Conservative media ridicule, smear captured British sailors
On March 23, the Iranian government captured 15 British sailors and marines in the Persian Gulf, alleging that they had entered Iranian territorial waters. During their captivity, the detained sailors apparently participated in the production of various propaganda materials, leading several conservatives -- including New York Post columnist Ralph Peters, National Review Online contributor John Derbyshire, CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck, and syndicated radio host Michael Savage -- to mock and smear the captives.
On April 4, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced at a 7:30 a.m. ET news conference in Tehran that the 15 British sailors and marines would be released. While Ahmadinejad maintained that all of the captives had admitted to trespassing in Iranian waters and that Iran had "every right" to put them on trial, he said that it was "a unilateral decision" to release the captives. He added that the decision was, in part, a "gift" to honor both the upcoming Easter holiday and the Muslim commemoration of the Prophet Muhammad's birth. He said the captives would be taken to the Tehran airport immediately following his remarks.
In his April 3 Post column -- headlined "Where's Winston?" -- Peters called the captives "wankers" and asserted that they "wimped out in a matter of days and acquiesced in propaganda broadcasts for their captors," a reference to videos aired on Iranian television in which several of the captives said that they had entered Iranian territory. Peters continued: "Jingoism aside, I can't imagine any squad of U.S. Marines behaving in such a shabby, cowardly fashion. Our Marines would have fought to begin with. Taken captive by force, they would've resisted collaboration. To the last man and woman." He went on to write that the "once-proud" British military has "collapsed to a sorry state."
In an April 3 post on National Review Online's weblog The Corner titled "Brit Wimps," Derbyshire linked to Peters' column and stated, "Once again, it's me and Ralph Peters on the same wavelength, deploring the cowardice of the British sailors and marines kidnapped by Iran." Derbyshire further wrote: "When it happened, I said I hoped the ones who'd shamed their country would be court-martialed on return to Blighty, and given dishonorable discharges after a couple years breaking rocks in the Outer Hebrides." Derbyshire added: "And in any case, there was no evidence of torture or mistreatment in any of the filmed cases I have seen. They look just fine. You can't fake that. The girl sailor had that headscarf on within hours. From what I've heard of torture, even weaker cases can hold out for a few days." In an April 3 post on Time magazine's weblog Swampland, Time.com Washington editor Ana Marie Cox criticized Derbyshire's attack on the sailors.
On the April 2 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, Beck hosted "body language expert" Robert Phipps to analyze video of the captives. Discussing footage showing the only female sailor "smiling," Beck asked: "[C]an you fake that? Would you fake that? What does that tell you?" Phipps replied that the female sailor's "smile is not a genuine smile."
BECK: Now, I saw some clips where she was smiling. And, you know, it's really hard because we know this has been edited and edited so tightly, but there's times when she's smiling. I mean, can you fake that? Would you fake that? What does that tell you?
PHIPPS: Well, the smile is not a genuine smile. Because when we genuinely smile, there's two muscles that come into play: the zygomatic muscle at the side of the mouth and the orbicularis oculi under the eye. And what that does is it turns the corner of the lip up and the corners of the eyes up, and you get that sort of symmetrical meeting of the eyes and the mouth.
Now, what she didn't do was -- she couldn't engage those muscles because it wasn't a genuinely felt emotion. So what she did was a masking smile. It literally sort of appeared on the face -- mm-hmm -- and it disappeared just as quickly.
And she didn't show any teeth. Now, when you smile genuinely and happily, you show your teeth.
Further, on the March 28 broadcast of Michael Savage's nationally syndicated radio show, a caller asked if the British troops were given Bibles upon their capture. In response, Savage said: "I don't think these people need a Bible. They probably need a condom," adding, "By look of the British sailors, they look like they took them off the back streets of Liverpool." Savage went on to say that they were "lucky they found a job in the navy. I mean, I don't know. You take a look at them -- no wonder they were captured. I don't think they even know they were on a boat":
CALLER: And, you know, all these groups, you know, that are worried about whether the terrorists at Gitmo have a dinner mint on their pillow at night. Are these sailors getting culturally correct meals? Do they have a Bible? You know, where are these people asking these questions now?
SAVAGE: I don't think these people need a Bible. They probably need a condom. By the look of the British sailors, they look like they took them off the back streets of Liverpool. Thank you for the call. I don't think these people need a Bible. They're lucky they found a job in the navy. I mean, I don't know. You take a look at them -- no wonder they were captured. I don't think they even know they were on a boat.
Here's an idea: Let's go out and collect this gaggle of brave culture warriors, drag them kicking and screaming from behind their microphones and computers, and put them in an open boat in a war zone. When the bad guys pick them up and spirit them away, let's see how long it takes before they start appearing in videos confessing to trespassing, spying, snorting the cremated remains of their parents, etc.
I know it's hard for these chickensh*ts to differentiate between the sweaty little fantasies that play out in their heads (and on Fox) and the realities they are (over)paid to describe. But that doesn't make them any less despicable or cowardly for taking potshots at people with real guns held to their heads.
Christ, you could probably break Beck by canceling his limo service.
Why didn' t the sailors and marines shoot there weapons?
I don't know because I wasn't there. But at least i don't pretend I know.
How do you know they didn't? And if they didn't, maybe it is because they didn't want to incite another war? You know, sometimes it is called using your brain. I suggest you do the same sometime.
Then why even issue weapons to them? Why even have a Navy?
Dude, have you done any research at all?
Outgunned
— The two Iranian patrol ships that seized the Britons were equipped with rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine guns, enough for a small sea battle. By contrast, the Britons go lightly armed on vessels they search in the Gulf. Each man is issued with a rifle or a pistol
— The Iranians struck at a vulnerable moment when the Britons were climbing down a ladder to jump into their inflatables
— The Royal Navy does train its men in the techniques needed to fight at just such a dangerous stage. “They had all the rights available to act in self-defence under law,” a senior military officer said. But they were in an “almost impossible position”
— A similar decision to hold fire was taken by the six Royal Marines and two sailors captured by Iran in 2004 in similar circumstances. Scott Fallon, a former marine, said they did think about shooting their way free but knew it would be hopeless. He told BBC Radio 4: “They had antiaircraft guns. We would have stood no chance”
Cited from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1582544.ece
Riddle me this my friend what about the British warship that watched the entire thing?
Even if there was a warship nearby, a battle would have likely killed the 15 British soldiers.
What would you have done were you the commander of the British ship. Open up with all batteries? They could have killed their own people just as easily. Plus, that's a killer, diplomaticallly...
Let me get this straight: Rather than the peaceful ending that has come about in this mess, you'd rather the Brits had opened fire and potentially started a shooting war with Iran, rather than handle this nonsense diplomatically? You'd rather the 15 sailors were dead or injured, rather than returned home safe?
And Conservatives wonder why they're labeled "warmongers."
"Riddle me this my friend what about the British warship that watched the entire thing?"
Which of the following weapons on the HMS Cornwall should Commander J B Woods have chosen to dispatch the Iranians as they captured the boats?
Keep in mind that the idea in combat is to harm your opponent, not your friends. These are not exactly small arms, bud. Had they been used, perhaps we would've been reading about 15 dead UK marines, killed by friendly fire from the Cornwall.
Setting that aside, with tensions already relatively high, shooting first is not always the best option. If it were, we would've been engaged in open war with the U.S.S.R. not long after WW2.
In any case, second-guessing the actions of these marines is a bit like arm-chair quarterbacking, don't you think? No one on this board was there, and neither were these bloviating bobble heads.
Besides, they were out of sight, as it turns out...
Why don't you go enlist in the military??? You could have showed them all firsthand how they should have acted.
It's real easy to TALK tough like all these chickenhawk keyboard commandos who never bothered to serve themselves.
My guess as to why they did not fire was because, 1. there is no clearly defined border between Iraq and Iran, so they weren't clear which country they were really in, and 2. their country is not at war with Iran, and they did not want to be blamed for starting one.
Let's be fair about this, now. There's no way of knowing that Dorsai wouldn't have fought back ala Chuck Norris. And in the event he was captured, would probably have already escaped, what with everything he learned from watching Hogan's Heroes...
Further, this was clearly an act by the Iranians for the cameras back home, not the cameras of the world stage. Ahkmadinnwhatever would have loved nothing more than to have Brits firing on his sailors so that he could either portray the then defending sailors as heroes or the Brits (and by extension Americans) as aggressors.
Why didn't they shoot? Perhaps it was because shooting would have meant certain death! Check out this link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1582544.ece
Shoot where weapons?
"There weapon."
Marty Feldman - Eyegore, Young Tommy Franksenstein
Thanks, Neon. That went so far down the thread I figured it didn't make sense.
From another film of that era:
The black lady who took care of Chance
"It's for sure a white man's world in America. Look here: I raised that boy since he was the size of a piss-ant. And I'll say right now, he never learned to read and write. No, sir. Had no brains at all. Was stuffed with rice pudding between th' ears. Shortchanged by the Lord, and dumb as a jackass. Look at him now! Yes, sir, all you've gotta be is white in America, to get whatever you want. Gobbledy-gook! "
maybe because the iranians didnt fire theirs. they are not at war with iran so to open fire on them would have been attempted murder
Dorsai, why didn't you learn proper grammar?
Change your screen name if you are going to spew such tripe.
The anti-American republic party only LOVE dead soldiers, because they cannot speak out against herr dubyah, blair, or this ridiculous war. It all makes sense, this is why the GOPigs want the war to continue so that more troops will die and those dead troops will not be able to dissent.
Hey, they have to fight both the War on Christmas and the War on Traditional Marriage. Fighting Iran would be a walk in the park!
Hear, hear! These hipocrites wouldn't stand two seconds inside a Royal Marine training camp.
Should I also mention that while Prince Harry is over there, not a single member of our illustrious US aristocracy is?
Aaahhhh, YES!! Savage and Beck judging captured military personnel by edited video footage... And, 'I don't think they even know they were on a boat..."? I don't think weiner boy even knows that there is real life outside of his little room...
These selected commentators and pundits were out of line criticizing these captured sailors.
"Thanks" to Iran for their generous gift of the sailor's release.
At least their gift wasn't indefinite incarceration or extraordinary rendition. Cheney would go nuclear.
Just be patient...Darth Cheney will find an excuse to attack Iran yet; they need the distraction.
My 2¢? Iran was terrible for showing the prisoners on television. It was a violation of the Geneva Conventions (Are the Iranians signatories?).
Secondly, I think wes1 makes a great point. If Iranian sailors were captured in Iraqi waters, would they have been returned this quickly (note: it hasn't quite happened yet, but should happen tomorrow) AND can we feel sure that the Iranians would not be tortured or abused by our own troops at the direction of the Whitehouse?
Never in a million years would I have ever dreamed that Iranians would treat coalition soldiers better than we would treat Iranian prisoners, but here we are and I am not so sure at all.
Pathetic. Especially calling the British military "wimps" or whatever it was they called them. I am more than willing to bet that since this whole thing went down, there was an SAS team training to go in and get these men and woman back from Iran should worse come to worse. Because if you want the biggest bad arses in the world when it comes to special operations, you call the SAS. Any SEAL, Green Beret, and or Delta operator will tell you this.
Super Army Soldiers?
Umm, the Special Air Service. You know, started in WWII and all with a long history of being the best of the best.
Tell that to SEAL Team Six.
(Not saying it's true or false. I just want to watch someone tell them.)
If you have read Richard Marchinko's book about forming SEAL team six, in it, he talks about the SAS operators that they trained with at times, and how they were the best.
Stallone Annihilation Squad. Retired, but this time it's personal...
I'm slowly beginning to wonder if Savage is auditioning for Fred Phelps' job once he pops his clogs.
Naw. Phelps would think Savage is nuts.
So, how will the Troglodytes play this, now that the sailors have been released? It will be hard to paint Iran as "evil", since they've treated the Brits better than we treat captured "turrists".
From this clip, it looks like the talking points will be to question the British sailors' courage, and probably characterize it as a publicity stunt on Iran's part. The bottom line is this; despite the idiotic rhetoric from the NeoClowns, we ARE NOT AT WAR WITH IRAN. Of course, Puddinhead George and his Brownshirts will rectify that situation soon, I am sure.
Beck is a troglodyte putz.
You are correct about one thing we are not at war with Iran. But Iran had it's way we would be. There actions and hostile words should not be tolerated by anyone and the full weight of NATO, yes I said NATO because the UN is useless, should be put into making them comply with the World's demands.
If Iran had its way? I doubt that. They've had ample opportunity to start a dustup with us. They could have executed the British sailors, or they could simply attack one of our Ships in the Gulf. If they are itching for a war as you claim, why haven't they provoked one?
Where do you get this crap? Iran wants a war with the west like you want an STD. This was about propaganda, not about starting a war. And for all we know, those sailors actually thought they were defending their borders and a) actually were or b) thought they were but screwed up.
Regardless, Iran doesn't want a war they know they'd lose. More importantly, those in power in Iran don't want to see the end of their power, something a war with the west would bring, regardless of the outcome.
"...what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
- from Billy Madison
my guess is that the hannities and the limbaughs and the oriellys will play it like this.
"iran backed down when faced with force."
"Ahmedinijad is a coward who blinked first"
"see the show of force worked"
Beck's spin on this last night was that Iran was making the West look stupid, weak and cowardly and the West not coming with guns blazing and feathers ruffled has resulted in the creation of many terrorists.
He also said the British no longer have a stomach for blood, and can't be trusted in the war on Terror any more, because Tony Blair issued an apology for trespassing in Iranian waters.
Nice job.
Nice gesture on Iran's behalf. Prayers do work.
Oh yes. What this situation clearly needed was more religion.
I thought the whole thing was a stunt on Iran's part, showing the world that they treat prisioners far better than we do. They stole from our playbook, and cripes, it's working against us.
To be honest, I would much rather be captured by an Iranian, than be under suspect as a terrorist at the hands of the Americans. (And I'm about as WASP as it comes).
The sad part is that Iran's president is winning the P.R. battle against our own Moron in Chief.
Really? Because if you're gay, and a citizen, not a captured foreigner, they may publicly hang you for that alone.
Nice bunch of guys those Iranians are. Glad you view them as the good guys and us as the evildoers.
Tommy, if Iran were the good guys, it wouldn't be sad that they were beating us in the PR battle.
Nice " America- hater" reflex, though.
I have always wondered why some of us are giving Iran a pass? I know our President is horrible, but that is no excuse for giving Iran a pass. This is a nation that treats women with disgust, is horrible Human Rights record and lets never forget what they did to us in 1979 and the fact that even today Jimmy Carter is wanted in Iran on charges of Crimes against the Iranian people. There hate has no bounds when it comes to American Poltiical Party affilition.
Giving Iran a pass? Even after 1979? You do realize why those events happened don't you? Because we, the United States, put into place a tyrannical ruler who was a dictator to his own people, and then they rose up against the Shah that we, the United States, put into place. Is it any wonder they (meaning the Iranian government) don't like the Americans? Also, remember who gave Saddam chemical and biological weapons to use AGAINST Iran when Iraq was fighting Iran, yes, the US. There is a lot of history between the US and Iran, it's just that a lot of people forget about it, and take the "Axis of Evil" approach to Iran. When in fact, the general population of their country is very pro-Western civilization, and it remains the Mullahs and the leaders of Iran who are anti American.
Of course we have a "bad" history with Iran, even back in 1977 when President Carter on New Years Eve was toasting the disgusting Shah while his SAVAK was slaughtering thousands in the streets of Tehran. However my point is just because the US in the past had a "bad" history with Iran does not mean Iran is innocent. This is a nation that has a disgusting human rights record today and like China that needs to be exposed.
The Iranian government certainly is not populated by angels. But then, how do their human rights abuses stack up against dozens of other countries in the world. As Puddinhead George has unwittingly demonstrated, even the United States can't go around conquering every tinhorn dictator in the world. That being the case, we have to either deal with these countries diplomatically or nuke them all. What's your preference?
I don't think everyone is simply giving Iran a pass. E.g., my view is that this was a very dangerous gamble by Iran....that it is likely that the U.K. service people were in Iraqi waters...that the forced (my opinion) statements of the service people was disgusting.
Yet, it seems this was a political victory for Iran both at home and globally. However, a miliitary response by the UK and US, while a failure for Iran, would not have been a victory for us either. Instead, I think we need to look at how the environment we've created, by our invasion of Iraq, by our own treatment of prisoners and by our own prior antagonism toward Iran, created this opportunity for Iran.
If the sailors were not in Iranian waters, it means the Iranians were trespassing in Iraqi waters. Has Bush or Blair called them out on this?
The deal is they haven't...
There have been some statements by the UK foreign service to that effect. However, given Bush's itch for a fight, the suspicion that this was a Blair/Bush attempt to bait Iran probably contributed to doubts about UK claims about the location; it did for me anyway. It wasn't until I learned about Iran's own account having changed that I began to consider more credible that this was, in fact, an error by the Iranians.
Of course, I still consider it possible that neither side was 100% certain as to the location of the incident.
That's what I thought. The fact that the Iranians seem to look nicer than America right now should tell us something.
They are these really evil guys, and they... are looking better... than America right now... Oh... Sh*t.
Good point. Most Americans probably don't even know that history. The "conventional wisdom" is that our troubles with Iran began in the 70s. As with most history, there are two sides to American-Iranian tensions. Unfortunately, the troglodytes are so blinded by their jingoism that they can't see it. If you even attempt to understand the other side's point of view, they scream "America hater".
And don't forget the part when a candidate for our prez made a deal with them to KEEP holding those hostages so he could use them against a sitting president who was trying to get them back. All to elect a (at best) B-movie actor afflicted with Alzhiemers so he could be easily manipulated.
You're arguing on a flawed premise: Iranians don't hate Americans. Iranians hate American government and American foreign policy.
Now, I can guarantee there are redneck Iranians just like redneck Americans who hate another person just because of where we live, but educated Iranians will be happy to tell you that they have no problem with you as an American, but they'd like to see your government fall to ash for what it's done.
I'm not giving Iran a free pass. I'm giving them props for pulling this off. There's been stories in the foreign press that we're going to bomb Iran this weekend. If there's any truth in that, it makes a little sense of what Iran is doing.
Bush named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the Axis of Evil (ad nauseam). When threatened, Iraq's leader said: Come in and see that we don't have the weapons. We attack.
North Korea does this song and dance with a missle-launch system and nuclear testing. Talks ensue.
Guess which plan that Iran is going to copy?
Iran pulls a move that holds Britian and the US at arms length long enough to bring Britain to the table to talk.
Repugnants still wantt Jimmy Carter for being a liberal. The last liberal president...
Reflex? I was not the one who said I'd rather be in Iranian hands than America's. If you agree with that sentiment, then so be it.
In light of what happened to the homo-erotic torture in the Iraqi prisions at the hands of low-level military personnel...
Let me clarify this a little better: I would much rather be one of those British soldiers at the hands of the Iranian military, than a suspected terrorist at the hands of the American military.
You didn't need to clarify it was understood by everyone else the first time. And I would doubt too many people disagree with you. Even if the treatment Iran offered the British was for PR purposes, it doesnt change the reality that they got to keep their clothes on, and were likely to be about 4 years ahead of terrorist 'suspects' in Guantanamo in terms of a habeas corpus.
You American hater, you.
If you feel that a government that slices a man's tongue away layer by layer, stones women for infidelity and considers them to be half the worth of a man; Rather than one that had a few idiots making detainees perform "homo-erotic" torture (humiliation for those in the real world), is safer to be in custody of, I would say you've got a truly deep hatred for the United States and you're probably borderline suicidal.
Good luck with that.
Nope. Iran has an incentive to show that they can play nice. And thus they did. America has the hubris to think that its past reputation will it to torture and violate. So in a practical sense, the rolls have reversed. Bush, Cheney and Gonzoles have turned America into the unthinkable, a toturing nation that holds people indefinitely without charging them or giving them basic legal rights. Shameful.
No,Setir Copyh, I'll try to explain it one more time;
It's a love for America and a respect for its values that causes people to be aware when we look worse, even in a single case, than that other government.
I can't dumb it down any more for you. Good luck with that.
Although the point is entirely speculative, it is not without evidence that may lead one to seriously consider Iran treats their prisoners better. This should not be considered a testament to Iran's supposed superiority, but a testament to the new disappointing low standards the US has resorted to with regards to treatment of prisoners. This is what happens when we only try to be better than the worst possible example instead of trying to be the best we can compared to everyone.
If the shoe had been on the other foot, we cannot say with any genuine certainty anymore that the now "quaint" Geneva Conventions would even apply to the Iranians. If you know of any evidence (I don't consider Bush Administration promises as trustworthy at this point) that would reassure me, I am open to it.
Tommy's coment is as good as any concervative pundit's. I don't know why he bothers wasting time here. There are people willing to pay good money for that style of retoric.
Hmmm. I'm not gay (not that there's anything wrong with that). Considering the bias that is shown against those that are homosexual in this country, I'm not surprised that there aren't daily hangings in this country.
I just love the way you paint the whole thing as black and white, us vs. them (ad nauseam). Evil is pretty harsh term to use. I'm surprise that you didn't refer to Iran as Nazis.
We do pretty despictable things in this country to our own citizens. It's not evil. It's just part of being human.
Thank you for making us feel all warm and fuzzy about the misunderstood leadership of Iran - perhaps the next time they publicly hang a 14 or 15 year old boy you can comfort their family by saying that evil is too harsh a word.
Wanna treat this like a game? Let's go....
Hmmmmm... It'll be too easy to use the American Government treatment of the Native Americans from the mid 1800s to the late 20th century...
What about giving corporate welfare to companies that make billions each year, and deny adequate health care for our veterans? That sounds pretty evil to me.
(PS: Nice use of children as a shield to your arguement. You read Karl Rove's playbook.)
Monkeyboy, how dare you bring up such things from our past? Why do you hate America? We are God's chosen superpower, don't you know?
The only posters here who have brought up hate in this discussion are from the left. If you have some defensiveness regarding that term and constantly feel the need to refute a word that nobody here has even accused you of - then go for it. It is curious, nonetheless.
(ahem) sarcasm (ahem)
There is no such thing as sarcasm in the world of pure black and white.
Nice use of a shield to divert attention away from addressing Iran's evil leadership.
If you believe they are at present a noble country, and we are not, or at the very least we are on some par level regarding human dignity and respect - then that is your opinion. I vehemently do not share it.
The rest of your post is ridiculously off topic.
then's there's no point to continue.
I fail to see how we are so much better than any other country, when in the past all countries and governments are responsible for incredible atrocities against its own citizens and others.
What you fail to see, is that you associate an entire population of a country as synonymous with its leadership. Not everyone is stepping in line with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, much like not everyone is stepping in line with George W. Bush. I'm one of these persons that believe that individuals can rise above their station or situation and do good. The actions of individuals within the Iranian military is an example of that. I refuse to belive that everyone inside of Iran is an evil human being. Much like I refuse to belive that everyon inside of America is a paranoid nutjob... well, we do have more than our fair share.
I'm sorry, I couldn't let this one go... I guess you believe that corporations should get taxpayer money, instead of the men and women who have followed the orders of those that simply don't know any better.
Well said, sir. (Does one refer to monkeys as "sir"?)
Look man, very nice retort to Tommy, but as has been said in the past, just ignore him.
See, you are using reason against a mentally deficient individual.
Look at it this way, do you argue with a four year old about how things work, when the four year old THINKS they know something?
No. Why, because they simply don't know any better, and it's a waste of time. You simply have to pat them on the head, and tell them to go to their room and be quiet, the adults are talking.
Anyone that still tolerates this administration, still gives the benefit of the doubt to them, or STILL believes absolutley EVERYTHING our government tells them as gospel, well, you might as well talk to a wall.
The wall has a better chance of learning, and probably contributes more to society.
People like Tommy are simply, completley WRONG about everything. It's NOT debateable. I could find a crazy homeless guy that would swear on a stack of bibles that the sky is green. Doesn't mean I'm gonna humor him by allowing him a say.
I have no doubt Tommy believes the crap that he writes, but while he has a right to an opinion, the fact is his opinion is VERY wrong. About everything. Always.
Like a four year old, or a crazy dude.
So from now on, simply disregard the Tommy's of the world, for they are a blight to our country.
And if they continue with their non-sense, well then, it's perfectly justifiable to point out that they are a brain dead moron, and are polluting our gene-pool.
If you believe they are at present a noble country, and we are not, or at the very least we are on some par level regarding human dignity and respect - then that is your opinion. I vehemently do not share it.
I wouldn't call America the bastion of nobility under the current administration. Maybe the next president will restore honor and dignity to this country.
Don't bet on it. The current choices don't offer much hope of that happening.
Wow... you are so totally missing the point:
The idea is that even though Iran is a horrible place, the US seems to be doing worse than normal in that respect, so maybe it's time to stop and REFLECT on what makes you better than Iran and whether you want to keep it that way.
Tommy, the whole point is that, in this instance, Iran has behaved much more in line with American ideals than we have in other recent instances.
This was noted as "sad", meaning we, as Americans, should expect more of ourselves/ our government.
I was only pointing out your Pavlovian response to anything questioning the supremacy of the U,S. in any matter at any time.
It's an attitude that's responsible for much of the crap we're mired in today.
Now get busy building that latest model straw man.
So it's an American ideal to capture and hold hostages from another country as they "allegedly" sailed into our waters? And then parade them through the media, coerce them and propogandize their words for all the world to see.
I got it.
No need for some straw argument with an inane comparison such as that.
What did we do with that guy that confessed to every crime that happened in the 20th century? I'm sure we didn't parade that around for a couple of news cycles.
The use of TV cameras were important to show that the sailors were not being mistreated, and to disfuse the situation and bring Britain to the table to talk.
Nah, we just release pictures of people taken prisoner, hooded, shackled, and loaded onto a plane for a trip to Gitmo. Iran in the case of parading around these sailors and marines was wrong, as were we in doing similar things with people allegedly captured as "terrorists". Iran did it, so did we. Doesn't make it right in either case does it?
You're comparing a wartime prison which was an admitted stain and subsequently dealt with - to this? Try again.
No I'm not. I'm talking about in the early stages of the invasion into Afghanistan, I distinctly remember seeing pictures, on an almost daily basis, of prisoners being loaded into cargo planes who were shackled, and hooded, and being carted off to Gitmo for incarceration. How is that different? And go back and look at my post again, I declared what Iran did as being wrong as well as what we did.
We shouldn't have released those pictures and video, and Iran shouldn't have released the pictures and video that they did either. They are similar circumstances, in each case both countries (US and Iran) went against the Geneva Conventions in what they did.
2 wrongs, don't make a right. But again, as a country, who are we to judge what Iran did in this case, because we did a similar, if not worse, thing than they did.
I like you Tommy... you defuse arguements by ignoring them.
As far as I know, the prisioners at Gitmo are still denied habeas corpus (something that this country is supposed to stand for). Why don't we extend our civil liberties to them and show the world how great our judicial system is? If they're guilty, then punish them. If they are innocent, let them go home to their families.
Why don't you find a way to comfort a family that has a son, father or brother imprissoned and not charged with a crime? Evil?
The differences are immense. These are enemy combantants. Iran is not at war with Britian.
Do you think for one minute if Iranian sailors had "allegedly" been in our waters that we would have used them the way Iran did to the British sailors? You know the answer to that. To compare wartime prisoners with this situation is off base.
So are we at war with Australia?
The differences are immense. These are enemy combantants. Iran is not at war with Britian.
Most of the people we captured were innocent and released after weeks, months, years of captivity. And out of those still left at Gitmo, only ten have been charged with a crime.
Here is an article that backs up much of that and more from MSNBC.
It turns out that there are some decent people in our government who tried to stop what was going on in Gitmo, albeit unsuccessfully.
Gitmo is or was an admitted stain and has or is being dealt with? Please to be pointing to some backup for that absurd statement.
And have we actually decided it's a war time prison then? So those inside are POWs? I keep forgetting, because the Bush Administration keeps changing its mind on that.
Us? Parade them through the media? Propagandize their words for all the world to see?
Nah, let's just keep putting our prisoners in some rathole in Syria Eastern Europe where no one can see them and they can't speak to anyone.
I must have imagined those pictures of Saddam in his whitey tighties.
Worrier, You, like the rest, are conflating wartime prisoners with a peacetime hostage situation. If you feel comfortable with that inane analogy, so be it.
Wouldn't being in someone's territory be considered an act of war? And, I say this with a caveat, if Iran captured these sailors and they thought they were in their terroritory, then it would be considered an act of war right? As I understand it, the waters where they were captured are disputed as far as who has what rights to what section of the water.
absolutely it would. If Iran entered US waters, it would be just the invitation the current administration needs. Forget Tommy's argument, hes at the end of the plank by himself.
Also, enemy combatants, or POWs are not supposed to be paraded around for the cameras either, or their pictures released (ala Saddam and others in our prosecution in Iraq and Afghanistan). Remember? Geneva Conventions? Doesn't matter if we're at "war" or not (we're not by the way, technically, in case you forgot that as well). You're not supposed to do it. End of story.
Again, what Iran did was wrong. What we did, was wrong. Period.
Why are you so certain that all of the prisoners at Gitmo are all enemy combatants? Do you really believe that or is it a convenient delusion?
From the Bush Dictionary:
Enemy Combatant: (noun) One with brown skin, or one who does not vote republican.
The Bush administration appears to use the term "enemy combatants" as a matter of convenience. They called them that despite not even knowing their status at first -- a big distinction as to whether they were entitled to GC protections.
It turns out that there is little evidence that very many of the prisoners at Gitmo are guilty of anything other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Love your work, Tommy.
Straw man, immediately followed by "no need for a straw man"
I have learned that "inane" is quite a compliment from you. It seems to mean you got nothing.
Hey, let's say that every time they hang a 14 year old boy, we execute a man with the mind of an eight year old. We've demonstrated we have the balls to do it.
Maybe we can even get our President on national TV to make fun of the condemned man's pleas for mercy. That's good TV right there.
Seriously, take off those black-and-white transformer goggles. There's no clear-cut good or evil here. Much like I'm sure you don't have a beef with 99.9% of Iranians, Iranians don't have one with you. This is all a pissing match between administrations. And while their's is clearly a mess, ours hasn't done much to be proud of, either.
Can't wait to talk to my gay buddies and tell 'em, "Hey, at least we don't hang ya!"
It's pretty sad that Iran (of all countries) is giving us lessons on how to win the PR battle for "hearts and minds".
The Bush administration seems to have forgotten the lessons of the Cold War, where we were always winning those moral battles against the Soviet Union with things like the Berlin Airlift, or Reagan telling Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall.
Man, could we have ever believed that one could make such a statement 10 years ago? "I'd rather be a prisoner of Iran than the U.S." How drastically has our country been changed by just this one president. How drastically have our feelings toward our own country been changed by this one president.
I didn't see it coming and I made the statement. I surprise myself.
Michael Savage Why is he recieving this award
Sorry here is the link
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/27/160545.shtml
According to Talkers Magazine, Savage is being honored, "For being the first major conservative radio talk show host to criticize President George W. Bush on his policies..."
Apparently conservatives get awards for being only 6 or 7 years behind liberals.Like the Special Olympics.
Not to mention this being the same man who says that liberals should just shut up and not be heard, and I do believe that he has said on occassion that he would lock us all up and throw away the key (paraphrasing here) if he were President. Yes, by all means, give him the freedom of speech award...
What a joke. This award is about as valid as giving Rush Limbaugh the Nobel Peace prize would be.
They shouldn't allow themselves to be taken prisoner without attempting to resist by engaging or fleeing. It's like when someone points a gun at you and says to get in the car. While in this case the sailors survived, Her Majesty's navy loses respect on the seas. And this was probably the intention of Iran.
How is that again?
When you have overwhelming force taking you captive; do you fight to last man/woman even if it makes no difference? Or do you surrender, and as in this case, you get to go home not wounded, or killed? I'd take the latter. If they had no choice in the matter, I'm sure that they would have tried to fight, but they did have a choice, and they made the right one in coming home alive instead of in a box, and possibly avoiding war with Iran.
--"They shouldn't allow themselves to be taken prisoner without attempting to resist by engaging or fleeing. It's like when someone points a gun at you and says to get in the car"--
And what personal experience can you attest to?
Engaging or fleeing?
So you think they should have shot their way out, and/or swam home to England.
Heh. A little dramatic, don't ya think?
As John Oliver, Senior British Correspondent, calmly said while sipping tea on The Daily Show the other night, "Iran... sip ... we will f--k you up. sip John?"
Don't worry. If Iran really wanted a shootin' war, the Union Jack would be both respected and feared in those waters.
On second thought, I was wrong. Didn't consider the possible repercussions with respect to Bush/GOP. Didn't check out on my own the details of their capture. And my analogy was misplaced, as being taken prisoner by a foreign government has more potential for humane treatment than by an unaccountable bad guy.
Recorded executions of child offenders since 1990: statistics YearRecorded executions of child offendersTotal recorded executions worldwideCountries carrying out executions of child offenders (numbers of reported executions are shown in parentheses)199022029Iran (1), USA (1)199102086199261708Iran (3), Pakistan (1), Saudi Arabia (1), USA (1)199351831USA (4), Yemen (1)199402331--199503276--199604272--199722607Nigeria (1), Pakistan (1)199832258USA (3)199921813Iran (1), USA (1)200061457Congo (Democratic Republic) (1), Iran (1), USA (4)200133048Iran (1), Pakistan (1), USA (1)200231526USA (3) 200321146China (1), USA (1)200443797China (1), Iran (3)2005102148Iran (8), Sudan (2)20065not availableIran (4), Pakistan (1)
I'd say the USA is doing a pretty good job keeping up with Iran on killing children. I can understand how easy it could be to want to justify our country's own "evil" by pointing out that the other guy is worse, but we shouldn't ignore the facts.
Recorded executions of child offenders since 1990: statistics YearRecorded executions of child offendersTotal recorded executions worldwideCountries carrying out executions of child offenders (numbers of reported executions are shown in parentheses)199022029Iran (1), USA (1)199102086199261708Iran (3), Pakistan (1), Saudi Arabia (1), USA (1)199351831USA (4), Yemen (1)199402331--199503276--199604272--199722607Nigeria (1), Pakistan (1)199832258USA (3)199921813Iran (1), USA (1)200061457Congo (Democratic Republic) (1), Iran (1), USA (4)200133048Iran (1), Pakistan (1), USA (1)200231526USA (3) 200321146China (1), USA (1)200443797China (1), Iran (3)2005102148Iran (8), Sudan (2)20065not availableIran (4), Pakistan (1)
I remember an incident a while ago where three soldiers got lost and drove into enemy territory (reportedly) and got captured.
"Ramirez, Stone and Gonzales all said that they were well-treated by their Yugoslav captors, although their isolation from each other was strenuous."
Hmm. Funny, from the pictures I saw, they looked like they were beaten. And I kept hearing them referred to as "heroes" throughout the media. But now, when it's British soldiers instead of U.S., they're "wankers" for giving in to demands from people who could kill them at any given moment.
They should have let themselves be killed rather than cooperate with the Iranians.
ok, insaneidiot.... let's have YOU be in their place and see what YOU would have done... I'll play the Iranian soldeiers (just give me your guns there, buddy.. that's it- nice and slow.. thank you) and YOU can play the part of an outnumbered and out gunned British soldiers, ok? All right, ready, set, GO! BAM! you are now dead.... good game plan, there, insaneboy
Yeah, or they should have eaten their cyanide capsules. Or they should have dug a room UNDER their POW barracks, with tunnels leading outside the fence to a hatch disguised as a dead tree stump, and then gone and cavorted with the french underground in little hamlets within a nights walking distance of the POW camp where they could have passed intelligence to blow up Iranian ammo dumps.
One would think that at least they should have spit in the faces of their interrogators. Did they even bite off the tongue of a suspected informant, or wrap tin cans around him and throw him out into the compound after dark where he could be machine-gunned down? No. The wimps.
Since when did we become a reasonable species? We should all be shot. All hail Savage and Beck — bastions of real men who hide behind microphones and desks.
I think Loki boy has seen too many John Wayne movies.
Why? What makes you think you'd have done any differently? Don't judge someone in a situation like this unless you've been there.
All of the talk in the world is meaningless. No one knows how they're going to react under pressure.
Why is it that all of the conservatives are "keyboard only" badasses?
InsaneLoki...
And you should fall on your own sword right now for being such a putz!
Some news sources have said an Iranian dipolmat captured in Iraq was released yesterday, and the release of the Brits was in response to that. Anybody else hear this?
I find that hard to believe.....the Bush admin would never negotiate with the No.1 terrorist nation in the world would they?
Define Terrorist nation: Iraq... no, Saudia Arabia... yes, Ireland... yes, Iran... no. It just depends who gives us money.
I hate to correct you, but I don't think Ireland has bombed anyone else recently. Nor did their Government aid the "terrists".
The IRA was a guerilla-tactic militia national defense squad? Not so much, according to the UK. Now the US, on the other hand, doesn't consider the IRA a terrorist organization.
Yeah, they don't mention the fact the US grabbed five Iranian low-level diplomats up in the Kurdish part of Iraq and are holding them. Looks like the US started this. Can't remind the masses about that little fact, can they?
Here's the bottom line. This situation has apperently turned out pretty well. We may never know if the Brits were trespassing or not. Aside from a little embarassment, no one has been harmed. Both sides handled the situation with restraint, and this pisses off troglodytes like Glenn Beck...they were really hoping that this would give Darth Cheney his excuse to attack Iran. Sorry, boys.
You're right. The Brits are going to be home and safe. Nobody went bombing anything, and everything turned out relatively well. This is the upshot of it. Calmer heads prevailed within Britain and that's good.
Goll dang it! Another excuse to .. ".. invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" has been wasted. Real amuricans better wake up and demand that the next chance we get to invade we damn sure take it!
This is how it's supposed to work
Let's see, the British negotiated with the legally elected government of Iran--without fanfare, and without making inflammatory remarks to the public--and the hostages were freed. The British responded to that event with dignity, assuring the Iranian people that GB respects their ancient and dignified civilization and wish to settle differences with the government peacefully through diplomacy. Everyone saved face, no one was killed. How would Dubya have handled this?
Well he would have sent them to Syria or other secret prison to be tortured, then eventualy routed them to Gitmo, but not before bombing some Iranian infrastructue like gas refineries, electric plants or whatever, killing or maiming a few thousand, and then throw in a naval blockade to really screw up Iranians way of life and then tell the World and the American people how he's made the world safer from evils like Iran and San Francisco liberals.
AJWAN
I made the mistake of reading your response while sipping coffee--big mistake! But thanks for the morning laugh. TGFMM (Thank God for Media Matters)
What exactly is MM's beef with Beck's question? He's asking, is she happy or being forced into acting more "happy".
Too bad for the Brits it is all over the place that they didn't open fire on the Iranians. If not, they could have had 15 Jessica Lynches to our one. (she didn't shoot either.) So where was the right wing outrage at her? Oh right, then you would have to mention all of those made up stories they spewed about her at the time.
And by all means, let's get mad at the soldiers. We had no killings, and the conflict is resolved peasefully. It is shown that with diplomacy you can actaully get things done. That needs to be covered up quick with an insane rant against the guys who were captured. And I forget, which party hates the military??
I have known many US Marines, and several Royal Marines as well. I had an uncle in the Royal Navy. What these candy ass overpaid morons are saying is despicable. US Marines have nothing but the utmost respect for the Royal Marines, who have repeatedly beat them in wargames.
Anyone who supports this kind of discussion, as far as I am concerned, can go and stand in line at the recruiting office and then come back here in a year to post a comment.
The real reason these guys are saying this crap is because they are upset that the sailors/marines were well treated, were not tortured, and were constantly shown on TV to demonstrate their continued well being.
Beck et al. are human scum of the highest order, and can find some other language to speak besides English!!!
I've seen Norwegian reservists beat US Marines at war games. They are not the super-warriors the tv ads make them out to be.
let’s put some of these consternos in the custody of a hostile foreign power and see how long before they cave… it's very easy to say this stuff from the comfort of your studio chair...
The US has a pretty miserable history of genocide and slavery, so it's doesn't have much room to crow all that much about human or civil rights which only began to be observed in our lifetimes.It turned that in WWII, the US was capable of being the good guys in an unusually black/white conflict. Afterwards, however, the US military went trotting around the globe overthrowing democratically elected governments and installing right wing dictator thugs who, in conjunction with the local landed gentry, turned their nations land and resources over to US corporations and their citizens into slave labor, not unlike what corporations have succeeded at here at home.That was done under the guise of fightin' the commies, though quite good for business, particularly the arms industry.After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the trillion dollar a year taxpayer sucking war machine cartel needed a new enemy to justify it's continued waste of treasury that could easily have provided universal health car and installed solar energy in every American home.Hence, the absurd new enemy "islamo-facism," a misnomer as the correct definition of facism is a government controlled by corporations (i.e. the US). The war on tarra is the new boogeyman, conveniently supplied by our former CIA asset, bin ladin - who doubtlessly got some help, not the least of which Marvin Bush's ownership of the security firm which shut down the twin towers 2 weeks before 9-11 to install the demolitions neccessary to "pull" the buildings.In the current colonizaton project in Iraq, the operation has gone right according to plan. Invade, allow chaos to foment, build a dozen massive permanent bases and begin to rob the oil. There needs to be enough instability to require our permanent presence, but they sorta outdid that requirement, but to no great loss, just brown skinned collateral damage and expendable soldiers.This is simply what we did in Latin America on a bigger scale.Interesting that the quaint term "G.I." began cropping up in the corpororate military media, attempting to invoke the honor and just cause of WWII, when this colonial land and resource grab is anything but. I have heard slimebuckets on TV explain that more people died on D-day than so far in Iraq (white skinned people anyway) so the loss rate is "acceptable." Maybe if the war were just or if there had ever been any threat to national security or if we had been attacked.A voluntary preemptive war of agression against a country that did not attack or even threaten us violated international law and, as we all now know, and many of us knew back then, the pretext was a pack of lies, probably the most treasonous offence by a sitting president imaginable.So what else could be done to squelch any notion that the US had any pretence of human rights? O yeah, toss the Geneva conventions and suspend habeous corpus indefinitely.Whew, that wasn't so hard was it? While the US has always acted as a neo-colonial empire on the small scale, this one sure took the shine off all those false claims to being the "greatest nation in the world" or that the combo of US corporations and their private mercenary force of the US military give a damn about human rights or human lives for that matter. This is how Iran ends up looking more sane, rational and compassionate towards prisoners that this grisly gang of murderous war criminals that inhabit the white house, which should now be called the black house./tirade. (my browser does not send the right symbol for paragraph breaks so my posts are gonna be one big paragraph)