What is Digg?86 Comments
- manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -12/+40A few thoughts here:
1. "the capture of the sailors was kidnapping"
No, it was an act of war. Kidnapping is a crime. These Sailors and Royal Marines were in Iraqi waters conducting operations approved by the Iraqi government and blessed off by the UN...as if that last part really means anything. Seizure of military personnel by force of arms under such conditions is an act of war.
2. "Can we claim the moral high ground here?"
Really, I don't care. In the age of Information Operations, "moral high ground" is essentially a matter of who has the better PR machine. As our national media seems to often be a willing part of Iran's PR machine (or anyone else opposed to US policy), we don't stand much of a chance winning those debates. What's important is that our leadership identifies problems and deals with them.
3. "Simulated execution IS a form of torture, mental/emotional torture - but as bad as it is, at least its not physical torture or even worse 'stress positions'"
Are you f*cking kidding? Stress positions worse than simulated executions? Good gracious!
4. "If they were spying, they're allowed to be detained"
This one is just ridiculous. If they were 'spying', how was it they couldn't even identify the approaching threat of the IRGC's Navy that took them prisoner. The allegation that the Brits were in Iranian waters is weak. The notion that the Brits were "spying" is risible. They boarded and searched a cargo ship and weren't even aware enough of their surroundings to see the noose tightening. Lastly, Junkyarddawg is right: you can't be a spy if you're in your own nation's uniform and are not trying to conceal your national allegiance.
5. @str3ama: "...if you ask me that sounds a lot like Bush doesn't it? Kidnapping innocent Iraqi families and subjecting them to physical and psychological torture.."
.........yaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn............
Please, share with us what you think you know about "innocent Iraq families" being kidnapped. This I have to hear. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+35@str3ama: You can't legally detain military men, in uniform, from another country, which show up on your territorial waters, even if you suspect them of gathering information. The correct course of action remains: inform them that they're trespassing, and escort them out.
You simply can't be labelled a "spy" if you're in uniform aboard a naval ship flying the flag of another country. - dandan111, on 10/12/2007, -24/+52Ahmadinnejacket, as Fred says, has shown the world that his forces can kidnap British citizens, subject them to brutal psychological tactics to coerce phony confessions, finagle the release of a high-ranking Iranian terror coordinator in Iraq, utterly trash the Geneva conventions and suffer absolutely no consequences.
The UN Security Council summoned its vaunted multilateral greatness to issue a swift statement of sincere uneasiness. The EU, which has pressured Britain to rely on Europeans for mutual defense instead of the US, wouldn't even discuss economic sanctions that might disrupt their holidays. Even NATO was AWOL.
The Iranian Revolution has been in the extortion business ever since it took power. Between the 1979 American embassy crisis in Tehran and the seizure of Israeli soldiers last year by Iran's Hezbollah proxies, there have been more than a hundred other examples. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25@MarkCiccone: There are problems at home, yes. That does not make what Iran did right. I'd hope one can criticize BOTH, not NEITHER.
- SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16@manchu
I'm glad to see people Digging you up. When this Iran hostage situation appeared, I called it an act of war. I got dugg down like crazy. People are realizing that just because America is bad sometimes, it doesn't mean Iran isn't bad too, and more dangerous.
@str3ama
You'd rather have someone blindfold you, line you up against a wall, yell orders, and hear AK-47s being cocked (truly believing you're about to die, mind you) than have to stand with your knees bent until your muscles wear out? Sounds to me like you either never go to the gym, or have no clue what a stress position is. - bruncleubba, on 10/12/2007, -15/+27Go Fred!
- DanThePainter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13>> This can all be traced back to America's worst president ever........>>
Euangelion
Brother Billy would have been a better President. - dwxpub, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20There is no doubt Carter deserves much of the blame: supporting the rise of a democracy over the autocratic Shah(without fully realizing the Islamic undertones) in 78, failing to support the Shah with military force, and dealing horribly with the hostage crisis. Though at least he supported the revolution in order to counter the USSR.
Or if Reagan had dealt with them - even after the hostages were released - things would be different as well. Or, at the bare minimum, not using Iran to fund the Contras. But that doesn't work as well in your philosophy, does it?
And the rabbit story - please, at least be accurate in your slurs. It happened in Spring of 79(after Khomeni returned but before the Revolution), and was driven by media sensation, not the president. - mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20Reagan did deal with the Iranians.
He gave them weapons in exchange for releasing the hostages. - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@"You can't legally detain military men, in uniform, from another country, which show up on your territorial waters, even if you suspect them of gathering information."
China did back in 2001. Remember that? When they forced one of our planes to land and detained the crew.
And of course by legal you have to keep in mind it was legal in China ;) - dwxpub, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19"has shown the world that his forces can kidnap British citizens, subject them to brutal psychological tactics to coerce phony confessions, finagle the release of a high-ranking Iranian terror coordinator in Iraq, utterly trash the Geneva conventions and suffer absolutely no consequences"
And? There are those - primarily on the left - who say that the US has done the same. See Kidnapping that cleric in Italy, Gitmo, - no known prisoner exchange, but could mean it never happened or we don't (and shouldn't) know about it, Extraordinary rendition. Can we claim the moral high ground here?
The UN and the EU were useless in this, as they often are. I'd hope that NATO would have acted differently if there was a different outcome, if for no other reason than they were bound by the agreement. Perhaps the heavy players throughout were told by the British that there were back-channel negations going on? All the reports I've read have said that we were made aware. - DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20He didn't just lement about rabbits....he was attacked by one!!
- Euangelion, on 10/12/2007, -27/+36This can all be traced back to America's worst president ever... Redneck hick Jimmy Carter (oh wait liberals from the south aren't hicks or rednecks). If he had dealt firmly with these savages in 79 we'd be a whole lot better off. Instead he wore sweaters and lamented about UFOs and white rabbits.
- DanThePainter, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17>>.....The Pirates of Teheran comes as close as anything I've heard to accurately describing the ruling clique in Iran. They started off their revolution by kidnapping dozens of Americans in 1979, and either they or their Hezbollah and Hamas proxies have continued doing the same ever since, as well as deliver continual terrorism and destruction. And why not? The West paid the ransom in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan sent arms to the mullahs, and in the 1990s when Europe made a point of trading with the Iranians, and in this decade with this impotent dance around their nuclear program.
Read all of Thompson's post, and ask yourself this: could he have picked a better way to enter the race, as far as the conservative blogosphere is concerned? If Thompson really still had not made the decision to throw his hat in the ring, he would not bother posting at Redstate. It's not a one-off by a Hollywood star, because Redstate is not the Huffington Post. This is a clear indication that he has heard the calls from conservatives and will shortly start working on an exploratory committee.
Watch for more Thompson missives in the next few weeks, and I predict that they will start hitting the broad spectrum of conservative issues: Iraq, taxes, reducing government, and abortion. If we start seeing a variety of essays like that, Fred's running....>>
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009622.php - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@nick111: "because nothing that the Iranians did can possibly compare to the terrible photos of what happens when you get captured by the US"
Now that's horsesh*t, and you should know it. There's a huge difference when the US captures members of an identifiable army on the battlefield and when they capture unlawful combatants. Members of identifiable armies in their uniforms are entitled to full protections under the Geneva Conventions. The un-uniformed insurgents and terrorists don't deserve any Geneva Conventions protections...yet look at the situation the detainees at Gitmo are in: they live better than the guards!
It's this kind of over-the-top rhetoric that destroys the credibility of folks like you, nick111. - otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14wow, this has got to be the most conservative entry on digg ever.
- manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@vertinox
Please don't misunderstand me. Just because I said that Iran's seizing of the Brits was an act of war, that doesn't mean they have to go to war with them. I just wanted to put the situation in the proper perspective. This wasn't a purse-snatching in Anytown, Great Britain. This was Royal Marines and Sailors of the Royal Navy conducting operations approved of by the Host Nation...and approved of by the UN, for whatever that's worth.....seized by a hostile foreign power. Had the Royal Navy had its collective sh*t together, they would have been well justified in blowing the IRGC-Navy vessels out of the water. - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@vertinox: "Secondly... The US created this whole mess back in the 1950's when the CIA deposed their prime minister and installed the Shah."
So, what you're saying is no one is responsible for their actions if they can just reference back to some other wrong-doing or perceived wrong-doing? - Easty, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I'd say it's definitely an interesting read, and I'm a Bush-hating liberal. :)
- manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@laserblazer: "Besides, Reagan bargained with Iran to release the hostages after the election to shame Carter - pure terrorist appeasement (a specialty of modern presidents)."
Please...just for the sake of looking like you have a shred of proof....provide some citation for this. - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@schnuck: "everything about it is illegal in the first place"
Well, then it should be easy for you to demonstrate HOW it is illegal: "tiny but yet importantant detail, no?" - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@DesuKN: "just stay the hell out of Iranian waters/airspace"
How does this advice work if you didn't go into Iranian waters? - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13LOL...only when it comes to confrontations involving actual or potential military force do Libs start worrying about the price of anything.
- AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16113 diggs and not on front page?? on a saturday?
- MarkMcNally, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9What ever happened to pay any price, bare any burden?
Now I'm not saying we should bomb Iran, we should put the screws to them economically and support internal Iranian dissent. - Maninthemiddle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Iranian hard line Islamists have been shouting "death to America" for decades, and began their reign by kidnapping Americans. Don't think that is the way to make friends.
I fear that you misunderstand or are not listening to the stated goals of the ayatollahs - they care little (if at all) for American friendship. - Bridgetown, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Yo, capo....
Come on, now. We could virtually suspend Iran's economy in one day.
They import their gasoline. And they have, what...One refinery? One smart bomb. heh.
It wouldn't even hamper our oil supply, although, they could be in some trouble, regardless of what they've got under the ground.
I could be wrong....or partly wrong...but I know enough that you need not freak out over this.
So, calm down and have a happy Easter~ - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5...........yaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnnnnn.............
So much hysteria, schnuck....hard to gain any credibility that way. - DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Hey! Maybe if little cowards like you (who are unwilling to sacrifice anything for what you believe in) would stop us from drilling out own oil in Alaska and in the Gulf, we wouldn't have to buy 1/4 of our oil from Iran. Imagine that!
- Maninthemiddle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7A difference or two:
Abu Ghraib offenders were brought to trial, demoted, etc., and thoroughly condemned by both political parties, and at all levels of government.
The Iranian kidnappers were glorified and given medals by their president. - NBPetty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I find it ironic that those who so loudly criticized the US, the British and other members of the coalition for "torture" and violations of the Geneva convention seem content to remain silent or marginalize the actions taken by the Iranians with the British troops. These people will lie and say anything to demonize the US or any of the allies of the US.
- Maninthemiddle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Actually - no.
While the left and right can debate forever about the legality of the numerous UN articles and resolutions and their meaning and implied authorizations, it is an officially funded and declared conflict zone - that is reality.
Bringing the "legality" argument into the mix does not make it less so.
Remember - I'm the man in the middle, and not a Bush fanatic - but clearly your argument is driven more by dislike for the war, or Bush, or both, than the reality on the ground. It is a war zone - legalities have little bear on that tiny fact. - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@galacticdoom: "What happened to due process or the constitution for that matter? Who's the hypocrite here? "
LOL...."due process"...."the constitution".....what do those have to do with how US forces in Iraq treat unlawful combatants? They aren't US citizens and they aren't in the US. They have no protections under the US Constitution. However, having been there, I know there is due process for detainees. It's been growing and evolving over the last 4 years. It may not be to the Miranda Warnings level yet... but it's moving in that direction.
So, for your question, "who's the hypocrite here"....I'm at a loss. What hypocrisy do you see? The Geneva Convention...as written...and as ratified by the US.... applies to ZERO detainees captured by US forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Do a little research before you wax all intellectual, would ya. - aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -12/+16Right on the money.
Get in the race Fred - spudlyo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm pretty left leaning, but I try to read both sides of the news. Redstate is so far my favorite conservative blog.
- manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No, not really. In what way do you consider it paradoxical?
- doogiesd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Excellent!
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14It's from a conservative site. If this was another bash bush story, it would be FP.
- andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Mossadegh was appointed to his position by the Majlis after his political opponent, Haj Ali Razmara, was murdered with impunity by radical Islamists. Mossadegh himself was allied with the Iranian communist party and the mullahs. That the assassins went unpunished served to intimidate the Majlis into appointing Mossadegh. Once Mossadegh was in power, he refused to hold elections as required by the constitution. He appointed a radical Ayatollah as speaker of the Majlis, collectivized farming and instituted a system of government land ownership.
- jhendrix58, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11A very noteworthy post. We need Thompson to run.
- Bridgetown, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8I hope you're right! ;)
- manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@sultantravi: "Sounds to me like you either never go to the gym, or have no clue what a stress position is."
Priceless. Well done. - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@"No, it was an act of war. Kidnapping is a crime. "
The DPRK used to kidnap South Korean soldiers all the time on the DMZ (not to mention they even killed a US soldier once) and even captured the crew of one of our ships and it didn't escalate into a full blown war. Of course the fact that Soviets were looming over us with a nuclear threat at the time and technically we never signed a peace agreement with the North Koreans made it a moot point.
Same applies here... Sure a crime is committed and international law has been broken... But what are you going to do about it? Your only option with a rouge nation is to declare war on them and if we did that you can be 100% sure you won't see those soldiers alive ever again.
Not to mention the logistical aspects of another invasion or air campaign. - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8One hopes
- Narkinbarf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I hope Fred Thompson decides to run for President. I will vote for him. I just hope he doesn't choose Gulianni or McCain as running mates.
- manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@dwxpub:
I read the Wikipedia with much interest, all the way down to the end of the third paragraph, that says:
"After 12 years of news reports looking into the alleged conspiracy, both houses of the US Congress held separate inquiries into the issue, and journalists from sources such as Newsweek and The New Republic looked into the charges. Both Congressional inquires, as well as the majority of investigative reports, found the evidence to be insufficient. Nevertheless, several individuals, most notably Lyndon LaRouche, continue to claim otherwise."
Now, if that sounds remotely supportive of the October Surprise conspiracy theory to you, I think we can end this conversation right here. If you hold positions similar to Lyndon LaRouche, I understand why this conspiracy theory is so convincing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche - Maninthemiddle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4While much of what you wrote is absolutely on target, the demonizing of the Shah and his hatred by Iranians has become more than a bit overstated. Having worked with, and friends of numerous Iranians, they have related the same basic experience.
The Shah felt Iran was threatened by two enemies: Communists supported by the Soviet Union, and Islamists led by Khomeini. Against these ruthless enemies, the SAVAK was ruthless, and in some cases quite brutal.
Most Iranians, however, enjoyed an Iran that (though imperfect) was open, capitalistic, educated, and far superior (and far less repressive) than what followed. - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nick111: "Sorry dude, photos speak louder than spin and lies. Legal loopholes don't impress anyone except the guilty - and to the rest of the world this ***** about "illegal combatants" is as transparent as day."
Ok, so show me any pictures of US personnel holding the Soldiers of ANY other uniformed service of any country in the world. Show me those pictures! "Legal loopholes" is a pretty self-serving description of a treaty that demands CERTAIN treatment for CERTAIN people. If you think there's a legal expectation built into the Geneva Conventions for combatants who conceal their identity, don't bear their arms openly, and who don't wear a recognizable symbol on their uniform...you are incorrect. That's not any Geneva Convention ratified by the US. We're obligated to obey the treaties our nation signs...not the treaty you wished it had been. "Transparent as day"? Yes, your ignorance about this issue is transparent as day. - RPaine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2schnuk, Are you serious? ...never mind.
- manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2dandan111 didn't sound even a little sarcastic. why would you ask that?
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is