Those Kooky Iranians at it again

[D.O.A.R.]

I'd be interested in people's reaction to the abduction of those British Marines and sailors by the Iranians, while in Iraqi waters. Anybody? Are we to believe that poor lady in the scarf who says that it was all their (the British) fault.

No outrage? Nothing about Geneva convention violations? Where's NATO?

[Slim]

I'd be interested in people's reaction to the abduction of those British Marines and sailors by the Iranians, while in Iraqi waters. Anybody? Are we to believe that poor lady in the scarf who says that it was all their (the British) fault.

No outrage? Nothing about Geneva convention violations? Where's NATO?

Another kick in the nuts for the Brits. This time as they are on their way out. They did the same thing to them in 2004, and got away with it. What's to make them think Blair has any political capital at all left to do anything about it this second time? Pretty sad actually. This is techincally an act of war, but I dont think the UK is going to retaliate. The sailors will be kept as "guests" for a while, some back channel deal will be cut, then they will be released. Blair will look like more of a fool than he already does to most Brits.

Iran's a terrorist state, so why should we expect anything less than 2-bit terrorist activities from them? One cant really blame Israel for being a bit edgy given Iran's quest for peaceful nuclear energy .

My guess is that its just a matter of time before we're dropping bombs inside of Iran.

Geneva convention? UN? NATO? Bahhaha......you're funny.

[pigeonmeister]

[QUOTE=Slim;541586]This is techincally an act of war, but I dont think the UK is going to retaliate.QUOTE]

I think that would depend upon whether we can prove that we were not in Iranian waters. I have no doubts that we were not, but the legal demarkation of that part of the Persian Gulf is quite complex I believe.

last time this happened (2004) we insisted that we were not in Iranian territory- later we admitted that we were.

The bigger picture is the recent arrest of 5 Iranian diplomats in an Iranian consul- this could be a bargaining ploy for their release. At the same time the Revolutionary guard are trying to show that they can apply pressure in Iraq if pushed on other issues.

Would they have done this to US personnel?

[D.O.A.R.]

Would they have done this to US personnel?

As I understand it, foreign hostages (to include US) have been on Ahmandinewackjob's wish list for years. There have been border tussels between us and the Iranians, but only recently has our soldier's ROE allowed them to respond meaningfully to Iranian threats.

[Teme]

I have no doubts that we were not, but the legal demarkation of that part of the Persian Gulf is quite complex I believe.

I gather the last agreement was after Iraq-Iran war that the border follows the middle of Shatt-al-Arab and then some (I don't know what the bend to north in every BBC map is?), the troule being that nobody knows if that agreement is in effect (being made by Saddam Hussein), and where the actual line is, river, sand and swamp shifting the centerline every year to one way or the other...

Other than that, the smartest move naturally would have been to release them within hours regardless of where they were.

What if Revolutionary Guards just pulled a fast one on the Mullahs to gain more influence or something...

[Fechter1]

I'd be interested in people's reaction to the abduction of those British Marines and sailors by the Iranians, while in Iraqi waters. Anybody? Are we to believe that poor lady in the scarf who says that it was all their (the British) fault.

No outrage? Nothing about Geneva convention violations? Where's NATO?

Ok, I have several beefs with this representation...

First, we do not know all the details of this incident. We do not know if the two boats that were seized were in Iraqi, Iranian, or international waters. (One-sided reporting by the US media aside...)
That means that Iran might have legitimate cause for the arrest/seizure.
(Not stating they do, merely acknowledging the possibility)

Second, I thought that the Geneva convention applied only in a state of war. In any case, whenever I hear any complaint from the US/"coalition force" side concerning these conventions, I take them with a healthy pinch of salt, considering the documented violations committed by said forces (targeting media outlets during the bombing campaign, showing Iraqi POWs on TV, those pictures of Saddam going through the physical and in his underwear, AbuGhraib, etc).
If you really wanted to, you could even use the Bush administrations own reasoning for Gitmo, saying that Geneva doesn't apply to these guys (and gal).

As for acts of war, I'm with Pigeon, provide the proof. (On that note, I'd like explanations of how the acknowledged presence of special forces troops inside Iran is not an act of war, but that's another story altogether.)


I'm not supporting Iran in this case, I just want more information before I make a judgement. And given the recent track records of the administration and the major american (and some international) media outlets, I'll take my information from other sources, thank you very much.

[pigeonmeister]

Ok, I have several beefs with this representation...

First, we do not know all the details of this incident. We do not know if the two boats that were seized were in Iraqi, Iranian, or international waters. (One-sided reporting by the US media aside...)
That means that Iran might have legitimate cause for the arrest/seizure.
(Not stating they do, merely acknowledging the possibility)

Second, I thought that the Geneva convention applied only in a state of war. In any case, whenever I hear any complaint from the US/"coalition force" side concerning these conventions, I take them with a healthy pinch of salt, considering the documented violations committed by said forces (targeting media outlets during the bombing campaign, showing Iraqi POWs on TV, those pictures of Saddam going through the physical and in his underwear, AbuGhraib, etc).
If you really wanted to, you could even use the Bush administrations own reasoning for Gitmo, saying that Geneva doesn't apply to these guys (and gal).

As for acts of war, I'm with Pigeon, provide the proof. (On that note, I'd like explanations of how the acknowledged presence of special forces troops inside Iran is not an act of war, but that's another story altogether.)


I'm not supporting Iran in this case, I just want more information before I make a judgement. And given the recent track records of the administration and the major american (and some international) media outlets, I'll take my information from other sources, thank you very much.

I too would be the last one to defend these action. But when I hear about 'Iranian agression' and 'Iranian provocation' I think it's worth reminding ourselves that we would not be very happy if Iran started sending aircraft carriers to the English channel, conducted war games off the US coast or for that matter placed 100,000's of troops on America's border...that to me is provocation. I think that the fact that Slim already expects an attack on Iran, indicates that the Iranians might have a reason to be a bit wary of the overwhelming force being displayed on its border and the ensuing chaos in Iraq.

These double standards are, however, only incredible (mostly) to people outside America. I too start laughing when the US starts talking about the Geneva convention.

In terms of proof- the ship that UK forces bordered is still in exactly the same location, so that is one thing that it irrefutable.

I'd be interested in a reference for DOAR's assertion "As I understand it, foreign hostages (to include US) have been on Ahmandinewackjob's wish list for years"

Is this a reference to his possible involvement in the 79 hostage crisis? (a crisis that I believe continues to define America's attitude to Iran)

[Inquartata]

Supposedly the British have released GPS signals from the seized boats which show them about a mile inside Iraqi waters. Of course Iran will claim that the GPS data is faked, or wrong, or something. ( And who knows, it might be. )

IMO this is just another in a long series of acts meant to distract world attention from Iran's nuclear defiance and perhaps to jack up oil prices. This time they've done the deed themselves rather than using Hezbollah as a cat's paw.

[Slim]

I too would be the last one to defend these action.

You have got to be kidding.

But when I hear about 'Iranian agression' and 'Iranian provocation' I think it's worth reminding ourselves that we would not be very happy if Iran started sending aircraft carriers to the English channel, conducted war games off the US coast or for that matter placed 100,000's of troops on America's border...that to me is provocation.

I guess constant threats of wiping out your closest ally in that region with nuclear weapons, according to you, should not really considered provocation.

I think that the fact that Slim already expects an attack on Iran, indicates that the Iranians might have a reason to be a bit wary of the overwhelming force being displayed on its border and the ensuing chaos in Iraq.

Iran is purposefully and willingly contributing to the chaos. But again, I guess this apparently doesnt qualify as provocative to you.

In terms of proof- the ship that UK forces bordered is still in exactly the same location, so that is one thing that it irrefutable.

Regardless, this was clearly a snatching for politcal reasons. There was no threat.

Is this a reference to his possible involvement in the 79 hostage crisis? (a crisis that I believe continues to define America's attitude to Iran)

Why shouldn't it be a factor in our policy towared Iran? Its a historical event that defines their overall behavior. What have the Iranians ever done to even attempt to change how they are perceived in the non-muslim world?

[D.O.A.R.]

I'm not supporting Iran in this case, I just want more information before I make a judgement. And given the recent track records of the administration and the major american (and some international) media outlets, I'll take my information from other sources, thank you very much.

Make a judgement? How Right-wing, Conservative, Christian of you.

Here is a source for you.

In the video that was broadcast Wednesday on Iran's Arab-language satellite channel, Turney said her group had "trespassed" in Iranian waters. The segment showed her wearing a black head scarf, sitting in a room before floral curtains and smoking a cigarette.
"Obviously we trespassed into their waters," Turney said. "They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested. There was no harm, no aggression."

If she is telling the truth, I guess they got it coming to them. I heard the Iranians were using words like "espionage" and "very serious crime". Strange considering the marines and sailors were all in uniform, but then again the Geneva convention is N/A.

[D.O.A.R.]

I'd be interested in a reference for DOAR's assertion "As I understand it, foreign hostages (to include US) have been on Ahmandinewackjob's wish list for years"

I heard an interview on right-wing hate radio.

http://townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.a...0-5758775d6a6b

The guest, Michael Ledeen is a self-proclaimed Persian Hater, who has written much on this subject. I think he was also a co-producer for "300".

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...GMwODI=&w=MA==

[Inquartata]

Not sure that a spy cannot still be a spy if he's in uniform. I know that it's possible to get away with convicting uniformed men as spies---ask the crew of the USS Pueblo...

This incident is starting to remind me of that one.

[Philistine]

{snip}
This incident is starting to remind me of that one.

So far it reminds me more of the P-3 that crash-landed in China after being rammed by the Chinese fighter. I think the crew was held for 10 days or so, and there was sabre-rattling talk about trials for espionage, etc. there, as well, IIRC.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Pueblo was seized in international waters; its crew was paraded and filmed for propaganda purposes, made to admit guilt and say how well they were being treated. And all to distract the world from North Korea's little escapade, a botched assassination attempt on the South Korean President by a band of infiltrators.That's how this looks to me, albeit on a smaller scale. Blair may have to do what President Johnson did to effect his people's release---admit guilt and apologize, even if it's a lie.

[D.O.A.R.]

Not sure that a spy cannot still be a spy if he's in uniform. I know that it's possible to get away with convicting uniformed men as spies---ask the crew of the USS Pueblo...

This incident is starting to remind me of that one.

A spy is still a spy regardless of what clothes he/she has on. However he/she is not supposed to be tried as a spy (according to the Geneva convention), if caught while in the uniform of his/her country.
Of course, the Iranian response would be ......."Geneva what???? Ptooey!"

[introspective]

Sometimes the more you protest - under certain circumstances the more damage is done. It's best to let those people handle things but you have to admit, that when we reminded people about the Geneva Convention - a Convention that was long forgotten, it woke people up and helped release many captive middle-eastern men from a horrible circumstance in Cuba. We should be glad that finallly our voices of protest was heard loudly enough to release those men - who finally were able to get home. I can't believe people are still under the impression that there are spys around. Most people are too dim for that.

What we should do and fast - is get our enlisted men who are stationed in the middle east to play Led Zepplin, Cream, the Doors, Iron Butterfly and so forth as loudly as they can and completely brainwash the middle-east with our musical background. Then slowly bring them up to date with other music notables. [just kidding ]

[pigeonmeister]

I guess constant threats of wiping out your closest ally in that region with nuclear weapons, according to you, should not really considered provocation.

I have heard that Iran would rather Israel didn't exist, and that the world would be a better place if it didn't. I have heard statements that if the US or Israel attack Iran, it would respond by attacking Israel. But given that Iran's case rests on its assertion that it doesn't want nuclear weapons, I was wondering if you could find me a qoute in which Iran explicitly has stated it desire to launch a nuclear strike on Israel.

Iran is purposefully and willingly contributing to the chaos. But again, I guess this apparently doesnt qualify as provocative to you.

Missing the point- I agree Iran is being provocative. I am just saying that Iran is responding, in part, to provocation. You are asking Iran to accept that America has a god given right to deploy 1000,000s troops in a region in which Iran is historically a dominant power. That is always going to be provocative in the same way US bases in Saudi Arabia was provocative to Muslims. That you can't see that is part of the problem the US faces. Also- If you were to ask people who had contributed more to bringing chaos to Iraq- I think that you could be assurred that America would come out on top of Iran.

America is being provovative, Iran is being provocative, it's just you assume that America is right (or has the right) to be provocative.

Regardless, this was clearly a snatching for politcal reasons. There was no threat.

I agree Iran was trying to make a political point. On the face of it I also believe that Iran could have played a much more malevelant role in Iraq than it actually has.

Why shouldn't it be a factor in our policy towared Iran? Its a historical event that defines their overall behavior. What have the Iranians ever done to even attempt to change how they are perceived in the non-muslim world?

OK- why shouldn't the shooting down of an Iranian airbus (killing 200), or the fact that America bankrolled their hated and autocratic leader for 30 years, or that America continually interfered in Iranian internal affairs (ever heard of the 1953 coup?) Or that the US supported Iraq in its war against Iran (supplying arms, turning a blind eye to Saddam's chemical attacks, refusing a UN resolution that identified Iraq ast the agressor) Or America's attempt to pressure/blackmail weaker (but still independent) countries to follow an American policy be a factor?

Iran and America's relationship, like most bad relationships, is based on mutual and genuine grievances. At least I try and see both sides- the people who refuse to (like you) are not the ones who are going to make the world any safer.

Also- most of the rest of the world doesn't have anything like the negative perception of Iran that America has. It's a unique historical perspective which, I agree, is largely based on America's experience 1979-81.

[Slim]

I have heard that Iran would rather Israel didn't exist, and that the world would be a better place if it didn't. I have heard statements that if the US or Israel attack Iran, it would respond by attacking Israel. But given that Iran's case rests on its assertion that it doesn't want nuclear weapons, I was wondering if you could find me a qoute in which Iran explicitly has stated it desire to launch a nuclear strike on Israel.

Hmmm...this is a tough one...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/

So, since "wipe out" and "nuclear weapon" wasn't used in the same sentence, Isreal and the US are just over-reacting to some harmless comments like these?

C'mon. GMAFB.

Your pro-Iranian, anti-US views have been voiced time and time again here. This is just another example of your turning a blind eye towards yet another example of Iranian bad behavior in the civilized world. It's pointless to argue with you on this subject.

[Inquartata]

You are asking Iran to accept that America has a god given right to deploy 1000,000s troops in a region in which Iran is historically a dominant power. That is always going to be provocative in the same way US bases in Saudi Arabia was provocative to Muslims.

Oddly, it never seemed to bother France or Germany much...

That you can't see that is part of the problem the US faces.

A salient question to ask might be this: If one cannot see a thing, might it in fact not be there at all?

IMO more problems are caused by people who believe they can see things which are not there than by those who cannot see things which supposedly are...

In any case, we are fortunate in that we have you to tell us what the Emperor's new clothes look like.

Also- If you were to ask people who had contributed more to bringing chaos to Iraq- I think that you could be assurred that America would come out on top of Iran.

And of course truth is not a matter of majority opinion. ( I spare you the Latin fallacy just this once! )

[introspective]

I know, it's really difficult to know what to do or how to influence others to at least accept people for what they are. It's like America getting upset about the Mexican people - start with the menu [foodservice credo]- we all know by now how to cook and enjoy the foods of other nations. I was just getting good with Middle Eastern foods when Bam! we got all messed up with the war thing. I was learning how to make the bulgar wheat with lamb and parsley served with hot bread. What a bummer. We all learned how to eat Israelie foods - blintzes - pototoe pancakes with applesauce -

I don't know, we're being brainwashed again to think of all people from Iran as being evil - when in fact we can't let ourselves think that way. We have to work with individuals - but be aware of government policies that affect the individual. I would like for all of the nations to get along, the thing to do is find commonalities and I really think we need to find leadership from the Jewish community here in the US to make it work. Those two groups have more in common that they would like us to believe!