British Navy Sailors

[August1991]

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???

Such language is unnecessary.

No woman would ever appear in public without a scarf over her head in Iran. To not do so would be the equivalent of appearing in public in Canada without a shirt or blouse.

As to the issue of whether the boat was in Iraqi or Iranian waters, I'll believe the British before the Iranians. But the issue strikes me as irrelevant. No civilized country holds otherwise innocent sailors simply because they strayed across a virtual border.

Incidentally, the French press has suggested that it was rogue units within the Iranian armed forces who took these British hostage and now the Iranian regime is not quite certain how to deal with the issue.

I agree with David Frum:

The Iranian seizure of 15 British naval personnel is an outrage -- and an opportunity.

...

Since 9/11, Europeans have pleaded with the U.S. to rely on sanctions and diplomacy rather than force. Fine. Let's see some sanctions then -- real sanctions, not the wrist-slaps imposed till now.

Iran has been waging war on the world; it's time the world organized in countervailing self-defense. And if anything is needed to stiffen our collective will, let's broadcast one more time that image of Faye Turney, cloaked against her will in that black headscarf of subordination and humiliation.

National Post

We should use this incident to impose severe sanctions against the mullahs. Canada still trades with Iran I believe.

[geoffrey]

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.

Glad we agree that it was an act of war.

I'll take the entire world outside of Iran's opinion on the matter. They've already been damned by the Security Counsil on the matter. They are guilty as shit.

[blueblood]

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???

Such language is unnecessary.

No woman would ever appear in public without a scarf over her head in Iran. To not do so would be the equivalent of appearing in public in Canada without a shirt or blouse.

As to the issue of whether the boat was in Iraqi or Iranian waters, I'll believe the British before the Iranians. But the issue strikes me as irrelevant. No civilized country holds otherwise innocent sailors simply because they strayed across a virtual border.

Incidentally, the French press has suggested that it was rogue units within the Iranian armed forces who took these British hostage and now the Iranian regime is not quite certain how to deal with the issue.

I agree with David Frum:

The Iranian seizure of 15 British naval personnel is an outrage -- and an opportunity.

...

Since 9/11, Europeans have pleaded with the U.S. to rely on sanctions and diplomacy rather than force. Fine. Let's see some sanctions then -- real sanctions, not the wrist-slaps imposed till now.

Iran has been waging war on the world; it's time the world organized in countervailing self-defense. And if anything is needed to stiffen our collective will, let's broadcast one more time that image of Faye Turney, cloaked against her will in that black headscarf of subordination and humiliation.

National Post

We should use this incident to impose severe sanctions against the mullahs. Canada still trades with Iran I believe.

Big buyers of Canadian ag products.

[Figleaf]

... it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were in Iraqi waters.

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.

[Figleaf]

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???

Such language is unnecessary.

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

[Figleaf]

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.

Glad we agree that it was an act of war.

By one side or the other.

[Figleaf]

Regarding all of you who are claiming to know that Iran is wrong and Britain is right...

The problem is, that the chain of credibility on these sorts of statements is totally unclear. Let me explain...

Scenario:

A poster here says "Z" ...

She 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.

[scribblet]

Are you claiming that Britain has not in fact, released the co-ordinates, or are you inferring that CNN et al are just making it up and printing what they like. Now CNN and BBC wouldn't do that would they?

[Figleaf]

Are you claiming that Britain has not in fact, released the co-ordinates, or are you inferring that CNN et al are just making it up and printing what they like. Now CNN and BBC wouldn't do that would they?

My answer to this is already contained in the post (#282) above yours.

[Jerry Galinda]

In fact – it doesn’t matter who is right. Doesn’t matter where this border is.

Ccircumstances of this “accident” to show that Iran want a conflict with West. It’s a kind of political test.

[blueblood]

... it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were in Iraqi waters.

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.

ONE

I stepped up and provided legitimate proof, to elaborate further, there is a guy in the picture in the helicopter with a handheld GPS showing the coordinates. I didn't provide a fox news link, I'll take the word of CNN over a lot of other news agencies around the world.

TWO

Your turn to step up, provide us with a link proving CNN is wrong, until then your argument that the Brits were in Iranian waters and the CNN is wrong holds no water.

[blueblood]

Another thing, what will happen if the British sailor's are released? I know if I was one of them and if Iran was doing some funny business, I would be on CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera doing a slander campaign that Danny Williams would be proud of. I am starting to wonder if the sailors will even be released, Iran is certainly in a pickle.

[Charles Anthony]

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.

I agree.

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

I disagree.

reported

[Figleaf]

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.

I agree.

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

I disagree.

reported

Greg has spoken on this issue quite recently. He indicated that there is nothing in the rules about so-called 'profane' words and that his interest focuses on respectful dialogue. In this instance I think it's obvious my use 'fuck' was exclamatory and in no way directed at any poster.

If there is a rule against particular words, I need but be advised of it so that I may comply.

[BC_chick]

I disagree.

reported

For some reason you overlooked this one....

They are guilty as shit.

IMO, neither is worth reporting... but since you feel so strongly about it, you might want to play moderator for all people who are using profanities. Not just the ones with whom you disagree.

[Figleaf]

I stepped up and provided legitimate proof, to elaborate further, there is a guy in the picture in the helicopter with a handheld GPS showing the coordinates. I didn't provide a fox news link, I'll take the word of CNN over a lot of other news agencies around the world.

My comments at post #282, above, fully respond to this issue.

[BC_chick]

In fact – it doesn’t matter who is right. Doesn’t matter where this border is.

Ccircumstances of this “accident” to show that Iran want a conflict with West. It’s a kind of political test.

If that's the case, why did they send repeated warnings to leave Iranian waters?

[ScottSA]

In fact – it doesn’t matter who is right. Doesn’t matter where this border is.

Ccircumstances of this “accident” to show that Iran want a conflict with West. It’s a kind of political test.

If that's the case, why did they send repeated warnings to leave Iranian waters?

When did they do that?

[blueblood]

In fact – it doesn’t matter who is right. Doesn’t matter where this border is.

Ccircumstances of this “accident” to show that Iran want a conflict with West. It’s a kind of political test.

If that's the case, why did they send repeated warnings to leave Iranian waters?

Prove it.

The Iranians probably don't use GPS, so unless there was marker buoys or their boats are on a 12 mile long rope, their warnings don't hold water.

[PolyNewbie]

Blair Redrew Map - Not recognised by any international authority.

[blueblood]

Blair Redrew Map - Not recognised by any international authority.

This from the same site that figures the planes on 9/11 were remote controlled...

All he said that the borders were "fake", chirped about his credentials providing no hard evidence at all. This sack could be lying for all I know.

[Charles Anthony]

BC-Chick and FigLeaf, if you care, I will address your complacency towards foul language in the following thread:

Be Canadian - Be Polite

[Higgly]

I agree with those who have identified the validity of the British border claim to be the key issue. Former British Ambassador Craig Murray is saying that the British border claims are doubtful. Here is a CNN report which basically quotes verbatim an Associated Press article on the subject. The AP is one of the more reliable sources on the Middle East, having earned considerable credibility by routinely reporting from the thick of the fray rather than from a safe distance or embedded party wagon. In any case, Iran has a legitimate interest in defining and defending its border. The US and Britain on the other hand have no business being there by virtue of the Geneva Conventions, to which they are both signatory. I have seen comments about UN resolutions here with respect to the British Navy in the area. Of course we all know how widely respected UN resolutions are in the Middle East, LOL.

There are a number of posts in this thread that I take issue with.

First there is this idea that "anybody who doesn't agree with me obviously hates their own country." Our country, Canada, is not in this mess thanks to the much maligned Liberal government. Given his full page article in the New York Times, there can be no doubt that Canadians would be getting killed in Iraq right now had Harper been in power. In any case, how a Canadian feels about the US or Britain is not a reliable indication of how s/he feels about Canada.

There was actually an implication by one poster that anyone who doesn't agree with him is probably an anti-semite. Reminds me of the old Vietnam war days when anyone who protested the war was called a commie or faggot.

One poster seemed to be saying that Saddam was justified in invading Iran because he got sick of the border skirmishes. Over a million people died in the Iran-Iraq war. Statements like this are indicative of the extraordinary lack of sensitivity in this part of the world to the reality that the Arab/Moslem world has been living for decades.

There was another post by someone saying that the CIA was not involved in the coup that overthrew Mossadegh and put the Shah in power. Robert Fisk, in his book "The Great War for Civilisation" interviewed the British secret service operative (forget the name now) who engineered the coup and Fisk says that the CIA was indeed invloved. Do you have a source to refute Fisk?

Finally, there is this. I was in a news agent's a while back and caught a glimpse of the March 27 Time Magazine cover. It had a picture of Ronald Reagan shedding a tear with the caption "How America's Right Went Wrong". Folks, when it's on the cover of Time, the fat lady is singing loud and clear.

[DogOnPorch]

There was another post by someone saying that the CIA was not involved in the coup that overthrew Mossadegh and put the Shah in power. Robert Fisk, in his book "The Great War for Civilisation" interviewed the British secret service operative (forget the name now) who engineered the coup and Fisk says that the CIA was indeed invloved. Do you have a source to refute Fisk?

I believe you're refering to me. The CIA was involved in the 1953 coup (read below)...but they didn't put the Shah into power (read below).

The Shah: Early reign

Deposition of his father.

In the midst of World War II in 1941, Nazi Germany began Operation Barbarossa and invaded the Soviet Union, breaking the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact. The act had a huge impact on Iran, as the country had technically declared neutrality. However, Iran had maintained good relations with Nazi Germany and was seen by some as a potential member of the Axis. Thus a preventive invasion was staged by the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union.

During the subsequent military occupation, the Allies forced Reza Shah to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. He replaced his father on the throne on September 16, 1941. It was hoped that the younger prince would be more open to influence from the pro-Allied West, which later proved to be the case.

Subsequent to his succession as Shah, Iran became a major conduit for British, and later, American aid to the USSR during the war. This massive supply effort became known as the Persian Corridor, and marked the first large-scale American and Western involvement in Iran, an involvement that would continue to grow until the successful revolution against the Iranian monarchy in 1979.

Oil nationalization and the 1953 coup

In the early 1950s, there was a political crisis centered in Iran that commanded the focused attention of British and American intelligence outfits. In 1951, the Iranian parliament, under the leadership of the nationalist movement of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, voted unanimously to nationalize the oil industry. This shut out the immensely profitable Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which was a pillar of Britain's economy and political clout. A month after that vote, Mossadegh was named Prime Minister of Iran.

In response to nationalization, Britain placed a massive embargo on Iranian oil exports, which only worsened the already fragile economy. Neither the AIOC nor Mossadegh was open to compromise in this period, with Britain insisting on a restoration of the AIOC and Mossadegh only willing to negotiate on the terms of its compensation for lost assets. The U.S. president at the time, Harry S. Truman, was categorically unwilling to join Britain in planning a coup against Mossadegh, and Britain felt unable to act without American cooperation, particularly since Mossadegh had shut down their embassy in 1952. Truman's successor, Dwight Eisenhower, was finally persuaded by arguments that were anti-Communist rather than primarily economic, and focused on the potential for Iran's Communist Tudeh Party to capitalize on political instability and assume power, aligning Iran and its immense oil resources with the Soviet bloc. Though Mossadegh never had a close political alliance with Tudeh, he also failed to act decisively against them in any way, which hardened U.S. policy against him. Coup plans which had stalled under Truman were immediately revived by an eager intelligence corps, with powerful aid from the brothers John Foster Dulles (Secretary of State) and Allen Welsh Dulles (CIA director), after Eisenhower's inauguration in 1953.

Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior CIA officer and grandson of the former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, the CIA and British intelligence funded and led a covert operation to depose Mossadeq with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah, known as Operation Ajax.[1] The plot hinged on orders signed by the Shah to dismiss Mossadegh as prime minister and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans. Despite the high-level coordination and planning, the coup initially failed and the Shah fled Iran. After a brief exile in Italy, however, the Shah was brought back again, this time through a second coup, which was successful. The deposed Mossadegh was arrested, given a show trial, and condemned to death. The Shah commuted this sentence to solitary confinement for three years in a military prison, followed by house arrest for life. Zahedi was installed to succeed Prime Minister Mossadegh.

Coup

There is disagreement among scholars and political analysts as to whether it is correct to call the 1953 plot a coup. The term is commonly used in media and popular culture, though technically the overthrow of Mossadegh neither was purely military in nature nor led to a change in the form of government or the constitution in the country. Technically, in fact, it led to the preservation of the constitution, which Mossadegh had been repeatedly neglecting during his term in office.

The majority of scholars and newspapers state that the 1953 plot was a coup. Indeed, the declassified record of the very plans of the US and UK, the two actors behind Mossadegh's removal from power, reveals that they themselves regarded it as such. For example, Appendix E of the coup documentation is entitled "Military Critique; Lessons Learned from TPAJAX; re Military Planning Aspects of Coup d'Etat."

On April 28, 1951, Mossadegh, on the Shah's suggestion, was named Prime Minister of Iran by a vote of 79-12 by the democratically elected legislative Iranian body known as the Majlis and the parliament's vote had been accepted by the Shah as legitimate at that time. However, In August of 1953 Mossadegh attempted to convince the Shah to leave the country. The Shah refused and formally dismissed the prime minister. However, the Shah's authority to dismiss Mossadegh has been questioned with some saying that only the Majlis had the formal authority to dismiss the Prime Minister. Mossadegh used this idea after the coup during his trial in November of that year.

Mossadegh refused to resign, however, and when it became apparent that he was going to fight, the Shah, as a precautionary measure called for by the British/American plan, fled to Baghdad and from there on to Rome. Once again, massive protests broke out across the nation. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost 300 dead. The military intervened as the pro-Shah tank regiments stormed the capital and bombarded the prime minister's official residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on August 20, 1953. Mossadegh was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison.

One view is that the forceful ousting of Prime Minister Mossadegh was a counter coup after Mossadegh's dismissal. The other view is that Mossadegh had acted under emergency powers to preserve the sovereignty of Iran against the intervention of the CIA and British Intelligence acting on behalf of western oil companies.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can bend it and twist it... You can misuse and abuse it... But even God cannot change the Truth.

---Michael Levy

[ScottSA]

Fisk is such a dishonest writer that he has spawned a catchphrase: "to fisk", meaning to go over text with a fine toothed comb, correcting each logical fallacy and erroneous fact contained within it.

usage: 'He gave the article a fisking to show that the author was insane and completely wrong.'