Figleaf

Such language is unnecessary. IMO, such language is absofuckinglutely necessary when confronted with persistent media deficiency.

Really? I missed that ... can you refer me to the relevant material? It's been referred numerous times earlier in the thread, on CNN.com they had a map that showed the exact positions. cnn I showed my proof, now where is your proof that they were in IRANIAN waters? ONE. Your "proof" is nothing more than the claims of CNN. In other words, it's not proof at all. TWO. Please pay attention -- I have not said I believe the Iranian statements any more than the British statements.

Ah, empty bluster ... the sign of really subtle and clever diplomacy. not.

Really? I missed that ... can you refer me to the relevant material?

How the fuck does the National Post pretend to know that she was 'forced' to wear a hijab? Answer: they don't know that. They simply made it up out of whole cloth (so to speak). And the National Post purports to be a newspaper! Pathetic. Hello NP ... How about TRYING to stick to facts???

Exactly. (As long as they were within the terms of the mandate and not in someone else's territorial waters).

That's not the impression I have of his impression, but I guess I see where you got that impression.

I really don't consider it of any importance whether the Brits were on their side, or whether they strayed a little across the imaginary line. In neither event is Iran's behaviour remotely justifiable. Whatever private definition of 'justifiable' you are using to bolster your POV doesn't change the fact that in international law a state is perfectly entitled to detain foreign military forces caught conducting agressive actions within its sovereign territory or waters. Dass da fax.

You should read more closely before correcting someone, since your purported correction didn't actually bear on anything AG actually said.

Technically, kidnapping is not an act of war, it's a crime. The act of war would be crossing into Iraqi (or Iranian depending on who you believe) territorial waters with military forces and interfering with legitimate marine traffic.

Moronic comment, again. One, I'm not leftist. It would require a sub-par intelligence or a supremely uniformed arrogance to truly believe that I am. Two, nowhere on this thread have I indicated that I accept the Iranian claims, nor have I dismissed the British claims. Tragically faulty literacy would be required for someone to think otherwise.

Uh yes, a time honoured method. But when you resort to this method the other side can do the same. How long would Iran's "navy" last if the British decided to resort to what you evidently consider a perfectly acceptable use of "Might makes right"? You always spew such complete tripe. It's not might makes right. The right arises in regard to the sovereign territoriality of the waters. Britain has a right to use it's navy to protect civilian shipping in its territorial waters. So does Iran. Please clean the shit out of your sensory intakes and pay attention: I'm not 'left' (either far or otherwise).

"SEEM"? Seem how? I don't forget it. The UN auspices don't provide for any violation of Iranian waters. Ergo, IF they were in Iranian waters, the UN mandate doesn't help them at all.

WTF do you know about Iranian naval procedures? I doubt you're capable of enlightening anyone about anything. That is the obvious and necessary implication of capturing the sailors in Iranian waters at the end of the boarding operation. I'm to the left of you and to the right of Jack Layton.

Isn't that what the Leonides said to his Spartans? Stop that -- you'll hurt Scott's feelings.

So, Borg, are you saying resistance is futile?

Uh oh! With the two of them working together how will we ever thwart their plans?

The problem is, that the chain of credibility on these sorts of statements is totally unclear. Let me explain... Scenario: scriblett (S) says "Z" ... scriblett read it on website A ... website A got it from news syndicate F ... news syndicate F employed reporter Q ... reporter Q attended military briefing W ... military briefing W released data printout N ... printout N was prepared by V who was told by GPS operator Smith that that was his reading. Now we know from how Bush/Blair started the Iraq conflict that A, F, and Q are incompetent, co-opted, and useless. We also know that W, N, and V could readily employ dissinformation if they think they should. And Smith? Well he's 22 years old and been in the job for 6 weeks. His XO helped him take the reading, but they're not mentioning that. Now please note, I'm not saying I believe Iran and disbelieve Britain. I'm saying that we have no way of finding a reasonable certainty on who to believe. The certainty some of you express is, it must be acknowledged, an emotive and non-evidential type of certainty.

Much of this discussion serves to illuminate an elementary flaw in the movie -- the Battle of Thermopylae is a story that deserves being told for its own sake, not stretched and bent into a metaphor for today.

Unless you count Constantine. He started as a Briton.

It is not required that I have to learn anything from you - Depends on what you mean by 'required'. Well, it's lovely to hear from you again. And you're telling me this because....?

No need for an internal document. 320-3 would be understood by Parliament of Canada staff and describes where within buildings that comprise the Parliament of Canada that the boxes were to be moved. The yellow sticker is clearly a Parliament of Canada moving sticker. So? How would Holland know what 320-3 means?

"Clearly Marked"? All I see is some rather plain looking boxes with a few numbers on the side. There is no indication of who owns such boxes. ...at least I didn't see anything in that video that was clearly marked. I didn't get to see the vid and it's gone now, but can anyone tell me ... (1) how is it known or assumed that the fax in question came out of the box on the video? (2) who says 33222020whatever is the PMO?

What BOX? Who ever said the document was in a box? Con supporters are spinning like mad here.

Has this fax been published? It's contents have been publicised. Are you disputing that content. Hart didn't, as you will recall. That's not what I heard. I heard it was found among papers carelessly abandoned by the Conservatives when they moved out. They probably thought it was a great joke at the time -- forcing the Liberals to clean up their mess (like usual). Meanwhile, Stockwell Day continues to be in charge of the investigation into himself. Corrupt? Never more corrupt.