100,000 people which makes Iran the second worst victim of weapons of mass destruction in history, second only to Japan, what gave us the God given right to do that?
Could it be God by any chance?:cool:
First you deny the facts of history then you present speculation as fact.Oh dear, dear. Kettle, Pot, Sooty are words that spring to mind.
Oh dear, dear. Kettle, Pot, Sooty are words that spring to mind.
Maybe they did spring to your mind but I wonder if you understand what they mean.
I have never said that the Japanese were brainwashed by their Emperor.
The Japanese were living by the way their culture had always taught them, the Iranians are living by the way their culture has always taught them and the people of Britain and America are living by the way our cultures have always taught us, everyone has been brainwashed, everyone believes what their leaders tell them rather than what logic dictates.
Surely some mistake there Fred.
For someone who was not there you certainly have your facts straight.
Thank you for fighting for the freedom of the world.
Yesterday I visited the Kranji War memorial in Singapore and as with any such place the names of those who laid down their lives fighting the enemy will have my respect until I die.
The names on the walls were from all religious backgrounds and it makes you realise that at one time we stood shoulder to shoulder with people who might consider us the enemy today.
Shame we forget so easily.
oldmarine, I salute you....
To get this thread back on track, there is to be some annoucement at 12.30 from the iranians today.
Roy. I do hate it when civilians get their facts wrong.
HM ships only fly the "Union Jack" when they are tied up in port not at sea. .
It seems there are some exceptions to this
The Union Flag (union jack) is used in the following ways at sea:
as a jack
to signal a court-martial is in progress
to indicate the presence of an admiral of the fleet
when the monarch is on board the ship
The Union Flag is the flag that is hoisted on the mast at the bow of the ship called the "Jackstaff" hence the name "Union Jack".
When at sea all HM ships fly from the stern the "White Ensign" or if going into battle the "White Ensign" is then flown from the highest mast on the vessel.
There are other theories from http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page5017.asp The term 'Union Jack' possibly dates from Queen Anne's time (r. 1702-14), but its origin is uncertain.
It may come from the 'jack-et' of the English or Scottish soldiers, or from the name of James I who originated the first union in 1603.
Another alternative is that the name may be derived from a proclamation by Charles II that the Union Flag should be flown only by ships of the Royal Navy as a jack, a small flag at the bowsprit; the term 'jack' once meant small.
I too had always thought that it was called the Union Jack only at sea but it seems with common usage etc the term Union Jack or Union Flag are both now acceptable for sea or land use.
sorghaghtanibeki
04-Apr-07, 14:45
Hello. i learn that the sailors will " freed as a 'gift' to Britain. "Unfortunately the British government was not even brave enough to tell their people the truth, that it made a mistake," Mr Ahmadinejad said. He made the announcement at a news conference, in which he also awarded medals to the commanders who captured the British personnel in the Gulf. (well, they were very very brave; gunships against rubber dingys) He said the Britons would be released immediately and taken to an airport.
It will be good to hear this sailors speak
It seems there are some exceptions to this
The Union Flag (union jack) is used in the following ways at sea:
as a jack
to signal a court-martial is in progress
to indicate the presence of an admiral of the fleet
when the monarch is on board the ship
There are other theories from http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page5017.asp The term 'Union Jack' possibly dates from Queen Anne's time (r. 1702-14), but its origin is uncertain.
It may come from the 'jack-et' of the English or Scottish soldiers, or from the name of James I who originated the first union in 1603.
Another alternative is that the name may be derived from a proclamation by Charles II that the Union Flag should be flown only by ships of the Royal Navy as a jack, a small flag at the bowsprit; the term 'jack' once meant small.
I too had always thought that it was called the Union Jack only at sea but it seems with common usage etc the term Union Jack or Union Flag are both now acceptable for sea or land use.
There are many theories on the etiquette of flying a Union Flag.
Tristan
here are some I found,
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3649
http://www.fotw.net/flags/gb-jacks.html
http://www.culture.gov.uk/flagflying/faqs.htm
But no doubt you and I will never agree :confused
I think everyone will join me in relief in hearing that the sailors are to be released.
I think everyone will join me in relief in hearing that the sailors are to be released.
My sentiments exactly Rheg, but I will reserve my splicing of the mainbrace until they are back onboard HMS Cornwall.
In reality there are/were a lot of people in much worse situations than these 15. I would much rather be in there position than patrolling the streets of Bagdad or driving along the highway in Iraq waiting for a road side bomb. It seems to me that the conditions they were kept in were a wee bit better than Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. DOn't get me wrong it will be nice to see them free - just think that this story has been blown out of all proportion.
j4bberw0ck
04-Apr-07, 15:24
Iran win on a TKO :roll:
I bet we don't get the GPS back.:roll:
sorghaghtanibeki
04-Apr-07, 16:24
it is here like saying that the Irans "played this one really well or they are manipulating the worlds media really well." This is stupid I think? If you know they are 'manipulating the media' then they have failed.
People are still saying that Iran is coming out on top - I think it makes them look more stupid. thus the Iranians illegally kidnap the british sailors and then "gift" them back to you? That is like stealing wiskey from a shop and then giving it back to the owner as a gift. The british sailors were not in Iran water and were illegally kidnaped by iran - international law says they MUST ask trespassers to move back. why was the Indian cargo ship not taken by the iranian?. It must have been humiliating for the Irans when the first grid reference they gave for the kidnap was in Iraqi waters! Ahmadinejad he has fooled no-one, except a few of his own followers and others.
Seems to me like successful diplomacy.
The Iranians avoid losing face.
The British sailors come home.
Must just be coincidence that jw0ck's poll closes tomorrow? - I think I went for the "other" (diplomatic) option...:confused
In reality there are/were a lot of people in much worse situations than these 15. I would much rather be in there position than patrolling the streets of Bagdad or driving along the highway in Iraq waiting for a road side bomb. It seems to me that the conditions they were kept in were a wee bit better than Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. DOn't get me wrong it will be nice to see them free - just think that this story has been blown out of all proportion.
Indeed, as I pointed out earlier in the thread this was just a minor border dispute, nothing to get exited about at all.
I hope some people are going to take back some of the things they said about those nice Iranians and join me now in wishing that America would follow suit and release the many Iranian nationals they are holding without trial in their prisons and gulags or at least stop torturing them.
Oh and I think our diplomatic relations with countries like Iran would be considerably eased if the Americans didn't go trying to pull off stupid stunts like this. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.ece) Anybody would think they were trying to start a war or something.
Do you like anything US related fred? Do you have an embargo on anything American related in your house/life?
Nothing to get excited about? Hmmm, I think the relatives of 15 UK service personnel might have a different view.
But then, your mates the Iranians are honourable people, not like the devils servants them damn yankees...
sorghaghtanibeki
04-Apr-07, 21:51
Fred very strange outlook on life, he doesnot like jews, but loves muslims, he hates americans - who gave lives for you in world wars - but loves iranians "those nice Iranians" ! please 'fred google' you have been to middle east and know these people? basic they take the sailors against international law. sailors in Iraq waters see France 24 ref satellite photos. Qatar and Syria tell Iran they have pushed too far and must release. so iran take and give back; nothing gained but show stupidy. again why iran NOT take Indian cargo ship which sailors had inspected was that in iran waters too fred? i think other people here on forum ignore fred, i can see why, maybe i follow!
Jeemag_USA
04-Apr-07, 21:51
Do you like anything US related fred? Do you have an embargo on anything American related in your house/life?
Nothing to get excited about? Hmmm, I think the relatives of 15 UK service personnel might have a different view.
But then, your mates the Iranians are honourable people, not like the devils servants them damn yankees...
I think he likes Al Gore, Elvis Presley and Levi Jeans [lol]
There are many theories on the etiquette of flying a Union Flag.
Tristan
here are some I found,
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3649
http://www.fotw.net/flags/gb-jacks.html
http://www.culture.gov.uk/flagflying/faqs.htm
But no doubt you and I will never agree :confused
I guess that says more about you than me then.
We have looked at some of the same sources and are both looking at government sources. I find it odd that you would find some reason to disagree with my view that is based on the same of sources as your view. I guess my quote from the Monarch’s site could be open to debate...shrug...as I say, your comment says more about you than me.
Do you like anything US related fred? Do you have an embargo on anything American related in your house/life?
I like most things American apart from their corrupt imperialist government and their immoral corporate system.
A large number of Americans share my opinions, including the odd one or two who post to this forum.
Oh and I had a McDonalds hamburger once, didn't like that at all, never had one since.
Fred very strange outlook on life, he doesnot like jews, but loves muslims, he hates americans - who gave lives for you in world wars - but loves iranians "those nice Iranians" ! please 'fred google' you have been to middle east and know these people? basic they take the sailors against international law. sailors in Iraq waters see France 24 ref satellite photos. Qatar and Syria tell Iran they have pushed too far and must release. so iran take and give back; nothing gained but show stupidy. again why iran NOT take Indian cargo ship which sailors had inspected was that in iran waters too fred? i think other people here on forum ignore fred, i can see why, maybe i follow!
But I do like Jews, I like them a lot as much as I like Muslims, they are both a beautiful people with beautiful cultures.
The Zionist ethnic clensing of Palestine and their persecution of the Palestinian people I believe to be wrong and I speak out against it just as I believe the fact the HMS Cornwall was in the Gulf in the first place to be wrong let alone dictating to Iran where there maritime border with Iraq is. If Iran were to invade and occupy France and start boarding ships in the English channel I would believe that to be wrong as well but Iran has never invaded and occupied anyone whereas we seem to be making a habit of it.
I think he likes Al Gore, Elvis Presley and Levi Jeans [lol]
Not too keen on Al Gore, Elvis Presley's last hit was his best one and I can't afford Levi Jeans.
America has produced some good but not quite as expensive jeans though and some truly great musicians, they just don't seem to have any luck when it comes to politicians, they only ever had one half decent president and they shot him.
Jeemag_USA
04-Apr-07, 22:56
Not too keen on Al Gore, Elvis Presley's last hit was his best one and I can't afford Levi Jeans.
I was pretty close then ;)
I just mentioned Al Gore because I do like him, I think he is the best President the USA never had [lol]
I was pretty close then ;)
I just mentioned Al Gore because I do like him, I think he is the best President the USA never had [lol]
He would probably make an excelent president, it's hard to imagine how America could ever do any worse than the one they have now. It's just that he has something of the TV evangelist about him and TV evangelists make my skin crawl.
Well they are home at last!!!! Now I'm going to crack my bottle of Pussers Rum, Cheers the Matelots, Cheers The Royals.
North Rhins
05-Apr-07, 19:28
I think the whole Org will give praise and thanks that our Lad’s and Lass have been returned safe and sound to their families and loved ones. That is all the Org except, perhaps, one.
I think the whole Org will give praise and thanks that our Lad’s and Lass have been returned safe and sound to their families and loved ones. That is all the Org except, perhaps, one.
I was never in much doubt that they would be returned safe and sound.
Unless the Iranians had seen the interview Capt Chris Air gave to Sky News three weeks ago where he told them his duties included spying on Iran that is.
sorghaghtanibeki
06-Apr-07, 09:54
it is great news the sailors are back. sky news says they were spying. this is rubbish. what these sailors do is normal in any military situation it is just "keeping the ear to the ground" it is "keeping the eye open" it is "listening to rumour", it is totally normal.
the iranians were concerned the US fleet was on the move. they were surprised at the UN and the EU most of all their friendy France. in a week the whole EU would have taken sanctions - eu is biggest trading block. Qatar Syria had word 'enough enough' firstly only republican guard to speak, no higher ups. The Sailor Captain Air said that fishing dhows had been robbed by Iranian soldiers on a number of occasions - nice people.
it is great news the sailors are back. sky news says they were spying. this is rubbish. what these sailors do is normal in any military situation it is just "keeping the ear to the ground" it is "keeping the eye open" it is "listening to rumour", it is totally normal.
the iranians were concerned the US fleet was on the move. they were surprised at the UN and the EU most of all their friendy France. in a week the whole EU would have taken sanctions - eu is biggest trading block. Qatar Syria had word 'enough enough' firstly only republican guard to speak, no higher ups. The Sailor Captain Air said that fishing dhows had been robbed by Iranian soldiers on a number of occasions - nice people.
Sounds like a convoluted story to me, I always prefer the simple solutions myself.
On Tuesday America releases Jalal Sharafi, second secretary to the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, on Thursday Iran releases 15 ordinary servicemen. A simple case of good old fashioned horse trading.
Boozeburglar
06-Apr-07, 11:09
Iran has never invaded and occupied anyone
Perhaps they are too busy oppressing their own population.
Holocaust denial conference holders Iran.
You really know how to pick your friends.
On Tuesday America releases Jalal Sharafi, second secretary to the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, on Thursday Iran releases 15 ordinary servicemen. A simple case of good old fashioned horse trading.
It was the Iraqi forces that made the release.
It was the Iraqi forces that made the release.
Same thing, it was the Whitehouse that ordered it.
Same thing, it was the Whitehouse that ordered it.
Bush said no quid pro quo exchanges. The Iraqi government is in charge in Iraq. Britain said no deal has been struck. Iran said the 15 sailors were going back as a gift to Britain. The only horse trading I see is for lies and counter lies on this thread.
sorghaghtanibeki
06-Apr-07, 15:46
nice people iranians fred, interrogation, rough handling, constant psychological pressure, stripped put on pyjamas, seven days on solitary confinement, female sailor told the rest had gone home four days before her, all stood against a wall, hands bound and blindfolded whist irainians cocked their guns. These british people were acting under UN mandate
nice people iranians fred, interrogation, rough handling, constant psychological pressure, stripped put on pyjamas, seven days on solitary confinement, female sailor told the rest had gone home four days before her, all stood against a wall, hands bound and blindfolded whist irainians cocked their guns. These british people were acting under UN mandate
I expect America is keeping their captured Iranians in a 5 star hotel.
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/torture1.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.