Iranian President pardons all 15 Sailors

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
I'm not sure this is posted in the right place. Who has a desire to kill anyone?

Not Iran.

All I am saying is Iran should not be trusted, especially with developing nuclear weapons. I don't care if your liberal or conservative in the face until you turn blue, you are completely naive if you think that

It's a good thing they aren't developing a nuclear weapon then; only nuclear power.

a) Iran can develop a nuclear program without being significantly checked by a separate strict watchdog agency, uni-, bi-, multilaterally for all I care; or
b) Iran can develop a nuclear program while being checked by the United Nations weapons inspectors.

Actually, as I recall historically, the last time IAEA weapons inspectors failed to find evidence of a nuclear weapons program (in Iraq), they were correct. Once again, in Iran, they have failed to find any evidence of a nuclear weapons program.

If you wish to call for blindly trust a nation who's supporters (read: fundamental islam) denounce and call for the end of an entire nation (I don't care how you translate it) with development of a "peaceful" nuclear program, who claims they are not developing weapons, be my guest, I, for one, albeit do not support the current administration wholly, would say that would be a dumb idea.

Who cares if you don't like it? You're acting like you're the commander of some great nation with a great army. Face the facts. We're not now, not ever going to bomb Iran unless we can prove to the international community with concrete evidence that they are producing nuclear weapons. Our country spent it's wild card in Iraq; the American people and the world community won't allow us to unilaterally and pre-emptively strike another country again unless we have the proof. Evidence/proof/facts are what you continually lack in your weak arguments against Iran, and are the reason why our leaders will never go to war with Iran.

N.B. While I am not saying that what was done in the past with the establishment of Israel was the best thing to do, I do not see any reason to say "ok, let them attack isreal then" which apparently you (or similar minded people to yourself) do.

edit: grammar

Iran has no history of attacking another country without being attacked first.

You make such great points about Iran, I expect you will be moving to Tehran some time this year?

better yet, answer the question you keep dodging:

You are obviously vastly smarter than they are, so please, enlighten us on your views on how to keep Iran from gainin a nuke:

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
You are obviously vastly smarter than they are, so please, enlighten us on your views on how to keep Iran from gainin a nuke:

You can ask until you're blue in the face. Please let me know when they are pursuing nuclear weapons and I'll devise a strategy for you.

 

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
You are obviously vastly smarter than they are, so please, enlighten us on your views on how to keep Iran from gainin a nuke:

You can ask until you're blue in the face. Please let me know when they are pursuing nuclear weapons and I'll devise a strategy for you.

/thread

The shroud of ignorance based hatred for the current U.S. administration has eclipsed minds to side with a tyrant over his own country's government.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
/thread

The shroud of ignorance based hatred for the current U.S. administration has eclipsed minds to side with a tyrant over his own country's government.

It's ignorant to ignore the facts, or lack thereof?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JD50
WTF is with you people? Embassies around the world are used for gathering intelligence as well, I guess its ok with you if we kidnap all of the diplomats from their embassies too. I guess we can go kidnap anyone from any country that uses satelites that take pictures of the US too.

There's nothing wrong with gathering intelligence. But when you mix that with violating another nations border, you run the risk of getting detained.

I'm still waiting on the proof of them being in Iranian waters....

The second set of Iranian GPS coordinates wasn't good enough?

The first set of Iranian and British GPS coordinates wasn't good enough?

Still waiting......Are you on the phone with Tehran trying to figure out how to spin it some more?

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: JD50
Embassies around the world are used for gathering intelligence as well, I guess its ok with you if we kidnap all of the diplomats from their embassies too. I guess we can go kidnap anyone from any country that uses satelites that take pictures of the US too.

Funny that you mentioned that [Irbil?]...

What?

Wash Post from 3 months ago

 

[BMW540I6speed]

After Iran announced that it was releasing the 15 British sailors unharmed - without the need for any bombing campaigns, invasions, or new wars - this is what Tony Blair said, according to BBC

Prime Minister Tony Blair said Britain's approach to the crisis had been "firm but calm - not negotiating but not confronting either".

He did not thank or address the Iranian president, but said to the Iranian people: "We bear you no ill will. On the contrary, we respect Iran as an ancient civilisation, as a nation with a proud and dignified history.

"The disagreements we have with your government we wish to resolve peacefully through dialogue. I hope - as I've always hoped - that in the future we are able to do so."

BushCo. warmongers were, of course, furious that Britain did not take this opportunity finally to start the Glorious and Inevitable War against Iran.

But last week, Newt Gingrich - the true dream candidate of Bush- supporting "conservatives", visited with Hugh Hewitt and shared his plans for what he would have done about this Britain-Iran situation had he been president. This is the course of action Gingrich outlined:

HH: Now let's get to the first major issue of the day, which is Iran. Mr. Speaker, if the United Kingdom feels obliged to use force, if diplomacy fails to get their people back, will you applaud?

NG: I think there are two very simple steps that should be taken. The first is to use a covert operation, or a special forces operation to knock out the only gasoline producing refinery in Iran. There's only one. And the second is to simply intercede by Naval force, and block any tankers from bringing gasoline to Iran --

HH: Would you do, would you urge them --

NG: And say to the Iranians, you know, you can keep the sailors as long as you want, but in about 30 days, everybody in your country will be walking.

HH: So how long would you give them, to give them that ultimatum, the Iranians?

NG: I would literally do that. I would say to them, I would right now say to them privately, within the next week, your refinery will no longer work. And within the following week, there will be no tankers arriving. Now if you would like to avoid being humiliated publicly, we recommend you calmly and quietly give them back now. But frankly, if you'd prefer to show the planet that you're tiny and we're not, we're prepared to simply cut off your economy, and allow you to go back to walking and using oxen to pull carts, because you will have no gasoline left.

HH: I agree with that 100%.

Newt's plan - threatening Iran with war, naval blockades, destroying their gas refinery and their economy, forcing their citizens to "use oxen to pull carts" - would have been so much better than Blair's wimpy, appeasing approach. After all, what it's all about - everything - is, as Newt put it: we must "show the planet that you're tiny and we're not."

Newt's batting 1.000 this week. He called Spanish the "language of the ghetto" this week.

Surely we could send Newt & Co. over to Iran "300" style to parade around in leather shorts, bare-chested, and with swords, and the Iranians will surrender.

The most disgusting thing I find about Newt's conversation is that he has no consideration for the safe return of the soldiers. All he cares about is how tough he is.

Newt, all you've done is show the planet that you're the tiny little dog straining at the leash, yipping your little head off at the German Shepherd, knowing that you'll never have to back your words up with deeds of your own. That's what all those kids who grew up speaking ghetto languages are for.

All of you laughable "tough" guy chickenhawks are wracked with achingly obvious self-esteem problems.

I mean, our brethren in the Middle East have responded so well to threats and public belittlement in the past, we should just keep on doing it, right?

Violence and intimidation first, indeed. This is what passes for statesmanship with these people?

Why Engage in Dialogue?

When dialogue humanizes the enemy?

If you don't display the enemies face, then the enemy can always be the enemy. You need not negotiate with a faceless, nameless, adversary. Until now, that worked with GWOT because the enemy was every face, and every name (even Americans). But now, when we're toe to toe with a nation. A real nation, a nation that has considerable influence, to engage in dialogue is to humanize them. And that, BushCo. can never do. To them, you're only human if you worship Christ and sing God Bless America every time you pass a flag.

I switched from CNN to the BBC and back again and actually sat through Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech yesterday, and for a minute or two nobody seemed to notice at the end when he said the soldiers would be freed as a "gift to the British people."

Even CNN's chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour seemed totally taken aback, blinking for a few moments with astonishment, or should I say cognitive dissonance. But she quickly regained her professional aplomb and soon the wires were humming.

Now as I watched this unfold, I fully understood this was grand political theater on a stupendous scale.

THIS is how we're dealing with a "crisis," Ahmadinejad said. This is how civilized and clever and imaginative people do things.

Propaganda, yes, of course. He has his agenda. But by God neither he nor Tony Blair were rattling sabers, nor were bombs falling, nor were people bleeding and dying in the streets.

I felt a great, overwhelming sadness for the absolute catastrophe Bush and Cheney and Rove unleashed with their cynical lies, and it was sickening watching Bush at his flared-nostril presser continue to lie while timid - shall I say flaccid? - reporters copied down his lies and turned them into "news" stories.

All this seems to come down to some twisted form of penis envy. Occam's Razor. It's nothing complicated, just profoundly pathological. BTW, perhaps the most bizarre image of the day was Cheney lurking, scowling in the bushes as the president recited Rove's scripted lies to the press corps. Truly BAD fiction

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: JD50
Embassies around the world are used for gathering intelligence as well, I guess its ok with you if we kidnap all of the diplomats from their embassies too. I guess we can go kidnap anyone from any country that uses satelites that take pictures of the US too.

Funny that you mentioned that [Irbil?]...

What?

Wash Post from 3 months ago

Ok, even though that wasn't at an embassy and has nothing in common with the Iranians kidnapping British sailors, I guess you supported that too right?

 

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JD50
WTF is with you people? Embassies around the world are used for gathering intelligence as well, I guess its ok with you if we kidnap all of the diplomats from their embassies too. I guess we can go kidnap anyone from any country that uses satelites that take pictures of the US too.

There's nothing wrong with gathering intelligence. But when you mix that with violating another nations border, you run the risk of getting detained.

I'm still waiting on the proof of them being in Iranian waters....

The second set of Iranian GPS coordinates wasn't good enough?

The first set of Iranian and British GPS coordinates wasn't good enough?

Still waiting......Are you on the phone with Tehran trying to figure out how to spin it some more?

Keep waiting, Peyton's a troll extraordinaire.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
Those are some reasons -- refute them.

Way to be racist...

I apologize about the racist remarks; sometimes I take this forum too seriously.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JD50
WTF is with you people? Embassies around the world are used for gathering intelligence as well, I guess its ok with you if we kidnap all of the diplomats from their embassies too. I guess we can go kidnap anyone from any country that uses satelites that take pictures of the US too.

There's nothing wrong with gathering intelligence. But when you mix that with violating another nations border, you run the risk of getting detained.

I'm still waiting on the proof of them being in Iranian waters....

The second set of Iranian GPS coordinates wasn't good enough?

The first set of Iranian and British GPS coordinates wasn't good enough?

Not good enough for Iran. And seeing as how the officer was quoted as saying he was gathering intelligence specifically on Iran before they were detained, I'll side with the Iranians on this one. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
Keep waiting, Peyton's a troll extraordinaire.

That's interesting, because some people would think that accusing someone of wrongdoing without having the facts to back up your claim would be trolling.

When you have those stats on Iran's nuclear weapons program, I'd love to see them.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JD50
WTF is with you people? Embassies around the world are used for gathering intelligence as well, I guess its ok with you if we kidnap all of the diplomats from their embassies too. I guess we can go kidnap anyone from any country that uses satelites that take pictures of the US too.

There's nothing wrong with gathering intelligence. But when you mix that with violating another nations border, you run the risk of getting detained.

I'm still waiting on the proof of them being in Iranian waters....

The second set of Iranian GPS coordinates wasn't good enough?

The first set of Iranian and British GPS coordinates wasn't good enough?

Not good enough for Iran. And seeing as how the officer was quoted as saying he was gathering intelligence specifically on Iran before they were detained, I'll side with the Iranians on this one. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Go back and read that article, here is an important part,

Secondly, it's to gather int (intelligence). If they do have any information, because they're here for days at a time, they can share it with us.

Secondly means that it was not their PRIMARY objective to gather intelligence on Iran. They were conducting routine operations and asking the people on the boats about Iran, if boats are going from Iraqi waters to Iranian waters, or vice versa, doesn't it make sense to ask questions? Do you understand that?

Both Britain and Iran agreed on GPS coordinates, but when those coordinates were confirmed to be Iraqi waters, Iran all of the sudden changes their mind. Anyone with a brain can see what is going on there, its pretty damn obvious. You are being ridiculous.

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: JD50
Secondly, it's to gather int (intelligence). If they do have any information, because they're here for days at a time, they can share it with us.

Secondly means that it was not their PRIMARY objective to gather intelligence on Iran. They were conducting routine operations and asking the people on the boats about Iran, if boats are going from Iraqi waters to Iranian waters, or vice versa, doesn't it make sense to ask questions? Do you understand that?

Secondly, firstly, who cares, gathering intellegence definitely qualifies as espionage, what's to argue about?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: JD50
Secondly, it's to gather int (intelligence). If they do have any information, because they're here for days at a time, they can share it with us.

Secondly means that it was not their PRIMARY objective to gather intelligence on Iran. They were conducting routine operations and asking the people on the boats about Iran, if boats are going from Iraqi waters to Iranian waters, or vice versa, doesn't it make sense to ask questions? Do you understand that?

Secondly, firstly, who cares, gathering intellegence definitely qualifies as espionage, what's to argue about?

gathering intelligence is not the same thing as espionage.....

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: JD50

gathering intelligence is not the same thing as espionage.....

wow, I'll have some of whatever you're having...

ESPIONAGE as defined in English Language COMPRENDE?

What's all this double standard/ double talk stuff?

Who else wants to say that gathering intellegence about activities of foreign government is not espionage? I need a good laugh

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: JD50

gathering intelligence is not the same thing as espionage.....

wow, I'll have some of what you're having...

ESPIONAGE as defined in English Language COMPRENDE?

What's all this double standard/ double talk stuff?

Asking local fisherman about what was going on in the area would not be considered espionage. If they were in Iranian waters then that would be different. Anyways, there is a difference between intelligence gathering and espionage.

So, I'll ask again since you never answered, were you ok with the US taking those Iranians that were in Iraq? You seem ok with the Iranians kidnapping the Brits.

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: JD50
Asking local fisherman about what was going on in the area would not be considered espionage. If they were in Iranian waters then that would be different. Anyways, there is a difference between intelligence gathering and espionage.

So, I'll ask again since you never answered, were you ok with the US taking those Iranians that were in Iraq? You seem ok with the Iranians kidnapping the Brits.

From that article you can conclude that Brits were not asking questions about how much fish those fishermen caught I don't know what kind of difference you see between two terms, I've yet to see a situation where someone would define inquiring publicly available information as "gathering intellegence". They probably were involved in HUMINT, which can be described as "spying activity" or "act of espionage".

To address your second question, no, I was not OK with the first situation either, unless those Iranians were caught in the act of aiding insurgents and there is materials proving that(which so far were not announced to the public), they should be protected by diplomatic immunity and in worst situation declared persona non grata and expelled from the country in 24 hrs. That didn't happen. So after Iraqi invasion justification fiasco I will take all other explanations of this admin with a grain of salt. Iranian probably tried to appeal for peacefull release of officials captured in Irbil, when that failed, they did what USSR and USA used to do in the past - spy exchange, and since they didn't have any US spies handy and knew that US really doesn't want to listen, they decided to grab some Brits when they thought they would be able to justify such capture.

So, to summarize, I am not OK with aither situation, but I can see the logic behind these events

 

[International Machine Consortium]

The Brits really need some SERE training. They were pretty much an embarrassment.

 

[Azndude2190]

Whatever happened to name,rank, and serial #???

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
* the fact that wikipedia, youtube, among other websites and supressed media outlets

I guess it's time to bomb Thailand. :roll:

 

[Number1]

The true story is starting to come out.

BBC Article

Of course the sailors where coerced into making confessions.

I would not expect less from the Iranians, the same people that beat a Canadian jounalist to death last year for taking picture of an Iranian jail.

And yes, Amadinejab IS a midget.

 

[Azndude2190]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/06/iran.sailors/index.html

Link to video conference in the middle of the article

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Trianon

Originally posted by: JD50
Asking local fisherman about what was going on in the area would not be considered espionage. If they were in Iranian waters then that would be different. Anyways, there is a difference between intelligence gathering and espionage.

So, I'll ask again since you never answered, were you ok with the US taking those Iranians that were in Iraq? You seem ok with the Iranians kidnapping the Brits.

From that article you can conclude that Brits were not asking questions about how much fish those fishermen caught I don't know what kind of difference you see between two terms, I've yet to see a situation where someone would define inquiring publicly available information as "gathering intellegence". They probably were involved in HUMINT, which can be described as "spying activity" or "act of espionage".

To address your second question, no, I was not OK with the first situation either, unless those Iranians were caught in the act of aiding insurgents and there is materials proving that(which so far were not announced to the public), they should be protected by diplomatic immunity and in worst situation declared persona non grata and expelled from the country in 24 hrs. That didn't happen. So after Iraqi invasion justification fiasco I will take all other explanations of this admin with a grain of salt. Iranian probably tried to appeal for peacefull release of officials captured in Irbil, when that failed, they did what USSR and USA used to do in the past - spy exchange, and since they didn't have any US spies handy and knew that US really doesn't want to listen, they decided to grab some Brits when they thought they would be able to justify such capture.

So, to summarize, I am not OK with aither situation, but I can see the logic behind these events

Thanks for clarifying, from your original post, it looked like you might has sided with the Iranians on this. Also, going by the strict definition I guess any kind of intelligence gather could be considered espionage, but I would not consider asking locals about their area of operations an act of espionage worthy of being kidnapped and held captive. Especially since they weren't even in Iranian waters.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JD50
WTF is with you people? Embassies around the world are used for gathering intelligence as well, I guess its ok with you if we kidnap all of the diplomats from their embassies too. I guess we can go kidnap anyone from any country that uses satelites that take pictures of the US too.

There's nothing wrong with gathering intelligence. But when you mix that with violating another nations border, you run the risk of getting detained.

So, you said that the Brits admitting to being in Iranian waters was proof that they were in Iranian waters. The people here with common sense argued that they were coerced and that you should not take their "confessions" as truth. You asked for proof of that, well here ya go...

"If we admitted we had strayed, we would be on a plane back to the UK soon. If we didn't we faced up to seven years in prison".

The crew were told that if they did not admit they were in Iranian waters when captured that they faced seven years in prison, a press conference heard.


You were so eager to believe their confessions while they were being held captive, I wonder if you will believe what they have to say now.....

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Number1
The true story is starting to come out.

BBC Article

Of course the sailors where coerced into making confessions.

I would not expect less from the Iranians, the same people that beat a Canadian jounalist to death last year for taking picture of an Iranian jail.

And yes, Amadinejab IS a midget.

I think they were just scared. Not to say I wouldn't have done the same thing.

Ever been arrested? I haven't, but if it is anything like Law and Order they pretty much say it like this:

"Confess now and you can go home and everything will be fine. You can go back home hug your wife and kids. It was all just a misunderstanding. It was self defense."

I don't know if that is actually how they get confessions but if it is then that sounds like a F'd up B.S way to get someone to talk.