The term Semite refers broadly to speakers of a language group which includes both Arabs and Jews.
Start of war? 15 Royal Marines and sailors seized by Iranians
- Thread starter CBC News
- Start date
The term Semite refers broadly to speakers of a language group which includes both Arabs and Jews.
HAHAHAHAAHAAA, who wants to extermite someones??
-Millions of peoples can't even go back to palestine
-the whole lebanon was almost completly destroyed for 2 kidnapped soldier
-afganisthan is getting worst and worst, and very worst than before the invasion.
-iraq, i don't even need to add anything.
what iran did in the last 20 years?
nothing at all.
what us and the whole coalition of ignorant did?
i will need the entire day, to write down what they did.....
They did beat a Canadian reporter to death for taking pictures of a prison and then lied about what really happened for months, claiming she died of a stroke.
Do you have a link, I haven't heard about this before?
Do we allow foreign reporters to photograph our prisons?
MikeyDB, THAT is a good suggestion- tho even funnier would be setting up a prison in Cuba and just keeping them there indefinitely- perhaps by labelling them "enemy combatants" they could get around the Geneva Conventions on Treatment of POWs..... there's no lack of good ideas out there!!!
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2543
Iran announced today that it would release immediately the 15 British soldiers and marines it took hostage last week to avoid further “cordial pressure and devastating pleasantries” from British Prime Minister Tony Blair. “In this test of wills,” said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “we acknowledge the superior power of the adversary. We cannot withstand another onslaught of polite diplomatic language nor the withering, if unspoken, consternation we detect in the eyes of Tony Blair.”
:smile:
:smile:
HAHAHA i LOVE his language!
on a more serious note maybe this is Iran trying to show it isnt a threat? Even in an (admittedly self-created) serious situation?
Were there injuries and other deaths also in that student protest? I originally thought she was taken into custody for taking photo's of the prison itself.
Doesn't sound like a pleasant way to go.
Any other Canadians 'gone missing' in the last few years?
Herm, I believe you've made a funny. It's not as apparent as you would like to believe which of us is more inclined to believe common conspiracy theorys, for instance the popularly mislabled 9/11 conspiracy theory of building destructions. The official story dosn't hold water in so many ways, particularly the physics is not supported in any way by that official story. Like many people you are not approaching the subject with the scientific detachment necessary to arrive at any objective conclusions. Even the obvious video evidence clearly indicates that the aircraft that struck the towers were not the same make or model of aircraft reportedly hijacked. No collapse of similar buildings has ever happened, and no building (wtc7) has ever collapsed in sympathy. If you examine just the coincidental evidence of that day you have a seris of miraculous events that simply could not have occured. In conclusion it's clearly not me that has a problem with conspiracy theories.You are not alone in being unable to objectively examine the evidence.:smile:
mayeb you're right DB, maybe you're right. I've said many times before, this kind of thing is impossible to know anything about, you have crazies and puppets giving all the info. I just think that the simplest answer is more likely to be correct. And to me plane hits building, building collapses, is easily the simplest explanation. As for the details I just don't know enough about steel, planes, and architecture.
Was it not Iran who started the whole thing by illegally taking British sailors?
What do you expect the British to do? Stand back and do nothing as Canada would in this situation?
#
What's the Iraq War got to do with it?
The Iranians stole British sailors from Iraqi waters. The British were breaking no laws being there as they were there under a UN resolution. Iran stole British sailors from Iraqi waters when the British were doing nothing to the Iranians whatsoever. How do you expect the British to react? Just ignore it and let innocent soldiers be tortured in Iran or, as they should do, treat it as an act of war by Iran against Britain? The British have the French, Germans, Americans, the EU and the UN on their side, so people like you are in the wrong and in the minority.
No, what is funny is you somehow being surprise that someone can find the Iranians idiotic for ILLEGALLY stealing British sailors in Iraqi waters.
What if it was Canadian sailors that Iran took in this situation? Would you still suck up to a tyrranical regime who wouldn't mind having every Canadian dead?
Blair warns Iran over captured sailors
By Richard Holt and Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor
27/03/2007
Britain's position received support from other European Union countries yesterday. President Jacques Chirac of France said Britain had the "complete solidarity" of all EU leaders over the sailors.
"It seems clear they were not in the Iranian zone at the time," he said.
The German presidency of the EU issued a statement calling for their immediate release.
Tony Blair has warned of a "different phase" if diplomatic efforts fail to secure the release of the 15 British service personnel held captive in Iran.
Faye Turney is among the 15 captured sailors and Marines
"I hope we manage to get [Iran] to realise they have to release them," Mr Blair said today in an interview with GMTV.
"If not, then this will move into a different phase."
The Prime Minister spoke as the US navy began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack manoeuvres off the coast of Iran.
Asked about what he meant by a "different phase", Mr Blair said: "Well, we will just have to see, but what they should understand is that we cannot have a situation where our servicemen and women are seized when actually they are in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate, patrolling perfectly rightly and in accordance with that mandate, and then effectively captured and taken to Iran."
Mr Blair's warning came as the family of one of the service personnel spoke of the "very distressing time" they are going through.
Faye Turney, 26, who has a three-year-old daughter, was the only woman among the British sailors and Marines captured last Friday
Mrs Turney, whose maiden name was Boswell, married in 2002 in Oxon, Shropshire.
A statement issued by the Ministry of Defence on behalf of her family said: "While we understand the media interest in the ongoing incident involving Faye, this remains a very distressing time for us and our family.
"We are grateful for the support shown to us by all personnel involved and appreciate it, but would request that our privacy is respected."
The personnel were captured in the Shatt al-Arab waterway as the British were checking a ship suspected of illegal smuggling. The British are in the Shatt-al-Arab waterway with the blessing of a UN resolution
Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, said Britain was doing "everything possible" to secure the release of the 14 men and Mrs Turney, who were described as "fit and well" by Iranian officials.
Iran said they had not been taken as pawns to be used in exchange for five Iranians held in Iraq. But four days after the Marines and sailors were taken at gunpoint, the Government admitted it had no idea where they were.
Kevin Aandahl, a US Navy Cmdr, said the American show of force this morning was not organised in response to the capture of the Britons, nor was it intended to threaten the Islamic republic, and he said the US warships would stay out of Iranian territorial waters.
Some reports suggested the captured Britons were being held in Teheran. Naval Revolutionary Guards units seized the sailors and Marines a day before the United Nations imposed sanctions on Iran over its disputed atomic programme.
The eight sailors and seven Marines from the Type 22 frigate Cornwall were carrying out a routine search of a vessel suspected of smuggling.
Questions were asked in the House of Commons yesterday about whether Britain's rules of engagement in Iraq prevented the heavily-armed HMS Cornwall from opening fire on the Iranians.
Adam Ingram, the Defence Minister, said: "There is too much speculation about what happened and what did not happen."
---------------------------------------------------------
Best course is to be patient but determined
By Sir Andrew Green
27/03/2007
Analysis
Let us hope that the captured British Servicemen do not turn into hostages.
Hostage problems are among the most difficult that the Foreign Office has to deal with. The very word conjures up strong emotions of sympathy for the victims and distaste for the hostage takers. Public interest is always intense. Yet the resultant glare of publicity makes a solution all the more difficult to find.
The more publicity there is, the more valuable the hostages become to the hostage takers and the less willing they are to release them. But silence is not an option when public opinion is so deeply engaged.
The taking of the hostages is almost certainly a Revolutionary Guard operation. It can hardly be a mistake. Six boat loads of Revolutionary Guards must have been there for a purpose. And the fact that an Iranian ship had just been searched would explain how they located the naval search party. Yet, as is always the case in Iran, it is hard to be sure exactly who is giving the orders. The lines of authority in Iran are almost unintelligible to outsiders but it is a fair bet that, whoever had the idea in the first place, it has now been adopted by the Iranian government.
Clearly they wish to embarrass the British government and to undermine the morale of British forces in the Gulf. They also wish to demonstrate that Iran is not a country to be trifled with. They also might be looking for some bargaining chips.
Five of their own nationals have been arrested and detained by the Americans in Iraq.
It would not be a surprise if the Iranians were to try to link the two issues.
British policy must be to decline to make concessions. To do so is simply to encourage the taking of other British citizens as hostages in the future.
We stuck to this line in Lebanon in the late 1980s when British hostages were taken by terrorist groups with links to Iran. Eventually, the hostage takers decided that there was more to be gained by releasing them than from holding them. As it happens, they were each handed over to me, by the Syrians, when I was ambassador in Damascus.
Those who had attracted the least public interest were released first - presumably because they were regarded as the least valuable. In this case all those concerned are serving members of the Armed Forces so there is little to distinguish them from each other. It may prove to be a case of one out, all out.
It is especially important not to inflate the situation. That would be to play into the hands of extremists in Iran who recall only too well their capture of the American embassy in Teheran after the Shah was overthrown in 1979. That situation dragged on for 18 months.
Threats will not help. The answer lies in patient diplomacy. The Iranians have to be persuaded that it is not in their longer term interests to continue with this.
Private representations from friends would help, especially if they have a working relationship with Iran. The EU is an obvious possibility while Germany has a special historical and political relationship with Iran. Russia might be a better bet. China is important but unlikely to engage. Perhaps the Iraqi government has a line to Teheran that could be helpful? The Americans are, of course, a red rag to a bull.
Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretary is on a hiding to nothing. She will be accused of weakness and inactivity but, difficult though it is, she will have to be careful and patient, but determined.
Sir Andrew Green is the former ambassador to Syria and Saudi Arabia
telegraph.co.uk
By Richard Holt and Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor
27/03/2007
Britain's position received support from other European Union countries yesterday. President Jacques Chirac of France said Britain had the "complete solidarity" of all EU leaders over the sailors.
"It seems clear they were not in the Iranian zone at the time," he said.
The German presidency of the EU issued a statement calling for their immediate release.
Tony Blair has warned of a "different phase" if diplomatic efforts fail to secure the release of the 15 British service personnel held captive in Iran.
Faye Turney is among the 15 captured sailors and Marines
"I hope we manage to get [Iran] to realise they have to release them," Mr Blair said today in an interview with GMTV.
"If not, then this will move into a different phase."
The Prime Minister spoke as the US navy began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack manoeuvres off the coast of Iran.
Asked about what he meant by a "different phase", Mr Blair said: "Well, we will just have to see, but what they should understand is that we cannot have a situation where our servicemen and women are seized when actually they are in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate, patrolling perfectly rightly and in accordance with that mandate, and then effectively captured and taken to Iran."
Mr Blair's warning came as the family of one of the service personnel spoke of the "very distressing time" they are going through.
Faye Turney, 26, who has a three-year-old daughter, was the only woman among the British sailors and Marines captured last Friday
Mrs Turney, whose maiden name was Boswell, married in 2002 in Oxon, Shropshire.
A statement issued by the Ministry of Defence on behalf of her family said: "While we understand the media interest in the ongoing incident involving Faye, this remains a very distressing time for us and our family.
"We are grateful for the support shown to us by all personnel involved and appreciate it, but would request that our privacy is respected."
The personnel were captured in the Shatt al-Arab waterway as the British were checking a ship suspected of illegal smuggling. The British are in the Shatt-al-Arab waterway with the blessing of a UN resolution
Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, said Britain was doing "everything possible" to secure the release of the 14 men and Mrs Turney, who were described as "fit and well" by Iranian officials.
Iran said they had not been taken as pawns to be used in exchange for five Iranians held in Iraq. But four days after the Marines and sailors were taken at gunpoint, the Government admitted it had no idea where they were.
Kevin Aandahl, a US Navy Cmdr, said the American show of force this morning was not organised in response to the capture of the Britons, nor was it intended to threaten the Islamic republic, and he said the US warships would stay out of Iranian territorial waters.
Some reports suggested the captured Britons were being held in Teheran. Naval Revolutionary Guards units seized the sailors and Marines a day before the United Nations imposed sanctions on Iran over its disputed atomic programme.
The eight sailors and seven Marines from the Type 22 frigate Cornwall were carrying out a routine search of a vessel suspected of smuggling.
Questions were asked in the House of Commons yesterday about whether Britain's rules of engagement in Iraq prevented the heavily-armed HMS Cornwall from opening fire on the Iranians.
Adam Ingram, the Defence Minister, said: "There is too much speculation about what happened and what did not happen."
---------------------------------------------------------
Best course is to be patient but determined
By Sir Andrew Green
27/03/2007
Analysis
Let us hope that the captured British Servicemen do not turn into hostages.
Hostage problems are among the most difficult that the Foreign Office has to deal with. The very word conjures up strong emotions of sympathy for the victims and distaste for the hostage takers. Public interest is always intense. Yet the resultant glare of publicity makes a solution all the more difficult to find.
The more publicity there is, the more valuable the hostages become to the hostage takers and the less willing they are to release them. But silence is not an option when public opinion is so deeply engaged.
The taking of the hostages is almost certainly a Revolutionary Guard operation. It can hardly be a mistake. Six boat loads of Revolutionary Guards must have been there for a purpose. And the fact that an Iranian ship had just been searched would explain how they located the naval search party. Yet, as is always the case in Iran, it is hard to be sure exactly who is giving the orders. The lines of authority in Iran are almost unintelligible to outsiders but it is a fair bet that, whoever had the idea in the first place, it has now been adopted by the Iranian government.
Clearly they wish to embarrass the British government and to undermine the morale of British forces in the Gulf. They also wish to demonstrate that Iran is not a country to be trifled with. They also might be looking for some bargaining chips.
Five of their own nationals have been arrested and detained by the Americans in Iraq.
It would not be a surprise if the Iranians were to try to link the two issues.
British policy must be to decline to make concessions. To do so is simply to encourage the taking of other British citizens as hostages in the future.
We stuck to this line in Lebanon in the late 1980s when British hostages were taken by terrorist groups with links to Iran. Eventually, the hostage takers decided that there was more to be gained by releasing them than from holding them. As it happens, they were each handed over to me, by the Syrians, when I was ambassador in Damascus.
Those who had attracted the least public interest were released first - presumably because they were regarded as the least valuable. In this case all those concerned are serving members of the Armed Forces so there is little to distinguish them from each other. It may prove to be a case of one out, all out.
It is especially important not to inflate the situation. That would be to play into the hands of extremists in Iran who recall only too well their capture of the American embassy in Teheran after the Shah was overthrown in 1979. That situation dragged on for 18 months.
Threats will not help. The answer lies in patient diplomacy. The Iranians have to be persuaded that it is not in their longer term interests to continue with this.
Private representations from friends would help, especially if they have a working relationship with Iran. The EU is an obvious possibility while Germany has a special historical and political relationship with Iran. Russia might be a better bet. China is important but unlikely to engage. Perhaps the Iraqi government has a line to Teheran that could be helpful? The Americans are, of course, a red rag to a bull.
Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretary is on a hiding to nothing. She will be accused of weakness and inactivity but, difficult though it is, she will have to be careful and patient, but determined.
Sir Andrew Green is the former ambassador to Syria and Saudi Arabia
telegraph.co.uk
Last edited:
That's doesn't surprise me about the Left-Wing Guardian.
The Guardian is so Left-Wing, anti-war, anti-white male, politically correct, pro-Islamlofascist , pro-Sharia Law, pro-Irish Republican that in Britain anyone who appears to be a Left-Wing, liberal, soppy, politically correct person is automatically labelled a "Guardianista."
A Guardianista is a Left-Wing, hand-wringing liberal who worries about melting polar ice-caps who wears T-shirts saying "Save The Vegetarian Whales From Global Warming" whilst reading the Guardian or Independent which are both made of recycled paper whilst listening to a BBC reports about the "benefits" of the EU whilst drinking coffee made from environmentally-friendly beans in a cup made of splinter-free sustainable wood and who eats tofu.
There are quite a few Guardianistas on this thread.
That's quite the rant there Blackleaf, does the Sun pay you to spam message boards with that crap?
And you are tryping to make me believe we should blindly believe the British! A government that was too stupid to think for themselves and joined in an unjustiied war in Iraq! Didn't the British secret service supply some false information to Bush and his gang that helped in the start of the war?
You are critizing Canada for not joining, what is that all about, just because they were moorons doesn't mean we have to follow. What you cannot digest is that we said NO to the US and thank God we did.
Israel and the US have been spoiling for a fight with Iran for a long time and one of these days they will get it.
Britain is taking the diplomatic way which is were you are supposed to begin. If they were absolutely sure, and could prove that their soldiers were in Iraqi waters they would have gone in immediately and in secret with a raiding party to recue them.
Canada will fight in the wars it believes in and will not be bullied in those it does not!!!