On the release of the 15 British sailors ( updated)
Some striking comments from Have your Say ( BBC) link here .
"I am happy that this incident has ended in a civilized way but I am also frightened that in the previous "Have Your Say" column the most popular post was something about "the British should give Iran 3 days to return the 15 sailors and if not it would be considered as an act of WAR!" Again, it was the most recommended post by the readers!Now think about what would have happened if the UK government have taken this advice.War, aggression,arrogance should NEVER BE THE ANSWER as a solution!.
Ob server
Recommended by 3 people"
"To those who think that Britain was too soft,To those who think that the Sailors should have used their guns,To those who think that the tough talking policies of the US may be a good role model-Imagine that we invade Iran. Just like the Americans did Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam and Korea. Just like Israel did Lebanon.I am glad that the situation was resolved diplomatically. When the US and Israel are actively looking for war, I am proud that Britain uses peaceful means.
N Tipton, Newcastle
Recommended by 32 people "
And this is the Iranian perspective
What do you think ?
Update 6-04-07
and now the sailors speak out ....
47 comments:
War, aggression,arrogance should NEVER BE THE ANSWER as a solution!
What the Iranians did with taking another countries military forces hostage on the high seas is all three of those things. Aggression, arrogance and an act of war.
Why should aggression not be met with aggression? Why should an act of war not be met with an act of war?
What am I missing?
I for one am damn sick and trired of the criminal aggression and flat out terrorism of that Iranian government. They should have been answered with WAR in 1979. That was the proper response to what they did with the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran, and if Carter had done it then, the Iranian regime would not be terrorizing people now.
I think Iran is extreamly intelegent in it's dealing with the Britin. They where calm and rational, diplomatic, and civilized. When the captured their prisoners they didnt take off their close and start molesting them infront of a poloroid camera. They treated them in a dignified manner.
I think iran in this incident has set a good example to The US as Well as Britin in the way Prisoners of War are treated.
"I for one am damn sick and trired of the criminal aggression and flat out terrorism of that Iranian government. They should have been answered with WAR in 1979."
NO CRAIH WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.
Many people all over the world are equally " damn sick" of America and Britins "criminal and terroristic behavior" as well.
What exactly where the brits doing in this part of the world?
If they where captured on the Coast of France, or Ireland then maybe I would understand, but the Persian gulf?
Dude Long way away from home arent we mate :P
One must ask WHY EXACTLY WHERE THEY IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND NOT IN WESTERN EUROPE where the belong? This is aquestion which no one is asking.
"Why should aggression not be met with aggression? Why should an act of war not be met with an act of war?"
BECAUSE ITS TERRORISM!!!!!!!!!
Osama Bin Ladin has that mindset!!
He in his sick mind belives that US troops in his homeland of Saudi Arabia is a "act of war" and should be met with equal acts of war, and thats just wrong!
Plus Craig your Anglo-American and your better then that:P
Using that type of logic, every nation which has a national in Gitmo should start attacking the United States. Every time a Palistinian is taken by israel, The palistinians should wage a war against Israel, everytime the Russians kidnap or kill a Chechyan or a Dargastani those people should wage war against the Kremlin. NO SIR THATS TERRORISM.
We live in the 21 century we are civilized creature. God Gave us 2 eyes, 2 ears, and a Mouth we should use them before we use our fists.
I am really shocked by your post. I would expect someone from one of those "Third World un-Democratic, Un-Developed, Nations" to make that kind of statement, but not a patriotic freedom loving American such as yourself.
salam..
and then LOL
Craig dammit u beat me.. am I to argue with you again??
lololololol
mate your at the end of a TV screen like we all are, watching a pantomime like we all are.. you'r talking about Iran's act of agression taking 15 personnel from Iraqi waters like Iraq belonged to the british anyway.lololololol
agression??.. i want someone to explain to me why those soldiers were laughing on video.. someone better do....
craig.. u should have been sick and tired of criminal aggression when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Iranian leader Mossadiq in 1958 and installed the Shah in his place, in effect starting the 'Iraninan' Islamic shia state.. um.. much like what teh british and zionist extraordinaire Lawrence of Arabia did to help the saudi's gain control of Arabia and establish the Saudi Kingdom.. please buddy.. the history of political economy is very disturbing if u can stomach reading it and ull be feelign very nausiated..
heres some info on the Iran 1958 CIA overthrow affair found at this link (with original declassified CIA documents): http://cryptome.org/cia-iran-all.htm
-------------
thats why I really don't give much credence to ill-informed opinion of the 1-2 paragraph form on BBC websites and other institutional media. what the hell can u say in 100 words but repeat conventional wisdom or choose awkwardly between two extremes?.. just cause the room for a Grey area is too narrow.. either ur with them .. or with us.. either ur with the terorrists .. or with us.. sheeesh ...
besides.. Blair didn't even say that the sailor's coming home was a result of diplomacy. he speciafically said "there was NO deal" lol.. so he is just accepting ahmadenijad's gift..
so now.. lo and behold.. sky releases an article saying that five days before they were captured the 15 WERE gathering intelligence in waters near Iran and SKY couldnt say anything cause it would maybe put the naval officers in harm and they may face a trail LOLOLOLOL.. I love what the media does u gotta give it to them..
here's an excerpt.. and the full link at the end if ur interested..
thanks again highlander..
don't worry Craig.. just remember.. its all a big pantomime.. sadly with people who pay with their lives for a 'job' they just do...
-------------Sky news Excrept------------
"'We Gathered Intelligence'
Updated: 22:05, Thursday April 05, 2007
The captain in charge of the 15 marines detained in Iran has said they were gathering intelligence on the Iranians.
Sky News went on patrol with Captain Chris Air and his team in Iraqi waters close to the area where they were arrested - just five days before the crisis began.
We withheld the interview until now so it would not jeopardise their safety.
And today, former Iranian diplomat Dr Mehrdad Khonsari said if the Iranians had known about it, they would have used it to "justify taking the marines captive and put them on trial".
full article here: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1259413,00.html
Of course US did a grave mistake by not going to war in 1979. This sent to the Islamists the message that the West is ripe for conquest. Had US invaded Iran, possibly we would still have the World Trade Center and the people in it, not speaking about "tens of thousands of Iran's best children, many of them literally children" (http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=396&theme=Printer).
Personally, I was enraged when captured Britons were shown on TV saying they had been in Iranian waters. Even if, I repeat, even if this was true, broadcasting the confession of a captive is the essence of barbarism to me.
I remember similar videos released by Saddam's propaganda during the first war in Iraq. This was mocked in the "Hot Shots II" movie by showing a confessing captured American and an armed Iraqi soldier standing right behind him in the scope of the camera.
I do always read Have your say on BBC online, I have read many stupid and many good comments.
I think both Tony Blair & the Iraninan president should be slapped on their faces for this issue although it seems more clear now that Britain did enter Iraninan water so Iran is not always the villan and anyway as many British people agree, British forces should not be in that area at all, Iraqi or Irani water.
here is an extraxt from BBC today:
It emerged on Thursday that in a television interview recorded before their capture, one of the crew members, Capt Chris Air, had said one purpose of patrols in the area was to gather intelligence on "any sort of Iranian activity".
In the joint Five News and Sky News interview, recorded on 13 March but not broadcast until after the 15 had been released, he acknowledged that he was operating close to the buffer zone between Iranian and Iraqi waters, adding: "It's good to gather int on the Iranians."
The MoD said this was "all part of modern operations".
When the US and Israel are actively looking for war, I am proud that Britain uses peaceful means.
Oh Britian is looking for war they just dont have the means to act upon their urges. They would if they could, but Iran is just to strong politically to be messed with. The people are united, the government is well established, they are facing the facilities which produce the oil on which the world runs on, a few of those water surface missles that the Iranian have would bring production to a grinding halt. Not to mention that US and British troops are at the mercy of Iran. In both Iraq and Afganistan(Lets not forget who helped America invade Afganistan)
If one of the Mullahs where to come out and make a certain fatwa, in such a Strongly influnced country like Iraq then I gaurantee you everyone forign troop would be massacered in the most horrible of ways. Its sad but true. In The Shia religion the Grand Ayatollah is similar to God, he is link with the twelfth Imam who is the link with God, he can make his own legislation, his own fatwa and it MUST be followed. Its not like in sunni Islam, where everyone has their own opinion and people follow a fatwa by how much it makes sense. In Sunni Islam, tradition or prophetic sayings (Hadith) teaches that "diffrences between scholars is a blessing to the ummah".
God gave us intelect, and we should interpret and understand things on our own way.
Not in the Shia religion if the Grand Ayatollah says Jump, a Shai must jump, The Ayatollah is gods Spokesperson on earth. Very Dangerouse.
Not to mention that if Iran where to fell preasure they would mearly fund the taliban(which might explain their resurgance.)
Iran can make this occupation of Afganstan and Iraq TRULEY HELL for the US and Colition of The Whiped... uh I mean willing:P
All in all its kind of sad that we(Pan-Arab World) have been asleep. Its very sad, India, China, Pakistan, Britian, Israel, everyone has developed nuclear technology and we just sit in the sand watching Nancy Ajrim and drinking tea. We havent done a thing, we havent better ourselves, we havent better humanity. I mean fine their is no need to develop the bomb I am personally against such a wretched weapon, I wish they would disappear all toghther and war would be faught on the battlefield like men, to the victor go the spoils.
The bomb as well as the bullet kills innocent women and children, animals, plants, it destroys the enviornment and causes cruel human suffering. Its horrible look at Iraq 60 women and children killed in 1 incident to get one guy who someone doesnt like? That is just disgusting, sad, and horrible on so many levels I dont even know where to begin. These weapons wear made to defend us but instead they are killing us and they are killing our humanity. I would like to see the Pan-arab world become like Japan, technologically advanced, making earth a better place not a more dangerous place. but we havent done that we just keep falling and falling deeper into regression. But I must say that President Gaddafi's speach about forming a second Fatimid state gave me a small glimiar of hope. It really made me feel proud to be a Libyan more proud then usual, the speach was AMAZING. I would compare it Tariq ibn Zaid's speech on the Gilbert, or The Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) farwell speach. it was as if The Great Leader picked up my journal and read it allowed. Happiness is a understatement.
In anycase we must wake up, we must become active, we must advance, socially, culturally, economically, and in every other way. We can never allow Iraq to happen again, we can never allow Lebonan to happen again. We must unite, and we must excell, and progress.
The west attacks the divided and the weak, they are bullies they do not attack those who are their equals, or those who treaten their saftey. They kill women and children, they destroy lives, and do anything at any cost to achive their goals. They dont have a moral code. Look at what happened in Japan. My God, its disgusting, all of those people systamitcally erased at the push of a button. For no reason, people who had nothing to do with pearl harbor, just simple people, families, earased, and the ones that survived, they saw the true horror. I hope everyone involved in the Manhattan Project burns in hell for ethernity. Thats all I can say. No more mindless war. The World is sick of warmongers. Over 72 million people died in WW2 and the world still doesnt understand the dread of war. Its sickening.
Salam again
before going on, let me just say that in no way am I defending 'IRAN' as an absolutist, state. their game with America and the west is much much deeper than meets the eye..
now I'm horrified at Maya's perspective too
"broadcasting the confession of a captive is the essence of barbarism to me"
captive??..um.. they were 'enemy combatants'.. do u know what America and the UK do with THOUSANDS of 'enemy combatants'????
1) they capture them without any evidence, without any 'combat' charges,NONE WHATSOEVER
2) they capture them ALWAYS THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY FROM THEIR OWN WATERS, NEVER MIND THEIR LANDS
3) THEY PUT THEM IN DETENTION CENTRES AND FLY THEM SECRETLY AROUND EUROPE WITHOUT ACCESS TO LAWYERS, WITHOUT ACCESS TO TRAIL, WITHOUT ACCESS TO FREINDS AND FAMILY, WITHOUT NOTHING!!!! TOTAL IMPUNITY FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW, CONVENTIONS, THE GENEVA BULL CRAP AND ALL OTHER 'INTERNATIONAL BULLSHIT' THAT THESE FOREIGN SECRETARIES WANNA STUFF OUR MOUTHS WITH
4) tHESE FLIGHTS ARE CALLED RENDITION FLIGHTS.. EVEN THE BBC HAS SPOKEN AGAINST THIS BUT DOES TEH WORLD CARE???? no
5) AFTER THAT THE ONES THEY WANNA INTERROGATE THEY PUT IN GUANTANOMO OR ANOTHER 'OFF SHORE' PLACE WHERE 'LAW' DOSENT APPLY,.. ONLY MARSHALL LAW.
6) THEY ARE IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, THEIR INTEGRITY IS PISSED ON, TORTURED AND HUMLIATED AND PUT UNDER PSYCHOLOGICAL DURESS AND FORCED HUNGER, THEY ARE IN A 5 FT BY 6 FT CELL MOST OF THE TIME (GO READ AMNESTY AT LEAST)
7) then u wanna say that Iranian putting soldiers on tv while theyre having a hearty meal, laughing, talking normally, flying home, thanking the iranians.... thats BARBARISM??????
ARE U BLIND????
IM SORRY UR GONAN HAVE TO TAKE MY FULL ANGER HERE DO U KNOW WHY.. CAUSE ITS ILL INFORMED AND INDOCTRINATED OPINIONS LIKE URS THAT SHAPE POLICY AND LEAD US ALL INTO WAR.. SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME ON PEOPLE WHO THINK LIKE U
Programmer_Craig, Mani, AngloLibyan, Maya and Lost Libyano thanks for your comments I think you are all doing great in bringing up the discussion from a variety of angles and going back in history so my input is really unecessary at this point which does NOT mean I endorse every item brought up in here. I may comment in more depth at a later time....
Let's just say that with regards to the soldiers I think that their umhathum da3ilhum as we say in Arabic i.e their mothers have prayed hard for them, especially in view of what recently transpired in the media .
Now we know why Blair & Co were looking so worried on TV!
Those sailors WERE spying :P en plus in Iranian territorial waters! and I'm not sure why is anyone surprised ? I would not have expected less of the British
@The Lost Libyano, please re-read the 'Fatimid speech' and spot the error - there is a major error in between the lines.
Mani one distinction I've seen people bring up with regards to comparing the captured British soldiers and that of the people who are imprisoned in those offshore dungeons is that international laws shoud not apply to the Gitmo or similar prisons because the people there are not part of an official military but only some enemy combattants plucked in various eras of the world. Which basically means that their human rights don't matter anymore. I'm really not sure if this is my correct understanding to it but I think that is the argument I've seen flying around, that is why probably Maya thinks that it the essence of barbarism to put the British sailors on TV, because international laws apply in their case ? only.
I'm really not sure if what I understood is correct so please no body flame me.
Personally, I was enraged when captured Britons were shown on TV saying they had been in Iranian waters. Even if, I repeat, even if this was true, broadcasting the confession of a captive is the essence of barbarism to me.
I share the outrage you express maya. The Britons where not treated up to western standards. Why the west would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, have the Iranians no concept of civilized behaviour? God and they didnt even put any electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on.
God they should have been treated just like the Iraqis where treated. That is the way civilized people behave. The Iraqis who have not admited to any crime, nor have they been charged of anycrime, nor have they been put on trial, stripped naked, forced to rape one another at gun point with forigner occupiers laughing and snicker the while barking dogs are being let lose on them, thats civility.
Ahhh when will these Muslim Savages learn the ways of civilized democracys. And after that they where given......... Gift bags by the President. WTF? That Violates The Wests Geneva Convention, barbarians!
We must definatly have very difficult cultures and mindsets on this side of the Meditteranian.
And If Irans treatment of the soilders, is barbaric, and the US's treatment is humane to the western mind, then the clash of civilizations is inevitable.
Your faithfreedom propoganda is nothing but propoganda. The Non-European world is up to your games. We all remember the story which ran about the "Special Costumes" that Jews and Christians where forced to wear that turned out to be a complete farse. Everything that comes from Western Media is complete garbage. Everyone knows this because everyone has been victimised by it, the Japanese, The Chinease, Blacks, Hispanics. The news papers in the old south show it all, The papers during WW2, everyone all over the world has been a victim of your hatred and slander.
Now as far as the testimony being forced, then the same can be said for any testimony or confessions the US or Europe has drawn from any terrorism suspects right?
I mean why should we take a western governments word when they wont take our governments word?
Your trials are sufficiant,but when we try people like the bulgerian nurses, its not.
Why because we are Non-Europeans? Becuase we are Muslims?
Why do your criminals get passes and ours are right for the hanging.
Is it because yours are mostly white while ours are mostly olived skinned?
Is the west God? Are they all powerful and never questioned? Those their judgement stick, while all others is faulty?
Does the whole world answer to them? Those the whole world have to seek their approval?
But then again to the west their is no world outside of Europe, their is only the land of the coloured people, and their inferior, so their opinion does not matter.
Universal Human Rights, Universal Womens Day, Universal Piss in a Pot month, all of this shows that "Universal" grasps nothing more then Europe.
The White man is God, he makes the rules, and we all must obey and follow, we are at his mercy, and if we disobey his rules we are punished with international isolation and sanctions, but its for our own good right, tough love, we non-europeans as the poem states are half-devil/ half-child, we dont know whats for our own good.
You want to see what a Large diverse organization is take a look at the miluid celebration it brought together leaders from African countries such as Niger, Mauritania, Chad, Mali and Sudan, as well as about 850 tribal representatives from 32 African and Arab nations. Thats a very small portion of people localised to a small region. Now if we wheretruley to sit down and decide what is Human Rights and what is Acceptable and Not Acceptable human behavior, we should bring every representitive of humanbeings, tribal leaders, govonors, presidents, ect. And have them debate and decide it out. Not a couple of old White men in Geneva sitting at a desk deciding on the standards which the world shall be governed by, deciding whats right and wrong, whats just and whats unjust. Thats not Universal, Thats Not global, thats European, its the second smallest continent(if we are even to count Australia as a contenent) on earth with the least number of inhabitants approximatly one-ninth of humanity lives in Europe.lol. God knows how many of them are immigrants.
Salam highlander
depends on where u get ur distinctions on right and wrong from.. internal rhetoric and the language of the dominant? or common sense
Humans are Humans.. 'enemies are enemies.. 'combatants' are 'combatants'..
as for international laws.. they are only mechanisms by which u can oppress the weak.. so u can try third world international war criminals and other 'undesirables' in the Hague.. but the US dosen't even recognize the international court, nor the resolutions of the UN for that matter. It and Israel.
I mean.. this isn't even new stuff.. well.. its not new stuff for the weak people of the world who constantly witness and are face to face with the evil hypocracy of the West's democracy in their own shoddy lives. their exploitations, misrey,poverty, suffering..
just read someone like chomsky and they show the facts, read an entire school of thought in development economics, read all the scholarly articles and documents afrom scholars and academics who rightly speak out and show this evil relativism.
But its new news for people who are rightly satisfied with what they do, read the morning paper, go to work, and go on holiday and try not to be concerned with the world cause its too annoying....it never makes the press cause the press is considred entertainment.. and its readers are considered 'consumers'.. u dont wanna ruin a consumers appettite now do u ???for gods sake go read the human development report from the United Nations at least.... i mean.. that has a UN seal on it so its gotta be true right.. ur common sense faculty can still be asleep yet it'll maybe get to your head the ugliness of it all..
I mean.. I study economic development and this stuff aint conspiracy..ITS MY COURSE.. its what I get taught..Ddependancy school, imperialism, neo-colonialism, postmodern anthropology.. etc THESE ARE ALL WESTERN PEOPLE who know whats going on and are fighting.. who do u think organises all the independant press, media , coverage, marches, lobbies, radio stations, websites???..Arabs???? psssssht?? Muslims?? psssssssssssssht
@ Libyano and Highlander
I haven't heard the speech, and although Gaddafi sometimes does speak some sense I don't need to hear the speech to know that theres something majorly wrong there..
EMPIRES are goals by maglomaniac rulers.. empire states are not civilisations.. they are murderous nations expanding at the expense of others.. regardless of the nice rhetoric involved..
saying that I would still like to listen to the speech and see where old Gedda is going ..
Mani , I read Chomsky as well , was simply pre-empting the kind of reply you might get from what I saw on blogs and to find out how this can be countered :)
Re. speech it probably is online by now the transcript too. it has already been over analysed he he he.
I agree with Craig, it was a provocation, but I don't agree with him for the response he would have given, cause the deal is more complicated, the mullahcraty wants their position as a leader in ME officialy recognized, but they depend on Russian will ; actually Russians fear that the mullah get on with US for discussions and agreements, so they pressed on iranians to clear this hostages mess as soon as possible, and to keep the bright face, Britons as well as Iranians would have to find an exchange solution ; what they did : iranians release the UK hostages, and irakian milice released an "important iranian", except that Blair is going to loose one more time his "ultra-bright" smile, but these times it is an habit :lol:
"Why should aggression not be met with aggression? Why should an act of war not be met with an act of war?"
Craig I have reflected on what you said, and I think that IN PRINCIPLE, IN THEORY, this maxim is justified.
But of course it comes with STRICT conditions, as you are well aware by the ends of this argument now.
The conditions can be summed up in:
- Terms of Agreement (peace or treaty)
- Terms of Exchange (goods, services, information, humans)
These need to be EQUAL in order to have a fair claim to defense against aggression, because the party that breaks with these terms, or has superior terms will always set the status quo.. unequal terms will negate the quid pro quo (agression).. that will just then become oppression and terrorism, two sides of the same coin.
The only recent case I remember them being equal was in Europe directly after the second world war (after the deaths of millions and the destruction of their countries). Well, u see what equal terms of exchange produced. the 'Golden' post war era.
This is also the Quranic teaching, which u should understand from the analysis I sent you.
The Iran. Uk case (or any other state/state relations is much more murky because we are way past the stage of state's being sovereign actors, responsible for their own policies. Globalisation and the third parties that control it are the main stakeholders in decisions like these and I think Nomad hinted at this in her comment.
thanks for the succinct maxim u made me think, although ur conclusion I still disagree with very much :)
peace sir
salam Libyano.. your comment was very interesting especially at the end when u were talking about human rights and the african tribes etc.. you reminded me of a discussion I had with Hafed Al Ghwell and he said that people should not be left to these decions because they would never decide anything and that it needs to be left for the leaders in society.. now of course I understand that leadership in a democratic society is enevitable but if there is no harnessing these 'leaders' then they will just become tyrnanical.. exactly like u said.. so now we are back to the question of democracy and governance.. always always the same .. and the sooner we get down to it.. the better
"War, aggression,arrogance should NEVER BE THE ANSWER as a solution!"
It got rid of the Nazis, didn't it?
Sometimes it is the ONLY solution.
Libyano,
With your hyprocritical cop-out pacifism, we'd all be speaking German.
You also said "Look at what happened in Japan. My God, its disgusting, all of those people systamitcally erased at the push of a button"
The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the bombs. You might also want to recall that the Japanese slaughtered 20 million people in Asia. While the bomb might have upset you, people in the rest of Asia were wondering why Japan wasn't bombed sooner.
"The White man is God, he makes the rules, and we all must obey and follow, we are at his mercy, and if we disobey his rules we are punished with international isolation and sanctions"
The White Man was at the mercy of the Arabs back in the 1970s when the Arabs put on the oil embargo sanctions. Lines and lines of the White Man's cars that couldn't get gas and the economy whacked. Or did your selective memory forget all about that?
"have the Iranians no concept of civilized behaviour?"
When you send your nation's children to clear minefields with the Keys to Heaven around their necks, the answer, No, they don't
This sure goes a lot faster when I jsut skip everything LibyanWarrior posts :)
Mani,
Mossadiq may have been democratically elected but he was no democrat. He was a communist. And that was when the Soviet Union was rolling through Eastern Europe and Central Asia with their tanks. If Mossadiq had stayed Iran would have spent the next 40 years as part of the Soviet Union. The Soviets were already at Iran's northern border, anyway. Mossadiq would have been just another soviet puppet. I fully support his removal, whoever did it, at that time and place. However, I think you are wrong to claim the US did more than give a green light to that operation. I don't believe there was any direct US involvement.
If the US had done NOTHING when we had the opportunity to stop Iran from becoming part of the Soviet Empire, then Iranians would be blaming the US for having let the Soviets swallow them up. Right? :)
This is one of those situations where we would have been wrong no matter what we did.
the 15 WERE gathering intelligence in waters near Iran
Gimme a break, man! 2 low level officers and 13 low level enlisted in rubber rafts were "gathering intelligence" !? That may be what Lance Corporal John Wayne wrote home to mommie that he was doing, but that doesn't make it so :D
I spent 6 years in the US Marines and I'm here to tell you it just doesn't play out like that, in the real world. Intelligence at sea is gathered electronically. There is nothing to be gained by sending troopies out in rubber rafts, unless you cans somehow get them aboard Iranian warships undetected. If that was the intent, those would have been special operations troops of some sort. They weren't. And the idea that they could have boarded a warship undetected is something that's only in the movies.
Bah! I'm way behind again! I'll try to catch up later again, as usual for me these days.
Another interesting conversation you got going here, H :)
Mani,
People are perfectly capable of ruining their own countries without any help from the West, and do so with relentless determination. To blame all their problems –poverty, misery- etc - on the West is insulting because it infantilizes them into mental idiots easily manipulated by outside forces. The fact is, the poor countries have played the great powers against each other, and quite shrewdly at that. They have taken enough of the West’s aid money and instead of using it to help their citizens, have squandered it in corruption and cronyism.
“just read someone like chomsky and they show the facts”
Well, then! If Chomsky (PBUH) said it, then it must be so!
PS-I think the Brits are now busily explaining how they were at fault because if they were in the wrong, it reduces the humiliation they must be feeling that their military personnel were taken hostage and they were unable to do anything about it.
Attention, British people! You weren't at fault! You have been humiliated! Get used to it! The humiliations will continue until you do something about it. This is how the Iranians wage war. You ARE at war with Iran.
Freed Britons say `confessions' coerced
The 21-year-old said the crew had believed they were being taken to the British Embassy in Tehran to be released, but were instead dumped in a holding facility.
"We had a blindfold and plastic cuffs, hands behind our backs, heads against the wall. ... There were weapons cocking," Tindell told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. "Someone said, I quote: 'Lads, lads, I think we're going to get executed.' ... Someone was sick and as far as I was concerned he had just had his throat cut."
No comment.
Iran calls on Britain for goodwill after releases
"We played our part and we showed our goodwill. Now it is up to the British government to proceed in a positive way," Iran's ambassador to Britain, Rasoul Movahedian, told the Financial Times in an interview.
Is this some kind of Persian humor or something? If Iran is *really* lucky then the British will show the same type of "good will" towards Iran for freeing the hostages alive that the US did in 1979. Now, that's a whole lotta good will, isn't it, Ahmadinejad?
And if Iran isn't lucky, there won't be any ships that still float in the Iranian Navy in the near future. Lets see how many hostages they can take when they got nothing but rowboats, eh?
I'm hoping the Iranians aren't lucky, this time, myself :P
"captive??..um.. they were 'enemy combatants'.. do u know what America and the UK do with THOUSANDS of 'enemy combatants'????"
So Mani, you're saying that we are already at war with Iran? If that's the case we really need to start making better use of those two carrier battle groups that we have floating around in the Persian Gulf. :-)
Programmer_Craig,
Iranian diplomat alleges CIA torture
In the report Saturday read by a newscaster, Sharafi, second secretary at the Iranian embassy in Baghdad, said he was kidnapped by agents of an Iraqi organization operating under CIA supervision and was badly tortured.
State television said signs of torture were still visible on Sharafi, who is being treated at an Iranian hospital. Images of Sharafi were not shown.
I know it could be a lot of BS but given the past abuses uncovered I admit by the occupation forces and where some have even gone on trial...and the bad feeling between Iran and the US since 1979 ......there must be some grain of truth in this ? what do you think ?
Nomad, I agree with you there is more than meets the eye to this story ... il ya quelque chose qui cloche ma chere.
H, if he was in Iraqi custody I'm sure he was tortured quite badly.
Salam Craig, Toady, Highlander and all,
Let me first give you what a conventional rebuttal of your argument may sound like.
Regardless of Mossadiq’s political agenda, he was a populist and democratically elected by the people of his country. The most important thing that people keep forgetting is that it is against international law to intervene in the political sovereignty of a state, without a bilateral agreement. That just undermines democracy and international order.
On the one hand, cases of ‘democratically’ elected leaders by their nations, such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela for example, or Hamas in Palestine, if their political agendas are not in line with US interests, then that is not ‘democracy’ and will not be tolerated. The state is still ‘hostile’ to US interests or ‘allies’ in the region.
On the other hand, cases where the leaderships are undemocratic, often authoritarian, repressive and hostile to their own domestic citizens, if they offer a good deal to US economic and strategic interests, then they are accepted and considered legitimate, as is the case in Libya now for example.
In other cases, even when there is no concrete evidence of hostile interests, hostility therefore just depends on how un-welcoming the state is of US economic interests in the region, which are naturally the exploitation of natural, capital and human resources for US commercial interests through neo-liberal policies, and setting up the country with a huge loan and aid programme for huge ‘developmental’ projects, through the WB.
The failure of of aid/ debt driven programmes mixed with neo-liberal adjustment policies have been the defining intellectual paradigm of economic development and the crucial problem behind US conflict of interest with third world states.
Its natural that in US or external interventionism, and in all this hubbub, everyone completely disregards the social, economic and political realities of the state in question, and its populace are ultimately subjects of external policy. This is the era of ‘state collapse’.
The failure of diplomatic and economic intervention will therefore incur constant attempts from the US to undermine a state’s authority, either by direct interventions in its politics through support of dissedants and pressure groups, to direct support of military ‘coupe d’atats’ as the Hugo Chavez case in 2002 demonstrated. Or by drumming up the support of the ‘international community’ through the UN for resolutions and sanctions etc against a hostile state, even hen hostility is only ‘pre-empted’.
Regardless of wether the interests were in line with the US’s or not, that state still has the right to enjoy state sovereignty, especially when its leaders are democratically elected. The US has no right to intervene whatsoever.
If diplomatic intervention fails through the international community (UN) then the US somehow becomes a rogue state, with the claim that it as the ‘right’ to act unilaterally including military action, (by convention it assumes), as it is the world leading superpower, and self appointed guardian of Human right conventions, and lets not go to the hypocracy in that.
Now I know that you could justify all this for me against the backdrop of (soviet standoff) historically and the fact that the US, being a democratic and economical stable country is now the only the righteous and benevolent superpower, and I would probably agree with you as most Arab and Muslim dissidents would, had I believed in the same ‘international state theory’ as you or they do do.
This is to say that ALL states are in fact individual actors, representative of their people and regardless of how they ‘rule’ their people, they have territorial sovereignty and their existence is legitimised by their simple inclusion on the ‘league of nations’ (UN).
This may apply to the nations of Europe, and the Anglo-American establishments and commonwealths who had a distinct historical and social experience which led to their ‘statehood’, but to the rest of the world it was a different story.
We don’t agree on the assumptions you see and therefore I do not share this world view for two simple reasons.
1) I believe that the soviet standoff, although at the time may have been politically ‘real’, it is largely recognised by contemporary scholarship that real ‘danger’ was a myth, especially after the investigations of Team B’s analysis of Soviet activity and its international policy implications, all of which senior officials in the CIA have come out and said was complete bullshit and lies. The soviet system was a decript system falling from within itself and that’s exactly how it ended with the crash of the Union.
What the (soviet backdrop) did however was legitimise a number of important initiatives that are crucial to understanding the political realities of today.
1) it allowed the possibility of the creation of ‘national’ statehood, in countries that had no concept of ‘foramal’ statehood or nation hood, committing them to arbitary border lines drawn up by the Anglo American and European imperial powers. The nature of these states was naturally communistic or socialistic, in order to create a central or focal point of authority that European states could negotiate with and include in the league of nations, and it was logical that they would not match the tribal or social configuration of their inhabitants
2) it created the possibility of legitimising intervention in countries that were designtated as ‘communist’ and support of repression of populist moevements and gueralla fighters branding them as ‘communist’ socialists, anarchists, or whatever was convenient for propaganda to commit and mobilise political and military action
3) It allowed the concentration of state funds and subsidies on huge military and space research and development programs directly from the taxes and revenues of debt to domestic citizens and states.
4) It also allowed the possibility of private capital flight from Europe into US banks, which then lent them out at interest to rebuild Europe “The Marshall Plan”
5) It created an outlet for US economic surplus and produce and created a dependency economy crises for the states of Latin America for example, or exploitation of cheap labour and of financial tax evasion and usurpation of wealth in African and East Asian economies
6) It directly gave rise to the Taliban and Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan, training Bin Ladin and the ‘Muslim’ extremists who were aspiring for political power at the time, and who were recognised by Reagan as reminding him of ‘our forefathers’ and dedicating the lauch of US Discovery to the ‘freedom fighters’… Im sure the informed reader will think of many other effects of this ‘backdrop’.
Of course this is puzzling o the reader who still believes that states are actually individual actors.
The idea that some form of collusion or complicated set of interests that are ‘global’, rather than ‘national, just seems like a ‘conspiracy’ so they would rather stick to the naive world view and just watch the show unfold on their TV screens, vying for this side one day, and the other side the next. All in the elusive search for ‘peace and democracy’.
This reader just does not understand the concept of social power, and how the international system is maintained. This is because they do not fully appreciate the role of international ‘capital’ in shaping world events.
2) This is the second reason which leads me not to share your world view.
Quickly summarised, I believe that international capital was the shaping force behind world events, since the start of the second world war at least (I believe longer).
International capital is also the creator of ‘Capitalist’, ‘Communist’ and ‘Socialist’ state ideologies, and their presumed conflict.
The movement of international capital is, by the definitions of international financiers, the “Management of Conflicts of Interest”.
An exhaustive discussion of this will include political economy, the international stock exchange system, Central Banking, international monetry and finance mechanism, and the role of ‘Old Boy’ and philanthropic networks… Please feel free to research it as it is of urgent importance and I cant explain it here.
But for the person who uses common sense, and relates to concrete world events that influence their daily lives from their livelihood, to their human rights to their citizenship, they will be able to recognise this fact simply now international capital is coming out in the open, not needing to hide behind the garb of the league of nations anymore.
The most decisive meetings in the world now take place behind closed doors with elite members of society, a mix of our elected representatives and other un-elected oligarchs and multinational corporations, NGO and social leaders and money managers in places like the World Economic Forum, rightly calling itself ‘The Masters of the universe’.
Any political commentator can tell u the power that these third party ‘internationalists’ have in changing international reality.
I as a Libyan for example don’t need to guess. Our country’s current shift, although still greatly coordinated by Gaddafi, was directly propelled into action by a formal agreement between Gadafi’s Son Seif Al Islam and Harvard Business Guru Michael Porter, who co-founded an ‘ economic competitiveness’ consultancy firm (Monitor Group), that is currently at the forefront and leading policy change in Libya’s reform programme. That meeting happened in Davos in the World Economic Forum, I mean hey… why don’t people make the connection?.
One needn’t even go into this speculation. Normal people all over the world are rightly appalled by the specific form of Globalisation that is sweeping the globe and its dire effect on the welfare of the poor. Demonstrations, intellectual campaigns and anti globalisation movements in developed countries directly echo the suffering and exploitation of the world’s poor as a direct result of the dominance of international capital rights over ‘human’ rights.
The biggest mistake anti ‘conspiracy theorists’ make is the thinking that world events are separate from each other simply because they cannot make the effort to understand the dynamics of the financial industry that is at the centre of the web of power here.
This mentality only discourages institutional analysis, which is required if one wants to know how anything is run.
Once one begins to understand the Links between international ‘fiat’ capital, commerce, and industries like the arm’s industries, it becomes conceivable to understand how finance can ‘buy’ America’s and other nations’ military power and intervention, and cheat the people of ‘democracy’ from their no#1 blessing. Governments, and the instruments of their governance, defence and economics just become mere pawns for international capital. This is becoming more and more evident everyday.
For me, what I see on TV is a pantomime. I can see exactly why US military commanders and strategists call the territories of their intervention the ‘theatre of war’. War planning on this scale takes years if months to come about, and if you wanna have a peak at the future read the neo-conservative PNAC document, written before coming to power, and see how close it’s strategies matches world events. The frigate and ‘Floating Fortresses’ of the US navy arrived last year. Already maps are up prepared for the re-conquest of the ‘heartlands’ and the division of the Arab world including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen, what they think would bring about a peaceful ‘New Middle East’, the number one foreign policy as stated by Rice.
Therefore, if we don’t come to agree at least on these two simple principles:
1) that ‘states’ are not really individual actors, regardless of the goodwill of the people that ‘help’ running them.
2) international money talks world events
then we have no more basis for agreement on any effective political solution that would bring about freedom, democracy and development. We could share some insight on principles and abstract means of good governance, but they would not really be applicable as the realities are a lot more complex, with various historical, financal, religious, national, tribal, cultural loyalties and affiliations which any honest proponent of democracy would take the trouble to confront before espousing any ‘programme of action’.
Toady,
I completely agree that peple are perfectly capable of ruining their own lives let alone countries without any help from anybody. The propensity for the human instrument to dominate as soon as it becomes institutionalised is always inevitable in any society, and it starts with the control of the instrument of expansion. Before the instrument of expansion was the military, so we saw colonialism, imperialism, from all despotic empires, be it the Arabs, Ottomans, Japanese, English, Spanish etc.
In this case, the instrument of expansion (power expansion) is ‘capital’, ‘money’, ‘credit’, all synonymous, all autonomous of any real ‘state involvement’. That’s what is conventionally held in the academic sphere as ‘neo-imperialism’, which is essentially what Gaddafi ‘the madman’ is talking about.
Toady if u read my arguments previously and in other comments ( I will soon have some posts up) you will see that I do not endorse at all the standard ‘east-west’ distinction that the cultural post-modern movement keeps re-iterating (as the west being ‘evil’, despite its good will and intension, which seems to me only to help perpetuate the condition our people are in).
I sincerely believe that the majority of the people in the West and developed countries hold huge potential and merit great credence for so much of the world’s current positive development, scientific breakthroughs and intellectual advancement.
Not only that but I hold much respect for them as brothers and sisters who can spot oppression and tyranny when they see it and are still committed to reason and human rights that they do much more for democratic efforts for Arabs say, than those Arabs living with them in their countries.
Regrettably however, their voices and actions will have less and less significance as their civil liberties are slowly being eroded away in States like the US (by the establishment of the Patriot act and the civil unrest this is causing) and the UK (which has just separated it’s Home Office, to create a dedicated ministry to combating terrorism, especially, the ‘domestic’ type, which dubiously categorises any ‘agitator’ or initmidator’ as ‘enemy combatant’, i.e, not a human, not tried by court of law but marial and military law, without access to independent monitoring.
As for Chomsky (lol @ pbuh, but yes pbuu too J) he is the worlds foremost linguist so his description just happens to be handily accurate. Unlike other ‘infallible’ political officials and establishment goons however, his presentation is rooted in objective institutional anaylsis (because it is composed of systematic functions and operations).
Unlike them though he also is able to back up his analysis with continuous referencing to establishment and independent media alike, rather than take an establishment bias, which would, in all honesty, lead one to see a different view of the world than one generally encouraged to see and forget about.
Despite my own disagreement with Chomsky in some of his stances and conclusions, such as his total dismissal of the 911 commission and the HUGE collection of evidence implicating certain elements of senior US agencies’ involvement’ in the 911 tragedy I think I can find him some excuses for that.
Besides all that the is an excellent role model for a good man and advocate of human integrity.
Thank you All
Peace
Programmer_Craig he is accusing the US tortured him ...
Mani thanks for this essay/study I wanted once to explain to a friend the different factors affecting our region and always felt my explanations lacked sophistication. You've made my job easier I simply need to print this now :) Needless to say I hear ya buddy !
Programmer_Craig he is accusing the US tortured him ...
I don't much care what comes out of the mouth of an Iranian "diplomat" when his lips move, H. Sorry. I'm funny that way. I just said if he was in the custody of Iraqis he most likely was tortured severely. The Iraqis have become quite adept at torture. Maybe they always have been.
Mani, I don't agree with all that you said about not intervening in the affairs of other states as it is illegal and such. That was in the darkest days of the Cold War. The Soviet Union was not only "interfering" in the affairs of other states, it was INVADING them and adding them to it's empire. The WHOLE WORLD was looking to the US to be a counterweight to the Soviets. I don't think anything but a blind and ignorant fool would say otherwise. And that wasn't even a "Cold War" except if one means that the US and the Soviets were never directly engaging each other militarily. There were many "hot" wars fought during the Cold War. Many invasions. Many governments fell. Many lives were lost. I think you are looking at the world as it is today, instead of how it was then.
And just so you know, I would support my government financing and/or planning the toppling of Castro, as well. Not Chavez... yet. But maybe at some point in the future. We don't have to wait until the shooting starts to know that somebody is our enemy, Mani. Sometimes, they come right out and say so :)
Mani, hearing you say that opinions like mine shape politics, I can only answer, "May it go from your mouth into God's ears". The people I vote for almost invariably remain in opposition. During the post-1989 period, my favourites were elected only twice and in both cases it was after the majority's favourites had left the country literally with nothing to eat. As for my opinion in international affairs, you said yourself that 3/4 of people oppose it.
Highlander, you are right that international law protects uniformed soldiers only. Let me give an example. North of Sofia, there is a village Thompson. It was named after a British lieutenant who was sent during WWII to contact Bulgarian Communist guerrillas. He found a group of them, but then the Bulgarian army attacked the group. Thompson was captured, sentenced to death and executed. He was a member of an "official" army, but he wasn't in uniform when he was captured. For that reason, Bulgaria was never required to compensate in any way the young man's family.
However, my opinion what is barbaric and what not is not based on any law. Barbarism has often been institutionalized in laws throughout history - and still is in many countries. I have my head to decide what is right and what wrong. I feel free to criticize Scriptures that believers think are dictated by God, then why not criticize laws that are admittedly created by fellow humans?
I wouldn't approve if recorded confessions of captured terrorists in Gitmo or elsewhere were broadcasted, either.
As for the humiliating photos from Abu Ghraib, it was not the people who humiliated the detainees that broadcasted the photos, do you remember? It was done by media ready to show anything and to hurt their country's cause in any way just to boost their profits.
"I know it could be a lot of BS but given the past abuses uncovered I admit by the occupation forces and where some have even gone on trial...and the bad feeling between Iran and the US since 1979 ......there must be some grain of truth in this ? what do you think ?"
I suspect that if we really did resort to physical torture H, there would have been a pretty good pressing reason for it and this man would never have been heard from again.
As for the so called prison abuses in Abu Ghraib, as Ann Coulter pointed out, there are people in New York, Paris, and San Francisco that would be willing to pay good money for that kind of treatment.
Not exactly like being fed feet first into a plastic shredder like Sadam and his darling boys were want to do with their enemies eah?
As for the so called prison abuses in Abu Ghraib, as Ann Coulter pointed out, there are people in New York, Paris, and San Francisco that would be willing to pay good money for that kind of treatment.
Not exactly like being fed feet first into a plastic shredder like Sadam and his darling boys were want to do with their enemies eah?
I'm not sure I got you right here Curt , do you mean that it is OK that the prisoners were abused in Abughraib because Ann Coulter said that sexual abuse is a fashion statement in hip cities of Europe and America. Does that somehow condone it ? Does that mean that S & M is a core value in those places and so prisoners should feel privileged ?
And what kind of comparison is it to do so with Saddam Hussein, are you saying that Saddam Hussein and the US military are morally equal ? I thought that he was a monster. Are the atrocities perpetrated by Saddam some kind of yardstick to measure oneself with ? i.e it is ok to abuse those Iraqis because Saddam did worse .
You know very well that it is not an excuse Curt from Houston. Being at the top you have to be held as an impeccable example of what is best and not compare yourself to Saddam and his henchmen.
What is good and I applaud your people for that is those who reported the abuses and that the perpetrators were put on trial at least. This means that there are still a lot of good apples in the bad basket. Those are the people who make you proud and whom we have to be grateful.Right ?
As for this Ann Coulter, I never heard about her. But the internet is an interesting source of info so is this the same woman featured here ?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.coulterwisdom.html
Here is a gem from her writings :
"we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." hmmm ...since I trust you as a person of good judgment and friend and you have obviously quoted her, should I assume she is a leading journalist and a shaper and mover of ideas ? That's a scary thought .
@Maya As for the humiliating photos from Abu Ghraib, it was not the people who humiliated the detainees that broadcasted the photos, do you remember? It was done by media ready to show anything and to hurt their country's cause in any way just to boost their profits.
Do you mean that the prisoners were not humiliated until their photos were broadcast ? I have difficulty grasping that. The humiliation and phsychological damage was done by tbe mere fact of the perpetration of the abuse. They were abused , they know they were being photographed , and the soldiers/officers were emailing and sharing the photos with their friends/buddies/ family . Moroever. those prisoners that were released were probably recounting what they saw in prison to friends and relatives. So the humiliation was known and felt. However, it became well known when it spread all over the net and the media.
The fact the media diffused it does not absole the perpetrators of this act nor make it less humiliating. You've just absolved some very perverted people and I can't see what point you are trying to prove by this. So you would have no problem with this kind of treatment and would recommend it as standard prison procedure as long as the media cannot find out about it and blow the whistle...
"I am glad that the situation was resolved diplomatically.
I'm happy that it ended peacefully as well. I just wonder what the Iranians would have done if it were an American guided missile destroyer instead of fifteen soldiers in a rubber dingy. That's assuming that they were in Iranian waters to begin with.
When the US and Israel are actively looking for war, I am proud that Britain uses peaceful means.
If the US was looking for war, it would have been a guided missile destroyer and they would have made sure that they were in Iranian waters.
"I'm not sure I got you right here Curt , do you mean that it is OK that the prisoners were abused in Abughraib because Ann Coulter said that sexual abuse is a fashion statement in hip cities of Europe and America."
No H, I'm not. Having been in the military and been responsible for the lives of my people, I would not have limited myself to such petty inconveniences that the Abughraib detainees were subjected to if I thought it would save the life of one of my own in war.
If by shooting one of them through the head, I could save the life of one of my people, I would do it.
It's called war and it's not pretty. We put our own front line troops through worse training than Abughraib just to prepare them in case they are taken prisoner.
One more thought H. No one appreciates peace more than a soldier.
sigh
Highlander, I've never tried to whitewash the guards who abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib. But I was talking specifically about broadcasting such acts, making them known to the largest audience possible, especially to the "enemy" population, in an attempt to destroy their morale. It is also the essence of terror, isn't it?
This approach has been used for millenia. Romans claim that their enemies (Vercingetorix and Hannibal) tortured Roman captives so that other Roman soldiers could see and hear. Romans themselves crucified slave rebels in public.
I've posted once about Byzantine emperor Basil II who blinded more than 10000 Bulgarian captives and then sent them home.
In this way, you not only humiliate, torture, kill humanity in one or a few persons (the victims), you hurt humanity in survivors, too. Civilizations generally try to abstain from this approach, so I called it barbaric.
In the Abu Ghraib case, the media didn't blow the whistle. As far as I know, "blowing the whistle" means to make public some bad practice in order to discontinue it. As I have said, the media's goal wasn't to discontinue prisoner abuse, just to make money by the most reliable way - harming their country. So the main result of the "whistleblowing" was the death of Nicholas Berg. I hope it has satisfied the "whistleblowers".
Curt from Houston :) thank you for taking the pain to reply seriously ( ps I sent you an email on Easter but you still have not read it probably in your spam) .
It is irrelevant, I think if it was Americans or Brits in the waters, though of course the US does have the larger firepower so Iran won't be a match against it. Let us be grateful that it ended thus. The US does not have to be in Iranian waters to provoke a war, they can start it right there at the Iraqi borders. Anyway that was not the point I wanted to make.
I see the irony from your point of view in your post where you compare Iraq and WWII. However, from this side the two instances are incomparable. Yes Americans were the heroes of WWII absolutely they helped free Europe, but only after German's ally Japan attacked it in Pearl Harbour. i.e. only then did the freedom of Europe and fighting the evil Nazi become a mission right. At least lets not be selective about the whole picture.
Iraq is a different matter despite the broad lines you mention. I'm sure you are bored now of the debate about how invading Iraq was a mistake. So I'll spare us and the readers the whole story which is not the topic of this post :) .
As for Ann Coulter , I feel better to understand that her statements are simply jokes. I really was scared there for a while at her utterances, it seemed to me comparable to Ahmadinejad's ranting about the Jews..
With regards to Abughraib, I said in one of my earlier posts when it took place that there is no need for the world to be shocked nor horrified , because war is war and I expect ugliness and no mercy.
I don't agree that the prisoners at Abu where all terrorist/Islamists, as some were kids , others were old and others were women. But even if they were it is not a reason for sexual abuse.I think the shock is mostly on part of the Iraqis who thought that they were at last free from Saddam's terror.But really my point is not to discuss Abu either . I think it just came as an example like the Stanford prison test thingy , how people turn bad :) bad apple or bad basket ?
Nomad hi:) I think Curt was quoting Ann Coulter , but yes it is a bit of an exageration to say that if sadist sex is acceptable in capitals of the world it is fine to subject prisoners to it. It sets a bad precedent although I always suspect that there is sexual abuse in all prisons in the world. However it should be an exception not a rule non ?
Maya , if I recall well, it was not the media only who was a whistleblower they were some military guys whose conscience was not comfortable with these things and who informed the chain of command or others, how can the media get it if someone does not let the cat out of the bag ?
Ah BUT I do agree that media wants profit yes !
Basically let's hope another warfront can be averted in the ME.
Hi Nomad,
If these cities are open-mined to let live the gay population in security
The problems in San Francisco don't really have anything to do with gays, Nomad. It dates back to the 1960s when San Francisco was the center of the counter-culture movement. The counter-culture movement never ended, in San Franciso. The hippies (who are in their 60s now) still live there. Most of them are still heavy drug users (if not addicts) and live on welfare. And they are full time protesters. They *hate* the United States. They've been in the "opposition" for 40+ years. Bush and the WoT just give them a convenient platform.
SF became a city that was attractive to gays because they found it very friendly to them. The presence of homosexuals in San Francisco is merely incidental. Homeless drug addicts congregate in San Francisco for the same reasons.
Highlander,
it was not the media only who was a whistleblower they were some military guys whose conscience was not comfortable with these things and who informed the chain of command or others
The military did an entire investigation before the media ever got hold of the story. The Taguba Report (which was the basis for the criminal prosecutions and convictions) was filed 6 months before the photos were made public by the media.
The military men who revealed what was going on at Abu Ghraib of course did the right thing. I agree with you, HL, that while atrocities are inevitably done in any war, they should not be tolerated.
About Ann Coulter - she is a provokative, controversial journalist. She rejects Darwinism, so I haven't high opinion of her IQ. I don't think she jokes often; her statements immediately after Sept. 11 may rather be a result of shock. But she is not very different in calmer times, too. I think the society needs such voices, not only to secure freedom of speech but because they provoke thoughts and sometimes vent the society's frustrations. The important thing is not to give them real power, not to appoint them as teachers and of course never to offer them weapons. And so I am somewhat taken aback by you comparing her to Ahmadinejad. You may be right that words can be deadlier than a sword, but I'm-mad-in-jihad doesn't rely on such obsolete weapons, he may soon have nuclear bombs.
Everybody is now talking how well things are going with Iran, this makes me sick. Let me quote a blogger who usually doesn't write about politics:
"Unreason... has reached the point
where many people believe that wanting something to be true will MAKE it true...Iran’s nuclear program is much in the news of late and all reports include a comment to the effect that “Iran claims that the nuclear program is solely for power generation”. What I never hear said is that Iran is a net exporter of oil and has an infrastructure that is so dysfunctional that it has to import gasoline. It seems extremely unlikely that Iran would put the money and effort into something so complicated as nuclear power when it could buy oil-fired power plants for a fraction of the cost. And without stirring up the threat of UN sanctions. Still, the talking heads and pundits seem to all be of the mind that by not actually saying that Iran’s rationale is full of baloney, they won’t have to face the ugly truth that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying to make a nuclear bomb in order to destroy Israel – as he has repeatedly said he was." (http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot.com/2007/04/age-of-unreason.html)
http://www.iran-resist.org/article3335
it appears that the iranian detainee was a fake, he was tortured afterwords by his compatriots services in Iran... manipulation of the medias, actually they know very well to play with bluff
@The Lost Libyano, please re-read the 'Fatimid speech' and spot the error - there is a major error in between the lines.
ohh..... well I just went and read the actual full script.:(
Islamonline is a good example of a "bad Islamic Site" what they posted is as diffrent from night and day from what I have just read.
Ummm I dont exactly know what to say..... I am sad:(
That is all I shall say, very, very, very sad. Very sad and very lost.:(
You see my point now Lost Libyano ?
Not everything is what you think it is - of course this advice goes for everybody else visiting this blog :P
You see my point now Lost Libyano ?
Not everything is what you think it is
Yes Its even better then what I thought It was.
One thing though that really pissed me off about the speach was that the KSA destroyed the house of the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) and Khadija(PBUH) and BUILT A TOILET ON TOP OF THE SITE!!!!! :(
These people are truley sick animals!! Why did they do this??!!
As far as the Bar-Bars being the original arabs, and the pheocians, as well thats a AMAZING IDEA!:)
I mean Dude if you think about it if we take every culture, and every acomplishment achived by people who inhabit North Africa, and The Middle East... then by all means that makes us truley the master race.
We are the cradle of Civilization, God choose us to reveal his final word, we should be rulers of the world. If we put all of our oil toghther, all of our natural resources, and totally unite under one super banner then we are truley, completly, unstopable.
The Pheocians or Arabs with boats discovered THE AMERICAS. That means no European American has the right to ever call me a forigner again, because I am arab and so are "Pheocians". So Arabs in actuallity discovered America. Its a Amazing idea. Not to mention the Great Leader has a point, they are trying to divide and conquere us.
That scum bag Wafa Sultan signed a Imazighen something or other petition. That disgusts me beyond what words can possibly describe, I despise that women.:(
They want to break us up like they broke up the Iraqi's, kurd this, sunni this, or that. Screw that dude, united we stand!!!
Unity. No More division no more hate, we must unite against these people. Programmer Craig proved a perfect example when he said that he was doing you a favor by mentioning his imaginary "arab aggression" against North Africa, they want to make us fight each other, so they can sneak in and take our oil, and our minerals, have us blowing each other up like monsters, while they sit back and drink a six pack pumping our oil from the ground.
If the west wants peace it must learn RESPECT.
It must respect our ancient civilization. We where ruling the world when they where running around in underware swinging on trees in gaul. :P
We where ruling the world when they where running around in underware swinging on trees in gaul.
if that makes you proud, I 'll leave it up to you !
though, celts had a culture that were not recorded with writings, and their jewellry artefacts are nevertheless a proof of their aptitudes do the "hittites give you an idea ?
It must respect our ancient civilization. We where ruling the world when they where running around in underware swinging on trees in gaul.
Couldn't that be said about the Arabs during the Roman Empire? Minus the "swinging on trees in gaul" part of course. :-)
Bah Curt Empires come and go ... no bird can fly up forever :)
Post a Comment