Iran Captures British Sailors

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:

Brad never called for violence against others as far as I know. He approprietely pointed out to put their blood where their mouths are. Don’t be offended and call him names just because he has a different point of view. It’s not doing anyone any good.

Would this maxim be true also in the case of intervening in Darfur? If you think we should stop a genocide, do you have to sign up?

You know, Darfur - where American foreign policy has somehow compelled Islamists to butcher innocent Africans?[/quote]

Boy, the lixys and bradleys of the world are jumping at the opportunity to help out. I bet when the last non-muslim African is dead, we’ll have to listen to these same fucking pukes complain about how we were wasting our time in Iraq while we could have been helping Darfur. While sweden does nothing, morocco does nothing, and bradley keeps voting for guys who want to scrap the military.

[quote]hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Or are you going to claim your a veteran…

Your: Second possessive pronoun
You’re: Contraction of “You are”

Don’t call out military service until you’ve done some. Grow up.

Brad never called for violence against others as far as I know. He approprietely pointed out to put their blood where their mouths are. Don’t be offended and call him names just because he has a different point of view. It’s not doing anyone any good.

Lixy

Piss off. Defelct much?

Why do you think I would let a cyber jihadi define the terms of a discussion?

Lixy = apologist

Is that ok with you and your cell or are you going to issue a fatwa against me?

Since the British were enforcing a UN Resolution what do you think the appropriate response should be…based on your vast politcal and military experience that is?
[/quote]

My guess is that he would consider pissing down our legs and apologizing appropriate.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
John S. wrote:
Why are we not taking these guys out?

“We”?

Sign up, Rambo. They need go-getters like you.

Don’t just stand on the sidelines waving your pom-poms.
[/quote]

Hey jackass im joining the army this summer after school so I can go fight. You bet your ass ill fight against Iran too. Any more shit you want to say?

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
I does?

What?[/quote]

You do…what? ‘I does? What?’ I realize that you’re Belgian but what are you asking?

Do you mean: It does?

If so, it means that the West is behaving exactly as it did in the 1930’s…instead of nipping evil in the bud, it allows it to go full flower. How’d your ancestors like that idea, around about May 1940?

[quote]John S. wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
John S. wrote:
Why are we not taking these guys out?

“We”?

Sign up, Rambo. They need go-getters like you.

Don’t just stand on the sidelines waving your pom-poms.

Hey jackass im joining the army this summer after school so I can go fight. You bet your ass ill fight against Iran too. Any more shit you want to say?
[/quote]

owned

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
John S. wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
John S. wrote:
Why are we not taking these guys out?

“We”?

Sign up, Rambo. They need go-getters like you.

Don’t just stand on the sidelines waving your pom-poms.

Hey jackass im joining the army this summer after school so I can go fight. You bet your ass ill fight against Iran too. Any more shit you want to say?

owned

[/quote]

yep!

[quote]John S. wrote:
Hey jackass im joining the army this summer after school so I can go fight. You bet your ass ill fight against Iran too. Any more shit you want to say?
[/quote]

Sure. “Good luck”.

Make sure to come back and tell everybody what a glorious success the current policy is.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
John S. wrote:
Hey jackass im joining the army this summer after school so I can go fight. You bet your ass ill fight against Iran too. Any more shit you want to say?

Sure. “Good luck”.

Make sure to come back and tell everybody what a glorious success the current policy is.
[/quote]

If you got a problem with it don’t join, sit back and bitch its all good with me.

Oh and I may not agree with all the polocies but the fact is where in Iraq, I may not agree with why we went in there but I think it would be stupid to leave and let the country crash on itself. Oh one more thing Iran is like a little kid who orderd the 24 oz steak, its trying to eat more then its stomach can handle and We should show them what happens.

Stay safe coward.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
John S. wrote:
Hey jackass im joining the army this summer after school so I can go fight. You bet your ass ill fight against Iran too. Any more shit you want to say?

Sure. “Good luck”.

Make sure to come back and tell everybody what a glorious success the current policy is.

If you got a problem with it don’t join, sit back and bitch its all good with me.

Oh and I may not agree with all the polocies but the fact is where in Iraq, I may not agree with why we went in there but I think it would be stupid to leave and let the country crash on itself. Oh one more thing Iran is like a little kid who orderd the 24 oz steak, its trying to eat more then its stomach can handle and We should show them what happens.

Stay safe coward.
[/quote]

Hey I ship out for bootcamp in September and I pretty much agree with everything you said about not agreeing with why we went in but not wanting to leave and let them die. Anyway good luck buddy we’ll be fighting in Tehran soon enough.

This will most likely provoke the response the Iranians are looking for.

From The Sunday TimesMarch 25, 2007

Iran ?to try Britons for espionage?

Uzi Mahnaimi, Michael Smith and David Cracknell

FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran?s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying.

A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.

Referring to them as ?insurgents?, the site concluded: ?If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.?

The warning followed claims by Iranian officials that the British navy personnel had been taken to Tehran, the capital, to explain their ?aggressive action? in entering Iranian waters. British officials insist the servicemen were in Iraqi waters when they were held.

The penalty for espionage in Iran is death. However, similar accusations of spying were made when eight British servicemen were detained in the same area in 2004. They were paraded blindfolded on television but did not appear in court and were freed after three nights in detention.

Iranian student groups called yesterday for the 15 detainees to be held until US forces released five Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq earlier this year.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat, a Saudi-owned newspaper based in London, quoted an Iranian military source as saying that the aim was to trade the Royal Marines and sailors for these Guards.

The claim was backed by other sources in Tehran. ?As soon as the corps?s five members are released, the Britons can go home,? said one source close to the Guards.

He said the tactic had been approved by Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran?s supreme leader, who warned last week that Tehran would take ?illegal actions? if necessary to maintain its right to develop a nuclear programme.

Iran denounced a tightening of sanctions which the United Nations security council was expected to agree last night in protest at Tehran?s insistence on enriching uranium that could be used for nuclear weapons.

Lord Triesman, the Foreign Office minister, met the Iranian ambassador in London yesterday to demand that consular staff be allowed access to the Britons, one of whom is a woman. His intervention came as a senior Iranian general alleged that the Britons had confessed under interrogation to ?aggression into Iran?s waters?.

Intelligence sources said any advance order for the arrests was likely to have come from Major-General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards.

Subhi Sadek, the Guards? weekly newspaper, warned last weekend that the force had ?the ability to capture a bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks?.

Safavi is known to be furious about the recent defections to the West of three senior Guards officers, including a general, and the effect of UN sanctions on his own finances.

A senior Iraqi officer appeared to back Tehran?s claim that the British had entered Iranian waters. ?We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control,? said Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim, who is in charge of Iraq?s territorial waters. ?We don?t know why they were there.?

Admiral Sir Alan West, the former head of the Royal Navy, dismissed suggestions that the British boats might have been in Iranian waters. West, who was first sea lord when the previous arrests took place in June 2004, said satellite tracking systems had shown then that the Iranians were lying and the same was certain to be true now.

[quote]hedo wrote:
This will most likely provoke the response the Iranians are looking for.

Yeah, we’ll just have to see how this plays out. Do the fanatics decide to use this opportunity to really take a shot at “the great satan” or do they just take an at home propaganda victory like last time (doubtful due to the differences in the playing field now). One thing had better be for sure though, the Brits stand by us and we had better stand by them.

They might have to distance themselves from us to try the diplomatic route, but if the shit hits the fan…

[quote]Grimnuruk wrote:
hedo wrote:
This will most likely provoke the response the Iranians are looking for.

Yeah, we’ll just have to see how this plays out. Do the fanatics decide to use this opportunity to really take a shot at “the great satan” or do they just take an at home propaganda victory like last time (doubtful due to the differences in the playing field now). One thing had better be for sure though, the Brits stand by us and we had better stand by them.

They might have to distance themselves from us to try the diplomatic route, but if the shit hits the fan…
[/quote]

yep. If it was a mistake then they should have let them go by now. Announcing that they are going to be held for espionage indicates a unified effort by the government.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Since the British were enforcing a UN Resolution what do you think the appropriate response should be…based on your vast politcal and military experience that is?
[/quote]

I wish I could remember when UN authority was supposed to be recognized and when it was just a useless tool that nobody actually has to abide by.

[quote]hedo wrote:
This will most likely provoke the response the Iranians are looking for.

[/quote]

The response the IRANIANS are looking for? Right.

Wow. I’m hearing a lot of warmongering.

Y’know, it is possible to discuss these issues, be against various happenings, and so forth, without coming across like someone in the throws of bloodlust.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
hedo wrote:
This will most likely provoke the response the Iranians are looking for.

The response the IRANIANS are looking for? Right.

Maybe the British staged the capture of the sailors and pretended the Iranians did it…right, it’s a conspiracy!

Hedo,

The iranians seem hell-bent on pushing our buttons.

If the English have to use force, the U.S. will stand by them.

We have no stronger ally.

When the code-pinkers, bradley, tme, pox, and the rest of the cabal protest this one, I’ll join my first counter-protest.

On a secondary note, I laughed out loud when bradley/lumpy/100meters was embarrassed earlier in this thread. Nice work.

JeffR

[quote]hedo wrote:
Maybe the British staged the capture of the sailors and pretended the Iranians did it…right, it’s a conspiracy!
[/quote]

Hasn’t it always been? Or do you just PRETEND not know military history or strategy?

“War is a Racket”
by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935

[i]"…A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes…

So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side… it is His will that the Germans be killed.

And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies… to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.

Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the “war to end all wars.” This was the “war to make the world safe for democracy.” No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits.

http://www.playboy.com/magazine/features/lockheed/

No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a “glorious adventure.”…

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don’t shout that “We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation.” Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001847953_ndig31.html

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/19/world/main2280067.shtml

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon’s shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles…

When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a “war to make the world safe for democracy” and a “war to end all wars…”[/i]
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Besides a whole new generation of fools–things are still pretty much the same.

But then I suppose there are still quite a few people baffled by the ol’ “quarter behind the ear trick” too…

[quote]John S. wrote:
If you got a problem with it don’t join, sit back and bitch its all good with me.

Stay safe coward.
[/quote]

Oh, ouch!

Enjoy your final months of high school, tough guy. Maybe you can take JeffR with you, if he’s not too busy protecting the internet from Liberals.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
John S. wrote:
If you got a problem with it don’t join, sit back and bitch its all good with me.

Stay safe coward.

Oh, ouch!

Enjoy your final months of high school, tough guy. Maybe you can take JeffR with you, if he’s not too busy protecting the internet from Liberals.
[/quote]

Actually its my first semester of college. And Im not the one who came in here critizing the army, Im the one who is going to do something while you sit around and bitch, please dont respond anymore, you continue to prove you are retarded. as always stay safe.