Reply With Quote
That letter sounds a bit scripted if I may say so myself. Makes the US and British seem bad and the Iranians good...not the best policy for a British soldier to undertake.
This is exactly why 'occupiers', 'liberators', 'invaders', or whatever the other label you what to give U.S. troops putting themselves in risk in Iraq have to resist the temptation to fighting the resistance at their unmoral level...
LinkyLONDON, March 30 (Xinhua) -- The Iranian embassy in London released Friday a third letter allegedly written by detained British sailor Faye Turney, saying she was "sacrificed" for the policies of the British and U.S. governments.
"I'm writing to you as a British serviceperson who has been sent to Iraq, sacrificed due to the intervening policies of the Bush and Blair governments," the letter said.
The letter, addressed to the British people, said she had been treated well, unlike the prisoners held at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
"Whereas we hear and see on the news the way that prisoners were treated in Abu Ghraib and other Iraqi jails by the British and American personnel, I have received total respect and faced no harm," said the letter.
It's disgusting that Iran would use this opportunity to parade the British troops in front of Iranian TV, a violation of the Geneva accord if I'm not mistaken, but in a way, we did this to ourselves.
That letter sounds a bit scripted if I may say so myself. Makes the US and British seem bad and the Iranians good...not the best policy for a British soldier to undertake.
Oh, I have no doubt that the Iranians are cohersing her to read these statements.
Hey Chump.
I thought these guys we're gonna be released by now?
I mean, this happened before, right?
They want an exchange. I say we make one. Better than giving them weapons.
I'm pretty sure we won't do an exchange; you can't let them accomplish EXACTLY what they wanted to by seizing the sailors illegally.
However, we may be willing to give them some very recently used ammunition.
I think our time has come to stop accusing others of committing illegal acts. A little hypocritical.
WOW! Brilliant idea!
I say it's a good idea, considering we can't keep Iranian gunboats out of Iraqi waters. That's some great planning we've got over there.
I think all the captured Brits should be Guantanamo'd and/or Abu-Ghraib'd indefinitely, for years, in Iran, maybe "extra-ordinarily renditioned" secretly to Syria or Yemen or Addis-Ababa, with daily water-boarding and sensory and sleep deprivation.
According the head and Gonzo, IT'S ALL GOOD.
I've never had a sig, but boutons quote here may just be a winner.
I never gave a date, doofus.
I said they would be bargaining chips for the next negotiations. The UK doesn't want to make it look like a direct prisoner exchenge but that it precisely what could happen buried in alot of other agreements.
Where is the invasion you and whoooootttt were calling?
When you're mad you make a lot of spelling errors and your posts have grammatical errors as well. Plus you start them by calling someone a name every time.
Chump's mad now.
Nah, I make spelling errors as a matter of course. Usually I edit them out.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 03-31-2007 at 11:33 AM. Reason: Took out a name I called johnsmith and spelled wrong.
This guy may be onto something...
By Rowan Wolf of Uncommon Thought Journal
4/1/07
LinkyThe headline reads "US rejects Iran captives exchange." My initial response was "What is the US doing rejecting a captive exchange"? My second thought was, "not those hostages". Yes, Iran has asked for the five Iranian Consulate staff seized from Irbil, Kirkuk in January, 2007. You may recall that Bush had approved an attack on the Iranian Consulate in Kirkuk.
Why did it take from March 23rd to March 31st for the issue at play in the holding of 15 UK sailors to be brought to light? Iran's arrest of 15 UK sailors has largely been painted as a "provocative" move by Iran. Presented as another "crazy" move by Ahmadinejad. However, now a totally different issue arises.
In January, more than two months ago, the US raids a recognized Iranian Consulate in Kirkuk, Iraq. Along with taking computers and files, the US military also takes into custody, five staff people from the Consulate. Kirkuk and Iran issue a protest and a demand for the release of the captive consulate staff. The US claims they are part of Iran's Revolutionary Guard al-Qods force, and refuse to release them.
We can imagine what has happened in the ensuing time. Through back channels and intermediaries, Iran has continued to demand the release of their five consulate staff. The US has denied or ignored the requests - through back channels and intermediaries as the US won't talk to Iran. Instead, the US decided to launch massive "war games off the coast of Iran." However, they were not seen as games by Iran.
Iran ups the ante by taking their own hostages as a negotiating chip for their consulate staff.
It even makes sense that they would arrest UK personnel rather than US military - who are surely in and near Iran. The US would take the capture of US personnel as a directly hostile move and a legitimation of retaliatory strikes. Bush seems to just be waiting for the opportunity to legitimate his "tactical" nuclear war against Iran. Instead, they arrest UK personnel, where any action to be taken is by the UK. In fact, if the US utilizes this as the opportunity to attack, it will make the UK look very bad indeed. One might even say it would preempt the UK's sovereignty and be "emasculating" of their national honor and rights.
Suddenly, this very public action by Iran takes on a very canny sense. They are also making clear to the world that the UK sailors are being well cared for. For all that their statements may be coerced, the videos show them to be intact and in good shape. I am relatively sure that Iran has no such assurance about their five captive consulate staff. Regardless, the presentation of the UK sailors (while protested by the UK) is a very public statement that undermines a military response to the situation.
What has happened (or is happening) to the five consulate staff who were captured by the US? Why isn't the corporate press or our Congress asking the Bush administration to report on the status of these high visibility captives? Will they ask now that Iran's hostage negotiations have become public - at least public in the UK?
Even though high-level Iraqi officials have publicly called for their release, for all practical purposes, the Iranians have disappeared into the U.S.-sanctioned "coalition detention" system that has been criticised as arbitrary and even illegal by many experts on international law.
Isn't Iran's parading of these captives (technically) illegal in the eyes of Geneva? And that's what this guy is calling for the U.S. to do?
Got it.
"Geneva?"
For dubya/ head/gonzo, the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" and do not apply to the USA. Why should the US expect any other country to follow Geneva?
Same as in free trade. US wants other countries to lower their barriers, but USA maintaints lots of tariffs to keep out or penalize imports.
Were all the tools in Gitmo uniformed soldiers fighting under the Iraqi flag? Please don't compare a bunch of insurgents to the British soldiers abducted in Iraqi waters.
Abu Gharib? Geneva Conventions? This is a bad PR argument.
Iran has hostages? I thought they were guest. Everyone
is on Bush for calling them that. Don't you folks read or listen.
And why is anyone surprised. Look who is President in Iran. Same
guy that took over our embassy. Poor guy, he just pines for the
good old days. Like the dimm-o-craps and VN.
Iran, Britain signal ways to end standoff
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
