Iran shows true colours

Whim

watty wrote:

The Iranians have broken Geneva convention on the treatment of these prisoners.


The fact that the US is running a concentration camp and breaking human rights doesn't give the Iranians the right to abuse British captives.

hostages humanely

Those two words don't go together. Woolly thinking there.

I'm not saying what they've done is right. But it's incredibly hypocritical of America and Britain to point the finger at the Iranians and act morally superior when it's a well known fact they've done far worse. It's as if because Iran are middle-eastern and don't like Israel they must be evil and it's a shame the rest of the world is taking this stance.

Have you a better term for how they're being treated? The fact that they're being held is obviously inhumane but there's clearly nothing wrong with the way they've been treated.

Manic Moran

Whim wrote:

The fact that they're being held is obviously inhumane but there's clearly nothing wrong with the way they've been treated.

We don't know that. I find it unlikely that fifteen serving sailors and Royal Marines would happily say "Yeah, we screwed up, we were in Iranian waters" on TV unless there is some form of coercion or duress. The last bunch of Brits who were captured by Iranians three years ago were not physically abused either, but they didn't exactly describe Club Med.

NTM

FYI

FYI wrote:

There's a difference with being sceptical and simply dismissing a quote because it is in an article posted on a website you don't like.

Where did I say I didn't like the site? I inferred it had an agenda and it does.

Here's a few other websites publishing the same quote (initially reported by AP I believe), dismiss them all if want.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17769296/

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1284395.0.captive_crisis_iran_says_sailors_confessed.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10724

http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/122215

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=472&letter_id=1117087581

http://www.britain.tv/wikipedia.php?title=2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel#_note-ap

I'll dismiss most of them as having an agenda ( citing anti war dot com LoL and after I suggesting agenda sites are useless )
Well the first two are ok-the rest are either biased,a letter from an anti war activist to congress or wikipedia (which I can edit myself)

Nowhere do we see these faceless Iraqi fishermen though.
They could be shia militant supporters for all we know or people boarded many times by the Brits and don't like them for that.
They could be right but they've disappeared into the night -so they have no credence.
Anybody can say something and disappear.
Saying something and disappearing is quite convenient if you have an agenda but it doesn't stack up if it cannot be investigated.

Now if you could point me to an Al jazeera article with the fishermen interviewed and their photo's-then we might have something.
Do we have that or something like it?

Jimboo_Jones

Manic Moran wrote:

We don't know that. I find it unlikely that fifteen serving sailors and Royal Marines would happily say "Yeah, we screwed up, we were in Iranian waters" on TV unless there is some form of coercion or duress.
NTM

Its hard to criticise their treatment as I suspect that none of them where subjected to 'waterboarding' or other techniques that the USA have used as coercion or duress.

But you are right - statements taken under such pressure can not be trusted.


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

FYI

Tristrame wrote:

Where did I say I didn't like the site? I inferred it had an agenda and it does.

No, you intimated that it is an untrustworthy source, and hence may have fabricated the quote.

You also couldn't be bothered finding any other sources, in order to verify what is a pretty damning statement.

On the other hand you choose 'scepticism' based on your perceptions - nearly all of which, I presume, are based on MOD propaganda - who don't have an agenda!

The rest of your post is similarily weak.

Tristrame wrote:

Now if you could point me to an Al jazeera article with the fishermen interviewed and their photo's-then we might have something.
Do we have that or something like it?

Here's some more links, no photos I'm afraid, that would be ridiculous . Now you can kneel at the alter of 'mainstream' media, who have never been known to fabricate a story What a waste of my time.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563877.ece

http://geo.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/navy+personnel+admit+incursion/329147

http://www.sundaytribune.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3748342

Akrasia

watty wrote:

The Iranians have broken Geneva convention on the treatment of these prisoners.

As far as I can tell, the only part of the geneva convention that they broke is the bit about not showing captured soldiers on TV. This is the least serious part of the convention and what are the odds that these 15 soldiers will all make an appearance of their own free will on the U.K. chat show circuit after they get home

The fact that the US is running a concentration camp and breaking human rights doesn't give the Iranians the right to abuse British captives.

no it doesn't, But it doesn't give them the U.S. or U.K. the right to hold any kind of Moral High ground on this issue either

hairymary

Fratton Fred said

"totally seperate issue. what is done is done and the most important thing now is for the people of Iraq to have a peaceful country. From what I see it is not Americans or Brits killing Iraqis, it is Iraqis and arab insurgents.

The British Army are there working as part of a UN force to try and restore infrastructure and order to a county that has fallen into a civil war. The actions of Iran do not help in that process."

Are you still holding the view that the occupying British and US forces have a UN mandate or have you retreated from that position?

You don't see very far do you Fred - how can the people of Iraq have a peaceful country when invading forces control the country and it's resources.The internecince conflict is a direct result of that invasion and the US and British governments bear responsibility for ALL the deaths that have occurred since.

Maybe you should get some basic facts right - the British Army are NOT part of a UN force.
You are now blaming the Iraqis for the conflict in their own country - an outcome that was predictable once US and British forces illegally invaded the country.

The US and British governments DONT CARE ABOUT Iraq or the Iraqi people just the OIL.They would quite willingly support any tyrant so long as he was their tyrant and didn't threaten their interests in the region, as they have done in the past and continue to do in other countries in the region.

The infrastructure in Iraq was destroyed by US and British forces using missiles, 1000lb bombs, 2000lb bombs and other weapons of mass destruction.Now they are handing out huge contracts to their friends to rebuild that infrastructure and STEAL Iraqi OIL.

THEY HAVE COME FOR THE OIL - NOT DEMOCRACY, NOT CIVILIZATION, NOT TO BRING PEACE

FYI

Akrasia wrote:

no it doesn't, But it doesn't give them the U.S. or U.K. the right to hold any kind of Moral High ground on this issue either

True, it's a complete role reversal. In light of the Abu Ghraib abuse and the Gitmo 'stress positions' (among others), the US and the UK stood proudly above the masses claiming the moral high ground - 'sure it's not as bad as what went on under Saddam' they said, 'sure wasn't he boiling folks and that, we're only buggering them'.

Apart from parading them on TV, and 'forcing' a headscarf [which I really doubt is as serious a crime as some anonymous in the Indo wrote yesterday, http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=45&si=1804917&issue_id=15448] the Iranian's have been quite civil no doubt compared to how they treat their own citizens. While in relative terms - detention for a number of days and forced confessions - is pretty horrific stuff, i.e. I certainly wouldn't trade places. It is arguably much more comfortable than the situation the Iranian captives under Iraqi/US/UK military detention find themselves in.

You (the UK government) really have found a low point when a regime such as Iran is able to claim the moral high ground on you.

Fratton Fred

hairymary wrote:

Fratton Fred said

"totally seperate issue. what is done is done and the most important thing now is for the people of Iraq to have a peaceful country. From what I see it is not Americans or Brits killing Iraqis, it is Iraqis and arab insurgents.

The British Army are there working as part of a UN force to try and restore infrastructure and order to a county that has fallen into a civil war. The actions of Iran do not help in that process."

Are you still holding the view that the occupying British and US forces have a UN mandate or have you retreated from that position?

You don't see very far do you Fred - how can the people of Iraq have a peaceful country when invading forces control the country and it's resources.The internecince conflict is a direct result of that invasion and the US and British governments bear responsibility for ALL the deaths that have occurred since.

Maybe you should get some basic facts right - the British Army are NOT part of a UN force.
You are now blaming the Iraqis for the conflict in their own country - an outcome that was predictable once US and British forces illegally invaded the country.

The US and British governments DONT CARE ABOUT Iraq or the Iraqi people just the OIL.They would quite willingly support any tyrant so long as he was their tyrant and didn't threaten their interests in the region, as they have done in the past and continue to do in other countries in the region.

The infrastructure in Iraq was destroyed by US and British forces using missiles, 1000lb bombs, 2000lb bombs and other weapons of mass destruction.Now they are handing out huge contracts to their friends to rebuild that infrastructure and STEAL Iraqi OIL.

THEY HAVE COME FOR THE OIL - NOT DEMOCRACY, NOT CIVILIZATION, NOT TO BRING PEACE

have you read 1546 yet?

yes, the violence in Iraq is due to the allied invasion and overthrowing of Saddam, I don't deny that, but, are you trying to tell me that a truck bomb in a market square is carried out by the British?

The country is in the midst of a sectarian civil war and without foreign intervention many more innocent people would be murdered. yes or no? I'll give you a clue, read mandate 1546 and you'll see what the UN and Iraqi government think.

Akrasia

Fratton Fred wrote:

have you read 1546 yet?

yes, the violence in Iraq is due to the allied invasion and overthrowing of Saddam, I don't deny that, but, are you trying to tell me that a truck bomb in a market square is carried out by the British?

The country is in the midst of a sectarian civil war and without foreign intervention many more innocent people would be murdered. yes or no? I'll give you a clue, read mandate 1546 and you'll see what the UN and Iraqi government think.

The 'civil war' is between those who are collaborating with the pseudo Iraqi government and the occupation (including their el salvador style death squads), and those who want an independent and free Iraq, Just like the Irish civil war was between those who supported the Anglo Irish treaty, and those who wanted an independent nation of Ireland. Unfortunately, because the coalition forces have chosen their allies based on their religion, they have made religion an identifying feature of this violence (Again, this is what happened in Ireland during the N.I. conflict, when the british showed clear anti catholic bias, they turned catholics against protestants.)

The violence in Iraq also has a lot to do with the 65% unemployment rate and the utter desperation suffered by millions of people which are all a result of the devastating war, Illegally and unilaterally waged by Bush and Blair

Time Magazine

Akrasia wrote:

unilaterally waged by Bush and Blair

Quoted for giggles. Two leaders of two seperate countried invaded uniliaterally?

Countries who have had troops in Iraq are:

USA
UK
South Korea
Poland
Australia
Romania
Denmark
El Salvador
Czech Republic
Azerbaijan
Latvia
Mongoloa
Albania
Lithuania
Armenia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Estonia
Macedonia
Kazakhstan (the glorious nation thereof)
Moldova
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Slovenia
Italy
Ukraine
Spain
Japan
Thailand
Honduras
Dominican Republic
Hungary
Nicaragua
Singapore
Norway
Portugal
New Zealand
Phillippines
Tonga
Iceland

KosmaPL

its a shame that my country ,Poland , is taking part in unjustified occupation of Iraq.

the good thing is that according to surveys more than 70% people are against. unfortunately Iraq's economy is dominated by the oil sector, which has traditionally provided about 95 percent of foreign exchange earnings. the true is Americans need oil more than any other natural resource to keep their economy running. :mad:

FYI

FYI wrote:

No, you intimated that it is an untrustworthy source, and hence may have fabricated the quote.

Incorrect I suggested that you were posting a link from a skewed site.

You also couldn't be bothered finding any other sources, in order to verify what is a pretty damning statement.

Also incorrect,I asked you who these fishermen were.No where does that suggest that I didn't try to find out who they were.

On the other hand you choose 'scepticism' based on your perceptions - nearly all of which, I presume, are based on MOD propaganda - who don't have an agenda!

Well you seem to have one anyway QED - as you are cherry picking unknown "witnesses" and not talking about the captain of the indian boat that the Brits were on when they were taken.
He said they were in Iraqi waters.
I've spoken in this thread about neither.
In fact I've only commented on the "carry on" of the Iranians and on the skew of your links and latterly on the shakey ness of "witnesses that are unnamed and for all we know who they could be, given they have gone into hiding.

Based on that you are accusing me of being un objective?? LoL whereas you are displaying "an opinion first-shur I'll try to back it up later" approach.

The rest of your post is similarily weak.

Lol at that given what you've done and what you say next...

Here's some more links, no photos I'm afraid, that would be ridiculous . Now you can kneel at the alter of 'mainstream' media, who have never been known to fabricate a story What a waste of my time.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563877.ece

http://geo.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/navy+personnel+admit+incursion/329147

http://www.sundaytribune.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3748342

Yeah 3 more news links from over a week ago reporting the exact same thing from unknown fishermen.Thats not what I asked you to provide.

Now you can kneel at the alter of 'mainstream' media, who have never been known to fabricate a story What a waste of my time.

I put it to you that it is you that is looking at this from a skewed perspective rather than an objective one by taking one piece of shaky "evidence" holding it up and saying there ya go and dismissing all else whilst using words like propaganda to boot.

You'd be better off discussing that type of thing over on conspiracy theories.
Come back to me when you are actually willing to answer my question posed earlier (wheres the interview with the fishermen,who are they and what verifiable evidence do they present?) rather than re hashing the same shaky retorts.
Untill then I'll take that stuff from a week ago with lashings of salt.

Akrasia

Ibid wrote:

Quoted for giggles. Two leaders of two seperate countried invaded uniliaterally?

Countries who have had troops in Iraq are:

USA
UK
South Korea
Poland
Australia
Romania
Denmark
El Salvador
Czech Republic
Azerbaijan
Latvia
Mongoloa
Albania
Lithuania
Armenia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Estonia
Macedonia
Kazakhstan (the glorious nation thereof)
Moldova
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Slovenia
Italy
Ukraine
Spain
Japan
Thailand
Honduras
Dominican Republic
Hungary
Nicaragua
Singapore
Norway
Portugal
New Zealand
Phillippines
Tonga
Iceland

Oh yes, the coalition of the weak and the bullied.

Bush, as the leader on NATO, unilaterally decided to invade Iraq. everyone else just went along for the ride, some politicians believed the lies, some were threatened with the "you're either with us or against us" speech, others were just trying to earn some grace from the emperor.
Whatever the reasons for participation, most of those countries have pulled out of Iraq by now and the pathetic coalition has all but collapsed

Time Magazine

Akrasia wrote:

Bush, as the leader on NATO, unilaterally decided to invade Iraq.

Hang on, you were saying Bush and Blair there a minute ago. Which is it?

everyone else just went along for the ride, some politicians believed the lies, some were threatened with the "you're either with us or against us" speech, others were just trying to earn some grace from the emperor.

Their motives for invasion alter not whether they invaded. If you're part of a group that wanted to invade a country, or you wanted to get some favours, or whatever, you still invaded.

Whatever the reasons for participation, most of those countries have pulled out of Iraq by now and the pathetic coalition has all but collapsed

"Most" of these countries haven't pulled out by now (16 of 41 if Wikipedia are to be believed). My dissent at the invasion doesn't urge me to go calling it unilateral though.

Boggles

Watching the sailors on telly going through where they were on the map, etc. They seemed to be in good mood and one fella actually sniggered, it reminded me of giddy school kids.

I think they are using this as a bit of a holiday and are in no rush to be rescued, they will probably get a nice leave of absence when they get released aswell. Better than bobbing around the sea searching Indian boats!

The glass is half full, every cloud!

Oh yeah anyone else think that picture the Brits released showing the gps had photoshop written all over it?

hairymary

Fratton Fred said

"totally seperate issue. what is done is done and the most important thing now is for the people of Iraq to have a peaceful country. From what I see it is not Americans or Brits killing Iraqis, it is Iraqis and arab insurgents.

The British Army are there working as part of a UN force to try and restore infrastructure and order to a county that has fallen into a civil war. The actions of Iran do not help in that process."

Are you still holding the view that the occupying British and US forces have a UN mandate or have you retreated from that position?

You don't see very far do you Fred - how can the people of Iraq have a peaceful country when invading forces control the country and it's resources.The internecince conflict is a direct result of that invasion and the US and British governments bear responsibility for ALL the deaths that have occurred since.

Maybe you should get some basic facts right - the British Army are NOT part of a UN force.
You are now blaming the Iraqis for the conflict in their own country - an outcome that was predictable once US and British forces illegally invaded the country.

The US and British governments DONT CARE ABOUT Iraq or the Iraqi people just the OIL.They would quite willingly support any tyrant so long as he was their tyrant and didn't threaten their interests in the region, as they have done in the past and continue to do in other countries in the region.

The infrastructure in Iraq was destroyed by US and British forces using missiles, 1000lb bombs, 2000lb bombs and other weapons of mass destruction.Now they are handing out huge contracts to their friends to rebuild that infrastructure and STEAL Iraqi OIL.

THEY HAVE COME FOR THE OIL - NOT DEMOCRACY, NOT CIVILIZATION, NOT TO BRING PEACE

FYI

What a complete waste of your time.

You have manged to reshape everything you have written before into a new format of bluster.

Before I begin...this, I can safely say will be another waste of my time.

I began:

FYI wrote:

further 'suggestion' the soldiers were indeed in Iranian waters:

"Brigadier General Hakim Jassim [the top Iraqi military officer in charge of guarding the Shatt al-Iraq waterway where the Brits were actually apprehended] told Associated Press the day after the March 23 incident: "We were informed [about the British troops' arrests] by Iraqi fishermen, after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control. We don't know why they were there.'""

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp04022007.html

Therefore I was adding this to the evidence, not using it as the sole evidence. There is plenty more (look back over this thread even).

Tristrame wrote:

Incorrect I suggested that you were posting a link from a skewed site.
Also incorrect,I asked you who these fishermen were.No where does that suggest that I didn't try to find out who they were.

This is exactly not what you said.

Tristrame wrote:

You're surely not expecting anyone other than someone with an anti Bush Blair stance to accept that article?

I wasn't asking you to accept the article, I was simply providing other readers/posters with the statement of Iraqi fishermen, as reported by Associated Press.

It was you that was asking people to accept the article!

Tristrame wrote:

Well you seem to have one anyway QED - as you are cherry picking unknown "witnesses" and not talking about the captain of the indian boat that the Brits were on when they were taken.

Incorrect again. I posted a witness.

Tristrame wrote:

He said they were in Iraqi waters.
I've spoken in this thread about neither.

How is this relevant. The location of their capture/arrest is disputed, I haven't disputed the comments made by the Indian captain.

Tristrame wrote:

In fact I've only commented on the "carry on" of the Iranians and on the skew of your links and latterly on the shakey ness of "witnesses that are unnamed and for all we know who they could be, given they have gone into hiding.

The 'skew of the links'? It's a +quote+, reported widely! The link has nothing to do with it. You are simply using it to tarnish the quote. And further to that you go on imagine how it could be faked. Perhaps it could have been, but yours is all conjecture.

I can't find a photo and a detailed interview with the Captain of the Indian vessel either, so should I disregard that too? If it did exist would it make it any more believeable? Perhaps, but the dispute remains.

Even FOX NEws admit that:

"It was an Indian-flagged vessel. It was suspected of being involved in automobile smuggling (into Iraq)," said Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl, a spokesman for the U.S. 5th Fleet, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from fleet headquarters in Manama, Bahrain.

Aandahl said the captain of the Indian ship had provided a statement that his vessel was in Iraqi waters at the time it was stopped by the British. He said U.S. officials knew the GPS coordinates of the ship at the time the incident occurred, but would not release them publicly.

Boundaries between Iraqi and Iranian parts of the Shatt al-Arab waterway have long been disputed. "They have never come to an agreement as to who actually controls those waters," said Sara Russell, an instructor at the Maritime Institute of Old Dominion University, in Norfolk, Virginia.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261540,00.html

Tristrame wrote:

Based on that you are accusing me of being un objective?? LoL whereas you are displaying "an opinion first-shur I'll try to back it up later" approach.
Lol at that given what you've done and what you say next...

That makes no sense.

Tristrame wrote:

Yeah 3 more news links from over a week ago reporting the exact same thing from unknown fishermen.Thats not what I asked you to provide.

I put it to you that it is you that is looking at this from a skewed perspective rather than an objective one by taking one piece of shaky "evidence" holding it up and saying there ya go and dismissing all else whilst using words like propaganda to boot.

It's all propaganda, don't you understand that?

Eye witness testimonies such as that from the fishermen and the Indian Captain, maybe less so.

You have to look at the whole picture.

At most you can be sure the location is disputed, and the truth may never be known. What is more important is how this effects future diplomatic relations and the potential for war.

Instant Karma

were they in Iranian waters or not? who knows, but what it has done for Iran is stop any chat about their nuclear development which can only be good for them. It will all blow over eventually and the prisoners will be freed. Its all propaganda from both sides.

Iran holds all the cards, The US and UK went to war and won Iraq for Iran, shame they completely messed up the country in the process. The UK and US are completely stretched militararly, bogged down in the middle of policing a civil war they created and making a complete hames of it i might add. Also in with big numbers mucking about in an unwinnable war in Afganistan.

Eventually they will withdraw from both wars with their tails behind their legs and have accomplished the exact opposite of what they set out to and Iran will be the dominant force in the middle east. That will be the legacy of bush and blair.

hairymary

Ibid maybe you would like to supply us with a list of all the countries that dont have troops in Iraq.

Time Magazine

Lol. Ibid doesn't support false information being propogated so anti-war hack demands something un-related to try prove a point even though Ibid agrees.

Grow up and let's not completely derail this thread.

banaman

found this
http://www.counterpunch.com/

nacho libre

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070403/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_diplomat_seized

is it somehow related?;)

Zambia

Simple issue here 2 british boat crews performing a search on a vessel under suspicion in a disputed area of Water. If you cant be bothered to agree a border well then you should have the sense to have some leeway.

The original US/UK invasion is no justification for these action on Irans part , British forces are currently trying to leave Iraq. Even I would doubt the US Agenda.
Dragging the thread off on your own personnel Anti-war agendas does not help. Ibid has already provided a list of Forces in Iraq any of these could have performed this search. Or indeed if a mistake was made made this mistake of staying into Iranian waters.

Iran is completly in the wrong here for taking or holding these men at all. Granted there treatment does not appear to be that harrowing.

Iran has engineered and created this issue. Personally next time this occurs I hope there is a helicopter near by to back up the search teams. Would feel if Iranian agression persisted it could create a nine gun boat Coral reef.

If this was SAS team or like wise taken in Iran they have some justification a for there actions not the easy target they went for. As said earlier nine gun boats out of nowhere?

PS Please stop the screaming capitals thank you.

Zambia

yahoo wrote:

Iran said he had been taken by an Iraqi military unit commanded by the U.S. forces, and said it was holding the Americans responsible for his safety.

U.S. officials denied any role in his disappearance.

He said she said , there is no relation between the waterway incident and this.

This is a criminal act by persons unknown, the waterway was two official Navys

FYI

FYI wrote:

What a complete waste of your time.

You have manged to reshape everything you have written before into a new format of bluster.

Before I begin...this, I can safely say will be another waste of my time.

I see...

I began:



Therefore I was adding this to the evidence, not using it as the sole evidence. There is plenty more (look back over this thread even).

Are you unable to distinguish between my request to tell me who these fishermen are and a request to repeat the same news item.It was the former I asked and not the latter.Iasked simply because it's an important ingredient to evaluating the worth of that information.

This is exactly not what you said.

I wasn't asking you to accept the article, I was simply providing other readers/posters with the statement of Iraqi fishermen, as reported by Associated Press.

It was you that was asking people to accept the article!

Incorrect.
You posted those links in response to me asking you who the fishermen were.
The links were nothing to do with my question, they just repeated what you already said.Furthermore your first choice to show this was from a totally skewed article.
Nowhere did I refute what the fishermen said.I refuted accepting hearsay via unknowns.It's impossible to refute what was said when We don't know who they are or how they came to their opinion.It's equally impossible to rely on them alone as they are unknown.Thats what you appear to be doing.In actual fact they aren't reliable at all if they remain incognito.

Incorrect again. I posted a witness.

The Brigadeer did not witness the boarding of the Indian vessel.You posted his hear say and furthermore didn't do what I asked of you and that was to identify these unidentified fishermen "witnesses".

How is this relevant. The location of their capture/arrest is disputed, I haven't disputed the comments made by the Indian captain.

But you are holding up unknown fishermen and saying aha...
Thats very relevant to showing your lack of objectivity here.

The 'skew of the links'? It's a +quote+, reported widely! The link has nothing to do with it. You are simply using it to tarnish the quote.

No I'm being objective about it.Unknown faceless people is what you are using to back up your assertions as to your position on this.

And further to that you go on imagine how it could be faked. Perhaps it could have been, but yours is all conjecture.

Of course it's conjecture.
At least we're getting somewhere now as your use of them is conjecture from the start.It's not evidence to back your position ergo your position can only seem to be non objective ie subjective.

I can't find a photo and a detailed interview with the Captain of the Indian vessel either, so should I disregard that too?

No because we can follow a trail to who the captain of the vessel is, it would be recorded.There is no record of these fishermen are.

It's all propaganda, don't you understand that?

Eye witness testimonies such as that from the fishermen and the Indian Captain, maybe less so.

The indian boats postion in Iraqi waters not withstanding?

You have to look at the whole picture.

At most you can be sure the location is disputed, and the truth may never be known. What is more important is how this effects future diplomatic relations and the potential for war.

So your position has changed then?
You are now being objective?
In the rest of the thread you go out of your way to jump up and down on the side of these sailors being in Iranian waters and now it's at best unsure.
Good.
If you want to change your position back again,please present something more solid or better still just declare your one sided ness in the matter.
It doesn't bother me who you support to be honest.
To each their own I say,I'll remain objective untill something satisfies me to the situation.

ambro25

quote ping-pong ftw

Akrasia

Tristame, It's very easy to cast doubt on every single piece of information, even about things that you have first hand experience of yourself.

That's not objectivity, that's nihilsm.

In this thread, you have shown high levels of cynicism towards the evidence presented on the Iranian side of the debate, but you seem reluctant to question the evidence presented by U.K. in the same way.

Is that objectivity?

FYI

Again, you continue to confuse the issue.

You are attempting to show the posting of a quote as showing bias, when the bias you are looking for does not exist. From the very beginning of the thread I have said the location of their dention is +disputed+. To continue to misrepresent me is to base an argument without foundation - a strawman.

"All this information was supplied by the MOD, it can be no less considered propaganda than anything released by the Iranians."

"No one believes the Iranians, and yet we unconsciously believe our 'allies'."

Quoted: "An inquiry has been commissioned to explore 'navigational' issues around the kidnapping and aspects of maritime law."

"Even if the soldiers were within Iranian waters, no doubt their training would direct them to deny any wrong doing."

The waters in this area are disputed, as I said from the very beginning. (Re)-read the Craig Murray quote.

Tristrame wrote:

I see...
Are you unable to distinguish between my request to tell me who these fishermen are and a request to repeat the same news item.

Initially the fisherman's version of events was relayed by an Iraqi military officer [Brig. Gen. Hakim Jassim]. Therefore his credibilty as a source is in question too?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17769296/

The fisherman cannot be identified:

"A fisherman who said he was with a group of Iraqis from the southern city of Basra fishing in Iraqi waters in the northern area of the Gulf said he saw the Iranian seizure. The fisherman, reached by telephone by an AP reporter in Basra, declined to be identified because of security concerns.

"Two boats, each with a crew of six to eight multinational forces, were searching Iraqi and Iranian boats Friday morning in Ras al-Beesha area in the northern entrance of the Arab Gulf, but big Iranian boats came and took the two boats with their crews to the Iranian waters.""

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/23/world/main2600191_page2.shtml

But unidentified sources are often used, you simply have to compile the information as best you can.

Tristrame wrote:

It was the former I asked and not the latter.Iasked simply because it's an important ingredient to evaluating the worth of that information.

You posted those links in response to me asking you who the fishermen were.
The links were nothing to do with my question, they just repeated what you already said.

That is not initally what you said. You said:

Tristrame wrote:

You're surely not expecting anyone other than someone with an anti Bush Blair stance to accept that article?

You can't revise it now I'm afraid.

Tristrame wrote:

Thats very relevant to showing your lack of objectivity here.

No I'm being objective about it.Unknown faceless people is what you are using to back up your assertions as to your position on this. Of course it's conjecture.

Ah, so when I say, the waters are disputed and 'it's a propaganda war' you hear 'i assert they were in Iranian waters'.

On the contrary, the quote stands as evidence, perhaps flimsy, that the soldiers were in Iranian waters. It is what it is, I offered it as such.

Tristrame wrote:

There is no record of these fishermen are.

Yes there is, they were contacted, no doubt they could be contacted again. I'm afraid I cannot do this myself.

Tristrame wrote:

To each their own I say,I'll remain objective untill something satisfies me to the situation.

No, it looks like you will just dismiss anything that doesn't fit your point of view.

Fratton Fred

FYI wrote:

"Even if the soldiers were within Iranian waters, no doubt their training would direct them to deny any wrong doing."

actually, they are told to agree to say anything, their main job is to keep themselves alive and well and keep their captors happy (within reason).

These guys aren't expeced to be captured, so they don't have anti interrogation training to the extent of say the SAS, they are just told to go with the flow and avoid antagonising their captors until help arrives.