Iran to free British sailors
Light of Aria
What a great bloke that Mr I'mInADinnerJacket is!
From his point of view, Iran have been "pissed on" by the British, Britain
has refused to apologize but the kids involved have, and yet he shows great
mercy and tolerance to Britain as strength militarily within his region.
In terms of playing to the international stage, I'd say Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has completely won this game and out played the UK/US.
allan tracy
In his address Ahmadinejad asked how on earth the British could send a
young mother a thousand miles away from her child in this way.
I think more then a few of us old fashioned (non PC) people over here
have been asking that one.
Jeff Lawrence
Because it's her job. She's a soldier. She agreed to be send a
thousand
miles from her child when she joined up.
Cheers
Jeff
Halmyre
thunderb...@hotmail.com says...
You know irony is not dead when the Iranians start lecturing other
countries on how they treat women.
--
Halmyre
Sofa - Spud
> In article <1175696153.881984.223...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> thunderbird57...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > In his address Ahmadinejad asked how on earth the British could send a
> > young mother a thousand miles away from her child in this way.
>
> > I think more then a few of us old fashioned (non PC) people over here
> > have been asking that one.
>
> You know irony is not dead when the Iranians start lecturing other
> countries on how they treat women.
>
in Iran . They could still hold them back and blame us for some crap .
Jethro
wrote:
> http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=manage...
>
> What a great bloke that Mr I'mInADinnerJacket is!
>
> From his point of view, Iran have been "pissed on" by the British, Britain
> has refused to apologize but the kids involved have, and yet he shows great
> mercy and tolerance to Britain as strength militarily within his region.
>
> In terms of playing to the international stage, I'd say Iranian President
> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has completely won this game and out played the UK/US.
Don't knwo about that, but this has messed up the US in more than one
way.
It shows diplomacy without sabre rattling and willy-waving can work.
Light of Aria
"allan tracy" <thunderb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175696153.8...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> In his address Ahmadinejad asked how on earth the British could send a
> young mother a thousand miles away from her child in this way.
>
>
What a remarkably civilized institution this Royal Navy is! It sounds like
an exotic tourism company.
Alan Hope
You've been wishing for something terrible to happen since this story
first broke. You're not going to get it. As the OP points out, Iran
has played a blinder on this one. It's game set and match.
--
Alan Hope
http://sour-grapes.tumblr.com/
Alan Hope
Well no. His position is totally consistent. The irony is when you see
people here agreeing with him, as Tracy just did.
For example: John Smith
Agreed - but New man would have asked 'how on Earth could the British send a
young parent a thousand miles away from its child ?
Sam Nelson
Um, er. This from a culture that keeps its women in bags, doesn't allow them
out on their own, allows them to be beaten, etc?
--
SAm.
For example: John Smith
Certainly, if you ignore the fact that Iran acted illegally in the first
place.
Damot
wrote:
Iran has played a blinder?! Good god what a stupid thing to say.
Sam Nelson
And then Ahmedinajad spoils it because he can't resist coming out with the
line about young mothers.
--
SAm.
MichaelJP
news:ev0bg5$oe8$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
We lost this particular game by letting them get taken hostage in the first
place. They shouldn't have been so far from their ship so close to the
disputed border and they should have had continuous helicopter cover.
After they were taken we were powerless. It was all down to how the Iranians
wanted to play it.
Sam Nelson
Duh. The same way they have been sending people to war for centuries. It
just so happens that some of the people sent these days are women.
--
SAm.
Paul Evans
"Sam Nelson" <s...@ssrl.org.uk> wrote in message
news:efsce4-...@nntp.stir.ac.uk...
...and executes teenage girls for having sex:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/5217424.stm
But apparently, it is the UK who is the truly evil country here, especially
if you read the BBC's Have Your Say pages!
Paul.
E.E. Smith
American cable news military pundits have been very critical of the
sailors for:
1. Allowing themselves to be captured in the first place
2. Not dying in a shoot out with the Iranians
3. Making conciliatory statements about the incident and their captors
on camera.
The American pundits stop just short of calling for sending the
sailors to Gitmo as enemy combatants.
Sofa - Spud
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:23:41 +0200, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com>
Some people love these crappy regimes and see them as blameless in
everything . I on the other hand just want to see the safe return of
our service personel - I've never said anything else regardless what
others might say. I support our country and it's people not some
despot country and it's leader.
MichaelJP
"E.E. Smith" <sky...@spaceopera.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:mji713h6oc0amlfhk...@4ax.com...
With sufficient cover and care the Iranians wouldn't have tried to snatch
the sailors and there would never have been a need for a shootout.
michael adams
> Um, er. This from a culture that keeps its women in bags, doesn't
> allow them out on their own, allows them to be beaten, etc?
> --
> SAm.
Had you watched either of Rageh Omaghs hour long BBC documentaries
from Tehran, you might not have come out with such an ill-considered
and ill-informed outburt. Or maybe there again.
michael adams
...
howard
"michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:57i22gF...@mid.individual.net...
Indeed - I thought Iran was pretty 'civilised'. Most students
are women, from what Ive heard.
Col
"allan tracy" <thunderb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175696153.8...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> young mother a thousand miles away from her child in this way.
>
Yeah right, Iran that trailblazer of equal opportunities for women!!
--
Col
That's your excuse for everything isn't it, being dead!
slatconsulting
Well, they should certainly face court martial when they return. Ever
heard of "name, rank and serial number"? You don't put a scarf on your
head and you don't mug for the cameras or read prepared statements. Ever.
They're a disgrace, as is Blair and his paper tiger of a Navy.
michael adams
"Paul Evans" <paul.e...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:57i0cjF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Sam Nelson" <s...@ssrl.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:efsce4-...@nntp.stir.ac.uk...
> > In article <1175696153.8...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> > "allan tracy" <thunderb...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >> In his address Ahmadinejad asked how on earth the British could send a
> >> young mother a thousand miles away from her child in this way.
> >>
> >> I think more then a few of us old fashioned (non PC) people over here
> >> have been asking that one.
> >
> > Um, er. This from a culture that keeps its women in bags, doesn't allow
> > them
> > out on their own, allows them to be beaten, etc?
> > --
> > SAm.
>
> ...and executes teenage girls for having sex:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/5217424.stm
Fair enough. That's barbaric whichever way you want to look at it.
But they might want to argue that they have rather less teenage
prostitution, rather fewer teenage drug-addicts, and rather
fewer unmarried mothers than we do in the UK.
And having a country < Daily Mail> awash with teenage prostitutes,
drug addicts and unmarried mothers </Daily mail> isn't exactly a
good advertisement either, is it ?
michael adams
...
howard
"Light of Aria" <light...@novaliddomain.com> wrote in message
news:ev0bg5$oe8$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=managerViews&
storyID=2007-04-04T132935Z_01_NOA448567_RTRUKOC_0_IRAN-BRITAIN.xml
> In terms of playing to the international stage, I'd say Iranian President
> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has completely won this game and out played the UK/US.
Yeah but, it's not over yet. When they get back, they'll all be
dragged off and "debriefed" before they're allowed near a press
conference.
"British officials" will wanna try and get some propaganda back.
Damot
wrote:
And ensure they don't say anything that might put any future hostages
in danger. These "debriefings" are there for a reason.
howard
"Damot" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:0lm713djjrc2l13rb...@4ax.com...
> And ensure they don't say anything that might put any future hostages
> in danger.
They weren't hostages.
>These "debriefings" are there for a reason.
They certainly are.
Light of Aria
Well remember he is playing to an international audience of which in Africa,
the Middle East, Asia, and the Far East, much of the audience and their
culture is likely to agree with his viewpoint.
Francis Burton
Col <reddw...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>Yeah right, Iran that trailblazer of equal opportunities for women!!
Are there really more female students than male in Iran?
How does that square with the "equal opportunities" claim?
Francis
Light of Aria
"For example: John Smith" <qall...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hyPQh.92$vo2...@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
Not at all. In the eyes of the International world, he can now show how
reasonable and proportional he is, and how the US/UK is not.
It is neither here nor there that no trial has yet taken place. For what
ever offence the Iranians say the British committed, he's effectively
pardoned the British.
And now the British can only dispute the events if they send their personnel
back for a trial, which they are not going to do.
Light of Aria
"MichaelJP" <m...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ItSdnQt9hON...@giganews.com...
"Sufficient cover" may well have inflamed the Iranians into a proper
military confrontation. This is not some blokes uncle in the Republican
Guard we're dealing with. The Iranians are quite capable of causing the
US/UK inconvenience as they did under Carter in the 80s.
It it not the British way to provoke their neighbours in to a war. It is the
American way.
Col
"Francis Burton" <fbu...@nyx.net> wrote in message
news:11757070...@irys.nyx.net...
Depends what they are learning I guess!
Light of Aria
He's played the hand he was dealt and got more than he could have imagined.
He's made Britain look weak and our armed forces look like a bunch of kids
who got lost on some Club 18-30 excursion gone wrong.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17944210/
Look, you can even see our British chumps smiling and waving, and he even
went to the effort of kitting our boys out in very fine suits. I bet our
boys didn't pack that into their "dingy". ;-)
President Ahmadinejad has got to eat the cake and the cream, and he knows
it.
allan tracy
> Well no. His position is totally consistent. The irony is when you see
> people here agreeing with him, as Tracy just did.
>
Look I think Ahmedinajad is a c**t but the British sending a young
mother to battle gifted him a nice piece of propoganda.
Which ever way you look at it, it doesn't play well. I'm all for
sexual equality and most of what gets termed PC that is untill it
flies in the face of common sense.
A child's place is with its mother and that's human nature not me the
bigot that made it that way.
Jeff Lawrence
> >
> A child's place is with its mother
What!!! You're saying her child should have been sent to Iran too!?!?!?
That's outrageous!
Cheers
Jeff
Col
>
>
>
> He's played the hand he was dealt and got more than he could have
> imagined. He's made Britain look weak and our armed forces look like a
> bunch of kids who got lost on some Club 18-30 excursion gone wrong.
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17944210/
>
> Look, you can even see our British chumps smiling and waving, and he even
> went to the effort of kitting our boys out in very fine suits. I bet our
> boys didn't pack that into their "dingy". ;-)
>
> President Ahmadinejad has got to eat the cake and the cream, and he knows
> it.
But *we* got exactly what we wanted. Our personel have been
released and are (apparently) unharmed. Of course that may be
what the Iranians planned all along, but so what?
Irans claims of them being an 'Easter present' to Britain will just be
dismissed as crude propaganda in The West and the only countries
that will lap up the Iranian viewpoint that they are being so merciful
will be the anti-Western ones anyway, so nothing changes overall.
Daniel Lincoln
<thunderb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Well no. His position is totally consistent. The irony is when you see
>> people here agreeing with him, as Tracy just did.
>>
>
>Look I think Ahmedinajad is a c**t but the British sending a young
>mother to battle gifted him a nice piece of propoganda.
She wasn't being sent to battle, was she? We're not at war with Iran,
as far as I know.
>Which ever way you look at it, it doesn't play well. I'm all for
>sexual equality and most of what gets termed PC that is untill it
>flies in the face of common sense.
Most "PC" flies in the face of common sense. But that aside, there's
no reason why this woman shouldn't have been doing the job she was. As
long as she doesn't expect any special treatment just because she's a
woman (and I've seen nothing to suggest that she does) then fair play
to her.
>A child's place is with its mother and that's human nature not me the
>bigot that made it that way.
Are you going to apply that to all working mothers, then?
Daniel Lincoln
wrote:
>Well, they should certainly face court martial when they return. Ever
>heard of "name, rank and serial number"? You don't put a scarf on your
>head and you don't mug for the cameras or read prepared statements. Ever.
>They're a disgrace, as is Blair and his paper tiger of a Navy.
A disgrace?
Well, doing it their way seems to have got them released with no one
coming to any harm. And what has that cost? A headscarf and a few
insincere admissions on Iranian TV. Oh what _terrible_ price to pay!
Your way would almost certainly resulted in a much longer
incarceration, if not an escalation of the entire situation.
howard
"Daniel Lincoln" <subtl...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:njp713p9u5kqifrja...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:47:27 GMT, slatconsulting <oj...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, they should certainly face court martial when they return. Ever
> >heard of "name, rank and serial number"? You don't put a scarf on your
> >head and you don't mug for the cameras or read prepared statements. Ever.
> >They're a disgrace, as is Blair and his paper tiger of a Navy.
>
> A disgrace?
>
> Well, doing it their way seems to have got them released with no one
> coming to any harm. And what has that cost? A headscarf and a few
> insincere admissions on Iranian TV. Oh what _terrible_ price to pay!
I wonder how much *that* headscarf will get on eBay ?
Clark.W.Griswold
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:47:27 GMT, slatconsulting <o...@yahoo.com>
I was listening to Five Live the other day, and they interviewed a
serving officer in the army. He basically said, the army instructs
those going abroad these days to do exactly what their captors tell
them to do, to the letter. This way, they'll know they are being
coerced into things.
All in all a good result for us, a better one for Iran. But I'll be
happier all round when they are actually on British soil, things could
still go wrong.
Sofa - Spud
> E.E. Smith <skyl...@spaceopera.org.invalid> wrote innews:mji713h6oc0amlfhk...@4ax.com:> >>"Light of Aria" <lightofa...@novaliddomain.com> wrote in message
I'm afraid thats wrong - they don't do "name.rank.serial" anymore -
the armed forces realise we are fighting enemies now who don't care
about such things as the geneva convention and may not have signed up
to it. They are told to go along with circumstances and not to inflame
the situation . These facts were well covereddin the many news reports
and interviews over the last week or so.
Mike
<light...@novaliddomain.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>What a great bloke that Mr I'mInADinnerJacket is!
>
>From his point of view, Iran have been "pissed on" by the British, Britain
>has refused to apologize but the kids involved have, and yet he shows great
>mercy and tolerance to Britain as strength militarily within his region.
>
>In terms of playing to the international stage, I'd say Iranian President
>Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has completely won this game and out played the UK/US.
The clever cunt won't be saying that after they have been nuked back
to the stone age. Come to think of it he won't be saying much at all.
What's the first syllable of fuck in arabic?
--
Light of Aria
"Col" <reddw...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:57i6r3F...@mid.individual.net...
Except now if we get caught on the Iranian border *again* and we almost
certainly will, next time he can play the Islamic victim card and will tar
us as the evil imperialist bullies. Any subsequent military action he takes
against the British, he can then justify.
Sofa - Spud
> "Paul Evans" <paul.evans...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:57i0cjF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Sam Nelson" <s...@ssrl.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:efsce4-...@nntp.stir.ac.uk...
> > > "allan tracy" <thunderbird57...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > >> In his address Ahmadinejad asked how on earth the British could send a
> > >> young mother a thousand miles away from her child in this way.
>
> > >> I think more then a few of us old fashioned (non PC) people over here
> > >> have been asking that one.
>
> > > Um, er. This from a culture that keeps its women in bags, doesn't allow
> > > them
> > > out on their own, allows them to be beaten, etc?
> > > --
> > > SAm.
>
> > ...and executes teenage girls for having sex:
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/5217424.stm
>
> Fair enough. That's barbaric whichever way you want to look at it.
>
> But they might want to argue that they have rather less teenage
> prostitution, rather fewer teenage drug-addicts, and rather
> fewer unmarried mothers than we do in the UK.
>
> And having a country < Daily Mail> awash with teenage prostitutes,
> drug addicts and unmarried mothers </Daily mail> isn't exactly a
> good advertisement either, is it ?
>
So what is it you _actually_ want then Michael? An Iranian style
regime? - how does you love of free speech and democratic freedom,
freedom for minorities regardless of sexual orientation or gender ,
freedom of religion tally with the Iranian regime.
If you quote the positives from the Rageh documentry then lets look to
the positves in this country - they far outweigh the negatives . I've
said before , if folk flee and claim asylum from a country then there
is something wrong with it - and we aren't talking a few folk.
I'm not expecting to change your mind but I think a step back is
needed.
Light of Aria
Check out John Bolton on C4 News right now. I totally agree with his view.
Iran tested us. We look weak. Now Iran will know that Britain is weak, the
UN did nothing except make a short speech, the EU couldn't agree on
anything, and the US is in the run up to an election with a strong chance of
a "Democrat" winning.
It's a green light to an emboldened, tested, and strengthened Iran that they
can complete their Nuclear programme and no one will stop them.
allan tracy
> >A child's place is with its mother and that's human nature not me the
> >bigot that made it that way.
>
> Are you going to apply that to all working mothers, then?
No just to those that are away working for months on end without
seeing their kids.
If she gets herself killed we would call it a tradegy for the kids but
if the mother is away for months on end she might as well be as far as
the kid is concerned.
Light of Aria
According to Bush/Bliar, Iraq is not a war zone, it's a "peace keeping
mission" (SIC).
Halmyre
@tiscali.co.uk says...
>
>
> But *we* got exactly what we wanted. Our personel have been
> released and are (apparently) unharmed. Of course that may be
> what the Iranians planned all along, but so what?
> Irans claims of them being an 'Easter present' to Britain will just be
> dismissed as crude propaganda in The West and the only countries
> that will lap up the Iranian viewpoint that they are being so merciful
> will be the anti-Western ones anyway, so nothing changes overall.
>
You're forgetting another group who are lapping up the Iranian
viewpoint, namely those armchair warriors who are accusing the sailors
of everything from cowardice to treason.
--
Halmyre
Daniel Lincoln
wrote:
>If you quote the positives from the Rageh documentry then lets look to
>the positves in this country - they far outweigh the negatives . I've
>said before , if folk flee and claim asylum from a country then there
>is something wrong with it - and we aren't talking a few folk.
I've known (through work) a couple of Iranians. Although they lived
and worked in the UK, they made frequent trips back home to visit
friends and relatives, just like any other ex-pats. Their experiences
(or, at least, my experiences of them) didn't seem to tally with the
impression you're giving of hordes of asylum seekers fleeing in fear
of their lives. How many _genuine_ Iranian asylum seekers do you know
of, compared to people who have simply emigrated to the UK for work
opportunities, either legitimately or through false claims of asylum
seeking?
Sam Nelson
says...
> > allow them out on their own, allows them to be beaten, etc?
>
> from Tehran, you might not have come out with such an ill-considered
> and ill-informed outburt. Or maybe there again.
I saw a documentary on BBC2 last year. It didn't involve Mr Omar.
--
SAm.
Sam Nelson
says...
> Well, they should certainly face court martial when they return. Ever
> heard of "name, rank and serial number"? You don't put a scarf on your
> head and you don't mug for the cameras or read prepared statements. Ever.
> They're a disgrace, as is Blair and his paper tiger of a Navy.
Idiot.
--
SAm.
Sam Nelson
thunderb...@hotmail.com says...
> > Well no. His position is totally consistent. The irony is when you see
> > people here agreeing with him, as Tracy just did.
>
> Look I think Ahmedinajad is a c**t but the British sending a young
> mother to battle gifted him a nice piece of propoganda.
How? Only if it matters to you more that she's a woman, rather than
part of the Royal Navy. Oh, and that isn't how you spell `propaganda'.
> Which ever way you look at it, it doesn't play well. I'm all for
> sexual equality and most of what gets termed PC that is untill it
> flies in the face of common sense.
This largely depends whether you actually mean stuff, or whether you're
just playing at it.
> A child's place is with its mother and that's human nature not me the
> bigot that made it that way.
Do you have references for that, or are you just shooting your mouth
off? Women are either equal, or they aren't. If you're going to walk
away from anything that isn't fundamentally biological, you may as well
not have started.
--
SAm.
Sam Nelson
comfy...@hotmail.co.uk says...
> On 4 Apr, 17:55, "michael adams" <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > "Paul Evans" <paul.evans...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:57i0cjF...@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/5217424.stm
> >
> > Fair enough. That's barbaric whichever way you want to look at it.
> >
> > But they might want to argue that they have rather less teenage
> > prostitution, rather fewer teenage drug-addicts, and rather
> > fewer unmarried mothers than we do in the UK.
> >
> > And having a country < Daily Mail> awash with teenage prostitutes,
> > drug addicts and unmarried mothers </Daily mail> isn't exactly a
> > good advertisement either, is it ?
>
> So what is it you _actually_ want then Michael? An Iranian style
> regime? - how does you love of free speech and democratic freedom,
> freedom for minorities regardless of sexual orientation or gender ,
> freedom of religion tally with the Iranian regime.
Mr Adams, I suspect, is one of those people that yearns for that golden
age when everyone did the right thing. When challenged for the date of
the golden age, they tend to clam up, sharpish, or change the subject.
--
SAm.
Sam Nelson
light...@novaliddomain.com says...
> Check out John Bolton on C4 News right now. I totally agree with
> his view. Iran tested us. We look weak. Now Iran will know that
> Britain is weak, the UN did nothing except make a short speech,
> the EU couldn't agree on anything, and the US is in the run up
> to an election with a strong chance of a "Democrat" winning.
John Bolton is an idiot's puppet.
> It's a green light to an emboldened, tested, and strengthened
> Iran that they can complete their Nuclear programme and no one
> will stop them.
If we're all being told that nuclear electricity is the answer to
reducing man's atmospheric CO2 contribution, why shouldn't Iran do the
same?
--
SAm.
gavin
> A child's place is with its mother
As a father and a single parent I have to say what total crap you're
talking.
Alan Hope
>On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:23:41 +0200, Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com>
>wrote:
>>Sofa - Spud goes:
>>>On 4 Apr, 15:36, Halmyre <nos...@this.address> wrote:
>>>> In article <1175696153.881984.223...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> thunderbird57...@hotmail.com says...
>>>> > In his address Ahmadinejad asked how on earth the British could send a
>>>> > young mother a thousand miles away from her child in this way.
>>>> > I think more then a few of us old fashioned (non PC) people over here
>>>> > have been asking that one.
>>>> You know irony is not dead when the Iranians start lecturing other
>>>> countries on how they treat women.
>>>I'll be glad when they are physically back with us as opposed to still
>>>in Iran . They could still hold them back and blame us for some crap .
>>You've been wishing for something terrible to happen since this story
>>first broke. You're not going to get it. As the OP points out, Iran
>>has played a blinder on this one. It's game set and match.
>Iran has played a blinder?! Good god what a stupid thing to say.
Oh, then you don't understand what's been going on. I'll put you over
in the dunce's corner and you can get Spuddie to explain it to you.
--
Alan Hope
http://sour-grapes.tumblr.com/
Alan Hope
>On 4 Apr, 16:33, Damot <s...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:23:41 +0200, Alan Hope <not.alan.h...@mail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >Sofa - Spud goes:
>> >>On 4 Apr, 15:36, Halmyre <nos...@this.address> wrote:
>> >>> In article <1175696153.881984.223...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>> thunderbird57...@hotmail.com says...
>> >>> > In his address Ahmadinejad asked how on earth the British could send a
>> >>> > young mother a thousand miles away from her child in this way.
>> >>> > I think more then a few of us old fashioned (non PC) people over here
>> >>> > have been asking that one.
>> >>> You know irony is not dead when the Iranians start lecturing other
>> >>> countries on how they treat women.
>> >>I'll be glad when they are physically back with us as opposed to still
>> >>in Iran . They could still hold them back and blame us for some crap .
>> >You've been wishing for something terrible to happen since this story
>> >first broke. You're not going to get it. As the OP points out, Iran
>> >has played a blinder on this one. It's game set and match.
>> Iran has played a blinder?! Good god what a stupid thing to say.-
>Some people love these crappy regimes and see them as blameless in
>everything .
You can't even fucking read you cretin. Where did I say any of that?
>I on the other hand just want to see the safe return of
>our service personel - I've never said anything else regardless what
>others might say.
You've been wishing for something to go wrong from the start. Maybe so
we can start a war and you can remind us all about once you almost got
accepted into the Terriers, but not quite.
>I support our country and it's people not some
>despot country and it's leader.
Who gives a fuck? And there's no apostrophe in "its".
Alan Hope
>But *we* got exactly what we wanted. Our personel have been
>released and are (apparently) unharmed. Of course that may be
>what the Iranians planned all along, but so what?
>Irans claims of them being an 'Easter present' to Britain will just be
>dismissed as crude propaganda in The West and the only countries
>that will lap up the Iranian viewpoint that they are being so merciful
>will be the anti-Western ones anyway, so nothing changes overall.
You don't seem to understand who his audience is. You join the rest of
the nitwits spouting on this and that, and you don't have Clue One.
You used to be a good bit more circumspect, Col. The bloviating virus
has rubbed off on you.
Alan Hope
>In article <mlg713dbpimg390gk...@4ax.com>,
> Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com> writes:
>> Sofa - Spud goes:
>> >On 4 Apr, 15:36, Halmyre <nos...@this.address> wrote:
>> >> In article <1175696153.881984.223...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> thunderbird57...@hotmail.com says...
>> >> > In his address Ahmadinejad asked how on earth the British could send a
>> >> > young mother a thousand miles away from her child in this way.
>> >> > I think more then a few of us old fashioned (non PC) people over here
>> >> > have been asking that one.
>> >> You know irony is not dead when the Iranians start lecturing other
>> >> countries on how they treat women.
>> >I'll be glad when they are physically back with us as opposed to still
>> >in Iran . They could still hold them back and blame us for some crap .
>> You've been wishing for something terrible to happen since this story
>> first broke. You're not going to get it. As the OP points out, Iran
>> has played a blinder on this one. It's game set and match.
>And then Ahmedinajad spoils it because he can't resist coming out with the
>line about young mothers.
Another one who hasn't figured out yet who Ahmedinejad's talking to.
Sam Nelson
not.al...@mail.com says...
If they're too stupid to figure out that in western terms he's talking
utter rubbish, whoever it is he's talking to is too stupid to matter.
--
SAm.
Rich Mackin
news:cnq713dmd3n02qcuk...@4ax.com...
Persian might be more useful.
--
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com
slatconsulting
news:1175710506....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> On 4 Apr, 17:47, slatconsulting <o...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> E.E. Smith <skyl...@spaceopera.org.invalid> wrote
>> innews:mji713h6oc0amlfhk...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 16:50:54 +0100, "MichaelJP" <m...@nospam.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>"Light of Aria" <lightofa...@novaliddomain.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:ev0bg5$oe8$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>> >>>http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=mana
>> >>>ge
>> >>> rViews&storyID=2007-04-04T132935Z_01_NOA448567_RTRUKOC_0_IRAN-BRIT
>> >>> AIN .xml
I don't expect everyone to be brave. I do, however, expect
*S*O*L*D*I*E*R*S* to be brave. That's what they're for, remember?
It's not just me that expects soldiers to be brave, it's the services
themselves--else why do all military codes ever written include
punishments for cowardice? Regardless of how much courage we ourselves
might possess, the expectation that our military personnel behave
courageously is, surely, reasonable.
Schrodinger
"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:7s2813dl9s8vp3c6j...@4ax.com...
The worrying thing about you, is that you're not a troll.
slatconsulting
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:47:27 GMT, slatconsulting <oj...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Well, they should certainly face court martial when they return. Ever
>>heard of "name, rank and serial number"? You don't put a scarf on your
>>head and you don't mug for the cameras or read prepared statements.
>>Ever. They're a disgrace, as is Blair and his paper tiger of a Navy.
>
> A disgrace?
>
> Well, doing it their way seems to have got them released with no one
> coming to any harm. And what has that cost? A headscarf and a few
> insincere admissions on Iranian TV. Oh what _terrible_ price to pay!
>
> Your way would almost certainly resulted in a much longer
> incarceration, if not an escalation of the entire situation.
Yes, a disgrace. This is a day of shame and humiliation, not celebration.
They will never live down those phtos of them smiling and waving to the
propagandistic Iranian press, kissing Ahmadinejad's arse in the process.
Newsflash: It is the job of a Royal Marine to fight, and if necessary
suffer and die, for his country. They know that when they go in. It's
what they are told. Whether or not I could stand up well to torture, I
expect Marines to.
And in any case, there was no evidence of torture or mistreatment in any
of the filmed cases I have seen. They look just fine. You can't fake
that. The girl sailor had that headscarf on within hours. From what I've
heard of torture, even weaker cases can hold out for a few days.
As for the argument that these people might have buckled under threats to
hurt their comrades, I should think a soldier's answer would be: "They
are soldiers, same as me. They know the risks of service, and they'll
answer for themselves."
I anxiously await the court martials.
slatconsulting
Schrodinger
What else, realistically could we have done? How could we have looked
"strong". I was thinking back to the American hostage siege - when 90 were
held for over a year. America tried to be "strong" and lost, IIRC, 8
special forces personnel.
Granted, the yanks are crap at this sort of thing, but you are either at
full on war with Iran or you are not respected by them. There are enormous
cultural differences at play here and that goes for our media as much as it
does for the Iranian regime.
Don't forget that our position has been immeasurably weakened by the
American's Guantanamo Bay debacle.
The bottom line is that we have learned 2 valuable lessons in the last 2
years. Make yourself look "weak" and the Iranians parade about with puffed
up chests and do *exactly what you want*. This is why we are clever and
they are not. We got what we wanted and they look like the tinpot morons
they are. We didn't fire a shot and *still* have the moral high ground.
Sofa - Spud
> "Light of Aria" <lightofa...@novaliddomain.com> wrote in messagenews:ev0qh5$2kv$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Light of Aria" <lightofa...@novaliddomain.com> wrote in message
> >news:ev0q3h$2ap$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> >> "Col" <reddwarf...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:57i6r3F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >>> "Light of Aria" <lightofa...@novaliddomain.com> wrote in message
Spot on - absoloutly right , no shots fired , people safe . let
dinnerjacket mouth off to the folk who want to hear and whats done is
done.
Sam Nelson
michael adams
"Schrodinger" <n...@way.com> wrote in message
news:sFUQh.2438$1H6....@fe01.news.easynews.com...
> We didn't fire a shot and *still* have the moral high ground.
What total unmitigated bollocks !
Most Moslems probably regard Westerners as dissolute, irreligious,
materialistic degenerates at best.
People to be tolerated and pitied, but that's about all.
Lets just hope the Chinese have forgotten all about the Opium
Wars that's all, when it finally comes to their turn to start
dictating terms.
"Moral high ground" my arse!
michael adams
...
>
>
>
Jeff Lawrence
news:o0u713tv2pukil8bg...@4ax.com...
> I've known (through work) a couple of Iranians. Although they lived
> and worked in the UK, they made frequent trips back home to visit
> friends and relatives, just like any other ex-pats. Their experiences
> (or, at least, my experiences of them) didn't seem to tally with the
> impression you're giving of hordes of asylum seekers fleeing in fear
> of their lives. How many _genuine_ Iranian asylum seekers do you know
> of, compared to people who have simply emigrated to the UK for work
> opportunities, either legitimately or through false claims of asylum
> seeking?
Me too, I've worked with quite a few Iranians (of both sexes) both
in the UK and in Holland and on the whole they have all been decent,
intelligent,
modern, trendy people who did good jobs. There was one woman who was as
mad as a Barker but that could have happened no matter where she came
from.
Cheers
Jeff
Daniel Lincoln
wrote:
>> Your way would almost certainly resulted in a much longer
>> incarceration, if not an escalation of the entire situation.
>
>Yes, a disgrace. This is a day of shame and humiliation, not celebration.
>They will never live down those phtos of them smiling and waving to the
>propagandistic Iranian press, kissing Ahmadinejad's arse in the process.
>Newsflash: It is the job of a Royal Marine to fight, and if necessary
>suffer and die, for his country.
And them dying would have achieved what?
>They know that when they go in. It's what they are told.
That they should pointlessly sacrifice their lives?
>Whether or not I could stand up well to torture, I
>expect Marines to.
>
>And in any case, there was no evidence of torture or mistreatment in any
>of the filmed cases I have seen. They look just fine. You can't fake
>that. The girl sailor had that headscarf on within hours. From what I've
>heard of torture, even weaker cases can hold out for a few days.
They weren't tortured. But had they not co-operated, I'm sure that
their "hosts" could have made things very unpleasant for them. And
again I ask: what purpose would that have achieved?
>As for the argument that these people might have buckled under threats to
>hurt their comrades, I should think a soldier's answer would be: "They
>are soldiers, same as me. They know the risks of service, and they'll
>answer for themselves."
>
>I anxiously await the court martials.
You'll be waiting a while.
Daniel Lincoln
wrote:
>I don't expect everyone to be brave. I do, however, expect
>*S*O*L*D*I*E*R*S* to be brave. That's what they're for, remember?
They're there to protect our country. How does refusing to wear a
headscarf protect our country? How does refusing to agree with your
captors on TV (when you, they and everyone else knows you are doing so
under duress) protect our country?
>It's not just me that expects soldiers to be brave, it's the services
>themselves--else why do all military codes ever written include
>punishments for cowardice?
Because you don't want soldiers deciding in the midst of battle that
they'd rather be somewhere else, and refusing to fight or going AWOL.
But this was a completely different situation.
>Regardless of how much courage we ourselves
>might possess, the expectation that our military personnel behave
>courageously is, surely, reasonable.
No, what you seem to expect is displays of pointless (and possibly
counterproductive) bravado. What this situation called for was the
use of judgment, intelligence and common sense. The sailors
demonstrated that they possessed all of those qualities.
Halmyre
s...@ssrl.org.uk says...
Funny way to spell cunt?
--
Halmyre
Schrodinger
"michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:57ilomF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Schrodinger" <n...@way.com> wrote in message
> news:sFUQh.2438$1H6....@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>
>> We didn't fire a shot and *still* have the moral high ground.
>
> What total unmitigated bollocks !
>
> Most Moslems probably regard Westerners as dissolute, irreligious,
> materialistic degenerates at best.
>
> People to be tolerated and pitied, but that's about all.
>
Do you mean the Muslims, or the Westerners - of course, we should discount
your country from the "degenerate" list - shouldn't we?
So why bother with their views then? In fact, there are some Western
nations - few though those cowardly immoral sympethisiers would be - that
agree with the radical Islamic view of life. We are as well ignoring these
too.
> Lets just hope the Chinese have forgotten all about the Opium
> Wars that's all, when it finally comes to their turn to start
> dictating terms.
>
> "Moral high ground" my arse!
>
The "moral high ground" is about the UN. Not the Chinese.
When you understand International economics then come back and post again.
In the meantime check out the Chinese exposure to US currency and debt.
>
> michael adams
>
> ...
Just because you *want* to make a point, doesn't mean you understand it,
Michael. Sometimes, people that come from the viewpoint of a parochial
nation are, in themselves, parochial.
slatconsulting
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:14:02 GMT, slatconsulting <oj...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Your way would almost certainly resulted in a much longer
>>> incarceration, if not an escalation of the entire situation.
>>
>>Yes, a disgrace. This is a day of shame and humiliation, not
>>celebration. They will never live down those phtos of them smiling and
>>waving to the propagandistic Iranian press, kissing Ahmadinejad's arse
>>in the process. Newsflash: It is the job of a Royal Marine to fight,
>>and if necessary suffer and die, for his country.
>
> And them dying would have achieved what?
A little thing called "honor". Or not extending a propaganda victory to
the enemy. Or not encouraging your enemies to try similar stunts in the
future.
>>They know that when they go in. It's what they are told.
>
> That they should pointlessly sacrifice their lives?
"Pointless"? You're a disgrace. Their country comes first. Why would I
expect you to understand concepts such as duty, honor, and patriotism?
The French used to shave the heads of Nazi collaborators, whereas you'd
no doubt throw them a party.
>>Whether or not I could stand up well to torture, I
>>expect Marines to.
>>
>>And in any case, there was no evidence of torture or mistreatment in
>>any of the filmed cases I have seen. They look just fine. You can't
>>fake that. The girl sailor had that headscarf on within hours. From
>>what I've heard of torture, even weaker cases can hold out for a few
>>days.
>
> They weren't tortured. But had they not co-operated, I'm sure that
> their "hosts" could have made things very unpleasant for them. And
> again I ask: what purpose would that have achieved?
Unpleasant? Compared to illegally kidnapping them and violating every
Geneva Convention in the book? I don't care how "unpleasant" it gets, you
do NOT collaborate with the enemy.
>>As for the argument that these people might have buckled under threats
>>to hurt their comrades, I should think a soldier's answer would be:
>>"They are soldiers, same as me. They know the risks of service, and
>>they'll answer for themselves."
>>
>>I anxiously await the court martials.
>
> You'll be waiting a while.
Fuck off, traitor.
slatconsulting
WHERE'S WINSTON?
IT'S IRAN 15, BRITS 0 IN THE GULF
April 3, 2007 -- THE greatest shock from the Middle East this year hasn't
been terrorist ruthlessness or the latest Iranian tantrum. It's that
members of Britain's Royal Marines wimped out in a matter of days and
acquiesced in propaganda broadcasts for their captors.
Jingoism aside, I can't imagine any squad of U.S. Marines behaving in
such a shabby, cowardly fashion. Our Marines would have fought to begin
with. Taken captive by force, they would've resisted collaboration. To
the last man and woman.
You could put a U.S. Marine in a dungeon and knock out his teeth, but you
wouldn't knock out his pride in his country and the Corps. "Semper fi"
means something.
And our Aussie allies would be just as tough.
What on earth happened to the Royal Marines? They're members of what
passes for an elite unit. Has the Labor government's program to gut the
U.K. military - grounding planes, taking ships out of service and
deactivating army units - also ripped the courage from the breasts of
those in uniform?
The female sailor who broke down first and begged for her government to
surrender was pathetic enough. But when Royal Marines started pleading
for tea and sympathy . . . Ma, say it ain't so!
Meanwhile, back at No. 10 "Downer" Street, British politicians are more
upset that President Bush described their sailors and Marines as
"hostages" than they are with the Iranians.
Okay, Lord Spanker and Lady Fanny - what exactly are those sailors and
Marines? Package tourists?
Naturally, the European Union has praised Britain's "restraint." We've
now got another synonym for cowardice.
I've always respected the Brits and quite liked those I worked with when
in uniform . . . but I'm starting to wonder if I bought into a legend.
While criticizing our military's approach to everything, the Brits made
an utter balls of it in Basra - now they're bailing out, claiming
"Mission accomplished!" (OK, they had a role model . . .) In Heaven,
Winston Churchill's puking up premium scotch.
The once-proud Brit military has collapsed to a sorry state when its
Royal Marines surrender without a fight, then apologize to their captors
(praising their gentle natures!) while criticizing their own country.
Pretty sad to think that the last real warriors fighting under the Union
Jack are soccer hooligans.
Of course, bravery isn't equally distributed. One or even two
collaborators might be explicable. But not all 15.
Yes, journalists and other civilian captives routinely make embarrassing
statements on videos, chiding their governments and begging to be swapped
for a battalion of mass murderers. One expects nothing better. But
military men and women in the English-speaking tradition historically
maintained high standards over long years in brutal captivity - and this
hostage situation has barely lasted long enough to microwave a bag of
popcorn.
Think about Sen. John McCain with his broken limbs undergoing torture in
that Hanoi prison - and refusing an early chance to be repatriated
because he wouldn't leave his comrades behind. Think he'd do a Tokyo Rose
for Tehran?
The Iranians judged their victims well: The British boat crews didn't
make even a token effort at defending themselves. Now their boo-hoo-we-
quit government isn't defending them, either. Was Margaret Thatcher the
last real man in Britain?
The correct response to the seizure of 15 British military hostages - if
not released promptly - would've been to hit 15 Revolutionary Guards
facilities or vessels along the Iranian coast, then threaten to hit 30
deeper inland the next day.
By hammering the now-degenerate Revolutionary Guards, the Coalition
would've strengthened the less-nutty and less-vicious regular military
and emboldened President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's growing number of
opponents within the government. (It was telling that the Revolutionary
Guards could only muster about 200 demonstrators to harass the British
embassy - it didn't look much like 1979.)
Instead, we allowed the Iranian hardliners to humiliate a once-great
military and encourage hostage-takers everywhere.
At the very least, the British naval officer commanding in the zone of
operations and the vocal collaborators among the hostages should be
court-martialed. And the Royal Marine company to which those wankers
belong should be disbanded and stricken from the rolls.
John Bull has been cowed. By a pack of unshaven thugs. And the Britannia
that ruled the waves is waving goodbye.
Jeff Lawrence
news:Xns9908C5EA7B2...@140.99.99.130...
> Unpleasant? Compared to illegally kidnapping them and violating every
> Geneva Convention in the book? I don't care how "unpleasant" it gets, you
> do NOT collaborate with the enemy.
It's a shame you weren't one of the ones captured then.
Cheers
Jeff
Bion
> >>> Your way would almost certainly resulted in a much longer
> >>> incarceration, if not an escalation of the entire situation.
> >>
> >>Yes, a disgrace. This is a day of shame and humiliation, not
> >>celebration. They will never live down those phtos of them smiling and
> >>waving to the propagandistic Iranian press, kissing Ahmadinejad's arse
> >>in the process. Newsflash: It is the job of a Royal Marine to fight,
> >>and if necessary suffer and die, for his country.
> >
> > And them dying would have achieved what?
>
> A little thing called "honor". Or not extending a propaganda victory to
> the enemy. Or not encouraging your enemies to try similar stunts in the
> future.
"Honour", my arse. You pretentious twit, get a grip.
If you're as passionate as you desperately try to make out, why don't
you go to Iran and take out Ahmadinejad, Rambo style.
slatconsulting
I'm not a soldier. THEY are. Just as I wouldn't have a tax attorney
perform open heart surgery on me, I'll leave the Ramboesque retaliatory
stuff to the professionals. And yes, this strikes me as a huge p.r. win
for Iran. You know, the country that wants to wipe Israel off the face of
the map.
slatconsulting
news:46143961$0$12240$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl:
Daily Mail: "A humiliating week for Britain: a week that saw Iran get away
with piracy, kidnap and blackmail, a week fanatics played cat-and-mouse
with [Britain]; a week exposing feebleness at home and impotence abroad."
Indeed.
michael adams
>
> "michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:57ilomF...@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > "Schrodinger" <n...@way.com> wrote in message
> > news:sFUQh.2438$1H6....@fe01.news.easynews.com...
> >
> >> We didn't fire a shot and *still* have the moral high ground.
> >
> > What total unmitigated bollocks !
> >
> > Most Moslems probably regard Westerners as dissolute, irreligious,
> > materialistic degenerates at best.
> >
> > People to be tolerated and pitied, but that's about all.
> >
>
> Do you mean the Muslims, or the Westerners - of course, we should discount
> your country from the "degenerate" list - shouldn't we?
...
All of Europe and the Northern Western hemisphere is materialistic and
degenerate. Name one country that isn't. That hasn't been infected by
the consumerist virus.
...
>
> So why bother with their views then? In fact, there are some Western
> nations - few though those cowardly immoral sympethisiers would be - that
> agree with the radical Islamic view of life. We are as well ignoring
these
> too.
...
Oh really ? Name them.
...
>
> > Lets just hope the Chinese have forgotten all about the Opium
> > Wars that's all, when it finally comes to their turn to start
> > dictating terms.
> >
> > "Moral high ground" my arse!
> >
>
> The "moral high ground" is about the UN. Not the Chinese.
...
The UN largely says what its present paymaster, the US tells it to
say. It vainly tries to put a moral gloss on US imperialism around
the globe.
If you didn't realise that already then you're even more naive
than I thought.
...
>
> When you understand International economics then come back and post again.
>
> In the meantime check out the Chinese exposure to US currency and debt.
...
You've never actually heard of the Opium Wars have you, eh moron ?
Otherwise you wouldn't have suggested such a stupid example.
The background to Opium wars was the growing imbalance of trade
between Great Britain and China. Nothing more and nothing less.
That's what may be termed "International economics", at least for
your benefit, lunkhead.
In order so as not to run up big deficits with the Chinese mainly for
tea, the British insisted on exporting large quantities of Opium into
China against the express wishes of successive Chinese Govts who had
outlawed opium as being deletarious to their own people.
That's what's called taking the "moral high ground", I suppose.
< remainder of typiclly inane and ill-informed garbage snipped >
I'd stop digging right now if I were you lard-brain, as I've still
to mention the undoubted advantages of the Maxim gun over spears
and the like. Another "moralising influence" around the globe in
your eyes no doubt.
michael adams
...
>
>
Bion
> > "Honour", my arse. You pretentious twit, get a grip.
> > If you're as passionate as you desperately try to make out, why don't
> > you go to Iran and take out Ahmadinejad, Rambo style.
> >
>
> I'm not a soldier. THEY are. Just as I wouldn't have a tax attorney
> perform open heart surgery on me, I'll leave the Ramboesque retaliatory
> stuff to the professionals. And yes, this strikes me as a huge p.r. win
> for Iran. You know, the country that wants to wipe Israel off the face of
> the map.
I'm just thankful they didn't dress 'em up in orange and put a sack over
their heads, those evil Iranians. How embarrassing that would have been.
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.media.tv.misc:
>
> In his address Ahmadinejad asked how on earth the British could send a
> young mother a thousand miles away from her child in this way.
Perhaps he could try asking his wife after she's been kept up all night by a
screaming baby. If trolls ever became presidents they'd behave just like he
does. He likes to wind people up but I don't think many people would be
pleased if his behaviour meant Iran ended up as the 2nd failed state in a
less than stable part of the world.
> I think more then a few of us old fashioned (non PC) people over here
> have been asking that one.
Was it followed with "...and why wasn't she at home in the kitchen?"
mh.
--
http://www.nukesoft.co.uk
http://personal.nukesoft.co.uk
From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.
michael adams
"Bion" <a...@xx.com> wrote in message news:1hw2nkt.1aeiqoqewqdfN%a...@xx.com...
He might even buy one of the Apprentice "Pooch Pouches",
and try pelting Ahmadinejad with dog biscuits or tins of Pal.
michael adams
Light of Aria
"Sam Nelson" <s...@ssrl.org.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.207e17cbe...@news.individual.net...
> In article <ev0qh5$2kv$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
> light...@novaliddomain.com says...
>> Check out John Bolton on C4 News right now. I totally agree with
>> his view. Iran tested us. We look weak. Now Iran will know that
>> Britain is weak, the UN did nothing except make a short speech,
>> the EU couldn't agree on anything, and the US is in the run up
>> to an election with a strong chance of a "Democrat" winning.
>
>
>> It's a green light to an emboldened, tested, and strengthened
>> Iran that they can complete their Nuclear programme and no one
>> will stop them.
>
> reducing man's atmospheric CO2 contribution, why shouldn't Iran do the
> same?
> --
> SAm.
Nuclear power and Nuclear weapons are two separate matters.
Typical European reactors are designed to produce power, not weapon's grade
materials. The concern and very much suspected intention of Iran is to do
both.
Now do you really want to see Ayatollah Hominy with his paws on nuclear
bombs or large amounts of Plutonium Pu239?
michael adams
"slatconsulting" <oj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >
> Daily Mail: "A humiliating week for Britain: a week that saw Iran get away
> with piracy, kidnap and blackmail, a week fanatics played cat-and-mouse
> with [Britain]; a week exposing feebleness at home and impotence abroad."
> Indeed.
And I wonder which British newspaper Ahmadinejad will be quoting
to all and sundry tomorrow, as proof positive of his little
"triumph".
Nothing quite like giving succour to the supposed "enemy" is there ?
Even worse when it's just to have yet another shabby little dig at
the Govt.
But then the "Daily Mail" are correct of course, Herr Hitler would
never have stood for it. Oh sorry the "Daily Mail" stopped supporting
Herr Hitler well before 1939, or at least so they claim.
michael adams
...
michael adams
> both.
>
> Now do you really want to see Ayatollah Hominy with his paws on nuclear
> bombs or large amounts of Plutonium Pu239?
Ayatollah Homeini, if that's who you're talking about happens to have
been dead for the past 18 years. So I can't see what use any of that
stuff would be to him.
Iran's present spiritual leader Ayatollah Khamenei is generally
acknowledged to be a moderate.
< selective quotes>
Ali Khamenei has been supportive of science progress in Iran.
He was among the first Islamic clerics to allow stem cell research
and therapeutic cloning.[19] In 2004, Ayatollah Khamenei said
that the country's progress is dependent on investment in the
field of science and technology. He also said that attaching a high
status to scholars and scientists in society would help talents to
flourish and science and technology to become domesticated, thus
ensuring the country's progress and development.[20]
Additionally, Khamenei has stated that he believes in the importance
of nuclear technology for civilian purposes because "oil and gas
reserves cannot last forever."[24][25]
After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, he condemned the act
and the attackers and called for a condemnation of terrorist activities
all over the world, whether in the United States, Israel, the Balkans,
or elsewhere.[26] Candlelight vigils in Iran for the victims of the
9/11 attacks were commonplace during the next several nights.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa saying the production,
stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam. The
fatwa was cited in an official statement by the Iranian government at
an August 2005 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) in Vienna.[34][35]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei
</selective quotes>
While there are undoubted hot-heads in Iraq Khamenei isn't one of
them. I can only suggest you get a clue before giving
everyone the benefit of your opinions.
michael adams
>
>
>
>
>
michael adams
< selective quotes>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei
</selective quotes>
While there are undoubted hot-heads in Iran Khamenei isn't one of
Light of Aria
Plonk, dick head.
Col
>
>
>
> Check out John Bolton on C4 News right now. I totally agree with his view.
> Iran tested us. We look weak. Now Iran will know that Britain is weak, the
> UN did nothing except make a short speech, the EU couldn't agree on
> anything, and the US is in the run up to an election with a strong chance
> of a "Democrat" winning.
But we got everything we weanted, the safe release of the captives
unharmed. Iran got nothing of what they wanted, no official admittance/
apology from Britain and certainly no trail for espionage.
Of course they had to desperately spin their way into showing themselves
in a good light with all the 'being merciful' nonsense, but they have to try
to save face, any country would.
Measured dipolomacy is the best track we could have taken. How would
you have done things differently?
It may have escaped attention but the days of Empire are over.
We don't have a couple of battleships lurking just over the horizon
ready to pound a few coastal towns into submission, just to help the
diplomatic efforts on their way....
--
Col
That's your excuse for everything isn't it, being dead!
Sam Nelson
says...
> WHERE'S WINSTON?
> IT'S IRAN 15, BRITS 0 IN THE GULF
>
> April 3, 2007 -- THE greatest shock from the Middle East this year hasn't
> been terrorist ruthlessness or the latest Iranian tantrum. It's that
> members of Britain's Royal Marines wimped out in a matter of days and
> acquiesced in propaganda broadcasts for their captors.
>
> Jingoism aside, I can't imagine any squad of U.S. Marines behaving in
> such a shabby, cowardly fashion. Our Marines would have fought to begin
> with. Taken captive by force, they would've resisted collaboration. To
> the last man and woman.
I notice you don't attribute this shower of spouted shite. Yes, it's
true, USonians do tend to shoot first and ask questions later. It's one
of the reasons they're so far deep in shit so often. It's a country
that lacks maturity. There's no more rebuttal needed.
--
SAm.
Sam Nelson
says...
> "Jeff Lawrence" <jeff.l...@orange.nl> wrote in
> news:46143961$0$12240$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl:
>
> > "slatconsulting" <oj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9908C5EA7B2...@140.99.99.130...
> >
> >> Unpleasant? Compared to illegally kidnapping them and violating every
> >> Geneva Convention in the book? I don't care how "unpleasant" it gets,
> >> you do NOT collaborate with the enemy.
> >
> > It's a shame you weren't one of the ones captured then.
>
> with piracy, kidnap and blackmail, a week fanatics played cat-and-mouse
> with [Britain]; a week exposing feebleness at home and impotence abroad."
> Indeed.
Daily Mail: not fit to wipe shit off anyone's arse with.
--
SAm.
Sam Nelson
sp...@nukesoft.co.uk says...
> On 4 Apr 2007 07:15:53 -0700, allan tracy <thunderb...@hotmail.com>
> wrote the following to uk.media.tv.misc:
>
> >
> > In his address Ahmadinejad asked how on earth the British could send a
> > young mother a thousand miles away from her child in this way.
>
> Perhaps he could try asking his wife after she's been kept up all night by a
> screaming baby. If trolls ever became presidents they'd behave just like he
> does.
Good call. Yes, it's true. Ahmedinajad as troll on alt.international-
diplomacy. Nicely put.
--
SAm.
Sam Nelson
light...@novaliddomain.com says...
>
> "Sam Nelson" <s...@ssrl.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.207e17cbe...@news.individual.net...
> > In article <ev0qh5$2kv$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
> > light...@novaliddomain.com says...
> >> Check out John Bolton on C4 News right now. I totally agree with
> >> his view. Iran tested us. We look weak. Now Iran will know that
> >> Britain is weak, the UN did nothing except make a short speech,
> >> the EU couldn't agree on anything, and the US is in the run up
> >> to an election with a strong chance of a "Democrat" winning.
> >
> > John Bolton is an idiot's puppet.
> >
> >> It's a green light to an emboldened, tested, and strengthened
> >> Iran that they can complete their Nuclear programme and no one
> >> will stop them.
> >
> > If we're all being told that nuclear electricity is the answer to
> > reducing man's atmospheric CO2 contribution, why shouldn't Iran do the
> > same?
>
They are, aren't they? It's such a shame you didn't realise that when
you wrote before. Why was that?
> Typical European reactors are designed to produce power, not weapon's grade
> materials. The concern and very much suspected intention of Iran is to do
> both.
>
> Now do you really want to see Ayatollah Hominy with his paws on nuclear
> bombs or large amounts of Plutonium Pu239?
Do come back when you're literate. Until then, you're pitifully
unworthy of argument.
--
SAm.
Col
.
>
>
> WHERE'S WINSTON?
> IT'S IRAN 15, BRITS 0 IN THE GULF
>
> April 3, 2007 -- THE greatest shock from the Middle East this year hasn't
> been terrorist ruthlessness or the latest Iranian tantrum. It's that
> members of Britain's Royal Marines wimped out in a matter of days and
> acquiesced in propaganda broadcasts for their captors.
>
> Jingoism aside, I can't imagine any squad of U.S. Marines behaving in
> such a shabby, cowardly fashion. Our Marines would have fought to begin
> with. Taken captive by force, they would've resisted collaboration. To
> the last man and woman.
Yeah you're right.
They probably would have fought. Thus turning a diplomatic incident
into a military one. With possible serious escalations.
Of course when you are a world super-power and can do pretty much
what you want, discretion is the better part of valour' does not enter
the phrasebook.
> You could put a U.S. Marine in a dungeon and knock out his teeth, but you
> wouldn't knock out his pride in his country and the Corps. "Semper fi"
> means something.
>
> And our Aussie allies would be just as tough.
This isn't a playground game you know.
Our Marines are harder than your Marines,
my Dad's bigger than your Dad!
>
> Naturally, the European Union has praised Britain's "restraint." We've
> now got another synonym for cowardice.
It's called being 'diplomatic', idiot.
>
> The correct response to the seizure of 15 British military hostages - if
> not released promptly - would've been to hit 15 Revolutionary Guards
> facilities or vessels along the Iranian coast, then threaten to hit 30
> deeper inland the next day.
Oh and start a war with Iran, fantastic idea, over what in the great
scheme of things was a relatively minor incident.
> By hammering the now-degenerate Revolutionary Guards, the Coalition
> would've strengthened the less-nutty and less-vicious regular military
> and emboldened President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's growing number of
> opponents within the government. (It was telling that the Revolutionary
> Guards could only muster about 200 demonstrators to harass the British
> embassy - it didn't look much like 1979.)
What 'Coalition'?
Bush didn't even bother making a statement about this until days into
the event. If we made a unilateral assault on Iran, we'd be on our own.
> Instead, we allowed the Iranian hardliners to humiliate a once-great
> military and encourage hostage-takers everywhere.
We got what we wanted. The safe return of the captives and we
didn't have to apologise officially over the alledged transgression
as Iran had wanted.
OK, they tried to save face by spouting all that crap about being
'merciful', but who in The West is going to take any notice of that?
It's just spin and trying to save face.
Light of Aria
Because Pu238 is a by product of processing Ur238.
Because historically the UK and US's early nuclear programmes were hybrid
civil and military with the dual objective of generating power and purifying
weapons grade Plutonium.
Because other states like Iran and Pakistan have made A-bombs on the back of
civilian nuclear programmes.
Now piss off you rude cunt.
Mike
<rich....@ntlworld.SPAMTRAP.com> wrote:
>"Mike" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:cnq713dmd3n02qcuk...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:08:09 +0100, "Light of Aria"
>> <light...@novaliddomain.com> wrote:
>>
>>>http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=managerViews&storyID=2007-04-04T132935Z_01_NOA448567_RTRUKOC_0_IRAN-BRITAIN.xml
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What a great bloke that Mr I'mInADinnerJacket is!
>>>
>>>From his point of view, Iran have been "pissed on" by the British, Britain
>>>has refused to apologize but the kids involved have, and yet he shows
>>>great
>>>mercy and tolerance to Britain as strength militarily within his region.
>>>
>>>In terms of playing to the international stage, I'd say Iranian President
>>>Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has completely won this game and out played the UK/US.
>>
>> The clever cunt won't be saying that after they have been nuked back
>> to the stone age. Come to think of it he won't be saying much at all.
>>
>> What's the first syllable of fuck in arabic?
>
>Persian might be more useful.
I suppose stroking your pussy as you meet your maker might be nice way
to go.
"Ernst Stavro Blofeld"
--