kuzadd Posted April 26, 2008 Report Posted April 26, 2008 well looks like there was good reason to have some major doubts! http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle3761058.ece Report reveals Iran seized British sailors in disputed waters remeber Britian claimed the sailors were in Iraq waters. well they were not, and Britian under FOIA is caught lying. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act detail for the first time the blunders last spring that led to what an all-party committee of MPs came to describe as a “national embarrassment”. Newly released Ministry of Defence documents state that: — The arrests took place in waters that are not internationally agreed as Iraqi; — The coalition unilaterally designated a dividing line between Iraqi and Iranian waters in the Gulf without telling Iran where it was; The Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ coastal protection vessels were crossing this invisible line at a rate of three times a week; It was the British who apparently raised their weapons first before the Iranian gunboats came alongside; — The cornered British, surrounded by heavily armed Iranians, made a hopeless last-minute radio plea for a helicopter to come back and provide air cover. Iran always claimed that it had arrested the Britons for violating its territorial integrity. and it was the British that had been lying all along. recall: Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, repeatedly told the Commons that the personnel were seized in Iraqi waters. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
WarBicycle Posted April 26, 2008 Report Posted April 26, 2008 The Britons were seized because the US-led coalition designated a sea boundary for Iran’s territorial waters without telling the Iranians where it was, internal Ministry of Defence briefing papers reveal. Why didn't you make reference to the above? Quote
kuzadd Posted April 26, 2008 Author Report Posted April 26, 2008 Why didn't you make reference to the above? actually re-read it is in my opening post. The arrests took place in waters that are not internationally agreed as Iraqi;— The coalition unilaterally designated a dividing line between Iraqi and Iranian waters in the Gulf without telling Iran where it was; The 'coalition' cannot arbitrarily set International boundaries, first of all. Secondly, after they arbitrarily 'set' the said boundaries, they failed to inform Iran. Therefore, the british soldiers were in Iranian waters and Britian lied from the get go. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
M.Dancer Posted April 26, 2008 Report Posted April 26, 2008 actually re-read it is in my opening post.The 'coalition' cannot arbitrarily set International boundaries, first of all. Secondly, after they arbitrarily 'set' the said boundaries, they failed to inform Iran. Therefore, the british soldiers were in Iranian waters and Britian lied from the get go. Why not? Every nation including Canada does. Is your grasp of ointernatioanl law as weak as your grasp on modern history? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted April 26, 2008 Report Posted April 26, 2008 Why not? Every nation including Canada does. Is your grasp of ointernatioanl law as weak as your grasp on modern history? So nations including Canada do just go about arbitrarily setting international boundaries without so much as a by your leave from the nations whose borders have been changed. I've long suspected that was why there was so much conflict in the world. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
M.Dancer Posted April 26, 2008 Report Posted April 26, 2008 So nations including Canada do just go about arbitrarily setting international boundaries without so much as a by your leave from the nations whose borders have been changed.I've long suspected that was why there was so much conflict in the world. There is only conflict when other nations refuse to behave civilly about it. Canada arbitrarilly decred a 200 mile sea boundry..how many ships have we captured ar gun point? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted April 26, 2008 Report Posted April 26, 2008 (edited) There is only conflict when other nations refuse to behave civilly about it. No kidding. No doubt Iran thought these arbitrary changes to its borders constituted very uncivil behaviour, and especially so in the absence of any formal declaration or notification. Wouldn't you? Canada arbitrarilly decred a 200 mile sea boundry..how many ships have we captured ar gun point? I don't know, but the days Canada and the US decreed 200 mile limits marked the beginning of the end for our salmon fishery. Before that Canadian and US fishermen happily fished and competed against one another out in the Pacific. The bickering and acrimony started afterwards, when the competition for parity and allocations erupted in the boardrooms and backrooms. Predictably, the day came when one negotiator leaned across the table and asked, "so how many gunships ya'll got up there anyhow"? Now we don't have any fishery to speak of and US fishermen do. They just run offshore Alaska, like we used to, and catch our fish there. Needless to say, we've got nowhere to run. Edited April 26, 2008 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
kuzadd Posted April 27, 2008 Author Report Posted April 27, 2008 of course Iran considered the arbitrary changes not agree too, a problem. but here is the simple fact, the water the soldiers were in were not Iraqi waters as was repeatedly claimed by the British, Which means the Brits fibbed, lied, fudged, whatever and they knew it. and they went on and on about it, it was sensational, they denied the soldiers were spying when they infact were , they claimed they were in Iraqi water , when in fact they were not. It's pretty bad when it is the western democracies caught repeatedly lying, isn't it? Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
kuzadd Posted April 27, 2008 Author Report Posted April 27, 2008 No kidding. No doubt Iran thought these arbitrary changes to its borders constituted very uncivil behaviour, and especially so in the absence of any formal declaration or notification. Wouldn't you? I would think Iran thought these arbitrary changes to it's borders constituted very uncivil behaviour, your right in and particularily in that no one bothered to inform them. Interesting to note even the British press, GETS that there is a problem with this. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 27, 2008 Report Posted April 27, 2008 (edited) It's pretty bad when it is the western democracies caught repeatedly lying, isn't it? Of course not....several "western democracies" lied on June 6, 1941 (D-Day) too. Lying, disinformation, denials, half-truths, and obfuscating are all part of the mix, and have been for a very long time. There are times when "lying" is pretty damn smart. Edited April 27, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kuzadd Posted April 27, 2008 Author Report Posted April 27, 2008 (edited) Of course not....several "western democracies" lied on June 6, 1941 (D-Day) too. OMG are you saying western democracies have told other lies, BC? No way! Beside this last bit of British BS? Or the America bit with the " voices" from the "menacing' Iranian boats, oops I mean we don't know where they came from, ooops never mind. no, say it isn't so. I thought it was all about "democracy and spreading good will, cheer and making people lives better" war for peace and getting rid of bad guys Your going to destroy the beliefs of so many posters here, you spoiler. Edited April 27, 2008 by kuzadd Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 27, 2008 Report Posted April 27, 2008 (edited) OMG are you saying western democracies have told other lies, BC?No way! Beside this last bit of British BS? no, say it isn't so. Why even go on about it....this is one of the oldest tricks in the book. "Disputed" territorial waters are ready made for a desired dust up. Hell, it's even used to impound and detain anti-sealing protesters! Edited April 27, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kuzadd Posted April 27, 2008 Author Report Posted April 27, 2008 Why even go on about it....this is one of the oldest tricks in the book. "Disputed" territorial waters are ready made for a desired dust up. Hell, it's even used to impound and detain anti-sealing protesters! Gosh, are you saying that the Brits would do this intentionally knowing the soldiers were not in Iraq waters, for a desired dust-up? For a pretext?? no!!! Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 27, 2008 Report Posted April 27, 2008 (edited) Gosh, are you saying that the Brits would do this intentionally knowing the soldiers were not in Iraq waters, for a desired dust-up?For a pretext?? Hey, it's Iran's turn in the barrel (pun intended), and efforts to villify their government were desired to increase domestic support in the UK. It worked! In case you didn't know, intentionally "violating" territorial waters (and land) is what we do, if only for intelligence gathering and defence probing. Escalation to a full blown war is just a bonus! Edited April 27, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kuzadd Posted April 27, 2008 Author Report Posted April 27, 2008 Hey, it's Iran's turn in the barrel (pun intended), and efforts to villify their government were desired to increase domestic support in the UK. It worked!In case you didn't know, intentionally "violating" territorial waters (and land) is what we do, if only for intelligence gathering and defence probing. Escalation to a full blown war is just a bonus! YOu forgot about the filipino monkey and the pentagon tapes, but then that too was a means to increase domestic support in the US, and that worked also. Recent polls and Hilary's railings indicate, the fear increased, good pr score! YOu think escalation is the bonus or the ultimate goal? I think it's the ultimate goal. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 27, 2008 Report Posted April 27, 2008 YOu forgot about the filipino monkey and the pentagon tapes, but then that too was a means to increase domestic support in the US, and that worked also.Recent polls and Hilary's railings indicate, the fear increased, good pr score! No big deal....your own political parties invoke the evil American Hun come election time. It's more predictable than anything Hillary has done. YOu think escalation is the bonus or the ultimate goal?I think it's the ultimate goal. Hey, it's like anthing else....takes drama to get change. Good cop ..... bad cop...it takes both. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kuzadd Posted April 28, 2008 Author Report Posted April 28, 2008 No big deal....your own political parties invoke the evil American Hun come election time. It's more predictable than anything Hillary has done.Hey, it's like anthing else....takes drama to get change. Good cop ..... bad cop...it takes both. Yeah I noticed Stephen Harper was playing to the audience with his NAFTA comments, hilarious. Cause he won't do a darn thing. As for the psy-op's on the western world, and that 's is what they were, sad, sad,sad. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Argus Posted April 28, 2008 Report Posted April 28, 2008 well looks like there was good reason to have some major doubts! You hate the West? — The arrests took place in waters that are not internationally agreed as Iraqi;— The coalition unilaterally designated a dividing line between Iraqi and Iranian waters in the Gulf without telling Iran where it was; Were those waters "internationally recognized" as Iranian? I'm guessing that's a big NO, because if they were you'd say so. Are you a Muslim, Kuzadd? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
kuzadd Posted April 28, 2008 Author Report Posted April 28, 2008 (edited) You hate the West?Were those waters "internationally recognized" as Iranian? I'm guessing that's a big NO, because if they were you'd say so. Are you a Muslim, Kuzadd? is that relevant to the news story? why do you even ask that? Is anyone's life here any of your business at all? Edited April 28, 2008 by kuzadd Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.