NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=507322007

Story in full NEW footage of captured British servicemen in which two of them appear to admit entering Iranian waters while on patrol was last night condemned as "unacceptable" by the government.

In the video clips, navy Lieutenant Felix Carman and Captain Chris Air, a Royal Marine, were shown pointing to various positions on a map of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where they were captured last week - but no sound was transmitted in the footage released by Iranian TV.

Is it just me, or does anyone think that the recent goings on in Iran is a bit blown out of proportion?

Iran is aware that USA and UK are going to start a war with Iran - Iran see Navy ship in their waters and decide to take these pesky folks in - protecting their people - and now the British media is running with it - Demonising Iran.

Government has been quite quiet. Media doing an excellent job of developing a reason to go to war with the bad Iranians that took Brits hostages (including a woman - oh my).

The showing on TV isn't nice - but would we not do the same?

Am I becoming too skeptical?

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=507322007

Story in full NEW footage of captured British servicemen in which two of them appear to admit entering Iranian waters while on patrol was last night condemned as "unacceptable" by the government.

In the video clips, navy Lieutenant Felix Carman and Captain Chris Air, a Royal Marine, were shown pointing to various positions on a map of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where they were captured last week - but no sound was transmitted in the footage released by Iranian TV.

Is it just me, or does anyone think that the recent goings on in Iran is a bit blown out of proportion?

Iran is aware that USA and UK are going to start a war with Iran - Iran see Navy ship in their waters and decide to take these pesky folks in - protecting their people - and now the British media is running with it - Demonising Iran.

Government has been quite quiet. Media doing an excellent job of developing a reason to go to war with the bad Iranians that took Brits hostages (including a woman - oh my).

The showing on TV isn't nice - but would we not do the same?

Am I becoming too skeptical?

The way they are being shown on TV = no. Not with the "confessions" etc.

However, yes it is being blown out of proportion. Presumably Mr Cheney is getting rantic as his time in office runs out.

It also reveals a certain hypocrisy, as 6 Iranians were grabbed on the 12 of Jan and have been held by the Americans ever since.

That being said....they should release the 15.

Iran is being quite stupid. They could easily just have ordered them to get out of their national waters (if in fact the Iranian government is telling the truth, which of course is not certain, as they've changed their story). Instead, they chose to do the whole hostage thing again, fully knowing the situation it would spawn, or at least they should have been able to predict such, with even the slightest bit of forethought. They should just return them so people will stop getting worked up.

This situation is clearly a scapegoat to create a reason for Britain to engage war with Iran. Meaning the US would follow and help their "allies".

But considering the talk of impeachment of Bush if he keeps the war going, I guess they will just drag the situation further and it will end with nothing.

Otherwise John Titor could be right, and there will be a civil war in the US.

The reason why this is getting the attention it is has to do with the amount of perceived reasonable influence of force a multinational conglomeration can accomplish.
Bush completely fucked whatever compassion and agreement he might've had with Iraq, and with Iran as the next obvious and explicit target, it's gonna take a series (short they may be) of arguable legal issues and situations to qualify the U.S. (and whomever else agrees) buildup of military influence and whatever else may consequently occur.
Seeing the results of things like the Downing Report, the Butler Report, Duefler's TWO reports and a few other sources as far as the legitimacy of the invasion/occupation of Iraq and the complicitude of Britain in said matters, it kinda speaks for itself.
Two cents and change.

Am I becoming too skeptical?

No, just ridiculously anti-western. :)

It is a generally accepted fact (even by the Iranians, before they realised their mistake) that the British sailors were NOT in Iranian waters. To claim that the Iranians picked them up to 'protect their people' is an Iranian fantasy.

Don't be so anti-war that you become blind to the fact that there are Governments out there that are a nasty piece of work. Just because Bush declares them an 'enemy' shouldn't make them heroes in your eyes.

The Iranian leaders are trying to pull something here. They've faked co-ordinates and taken soldiers hostage. What are they trying to get out of it?

No, just ridiculously anti-western. :)

It is a generally accepted fact (even by the Iranians, before they realised their mistake) that the British sailors were NOT in Iranian waters. To claim that the Iranians picked them up to 'protect their people' is an Iranian fantasy.

Don't be so anti-war that you become blind to the fact that there are Governments out there that are a nasty piece of work. Just because Bush declares them an 'enemy' shouldn't make them heroes in your eyes.
Iran has done plenty of bullshit in the past, and IMNSHO there's a lot of things that make them suspect.
However, when a collusion occurs to the scale that Blair has sucked flatus from Bush in the past few years, serious queries should be answered rationally and logically about things that result in murder of a most foul and judicious manner.
Iran is not inherently a a hero, but if you have better information than is available to average folk about who was trespassing where, it's best to share it and settle the inconsistencies of press.
Do you?

but if you have better information than is available to average folk about who was trespassing where, it's best to share it and settle the inconsistencies of press.
Do you?

I'll present it to you as soon as you present me with indisputable evidence that there is a mass press conspiracy to lie about it, and that everything Iran says is true.

(Oh wait, not everything they say! Because then they would have admitted that the sailors were in Iraqi waters, wouldn't they?)

The burden of proof is on you, as all the evidence disputes you. Like I said above, don't be sucked into believing a nasty piece of work simply because you hate the West.

I'll present it to you as soon as you present me with indisputable evidence that there is a mass press conspiracy to lie about it, and that everything Iran says is true.

(Oh wait, not everything they say! Because then they would have admitted that the sailors were in Iraqi waters, wouldn't they?)

The burden of proof is on you, as all the evidence disputes you. Like I said above, don't be sucked into believing a nasty piece of work simply because you hate the West.

No it isn't. I'm saying it's half an half as far as the press goes. No, ALL the evidence does not dispute me. The "burden of proof" isn't upon me in any significant respect to qualify your own postion, unless you have nothing to qualify your position. It would suit you to better to read a little more carefully what i actually said and respond to it, since you sound a little high-strung so far. And if that's the best you can do, you're not doing much better than the U.S. administration.
Iran has done plenty of bullshit in the past, and IMNSHO there's a lot of things that make them suspect.

No it isn't. I'm saying it's half an half as far as the press goes. No, ALL the evidence does not dispute me.

Half and half? All of it doesn't dispute you?

You've still failed to point to a single piece of evidence to support your claim. You can shout 'media conspiracy' as loudly as you like, but I see no reason whatsoever why people should believe you.

Half and half? All of it doesn't dispute you?
No, not all of it, which is curious it's taken this long to corroborate.
The Brits so far have posted their ideas of GPS positioning, which in most cases is pretty strictly literal, so when i heard of it, i figured good for them for at least substantiating their side.
And yet, two days later, three other news sources don't share that particular issue that could quite obviously settle it.
That, imnsho yet again, says something of a dispute of available evidence.

You've still failed to point to a single piece of evidence to support your claim. You can shout 'media conspiracy' as loudly as you like, but I see no reason whatsoever why people should believe you.
I need work no harder than yourself. Settle your brash ass down and think rationally for a second.
If you want to know what kind of poster i am as far as "evidence", you're more than welcome to punch up my post history by ANY name and think carefully from that point.
There is no onus for me. Ante, fine, but so long as you keep it in opinion, get comfortable with people calling you on it.
Here is your first gambit, for which i call you on:

It is a generally accepted fact (even by the Iranians, before they realised their mistake)

Not a whole lot of meat there. Instead, generalizations of the same less-than-innocuous nature of, oh i don't know, Corneliu, for arguments' sake.
If you feel it's necessary to actually qualify your statement, as you obviously seem to think it's necessary to do so with mine, you've got shoes to fill.
Have at it.
:)

Tick-tock.

Boredom is setting in, sleep soon to follow.

Understand that i don't dispute anything else of value you've posted before - there has been - it's just that you can't be doing a whole lot of bullshitting about this without seriously considering the ramifications ... unless you admit yourself that it's just talk and stays as important as such.

Not a whole lot of meat there. Instead, generalizations of the same less-than-innocuous nature of, oh i don't know, Corneliu, for arguments' sake.
If you feel it's necessary to actually qualify your statement, as you obviously seem to think it's necessary to do so with mine, you've got shoes to fill.
Have at it.
:)
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42737000/gif/_42737907_iraq_iran_title_3_416.gif
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6502805.stm

You've called, and I've shown my hand. Your turn.

Tick-tock.

Boredom is setting in, sleep soon to follow.

Understand that i don't dispute anything else of value you've posted before - there has been - it's just that you can't be doing a whole lot of bullshitting about this without seriously considering the ramifications ... unless you admit yourself that it's just talk and stays as important as such.
:rolleyes:

Life doesn't wait while I post replies to you. People drift in and out of here all the time. If that doesn't suit you, find another forum.

To all of you that wonder why Iran would commit such a "stupid" act by capturing and holding the British detainees, instead of just co-ercing them to leave, I have the answer for you. Something that I am sure is plainly apparent to the White House and Downing Street.

The Iranian government is trying to provoke a war.

The Iranian government is baiting Bush and Blair with the British servicemen by keeping them hostage, and continuously putting such ideas into the air such as putting the servicemen on trial for esponiage etc.

The political situation in Iran is becoming more unstable, with Iranian dissidents growing in power and aggression. The Iranian government wants to whip up national unity by provoking the US and UK into declaring war*. They'd much rather have thier people hate the American jets, missiles and cluster bombs that will inevitably fall on the eve of a US/UK attack, than themselves.

This strategy is not suicide. An invasion Iraq-style is obviously impractical. Any attack from the US/UK will come in the form of aerial bombings via SCUD missiles and cluster bombs. Civilian deaths, if the invasion of Iraq is anything to go by, would be numerous and would be used by the Iranian authorities to turn thier people against the "western zionist warmongers" no doubt.

As several posters on this board have mentioned before when we were discussing the captured British servicemen, Iranians have attempted to take hostage Coalition troops before. The incident where US Infantry were encountered by an Iranian unit well within Iraq's border, and the Iranians attempt to lead them back to the Iranian border, has been mentioned a few times.

The Iranian government want war to be declared* against them. So stop advocating it.

*Oh wait. No one "declares war" nowadays. Handy way to get around the UN Charter, wot.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42737000/gif/_42737907_iraq_iran_title_3_416.gif
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6502805.stm

You've called, and I've shown my hand. Your turn.Thank you.
It's not much to ask that a person's opinion have some basis in reality.


Life doesn't wait while I post replies to you. People drift in and out of here all the time. If that doesn't suit you, find another forum.Sagacious and irrelevant. I've been here significant amount longer than yourself, so perhaps you'll give a bathroom stall wall a scrawl or two with a keen grimace with that sentiment.
As for first line, of course it does. That's why you're here, at least you have the dignity to admit that, since you bothered to post, even if i could have gestated and lactated a few times by now.
;)
As for turns, sure, i'll play nicey - and hence what i said about it not being "all the evidence".
First thread up: approx. .79 seconds:
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-04-02T115929Z_01_L31691933_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAN-BRITAIN-COL.XML

Second thread, first line, same amount of time:
TEHRAN, Iran — All 15 British sailors and marines held captive by Iran have confessed to illegally entering Iranian waters, Iranian state radio reported Monday, adding that "positive changes" in Britain's negotiating stance meant footage of the alleged confessions would not air. A British official said meanwhile the government is willing to discuss ways to avoid territorial disputes in the Persian Gulf to free the captured crew.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4680283.html
Since "all the evidence" shows that Texans are Iran-loving, America-hating commies, this is working in your favour so far.
:rolleyes:
So we can talk about "turns", or be happy that one or perhaps even the BOTH of us had a point of view and argument with some basis in EXPERIENCE BEFORE this exchange, non?

Second thread, first line, same amount of time:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4680283.html
Since "all the evidence" shows that Texans are Iran-loving, America-hating commies, this is working in your favour so far.
:rolleyes:
So we can talk about "turns", or be happy that one or perhaps even the BOTH of us had a point of view and argument with some basis in EXPERIENCE BEFORE this exchange, non?

And so your evidence that the Iranians are peace loving moderates who captured the dastardly British in their territorial waters is, in fact, the Iranian media?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6506171.stm

Take a look at this.

Captive armed forces are told to simply say whatever their captors want them to say, short of revealing secrets. The Iranian TV pictures have about as much credibility as the Hitler Diaries.

Western media v Iranian state television is not the 'inconsistency of the press', as you first claimed. It is news v propaganda. If you prefer to believe the latter, then that is your choice. Sanity, however, will remain with the truth.

I've been here significant amount longer than yourself
And?

And so your evidence that the Iranians are peace loving moderates who captured the dastardly British in their territorial waters is, in fact, the Iranian media?

Are your reading skills up to par? Seriously, you're not quite listening/interpreting hard enough.
First two links. Consider the probability here.


Captive armed forces are told to simply say whatever their captors want them to say, short of revealing secrets. The Iranian TV pictures have about as much credibility as the Hitler Diaries. ...and Gitmo, Guantanamo, and a few of our foreign friends that help with rendition. So your point is?

Western media v Iranian state television is not the 'inconsistency of the press', as you first claimed. It is news v propaganda. If you prefer to believe the latter, then that is your choice. Sanity, however, will remain with the truth.The truth that you experienced? You were there? You're not only british, but currently in Iranian custody? Or you are Iranian and part of the interdictory crew?
You might as well capitalize the word "truth". You've got conjecture, not experience, and that was/is/ever shall be my point. I already did more than enough, and now you're embarassing yourself. Unless you are willing to publicly admit that your "sanity" doesn't hinge upon the press/propaganda you receive, woeful it would surely be that be your best hope in this particular nature of discussion.

I believe both Western and the Iranian media should be taken with a grain of salt.

They are both biased in thier own ways.

I believe both Western and the Iranian media should be taken with a grain of salt.

Seconded. *bows*

EDIT: Still seconded.

Considering the British were there to stop smuggling from the Iranian side, who do people think were sending more boats over whose border?

Considering the British were there to stop smuggling from the Iranian side, who do people think were sending more boats over whose border?

Well, two points - one, why's it Brit's business to interdict smuggling, and two - the obvious one at that - what maritime authority does it settle with?
If the brits are right, more argument goes towards them. If the iranians are right ....
It's almost as bad as to say that the us is somehow a moral authority when it enforces its corporate willpower through military means.

Unless you are willing to publicly admit that your "sanity" doesn't hinge upon the press/propaganda you receive, woeful it would surely be that be your best hope in this particular nature of discussion.

My sanity hinges upon sanity. If you wish to give the Iranian 'news' a 50/50 weighting with every other source available, then I've no idea what yours hinges upon.

Well, two points - one, why's it Brit's business to interdict smuggling, and two - the obvious one at that - what maritime authority does it settle with?
If the brits are right, more argument goes towards them. If the iranians are right ....
It's almost as bad as to say that the us is somehow a moral authority when it enforces its corporate willpower through military means.

I just think it's an Iranian stunt to prove how tough Iran is standing up the might British Empire. Iran has delusions of rebuilding an Islamic Persian empire again I think.

Well, two points - one, why's it Brit's business to interdict smuggling, and two - the obvious one at that - what maritime authority does it settle with?
On the high seas, it is any state's duty to interdict smugglers and pirates.

If the brits are right, more argument goes towards them. If the iranians are right ....
Of course, most evidence (save only the later claims of the Iranian government) makes it seem that the Brits were in the right. Even in the initial act, the Iranian government has handed the west an enormous casus belli, and the bait has not been taken.

It's almost as bad as to say that the us is somehow a moral authority when it enforces its corporate willpower through military means.

It's more Wilsonian than corporate, if you must make mention.

My sanity hinges upon sanity.Word for the day: tautology.

If you wish to give the Iranian 'news' a 50/50 weighting with every other source available, then I've no idea what yours hinges upon.What possible frame of reference can anyone have other than experience and research?
Seriously?
All you are doing is, again, showing an embarassing bias ... towards making an unwarranted argument.
If you've bothered to see anything other than ... oh, who was your second quote again? BBC? British (ooh- no bias there)? ... what already agrees with you, you can't possibly qualify sanity as your stance.
Sanity, by two fairly well-known vernacular understandings, is :

The recognition of threat (thus requiring study of difference)
the integrity to not do the same thing (in same conditions) in repetition in hope/expectation of a different outcome

And since i'm willing to "take my turn" as you put it, i'll put two defs here for it from supposedly reputable sources:

sanity n. The quality or condition of being sane; soundness of mind. Soundness of judgment or reason.
http://www.answers.com/topic/sanity

sanity - normal or sound powers of mind
saneness
mental health - the psychological state of someone who is functioning at a satisfactory level of emotional and behavioral adjustment
lucidity - a lucid state of mind; not confused
rationality, reasonableness, reason - the state of having good sense and sound judgment; "his rationality may have been impaired"; "he had to rely less on reason than on rousing their emotions"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sanity


Ooh, that second one stings a little.

Now, judgment requires what, praytell?
Is that an avenue you want to sojourn?

All you are doing is, again, showing an embarassing bias ... towards making an unwarranted argument.

I shall hang my head in shame as soon as you provide a source that isn't the Iranian media to back up your own embarrassing, repetitive and biased claim.

What possible frame of reference can anyone have other than experience and research?
Seriously?
All you are doing is, again, showing an embarassing bias ... towards making an unwarranted argument.
If you've bothered to see anything other than ... oh, who was your second quote again? BBC? British (ooh- no bias there)? ... what already agrees with

What we can look at is the history of all the media outlets involved, their habits of independence from the self-interested claims of the government, their accuracy of reporting and their past involvement in such matters.

On all three of these qualifiers the BBC wins hands down. It is independent with no government approval required to run stories, effective and accurate. Historically, it is one of the best regarded media outlets available, providing informative and effective information to people all around the world for decades. Further, the government of the UK is one of the most transparent in the world, beholden to its voters and taxpayers.

The Iranian media, on the other hand has a record of being beholden to the statements of its government, a notoriously opaque government. It is not known for accuracy, and typically plays the role of a propaganda mouthpiece for the state. The Iranian media is close to worthless.

Do I have a bias? Absolutely. I'm biased against propaganda mouthpieces, beholden to the whim of their state. If you want to be Iran's little bitch, feel free, but your arguments will be rapidly ignored if you continue as such.

Your argument that the BBC is biased, simply because it is British, is made entirely of phail.

On the high seas, it is any state's duty to interdict smugglers and pirates.
If anyone boarded my ship on open sea with no legitimacy of claim while intending to confiscate my goods, captainship and intent for sail, that is clearly an argument of piracy. Again, a case of authority. Were they on the high seas or a strait?

Of course, most evidence (save only the later claims of the Iranian government) makes it seem that the Brits were in the right. Even in the initial act, the Iranian government has handed the west an enormous casus belli, and the bait has not been taken.The rub lay here ... why not? Hostage taking seems pretty straight up, if be the case, especially while most of the world is paying attention. If the GPS claim is accurate, there's not a whole lot of dispute against it, really. In almost every other respect, it's a hesaidshesaid situation, for which even american headline news continues (as well as any number we can punch up) to carry currently as a legitimate news item sans mention of integrity. Not the littlest suspicious?
And they really weren't later. They were before the arguments put forth by the brits. The brits held for two days, even longer before the GPS claim.



It's more Wilsonian than corporate, if you must make mention.Admittedly, it takes a little more stretch for my point than Wilsonian, since mine would take more explaining.

If anyone boarded my ship on open sea with no legitimacy of claim while intending to confiscate my goods, captainship and intent for sail, that is clearly an argument of piracy. Again, a case of authority. Were they on the high seas or a strait?
In this instance, the matters are even clearer.

The ship that was boarded was in Iraqi waters, and on the behalf of their Iraqi partners, the UK was aiding in preventing illegal smuggling, at the request of the Iraqi government, in whose waters they were operating.

Further, naval and customs vessels are fully authorized to board non-naval vessels on the high seas, in order for inspection purposes, if there is reason to believe that the non-naval vessel may be undertaking an illegal activity.

The rub lay here ... why not? Hostage taking seems pretty straight up, if be the case, especially while most of the world is paying attention. If the GPS claim is accurate, there's not a whole lot of dispute against it, really. In almost every other respect, it's a hesaidshesaid situation, for which even american headline news continues (as well as any number we can punch up) to carry currently as a legitimate news item sans mention of integrity. Not the littlest suspicious?


And they really weren't later. They were before the arguments put forth by the brits. The brits held for two days, even longer before the GPS claim.
Perhaps the Brits were interested in accuracy, unlike the Iranian government. Hoping to avoid sinking their case before it got off the ground, like the Iranian government.

Jeez, issuing a set of coordinates, and then rapidly changing them when those coordinates clearly put Iran in the wrong. How class, how classy.

What we can look at is the history of all the media outlets involved, their habits of independence from the self-interested claims of the government, their accuracy of reporting and their past involvement in such matters.And now the onus is on you.
I quoted the Houston Chronicle, so now show if they have a particular interest in reporting something in favour of the iranian govt., by all criterion mentioned here.
Don't get me wrong, i have little quarrel with your discrimination. It is somewhat the meat of the matter here.

On all three of these qualifiers the BBC wins hands down. It is independent with no government approval required to run stories, effective and accurate. Historically, it is one of the best regarded media outlets available, providing informative and effective information to people all around the world for decades. Further, the government of the UK is one of the most transparent in the world, beholden to its voters and taxpayers.

The Iranian media, on the other hand has a record of being beholden to the statements of its government, a notoriously opaque government. It is not known for accuracy, and typically plays the role of a propaganda mouthpiece for the state. The Iranian media is close to worthless.I respect this post more than anything else you've posted so far, and i appreciate you taking the effort to be so specific. BBC is quite often quite decent, in the past and even currently. But they also allowed little media attention of any sort to follow through on the Downing Street memos, the Butler Report, the two issues of the Duelfer Report AND the BND report regarding Iraq since Britain's liason with the U.S. during their invasion of it, which given Blair's current problems as well as that, lead one to leave suspect a few things.

Do I have a bias? Absolutely.QFT. I'm biased against propaganda mouthpieces, beholden to the whim of their state. If you want to be Iran's little bitch, feel free, but your arguments will be rapidly ignored if you continue as such.[/quote]That's a sweet sentiment and quite clearly again ignoring what the whole point was in the first place.

Your argument that the BBC is biased, simply because it is British, is made entirely of phail.Addressed nonetheless, whereas you say nothing specific of United States press. Perhaps you aren't keeping track?

I just think it's an Iranian stunt to prove how tough Iran is standing up the might British Empire. Iran has delusions of rebuilding an Islamic Persian empire again I think.

It probably does, and i would further that the nuclear issue is really the fulcrum of importance for them.

As i'd said earlier, Iran has performed more than its share of bullshit in the past.
It should be considered, though, that Russia is also appreciative of similar sentiment, as threaded all of yesterday.

In this instance, the matters are even clearer.

The ship that was boarded was in Iraqi waters, and on the behalf of their Iraqi partners, the UK was aiding in preventing illegal smuggling, at the request of the Iraqi government, in whose waters they were operating.
So what are the GPS coordinates, and is there a thirdparty corroboration or not? A link or two would suffice, if you possess it. Not op-eds, thanks.

Further, naval and customs vessels are fully authorized to board non-naval vessels on the high seas, in order for inspection purposes, if there is reason to believe that the non-naval vessel may be undertaking an illegal activity.Fully authorized by their own interests perhaps, unless you are stating a specific naval code of the same nature as ... say, an IBM treaty, or some other treaty specifically qualifying multihemispheric neutrality. Is that the case?

Perhaps the Brits were interested in accuracy, unlike the Iranian government. Hoping to avoid sinking their case before it got off the ground, like the Iranian government.See, that's what i thought too. When i first heard, i thought the iranians were doing more bullshit. The story is not coming through quite clearly at all about it though.
If hostages were taken by iran without legitimate provocation, is that not an act of war?
And same offended party, so ready to invade a country on completely fallacious and even fabricated circumstance as the iraq bullshit, suddenly wants to talk everything over about it?

Jeez, issuing a set of coordinates, and then rapidly changing them when those coordinates clearly put Iran in the wrong. How class, how classy.I'd heard that also, at first, but it seems only one or two things could really clarify the issue. And that particular clarity isn't forthcoming, even from some reputable sources to the homefront.

I shall hang my head in shame as soon as you provide a source that isn't the Iranian media to back up your own embarrassing, repetitive and biased claim.

My bias has been established ....
look harder.
*shakes head*

And now the onus is on you.
I quoted the Houston Chronicle, so now show if they have a particular interest in reporting something in favour of the iranian govt., by all criterion mentioned here.
The article from the Chronicle is not an article in favor of the government of Iran, instead it is an informative article about what the Iranian media is saying. It does not take a position either way, as that is not the topic of the article instead, it is about how the "Iranian radio reports 'positive changes'".

It's important to understand what the Iranian government is saying, to permit the people of the United States to develop an informed opinion on the matter. Of course, knowing the Iranian media, whose headline is what's being reported, the claims of Iran that are being reported should be taken with a grain of salt.

In short, this piece is of virtually no value to the argument, as the original sourcing of what you're using to support your argument comes from said Iranian media.



I respect this post more than anything else you've posted so far, and i appreciate you taking the effort to be so specific. BBC is quite often quite decent, in the past and even currently. But they also allowed little media attention of any sort to follow through on the Downing Street memos, the Butler Report, the two issues of the Duelfer Report AND the BND report regarding Iraq since Britain's liason with the U.S. during their invasion of it, which given Blair's current problems as well as that, lead one to leave suspect a few things.

Mainly because people didn't care.

That's a sweet sentiment and quite clearly again ignoring what the whole point was in the first place.

You've attempted to balance the BBC with the Iranian media. The backbone of your argument is born from the Iranian media, the backbone of mine is supported by the BBC.

Addressed nonetheless, whereas you say nothing specific of United States press. Perhaps you aren't keeping track?

Why would I? The one citation from the US press on this matter isn't even relevant.

I would imagine that the Times of London would have reported Chamberlain's visit to Hitler as "a positive development".

It doesn't mean they liked Hitler, it just means they're too stupid to know he was fucking Britain over.

The article from the Chronicle is not an article in favor of the government of Iran, instead it is an informative article about what the Iranian media is saying. It does not take a position either way, as that is not the topic of the article instead, it is about how the "Iranian radio reports 'positive changes'".

It's important to understand what the Iranian government is saying, to permit the people of the United States to develop an informed opinion on the matter. Of course, knowing the Iranian media, whose headline is what's being reported, the claims of Iran that are being reported should be taken with a grain of salt.True, but if it weren't already six in the morning here, i could bother with any number of other sources for further explanation. As is, i did point out how long it took to qualify my argument from the very beginning.
When someone says to you, Andaluciae: ALL evidence does blabbity blah, you look at all evidence, don't you? Or is it a face-value issue?
Simply put, i ask for a link. So far, nothing. Media hype? Maybe. Suspicious? Absolutely.



Mainly because people didn't care.
Bull fucking shit they didn't care. Tell that to the service families who are losing their kin and dollars/pounds over it.

You've attempted to balance the BBC with the Iranian media. The backbone of your argument is born from the Iranian media, the backbone of mine is supported by the BBC.Not exactly. You're swapping the nature of my argument, as did Philosopy, regrettably, for a different one.
If that were the case, i wouldn't be using us media sources specifically. That's what "look harder" means, perhaps you read that somewhere?

Why would I? The one citation from the US press on this matter isn't even relevant.If that's an argumentative statement, or qualification of an argument, then you might as well mosey, since you're not only missing the point, you're not even on the same page.

I would imagine that the Times of London would have reported Chamberlain's visit to Hitler as "a positive development".

It doesn't mean they liked Hitler, it just means they're too stupid to know he was fucking Britain over.

Good post :)

Getting up in two and a half hours, so ...

So what are the GPS coordinates, and is there a thirdparty corroboration or not? A link or two would suffice, if you possess it.
.
When someone says to you, Andaluciae: ALL evidence does blabbity blah, you look at all evidence, don't you? Or is it a face-value issue?
.
Fully authorized by their own interests perhaps, unless you are stating a specific naval code of the same nature as ... say, an IBM treaty, or some other treaty specifically qualifying multihemispheric neutrality. Is that the case?

Essentially what i'm after since first type upon this thread ...

Getting up in two and a half hours, so ...


Essentially what i'm after since first type upon this thread ...

As to the first point, there are currently efforts being made to develop a third party verification system. There is more evidence than just GPS coordinates, though, instead we also have the initial testimony of the Iranian government, as to the location where the event occured, inside Iraqi waters. Posts have been provided for that.

The second point, I have never made the all evidence claim, but that the preponderance of evidence is on a certain side.

Third, we see that interdicting smugglers and pirates is established international law. I am no maritime lawyer, and my access to a maritime law library is limited, so I cannot cite a specific statute. All the same, I have read that this is the case, that states bear the responsibility to interdict pirates and smugglers, which is what the UK was doing in this instance.

Good post :)

Don't let The Nazz hear you say that...

As to the first point, there are currently efforts being made to develop a third party verification system. There is more evidence than just GPS coordinates, though, instead we also have the initial testimony of the Iranian government, as to the location where the event occured, inside Iraqi waters. Posts have been provided for that.

The second point, I have never made the all evidence claim, but that the preponderance of evidence is on a certain side.

Third, we see that interdicting smugglers and pirates is established international law. I am no maritime lawyer, and my access to a maritime law library is limited, so I cannot cite a specific statute. All the same, I have read that this is the case, that states bear the responsibility to interdict pirates and smugglers, which is what the UK was doing in this instance.

International maritime law providing for the interdiction of smugglers and pirates goes back hundreds of years. States have had the right and duty to apprehend said criminals should they encounter them since at least the 1500's. I could probably find a source, but that would take time I don't really have and I can't possibly believe Brevious would be stupid enough to dispute the fact that there is international maritime law giving states the right to interdict pirates and smugglers.

International maritime law providing for the interdiction of smugglers and pirates goes back hundreds of years. States have had the right and duty to apprehend said criminals should they encounter them since at least the 1500's. I could probably find a source, but that would take time I don't really have and I can't possibly believe Brevious would be stupid enough to dispute the fact that there is international maritime law giving states the right to interdict pirates and smugglers.Shouldn't believe anything i type when i'm drunk and awake for a few days straight, eh?
;)

I've heard of it plenty of times but never seen it in a volume of law myself, nor reposted here. As you say, too much of a hassle or something? That's another thing i've been getting at ...
Still, the argument is about identification of "pirates" and "smugglers" - essentially the argument seems to be going that any ship on the water can effective apprehend any other ship on the water over its own suspicions, and i really am not gonna buy that one. It's an aggressive tactic that, without proper authority other than some assumed or grandfathered concept, pretty much give us the situation we're talking about.
So far, it was that the Brits were suspicious of a ship and boarded it. The Iranians didn't like it and decided that they would support the ship.
Could've been a trap. Could've been defense. So what "contraband", "pirate booty", or any other thing along those lines was discovered on the boat?
Further, if the Brits were supposed to be some kind of blocking authority to any ship that supposedly ventured into Iraqi waters, how exactly did the other Iranian boat(s?) show up to reinforce the first one without being interdicted by the Brits?

Another thought about your piracy law thing - that just as equally allows that Iranians can intercept and detain any ship they see acting suspiciously for fear they might be pirates and the like, eh?

Don't let The Nazz hear you say that...

He is usually pretty good at arguing, for what that's worth. :)
Nonetheless, it was a good post.

As to the first point, there are currently efforts being made to develop a third party verification system. There is more evidence than just GPS coordinates, though, instead we also have the initial testimony of the Iranian government, as to the location where the event occured, inside Iraqi waters. Posts have been provided for that.

The second point, I have never made the all evidence claim, but that the preponderance of evidence is on a certain side.

Third, we see that interdicting smugglers and pirates is established international law. I am no maritime lawyer, and my access to a maritime law library is limited, so I cannot cite a specific statute. All the same, I have read that this is the case, that states bear the responsibility to interdict pirates and smugglers, which is what the UK was doing in this instance.

Thank you. *bows*
I appreciate your efforts at clarity and decent discussion.

Could've been a trap. Could've been defense. So what "contraband", "pirate booty", or any other thing along those lines was discovered on the boat?
Further, if the Brits were supposed to be some kind of blocking authority to any ship that supposedly ventured into Iraqi waters, how exactly did the other Iranian boat(s?) show up to reinforce the first one without being interdicted by the Brits?



As to the first point, the ship the Royal Navy was attempting to interdict was suspected of smuggling stolen automobiles.

The second point is that since this was fairly close to Iranian National Waters, within several hundred meters, if I recall correctly [map] (http://www.alaskareport.com/images4/british_map.jpg). HMS Cornwall was away from Iranian Waters, and out towards International Waters. The Iranians simply approached opposite the Cornwall.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6502805.stm

A map to help visualize the situation.

Shouldn't believe anything i type when i'm drunk and awake for a few days straight, eh?
;)

I've heard of it plenty of times but never seen it in a volume of law myself, nor reposted here. As you say, too much of a hassle or something? That's another thing i've been getting at ...
Still, the argument is about identification of "pirates" and "smugglers" - essentially the argument seems to be going that any ship on the water can effective apprehend any other ship on the water over its own suspicions, and i really am not gonna buy that one. It's an aggressive tactic that, without proper authority other than some assumed or grandfathered concept, pretty much give us the situation we're talking about.
So far, it was that the Brits were suspicious of a ship and boarded it. The Iranians didn't like it and decided that they would support the ship.
Could've been a trap. Could've been defense. So what "contraband", "pirate booty", or any other thing along those lines was discovered on the boat?
Further, if the Brits were supposed to be some kind of blocking authority to any ship that supposedly ventured into Iraqi waters, how exactly did the other Iranian boat(s?) show up to reinforce the first one without being interdicted by the Brits?

Another thought about your piracy law thing - that just as equally allows that Iranians can intercept and detain any ship they see acting suspiciously for fear they might be pirates and the like, eh?

What prevents any ship from apprehending any other ship on the open seas, is that if the apprehending ship is wrong, then the country who owns it runs quite a significant risk of really pissing off the country of the ship they're interdicting. Most nations don't have much tolerance for their trade being interfered with.

baseball

Well, it looks like it is all over now anyway.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17944210/

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his government would release the detained 15 British sailors and marines Wednesday as an Easter gift to the British people.

Well, it looks like it is all over now anyway.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17944210/

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his government would release the detained 15 British sailors and marines Wednesday as an Easter gift to the British people.

So Iran/Ahmadinejad gets to pose around looking magnanimous (and thereby powerful) without actually causing anything serious. Primarily just a bid to increase standing and apparent influence in the middle east. A PR stunt (or that's what it's turned out to be, whatever the IG intended it to be initially).

So Iran/Ahmadinejad gets to pose around looking magnanimous (and thereby powerful) without actually causing anything serious. Primarily just a bid to increase standing and apparent influence in the middle east. A PR stunt (or that's what it's turned out to be, whatever the IG intended it to be initially).

Ahmadinejad should wear more bright colors to look the proper peacock what with the strutting he so loves to do.

So Iran/Ahmadinejad gets to pose around looking magnanimous (and thereby powerful) without actually causing anything serious. Primarily just a bid to increase standing and apparent influence in the middle east. A PR stunt (or that's what it's turned out to be, whatever the IG intended it to be initially).

Essentially.