Iran seizes 15 British Navy Personnel

[Gordon Gekko]

Iran has no interest in stability in the region or a stable democracy in Iraq ( which would not be a threat  to them). Iran is power hungry and wants to dominate the region.

Bush has done nothing but provoke Iran, then cries foul when they react. At the same time, the administration is too clueless to engage Iran in any other fashion. Iran has been attempting to negotiate with us for years. The Bush administration has refused any and all suggestions to join them at the table.

And what of the irony that had we not interfered with internal matters in Iran over the past 50+ years, they might be our strongest ally in the region today?

[mrlee]

I'm curious...does anyone know if the female sailor taken captive is a Muslim?  Because, if not, I think it odd that they forced her to wear a headscarf.



If Western states forced foreign religious garb on Islamic captives, they'd shit.   

From what I have been told by serving members and have read b4, standing orders for female personel in arab contries "off duty and outside the wire" is that they must respect teh customs of the local population. If that means they are to wear a head scarf then they wear a head scarf. In saudi if you are off duty and in the presence on local nationals you must be in full military dress, or be in (cant remember teh name) full body robe and vail to cover yourself completely. Now this may ahve changed in the recent times. Now with her appearing on TV.... she would be dressed "properly" in female muslim attire, and there would be no beaf about it as there are guns.... and well it would not be very high horse of us if we did flip

so lets ban muslims from wearing there robe clothes they were (i have no idea what they are called)
As thats just the same forcing someone who does not believe in that religion to wear that head thing.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

I'm curious...does anyone know if the female sailor taken captive is a Muslim?  Because, if not, I think it odd that they forced her to wear a headscarf.



If Western states forced foreign religious garb on Islamic captives, they'd shit.   

From what I have been told by serving members and have read b4, standing orders for female personel in arab contries "off duty and outside the wire" is that they must respect teh customs of the local population. If that means they are to wear a head scarf then they wear a head scarf. In saudi if you are off duty and in the presence on local nationals you must be in full military dress, or be in (cant remember teh name) full body robe and vail to cover yourself completely. Now this may ahve changed in the recent times. Now with her appearing on TV.... she would be dressed "properly" in female muslim attire, and there would be no beaf about it as there are guns.... and well it would not be very high horse of us if we did flip

so lets ban muslims from wearing there robe clothes they were (i have no idea what they are called)
As thats just the same forcing someone who does not believe in that religion to wear that head thing.

you must be very st*pid. it's a matter of culture not religion. and we have to be smart about it.
Do you know there are tribes in the world that walk around naked, if they come to Paris / NYC we asked them to dress, because that's how we do, we don't want people naked - and i'm glad.

Islamic countries ask women to hide their hair. That's all. It didnt kill that girl to put a scarf.

When XYZ culture goes against some local "way of life" they can be altered.
Example: in france, religious signs are NOT ALLOWED in school (scarf, cross, star of david ...).

[freedom78]

I'm curious...does anyone know if the female sailor taken captive is a Muslim?  Because, if not, I think it odd that they forced her to wear a headscarf.



If Western states forced foreign religious garb on Islamic captives, they'd shit.   

From what I have been told by serving members and have read b4, standing orders for female personel in arab contries "off duty and outside the wire" is that they must respect teh customs of the local population. If that means they are to wear a head scarf then they wear a head scarf. In saudi if you are off duty and in the presence on local nationals you must be in full military dress, or be in (cant remember teh name) full body robe and vail to cover yourself completely. Now this may ahve changed in the recent times. Now with her appearing on TV.... she would be dressed "properly" in female muslim attire, and there would be no beaf about it as there are guns.... and well it would not be very high horse of us if we did flip

so lets ban muslims from wearing there robe clothes they were (i have no idea what they are called)
As thats just the same forcing someone who does not believe in that religion to wear that head thing.

you must be very st*pid. it's a matter of culture not religion. and we have to be smart about it.
Do you know there are tribes in the world that walk around naked, if they come to Paris / NYC we asked them to dress, because that's how we do, we don't want people naked - and i'm glad.

Islamic countries ask women to hide their hair. That's all. It didnt kill that girl to put a scarf.

When XYZ culture goes against some local "way of life" they can be altered.
Example: in france, religious signs are NOT ALLOWED in school (scarf, cross, star of david ...).

You do realize, of course, that there's a difference between someone who leaves their "naked tribe" to visit a "clothing required" country, and someone who is kidnapped/captured, forced to wear a particular religious garb, and shown on television in violation of the Geneva Conventions? 

Forcing a captive to follow the mandates of a religion is wrong.  She isn't respecting local custom while on furlough.  She isn't "off duty and outside the wire."  She was (probably wrongly) taken captive and presumably forced to follow local religious custom.  If that's allowed, then I suppose we could swap out all the Korans in Guantanamo for Bibles.   

[The Dog]

^^^ good point.

i kinda see both sides here though and don't think a big deal should be made about a scarf on her head.  the real issue is her and the other troops being taken in the first place.   i'm sure this is just fuel on the fire for a lot of Brits though and I dont' blame them for being pissed.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

they are not depriving her rights, they are just making her follow local rules.
i really dont see the big deal, western journalists do that in these countries.

then again, she is fuckin military, i think she can take it ....

and you know, if BIG countries around the world were respectful to international law, it would show an example

How can a country like iran not behave like that when

- US and Israel keep voting against any UN resolution on Human Rights
- US / Europe ABDUCT people off the street
- US / Europe hold prisoners without justice


come ON.

[TAP]

they are not depriving her rights,

She's a hostage being paraded on TV to make false statements under duress, how much more rights could she be deprived of.

[COMAMOTIVE]

they are not depriving her rights, they are just making her follow local rules.
i really dont see the big deal, western journalists do that in these countries.

then again, she is fuckin military, i think she can take it ....

and you know, if BIG countries around the world were respectful to international law, it would show an example

How can a country like iran not behave like that when

- US and Israel keep voting against any UN resolution on Human Rights
- US / Europe ABDUCT people off the street
- US / Europe hold prisoners without justice


come ON.

Your hatred pours out of you

[The Dog]

they are not depriving her rights,

She's a hostage being paraded on TV to make false statements under duress, how much more rights could she be deprived of.

really? i didn't know that part of it....   That is f'ed up.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Iran has no interest in stability in the region or a stable democracy in Iraq ( which would not be a threat  to them). Iran is power hungry and wants to dominate the region.

Bush has done nothing but provoke Iran, then cries foul when they react. At the same time, the administration is too clueless to engage Iran in any other fashion. Iran has been attempting to negotiate with us for years. The Bush administration has refused any and all suggestions to join them at the table.

And what of the irony that had we not interfered with internal matters in Iran over the past 50+ years, they might be our strongest ally in the region today?

Iran was an ally until the Islamic revolution in 1979.

The US is an enemy because of actions just like the one we are facing today with the kidnapped British seamen. Reminds me of the hostage crisis 25 years ago. So to say Bush is responsible for Iran's aggression is absurd. 

[TAP]

they are not depriving her rights,

She's a hostage being paraded on TV to make false statements under duress, how much more rights could she be deprived of.

really? i didn't know that part of it....   That is f'ed up.

Yep, they're concentrating on her as the only female. They've also made her write 3 letters which you can read here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6509581.stm

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

they are not depriving her rights,

She's a hostage being paraded on TV to make false statements under duress, how much more rights could she be deprived of.

i was only talking about the scarf thing .... if you didnt notice ....

COMAMOTIVE > actually i'm sure i have WAY LESS hatred than you do. i can bet on that. but hey, think as you want.

[COMAMOTIVE]

they are not depriving her rights,

She's a hostage being paraded on TV to make false statements under duress, how much more rights could she be deprived of.

i was only talking about the scarf thing .... if you didnt notice ....

COMAMOTIVE > actually i'm sure i have WAY LESS hatred than you do. i can bet on that. but hey, think as you want.

Maybe - but then I guess I hide it better?  I don't know buggin' - but when it comes to things involving the USA - I don't see the objectivity there on your part

[TAP]

they are not depriving her rights,

She's a hostage being paraded on TV to make false statements under duress, how much more rights could she be deprived of.

i was only talking about the scarf thing .... if you didnt notice ....

How can you possibly isolate her rights about the headscarf from the rest of it. It's not like she is in Iran on vacation and appearing on a TV chat show.

[freedom78]

they are not depriving her rights, they are just making her follow local rules.
i really dont see the big deal, western journalists do that in these countries.

There's a difference between doing something voluntarily or for your job, and because someone who's taken you hostage makes you. 

For fucks sake, the last time Iran took prisoners, they were subjected to a mock execution, involving armed soldiers standing around a would-be mass grave.  Is that local custom?  Welcome to Iran!  Let's get that mock execution out of the way, then go to the museum!

then again, she is fuckin military, i think she can take it ....

Of course she can take it.  That's not the point.

and you know, if BIG countries around the world were respectful to international law, it would show an example

How can a country like iran not behave like that when

- US and Israel keep voting against any UN resolution on Human Rights
- US / Europe ABDUCT people off the street
- US / Europe hold prisoners without justice


come ON.

I agree that the "big" countries need to show an example better than what they have.  But that's a poor excuse, and you know it.  By your logic, I should be allowed to murder my wife, because OJ did.  Just because there are instances when rules are broken, that does not justify further violations of those same rules.   

Here are some articles of the Third Geneva Convention:

Article 13: Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
---This is violated when she's forced to write letters and to "confess."  It's also violated when the sailors are shown on television.

Article 17: No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
---Again, probably violated to force the "confession."

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

and i agree with those articles.
do we follow them, us civilized countries ? often not.

as we say " hospital mocking the charity " - french saying

again, i condemn all of what the iranian is doing. but i was pointing that the scarf thing is REALLY NOT the focus point here.
there are more important matters in the issue.
 

[freedom78]

and i agree with those articles.
do we follow them, us civilized countries ? often not.

as we say " hospital mocking the charity " - french saying

again, i condemn all of what the iranian is doing. but i was pointing that the scarf thing is REALLY NOT the focus point here.
there are more important matters in the issue.

There's certainly some of the pot calling the kettle black, and I agree it's not the main focus.  Just something that, if something similar were done to Muslim prisoners, would probably result in riots across the Middle East.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

well, let's be smarter than them ragheads

* i have DragonBall Z on Wii, i gotta play more now ! the go clubbin' *

PEACE

[Prometheus]

^^^ good point.

i kinda see both sides here though and don't think a big deal should be made about a scarf on her head.? the real issue is her and the other troops being taken in the first place.? ?i'm sure this is just fuel on the fire for a lot of Brits though and I dont' blame them for being pissed.

exactly thats all the point of this teh scarf is pointless and trivial to the overall discussion.

[Prometheus]

and i agree with those articles.
do we follow them, us civilized countries ? often not.

as we say " hospital mocking the charity " - french saying

again, i condemn all of what the iranian is doing. but i was pointing that the scarf thing is REALLY NOT the focus point here.
there are more important matters in the issue.

There's certainly some of the pot calling the kettle black, and I agree it's not the main focus.? Just something that, if something similar were done to Muslim prisoners, would probably result in riots across the Middle East.

agin to make the point, the reason why we are not fussing about it.... is simply because of our "openess to others beleifs/customs" and we will abide by them as they are in teh eutopian ideal fine no matter how different they would be from our own........ to the point of human rights violations areas that would cause more tehn superficial psychological scaring.


there were a few mentions of teh geniva convention and how that Iran is violating the standards laid down with in it. since there is no war with Iran thenit does not fully apply..... yes they were taken hostage from another country with intent, howeverbased on Irans stance of illegal entrance then they are within their own right to proscute though it is a fabricated situation. The denying of access to consulte with their diplomatic rep's can get a bit intresting, though even with westren law if someone enters illegaly... "and are caught" they will be arrested and deported, or they can claim asslyum... lol... if they are entering to preform a criminal act they will be charged and locked up..... they will get access and counsel... and even access to thir own goverment reps.... but i start to wonder.... simply the convention really does not directly apply, but the basis should still be used as a guide to trement of prisioners regardless of the state of affairs and relations between the capturing country and the captured persons country