Yeah sure thing Bluffy. Because I dont swallow your BS I'm biased.
Iran seizes 15 British troops in Persian Gulf
- Thread starter Mr.Spock
- Start date
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Nickelodeon
No it because you are human and young that you fail recognize your own bias's, you think you know it all, and have infinite wisdom, it is a failure of the young mind, hopefully with age you will gain understanding, I went through the same process, all children do.
No it because you are human and young that you fail recognize your own bias's, you think you know it all, and have infinite wisdom, it is a failure of the young mind, hopefully with age you will gain understanding, I went through the same process, all children do.
Face it Bluff, you wouldnt have a problem if I blindly agreed with everything you say, would you? :eek
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Nickelodeon
I'm afraid I would, blind belief is what you practice now in the failure to recognize that your are prejudice in favor your own belief, and to follow my belief with out question would be just as bad, the fact that you reply with smart assed posts show just how locked on to your own personnel bias that your are, you disrespect anything that doesn't absolute agree with your perspective, and discount it out of hand.
ps: the gps information show that the Brits were in Iraqi waters.
I'm afraid I would, blind belief is what you practice now in the failure to recognize that your are prejudice in favor your own belief, and to follow my belief with out question would be just as bad, the fact that you reply with smart assed posts show just how locked on to your own personnel bias that your are, you disrespect anything that doesn't absolute agree with your perspective, and discount it out of hand.
ps: the gps information show that the Brits were in Iraqi waters.
Well...emmm...sorry I didn't know it would be a show of bias to try and listen to different parts of a story...
And....do you mean that we are all biased and you are not?? I have read your previous posts on different subjects...accept it you have an anti-muslim bias...
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
chuuush,
1. But do you? from your post it appears not.
2. I admit that I have bias, and I have no problem admitting that I have certain bias against Terrorist that masquerade as Holy Jihadi Warrior, I have a bias against those that would use a holy book to justify their killing of children women and innocent men, that use a holy book to justify rape, torture, murder, and killing civilians to advance their religious bigotry and force it down the throats of the rest of the world.
3. Yes if they support the terrorist by making moral equivalency between the Islamic terrorist who delight in the rapes, torture, beheadings, mutilations, using civilians as shields for their operations, praising the name of Allah while they do these things, and attack civilians because they are too cowardly to attack any that can wipe their terrorist Islamic ass's, across the dirt.
Yes I know that I am biased, I am human, and I have reasons for my bias, do you or do you just dismiss any thing that isn't convenient to you equivalency defense of the Islamic terrorist brethren, like the fact the they rape, torture, murder, in the name of your God, and that they seek to inflict by the sword, gun and bomb, their religion on the rest of the world and justify it in the name of their religion and God.
1. But do you? from your post it appears not.
2. I admit that I have bias, and I have no problem admitting that I have certain bias against Terrorist that masquerade as Holy Jihadi Warrior, I have a bias against those that would use a holy book to justify their killing of children women and innocent men, that use a holy book to justify rape, torture, murder, and killing civilians to advance their religious bigotry and force it down the throats of the rest of the world.
3. Yes if they support the terrorist by making moral equivalency between the Islamic terrorist who delight in the rapes, torture, beheadings, mutilations, using civilians as shields for their operations, praising the name of Allah while they do these things, and attack civilians because they are too cowardly to attack any that can wipe their terrorist Islamic ass's, across the dirt.
Yes I know that I am biased, I am human, and I have reasons for my bias, do you or do you just dismiss any thing that isn't convenient to you equivalency defense of the Islamic terrorist brethren, like the fact the they rape, torture, murder, in the name of your God, and that they seek to inflict by the sword, gun and bomb, their religion on the rest of the world and justify it in the name of their religion and God.
According to the Brits, days later.buffalo said:
Contradicted by the Iraqi fishermens' eyewitness accounts at the time, and the behavior of the Cornwall, and the apparent behavior of the Brits themselves.
One of the problems with lying all the time is that one loses the presumption of truth when things get sticky. The Brits have a long history of dishonesty
We aren't talking about jihadists, we're talking about Iranians.buffalo said:
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
iceaura
Which Iran has not refuted, and this information was submitted to the U.N. Security Councel.
and this,
Vali Nasr, a senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, suggested that the latest detentions may be Iranian retaliation for the arrest of five Iranians in a U.S.-led raid in northern Iraq in January. The U.S. said the five included a Revolutionary Guards general.
"I think Iran sees this as retaliation for the arrest of their own personnel. They have repeatedly said that they want their personnel released," Nasr said. "So they are either signalling that they can do the same thing or they are trying to bring attention to it."
Which Iran has not refuted, and this information was submitted to the U.N. Security Councel.
and this,
Vali Nasr, a senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, suggested that the latest detentions may be Iranian retaliation for the arrest of five Iranians in a U.S.-led raid in northern Iraq in January. The U.S. said the five included a Revolutionary Guards general.
"I think Iran sees this as retaliation for the arrest of their own personnel. They have repeatedly said that they want their personnel released," Nasr said. "So they are either signalling that they can do the same thing or they are trying to bring attention to it."
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
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?
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?
Sounds reasonable. So the illegality of the arrest was just to match the illegality of the US arrests, is the theory?
Doesn't explain arresting Brits, though. And the odd factors on the British side remain unexplained - the behavior of the Cornwall, the sidearms, etc.
If what isn't jihad? Arresting people?buffalo said:
Last edited:
Interesting that you note a series of "oddities" on the British side while ignoring everything else. I would hardly consider military personnel carrying sidearms as an oddity, in fact I'm surprised they weren't better armed. The police carry bloody sidearms, you idiot. That they carried only sidearms and nothing more indicates more a forebearance on the part of the British than anything else.
According to your mind, though...this is an oddity. And several Iraqi gunboats gathered together conveniently close enough to carry out an arrest, perhaps an indication that this was a planned capture, doesn't even blip your radar.
I suppose when they let the brits go you'll be praising Iraqi mercy to the heavens as well.
Meh.
According to your mind, though...this is an oddity. And several Iraqi gunboats gathered together conveniently close enough to carry out an arrest, perhaps an indication that this was a planned capture, doesn't even blip your radar.
I suppose when they let the brits go you'll be praising Iraqi mercy to the heavens as well.
Meh.
It's amazing seeing how many in this thread take the side of the mad mullahs. Apparently Nancy Pelosi agrees with you. She's been preventing a vote condemning Iran for this kidnapping.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
madanthonywayne
And the ineffectiveness of the U.N. is highlighted again, as the neutered body it really is.
And the ineffectiveness of the U.N. is highlighted again, as the neutered body it really is.
That was the oddity. They were so far from their support ship that it could not prevent their abduction by enemies (enemies from far away, we are told), boarding a suspected smuggling operation in a region in which smugglers are often heavily armed and in this case were very close to safety in Iranian waters, and yet they brought only "sidearms" with them in their little rubber boats. That isn't forbearance, that's bizarre.fenris said:
You mean Iranian - a common slip, interestingly. And that did blip the radar - I mentioned how odd it was that the Cornwall was apparently further from her own party than the Iranian patrol boats were - were they invisible? Or were they in their own waters, where the Cornwall could not trespass without incident?fenris said:
I'm almost positive this was a planned capture - seemed obvious enough to not be worth mentioning. So?
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
iceaura
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070323/ap_on_re_eu/british_seized_iran_11
What don't you understand about 5 Iranians arrested in Iraq? they didn't belong there, they were in Iraq, no question, and they didn't belong there, so how is the arrest of them Illegal? They were training terrorist in Iraq, what don't you understand about that? They were in the wrong country, across a internationally recognized border, no mistake.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070323/ap_on_re_eu/british_seized_iran_11
What don't you understand about 5 Iranians arrested in Iraq? they didn't belong there, they were in Iraq, no question, and they didn't belong there, so how is the arrest of them Illegal? They were training terrorist in Iraq, what don't you understand about that? They were in the wrong country, across a internationally recognized border, no mistake.
It is good that you admit your bias, though it was also clear from your previous posts, example: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64528
As per your words
do you mean here that you acknowledge Quran as a holy book? Then why you mock at it? Also what gives you the right over-generalize the acts of some people of a religion to all its followers and worse to the religion itself... are the followers of other religions all peace-loving saints? If you are against violence in general, then you should talk that way, if not a biased attitude is not viable to be listened to!
anthony! if you have read my first post and the follow ups, you would see that I didn't say the Iranians were right... it upsets me that you tried and convict one side just on the basis of a bias? Don't you even suspect that their claims may have some rightful points? The fact that you are a U.K or U.S. citizen shouldn't make you believe your country is always right? History is full of the contrary accounts...
Its also interesting that no one spoke out against the US entering the Iranian embassy (which technically and by international regulations, is Iranian territory) and kidnapping the Iranians. What happened to those Iranians?
No, it's not bizzare at all. The British aren't the Americans, and don't go around boarding ships with full firepower and an aircraft carrier in support. Perhaps they were expecting neither resistance, nor being suddenly inundated with Iranian gunboats. In fact, it speaks more of their being taken by surprise than anything else. And you're still seeing conspiracies everywhere.
And if you did note that the Iranians happened to be there in force, then why didn't you mention it? And don't give me any bullshit about it being "obvious" because, quite obviously, to you it was not. Either you didn't think about it, or you're just one more goddamned stupid spin doctor mentioning only what he wants to. Your call, boyo.
Hardly a common slip. I've rarely seen it.
In fact, the slip was me hurriedly reading a thread and replying ten minutes before I had to go to work without proofreading.
That you find it interesting is perhaps more a statement about your trying to find conspiracy in everything where, quite often, the simple explanation is the true one.
You're like the guy who goes around for the next 6 months after watching a special on body language, thinking everyone scratching their nose is a liar rather than simply a man with an itchy nose.
Cue twilight zone music.
It apparently hasn't occured to you that the British, as previously mentioned, as far more circumspect in activities of this nature than the Americans are. The Americans intimidate - the Brits negotiate.
It may be the reason for this is as simple as their not wanting to alarm the ships occupants into an extreme reaction, nor to frighten them for what was, probably, merely a routine inspection. Maybe they were even avoiding any possibility of annoying the Iranians further than they needed to by keeping a capital ship far enough inside a safe zone as to be unquestionably so.
They are far more careful and politically aware than their American cousins. The British like to be seen as the good cop.
You lot may be right, and the Brits may have been illegally in Iranian waters - I doubt that, seeing as Iran can't even get it's coordinates right, but who knows? I wasn't there, and the truth will wrapped in a hundred disguises long before this is over. Or perhaps it will be right in front of your nose, yet you won't know it because its part of a myriad of theories.
What I'm arguing against is the assumption that the Brits were in the wrong, and the desire for you to believe it. You're not seeing evidence of British wrongdoing... you're hunting it. Avidly.
You make me sick.
And you too, Sam. This thread had nothing to do with the Americans - if you wanted to bring that up, then start another one and simply put a link to it here - that would make your point without sending this one off into a tangent. We all know how much you hate America - your drum is old and worn, the sticks broken, and we've heard the song before anyway.
And aren't you the one constantly pointing out that Muslim countries are not all alike?
Taken by surprise? Didn't this happen in 2004? And isn't there a war going on in Iraq?
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?
Quite a long justification for a little slip, methinks.
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?
Perhaps your unfiltered views might be called upon to enlighten us.
Now if it were Iranian troops near the English channel picked up by a British warship...
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?