Iran seizes 15 British troops in Persian Gulf

[Zakariya04]

iceaura



Iranians are Moslems, Yes? they believe in Jihad, Yes? If not Moslem, then what are they? Jihad the route to Paradise, 72 virgins, the Mahdi, the 12 Imam.

If this isn't jihid then what is?

Dear Buffalo,

i hope all is well with you.

i was just wodnering what you understand by the word Jihad?

~~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

 

[nova900]

I think the US would like a war with Iran, both for political and economic reasons. So would Israel, and the British haven't proven themselves reliable where the Middle East is concerned. Why wouldn't all this have a role to play?

Would that not spell political suicide for the present U.S administration?
A lot of Americans seem presently fed up with this b/s war over there in Iraq.

 

[S.A.M.]

Would that not spell political suicide for the present U.S administration?
A lot of Americans seem presently fed up with this b/s war over there in Iraq.

It doesn't matter which party is in administration, the corporations are the ones that pull the strings. Which is why the 15 British troops in Iran are more important than the daily deaths in Iraq.

 

[GeoffP]

And they're ranting on television about the Iranian regime doing things to upset the balance of power in Iraq? After the debacle they participated in for the last 5 years there?

Well, they arguably have a mandate to do so. But let's leave aside the tu tuoque for a moment, Sam: what exact good is Iranian subterfuge doing in Iraq? What material gain do the Iraqis stand to reap from it? The damage of the invasion already being done, what good does it do for Iran to interfere now?

Now if it were Iranian troops near the English channel picked up by a British warship...

Well actually BR has provided you an example of Iranians being caught on the wrong side of a national land border, which is considerably more precise than a sea lane - which, again, no one has provided GPS data for. You pillory Britain for the latter, but give nary a word about the other, which actually preceded this whole latter event. Why is that?

I think the US would like a war with Iran, both for political and economic reasons. So would Israel, and the British haven't proven themselves reliable where the Middle East is concerned. Why wouldn't all this have a role to play?

And Iranian aggression in Iraq...why wouldn't this also have a role to play?

Geoff

 

[spidergoat]

The US has been sending troops covertly into Iran for some time, doing recon on possible targets, nuclear sites, defenses. Apart from that we have been trying to provoke them with the presense of aircraft carriers and wargames. This latest is just another piece of political theater.

It was irresponsible on Britian's part to send troops on such a mission without backup. Going to war with Iran over this would be completely disproportional, also insane. Let Britain deal with the consequences of their bad choices.

 

[S.A.M.]

Well, they arguably have a mandate to do so. But let's leave aside the tu tuoque for a moment, Sam: what exact good is Iranian subterfuge doing in Iraq? What material gain do the Iraqis stand to reap from it? The damage of the invasion already being done, what good does it do for Iran to interfere now?

I think they have considerably more right to interfere than the British considering a strong US military presence in Iraq would be detrimental to their national interests a la Mossadegh and funding of Sunni insurgents by the US? Also considering US support of Saudi Arabia the largest fund raiser for Wahabi terrorists worldwide?

Well actually BR has provided you an example of Iranians being caught on the wrong side of a national land border, which is considerably more precise than a sea lane - which, again, no one has provided GPS data for. You pillory Britain for the latter, but give nary a word about the other, which actually preceded this whole latter event. Why is that?

Does it say anywhere that the Iranians were in their own consulate for any nefarious reasons? Have they proved any case against the illegally held Iranians captured from their own consulate? Did he enter the country illegally, like the US troops have, for instance?

And Iranian aggression in Iraq...why wouldn't this also have a role to play?

See first comment.

 

[GeoffP]

I think they have considerably more right to interfere than the British considering a strong US military presence in Iraq would be detrimental to their national interests a la Mossadegh and funding of Sunni insurgents by the US? Also considering US support of Saudi Arabia the largest fund raiser for Wahabi terrorists worldwide?

Wahhabi terrorists are targetting Iran? Do tell.

Does it say anywhere that the Iranians were in their own consulate for any nefarious reasons? Have they proved any case against the illegally held Iranians captured from their own consulate? Did he enter the country illegally, like the US troops have, for instance?

Oh, well, you know as well as I do that the Iranians have nothing but the best of intentions in Iraq, Sam:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml

Or even in Argentina! Or even...on Iranian Channel 1.

http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1329

Or...heck, even in Saudi Arabia.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061222/ap_on_go_ot/terrorist_bombing_lawsuit_6

I'm sure it was a big misunderstanding. Benefit of the repeated doubt. Endlessly.

 

[S.A.M.]

Wahhabi terrorists are targetting Iran? Do tell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/w...d567e7f5d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Oh, well, you know as well as I do that the Iranians have nothing but the best of intentions in Iraq, Sam:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml

Or even in Argentina! Or even...on Iranian Channel 1.

http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1329

Or...heck, even in Saudi Arabia.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061222/ap_on_go_ot/terrorist_bombing_lawsuit_6

I'm sure it was a big misunderstanding. Benefit of the repeated doubt. Endlessly.

Perhaps they have their own war on terror? Hmm?

 

[GeoffP]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/w...d567e7f5d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

It seems a bit...long. As in: removed from the source. No quotes and secondhand accounts from the region. Is Jondollah financed by the Yanks, or even by the Lizardoid-CIA-Mossad conspiracy? I'm sure I didn't see them at the last meeting in the secret vault under Fort Knox.

But, of course anyway, Sam, this is a Sunni region. Shi'ite Iran is an occupier and a transgressor over the poor, helpless Sunni inhabitants. They have no place being there, you see. No reasonto be. It would be best if the Iranian hedgemony over the region ended and Iranian troops went home. Free Baluchistan, I say. If they don't want Baluchistani terror, maybe they should just leave Sistan-Baluchistan alone. Why are they even there? What reason do Shi'ite Iranians have for being in Sunni Sistan-Baluchistan?? Iran should free Sistan-Baluchistan now and apologize to the people of Sistan-Baluchistan.

In other news, I love crtl-V.

Perhaps they have their own war on terror? Hmm?

Which they fight with more terrorism? Is that like fire with fire?

 

[S.A.M.]

It seems a bit...long. As in: removed from the source. No quotes and secondhand accounts from the region. Is Jondollah financed by the Yanks, or even by the Lizardoid-CIA-Mossad conspiracy? I'm sure I didn't see them at the last meeting in the secret vault under Fort Knox.

But, of course anyway, Sam, this is a Sunni region. Shi'ite Iran is an occupier and a transgressor over the poor, helpless Sunni inhabitants. They have no place being there, you see. No reasonto be. It would be best if the Iranian hedgemony over the region ended and Iranian troops went home. Free Baluchistan, I say. If they don't want Baluchistani terror, maybe they should just leave Sistan-Baluchistan alone. Why are they even there? What reason do Shi'ite Iranians have for being in Sunni Sistan-Baluchistan?? Iran should free Sistan-Baluchistan now and apologize to the people of Sistan-Baluchistan.

Umm its their country? And people died?

In other news, I love crtl-V.

Which they fight with more terrorism? Is that like fire with fire?

What would you call the warrrrr on terroorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

 

[GeoffP]

Umm its their country? And people died?

But the Sistani-Baluchis were only fighting for their independence. They want to be free to choose their own course. Why is Iran oppressing the indigenous people of Sistan-Baluchistan? What's in it for the Iranians?

What would you call the warrrrr on terroorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

That's a lot of "r"s.

I dunno: I don't think it's for the purpose of terrorizing. Although as I watch Bush and Bush Sr. wander about, I am indeed terrified. Actually, I'm terrified by Hillary and Obama and Blair and basically everyone.

Maybe they're trying to terrify me. I wish they'd all stop, because they've won. I give up.

 

[GeoffP]

I point this out:

The province today is one of the most underdeveloped, desolate, and poorest of Iran's provinces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistan_baluchistan

So the evil Iranianists have been deliberately suppressing the peaceful people of Sistan-Baluchistan and degrading their infrastructure. Well, it's no wonder they're rebelling.

http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370046

In contrast, evidence of a simmering rebellion and escalating violence between Tehran's own ethnic Baloch minority and Iranian security forces in Iran's vast but sparsely populated southeastern province of Sistan-Balochistan is receiving far less attention. Iranian officials and other observers implicate an obscure Baloch militant organization known as Jundallah (Soldiers of God) for spearheading the uprising. The Baloch campaign in Iranian Balochistan, sometimes referred to as West Balochistan by Baloch nationalists, is also being waged online through a sophisticated network of independent news, activist and nationalist websites and chat forums hosted in the region and abroad in multiple languages. Many of these websites openly support the activities of Jundallah and violence in general against Tehran and others perceived to be oppressing Baloch in the region [1].

And it says the Jundallah are believed "to have ties to Sunni Islamist extremists associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban operating across the border in neighboring Pakistan and Afghanistan." So how can they be getting a cheque from the US too? I thought they didn't like al-Qaeda and all that. The article says the Balochi are the "victims of genocide" (http://www.balochwarna.org, http://www.balochpeople.org).

I'm shocked! This is quite a surprise. I think we need to pay more attention to the Sistani-Balochis.

Wait...now just hold on...could Iran be suppressing these people for petrochemical reasons?

Ongoing negotiations over the construction of a proposed pipeline that would deliver Iranian natural gas to Pakistan and India, much of which would traverse large swaths of Iranian and Pakistani Balochistan, is another point of concern that brings both sides together on the threat posed by Baloch nationalism and the emergence of groups such as Jundallah (Dawn, June 10).

I think we should discuss the fate of the Sistani-Balochis in much, much greater detail. It's important to see both sides of the issue, as a poster on this website once told me.

Geoff

 

[Fenris Wolf]

Taken by surprise? Didn't this happen in 2004? And isn't there a war going on in Iraq?

Yes, there is. There isn't in Iran.
And good old Sam ignores the possibility that the British captain might have erred on the side of caution in a hostile environment. She doesn't want to know. She doesn't care. Her axe is blunt, and needs grinding.

Iranians in force does not make sense considering the war next door, the capture of Iranian diplomats in the Iranian consulate in Iraq by US troops and the presence of British and US warships in the Gulf, not to mention the constant banging of war drums against Iran all over the Western media?

No. In that particular place, at that particular time, and just in time to intercept with more gunboats than they'd usually have operating together at one time? No, Sam.. it doesn't. unless they were there for a specific purpose.

Quite a long justification for a little slip, methinks.

Quite a long justification, you want to think. And you'll continue to think it, because for you to admit anything else would be a defeat.
I won't bother again.
There was a time when I debated with religious types who came knocking on my door, as well. Now, I just tell them to fuck off. It saves wasting time on those who are unable to see beyond their own beliefs.

And they're ranting on television about the Iranian regime doing things to upset the balance of power in Iraq? After the debacle they participated in for the last 5 years there?

How do you even know what's being debated on Western TV shows, Sam? From whatever your government deems appropriate to show you? Maybe some internet blog you've read? Did you see it on YouTube?
Who are "they", Sam?

Perhaps your unfiltered views might be called upon to enlighten us.

Seeing as you are unable to comprehend what I just wrote, I will indeed enlighten you. I don't know. Neither do you. The difference between us is I am wary of going hunting for obscure facts to support fanciful theories or deeply ingrained preconceptions.
You still see reds under the bed.

Now if it were Iranian troops near the English channel picked up by a British warship...

Where have I shown bias to match yours, Sam? Show me.
Do it. Show us all.

You haven't a leg to stand on, in your continued accusations of bias.
You, the hypocrite. You, whose agenda becomes more apparent with every post. You, the self-appointed rational defender of Islam who cannot help but show her inner hatred.

This is Sciforums representative of enlightened, modern Muslims... a vengeful girl trying desperately to hide it behind a cloak of rationality and reason, unable to recognise her own features in the mirror she holds up to what she believes is the western world, or that she is no different to that she purports to hate.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, there is. There isn't in Iran.
And good old Sam ignores the possibility that the British captain might have erred on the side of caution in a hostile environment. She doesn't want to know. She doesn't care. Her axe is blunt, and needs grinding.


No. In that particular place, at that particular time, and just in time to intercept with more gunboats than they'd usually have operating together at one time? No, Sam.. it doesn't. unless they were there for a specific purpose.


Quite a long justification, you want to think. And you'll continue to think it, because for you to admit anything else would be a defeat.
I won't bother again.
There was a time when I debated with religious types who came knocking on my door, as well. Now, I just tell them to fuck off. It saves wasting time on those who are unable to see beyond their own beliefs.


How do you even know what's being debated on Western TV shows, Sam? From whatever your government deems appropriate to show you? Maybe some internet blog you've read? Did you see it on YouTube?
Who are "they", Sam?


Seeing as you are unable to comprehend what I just wrote, I will indeed enlighten you. I don't know. Neither do you. The difference between us is I am wary of going hunting for obscure facts to support fanciful theories or deeply ingrained preconceptions.
You still see reds under the bed.


Where have I shown bias to match yours, Sam? Show me.
Do it. Show us all.

You haven't a leg to stand on, in your continued accusations of bias.
You, the hypocrite. You, whose agenda becomes more apparent with every post. You, the self-appointed rational defender of Islam who cannot help but show her inner hatred.

This is Sciforums representative of enlightened, modern Muslims... a vengeful girl trying desperately to hide it behind a cloak of rationality and reason, unable to recognise her own features in the mirror she holds up to what she believes is the western world, or that she is no different to that she purports to hate.

To your entire rant, I have only one response:

Actions speak louder than words.

http://www.workers.org/2007/world/iran-0405/

 

[GeoffP]

But what about the Sistani-Balochis, Sam? They're being oppressed by an oppressive oppression of oppressive non-Sistani, non-Balochi troops: a paid clique of mercenaries that are squatting on their territory to ensure an oil pipeline gets rammed through Baluchistan so that Iran can sell oil to Pakistan (who apparently is attacking them? not sure where you were going with that bit before) and India! Your country. Can't you see that this is wrong?

So you call it terrorism, eh? Well, maybe I'd resist too if my nation were under the imperial jackboot of a totalitarian regime...and I mean a real one, too. Iran should get out of Baluchistan.

Free Baluchistan!

Geoff

 

[S.A.M.]

But what about the Sistani-Balochis, Sam? They're being oppressed by an oppressive oppression of oppressive non-Sistani, non-Balochi troops: a paid clique of mercenaries that are squatting on their territory to ensure an oil pipeline gets rammed through Baluchistan so that Iran can sell oil to Pakistan (who apparently is attacking them? not sure where you were going with that bit before) and India! Your country. Can't you see that this is wrong?

So you call it terrorism, eh? Well, maybe I'd resist too if my nation were under the imperial jackboot of a totalitarian regime...and I mean a real one, too. Iran should get out of Baluchistan.

Free Baluchistan!

Geoff

Hmm does this logic apply to others being oppressed for the sake of much-vaunted land?

Should ALL those in a minority in the Sunni dominant ME shift elsewhere?

And aren't Shias the majority in Iran? And the people who were killed by the terrorists, what denomination were they?

And now that Shias are in power in Iraq, we need a Big Embassy and 10-12 military installations.

 

[GeoffP]

Hmm does this logic apply to others being oppressed for the sake of much-vaunted land?

I don't know: I was rather hoping you could answer the above questions in context of your current position on things. I rather think the Yanks should go home. Should the Iranians?

And aren't Shias the majority in Iran?

The Shias are the majority in Iran, but Baluchistan is its own nation with its own proud history and traditions. Why does Iran think it can oppress a distinct nation and force its mercenary soldiers onto the peaceful native Baluchistanians? Anyone who believes that that's ok should move to Iran, I think. Its anti-Baluchistanianism at its worst.

And the people who were killed by the terrorists, what denomination were they?

I'm sure you'll find that the attack in 2006 occurred outside a Revolutionary Guards compound. The insurgents in Baluchistan are merely trying their best to be free of the occupation by Iranian forces. Look, Sam: all the people of Baluchistan want is to be free. Is this so much for Iran to grasp or grant?

Geoff

 

[GeoffP]

And now that Shias are in power in Iraq, we need a Big Embassy and 10-12 military installations.

Right - to guard Shi'ite oil sales. Sure. Big business always pulls the strings. Typical.

The oppressive mercenary armies of the fascist Tehranian criminals should go home immediately and pay reparations to the Baluchistanians for their genocide against them. Not tomorrow, not next week, but today.

 

[S.A.M.]

Right - to guard Shi'ite oil sales. Sure. Big business always pulls the strings. Typical.

The oppressive mercenary armies of the fascist Tehranian criminals should go home immediately and pay reparations to the Baluchistanians for their genocide against them. Not tomorrow, not next week, but today.

I think they are far behind the other players in the West in that regard, including Israel.

 

[Mr.Spock]

I think they are far behind the other players in the West in that regard, including Israel.

cant help yourself