Iran detains and televises UK sailors, tensions escalating...

[Tez3]

Good thoughts and prayers your countrymen, Tez. :asian:

Thank you, it's very much appreciated.

The latest news we've had.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6509813.stm

 

[Cryozombie]

he stated that "many Democrats hoped desperately that the war would turn out badly".

No, he didn't.

He stated that it was HIS OPINION that they feel that way.

There is a HUGE difference between FACT, which you are trying to claim he stated, and OPINION which he actually stated. Instead of me Googling Weasel Words, why dont you grab a dictionary and check the words "Fact" and "Opinion".

 

[exile]

We will get our sailors and marines back by diplomatic means then we'll send the SBS (Special Boat Squadron,like the SAS only better, they are Royal Marine Commandos) in to blow something up that the Iranians are rather fond of, like their government perhaps. Seriously though, reprisals will be taken but only after Leading Seaman Turney and the rest are back safe. LS Turney is married to a fellow sailor and has a young child. They and their families have our thoughts over here and prayers for a safe return.

Amen to all of that, Tez.

 

[Tez3]

No, he didn't.

He stated that it was HIS OPINION that they feel that way.

There is a HUGE difference between FACT, which you are trying to claim he stated, and OPINION which he actually stated. Instead of me Googling Weasel Words, why dont you grab a dictionary and check the words "Fact" and "Opinion".

GENTLEMEN! Ah now I have your attention, I apologise for shouting but this thread has been designated British and there's a young Brit mum out in Iran who's wondering if she'll ever see her husband and child again.

 

[michaeledward]

Designated British?

Gee, I thought I answered, thoughtfully and in detail, the question from the poster from Finland. I didn't realize Finland was part of the empire.

I don't go categorizing all Brits by the behavior of the royal sons - which has been especially uncouth of late, hasn't it? That I call out the broad-brush-painting of countryman (not a Brit, by the way) shouldn't be cause for a fight.

And, when American airmen found themselves in an unfriendly country, under unfriendly circumestances a few years back, I am fairly certain I made no attempts at levity or bravado about blowing up Chinese government buildings. It would probably benefit us all if we allowed the diplomats to do their jobs.

And, lastly, it seems to me that the gender of the soldiers in question should be irrelevant. There have been several memorable threads on this board about soldiers being soldeirs, regardless of whether they are male or female. Did that opinion go by the wayside when a face was broadcast in the news?

 

[Tez3]

My post was more angled to being a tactful way of saying why are you two sniping at each other in a not very nice way, should have just asked I guess.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

We should blast the one refinery they have. They would be driving size 11 1/2's leather in a week.

PS: Put Mike on Ignore, it makes for a much more plesant martialtalk experience.

 

[tshadowchaser]

A number of posts have come to the attention of the Moderation team, therefore:

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

Sheldon Bedell
-MT Moderator-

 

[Sukerkin]

One OT remark in response to the last.

It seems to me that Mike likes to argue and discourse; to do that he'll take a contrary position and dispute the corner. It can appear to be a bad trait if you are deeply passionate about the subject at hand but it does make for interesting threads (and it should not necessarily be taken to mean that he actually holds the opinions he cogently puts forward).

In this case, I confess my hackles rose because it's British servicemen being puppeted on the political stage but I stamped on that as the issues too important to get irrational about.

If I'm missing any points from page one of the thread, please bear with me (I'll edit as necessary once I've gotten out of the hole I've dug by leaping in feet first and have read the other posts ).

Does anyone truly think that the Iranian government, with all the provocations being offered it at present, would be so daft as to deliberately antagonise Britain this way? The only thing that would make that sensible is if they're using our servicemen to 'send a message' to a certain other countries leader of limited acuity.

EDIT: Ah, reading material others linked to it seems that maybe they just are that barmy.

I believe (Tez can you help?) that we still do not use women in off-ship combat missions (or those where conflcit is likely) so that would make the whole Iranian side of the story a fabrication i.e. that the 'team' was operating in their waters as a provocation. That assumes that in such a volatile environment that a Royal Navy unit would not have a clue as to whose 'waters' they were in.

Given the unlikelyness of this (watch me be wrong now) it is monumentally stupid of the Iranians to claim otherwise - noone would believe it and tensions would rack up immediately, perhaps to the point of actual hostilities.

Regardless of their religious fanatacism, no government, at present, would willingly court open warfare with a military machine built up to battle the monolith that was the Soviet Bloc.

So what's going on?

I don't know whether to be astounded, disbelieving, angry, scared, sceptical, conspiratorial or what. Feeling as I do about governments the world over (self serving, every man jack of them) I can't help but think that this is all a little too convenient for those wanting another Bogey Man to scare us into accepting oppression and the sacrifice of our fellows as the price of 'freedom'.

I'm tired and a little drunk now, so forgive any hyperbole but the feeling of powerlessness to effect a juggeranaut being rolled towards a 21st Century Crusade is hard to shake .

 

[Carol]

I don't think Iran wants to harm the British soldiers. I think they are putting them on display as a way of flexing their muscles a bit and showing that they too have the power to make the whole world stop and watch.

The fact that the woman is wrapped in a black veil I think is a very good sign for her overall safety. I believe that for as long as she maintains the veil, she will have less likely of a chance of being sexually abused by male Iranian operatives and more of a chance of being tended to (and protected) by female Iranian operatives.

Its a terrible situation but I'm being guardedly optimistic.

 

[michaeledward]

It seems to me that Mike likes to argue and discourse; to do that he'll take a contrary position and dispute the corner. It can appear to be a bad trait if you are deeply passionate about the subject at hand but it does make for interesting threads (and it should not necessarily be taken to mean that he actually holds the opinions he cogently puts forward).

I will disagree with you here. I care deeply and passionately about those topics in which I comment. And the opinions I hold, are held strongly. I do not take positions to be contrary.

As for your use of the word 'argue', if we look to a dictionary, we will see a description (or several) that aptly apply.

Main Entry: ar·gue Pronunciation: 'är-(")gyü
Function: verb
1 : to give reasons for or against something : [SIZE=-1]REASON[/SIZE] <argue for a new policy>
2 : to contend or disagree in words : [SIZE=-1]DISPUTE[/SIZE] <argue about money>
transitive verb
1 : to give evidence of : [SIZE=-1]INDICATE[/SIZE] <the facts argue his innocence>
2 : to consider the pros and cons of : [SIZE=-1]DISCUSS[/SIZE] <argue an issue>
3 : to prove or try to prove by giving reasons : [SIZE=-1]MAINTAIN[/SIZE] <asking for a chance to argue his case>
4 : to persuade by giving reasons : [SIZE=-1]INDUCE[/SIZE] <couldn't argue her out of going>

I can only hope that my arguements are done with discourse; especially as described in the archaic defintion.

Main Entry: 1dis·course Pronunciation: 'dis-"kors, dis-'
Function: noun
1 archaic : the capacity of orderly thought or procedure : [SIZE=-1]RATIONALITY[/SIZE]
2 : verbal interchange of ideas; especially : [SIZE=-1]CONVERSATION[/SIZE]
3 a : formal and orderly and usually extended expression of thought on a subject b : connected speech or writing c : a linguistic unit (as a conversation or a story) larger than a sentence
4 obsolete : social familiarity
5 : a mode of organizing knowledge, ideas, or experience that is rooted in language and its concrete contexts (as history or institutions) <critical discourse>

Apparently, absent in this discussion, is the possibility that the British soldiers were in the territorial waters of Iran. What are the ramifactions if this is evidenced? Don't nation-states have the right to protect the territorial integrity?

And a truly logical discussion would need to consider the justification and authorization of British sailors in Iraqi territorial waters?

Further, any reasoned discussion would also consider the Iranian diplomatic officials being detained by United States coalition forces in Iraq, since a raid in January.

 

[exile]

And a truly logical discussion would need to consider the justification and authorization of British sailors in Iraqi territorial waters?

How so? What would the presence of British sailors in Iraqi territorial waters `logically' have to do with their kidnapping at gunpoint by Iranian military forces and removal to Iranian territory? You're invoking `logic' in connection with this action by the Iranian military. Well, let's see. The British sailors are, by your hypothesis, `in Iraqi territorial waters'. Along come some Iranians, into these same Iraqi waters, and forcibly detain the British soldiers. The British and the Iranians are both in Iraqi waters (by the presupposition of your comment quoted above); neither of them has any more or less right than the other to be there. One puts a gun to the other's head and forces them onto the first one's territory. And it's not the British who do this.

This thread is about the detention of British soldiers by the Iranian military. Mind pointing out the `logical' connection?

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Jonathan Randall ... as a member of the Democratic Party, I find your interpretation insulting and disgusting. While you claim you are an independent, you have bought into the hyperbole of the Republican ideologs of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly when you claim what the Democrats 'hoped' for.

How could I buy into "hyperbole" that I don't listen to? Can't stand either Rush or Bill O'Reilly. I have spent many, many hours listening to left-wing talk radio and reading left-wing forums, and the joy of some that the war is going badly, and thus harming the Republicans, is quite pronounced.

Hey Michael, have you ever read a book by Eric Hoffer called "The True Believer"? It speaks much about folks who follow and swallow their party's line regardless of the facts. Both the EIB (Rush's outfit) and Air America have MORE than their fair share of "True Believers". I stand by my position - folks in BOTH parties put their own party before their country.

Because the members of the Democratic Party listened to the Administrations answers provided to some hard questions, and expected accountability (how long will the war last? how much will the war cost?) you step up to the line of calling them treasonous.

Very Unpleasant.

The hell they did - most of them made a calculated and opportunistic political decision, IMO, that NOT supporting the President on an attack on Iraq would harm their OWN political interests. Sorry, but if I, on a dial-up Internet connection, could come to the conclusion by July 2002 that much, if not most, of the Administration's case for war against was bogus and ill-advised - they with their vastly greater resources could as well.

NOPE, the Democratic Party as a whole is as corrupt, but not so near as competent at gaining/holding power, as the Republican Party.

I'm sure to your mind, that makes me a Bush supporter. That would be very funny since I voted, admittedly reluctantly, for Kerry. There was never any chance that I would vote for Bush in 2004.

In any case, the important thing is the SAFE and SPEEDY return of the British Sailors!

 

[TimoS]

The hell they did - most of them made a calculated and opportunistic political decision, IMO, that NOT supporting the President on an attack on Iraq would harm their OWN political interests.

That's actually my understanding of the situation also: many supported the attack on Iraq because to do otherwise would have been a political suicide at that time

 

[Sukerkin]

@Mike

Sorry, my friend. I didn't mean to impune anything negative about your passion for the subjects you dispute. I was actually trying to 'fight your corner' a bit but didn't do a very good job.

I would say that your last sentence has some bearing on the current fracas - I had forgotten about the Iranian officials being detained.

 

[michaeledward]

That's actually my understanding of the situation also: many supported the attack on Iraq because to do otherwise would have been a political suicide at that time

TimoS, there is some truth in that statement. But, that statement does not stand alone. Along with that statement, one should look to the timing of the vote for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (H.J.Res 114).

When was this bill put before members of Congress?
When was the election?
Recall that in August of that year we starting hearing of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), and what were they peddling (selling, marketing)?

I will be glad to discuss these items in more detail, if you wish.


Jonathan Randall - it becomes possible for you to buy into the hyperbole of the "right wing echo chamber" because the stories that originate in these far right talk radio shows and magazines soon become news stories about the stories in the mainstream media. As an example, I will point to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. A completely fabricated set of assetions that lived only in fringe media, until picked up by Drudge and Fox.

Please, name two Democrats that hoped the war would go badly, and provide evidence.

exile, if the British sailors have no authority to be in Iraqi waters, then there are clearly two wrongs in process. There used to be an adage about that, somewhere.

Also, please note that there were four premises put forth in my arguement (at least). Choosing one of those premises, exaggerating it, while ignoring the others, and then knocking it down, is building a straw man fallacy.

 

[michaeledward]

@Mike

Sorry, my friend. I didn't mean to impune anything negative about your passion for the subjects you dispute. I was actually trying to 'fight your corner' a bit but didn't do a very good job.

I would say that your last sentence has some bearing on the current fracas - I had forgotten about the Iranian officials being detained.

Sukerkin, I did not take your comments as negative in any light. I thought it was a thoughtful, and deliberate use of those words. And, quite correct use of language. I have found that I can disagree quite strongly with people whom are very dear to me and still treat them with respect and dignity. Those are not mutually exclusive states of mind.

I believe in spaces such as this, however, that the word 'argue' can be mis-interpreted from the meanings found in the dictionary, to something more along the lines of 'pick a fight'.

:asian:

 

[exile]

exile, if the British sailors have no authority to be in Iraqi waters, then there are clearly two wrongs in process. There used to be an adage about that, somewhere.

To repeat (though it shouldn't be necessary): this thread is specifically about the abduction of some British sailors by some Iranian sailors. Right? You bring in the presence of British sailors in Iraqi waters and somehow connect this with the legality of the Iranians kidnaping them. If the Brits have no right to be there, the Iranians have no right to be there, and vice versa, fine. But how on earth does this wind up legitimizing the kidnapping of one by the other? You seem quite anxious to avoid the final connecting-of-dots to make your argument stick. If you and I are both at a certain location illegally&#8212;and here I'm just adopting your premise, for the sake of trying to follow your argument&#8212;how does that legitimize your putting a gun to my head, handcuffing me, and taking photos of me on your cell phone and broadcasting them?

Also, please note that there were four premises put forth in my arguement (at least). Choosing one of those premises, exaggerating it, while ignoring the others, and then knocking it down, is building a straw man fallacy.

Oh no, not at all, and you know it. You're well aware that the straw man fallacy is based on setting up and knocking down an argument or set of claims that the text you're criticizing didn't actually make. What I'm doing is taking part of your argument, one&#8212;you explicitly made, as anyone who reads your post can verify&#8212;and questioning your reasoning; in particular, I'm trying to dig out the covert premises which lead you to bring in the `red herring' of connecting the British presence in Iraqi waters to the legality of the Iranian's kidnapping these British soldiers&#8212;the theme of this thread.

And as for my `exaggerating' the importance of the point... well, as I said, you brought the point up, not me or anyone else. If you can defend it, fine; if not, acknowledge that, instead of throwing words together on the page to create the illusion of multiple lines of support for your conclusion. The point is, I'm trying to get a sense of the logic of the way you construct arguments, and I find your statements on this particular point rather telling in that respect.

 

[Tez3]

Sukerkin is right, women are never put into frontline or combat positions in the British forces, women aren't allowed to be infantry soldiers nor Royal Marines.They have only support roles in the forces. We have a couple of fighter pilots in the RAF but that is the only combat role any woman has. the fact that the Iranians picked on the female of the party to use for propaganda makes it a gender issue.

It may well be that forums are difficult places to hold debates because of the lack of facial and body language to help with the interpretation of the words but sometimes posts come across as nothing more than petulant.

 

[michaeledward]

exile, threads on discussion boards are rarely, if ever, about one thing "specifically". Threads tend to pulse and breathe with attitudes and opinions of participants. Moderators will at times attempt to re-direct divergences, if the wandering goes too far afield.

If threads truly were "specifically" about an idea, what need would there be for a reply from anyone? All participates could just adopt the original posters premise and end the discussion.

So, riddle me this - Mr. adopt my premise - what if the British soldiers were in Iranian territorial waters? I brought this argument to the table, first, if I recall.