Did Iran Torture Innocent British Sailors? Death to Iran! Bomb Iran NOW!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260861,00.html

Iran: Soldiers Confessed to Illegally Entering Waters

Saturday, March 24, 2007

TEHRAN, Iran - The Iranian military questioned 15 detained British

soldiers Saturday and said they confessed to illegally entering the

country's territorial waters as Iran accused Britain of "blatant

aggression."

Iran's tough comments came after Britain demanded the return of the sailors

and denied they had strayed into Iranian waters while searching for

smugglers off Iraq's coast.

The eight Royal Navy sailors and seven Royal Marines were brought to Tehran

for questioning, and a a top military official, Gen. Ali Reza Afshar, said

they "confessed to illegal entry into Iran's waters."

"The said personnel are being interrogated and have confessed to aggression

into the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters," Afshar was quoted as saying by

the state news agency IRNA and the semi-official ISNA news agency. He did

not say what would now be done with the sailors.

The British sailors, who included at least one woman, had just searched a

merchant ship when they and their two inflatable boats were intercepted by

Iranian vessels Friday at around 10:30 a.m. near the disputed Shatt al-Arab

waterway, U.S. and British officials said. The Iranian vessels surrounded

them and escorted them away at gunpoint.

The seizure of the British sailors came at a time of heightened tensions

over Tehran's nuclear ambitions and allegations that Iran is arming Shiite

Muslim militias in Iraq. Still, Britain was treating it as a mistake rather

than a provocation.

Britain on Friday demanded Tehran release the 15. In London, the British

government summoned the Iranian ambassador to the Foreign Office, and

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said the Iranian envoy "was left in no

doubt that we want them back."

The European Union also called for the "immediate liberation" of the

captured sailors.

In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the

same waterway. They were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and

admitted entering Iranian waters illegally, then released unharmed after

three days.

But the latest detention sparked calls among Iranian hardliners for the 15

Britons to be held until Iran wins political concessions from the West.

Several conservative student groups have called on the Iranian government

not to release sailors until five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in Iraq

earlier this year are freed and U.N. plans for sanctions against Iran over

its nuclear program are cancelled. Some 500 Iranian students gathered on the

shore near where the soldiers were captured, shouting "Death to Britain" and

"Death to America," the Fars news agency reported.

The U.N. Security Council is scheduled to vote later Saturday on a new set

of sanctions against Iran over its refusal of U.N. demands that it suspend

uranium enrichment. The U.S. and other nations suspect Iran is trying to

produce nuclear weapons. Iran denies that and insists it won't halt the

program.

With tensions running high, the United States has bolstered its naval forces

in the Persian Gulf in a show of strength directed at Iran. U.S. officials

have expressed concern that with so much military hardware in the Gulf, a

small incident like Friday's could escalate into a dangerous confrontation.

In his comments on the sailors, Afshar added a warning that the United

States would not be able to control the consequences if it attacks Iran.

"The United States and its allies know that if they make any mistake in

their calculations ... they will not be able to control the dimensions and

limit the duration of a war," Afshar said.

Earlier this week, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, warned

this week that if Western countries "treat us with threats and enforcement

of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation

and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that

attack."

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini accused the British

of "violating the sovereign boundaries" of Iran, calling the entry a

"suspicious move" and a "blatant aggression."

He accused Britain of trying to cover up the incursion, saying it should

"refrain from putting the blame on others."

The seizure of the Britons took place in an area where boundaries between

Iraqi and Iranian waters have long been disputed. A 1975 treaty set the

center of the Shatt al-Arab - the 200-kilometer-long (125-mile-long) channel

known in Iran as the Arvand river - as the border.

But Saddam Hussein canceled the 1975 treaty five years later and invaded

Iran, triggering an eight-year war. Virtually all of Iraq's oil is exported

through an oil terminal near the mouth of the channel.

Britain's Defense Ministry said the Royal Navy personnel were in Iraqi

territorial waters when they were seized. Cmdr Kevin Aandahl of the U.S.

Navy's Fifth Fleet in Bahrain also said it was "very clear" they were in

Iraqi waters.

"We've been on operations there for several years," Aandahl said. He said

coalition vessels respect the 1975 treaty.

The sailors, from the frigate HMS Cornwall, are part of a task force that

maintains security in Iraqi waters under authority of the U.N. Security

Council.

The Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said he hoped the

detention was a "simple mistake" stemming from the unclear border.

But the Iraqi military commander of the country's territorial waters said

the British boats may not have been in Iraqi territory.

"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," Brig.

Gen. Hakim Jassim told AP Television News in the southern city of Basra.

"We don't know why they were there. And these British troops were besieged

by unknown gunboats, I don't know from where," he said.

Iran's semi-official news agency, Fars, said navigational equipment on the

seized British boats "show that they (sailors) were aware that they were

operating in Iranian waters and Iranian border guards fulfilled their

responsibility."

As I've pointed out, Patriot, the Iranians likely have Russian Sizzler

missles. They could take out our entire Naval Force in the Persian

Gulf, if they wanted to. That's one of the big reasons we're not

attacking them. The other is the fear of nuclear retaliation from the

Russians. Which Vlad Putin has directly threatened. Obviously, Bush

would take Iran out, if he could. He can't. Neither can the

Israelis.

On 24 Mar 2007 07:52:44 -0700, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>As I've pointed out, Patriot, the Iranians likely have Russian Sizzler

>missles. They could take out our entire Naval Force in the Persian

>Gulf, if they wanted to. That's one of the big reasons we're not

>attacking them. The other is the fear of nuclear retaliation from the

>Russians. Which Vlad Putin has directly threatened. Obviously, Bush

>would take Iran out, if he could. He can't. Neither can the

>Israelis.

That would explain why they act like they're not the sligtest bit

afraid of us.

However, I don't think we even want to attack Iran right now even if

we could counter sizzler missiles. The regime's not that stable and

Amahdinijad's not popular within Iran. Plus Iran is making our other

fake strategic allies rather uncomfortable which is fun to watch.

I think we're simply waiting to let someone else take the lead since

when we (the US) do, everyone (supposed allies and enemies alike)

accuses us of being fascists.

The next time we join in any coalitions they'd better be begging us to

come and help and their society's will have to be on the brink of

annihilation. Just like in WWII.

The French pick and choose what NATO operations they take part in. And

they enjoy the admiration of the world.

Why shouldn't we do the same when we're not immediately threatened?

Torture, never!

Just waterboarding, sexual degradation, stress positions, attack dogs,

and sleep deprivation.

But you approve of all those tactics, right?

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:19:44 -0600, timeOday

<timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote:

>Torture, never!

>

>Just waterboarding, sexual degradation, stress positions, attack dogs,

>and sleep deprivation.

>

>But you approve of all those tactics, right?

Stress techniques are not torture. Stress techniques aim at

psychological fear short of actual physical suffering. They say

waterboarding is as close as it gets though and could arguably be a

form of torture.

The only reason why we began to consider using them in the WOT

(post-9/11) is because Islamists had shown they know Western

governments won't torture you because of observation of the Geneva

Convention as well as a general regard for silly notions of human

rights, both of which Islamists do not recognize. So you can avoid

cooperation with no fear. And since al Qaeda DOES use torture as

evidenced in their captured training manual you have much more to fear

from your own organization than the enemy.

With possibly thousands of lives at stake it seemed we should consider

approaching the line, but not crossing over to torture. Not enough to

hurt but enough to scare and make them think their interrogator might

be crazy to go all the way. And in so doing extract information which

could save many lives.

Also the GCs don't even cover non-uniformed, enemy combatants that

serve no government and operate across many sovereignties.

But you seem to be confusing legitimate stress techniques with the

shennanigans at Abu Graib where people were court martialed for

abusing the prisoners.

Even so barking dogs, sexual degradation or fooling some poor schmuck

into thinking you have live electrical wires attached to him isn't

like breaking bones, removing fingernails and fingers and burning with

lit cigarettes to name a few. All of the latter of which are in the

al Qaeda training manual, were used by Hussein's thugs and are likely

used throughout most if not all of the Islamic controlled nations.

djw wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:19:44 -0600, timeOday

> <timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote:

>

>> Torture, never!

>>

>> Just waterboarding, sexual degradation, stress positions, attack dogs,

>> and sleep deprivation.

>>

>> But you approve of all those tactics, right?

>

> Stress techniques are not torture. Stress techniques aim at

> psychological fear short of actual physical suffering. They say

> waterboarding is as close as it gets though and could arguably be a

> form of torture.

>

> The only reason why we began to consider using them in the WOT

> (post-9/11) is because Islamists had shown they know Western

> governments won't torture you because of observation of the Geneva

> Convention as well as a general regard for silly notions of human

> rights, both of which Islamists do not recognize. So you can avoid

> cooperation with no fear. And since al Qaeda DOES use torture as

> evidenced in their captured training manual you have much more to fear

> from your own organization than the enemy.

>

> With possibly thousands of lives at stake it seemed we should consider

> approaching the line, but not crossing over to torture. Not enough to

> hurt but enough to scare and make them think their interrogator might

> be crazy to go all the way. And in so doing extract information which

> could save many lives.

>

> Also the GCs don't even cover non-uniformed, enemy combatants that

> serve no government and operate across many sovereignties.

>

> But you seem to be confusing legitimate stress techniques with the

> shennanigans at Abu Graib where people were court martialed for

> abusing the prisoners.

>

> Even so barking dogs, sexual degradation or fooling some poor schmuck

> into thinking you have live electrical wires attached to him isn't

> like breaking bones, removing fingernails and fingers and burning with

> lit cigarettes to name a few. All of the latter of which are in the

> al Qaeda training manual, were used by Hussein's thugs and are likely

> used throughout most if not all of the Islamic controlled nations.

>

So does Iran have your go-ahead to waterboard the Brits or not?

Define torture.

Do you believe in Judge Jay S. Bybee definition, for instance?

"Only pain like that accompanying "death, organ failure or the

permanent impairment of a significant body function" qualifies, Mr.

Bybee wrote. It went on to say torture is unlawful only if the

infliction of pain is the offender's specific objective. "Even if the

defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if

causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite

specific

intent. . . For a cruel or inhuman psychological technique to rise to

the level of mental torture, the Justice Department argued, the

psychological harm must last "months or even years."

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=17123

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:23:44 -0600, timeOday

<timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote:

>djw wrote:

>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:19:44 -0600, timeOday

>> <timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote:

>>

>>> Torture, never!

>>>

>>> Just waterboarding, sexual degradation, stress positions, attack dogs,

>>> and sleep deprivation.

>>>

>>> But you approve of all those tactics, right?

>>

>> Stress techniques are not torture. Stress techniques aim at

>> psychological fear short of actual physical suffering. They say

>> waterboarding is as close as it gets though and could arguably be a

>> form of torture.

>>

>> The only reason why we began to consider using them in the WOT

>> (post-9/11) is because Islamists had shown they know Western

>> governments won't torture you because of observation of the Geneva

>> Convention as well as a general regard for silly notions of human

>> rights, both of which Islamists do not recognize. So you can avoid

>> cooperation with no fear. And since al Qaeda DOES use torture as

>> evidenced in their captured training manual you have much more to fear

>> from your own organization than the enemy.

>>

>> With possibly thousands of lives at stake it seemed we should consider

>> approaching the line, but not crossing over to torture. Not enough to

>> hurt but enough to scare and make them think their interrogator might

>> be crazy to go all the way. And in so doing extract information which

>> could save many lives.

>>

>> Also the GCs don't even cover non-uniformed, enemy combatants that

>> serve no government and operate across many sovereignties.

>>

>> But you seem to be confusing legitimate stress techniques with the

>> shennanigans at Abu Graib where people were court martialed for

>> abusing the prisoners.

>>

>> Even so barking dogs, sexual degradation or fooling some poor schmuck

>> into thinking you have live electrical wires attached to him isn't

>> like breaking bones, removing fingernails and fingers and burning with

>> lit cigarettes to name a few. All of the latter of which are in the

>> al Qaeda training manual, were used by Hussein's thugs and are likely

>> used throughout most if not all of the Islamic controlled nations.

>>

>

>So does Iran have your go-ahead to waterboard the Brits or not?

Those guys were uniformed soldiers representative of Britain and they

were not carrying out terror attacks (unlike Iranian backed

Hezbollah). Sothey're covered by the Geneva convention.

But at any rate, The Islamic Republic of Iran is a signatory of the

Geneva Conventions so if they have any shred of dignity left they will

need to abide by that agreement.

In reality I doubt they gave a shit when they signed such a

meaningless infidel pact (GCs). I understand the Koran allows for

Muslims to placate infidels with agreements that are non-binding to

adherents of Islam for purposes of furthering the interest of Allah.

After they get the drop on the West (which I'm convinced will happen)

they'll throw all that human rights shit out and follow the Koran and

Sharia law strictly.

Of course you haven't understood a word I've said in either post and

will now proceed to call me a fascist as you side with a police state.

But that's usenet for ya

djw wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:23:44 -0600, timeOday

> <timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote:

>

>> djw wrote:

>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:19:44 -0600, timeOday

>>> <timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Torture, never!

>>>>

>>>> Just waterboarding, sexual degradation, stress positions, attack dogs,

>>>> and sleep deprivation.

>>>>

>>>> But you approve of all those tactics, right?

>>> Stress techniques are not torture. Stress techniques aim at

>>> psychological fear short of actual physical suffering. They say

>>> waterboarding is as close as it gets though and could arguably be a

>>> form of torture.

>>>

>>> The only reason why we began to consider using them in the WOT

>>> (post-9/11) is because Islamists had shown they know Western

>>> governments won't torture you because of observation of the Geneva

>>> Convention as well as a general regard for silly notions of human

>>> rights, both of which Islamists do not recognize. So you can avoid

>>> cooperation with no fear. And since al Qaeda DOES use torture as

>>> evidenced in their captured training manual you have much more to fear

>>> from your own organization than the enemy.

>>>

>>> With possibly thousands of lives at stake it seemed we should consider

>>> approaching the line, but not crossing over to torture. Not enough to

>>> hurt but enough to scare and make them think their interrogator might

>>> be crazy to go all the way. And in so doing extract information which

>>> could save many lives.

>>>

>>> Also the GCs don't even cover non-uniformed, enemy combatants that

>>> serve no government and operate across many sovereignties.

>>>

>>> But you seem to be confusing legitimate stress techniques with the

>>> shennanigans at Abu Graib where people were court martialed for

>>> abusing the prisoners.

>>>

>>> Even so barking dogs, sexual degradation or fooling some poor schmuck

>>> into thinking you have live electrical wires attached to him isn't

>>> like breaking bones, removing fingernails and fingers and burning with

>>> lit cigarettes to name a few. All of the latter of which are in the

>>> al Qaeda training manual, were used by Hussein's thugs and are likely

>>> used throughout most if not all of the Islamic controlled nations.

>>>

>> So does Iran have your go-ahead to waterboard the Brits or not?

>

> Those guys were uniformed soldiers representative of Britain and they

> were not carrying out terror attacks (unlike Iranian backed

> Hezbollah). Sothey're covered by the Geneva convention.

>

> But at any rate, The Islamic Republic of Iran is a signatory of the

> Geneva Conventions so if they have any shred of dignity left they will

> need to abide by that agreement.

Does that mean you think waterboarding is a violation of the Geneva

Conventions?

More importantly, do you really think the issue boils down to a

technicality - the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions? That the

only thing restraining the US from torturing people is some

international law? Or that somebody else using torture gives us

license to use it ourselves? I disagree with all that.

Anyways, it's now a settled matter of US law; the use of torture is

illegal, regardless of the Geneva Conventions or anything else. The

only question is whether the executive will uphold or violate this law.

<http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/>

"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1174747964.444533.29320@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> As I've pointed out, Patriot, the Iranians likely have Russian Sizzler

> missles. They could take out our entire Naval Force in the Persian

> Gulf, if they wanted to.

Stop watching the Sci-Fi channel.....

Please note that you compared "likely" with "could" and this is because the

Sci-Fi channel has weakened your critical thinking ability.

> That's one of the big reasons we're not attacking them.

Nope. We're not bombing them because we're playing the Sanctions Game.

> The other is the fear of nuclear retaliation from the Russians.

What did I say about the SciFi Channel????

> Which Vlad Putin has directly threatened.

Cite?

> Obviously, Bush would take Iran out, if he could. He can't.

Of course we can....

> Neither can the Israelis.

Yep, Israel can't do it alone.

"timeOday" <timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote in message

news:NPqdnU-h6cNT9pjbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@comcast.com...

> Torture, never!

> Just waterboarding, sexual degradation, stress positions, attack dogs, and

> sleep deprivation.

> But you approve of all those tactics, right?

On innocent people? Of course not.

On Mar 24, 6:24 am, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260861,00.html

>

> Iran: Soldiers Confessed to Illegally Entering Waters

> Saturday, March 24, 2007

You are complaining about speculated tortured victims???

Gonzo said it was alright... so what's the problem?

Did Iran torture sailors? Is that your way of trying to scare up

support for attacking Iran? Let me explain something to you. If Iran

did torture them they would be completely fucking justified after what

the US did, which was torture and murder people, both Shia and Sunni.

Not just in Abu Ghraib, but in other locations as well, including in

Afghanistan. The last time Iran captured sailors they took care of

them and then let them go. On the other hand, when the US captures

people, it tortures them. And you think we're the good guys after

that?

Right wingers always love to say "war his hell, and we shouldn't

leave just because of that". Well, those Brits should've thought

about that before agreeing to go along with the US in an invasion of

other peoples' turf. We are occupying Iran's back yard, of course

they are going to be involved.

Don't like it? Then don't engage in bullshit wars. Chances are the

sailors will be let go, just like last time.

On Mar 25, 9:24 am, djw <wells.fam...@insightbb.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:23:44 -0600, timeOday

>

>

>

> <timeOday-UNS...@theknack.net> wrote:

> >djw wrote:

> >> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:19:44 -0600, timeOday

> >> <timeOday-UNS...@theknack.net> wrote:

>

> >>> Torture, never!

>

> >>> Just waterboarding, sexual degradation, stress positions, attack dogs,

> >>> and sleep deprivation.

>

> >>> But you approve of all those tactics, right?

>

> >> Stress techniques are not torture. Stress techniques aim at

> >> psychological fear short of actual physical suffering. They say

> >> waterboarding is as close as it gets though and could arguably be a

> >> form of torture.

>

> >> The only reason why we began to consider using them in the WOT

> >> (post-9/11) is because Islamists had shown they know Western

> >> governments won't torture you because of observation of the Geneva

> >> Convention as well as a general regard for silly notions of human

> >> rights, both of which Islamists do not recognize. So you can avoid

> >> cooperation with no fear. And since al Qaeda DOES use torture as

> >> evidenced in their captured training manual you have much more to fear

> >> from your own organization than the enemy.

>

> >> With possibly thousands of lives at stake it seemed we should consider

> >> approaching the line, but not crossing over to torture. Not enough to

> >> hurt but enough to scare and make them think their interrogator might

> >> be crazy to go all the way. And in so doing extract information which

> >> could save many lives.

>

> >> Also the GCs don't even cover non-uniformed, enemy combatants that

> >> serve no government and operate across many sovereignties.

>

> >> But you seem to be confusing legitimate stress techniques with the

> >> shennanigans at Abu Graib where people were court martialed for

> >> abusing the prisoners.

>

> >> Even so barking dogs, sexual degradation or fooling some poor schmuck

> >> into thinking you have live electrical wires attached to him isn't

> >> like breaking bones, removing fingernails and fingers and burning with

> >> lit cigarettes to name a few. All of the latter of which are in the

> >> al Qaeda training manual, were used by Hussein's thugs and are likely

> >> used throughout most if not all of the Islamic controlled nations.

>

> >So does Iran have your go-ahead to waterboard the Brits or not?

>

> Those guys were uniformed soldiers representative of Britain and they

> were not carrying out terror attacks (unlike Iranian backed

> Hezbollah). Sothey're covered by the Geneva convention.

>

Excuse me. The people we tortured and murdered were not part of

Hezbollah. The CIA said that about 90% of the people there had

nothing to do with Saddam or any insurgency or terrorism. The US

tortured and murdered innocent people.

> But at any rate, The Islamic Republic of Iran is a signatory of the

> Geneva Conventions so if they have any shred of dignity left they will

> need to abide by that agreement.

>

Shred of dignity? Is that a fucking joke? The US no longer has moral

authority after Abu Ghraib. The last time Iranians captured soldiers

they took care of them and then let them go. What does the US do?

Torture and murder.

Iran is also a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so

I guess you support them having nuclear power, given your words about

them being a signatory of the Geneva Conventions. You can't have it

both ways; you either trust them or you do not.

> In reality I doubt they gave a shit when they signed such a

> meaningless infidel pact (GCs). I understand the Koran allows for

> Muslims to placate infidels with agreements that are non-binding to

> adherents of Islam for purposes of furthering the interest of Allah.

>

The US has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Once

again the US bitches about others doing what the US does. What is

binding these days when the US exits treaties and engages in torture

and murder?

> After they get the drop on the West (which I'm convinced will happen)

> they'll throw all that human rights shit out and follow the Koran and

> Sharia law strictly.

>

> Of course you haven't understood a word I've said in either post and

> will now proceed to call me a fascist as you side with a police state.

> But that's usenet for ya

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:12:41 -0600, timeOday

<timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote:

>djw wrote:

>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:23:44 -0600, timeOday

>> <timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote:

>>

>>> djw wrote:

>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:19:44 -0600, timeOday

>>>> <timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Torture, never!

>>>>>

>>>>> Just waterboarding, sexual degradation, stress positions, attack dogs,

>>>>> and sleep deprivation.

>>>>>

>>>>> But you approve of all those tactics, right?

>>>> Stress techniques are not torture. Stress techniques aim at

>>>> psychological fear short of actual physical suffering. They say

>>>> waterboarding is as close as it gets though and could arguably be a

>>>> form of torture.

>>>>

>>>> The only reason why we began to consider using them in the WOT

>>>> (post-9/11) is because Islamists had shown they know Western

>>>> governments won't torture you because of observation of the Geneva

>>>> Convention as well as a general regard for silly notions of human

>>>> rights, both of which Islamists do not recognize. So you can avoid

>>>> cooperation with no fear. And since al Qaeda DOES use torture as

>>>> evidenced in their captured training manual you have much more to fear

>>>> from your own organization than the enemy.

>>>>

>>>> With possibly thousands of lives at stake it seemed we should consider

>>>> approaching the line, but not crossing over to torture. Not enough to

>>>> hurt but enough to scare and make them think their interrogator might

>>>> be crazy to go all the way. And in so doing extract information which

>>>> could save many lives.

>>>>

>>>> Also the GCs don't even cover non-uniformed, enemy combatants that

>>>> serve no government and operate across many sovereignties.

>>>>

>>>> But you seem to be confusing legitimate stress techniques with the

>>>> shennanigans at Abu Graib where people were court martialed for

>>>> abusing the prisoners.

>>>>

>>>> Even so barking dogs, sexual degradation or fooling some poor schmuck

>>>> into thinking you have live electrical wires attached to him isn't

>>>> like breaking bones, removing fingernails and fingers and burning with

>>>> lit cigarettes to name a few. All of the latter of which are in the

>>>> al Qaeda training manual, were used by Hussein's thugs and are likely

>>>> used throughout most if not all of the Islamic controlled nations.

>>>>

>>> So does Iran have your go-ahead to waterboard the Brits or not?

>>

>> Those guys were uniformed soldiers representative of Britain and they

>> were not carrying out terror attacks (unlike Iranian backed

>> Hezbollah). Sothey're covered by the Geneva convention.

>>

>> But at any rate, The Islamic Republic of Iran is a signatory of the

>> Geneva Conventions so if they have any shred of dignity left they will

>> need to abide by that agreement.

>

>Does that mean you think waterboarding is a violation of the Geneva

>Conventions?

>

I'm no expert on it but my understanding of the distinction between

stress techniques and torture is the former do not do actual bodily

harm.

So with waterboarding you think your going to drown which is extremely

uncomfortable but you don't and you're actually not harmed. Or they

deprive you of sleep until you're addled and weak-willed. Or they

turn the temperature down in the room and won't let you leave

continuing to question you making you think "maybe I should just give

in and get out of here".

With torture someone puts a cigarette out on your face or pulls your

fingernails out or hangs with your arms behind you pulling your arms

out of their sockets. That's permanent damage.

>More importantly, do you really think the issue boils down to a

>technicality - the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions?

No but it's to be taken into account. In conventional war soldiers

follow the rules of war and sometimes they break those rules and those

are war crimes.

Operatives of terrorist groups by definition start and end breaking

the rules by targeting the civilian masses and eschewing conflict with

the opposing troops. That should be factored in.

They are trained to use our human rights values against us (they

torture but we can't so they need not fear us when they're captured)

That should be factored in.

Indeed their sharia law itself it could be argued is a form of

torture, lopping hands off for thieves and cutting tongues out for

liars. They aren't impressed with human rights and see them as a sign

of infidel inferiority. Very much like the Japanese in WWII. They

were brutal, pitiless and courageous which they thought made them

strong. That too should be factored in.

>That the

>only thing restraining the US from torturing people is some

>international law? Or that somebody else using torture gives us

>license to use it ourselves? I disagree with all that.

>

I agree we should not torture anyone bue we should use stress

techniques or we will not be taken seriously when we capture their

operatives. They'll just enjoy the food and the free Koran.

>Anyways, it's now a settled matter of US law; the use of torture is

>illegal, regardless of the Geneva Conventions or anything else. The

>only question is whether the executive will uphold or violate this law.

>

><http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/>

On Mar 26, 10:11 pm, djw <wells.fam...@insightbb.com> wrote:

> On 26 Mar 2007 16:43:19 -0700, "American Jesus" <z...@netscape.net>

> wrote:

>

>

>

> >On Mar 25, 9:24 am, djw <wells.fam...@insightbb.com> wrote:

> >> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:23:44 -0600, timeOday

>

> >> <timeOday-UNS...@theknack.net> wrote:

> >> >djw wrote:

> >> >> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:19:44 -0600, timeOday

> >> >> <timeOday-UNS...@theknack.net> wrote:

>

> >> >>> Torture, never!

>

> >> >>> Just waterboarding, sexual degradation, stress positions, attack dogs,

> >> >>> and sleep deprivation.

>

> >> >>> But you approve of all those tactics, right?

>

> >> >> Stress techniques are not torture. Stress techniques aim at

> >> >> psychological fear short of actual physical suffering. They say

> >> >> waterboarding is as close as it gets though and could arguably be a

> >> >> form of torture.

>

> >> >> The only reason why we began to consider using them in the WOT

> >> >> (post-9/11) is because Islamists had shown they know Western

> >> >> governments won't torture you because of observation of the Geneva

> >> >> Convention as well as a general regard for silly notions of human

> >> >> rights, both of which Islamists do not recognize. So you can avoid

> >> >> cooperation with no fear. And since al Qaeda DOES use torture as

> >> >> evidenced in their captured training manual you have much more to fear

> >> >> from your own organization than the enemy.

>

> >> >> With possibly thousands of lives at stake it seemed we should consider

> >> >> approaching the line, but not crossing over to torture. Not enough to

> >> >> hurt but enough to scare and make them think their interrogator might

> >> >> be crazy to go all the way. And in so doing extract information which

> >> >> could save many lives.

>

> >> >> Also the GCs don't even cover non-uniformed, enemy combatants that

> >> >> serve no government and operate across many sovereignties.

>

> >> >> But you seem to be confusing legitimate stress techniques with the

> >> >> shennanigans at Abu Graib where people were court martialed for

> >> >> abusing the prisoners.

>

> >> >> Even so barking dogs, sexual degradation or fooling some poor schmuck

> >> >> into thinking you have live electrical wires attached to him isn't

> >> >> like breaking bones, removing fingernails and fingers and burning with

> >> >> lit cigarettes to name a few. All of the latter of which are in the

> >> >> al Qaeda training manual, were used by Hussein's thugs and are likely

> >> >> used throughout most if not all of the Islamic controlled nations.

>

> >> >So does Iran have your go-ahead to waterboard the Brits or not?

>

> >> Those guys were uniformed soldiers representative of Britain and they

> >> were not carrying out terror attacks (unlike Iranian backed

> >> Hezbollah). Sothey're covered by the Geneva convention.

>

> >Excuse me. The people we tortured and murdered were not part of

> >Hezbollah.

>

> The abuses at Abu Graib were prosecuted. People are doing serious

> time over those abuses. That's not we. I don't approve of that but I

> do approve of their conviction and incarceration.

>

> >The CIA said that about 90% of the people there had

> >nothing to do with Saddam or any insurgency or terrorism. The US

> >tortured and murdered innocent people.

>

> No some dumbshit hooligans did. And they went to jail for it.

>

As I recall many rightwing radio and TV show hosts tried to justify

it. In fact the Red Cross told the Bush admin they were concerned

about these issues several months before the infamous photos emerged.

Only then did Bush denounce it. Furthermore, it wasn't a few

hooligans who did it, rather it was systemic, and ordered. There were

rules for things such as how long a person could be left hanging by

their arms or whatever, or subjected to cold temperatures. That is

not a sign of only a few hooligans.

>

>

> >> But at any rate, The Islamic Republic of Iran is a signatory of the

> >> Geneva Conventions so if they have any shred of dignity left they will

> >> need to abide by that agreement.

>

> >Shred of dignity? Is that a fucking joke? The US no longer has moral

> >authority after Abu Ghraib.

>

> You're just looking for an excuse to equate us with a thuggish

> Islamist police state. Why don't you go live there for awhile.

>

I've already lived in a shithole 3rd world country, thank you very

much. One with Muslims, too. Our difference is one of subject and

understanding. I think the US is better, but that doesn't justify

what our soldiers did. Don't play games and pretend the right didn't

try to justify torture.

> >The last time Iranians captured soldiers

> >they took care of them and then let them go. What does the US do?

> >Torture and murder.

>

> Captured? You mean kidnapped and this time is no different. They're

> not even hiding it. The UK has proof those guys are innocent but the

> Islamic fascists couldn't give a shit how obvious it is. They've

> practically admitted having made comments about capturing some nice

> blue-eyed boys.

>

Yes, sure, "kidnapped". I feel confident the british sailors wil be

returned in good health. What is that blue-eyed comment about? A

hint of racism?

> > Iran is also a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so

> >I guess you support them having nuclear power, given your words about

> >them being a signatory of the Geneva Conventions. You can't have it

> >both ways; you either trust them or you do not.

>

> Tell that to the UN. They're the one's bitching. The Brits and Euros

> were going to take care of that through diplomacy, remember?

>

Fine enough. I know Iran is potentially dangerous.

> >> In reality I doubt they gave a shit when they signed such a

> >> meaningless infidel pact (GCs). I understand the Koran allows for

> >> Muslims to placate infidels with agreements that are non-binding to

> >> adherents of Islam for purposes of furthering the interest of Allah.

>

> >The US has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Once

> >again the US bitches about others doing what the US does. What is

> >binding these days when the US exits treaties and engages in torture

> >and murder?

>

> We withdrew from an agreement with a defunct state. Or hadn't you

> heard the USSR no longer exists. Or should we honor our agreement

> while several other flagrant enemies develop weapons and aim them at

> us?

>

Really? The USSR no longer exists? Holy cow! You ever consider the

fact that the same weapons exist? Go ahead and develop new stuff. I

think you made a decent point there.

> Is this the leftwing's idea of security?

>

Dunno; I'm not a leftist. The leftwing idea of security is probably

making friends with enemies and ignoring UN resolutions, probably

similar to the right's ignoring crimes by Israel and justifying

torture.

>

>

> >> After they get the drop on the West (which I'm convinced will happen)

> >> they'll throw all that human rights shit out and follow the Koran and

> >> Sharia law strictly.

>

> >> Of course you haven't understood a word I've said in either post and

> >> will now proceed to call me a fascist as you side with a police state.

> >> But that's usenet for ya

On 26 Mar 2007 16:43:19 -0700, "American Jesus" <zz99z@netscape.net>

wrote:

>On Mar 25, 9:24 am, djw <wells.fam...@insightbb.com> wrote:

>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:23:44 -0600, timeOday

>>

>>

>>

>> <timeOday-UNS...@theknack.net> wrote:

>> >djw wrote:

>> >> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:19:44 -0600, timeOday

>> >> <timeOday-UNS...@theknack.net> wrote:

>>

>> >>> Torture, never!

>>

>> >>> Just waterboarding, sexual degradation, stress positions, attack dogs,

>> >>> and sleep deprivation.

>>

>> >>> But you approve of all those tactics, right?

>>

>> >> Stress techniques are not torture. Stress techniques aim at

>> >> psychological fear short of actual physical suffering. They say

>> >> waterboarding is as close as it gets though and could arguably be a

>> >> form of torture.

>>

>> >> The only reason why we began to consider using them in the WOT

>> >> (post-9/11) is because Islamists had shown they know Western

>> >> governments won't torture you because of observation of the Geneva

>> >> Convention as well as a general regard for silly notions of human

>> >> rights, both of which Islamists do not recognize. So you can avoid

>> >> cooperation with no fear. And since al Qaeda DOES use torture as

>> >> evidenced in their captured training manual you have much more to fear

>> >> from your own organization than the enemy.

>>

>> >> With possibly thousands of lives at stake it seemed we should consider

>> >> approaching the line, but not crossing over to torture. Not enough to

>> >> hurt but enough to scare and make them think their interrogator might

>> >> be crazy to go all the way. And in so doing extract information which

>> >> could save many lives.

>>

>> >> Also the GCs don't even cover non-uniformed, enemy combatants that

>> >> serve no government and operate across many sovereignties.

>>

>> >> But you seem to be confusing legitimate stress techniques with the

>> >> shennanigans at Abu Graib where people were court martialed for

>> >> abusing the prisoners.

>>

>> >> Even so barking dogs, sexual degradation or fooling some poor schmuck

>> >> into thinking you have live electrical wires attached to him isn't

>> >> like breaking bones, removing fingernails and fingers and burning with

>> >> lit cigarettes to name a few. All of the latter of which are in the

>> >> al Qaeda training manual, were used by Hussein's thugs and are likely

>> >> used throughout most if not all of the Islamic controlled nations.

>>

>> >So does Iran have your go-ahead to waterboard the Brits or not?

>>

>> Those guys were uniformed soldiers representative of Britain and they

>> were not carrying out terror attacks (unlike Iranian backed

>> Hezbollah). Sothey're covered by the Geneva convention.

>>

>

>Excuse me. The people we tortured and murdered were not part of

>Hezbollah.

The abuses at Abu Graib were prosecuted. People are doing serious

time over those abuses. That's not we. I don't approve of that but I

do approve of their conviction and incarceration.

>The CIA said that about 90% of the people there had

>nothing to do with Saddam or any insurgency or terrorism. The US

>tortured and murdered innocent people.

>

No some dumbshit hooligans did. And they went to jail for it.

>

>> But at any rate, The Islamic Republic of Iran is a signatory of the

>> Geneva Conventions so if they have any shred of dignity left they will

>> need to abide by that agreement.

>>

>

>Shred of dignity? Is that a fucking joke? The US no longer has moral

>authority after Abu Ghraib.

You're just looking for an excuse to equate us with a thuggish

Islamist police state. Why don't you go live there for awhile.

>The last time Iranians captured soldiers

>they took care of them and then let them go. What does the US do?

>Torture and murder.

Captured? You mean kidnapped and this time is no different. They're

not even hiding it. The UK has proof those guys are innocent but the

Islamic fascists couldn't give a shit how obvious it is. They've

practically admitted having made comments about capturing some nice

blue-eyed boys.

> Iran is also a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so

>I guess you support them having nuclear power, given your words about

>them being a signatory of the Geneva Conventions. You can't have it

>both ways; you either trust them or you do not.

>

Tell that to the UN. They're the one's bitching. The Brits and Euros

were going to take care of that through diplomacy, remember?

>

>

>> In reality I doubt they gave a shit when they signed such a

>> meaningless infidel pact (GCs). I understand the Koran allows for

>> Muslims to placate infidels with agreements that are non-binding to

>> adherents of Islam for purposes of furthering the interest of Allah.

>>

>

>The US has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Once

>again the US bitches about others doing what the US does. What is

>binding these days when the US exits treaties and engages in torture

>and murder?

>

We withdrew from an agreement with a defunct state. Or hadn't you

heard the USSR no longer exists. Or should we honor our agreement

while several other flagrant enemies develop weapons and aim them at

us?

Is this the leftwing's idea of security?

>

>> After they get the drop on the West (which I'm convinced will happen)

>> they'll throw all that human rights shit out and follow the Koran and

>> Sharia law strictly.

>>

>> Of course you haven't understood a word I've said in either post and

>> will now proceed to call me a fascist as you side with a police state.

>> But that's usenet for ya

>

<lorad474@cs.com> wrote in message

news:1174950307.762916.111350@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 24, 6:24 am, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260861,00.html

>> Iran: Soldiers Confessed to Illegally Entering Waters

>> Saturday, March 24, 2007

> You are complaining about speculated tortured victims???

So?

> Gonzo said it was alright... so what's the problem?

These Brits are innocent....

"American Jesus" <zz99z@netscape.net> wrote in message

news:1174951418.403784.181390@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> Did Iran torture sailors?

That's the question...

> Is that your way of trying to scare up

> support for attacking Iran?

I'm not gonna attack Iran myself. I'm retired. But if I was I'd probably

like a few guys watching my back.

> Let me explain something to you. If Iran

> did torture them they would be completely fucking justified after what

> the US did, which was torture and murder people, both Shia and Sunni.

Its NEVER justifiable to torture innocent people.

> Not just in Abu Ghraib, but in other locations as well, including in

> Afghanistan. The last time Iran captured sailors they took care of

> them and then let them go. On the other hand, when the US captures

> people, it tortures them. And you think we're the good guys after

> that?

Of course we're the good guys. If you didn't hate America you'd understand

that.

The US doesn't capture "people," we capture TERRORISTS.

> Right wingers always love to say "war his hell, and we shouldn't

> leave just because of that". Well, those Brits should've thought

> about that before agreeing to go along with the US in an invasion of

> other peoples' turf.

Those Brits are totally innocent. They were in international waters. AND

this Iraq war is NONE of Iran's business.

> We are occupying Iran's back yard, of course

> they are going to be involved.

We aren't occupying anything. Its none of their business.

> Don't like it? Then don't engage in bullshit wars. Chances are the

> sailors will be let go, just like last time.

I'm hoping for a rapid and severe escalation leading to a Brit-initiated

sinking of several Iranian boats by SAS, maybe Thursday or Friday. Planes

in the air by Saturday night.

YeeeeeeeeHAAAW!

The boys are ready, willing and eager to torch some Iranian ass.

On Mar 27, 10:33 am, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> "American Jesus" <z...@netscape.net> wrote in message

>

> news:1174951418.403784.181390@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

>

> > Did Iran torture sailors?

>

> That's the question...

>

> > Is that your way of trying to scare up

> > support for attacking Iran?

>

> I'm not gonna attack Iran myself. I'm retired. But if I was I'd probably

> like a few guys watching my back.

>

> > Let me explain something to you. If Iran

> > did torture them they would be completely fucking justified after what

> > the US did, which was torture and murder people, both Shia and Sunni.

>

> Its NEVER justifiable to torture innocent people.

>

Only guilty people, right? You are no American, you're a thug.

> > Not just in Abu Ghraib, but in other locations as well, including in

> > Afghanistan. The last time Iran captured sailors they took care of

> > them and then let them go. On the other hand, when the US captures

> > people, it tortures them. And you think we're the good guys after

> > that?

>

> Of course we're the good guys. If you didn't hate America you'd understand

> that.

>

If I hated America do you know what I would do? I would start a

bullshit war based on lies and turn more and more people in the world

against us. That's what Republicans have done. Bush is friends with

the Saudi royal family, who claim to help yet allow their children to

be taught to hate Americans and Jews. Bush knows this. I'm supposed

to believe that he and his supporters care about Iraqis?

> The US doesn't capture "people," we capture TERRORISTS.

>

According to the CIA about 90% of the people in Abu Ghraib didn't have

any connections to terrorism, were not insurgents, and were not loyal

to Saddam Hussein. We just scooped a bunch of people up, like we did

in Afghanistan, and we sent those to Gitmo.

> > Right wingers always love to say "war his hell, and we shouldn't

> > leave just because of that". Well, those Brits should've thought

> > about that before agreeing to go along with the US in an invasion of

> > other peoples' turf.

>

> Those Brits are totally innocent. They were in international waters. AND

> this Iraq war is NONE of Iran's business.

>

In a war that shouldn't have happened, who is innocent and who is

guilty? What happens in their region, right next door, is very much

their business, as it shapes the security situation of the region they

live in. Of course it's their business.

> > We are occupying Iran's back yard, of course

> > they are going to be involved.

>

> We aren't occupying anything. Its none of their business.

>

> > Don't like it? Then don't engage in bullshit wars. Chances are the

> > sailors will be let go, just like last time.

>

> I'm hoping for a rapid and severe escalation leading to a Brit-initiated

> sinking of several Iranian boats by SAS, maybe Thursday or Friday. Planes

> in the air by Saturday night.

>

> YeeeeeeeeHAAAW!

>

> The boys are ready, willing and eager to torch some Iranian ass.

This attitude only serves to spread the war throughout the region,

don't you get that? When we leave Iraq, it will probably fall apart,

but we can't stay forever anyway. When they fall apart and a new

strongman emerges, he will probably be even worse than Hussein was.

So we're right back where we started, and our soldiers died for what?

Nothing. That's exactly what we're gonna have when the dust settles.

On 26 Mar 2007 20:31:26 -0700, "American Jesus" <zz99z@netscape.net>

wrote:

>On Mar 26, 10:11 pm, djw <wells.fam...@insightbb.com> wrote:

>> On 26 Mar 2007 16:43:19 -0700, "American Jesus" <z...@netscape.net>

>> wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>> >On Mar 25, 9:24 am, djw <wells.fam...@insightbb.com> wrote:

>> >> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:23:44 -0600, timeOday

>>

>> >> <timeOday-UNS...@theknack.net> wrote:

>> >> >djw wrote:

>> >> >> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:19:44 -0600, timeOday

>> >> >> <timeOday-UNS...@theknack.net> wrote:

>>

>> >> >>> Torture, never!

>>

>> >> >>> Just waterboarding, sexual degradation, stress positions, attack dogs,

>> >> >>> and sleep deprivation.

>>

>> >> >>> But you approve of all those tactics, right?

>>

>> >> >> Stress techniques are not torture. Stress techniques aim at

>> >> >> psychological fear short of actual physical suffering. They say

>> >> >> waterboarding is as close as it gets though and could arguably be a

>> >> >> form of torture.

>>

>> >> >> The only reason why we began to consider using them in the WOT

>> >> >> (post-9/11) is because Islamists had shown they know Western

>> >> >> governments won't torture you because of observation of the Geneva

>> >> >> Convention as well as a general regard for silly notions of human

>> >> >> rights, both of which Islamists do not recognize. So you can avoid

>> >> >> cooperation with no fear. And since al Qaeda DOES use torture as

>> >> >> evidenced in their captured training manual you have much more to fear

>> >> >> from your own organization than the enemy.

>>

>> >> >> With possibly thousands of lives at stake it seemed we should consider

>> >> >> approaching the line, but not crossing over to torture. Not enough to

>> >> >> hurt but enough to scare and make them think their interrogator might

>> >> >> be crazy to go all the way. And in so doing extract information which

>> >> >> could save many lives.

>>

>> >> >> Also the GCs don't even cover non-uniformed, enemy combatants that

>> >> >> serve no government and operate across many sovereignties.

>>

>> >> >> But you seem to be confusing legitimate stress techniques with the

>> >> >> shennanigans at Abu Graib where people were court martialed for

>> >> >> abusing the prisoners.

>>

>> >> >> Even so barking dogs, sexual degradation or fooling some poor schmuck

>> >> >> into thinking you have live electrical wires attached to him isn't

>> >> >> like breaking bones, removing fingernails and fingers and burning with

>> >> >> lit cigarettes to name a few. All of the latter of which are in the

>> >> >> al Qaeda training manual, were used by Hussein's thugs and are likely

>> >> >> used throughout most if not all of the Islamic controlled nations.

>>

>> >> >So does Iran have your go-ahead to waterboard the Brits or not?

>>

>> >> Those guys were uniformed soldiers representative of Britain and they

>> >> were not carrying out terror attacks (unlike Iranian backed

>> >> Hezbollah). Sothey're covered by the Geneva convention.

>>

>> >Excuse me. The people we tortured and murdered were not part of

>> >Hezbollah.

>>

>> The abuses at Abu Graib were prosecuted. People are doing serious

>> time over those abuses. That's not we. I don't approve of that but I

>> do approve of their conviction and incarceration.

>>

>> >The CIA said that about 90% of the people there had

>> >nothing to do with Saddam or any insurgency or terrorism. The US

>> >tortured and murdered innocent people.

>>

>> No some dumbshit hooligans did. And they went to jail for it.

>>

>

>As I recall many rightwing radio and TV show hosts tried to justify

>it. In fact the Red Cross told the Bush admin they were concerned

>about these issues several months before the infamous photos emerged.

are you arguing with me or are arguing with some on the right?

>Only then did Bush denounce it.

How could he denounce it before he saw it? I know you hate Bush and

all but he hadn't been monitoring Iraqi jails that closely I'm sure.

Only liberals moan and simper about the treatment of the enemy but

care about their own soldiers only as a weapon against their political

enemies.

>Furthermore, it wasn't a few

>hooligans who did it, rather it was systemic, and ordered. There were

>rules for things such as how long a person could be left hanging by

>their arms or whatever, or subjected to cold temperatures. That is

>not a sign of only a few hooligans.

>

Per Wikipedia:

Brig. General Janis Karpinski, commanding officer at the prison was

demoted to colonel on May 5, 2005, which also effectively ends her

chances for future career advancement. In a BBC interview, Janis

Karpinski said she is being made a scapegoat, and that the top U.S.

commander for Iraq, Gen Ricardo Sanchez, should be asked what he knew

about the abuse, as according to her, he said that prisoners are "like

dogs".[33] However, a spokesman for Geoffrey Miller, who commanded the

Guantanamo camp and now commands Abu Ghraib, called Karpinski's

allegations "categorically false", and said no directive to treat

detainees "like dogs" was made at either Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib.[34]

It also says Donald Rumself made statements taking full responsibility

but only because it happened on his watch. He offered his resignation

to Bush twice over it.

>

>>

>>

>> >> But at any rate, The Islamic Republic of Iran is a signatory of the

>> >> Geneva Conventions so if they have any shred of dignity left they will

>> >> need to abide by that agreement.

>>

>> >Shred of dignity? Is that a fucking joke? The US no longer has moral

>> >authority after Abu Ghraib.

>>

>> You're just looking for an excuse to equate us with a thuggish

>> Islamist police state. Why don't you go live there for awhile.

>>

>

>I've already lived in a shithole 3rd world country, thank you very

>much. One with Muslims, too. Our difference is one of subject and

>understanding. I think the US is better, but that doesn't justify

>what our soldiers did. Don't play games and pretend the right didn't

>try to justify torture.

>

Some did. You don't see me defending them and I haven't advocated

torture in this thread, have I?

>> >The last time Iranians captured soldiers

>> >they took care of them and then let them go. What does the US do?

>> >Torture and murder.

>>

>> Captured? You mean kidnapped and this time is no different. They're

>> not even hiding it. The UK has proof those guys are innocent but the

>> Islamic fascists couldn't give a shit how obvious it is. They've

>> practically admitted having made comments about capturing some nice

>> blue-eyed boys.

>>

>

>Yes, sure, "kidnapped". I feel confident the british sailors wil be

>returned in good health.

You trust an Islamist police state but savage your own country's

military for the rogue misuse of stress techniques in one instance we

know of.

>What is that blue-eyed comment about? A

>hint of racism?

>

Yes I'm a racist. I have brown eyes (and they're rolling upward right

now) This is what I was referring to:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1530527.ece

In an article in Subhi Sadek, the Revolutionary Guard

"American Jesus" <zz99z@netscape.net> wrote in message

news:1175034352.500069.173750@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 27, 10:33 am, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

>> "American Jesus" <z...@netscape.net> wrote in message

>> news:1174951418.403784.181390@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

>> > Did Iran torture sailors?

>> That's the question...

>> > Is that your way of trying to scare up

>> > support for attacking Iran?

>> I'm not gonna attack Iran myself. I'm retired. But if I was I'd

>> probably

>> like a few guys watching my back.

>> > Let me explain something to you. If Iran

>> > did torture them they would be completely fucking justified after what

>> > the US did, which was torture and murder people, both Shia and Sunni.

>> Its NEVER justifiable to torture innocent people.

> Only guilty people, right? You are no American, you're a thug.

Try to separate Abu Garbass from actual LEGAL interrogations. Abu Grabass

was an unsanctioned anomaly. In the real world we use certain interrogation

techniques, and we aren't gonna stop. When we nab somebody its because we

ALREADY have enough on them to consider them important enough to nab.

>> Of course we're the good guys. If you didn't hate America you'd

>> understand

>> that.

> If I hated America do you know what I would do?

Yes, you'd get on the Internet and bad-mouth your country every day....

> I would start a

> bullshit war based on lies and turn more and more people in the world

> against us. That's what Republicans have done.

Never happenned.

> Bush is friends with

> the Saudi royal family, who claim to help yet allow their children to

> be taught to hate Americans and Jews. Bush knows this. I'm supposed

> to believe that he and his supporters care about Iraqis?

Why are you suppossed to believe that? A secular Constitutional

democracy-like gov't in Iraq (just as in Tirkey) is safer for everybody.

That's ALL there is to it.

>> The US doesn't capture "people," we capture TERRORISTS.

> According to the CIA about 90% of the people in Abu Ghraib didn't have

> any connections to terrorism, were not insurgents, and were not loyal

> to Saddam Hussein.

Abu Grabass is a single solitary unsanctioned unofficial event. It has

NOTHING to do with how we conduct actual intel-gathering or interrogations.

> We just scooped a bunch of people up, like we did

> in Afghanistan, and we sent those to Gitmo.

No. We "scooped a bunch of people" who were the ENEMY and who were SHOOTING

AT US in Afghanistan and sent them to Gitmo.

At Abu Grabass we collected all sorts of Iraqis and simply tossed them in

jail because we didn't have time to deal with them. Eventually we'd have

released almost all of them. What happenned AFTER that had NOTHING to do

with the War in Iraq, or official policy or anything else.

>> Those Brits are totally innocent. They were in international waters.

>> AND

>> this Iraq war is NONE of Iran's business.

> In a war that shouldn't have happened, who is innocent and who is

> guilty?

"Shouldn't have happened" is irrelevant. It DID happen. And once it DOES

happen you deal with THAT fact and nothing else. In Iraq the innocent are

the civilians. The "guilty" are the criminal insurgents and foreign

terrorists.

> What happens in their region, right next door, is very much

> their business, as it shapes the security situation of the region they

> live in. Of course it's their business.

Its their business to pay attention. Its NOT their business to interfere in

ANY way.

>> > We are occupying Iran's back yard, of course

>> > they are going to be involved.

>> We aren't occupying anything. Its none of their business.

>> > Don't like it? Then don't engage in bullshit wars. Chances are the

>> > sailors will be let go, just like last time.

>> I'm hoping for a rapid and severe escalation leading to a Brit-initiated

>> sinking of several Iranian boats by SAS, maybe Thursday or Friday.

>> Planes

>> in the air by Saturday night.

>> YeeeeeeeeHAAAW!

>> The boys are ready, willing and eager to torch some Iranian ass.

> This attitude only serves to spread the war throughout the region,

> don't you get that?

Of course I get that. The sooner we but a HUGE beating on somebody over

there the sooner we can start getting things done right.

> When we leave Iraq, it will probably fall apart,

> but we can't stay forever anyway. When they fall apart and a new

> strongman emerges, he will probably be even worse than Hussein was.

The new strongman will be Iran, directly teamed up with Syria and Lebanon,

etc. That "team" will almost certainly guarantee a direct military

confrontation with Israel and/or Saudi Arabia. Either way you're looking at

maybe a million people dead. THAT is why its so important to calm down Iraq

AND to contain Iran.

> So we're right back where we started, and our soldiers died for what?

> Nothing. That's exactly what we're gonna have when the dust settles.

If we end up with a moderately peaceful Iraq and an isolated Iran our

soldiers will have done. If we don't do that the next confrontation will be

dramatically more severe.