http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/311780,brit032407.article

Quote :

"Iran insists British sailors were in its water, denounces 'blatant aggression' March 24, 2007 BY ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press TEHRAN, Iran---- The Iranian military questioned 15 detained British soldiers Saturday and said they confessed to illegally entering the country's territorial waters as Iran accused Britain of ''blatant aggression.'' Britain has demanded the return of the sailors and denied they had strayed into Iranian waters while searching for smugglers off Iraq's coast. The eight Royal Navy sailors and seven Royal Marines were brought to Tehran for questioning, and a a top military official, Gen. Ali Reza Afshar, said they ''confessed to illegal entry into Iran's waters.'' ''The said personnel are being interrogated and have confessed to aggression into the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters,'' Afshar was quoted as saying by the state news agency IRNA and the semiofficial ISNA news agency. He did not say what would now be done with the sailors."

I know, I know...you guys can't trust this "confession." And I, too, have my doubts as to whether statements or any kind of "confession" under circumstances such as this (whether it was U.S./British soldiers captured or Iraqi/Iranian soldiers captured) can be trusted because the captives will say whatever they think their interrogators/holders want to hear.

But then some of you guys have no problem trusting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's so-called "confession" to nearly every terrorist plot in the last 2 decades, EVEN WHEN THE U.S. ADMITTED TO TORTURING HIM!

But don't worry about these blatant double standards. Just go on believing whatever the governnment tells you.



[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 6:52 AM. Reason : 1]

3/30/2007 6:50:07 AM

^ Both confessions you speak of should be discounted as happening under duress, and both are outright violations of the Geneva conventions and basic human rights...

Incidentally, that has nothing to do with zionism in this particular instance, sorry fella.

3/30/2007 6:56:24 AM

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/1054

Quote :

"Brits in the Gulf and a Doctored British Map? 03.28.2007 Barry Lando / Craig Murray Former British Ambassador Craig Murray is now challenging the legitimacy of the map just published by the British government in the current dispute with Iran over those 15 captured British sailors and marines. [...] "The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker. "But there are two colossal problems. "A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force. "B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one. "None of which changes the fact that the Iranians, having made their point, should have handed back the captives immediately. I pray they do so before this thing spirals out of control. But by producing a fake map of the Iran/Iraq boundary, notably unfavourable to Iran, we can only harden the Iranian position." [...] But the point is, as Craig Murray, points out, how can such a map exist if the subject of boundaries has never been settled between Iraq and Iran?"

3/30/2007 7:04:27 AM

^it was only a matter of time before he came out and said the map was wrong...

3/30/2007 7:42:01 AM

^^ Even if the map was wrong, it doesn't make the actions justified or legal.

3/30/2007 7:50:44 AM

Plus...if no boundaries exist...how can Iran claim that they were violating it?

3/30/2007 8:13:01 AM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/300307bordermap.htm

Quote :

"In claiming HMS Cornwall was within Iraqi territorial waters, the British government and the media have covered-up the fact there is no agreed upon Iraqi-Iranian maritime border, as other bizarre coincidences and dubious circumstances surrounding the hostage crisis begin to emerge. [...] As becomes obvious from looking at the map, taking the equidistant measurement from the Iraqi and Iranian coastlines, the ship is clearly within Iranian territory."

map: http://www.moonofalabama.org/images/msmap1.jpg

Quote :

"Even if you dismiss judging territorial water boundaries by the method detailed above, the fact is that the media parroted carte blanche the British government's version, without even pointing out that there is no recognized and agreed upon Gulf water boundary between Iraq and Iran. Other highly suspicious circumstances surrounding the hostage crisis have also begun to emerge. During a BBC Newsnight feature story, it was demonstrated that the Iranian footage of the capture of the British sailors was in large part likely faked and the commentators all but suggested the entire incident was staged or at least constituted "gross negligence" on behalf of the British. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_4670000/newsid_4679900/4679986.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm

3/30/2007 8:38:09 AM

Theres no boundaries...how can you possibly justify Iran?

HOW SALIS?!?!?! HOW?!?!?!

3/30/2007 8:42:13 AM

That's awesome! The borderline takes a sharp turn south as soon as it hits water...

Right.

3/30/2007 8:42:17 AM

Quote :

"That's awesome! The borderline takes a sharp turn south as soon as it hits water... "

Water boundaries have been traditionally determined by drawing a line perpedicular to the coast from the point of the land boundary intersection with the coast.





[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 9:09 AM. Reason : 2]

3/30/2007 8:59:34 AM

So you have abandoned the argument that there is no actual boundary??

is that correct?

3/30/2007 9:00:41 AM

I haven't abandoned anything.

3/30/2007 9:01:47 AM

So there is no border right??

3/30/2007 9:03:46 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6505453.stm

Quote :

"Iran offers UK access to sailors Thursday, 29 March 2007 Iran has offered to let UK officials visit the 15 Royal Navy personnel who were captured in the Gulf on Friday. Iran's foreign minister also said the only woman being held, Faye Turney, who has been interviewed on Iranian state television, could be released."

That's more than the U.S. does with the "enemy combatants" it has captured...which are taken to Gitmo and secret CIA-run prisons where they are tortured. But yeah, Iran is "super duper evil" because the U.S. government & media says so. And we are blameless.



[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 9:07 AM. Reason : 1]

3/30/2007 9:06:43 AM

Quote :

"So there is no border right??"

3/30/2007 9:07:21 AM

the border must be agreed upon b/w Iran and Iraq, which apparantly has not been done

3/30/2007 9:08:01 AM

right...so theres not a border right??

seriously dude....yes or no...is there a border?

Come on man...i know you are researching another article to post right now....just say yes or no....is there a border?

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 9:12 AM. Reason : asdf]

3/30/2007 9:08:18 AM

There is no boundary technically b/c it hasn't been settled b/w Iran and Iraq. But if a boundary were to be fixed according to traditional standards, then the British were in Iranian waters.


Now...if you're agreeing that there is technically no border, then what do you have to say about the U.S./U.K. governments and the Western Media deceiving the public by pretending as if there were an established border??

3/30/2007 9:14:12 AM

oh man....the UK is way out of line here....no doubt about it...there are no borders

now will you say that Iran is way out of line too?? will you admit that they are wrong here??

3/30/2007 9:15:28 AM

i agree with salisburyboy

3/30/2007 9:17:04 AM

Quote :

"now will you say that Iran is way out of line too?? will you admit that they are wrong here??"

If the British are in Iranian waters, then certainly not. They have the right to detain those illegally in their waters.

And if you take the British admission as to their location, they were closer to the Iranian shore than the Iraqi shore. And based upon traditional water boundaries, the location was in Iranian waters. The only issue that muddies the waters is that a boundary technically doesn't exist because it is still disputed b/w Iran and Iraq.

3/30/2007 9:19:09 AM

No salis...we have just agreed that there are no borders....and that the UK is wrong for telling everyone there is...

HOW CAN YOU STILL DEFEND IRAN?!?! THERE ARE NO BORDERS

come on man...we just agreed...theres no borders...you said so yourself....you actually went to the trouble of proving there are no borders...how you defend iran? ... they are out of line just as much as the UK is...

Quote :

" If the British are in Iranian waters, then certainly not. They have the right to detain those illegally in their waters. "

this doesnt matter dude...they have never agreed on boundaries...you said so yourself...the UK is so evil for lying to us about that...damn them....will you admit that iran is wrong for doing the same thing??

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 9:24 AM. Reason : asdf]

3/30/2007 9:20:08 AM

Quote :

"HOW CAN YOU STILL DEFEND IRAN?!?! THERE ARE NO BORDERS "

Setting aside the technical issue of the water boundary, Iran has damn good reason to be suspicious of U.S. or U.K. military activities. The events of the past few years clearly demonstrate that the US & Israel are pushing for confrontation with Iran (with lies about Iran's nuclear program, etc). The Iranians see what was done to Iraq (ie, lies about a "WMD threat" as the pretext for an invasion, bloody occupation, and virtual destruction of Iraq), and they rightly are guarding against the same being done to them.

3/30/2007 9:26:39 AM

Quote :

"Iran has damn good reason to be suspicious of U.S. or U.K. military activities"

lol salisburyboy thinks everybody has a good reason to be suspicious about everything

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 9:28 AM. Reason : .]

3/30/2007 9:27:08 AM

none of that is relevant....sure that can be suspicious...but

they were not tresspassing...there are no boundaries...they did nothing illegal or wrong or anything to warrant being captured...

ais Iran holding the sailors wrongfully and illegally??

Yes or no Salis??

will you at least admit that Iran is lying to us about them being in Iranian water? I mean, surely Iran must know that there are no actual boundaries. How can they claim there are!!?? they are lying?

will you at least admit that iran is lying about the boundaries??

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 9:30 AM. Reason : asdf]

3/30/2007 9:28:42 AM

Quote :

"ais Iran holding the sailors wrongfully and illegally?? Yes or no Salis??"

No. Considering all the circumstances, not in my judgement.

That said, I hope that the 15 sailors are treated humanely (certainly better than the U.S. treats muslim captives). And I hope the issue can be resolved as quickly as possible, with the captives returned and no military confrontation ensuing.

3/30/2007 9:31:59 AM

Regardless of whether or not they have the right to detain them, they do not have the right to question them. Nor to parade them around on the news as they have. Even if they were in Iranian waters. And the fact that they were in uniform disallows the espionage charges.

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 9:34 AM. Reason : .]

3/30/2007 9:33:25 AM

3/30/2007 9:34:04 AM

wow dude...just wow....

you are willing to defend Iran till the death and condemn the UK at the drop of a hat...

i just tried for 30 min to get you to admit that iran was wrong about something...anything....anything at all...i even tried to argue some BS point that you made yourself...and you still wouldnt do it...

everyone saw that...everyone saw that you are utterly full of crap....i just showed them all

you are unbelievable...

thats all i got

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 9:34 AM. Reason : asdf]

3/30/2007 9:34:17 AM

I am waiting on it dude...how are you going to justify this??

3/30/2007 9:38:16 AM

come on man....

im waiting??

3/30/2007 9:41:33 AM

I'm not saying Iran is perfect. I'm just saying that in this instance I believe they are in the right.

3/30/2007 9:42:05 AM

^ and to this?

Quote :

"Regardless of whether or not they have the right to detain them, they do not have the right to question them. Nor to parade them around on the news as they have. Even if they were in Iranian waters. And the fact that they were in uniform disallows the espionage charges."

3/30/2007 9:42:42 AM

Quote :

"Regardless of whether or not they have the right to detain them, they do not have the right to question them."

Does this standard apply to muslim captives held by the U.S.?? I guess it's ok not only for us to question them, but to also torture them.

3/30/2007 9:44:14 AM

Right....WELL EVERYONE JUST SAW THAT.



^no...it doesnt...the US is wrong for questioning then...dead wrong

is iran wrong too??

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 9:44 AM. Reason : adsf]

3/30/2007 9:44:18 AM

Quote :

"is iran wrong too??"

I don't think it's wrong to simply question prisoners.

But it is wrong, obviously, to abuse and torture prisoners in order to force information out of them (as the US has admitted to doing).

3/30/2007 9:49:43 AM

Quote :

"no...it doesnt...the US is wrong for questioning then...dead wrong"

Per my above message:

Quote :

"Both confessions you speak of should be discounted as happening under duress, and both are outright violations of the Geneva conventions and basic human rights..."

3/30/2007 9:50:27 AM

UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS YOU CAN ONLY ASK FOR NAME RANK AND SERIAL NUMBER.

Any questioning beyond that is illegal.

3/30/2007 9:51:40 AM

Quote :

"UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS YOU CAN ONLY ASK FOR NAME RANK AND SERIAL NUMBER."

YOU SEE SALIS?? YOU SEE HOW WRONG THE US IS?? we are all going to hell for the trangressions of the neocons..

will you admit that what Iran is doing is illegal and wrong too??

or are you willing to set aside the geneva conventions when its convenient?

huh??

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 9:59 AM. Reason : asdf]

3/30/2007 9:52:57 AM

Quote :

"or are you willing to set aside the geneva conventions when its convenient? "

When I said that it was ok to simply question detainees, I wasn't basing that on the Geneva convention or any other standard, but rather upon my own perception of what would be acceptable.

That said, obviously different countries have different standards on questioning detainees, based upon whether or not they've ratified certain treaties, etc.

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 10:07 AM. Reason : 1]

3/30/2007 10:02:18 AM

^ [/thread]

3/30/2007 10:03:38 AM

EVERYONE

So basically, the point of this absurd little excercise has been to see if I could get Salis to admit that Iran (or anyone who is not a neco satanist) ever does anything wrong.

WE HAVE LEARNED THAT SALIS IS NOT WILLING TO BE CRITICAL OF ANYONE THAT HE SUPPORTS. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT WE HAVE ALSO LEARNED THAT HE IS WILLING TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY WHEN THOSE HE SUPPORTS DO THE SAME THINGS THATS THOSE HE HATES DO. AND HE WILL JUSTIFY IT ANY WAY HE CAN

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 10:06 AM. Reason : adsf]

3/30/2007 10:05:56 AM

I thought the greater truth was that since there is not one standard by which every nation on Earth relies... that there cannot be any such rules and it really doesn't matter what any nation does to any other nations citizens when they're not on home soil.

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 10:11 AM. Reason : .]

3/30/2007 10:10:31 AM

Quote :

"WE HAVE LEARNED THAT SALIS IS NOT WILLING TO BE CRITICAL OF ANYONE THAT HE SUPPORTS."

That's absurd. I'll criticize anyone who deserves it. And, for example, I could think of many things to be critical of regarding Iran.

Quote :

"NOT ONLY THAT, BUT WE HAVE ALSO LEARNED THAT HE IS WILLING TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY WHEN THOSE HE SUPPORTS DO THE SAME THINGS THATS THOSE HE HATES DO."

I don't criticize the U.S. for simply questioning detainees. I criticize them for TORTURING detainees. And I would criticize ANYONE who tortures prisoners.

What a joke.

3/30/2007 10:12:24 AM

Quote :

"What a joke."

indeed

3/30/2007 10:13:14 AM

Quote :

"And I would criticize ANYONE who tortures prisoners"

except iran

3/30/2007 10:13:57 AM

no, including Iran

3/30/2007 10:15:33 AM

no, not including iran

3/30/2007 10:16:39 AM

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1908.shtml

Quote :

"Is UK-Iran marine incident part of larger war provocation plan? By Larry Chin Online Journal Associate Editor Mar 30, 2007, 01:05 The Bush administration and its allies (notably the UK and Israel governments) have been planning to attack Iran as early as spring 2007. It is not surprising that yet another fabricated pretext is being used to set it up. Were the 15 British sailors who were captured and detained by Iran involved in a criminal espionage operation, in Iranian waters, in the process of setting up a Gulf of Tonkin-style pretext for war? Or were they captured by Iranian forces in Iraqi waters (as claimed by London), as a defensive political maneuver, in response to American and British covert provocations that have been ongoing for months, and continuing to escalate? While Western media coverage has done little beyond echo and embellish Tony Blair’s immediate shrieking and bellicose assertions (“there was no justification whatsoever . . . completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal”), and the predictable Bush administration support for Blair (the White House “fully backs Tony Blair and our allies in Britain”), and the impending political onslaught against Tehran, little if any analysis has been devoted to the context of what has led up to this incident. [...]"

3/30/2007 10:21:44 AM

Salisburyboy... The next Matt Drudge?

3/30/2007 10:30:50 AM