Iran Releases British Troops [Archive]

Sevivon1913

April 6th 2007, 04:25 AM

These are pretty odd responses to the question of whether or not people are grateful that the troops were released.

Iran should be the only one grateful that they released the troops. Britain has enough nuclear weapons to destroy Iran. :teeth:

But this is beside the point, theonomy; It's fairly obvious the British troops were indeed within Iranian waters (i.e. there's no way the UK would have allowed the Iranians to get so close to their troops and capture them within Iraqi waters; there's a helicopter circling them at all times that's meant to watch out for approaching vessels. Oviously the helicopter would have helped alert the Iranians so they didn't follow the boat into the Iranian side). I smell a rat. So it begs the question, why should we be grateful for the release of the troops that we intentionally allowed to be captured? I'm not grateful at all; I couldn't care less about these soldiers. I have no idea who we should be grateful to or why.

Dr. Jack Bauer

April 6th 2007, 04:32 AM

Iran should be the only one grateful that they released the troops. Britain has enough nuclear weapons to destroy Iran. :teeth: Right, because I'm sure nobody in England would be grateful that these people were released home. Nobody. Everybody in England would have preferred them to stay in Iran.
But this is beside the point, theonomy;Do no name me when speaking to me. We are not equals.
It's fairly obvious the British troops were indeed within Iranian waters (i.e. there's no way the UK would have allowed the Iranians to get so close to their troops and capture them within Iraqi waters; there's a helicopter circling them at all times that's meant to watch out for approaching vessels. Oviously the helicopter would have helped alert the Iranians so they didn't follow the boat into the Iranian side). I smell a rat.The question was not whether or not there was a case that could have been made in court (tell us, was this ever done?). The question is whether or not people are relieved at their release.
So it begs the question,I hate it when poor language users get this wrong. Begging the question is something else, namely the fallacy of petetio principii or circular reasoning. What you mean is that it raises the question.
why should we be grateful for the release of the troops that we intentionally allowed to be captured? I'm not grateful at all; I couldn't care less about these soldiers. I have no idea who we should be grateful to or why.Oh the humanity.

Sevivon1913

April 6th 2007, 04:55 AM

Right, because I'm sure nobody in England would be grateful that these people were released home. Nobody. Everybody in England would have preferred them to stay in Iran.

I am in England, and I am telling you: I am not grateful to Iran for releasing the troops. I am grateful to the British governments of the last 50 years who have funded our nuclear arsenal, just as I'm sure Iranians are grateful that we didn't have to use our nuclear arsenal.

It makes no sense for us to be grateful to the Iranian government for releasing soldiers that we intentionally sent in to be captured. The Iranian government has ultimately outmanoeuvred the British government by releasing them.

Do no name me when speaking to me. We are not equals..

Do no name you? Sorry; that makes no sense, Theonomy. :lolo:

The question was not whether or not there was a case that could have been made in court (tell us, was this ever done?). The question is whether or not people are relieved at their release.

That's precisely the point, Theonomy: I am not grateful because I would have preferred an Iranian trial, which would have then properly investigated the facts behind all of this. No I am not relieved, because I was never worried. I'm "happy" that they were relieved; but whom ought I to be 'grateful' to, Theonomy?

I hate it when poor language users get this wrong. Begging the question is something else, namely the fallacy of petetio principii or circular reasoning. What you mean is that it raises the question.
Oh the humanity.

I meant precisely what I said: It was begging for the question to be raised. Begging the question refers to an incomplete concept being put forward which is so absurdly absent of the real issue that it "begs" the real issue be brought up and questioned. I don't care what YOU and your university think it means, but you ought to know that standard English terminology is not going to have the same meaning as specialized philosophical, scientfic, historical or literary terminologies, even if the words are ultimately the same. Didn't they teach you that at your kindergarten, Theonomy? :duh:

Sevi

Abigail

April 6th 2007, 05:02 AM

The question was not whether or not there was a case that could have been made in court (tell us, was this ever done?). The question is whether or not people are relieved at their release.
I am sure most Britons are glad and relieved at their release.

Dr. Jack Bauer

April 6th 2007, 06:49 AM

I am in England, and I am telling you: I am not grateful to Iran for releasing the troops. I am grateful to the British governments of the last 50 years who have funded our nuclear arsenal, just as I'm sure Iranians are grateful that we didn't have to use our nuclear arsenal.I never asked if you were grateful to Iran. I trust you're enjoying the taste of herring. Red, of course.
It makes no sense for us to be grateful to the Iranian government for releasing soldiers that we intentionally sent in to be captured. The Iranian government has ultimately outmanoeuvred the British government by releasing them.There's that herring again....
That's precisely the point, Theonomy: I am not grateful because I would have preferred an Iranian trial, which would have then properly investigated the facts behind all of this. No I am not relieved, because I was never worried. I'm "happy" that they were relieved; but whom ought I to be 'grateful' to, Theonomy?It's clear how you shall be unravelled. Please just tell me why you're happy that they were release.

Oh, by the way - "I'm "happy" that they were relieved" - If you're gonna split hairs about what makes sense, a typo is excusable, but this combination of words? :lolo:
I meant precisely what I said: It was begging for the question to be raised. Begging the question refers to an incomplete concept being put forward which is so absurdly absent of the real issue that it "begs" the real issue be brought up and questioned. I don't care what YOU and your university think it means, but you ought to know that standard English terminology is not going to have the same meaning as specialized philosophical, scientfic, historical or literary terminologies, even if the words are ultimately the same. Didn't they teach you that at your kindergarten, Theonomy? :duh:Solution = check any philosophy and look up the term "begging the question." The fact that you're using a common linguistic error isn't an excuse. Sorry Sev, it's a phrase with an actual meaning. You don't get to re-define.

Darth Executor

April 6th 2007, 08:26 AM

Do no name me when speaking to me. We are not equals.

:rofl: This made my day.

spiritmech

April 6th 2007, 08:33 AM

Grateful to WHO?

Chimpy McBushitler, of course. :duh:
sm:wink:

Storico

April 6th 2007, 09:00 AM

Nasser Karimi, Associated Press
TEHRAN – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would free 15 detained British sailors and marines today as an Easter holiday “gift” to the British people.

*more text left out here for brevity's sake explaining the matter*

“On the occasion of the birthday of the great Prophet (Muhammad) ... and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people – with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial – forgave those 15,” he said, referring to the Muslim Prophet’s birthday on March 30 and the Easter holiday.

“This pardon is a gift to the British people,” he said.

From: http://www.canada.com/globaltv/quebec/story.html?id=0b461685-870a-49df-a81d-eb00349f2ab4&k=27460

An Easter gift, eh? Hmm. I'm definitely happy those troops are home. I can't say I actually thought Iran WOULD release them, but I'm happy that for what ever reason, someone decided to. According to what's usually done, I expected them to put their prisoners on trial -- and the chance of their making it home after such a trial would have been more slim, I suspect. Whether or not they were ACTUALLY sent home as an Easter gift is debatable, but I've seen the footage of relieved family members swamping them -- I know how grateful their families were!

SteveF

April 6th 2007, 09:22 AM

I'm glad they are back. After all, what would have happened to Faye Turney if she had ever committed adultery (http://www.mehrangizkar.com/english/azadeh/archive/000221.html) or if any of the male sailors were gay (http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2006/04/24/framing_gays_in_iran.php)?

Storico

April 6th 2007, 10:13 AM

Both those stories are utterly ghastly.

Sevivon1913

April 6th 2007, 10:19 AM

Both those stories are utterly ghastly.
And probably made up. BTW, the Bible condones both acts; so let's not throw stones (pardon the pun) in glass houses.

SteveF

April 6th 2007, 10:28 AM

And probably made up. BTW, the Bible condones both acts; so let's not throw stones (pardon the pun) in glass houses.

Human Rights Watch report similar incidents:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/iran12072.htm

Sections of Iranian society and Iranian law run utterly counter to the basic principles of liberalism.

Storico

April 6th 2007, 12:38 PM

And probably made up. BTW, the Bible condones both acts; so let's not throw stones (pardon the pun) in glass houses.

Made up? Get real, Sev. Check Amnesty.org out sometime. Check Human Rights Watch out, too. If you honestly think those two teenagers weren't hung for their sexuality, and if you think women aren't still stoned for their sexual acts or PERCEIVED sexual acts, you need to get yourself informed. It happens. I hope you don't think Matthew Shepherd wasn't killed a few years ago in the USA simply because he was gay, do you?

And just because some misguided people decided thousands of years ago that stoning people was alright, and the act was recorded in the Bible as having happened, I ought not to condemn it now? :ahem: Riiiiight. Nobody's throwing stones in glass houses. I'm not responsible for what those recorded in the Old Testament did, and just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I agree with it at all. For the record, Christ didn't agree with it when he saw it happening, and he stopped that kind of action. Recall that gospel story, maybe?

I don't agree with it when I see it happen now, either. Honestly, Sev, you surprised me there. I figured you had a better grasp on things.

Anyways...

Back to the Iranian thing: they had a press conference with some of them at 10 am E.S.T today. They basically all said that they were in fact glad to be back, and that their families were glad to have them back. I'm really glad they're home and safe.

spiritmech

April 6th 2007, 06:39 PM

Here is what struck me from the incident. If you are captured, your country cannot save you. You are a sitting duck. Only the goodwill of the captor will get you free. Nothing else will.

If England had tried to attack Iran, it's highly probably they would have been executed. So there was no route to rescue that way.

Dr. Jack Bauer

April 6th 2007, 08:01 PM

And probably made up. BTW, the Bible condones both acts; so let's not throw stones (pardon the pun) in glass houses.Heck, even the Bible that you agree with! That's saying something....

Actually the Bible - even that nasty Ooooooold Testament, never condoned killing someone because he's gay. That's just anti-Bible hate speech. Two four six eight, liberals are full of hate. :teeth:

Sevivon1913

April 7th 2007, 01:36 AM

Made up? Get real, Sev. Check Amnesty.org out sometime. Check Human Rights Watch out, too. If you honestly think those two teenagers weren't hung for their sexuality, and if you think women aren't still stoned for their sexual acts or PERCEIVED sexual acts, you need to get yourself informed. It happens. I hope you don't think Matthew Shepherd wasn't killed a few years ago in the USA simply because he was gay, do you?

And just because some misguided people decided thousands of years ago that stoning people was alright, and the act was recorded in the Bible as having happened, I ought not to condemn it now? :ahem: Riiiiight. Nobody's throwing stones in glass houses. I'm not responsible for what those recorded in the Old Testament did, and just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I agree with it at all. For the record, Christ didn't agree with it when he saw it happening, and he stopped that kind of action. Recall that gospel story, maybe?

I don't agree with it when I see it happen now, either. Honestly, Sev, you surprised me there. I figured you had a better grasp on things.

Anyways...

Back to the Iranian thing: they had a press conference with some of them at 10 am E.S.T today. They basically all said that they were in fact glad to be back, and that their families were glad to have them back. I'm really glad they're home and safe.

Is this the same Amnesty International who have condemned the USA for violations of human rights :huh: ? Surely we can't believe THEM! :lol:

Sevivon1913

April 7th 2007, 01:45 AM

Heck, even the Bible that you agree with! That's saying something....

Actually the Bible - even that nasty Ooooooold Testament, never condoned killing someone because he's gay. That's just anti-Bible hate speech. Two four six eight, liberals are full of hate. :teeth:

The annihilation of Sodom for being homosexual isn't a condolement of killing homosexuals? :lolo: Homosexuality is included under the auspices of "adultery", Theonomy, as are all extra-marital sexual acts.

Dr. Jack Bauer

April 7th 2007, 02:39 AM

The annihilation of Sodom for being homosexual isn't a condolement of killing homosexuals? :lolo:Correct. That God killed homosexuals, granting this as a historical fact for now, is not an endorsement of doing so. Do you seripously think otherwise? :lolo:
Homosexuality is included under the auspices of "adultery", Theonomy, as are all extra-marital sexual acts.No it's not. That's outrightly false. Why, homosexuality isn't an act at all!

Ryokan

April 7th 2007, 09:30 AM

After ritually humiliating them, and keeping them locked up for 5 years without trial or counsel, except the prospect of a military court, and unable to hear the evidence against them. but even Iran wouldn't do that, would it *sahm

This is what sucks about the world right now. Iran illegally arrests and abuses British troops, and America, America, is the people who get insulted for it. America isn't perfect. We have and do do crappy things. But we did not arrest these guys. We, generally speaking, respect human rights far more than any middle eastern country and just as much European ones. We did nothing here, and I am sick of the stupid cheap shots. Its just ridiculous anti-Americanism.

Ryokan

April 7th 2007, 09:32 AM

And probably made up. BTW, the Bible condones both acts; so let's not throw stones (pardon the pun) in glass houses.

Because what, Iran is this magic wonderful place. They are a authoritarian religious oligarchy with some limited democratic institutions. Countries like that do the kinds of things Steve mentioned.

Ryokan

April 7th 2007, 09:35 AM

Is this the same Amnesty International who have condemned the USA for violations of human rights :huh: ? Surely we can't believe THEM! :lol:

Remember Moynihan's law though. It is easy to pick on alot of human rights violations in the West because we record them and contest them in our legal system. Not the case elsewhere.

Sevivon1913

April 7th 2007, 09:39 AM

This is what sucks about the world right now. Iran illegally arrests and abuses British troops, and America, America, is the people who get insulted for it. America isn't perfect. We have and do do crappy things. But we did not arrest these guys. We, generally speaking, respect human rights far more than any middle eastern country and just as much European ones. We did nothing here, and I am sick of the stupid cheap shots. Its just ridiculous anti-Americanism.

This has nothing to do with the USA; it might be a strange thing for you (if you're limited to FoxNews) to understand, seeing as FoxNews never even reports OTHER news, but the USA is not the centre of the worlds' concerns (and nor is Iran).

Ryokan

April 7th 2007, 09:45 AM

This has nothing to do with the USA; it might be a strange thing for you (if you're limited to FoxNews) to understand, seeing as FoxNews never even reports OTHER news, but the USA is not the centre of the worlds' concerns (and nor is Iran).

Well, I get most of my news from NPR and the BBC online, but I am glad you have shown how much of a stupid bigot you are. I was talking about web forum behavior, Sev. Pay attention or shut up.

Sevivon1913

April 7th 2007, 09:47 AM

Because what, Iran is this magic wonderful place. They are a authoritarian religious oligarchy with some limited democratic institutions. Countries like that do the kinds of things Steve mentioned.

The Greeks, Romans, Israelites, Medieval Christians all practiced sick and twisted punishments against homosexuals, adulterers, other religions, etc. Iran is terrible and the USA is a very "nice" country; but let's not act all innocent as if somehow we're above them. Your country was burning witches not that long ago. Germany was gassing Jews only half a dozen decades ago. It wasn't THAT long ago that the USA was "officially" a racist state which segregated blacks and whites.

My point is: let's not assume that they're lying about this just because they're not a so-called "civilised" US or European country.

Ryokan

April 7th 2007, 09:54 AM

The Greeks, Romans, Israelites, Medieval Christians all practiced sick and twisted punishments against homosexuals, adulterers, other religions, etc. No. Shock! Most of those countries were dictatorships, kingdoms, or religious oligarchies too Sev. And even when they weren't, they still weren't right or particularly admirable. Most ancient governmental ssytems look pretty crappy now and I would be their enemy if they were still around. Iran is terrible and the USA is a very "nice" country; but let's not act all innocent as if somehow we're above them. Your country was burning witches not that long ago. Germany was gassing Jews only half a dozen decades ago. It wasn't THAT long ago that the USA was "officially" a racist state which segregated blacks and whites. I agree. But we've moved past that crap. We are trying to be better. Iran needs to too.

My point is: let's not assume that they're lying about this just because they're not a so-called "civilised" US or European country.No, we'll assume their lying because they have a pattern of it, have no free press and have a longer and nastier recent history of violating civil liberties than the US or Britain.

decoski

April 7th 2007, 10:05 AM

No question that this was a publicity stunt by Iran. It was pure propaganda that the hostages were forced into saying the soldiers were in Iranian waters. Next time this happens, and after the hostages are released, instead of saying "thank you" or whatever, bomb something of theirs to show that the West won't be manipulated anymore. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=447110&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490

Storico

April 7th 2007, 06:32 PM

Is this the same Amnesty International who have condemned the USA for violations of human rights :huh: ? Surely we can't believe THEM! :lol:

Are you saying the US has NEVER violated human rights locally or internationally? Are you saying that the US ought never to be called on any of their own violations? :hrm: And you'd have to give me specifics so I know exactly which violation you're referring to, but that would be hijacking this post. I also addressed the New Testament response to stoning people, and specifically what Jesus said and did about such actions. What are your thoughts on that?