Iran shows true colours

nacho libre

Zambia232 wrote:

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

"persons unknown" indeed. I doubt you really know if they are related or not. It is your opinion they aren't- unless you have access to intelligence information the rest of us don't. It could be this diplomat was released due to back-channel horse-trading as a means of persuading Iran to release the female British sailor.

FYI

FYI wrote:

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.

You weren't interested in the Indian boat at all in this thread untill our tete á tete.

You said you haven't disputed what the Indian boat said-thats true-but only because you didn't mention it at all prior to our conversation.
You can hardly blame me for casting doubt on your objectivity when you didn't mention it and favoured talking about the incognito fishermen.

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/...91_page2.shtml

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

The fisherman/men cannot be identified or are choosing to be incognito Which is why I question the value of the information.

That is not initally what you said. You said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristrame
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.

So you don't know the difference between me asking who the fishermen are and a question I didn't ask like post more versions of the story..
And now you also don't know the difference between a comment on the skewness of an article (my word) and a seperate comment on the fishermen ?
Would I be right in thinking that what you and I are doing here is a perfect example of what happens as a result of the written word containing more information than the spoken?
No offence if thats whats happening here as we seem to be clarifying and counter clarifying which is no harm.

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.

No thats where I'm getting the view that you are starting from a "heres my position on this" rather than objectivity.Using phrases like "perhaps flimsy" is compounding this.Theres no perhaps about the value of what the fishermen have said when those that are saying it remain incognito.

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

But I haven't made my mind up.If either side come up with incontravertable evidence that they are right as regards their global positioning I'll accept that.

Akrasia wrote:

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?

In this thread I made a simple comment on an article.
Then I was accused of dismissing a story because of not liking the site.
Actually That comment I made was originally meant as a comment on the entire article in the link.
I've not commented on the British side of things at all because I've not been asked.
I've not expressed an opinion on the position that I think the boat was in either.Ergo I don't see where that constitutes bias.
I'm listening to an ongoing story.
Thats objectivity.

Frederico

Ibid wrote:

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.

Talking about yourself in the third person then telling someone to grow up after you've derailed a thread about Iran with a list of countries that partook in occupying Iraq. Indeed.

FYI

Pointless obfuscation, from start to finish.

Zambia

nacho libre wrote:

"persons unknown" indeed. I doubt you really know if they are related or not. It is your opinion they aren't- unless you have access to intelligence information the rest of us don't. It could be this diplomat was released due to back-channel horse-trading as a means of persuading Iran to release the female British sailor.

Yes it is "Persons unknown" because you or I do not know who they are for certain.

On the other hand I know for certain that the Iran Navy and The Royal Navy where involved in the other.

So as far as current information goes that what I would base my opinions on.

FYI

FYI wrote:

Pointless obfuscation, from start to finish.

You know one of the things you have to be prepared to put up with in a public discussion forum is people questioning your position.

If you don't like it thats your problem.
This is not the place for discussing that though so we won't.

FYI

Tristrame wrote:

You know one of the things you have to be prepared to put up with in a public discussion forum is people questioning your position.

If you don't like it thats your problem.
This is not the place for discussing that though so we won't.

Hold on a second.

I posted a quote. You rubbished it, by simply disregarding the article it was conatined within. I then wasted my time finding more 'appropriate' sources for you to rubbish.

You then interpolated my 'failure' to mention the captain of the Indian vessel's remarks as a conscious attempt to effect bias.

This makes about as much sense as me claiming your failure to mention every single Iranian and British statement on the where abouts of the soldiers as evidence of your bias.

I also mentioned and discussed at length the British soldiers confessions - live on TV - who said they were +in Iranian+ waters.

What did I say about these?

The fact remains you have created an argument and are now attempting to turn your obfuscation into a failure on my part to address a legitimate questioning of my position.

FYI

FYI wrote:

Hold on a second.

I posted a quote. You rubbished it, by simply disregarding the article it was conatined within. I then wasted my time finding more 'appropriate' sources for you to rubbish.

I rubbished the source of the article for being biased and not the fisherman story in it.I dealt with the fishermen seperately later after your wild goose chase with getting the links that I didn't ask for and after you were lending the fishermen credence without mentioning conveniently the indian boat.
Like I said it's no surprise I found your objectivity fishy from that,together with the biased nature of your first source on the fishermen (if you pardon the pun).

You then interpolated my 'failure' to mention the captain of the Indian vessel's remarks as a conscious attempt to effect bias.

I only came up with that after your prolonged misinterpretation of what I was looking from you.The lack of mention of the Indian boat was another factor.
Heres the timeline in this thread.
1. I say the first article you posted was biased.
2. you interpret that as an opinion on the fishermen.
3.I ask for the identities of the fishermen and comment on the value of that evidence-you return with more copies of articles which is not what I asked.
4. etc

This makes about as much sense as me claiming your failure to mention every single Iranian and British statement on the where abouts of the soldiers as evidence of your bias.

No it doesn't.
I didn't pass any comment good bad or indifferent on where I thought the incident took place.I wasn't asked for an opinion on the British information.

Contrast that with your postion of presenting information throughout this thread and the only information that you present as possible fact about the incidents location is the fishermen story.

I also mentioned and discussed at length the British soldiers confessions - live on TV - who said they were +in Iranian+ waters.

What did I say about these?

nothing relevant to my catching you out on your presenting of the fishermans evidence as opposed to the Indian boat evidence.

The fact remains you have created an argument and are now attempting to turn your obfuscation into a failure on my part to address a legitimate questioning of my position.

LoL
Avoid much.

nacho libre

Zambia232 wrote:

Yes it is "Persons unknown" because you or I do not know who they are for certain.

On the other hand I know for certain that the Iran Navy and The Royal Navy where involved in the other.

So as far as current information goes that what I would base my opinions on.

I agree neither of us knows who kidnapped the Iranian diplomat. I'm disputing your assertion that the release of the diplomat is not somehow related to the efforts to win the release of the British Sailors and Marines. Neither of us really knows if it is or not.

Zambia

nacho libre wrote:

I agree neither of us knows who kidnapped the Iranian diplomat. I'm disputing your assertion that the release of the diplomat is not somehow related to the efforts to win the release of the British Sailors and Marines. Neither of us really knows if it is or not.

I would stand by my assertion as there is nothing proving it is connected. So in the absence of anything proving otherwise thats all we have to go by.

FYI

Tristrame wrote:

Contrast that with your postion of presenting information throughout this thread and the only information that you present as possible fact about the incidents location is the fishermen story.

Seriously? You really are in a deep hole.

hairymary

Fratton Fred said

"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."

No I have not read 1546.What does it say?Maybe you should post it to this forum.

At least you concede that the violence in Iraq is due to the allied invasion(illegal invasion, Fred, illegal - having problems with that idea are you).
No I am not trying to tell you that a truck bomb in a market square is carried out by the British, but that the atrocities that we are now witnessing are a direct result of the illegal invasion of Iraq by mainly US and British forces.
You appear now to be blaming the Iraqis for the conflict in their own country and wish to portray US and British as protectors of the local population, even though they have murdered tens of thousands innocent Iraqis indiscriminately using 1000lbs and 2000lbs bombs, missiles, cluster bombs and other weapons of mass destruction.
Btw the US/British invaded Iraq because we were told they had weapons of mass destruction that were an imminent threat to Britain and the US - not regime change as you state,which the UN would not sanction as it violates it's rules.

FYI

FYI wrote:

Seriously? You really are in a deep hole.

Thats charming FYI I don't think.

Exchanging those kind of retorts at this or at any stage is pointless and ends our discussion,this being the second time You've replied to an entire post of mine with a one liner like that.

Exchanging pointless retorts=bad

Discussion=good

Agreeing to disagree when discussion is no longer possible/fruitfull = better still

I'm taking the latter option.

FYI

Tristrame wrote:

Thats charming FYI I don't think.

Exchanging those kind of retorts at this or at any stage is pointless and ends our discussion,this being the second time You've replied to an entire post of mine with a one liner like that.

No offence, but I can't possible continue discussing this, if you continue to misrepresent the argument and what I have (and have not) written.

FYI

FYI wrote:

No offence, but I can't possible continue discussing this, if you continue to misrepresent the argument and what I have (and have not) written.

To be honest thats what I think you are doing with my posts.
Such disagreements or more precisely such misunderstandings are better taken to pm rather than clogging up a thread or dropped altogether.

watty

If I was mod here, I cut off all yer right hands and lock the thread. Tristrame, I don't know why you are making the effort to argue with people that obviously have such a different world view.

Fratton Fred

hairymary wrote:

Fratton Fred said

"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."

No I have not read 1546.What does it say?Maybe you should post it to this forum.

At least you concede that the violence in Iraq is due to the allied invasion(illegal invasion, Fred, illegal - having problems with that idea are you).
No I am not trying to tell you that a truck bomb in a market square is carried out by the British, but that the atrocities that we are now witnessing are a direct result of the illegal invasion of Iraq by mainly US and British forces.
You appear now to be blaming the Iraqis for the conflict in their own country and wish to portray US and British as protectors of the local population, even though they have murdered tens of thousands innocent Iraqis indiscriminately using 1000lbs and 2000lbs bombs, missiles, cluster bombs and other weapons of mass destruction.
Btw the US/British invaded Iraq because we were told they had weapons of mass destruction that were an imminent threat to Britain and the US - not regime change as you state,which the UN would not sanction as it violates it's rules.

read it yourself http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8117.doc.htm

now read my posts again, properly this time and stop making assumptions.

watty

watty wrote:

If I was mod here, I cut off all yer right hands and lock the thread. Tristrame, I don't know why you are making the effort to argue with people that obviously have such a different world view.

Amen brother.