Kidnapped female British soldier coerced to wear headscarf and "apologise" to Iranians in video

by pat c Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:21

I will certainly condemn the ill-treatment of POWs. Ms Turney should not have been forced to wear a headscarf. Equally the British should not torture and murder Iraqi POWs in their care, unfortunately they have a habit of doing so.

There should be a prisoner swap: exchange the naval personnel for the Iranians detained by the US.

No support for Imperialism & No support for Islamic Fundamentalism.

by righteous pragmatist Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:36

A headscarf? Lucky they haven't shot the lot of them, and you're banging on about a headscarf?
What do you think would happen to Iranian navy personnel who appeared in British waters or US waters? Off to Guantanamo Bay in an orange jumpsuit, never mind a headscarf.
Invading other people's countries tends to get them annoyed at you. If the worst that they do is make you say sorry and wear a funny hat then you got off lightly. Lock em up I say.
The whole thing's a sham. That woman was interviewed just hours before her agent provacatuer mission so the papers could have a colour story to go with it.

The Brits are looking for a 'Gulf of Tonkin' type scenario as justification to 'retaliate' against Iran, and you are offering them comfort in their aggression.

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:41

The person who goes under the handle 'righteous pragmatist', usually, takes a reactionary and right wing approach to things....if it is, of course, the same pragmatist above. In this instance, however, (s)he tells the truth.

(1) Faye Turney may be a mother of a young daughter, may have a husband who, according to the BBC last night, is "extremely worried", but isn't she an active duty soldier of an occupying army? Surely, her actions whether they were inside Iranian waters, or 0.7 nautical miles outside in Iraqi waters, are slightly removed from innocent tourism and taking pictures for the family album. She and her colleagues had just boarded a ship, under Indian flag, before they were taken. Fact.
(2) Phil the Greek, a newboy in the pro-British bloc in Indymedia this one, writes: "Faye Turney was persuaded to admit that the 15-strong British naval patrol had strayed into Iranian territory last Friday".... Phil, obviousy, knows the implications of being 'persuaded to admit'....it brings up images of Abu Ghraib, of rendition flights, of Courts accepting 'evidence' produced as a result of torture, of a number of celebrated (or infamous) cases here in Ireland...hadn't our comrade Nicky Kelly or the Birmigham 6 gone through of such a process of persuasion so they 'admitted' things they could not have possibly done? Who was doing the persuasion then Phil?
(3) Faye Turney is a trained soldier. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Iranians managed to persuade her to 'admit' in less than 72 hours actions that could, under certain circumstances, make her and her colleagues liable to serious charges - including spying!! She was calm, showing no signs of torture or mistreatment, smoking a cigarette.....and having written a letter to her family. Bottom line: is it, just, possible she's telling the truth? Or is the implication that the Iranians used 'truth drugs' perfected and used widely by the CIA, the Mossad, the Russian KGB and the MI5?
(4) Finally, to the issue of the headscarf.....while PatC is absolutely correct in focussing on the issue that PoWs should always be treated with respect and dignity, I find it hard to stomach sentences such as "The sight of a non-muslim Western woman forced to submit to the misogynist Islamic headscarf demonstrates the bigotry of the Islamic government of Iran " written by Phil above.

If it's bigotry he's looking for let him look closer at home and recent decisions by New Labour to allow teachers to force pupils to remove headscarves - forcibly if necessary.....if it's anti-human bigotry he's looking for let him go to Guantanamo and look at the orange jumpsuits and the manacles on the wrists and ankles of PoWs. If it's bigotry he is looking for, let him look close at the apartheid wall and what's happening in the occupied territories. If it's bigotry he's looking for let him a look at the tens of thousands of cluster bombs left behind in Lebanon by the Israelis.

The Iranian people have been subjected to Western bigotry and political interference for 50 years now. They had their leaders overthrown and assassinated, they had Saddam, pushed by the Yanks and the French invading them, they had sanctions imposed on them....and they can hear the drums of imperialist war close by.....so they know well what bigotry really is and its impact. For any progressive person this must imply that while imperialism and its shananigans must be opposed at all costs, the Iranian people, the women, the workers, the young people, the Kurds in the north should be supported in their struggle to get rid of the mullahs and establish a secular democratic State. But that's the job of the Iranians themselves.....not of the likes of Faye Turney - headscarf or no headscarf!! Or apologists like Phil the barbarian either.

by Human rights guy Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:59

Michael,

Well said - your points 1 to 4 are spot on and an antidote to the facile tabloid analysis being spouted by the MOD. Especially point 4. However the use of prisoner of wars for any kind of propaganda making is wrong even if they are soldiers of an occupying colonialist imperialist power. This just demonstrates how wrong it was to deny Geneva Convention rights to the Guantanamo detainees - the Brits being complicit in large scale violations can hardly complain credibly about Iran's relatively small scale violations. The overall effect is simply to make war an even uglier activity for all who are forced usually by economic circumstances to participate in it..

by duine Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:06

Cogadh bolscaireachta idir An Iaráin is an Iarthar atá ann.

Deir an Iaránach: Ná cuir isteach orainn nó is duitse is measa.

Deir an Iarthar: Is muidne an Póilín Idirnáisiúnta. Bí de réir ár dtoil

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:08

I fully agree with you 'Human rights guy' - the use of PoWs for any kind of propaganda making is wrong ! I take the point that I should have stressed it above but, in my defence, let me say that it was inclusive, at least in my mind, in the sentence I quoted from PatC above "PoWs should always be treated with respect and dignity".

Thanks for pointing this out

PS What I find worth noting in this respect is that the Iranian government chose to show the pics only in Al-Alam for external consumption (and in Arabic) and not on the Iranian TV in Farsi. To follow closely this one.

Fraternally

by iosaf Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:10

........for they coerced her to wear make-up too.

Until the Arab League finishes its 2 day conference I see no progress past the gurgling. The video was not aired we are told on hte general Farsi language telly station - still its broadcast footprint hit over 100 million good musblim homes in the mid-east. .Only thing worth latching onto is the much circulated speculation in the British press that the detained are in the power of the IRCG and the pithy description of the same elite army bunch as a "state within a state". You know what a "state within a state" is - I presume? Hezbollah, the CIA, the IRA have all been described as such at some time or other. Not a hint of idle speculation on the navigation systems though. I'm quite alone on that one. If the first skynet effed up - it would be quite difficult to send the second one up either "on the sly" or "admitting the last one was bolloxed". I advise all Irish citizens who are interested in participating in society to keep a sharp eye out for Brit Hun sailors and soldiers - remember - bobbles, berets, make-up and scarves. You can approach them if you found one wandering your area - they're quite harmless these days but do remember to wear latex gloves & don't accept blood transfusions from these people. Offer them Irish hospbitality and then point them in the direction of their land making sure they're disconnected from their combputer systemb.

by Mars Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:19

Right on Phil the Geek, those Iranians are just a bunch of mysoginist "medieval Muslims" How dare they humiliate people who hail from the cradle of civilisation and who have travelled half way around the world on a mission of mercy to educate and bring sophistication and enlightenment to the locals.
Lets nuke the ingrates pronto !!!

by Spiff Thu Mar 29, 2007 13:05

And let's not forget, as anybody living in the border counties will attest, the British armed forces have absolutely no history of straying over borders into another nation's territory or territorial waters.

by jeff Thu Mar 29, 2007 13:43

I thought you'd have been condemning the Iranians in this latest fiasco. Well, you're full of surprises...

by righteous pragmatist Thu Mar 29, 2007 13:58

Well allow me to tell you what I REALLY think?

Blair should authorise a raid with jet aircraft, helicopters and airborne troops, hammer the crap out of the Iranians, free the hostages and bring Faye home to Molly.

by Phil The Greek Thu Mar 29, 2007 14:17

"If it's bigotry he's looking for let him look closer at home and recent decisions by New Labour to allow teachers to force pupils to remove headscarves - forcibly if necessary"

Given the choice women like to wear make up beautiful clothes and shake their hips on the dancefloor and choose who they want to have sexual relationship with. Muslim tradition oppresses them by forcing them to wear heascarfs or burkas, forbids them their freedom. Muslims are not happy just to see Middle Eastern or South Asians living in a medieval time warp in 21st century Britain. They want to see all British women to submit to Sharia law.

".....if it's anti-human bigotry he's looking for let him go to Guantanamo and look at the orange jumpsuits and the manacles on the wrists and ankles of PoWs."

Boo Hoo! Those poor lambs! These guys are members of Al-Qaeda an organisation who have killed thousands of innocent "infidels" worldwide from New York to Pakistan, Indonesia to Chechnya, London and Madrid, Istanbul to Baghdad. Personally I believe Guantanamo is too good for them. A bullet in the head and six feet of soil is better.

" If it's bigotry he is looking for, let him look close at the apartheid wall and what's happening in the occupied territories. If it's bigotry he's looking for let him a look at the tens of thousands of cluster bombs left behind in Lebanon by the Israelis."

Need I remind you that the FENCE is oppressing Palestinian suicide bombers who can't blow up Jews and get to paradise and their quota of 72 sex slaves in the after life.

I need not remind you that Israel was fired upon with thousands of Katuysha rockets for almost a month forcing the virtual evacuation of the entire Israeli city of Haifa and the forced evacuation of hundreds of thousands of Jewish men women and children.

Israelis are not going to be herded like sheep into the gas chambers by Islamic fundementalists.

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Mar 29, 2007 14:38

To both Righteous Pragmatist but also to Phil the Barbarian

Nemesis (in Greek, Νέμεσις), also called Rhamnousia ("the goddess of Rhamnous"), because her sanctuary was at Rhamnous, north of Marathon, was the spirit of divine retribution against those who succumb to hubris, to unwarranted violence, to occupation of other peoples land. It's a vengeful fate, or in other words what's coming to those who engage in the above, personified as a remorseless goddess. The name Nemesis is related to the Greek word νείμειν, meaning "to give what is due".

The rest must be obvious.

by pat c Thu Mar 29, 2007 14:55

1. I'm more into the Norse Gods. I know the fash tend to use them but I reckon they should be reclaimed. I'll get Loki to smite down Phil and RP.

2. (Not directed at MichaelY)
As for the headscarf, it is minor in comparison to the torture and murders carried out by the British in Iraq, but it shouldn't have happened. Its just indicative of how women are viewed and treated by the Islamist. Regime in Iran.

I'm all for regime change in Iran provided its internal.

Down with Imperialism!
Down with the Mullahs!
Victory to the Democratic Iranian Opposition!

by Mars Thu Mar 29, 2007 15:53

I have just read Phil the Geek's latest post and I'm amazed. I thought the original post was a pee take but our man in Cairo is not joking. He actually believes that it is ok for the guy with the biggest hammer to invade other countries and to impose their beliefs and life style on the conquered under pain of annihalation. (Maybe the Famine was a botched attempt at genocide after all)
We in the West have a huge problem if there are many around like Phil who have fallen hook line and sinker for the neo-con propoganda justifying the mayhem that Bush and his croonies have unleashed.
Incidently, the head gear that prisoners are forced to wear when under detention by the US and British forces is nothing to write home about either.

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Mar 29, 2007 16:14

Hi Mars,

Unfortunately there are barbarians like Phil - chuckled when you referred to him as "our man in Cairo"!! Do you know something we don't?
Apologists for the Empire do lose a bit of their suave rant when pushed.....a couple of months ago, during a debate on Iran organised by the iawm, where we had a nice guy from the US Embassy arguing against Harry Browne of awi and Village, there was another Phil-like character working for the 'Freedom Institute' here in Ireland who argued when pushed that he was in favour of the Americans "nuking the Iranian installations and the fuckers" "...with limited bunker busting nukes"!! There will be about 4-5,000 deaths this wagging said but "it's a small price to pay for freedom!!" I can't get myself to type this man's name - We had to restrain a few from the audience from physically assaulting the eejit. On the contrary, the man from the US Embassy was much more restrained and was arguing for 'diplomacy' and 'sanctions' and the like.

If you believed in conspiracies you could say 'good cop bad cop'!

by Human rights guy Thu Mar 29, 2007 16:46

Yeah, I do believe in conspiracies. Or maybe more correctly, a highly organised campaign of propaganda and indoctrination to present the US/UK forces as "liberators" bringing peace, stability and good government to a war-ravagerd people. The nice, reasonable man from the US embassy would of course present a cuddly soft-focus image of US actions.

Seems to me that the patrol in the Gulf was part of that campaign to present the British forces as doing "normal" civilian type Coastguard work - just a normal days work, check out a regular merchant vessel, examine the paperwork, check compliance with safety regulations, perhaps. Who could possibly object? And all in the interest of protecting the people of Iraq. So the boarding party is lightly armed and contains a young mother. What a lovely image of "normalisation" with the cheerful squaddies rendering routine assistance to the civil power. And then the nasty ol Iranians come along and throw their weight around. Well, you just can't trust Johnny Foreigner, you know. Especially in that part of the world. Calls for a firm stance and all that. And, hey, if it just happens to serve Blair's pupose very well by shoring up support for the war, all the better. The man's got his legacy to think of don't you know.

by ipsi Thu Mar 29, 2007 16:59

The annual League of Arab nations summit is wrapping up at the moment. The leadership of the populations who watched in their language (arabic) the picture of the marines have now come to some sort of agreed disagreement on their global agenda. Which was - Lebanon, Iraq and the price of a cup of tea. As I'm sure you haven't forgotten - the US and UK have in the last year openly floated bringing both Syrians and Iranians into the search for Iraqi peace. Naturally the League of Arab nations meeting has seen a bit of chit chat on how that would work as well shared and not so shared concerns on recent military developments. As much as the West worries about strategic imbalances which quite honestly are the result of the disastrous engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan - those states of the LofA also worry about strategic imbalances & the new arms race. Addressing these worries underpin the theories behind "the alliance of civilisations" alternative in the UN, NATO and EU (as well as beyond) to the G8, 5powersecurity council UN.
I've not taken it up a level at all have I? Sorry. I will do by 9pm when several world summits send off their declarations. Just remember Able seaman Faye was not put in a veil or make-up for your benefit. She wasn't put on arabic telly for the farsi speaking Iranians benefit either. When she gets home I suppose she'll get a feather in her cap - since the time of Tirant lo Blanc and before - the best diplomats can be powerless enemy soldiers. It is a cultural tradition which after the Napoleonic wars in Europe was forgotten for "manners' sake" & in some ways prompted the Geneva conventions which legalised aspects "for rights sake" - But in the arabic and persian world (if not further east than the peshwari & theatre of ISAF : international solidarity force in Afghanistan ) it is very well respected.

Hospitality means "h-o-s-p-i-t-a-l-i-t-y". Once upon a time - even the more foreign prisoners of the Tower of London could expect good meals. Don't be eurocentric on this - & please do not be anglocentric especially if you think the arabs are too "persian centric". Use a search engine and read the english pages of the arabic press. I left the Iranian news agencies link yesterday.

by Phil The Greek Thu Mar 29, 2007 17:03

"Down with Imperialism!
Down with the Mullahs!
Victory to the Democratic Iranian Opposition!"

I agree absolutely. But words must be backed up with actions.

"I'm all for regime change in Iran provided its internal"

Since 1979 the people of Iran have lived helplessly under the iron grip of the Mullahs. The Iranian people need help from the militaries of the Western democratic countries to change the regime in Iran.

When western liberals like yourself give in to Iran when it takes troops hostage it is hardly going to inspire a democratic revolution in Teheran now is it?

by matt Thu Mar 29, 2007 17:11

Personally I don't think that wearing a headscarf in itself(would you put up much of a fight if that's all they asked you to do?) is going to have a longlasting and detrimental effect on this soldier.

As for POW's being used for propaganda etc. Of course they're going to be used for propaganda...either to show what a wonderful life you can have once you surrender or show that no matter what you do you're going to be treated like shit. It's not right but neither is war.

What use having your human rights vociferously defended once your captured if when you're let go again you're sent back to the front to be shot at and blown up and try and kill as many as you can before you go. Oh well I suppose at least you get a fighting chance right?

Human rights should apply to all humans and not just to POW's.

and as for the somewhat idiotic posts above re: invading Iran... You're absolutely right giving a woman a cigarrette is completely unjustified. .. do they not know smoking kills? Let's invade tomorrow....about 10:30ish cos I want a lie in and some breakfast first...and maybe a quick smoke,,,

by matt Thu Mar 29, 2007 17:26

...how many women are going to be killed by "oops was that a hospital/school/village/market? we thought it was a nuclear silo." bombs as you charge into Iran to defend Faye's honour and hard won western so-called "equality of the sexes". Cos in Ireland it's great, you have the right to earn less men for example, to be barraged with images of what you should look like and constantly made feel crap about you body, to be sold diet after diet after diet, to be viewed as a sexual object and to have a one in four chance of being raped or sexually assaulted in you lifetime and if this does happen the chance of the perpetrator actually being convicted is ridiculously small. Try to run and you'll find it extremely difficult to find a refuge, people will assume you brought it on yourself and if assaulted at the weekend you'll probably have to wait a couple of days before they can check you clothes for evidence....
On the plus side though you do get to be constantly judged on your appearance and compared to airbrushed images in bad porno mags which erotocise violence against women. And don't hope for any representation in the dail either....

by TD - Cosantoiri Siochana Thu Mar 29, 2007 17:30

The US military has just launched a new "exercise" in the Gulf. This is the the first time the Pentagon is using a second aircraft carrier in a Gulf exercise since the US-led invasion of Iraq. If anyone can't see the forest but for the trees on this one and vice versa and sniff the de ja, a la Tonkin, give up yer aul' scarf and sins they're blinding you.

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Mar 29, 2007 17:32

The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny = so says, officially, the Catholic Church.

Since the Middle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication. [I am not joking - this is official!! - will provide links if people want to read more].
The wars waged by the Spaniards against the Moors constituted a continual crusade from the 11th to the 16th century; in the north of Europe crusades were organized against the Prussians and Lithuanians; the extermination of the Albigensian heresy was due to a crusade, and, in the 13th century the Popes preached crusades against John Lackland and Frederick II.

The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the 11th to the 15th century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes (or Bush and Blair in current parlance).

All crusades were announced by preaching. And many lies. Like the WMDs, the Al-Qaeda connection etc. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc. [See Abu Ghraib, see Guantanamo etc]. Of all these wars undertaken in the name of Christendom, the most important were the Eastern Crusades [of course!].

It has been customary to describe the Crusades as eight in number:

the first, 1095-1101;
the second, headed by Louis VII, 1145-47;
the third, conducted by Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur-de-Lion (the Lionheart in our lingo) in 1188-92;
the fourth, during which Constantinople was taken, 1204 [in which Byzantium, a Greek Orthodox Empire and its capital were sacked - more on that from Phil being a Greek and all!!]
the fifth, which included the conquest of Damietta, 1217;
the sixth, in which Frederick II took part (1228-29); also Thibaud de Champagne and Richard of Cornwall (1239);
the seventh, led by St. Louis, 1249-52;
the eighth, also under St. Louis, 1270.
This division is, of course, arbitrary and excludes many important expeditions, among them those of the 14th and 15th centuries. In reality the Crusades continued until the end of the 17th century, the crusade of Lepanto occurring in 1571, that of Hungary in 1664, and the crusade of the Duke of Burgundy to Candia, in 1669.

And we can now add the crusade in Afghanistan, the crusade in Iraq and we can imagine what will happen if Phil's crusade "the Iranian people need help from the militaries (sic) of the Western democratic countries to change the regime in Iran" takes place.

PatC, this barbarian thinks he's on the same side as you - it's just that you're a bit soft. We need Phil's sturdy backbone comrade and more action! Jesus save us!

by Phil The Greek Thu Mar 29, 2007 19:16

I am not a Christian. Iam not religious in any way whatsoever.
I am an atheist.
Why are you ranting about the Crusades?
They were fought hundreds of years ago.

by Phil The Greek Thu Mar 29, 2007 19:50

That is why I believe it is right to confront an Islamic dictatorship like Iran which kidnaps British soldiers patrolling iraqi waters.

by d Thu Mar 29, 2007 20:37

"Boo Hoo! Those poor lambs! These guys are members of Al-Qaeda"

Any proof of that? Any convictions to justify their detentions?

Or is the fact that they've dark skin enough to convince you?

"Given the choice women like to wear make up beautiful clothes and shake their hips on the dancefloor"

Have you ever talked to a Muslim woman (or any woman for that matter)? Asked her what she likes and her view on Western society's treatment of women? I have. And, strange as it may seem, they didn't hold the opinion you randomly plucked from the sky and decided to apply to an entire gender.

Women aren't complex, though, not like men. No. They're not smart enough. Right, Phil?

"Need I remind you that the FENCE is oppressing Palestinian suicide bombers who can't blow up Jews"

Yea well done Phil, great argument. Sure there's a Hamas commander living in Dublin, so we should probably nuke Ireland. Ah sure there's nothing wrong with an oul bit of collective punishment, no matter what the Geneva Convention might say.

(PS - I'm not usually one for defending the hijab, but if Ms. Turner wanted to endear herself to the Iranian people - men and women alike - and thereby increase the chances of being released, it was probably a good PR move for her to comply with their cultural norms. Ever think that it might have been a choice on her part? I mean, a woman smoking in public is taboo in Islamic societies, and yet they didn't "force" her not to)

by scanner Thu Mar 29, 2007 21:31

Like Craig Murray on BBC New 24 yesterday explaining that:

"Those red lines going out to sea have just been invented by the British Government."

"They are not internationally recognised, they are not the subject of any international treaty."

"If you measure the precise coordinate it is actually closer to Iranian land than it is to Iraqi land..."

You can watch the video of this here:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/03/366478.html

by Cliodhna Thu Mar 29, 2007 22:26

Is it not the case that religious police force all women in Iran to wear a headscarf? Why single out the English speaking white women as being particularly deserving of sympathy?

This soldier has joined an army that has no problem with how its US ally treats its unacknowledged POWs. An armed force that is perfectly content to provide assistance in rendering those 'POWs' to secret torture centres. Perhaps this soldier should count herself lucky that the Iranians haven't given her an orange jumpsuit.

You pays your money ... you takes your chances ...

by Ascent Thu Mar 29, 2007 22:35

I thought this was a joke! Headscarf torture? Of a woman who is part of an imperial army of aggression as part of an illegal invasion. Get real you anti-Islamic person.

Secondly, she did confess. I watched it and she did it freely between eating with her fellow invaders and smoking cigarettes. She didn't seem very tortured then. She also had a letter she wrote to her parents delivered through diplomatic channels. That is more that prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Baghram(where Irish soldiers are serving with ISAF/NATO), and many other places where these imperialists hold innocent Muslims are allowed.

The Brits often made incursions into the Free State after one of these "Map reading errors" or in "Hot Pursuit", but their collaborators in the Irish Army, Police and Government never had the guts to lift them.

The Iranians are not afraid of the Brits and Yanks or their boot boys, the Israelis. Get real mate. I know your anti-Islamism is eager to find an outlet but a woman wearing a headscarf!!!! Did she say she was forced to wear it? NO! She did say that they had made an incursion into Iranina waters though and that is the real matter. The fact they were happily eating together and communicating with their families puts a lie to the myth of how muslims treat women. Unlike the Muslim women who were tortured and Raped in Abu Ghraib by Christian Americans. Who are the animals who oppress women?

a HEADSCARF!?!? You must be joking!

by Anarchy Rules Fri Mar 30, 2007 09:16

Here's a copy of the letter from captured British Soldier Faye Turney that is addressed to her parents. (It's interesting that she decided to write to her parents, rather that her fellow soldier and husband Adam.)

Dear Mum and Dad,

I am writing to you from Iran where I am being held. I will try to explain to you the best what has happened.

We were out in the boats when we were arrested by Iranian forces as we had apparently gone into Iranian waters.

I wish we hadn't because then I'd be home with you all right now. I am so sorry we did, because I know we wouldn't be here now if we hadn't.

I want you all to know that I am well and safe. I am being well looked after. I am fed three meals a day and have a constant supply of fluids.

The people are friendly and hospitable, very compassionate and warm. I have written a letter to the Iranian people to apologise for us entering into their waters.

Please don't worry about me, I am staying strong. Hopefully it won't be long until I am home to get ready for molly's birthday party with a present from Iranian people.

Look after everyone for me, especially Adam and Molly.

I love you all more than you will ever know.

All my love.

Faye

Here's the letter that was purportedly sent to the British authorities by Faye.

I am writing to inform you of my situation.

I am a British service person currently being held in Iran.

The Iranian people are kind, considerate, warm, compassionate and very hospitable.

They have brought me no harm, but have looked after me well. I have been fed, clothed and well cared for.

Unfortunately during the course of our mission we entered into Iranian waters.

Even through our wrongdoing, they have still treated us well and humanely, (for) which I am and always will be eternally grateful.

I ask the representatives of the House of Commons after the government had promised that this type of incident would not happen again.

Why have they let this occur and why has the government not been questioned over this?

Isn't it time for us to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?"

Faye Turney
27/3/07

Downing Street and the media in general are currently going bugshit over the release and usage of these letters by the Iranians, in particular the letter to the British authorities. Many (myself included) would cite this as a blatant example of Britain's and the media's profound hypocrissy.

How many letters have been published by the US from the people kidnapped, tortured and held captive in illegal hellholes like Guantanamo bay. One must note here, that rather than falling, the populations of hellholes like Guantanamo are rising, what with the fresh influx of poor souls kidnapped from Somalia and other African sovereign nations in the last few weeks.

The British, the US and their lackeys, the UN are currently bemoaning the treatment and the parading of the British captives before Iranian television and are demanding the return of the prisoners. Not a single soul amongst them has publically considered the real possibility that the British captives could well have broken Iranian law and if so, should and probably will stand trial. In short the media and the crusaders are now debating Iran's right to have and to enforce their own laws.

As for the headscarf thing. There are many possibilities. Maybe she shit in her uniform and was offered a change of clothes (she does say in her second letter that she's been clothed by the kind Iranians). Maybe she chose to wear the headscarf to ingratiate herself with her captors. And maybe she was forced to smoke that cigarette by her captors, maybe this is an example of how the Iranians torture their captives. Speculation one way or the other on the headscarf issue is a jaded attempt by the media and crusaders to lead folks away from the fact that these captives are being treated with decorum and humanity. Pity that none of the crusaders could ever be accused of the same thing.

by Pushkin Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:19

"As for the headscarf thing. There are many possibilities. Maybe she shit in her uniform and was offered a change of clothes "

You really seem to have contempt for women. Is it just female military personnel or all women. I dont believe any sort of anarchist would write the above about a POW.

"(she does say in her second letter that she's been clothed by the kind Iranians)."

Would you believe a letter from an Abu Gharib POW saying they had been well treated?

"Maybe she chose to wear the headscarf to ingratiate herself with her captors."

You are truly beneath contempt. I reckon you are getting off on the mistreatment of a female POW.

"Speculation one way or the other on the headscarf issue is a jaded attempt by the media and crusaders to lead folks away from the fact that these captives are being treated with decorum and humanity"

No its not. All POWs deserve to be treated decently and not used for propaganda purposes. Only a fool or a rogue would suggest that she voluntarily wore the headscarf.

by Pushkin Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:15

" thought this was a joke! Headscarf torture? Of a woman who is part of an imperial army of aggression as part of an illegal invasion. Get real you anti-Islamic person."

Suggesting that women should not be forced to wear headscarfs is hardly anti-islamic. Or perhaps you think women should be forced to wear such things? The fact that she is part of an imperial army is irrelevant.

She is entitled to be treated as a POW.

"Secondly, she did confess. I watched it and she did it freely between eating with her fellow invaders and smoking cigarettes. "

I cannot believe you are serious. If you saw an Abu Gharib prisoner confessing in this manner would you believe it? I believe they were in Iranian waters but I dont think the confession was voluntary.

"She didn't seem very tortured then. "

What did you base this on? A psychological examination? A physical examination? Did you have access to CCTV footage of her since her capture?

"She also had a letter she wrote to her parents delivered through diplomatic channels. That is more that prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Baghram(where Irish soldiers are serving with ISAF/NATO), and many other places where these imperialists hold innocent Muslims are allowed. "

Yes the Abu Ghraib prisoners should also have mail facilities. But would you believe everythibg in their letters if they sauid they were well treated?

"The Brits often made incursions into the Free State after one of these "Map reading errors" or in "Hot Pursuit", but their collaborators in the Irish Army, Police and Government never had the guts to lift them. "

They lifted them on occasion but they even got off at the SCC with suspended sentences and fines.

"The Iranians are not afraid of the Brits and Yanks or their boot boys, the Israelis. Get real mate."

The Iranian regime is a dictatorship it should be overthrown by the internal opposition.

"I know your anti-Islamism is eager to find an outlet but a woman wearing a headscarf!!!! Did she say she was forced to wear it? NO! "

If you were under the guns of Islamo-fascists you wouldnt contradict them either. Why would she voluntarily wear it? Supporting rights for women and POWs is not anti-islamic.

"She did say that they had made an incursion into Iranina waters though and that is the real matter. The fact they were happily eating together and communicating with their families puts a lie to the myth of how muslims treat women."

How does it put a lie to anything? Women are stoned to death in Iran for Adultery. The Mullahs boast about it. You have contempt for women and contempt for the treatment of POWs.

"Unlike the Muslim women who were tortured and Raped in Abu Ghraib by Christian Americans. Who are the animals who oppress women? "

THe US and their lackeys who rape women are animals. But the animals who oppress women are also the Iranian Mullahs who treat women like animals. Dont believe me. Go to the Amnesty site. Go to the sites of the Iranian opposition who are opposed to both US Imperialism and the Mullahs.

Amnesty

Iran: Ethnic minorities facing new wave of human rights violations
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130202007?op...G-2MD

Iran: Amnesty International condemns executions after unfair trials
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130162007?op...G-2MD

Iran: Amnesty International concerned at continuing harassment
of journalists and women’s rights activists
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130152007?op...G-2MD

Iran:Threat of execution of seven women and a man by stoning
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130102007?op...G-2MD

Iranian Anti-Imperialist Opposition

Political Islam and Islam are antithetical to women’s rights
http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2007/02/maryam-namazi....html

Manifesto of the Third Camp against US Militarism and Islamic Terrorism
http://www.thirdcamp.com/php/amanifest.php

Worker-communist Party of Iran (WPI)
http://www.wpiran.org/English/english.htm

Organisation for Women’s Liberation Iran
http://www.azadizan.com/english/index.htm

International Campaign in Defense of Women’s Rights in Iran
http://www.irandwr.org/english/aboutus.htm

International Labour Solidarity Page of the Worker-communist Party of Iran
http://www.kargaran.org/

by Maggio 1358 Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:59

The wearing of the hijab by females over the age of nine is a legal requirement in Iran. The vast majority of people contributing here may not agree with this law, nor do many Iranians but it's a bit of a stretch to claim that asking POWs to conform to the laws of the country in which they are being held amounts to torture.

Hospitality is central to Iranian culture - I'd have to be shown hard evidence before I'd believe any allegations of torture and mistreatment of foreign POWs (as supposed to the internal opposition). I'd be very surprised if they are being treated with anything other than the utmost civility and courtesy.

Pushkin above claims that the mullahs treat women as animals. I can't agree with this. There are very serious human and civil rights problems in Iran, particularly regarding the social and legal inequality of the sexes. This derives from a conception of gender roles grounded in a strict interpretation of Shia Islam. Women are denied many rights in Iran but that does not by any means mean that they are not respected, much less treated as animals.

I think it is incumbent on us as libertarians and socialists to support the emancipation of the Iranian people, women in particular. The idea that this could successfully be achieved by force of arms is ridiculous in light of the sorry history of imperialist meddling in the region and the current fiascos unfolding next door in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'd also be somewhat wary of some of the opposition groups based abroad. They worst of them have little or no popular support within the country and develop a one-sided and unrealistic analysis of events there. Los Angeles is a long way from Hamedan.

Social and political change will happen more quickly in Iran if the current situation calms down. Escalation only strengthens the hand of the conservative elements in the Iranian political life. This is surely one reason for this current stand-off. The best thing that could happen is for the Arab League to make conciliatory moves towards Israel today (undermining the hardline elements in Iran) and for the US and the UK to ease off on their bellicose sabre-rattling with the Islamic Republic, allowing its internal contradictions to resolve themselves. Unfortunately this is probably as likely as Phil the Greek learning Arabic and eschewing pork.

by Pushkin Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:16

Iran has a record of torturing POWs. Thousands of Iraqi POWs could tell you tales about that. Remember their 8 year war?

"Pushkin above claims that the mullahs treat women as animals. I can't agree with this."

You might not agree with it but its how the Iranian Opposition describe it. If you were an Iranian Socialist Feminist then you might think that the position of women in Iran was little better than animals. Anyway, if you think the Iranian Socialist Feminists are wrong you should contact and tell them so. Give them the correct line. Just go to the links for contact details.

If you are suspicious of any particular opposition groups abroad then name them. Otherwise you could end up unintentionally smearing genuine groups. The WPI fear that the Peoples Mujahdeen armed forces based in Iraq are open to manipulation by the US. Its also questionable to what extent they are answerable to the PMOI political leadership abroad.

I am 100% opposed to any Imperialist intervention but I would not be suprised if it took force of arms employed by the internal opposition to overthrow the Mullahs. They will not go peacefully. Their electoral mandate is as valid as any electoral mandate gained under the Third Reich in Germany.

by Phil The Greek Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:23

"Hospitality is central to Iranian culture - I'd have to be shown hard evidence before I'd believe any allegations of torture and mistreatment of foreign POWs (as supposed to the internal opposition). I'd be very surprised if they are being treated with anything other than the utmost civility and courtesy."

In 2004 Iranians captured British personnel in Iraqi waters in almost percisely the same circumstances.
They were frogmarched blindfolded to a ditch and subjected to a mock execution by Iranian troops who stodd over them with AK rifles.
If you think I'm making this up read this Japanese news article from 2004.
http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/306317

How do all the apologists and appeasers who responded to the article know that the Iranians have not done the same again?

by Phil The Greek Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:26

"There were many, many times when we didn't think there would be a happy ending," Scott Fallon said.

The most alarming incident came as the eight were forced to march blindfolded into a shallow ditch.

"Without doubt that was our worst moment. Every one of us thought we were dead. We had no idea where we were, we were blindfolded and the guards all had guns," another marine, Dave Reid, told the paper.

"We had been taken into a small ditch which we thought was our shallow grave," he said.

"We were stood there with one hand on our heads and the other on the shoulder of the bloke in front so we could walk in a straight line.

"There was just 10 seconds of silence, 10 seconds of hell as we waited for the bullets - and there is no doubt at all that is what the Iranians wanted us to think."

by images Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:31

1. She is a soldier.
2. She is very pretty.
3.she is very blond.
4.this is a timed release propanganda campaign by a right-wing post imperial regime
who are not dedicated to peace and need markets to keep the Brits in some comfort.
5. scratch the surface of the hun and what do you find- colonial abuse/murder/war/terror.
5. did david kelly have the time to write letter (that were uncensored) to his family
before his murder.
6. This is a PR stunt in very bad taste, but it pays to veil- afterall look at Cherie Blair and how
captivating she believes she is in her lacy mantilla whilst her husband is a war criminal
they make the Ceauceascu's look almost ordinary.

Best place to have a murderous regime is Britain- a veneer of middle class respectability
and gloss on war-crime.

by Phil The Greek Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:37

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91...58663

National Public Radio I might mention is a left liberal American radio station highly critical of the War on Terror and the Iraq War.

So if they are talking about it - it must be true.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:44

Maggio 1385 quite eloquently articulated a good number of points that jump out from Pushkin's responses to 'Anarchy Rules' and 'Ascent'. To clarify things before some anonymista jumps in and talks nonsense, I don't know who maggio 1385 is - I don't remember even if there ever was a post by him/her - what I do see is that (s)he understands Shia society, having probably lived (or still living) there.
I responded to Pushkin in another thread by reminding him that political opposition to a regime, such as the Iranian theocracy, however deeply felt it may be, should not lead us to exaggerate social conditions or push us to derail our analysis and go out of synch when we are talking about specific events.
Maggio 1385 explained quite well the very oppressive situation that women have to live through in Iran. At the same time, Iranian women are highly educated, fully active both professionally and in academia, and, contrary for example to what happens in Saudi under feudal Sunni control, own property and are full participants in the society. That is not a situation of "being treated like animals"!! The expression itself denigrates the way we, as humans, should treat animals in our care.

The other issue with Puskin's responses though is far more serious. It does not, over and above abstractions, say much about the situation the Iranians have been put in by Brit belligerence. Whichever way they turn, they will be castigated. If they let the crusaders go - that will be admiting defeat and accepting 'western power'. If, on the other hand, they put the soldiers through a trial, it will be portrayed as sham, fixed, a distortion of justice!! Like the trial Saddam went through in the hands of the Coalition and its Iraqi puppets.
So Pushkin, what is the correct position for libertarians, for socialists, forf anti-war activists, for pro-choice activists in this current juncture? What should we be doing if anything at all - except attacking the Iranian regime with, at times, louder stridency than that exhibited against the Empire?

by righteous pragmatist Fri Mar 30, 2007 13:31

In 2003 a certain Ms Zahra Kazemi who held Canadian and Iranian passports was arrested for violating a ban on photographing or filming Evin prison, which holds dissidents, student activists and journalists who have criticised the country's clerical leadership. Iranian authorities alleged that she died of a "brain haemorrhage."
Although Iran's regime insists that her death was accidental, Shahram Azam, a former military staff physician who left Iran and sought asylum in Canada in 2004, has stated that he examined Kazemi's body and observed evidence of rape and torture, including a skull fracture, broken nose, crushed toe, broken fingers, and severe abdominal bruising. The Canadian government, as well as Kazemi's supporters, consider her death to be a murder.

On August 15th 2004, a 16-year-old girl was hanged in a public square in Neka, Iran, a small industrial town by the Caspian Sea. Her death sentence was for crimes against chastity. Her name was Atefah Sahaaleh. The only evidence against Atefah was her own forced confession. Atefah railed against her judge in court for its unfairness, but this was her undoing. Judge Haji Rezai, who was also the local mullah, prosecutor and head of the city administration, personally obtained permission from Iran's Supreme Court to execute her, and put the noose around her neck himself before she was hoisted on a crane jib arm to her death. Using undercover footage, eyewitness accounts and drama recontruction, this film tells an unforgettable story of the life and tragic death of an ordinary teenage girl under Iran's mullahs.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tHqnSe3EqpA

by Pushkin Fri Mar 30, 2007 13:33

"So Pushkin, what is the correct position for libertarians, for socialists, forf anti-war activists, for pro-choice activists in this current juncture? What should we be doing if anything at all - except attacking the Iranian regime with, at times, louder stridency than that exhibited against the Empire?"

You seem to have studied at the Stalinist school of falsification. You are forever twisting and misrepresenting what your opponents say.

I said above that I am 100% opposed to Imperialist intervention in Iran. How could I make that any clearer?

It is the Iranian Socialist Feminists who say that the Iranian Regime treat women like animals. Women are stoned to death for adultery. Gay men are hanged. If you think the WPI are wrong then contact them, you did so in the past. Actually you claimed you supported the Worker-communist Party. Times change.

Its now 25 years since the Malvinas/Falklands war.

What did the majority of the Left do then?

1. They called for the withdrawal of the British Invasion Force.

2. They called for the defeat of the British Military forces.

3. They gave full support to the Argentinian opposition against the Fascist Junta.

4. They continued to call for the overthrow of the Argentinian Fascist Junta even while the war was ongoing.

Thats the way to proceed.

1. Oppose all Imperialist intervention in Iran.

2. Call for the defeat of the Imperialist forces if any attack takes place.

3 Support the Iranian Anti-Imperialist Opposition.

4. Continue to call for the overthrow of the Iranian Islamo-Fascist Regime.

Maybe it won't come to this. Hopefully the British personnel will be exchanged for the Iranians held by the US.

by righteous pragmatist Fri Mar 30, 2007 13:43

Your suggestion:

"1. Oppose all Imperialist intervention in Iran.

2. Call for the defeat of the Imperialist forces if any attack takes place.

3 Support the Iranian Anti-Imperialist Opposition.

4. Continue to call for the overthrow of the Iranian Islamo-Fascist Regime."

Ok let's apply it to...World War 2?

1. Oppose all Allied intervention in Nazi Germany.

2. Call for the defeat of the Allied Forces if any attack takes place.

3. Support the German anti-nazi opposition.

4. Continue to call for the overthrow of the Nazi Germany regime.

E$xcuse me but that logic is bullshit!

by Pushkin Fri Mar 30, 2007 13:53

Its a completely different situation.

1. There is a large Iranian opposition movement with forces actually inside the country as well as abroad.

2. Any attack by by the US/UK will stir up nationalist feelings and will strenghten the hand of the Mullahs. If the Iranian opposition were to support such action they would be discredited. Thats what happened to the PMOIs armed forces based in Iraq.

3. The Iranian Opposition should be supported by all liberals/socialists. It is only internal opposition which can overthrow the Mullahs and replace them with a democratic regime.

by Righteous Pragmatist Fri Mar 30, 2007 13:54

The parallel with the Falklands wars is very apt.

The British expeditionary forces defeated and humiliated the Argentine Junta during the war and this hastened the collapse of the dictatorship as enraged Argentinians emerged on the streets condemning the government. Rather than risk a massacre and civil war the Army stepped down and today Argentina has a democratic system.

Therefore if the militaristic Islamo Fascists are humilated with military action by the US/UK then perhaps the Iranian opposition will fill the credibility vacuum - perhaps another Iranian Revolution.

If I were an Iranian and i wanted to see the reign of the Mullahs come to an end I would support US/UK military action.

The US/UK's primary goal is not regime change in Iran - the primary goal is to remove the threat of Iran becoming a regional nuclear superpower with designs on conquering the Middle East in the name of Islam.

Halting Iran's nuclear ambitions would be satisfactory.
Contributing to the collapse of the Islamic regime in Iran would be a nice add on.

by Marlboro Man Fri Mar 30, 2007 13:55

You cannot make comparisons between the two in the context of trying to prove a point.

Nazi-Germany is not Iran. WW2 was not an imperialist jaunt into the middle east to secure and control its resources.

Stalinist school of falsification indeed.

by d Fri Mar 30, 2007 14:06

where are the parallels?

is iran engaged in a holocaust of some kind?

have they invaded neighbouring countries lately?

get a brain

by Righteous Pramgatist Fri Mar 30, 2007 14:08

Of course one must calculate that Iranians may unite behind the Mullahs for nationalist reasons.

Germans united behind Hitler after all.

But that does not make defeating Iran any less necessary than defeating Nazi Germany was.

The German high tried to assassinate Hitler - sadly Von Staffenburg's bomb attack on the Nazi HQ failed to kill him and Rommel was forced to commit suicide. But the majority of Germans even those who had been Communists and Democrats before 1933 remained loyal to the nationalist cause.
Germany was only defeated after its cities were reduced to smoking ruins and its entire territory occupied by the Allies.
If Germany had not been defeated in May 1945 then Little Boy might well have landed on Berlin instead.

Iran can take a chance and unite behind the Mullahs and the Islamo fascists may well get their hands on a nuke and use it to wipe Israel off the map - that's their choice, fair enough.

But Iran will face the consequences just as Germany if it does.

Or it can become a liberal democratic pluralist civilised nation instead.

A good place to start would be to release the British hostages.

by righteous pragmatist Fri Mar 30, 2007 14:13

Nazi Germany were responsible for a holocaust of the Jews.

Iran wants to repeat it by wiping Israel off the map.

Are we. the international community, supposed to sit on our hands and let it happen again?

by d Fri Mar 30, 2007 14:20

that's moronic, and doesn't merit engaging with.

by David - MediaBite Fri Mar 30, 2007 14:35 editors at mediabite dot org

[rightous pragamatist: "E$xcuse me but that logic is bullshit!"]

That is due to the fact you have posed an illogical comparative. The two situations are irreconcilable.

It is quite feasible the troops had strayed into Iranian waters, knowingly or accidentally, perhaps aboard the Indian ship. The back and forth over the exact location of their seizure is simply propaganda. Craig Murrey, ex-British ambassador had this to say:

") The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

None of which changes the fact that the Iranians, having made their point, should have handed back the captives immediately. I pray they do so before this thing spirals out of control. But by producing a fake map of the Iran/Iraq boundary, notably unfavourable to Iran, we can only harden the Iranian position."

Link: http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/03/fake_mari....html

So Iran were probably within their rights to arrest the soldiers. However, ill treatment or forced confessions are unacceptable.

This event has to be put in context too, Iran has been on the receiving end of UK, US and Israeli threats for a number of months/years now. It has done very little to provoke this. At the same time, according to Seymour Hersh in 'The Redirection' [The New Yorker], the US are conducting black-ops within Iran, supporting Iranian militants and at the same time arresting plenty of Iranians in Iraq, some of which are human rights workers.

This just adds to the Iranians grievances, bolstered by the UN sanctions and the continued holding of Iranians, which has led to this impasse.

Iran has invaded no country, Iran is not attempting to violently purge 'itself' of millions of people.

On the other hand those that threaten Iran have and are continuing to.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Mar 30, 2007 14:42

Dear Pushkin,

I won't take personally some of your comments re:Stalinism and falsification and the like. I will also pass the comment 'You are forever twisting and misrepresenting what your opponents say'. to whom that it applies . I doubt very much that they either contribute to the debate or make any of your political arguments either stronger or more meaningful. Figure for a second, if you care, that we're on the same side, with certain differences, mainly tactical, and it's the posters above that are itching for mayhem and nuclear conflagration.

The only comment of yours that is worth taking up is your barb re: the WPI "If you think the WPI are wrong then contact them, you did so in the past." you say. So I did. "Actually you claimed you supported the Worker-communist Party" you say. So I did. Times may change Pushkin, but fundamental values don't. So please take a friendly advice from a comrade. Don't stray into areas you know nothing about because, with the best intentions, you may end up doing harm. Let me put it this way to you: We in the iawm have organised a debate on Iran a few months ago....when we first analysed the situation and started saying that the Empire may be thinking of attacking. Many on the Left said we were exaggerating....the place was packed...now, how about a new debate? With the Worker Communist Party as a guest? Along with the Iranian Embassy people here? Organised by a coalition of forces? This is a serious proposal. Think about it. Are you up to it?

As for the time being, the responses of the 'Righteous Pragmatist', Phil the Barbarian and his ilk must show you the slippery slope of some arguments. When one starts throwing aroung comments like Islamo-Fascism etc, it warrants a very Bertieske explanation of differentiating between Nazi Germany and Iran, the Argentinian junta and Iran and the like. Good luck in that debate though. You're on your own there.

PS Did you watch btw the video of the young Brit soldier repeating in his own words what Faye Turney said earlier? Animal behaviour methinks. Can't trust the Brit Army anymore to withstand psychological pressure. They were so much better in Aden, Malaysia or Cyprus. Unbelievable.....

by Pushkin Fri Mar 30, 2007 14:57

Your arrogance knows no bounds.! You reckon I know nothing about the Iranian situation? Then you get mysterious. You are a fraud.

You may be interested in forging links with the Islamo-Fascists at the Iranian Embassy, I'm not. I would organise a protest at any event which included representatives of the Iranian Islamo-Fascist Regime. Theres an old saying: No Free Specch For Fascists...

The only links with Iranians I will forge is with the opposition. You can take your instructions fom the Iranian embassy.

I suggest you contact the WPI and tell them that they are wrong. Let them know nothing about the situation in their own country.

by righteous pragmatist Fri Mar 30, 2007 14:58

"Iran has invaded no country, Iran is not attempting to violently purge 'itself' of millions of people."

Iran effectively controls southern Lebanon because it trains, finances, equips and supports Hezbollah.
Hezbollah attempted to purge northern Israel of hundreds of thousands of Jewish men women and children when it fired long range katuyasha rockets at the city of Haifa and other towns.
Iran has called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
If that's not attempting to violently purge itself of millions of people what is?
Iran has made no secret of its nuclear ambitions nor its contempt for the international community.

by David - MediaBite Fri Mar 30, 2007 15:22 editors at mediabite dot org

"Hezbollah attempted to purge northern Israel of hundreds of thousands of Jewish men women and children when it fired long range katuyasha rockets at the city of Haifa and other towns."

Hezbollah are not controlled by Iran. And this is 'slightly' over egging Hezbollah's intentions and capabilities. It was Lebanon that was invaded.

"Iran has called for Israel to be wiped off the map."

Completely false.

Find out why here:

http://www.mediabite.org/article_The-authorities-on-cri....html

"Iran has made no secret of its nuclear ambitions nor its contempt for the international community."

Yes, a civilian nuclear programme. As it is within it's rights to develop.

by righteous pragmatist Fri Mar 30, 2007 15:45

This is what Ahmadinejad said:
"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?Ar...15816

Call me a liar. Go ahead!

by David - MediaBite Fri Mar 30, 2007 15:53

From the link I posted:

[“The Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute, gives the following as the correct translation of the president's remark: "Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [ Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise." [21]

Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan stated in an off the record email exchange: "I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people. But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of [Ayatollah] Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all.

The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks." [22]

While Mr Krauthammer may disagree fundamentally with everything the Iranian President has to say, he must at least be obliged to find issue with what he actually said, not what it would be useful for him to have said. There is no excuse for this sort of blatant propaganda.

Yours etc,

David Manning” [Email 8/05/07] [23]

The letter must have contained some degree of newsworthiness as the Irish Times chose to print it, though editing out that shown in italics, no doubt due to ‘lack of space’. While it could be considered a fairly innocuous observation given the context of Krauthammer’s usually virulent analyses, the Irish Times felt it necessary to print a counterbalance, notably double in length:

“According to David Manning (May 12th), your columnist Charles Krauthammer is guilty of "blatant propaganda" in misrepresenting the Iranian president's remarks on Israel. Mr Manning quotes from a translation of President Ahmadinejad's October 2005 speech which appears to show its intention as one of mere regime change rather than destruction of the state of Israel. But the translation, by the Middle East Media Research Institute, of the speech as a whole shows clearly that the Krauthammer interpretation is the correct one.

The speech, delivered at a "World without Zionism" conference, is full of bellicose rhetoric from start to finish, and portrays Israel as the spearhead of the West in the Islamic world which must be eliminated: "This occupying country [ Israel] is in fact a front of the World of Arrogance in the heart of the Islamic world. They have in fact built a bastion from which they can expand their rule to the entire Islamic world. . .Very soon, this stain of disgrace [ ie Israel] will vanish from the centre of the Islamic world - and this is attainable.” [Dermot Meleady, Extract of a letter to the Irish Times, May 17th 2006] [24]

The writer’s reference to 'the whole text' is ironic given he quotes selectively. In fact both before and after the particular sentences the writer chose to distinguish Mr. Ahmadinejad actually states 'regime' as oppose to 'Israel', which in the writer’s choice is an inference made by the translator.

This is of course somewhat irrelevant. The speech itself is obviously anti-Zionist, but it is not a call to war or a thinly veiled threat, no matter what the translation. It is not equivalent to the 'anti-Iranian' rhetoric of the US, the UK and Israel. There are no Iranian plans for strategic attacks on nuclear facilities or the confrontational deployment of warships in the Mediterranean Sea. A significant departure from the sanitised language of the media’s oft echoed Western political rhetoric: “all options are on the table.” [25]

At any rate, are we to understand that journalists and political leaders choose to adapt a single sentence from the speech to summarise their interpretation of it's entirety? And further, to use it to identify a President’s foreign policy goals? Is this a professional approach to reporting?"]

by righteous pragmatist Fri Mar 30, 2007 16:08

'This regime that is occupying Qods [ Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.'

The same intent is contained in this your translations as "Israel must be wiped off the map."

Like millions of Muslims in the Middle East region and throughout the world, the state of Israel must be destroyed.

The conflict over Palestine is not over the return of the West Bank, Gaza or the Golan Heights occupied since 1967 but the existence of the state of Israel itself.

Islamists throughout the world since 1948 have called for the destruction of Israel.

Now Iran have reaffirmed this goal and their nuclear ambitions demonstrate that this goal is not just an aspiration but an atrocity they seek to carry out.

Stop making excuses for Islamo-fascists and anti-semites

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Mar 30, 2007 16:26

Keep witing Righteous so-and-so....the more you regale us with your views, the clearer the objective becomes. I see your colleague Phil the Barbarian has decided to leave the field - better late than never I suppose.

As for Pushkin, he continues to call people he disagrees with names - it was a rogue, a fool now it's a a fraud. The only problem is his arguments don't get any more coherent or concise. I asked him if he would work with the iawm in organising a debate between Iranian activists and the Iranian Embassy. For us here in Ireland to hear the two versions of reality from the two oppositional horses mouths......and please Pushkin don't accuse me of treating Iranian revolutionaries as animals!!

His reply was that he would organise a protest onto such a meeting - in our debate on Iran a few months ago, when we invited reps from the US Embassy and the Freedom Insititute to debate with Iranian activists and Irish socialists, we didn't see any protest. We just had the hall packed out with 400 people and another 50 who couldn't get in.

To conclude that I, or by implication comrades from the iawm, take orders from the Iranian Embassy brings me back to the darkest days of the war in the 6 Counties when any political opposition to the IRA (Sinn Fein was hardly relevant then) was treated by threats, accusations of collaboration with the British Embassy and such pearls. And a few comrades lost their lives as a result. Still, Pushkin, there is still time to learn that political disagreement is a valid form of struggle. Calling people we disagree with names, or accusing them of being either trolls or paid informers/spies and the like helps nobody but the likes of Phil and the Pragmatist!! As for arrogance, what's the expression involving a biscuit Pushkin?

by Maggio 1358 Fri Mar 30, 2007 16:26

"1. Oppose all Imperialist intervention in Iran.

2. Call for the defeat of the Imperialist forces if any attack takes place.

3 Support the Iranian Anti-Imperialist Opposition.

4. Continue to call for the overthrow of the Iranian Islamo-Fascist Regime."

I'm in complete concordance with these four principles, bar perhaps the language of the last one.

When I spoke about the problems of displacement of some of the Iranian political organisations operating from outside the country I was primarily thinking about the MKO. I honestly don't know anything about the WPI and I'm afraid I can't access the link above so I can't do much to find out. I do know some Iranian Socialist Feminists though and none of them would claim that they are treated like animals in their daily lives - the culture can hold women in dignity and esteem even while they suffer legal inequality and political oppression. The same people will of course complain about human rights abuses, some of which have been outlined above, such as the case of Zahra Kazemi.

Phil the Greek's allegations about the torture of British servicemen in 2004 gives a link to an article in Japan Today, which claims to have lifted the content from the Sun. Always nice when people cite a newspaper of record.

Part of the problem here, not entirely uncommon on Indymedia but lamentable nonetheless, is the emotive language that people are using. This only exacerbates the situation, entrenches positions and stifles useful debate. Some of what you are saying, Pushkin, I completely agree with. What I cannot agree with is the way in which you say it. "Animal", "Third Reich" and even "Islamo-fascist" (a favoured term of the neocons may I add) might make for nice polemic, but they hardly make for constructive political debate.

What we need now are cool heads (both here on Indymedia and in the geopolitical arena), a negotiated prisoner exchange and a gradual descalation of the diplomatic stand-off between Iran and US-UK, alongside movement on the Israel-Palestine conflict and and the pullout of the Imperialist forces from Iraq. All these things will weaken the hardline elements in the current Iranian administration. Internal regime change is possible in Iran - it has happened before and it can happen again, be it peaceful or bloody, soft or hard.

The rote comparisons to Nazi Germany being bandied about are devoid of any sense of history and do not deserve extensive refutation.

A conference sounds like a good idea Michael, although like Pushkin I would be sceptical of inviting the embassy people. I don't really see what good it could possibly achieve and that way you risk becoming coopted, becoming part of someone else's political agenda. These are not the sort of people we want to associate with.

Most Iranians may not support the mullahs but under no circumstances would any bar a small minority endorse more imperial aggression in their country as Righteous Pragmatist does. In the advent of invasion they would not unite behind the mullahs but rather as a nation. Having suffered in the past at the hands of the British and the US they will not tolerate further imperialist intervention.

Iran did not call for Israel to be wiped off the map, as David has clearly established above. Ahmadenijad cited Khomeini's desire that that "regime vanish from the pages of history" or something to that effect. Righteous Pragmatist consistently misquotes it. It is more a call for regime change than anything else. Furthermore, Ahmadenijad is an extremist in Iranian political circles, even if he is the President (whatsmore elected in a dodgy poll). Does Ian Paisley speak for Northern Ireland?

Iran has made no secret that it intends to develop civilian nuclear technology. I'm personally opposed to nuclear power, let alone nuclear weapons, but it's a fact that under the NPT they have a right to develop it. Nor does Iran have contempt for the international community. They have contempt for the USA, Israel and the UK and a certain guarded suspicion for some European countries. Bilateral ties with most of the rest of the countries of the world are generally pretty friendly. Perhaps your idea of the international community is somewhat skewed Righteous Pragmatist. How many UN Resolutions was Israel in breach of again?

by Pushkin Fri Mar 30, 2007 16:36

I just tried the links, they were all working apart from Maryams. So maybe try them again.

Heres Maryams homepage:
http://www.maryamnamazie.com/

by Maggio 1358 Fri Mar 30, 2007 16:41

Maybe there's no internet censorship where you are.

by templar iosaf Fri Mar 30, 2007 17:01

I'm sort of glad they come from those who would be late at the round table of reorganising their own national or state regimes. There have also been some interesting cut and pastes which show people are capable of going to wikipedia or the guardian and learning about crusades. The origin of the word "hospitality" is of course one of the orders which emerged in Europe and established safe passage through diplomacy for pilgrims so that they could continue gawking at Sion & its pretty dome which like gold glistens but digests poorly. It's a great word.
I wrote a while back during a period of tension between Washington and Tehran that arguably the 2 main sources of anti-zionism in the world are the USA and Iran, it was how I prefaced a piece reflecting on letters sent by Dr Mahmou and his spiritual leadership during the "Ratzinger apology" crises. & so it is interesting to see what this morning the jewish people in Israel (who do not represent world or european jewry or for that matter honour the contracts and traditions of peaceful co-operation between all peoples who want to gawk at Sion and its pretty done which like gold glistens but digests poorly). But they are taking some of the "olive twigs" offered them by the Arab League conference of this week by Saudi Arabia. Let's not forget us experts on the levant, crusades and people whose analysis goes deeper than having watched all the movies of lebanese actor Omar Sharrif (from his stunning premier portrayal of a sheik playing opposite Peter oToole's Lawrence of Arabia) to his more latter work asking for charity donations to rebuild his homeland - that as I asked you to consider a year ago - there is still no one state or culture which speaks for Islam. The Iranians obviously want to be that state and it would to some extent suit their commercial and strategic partners the Chinese to see them take that role. It's good for high finance links with the Pacific fringe (which is where all the Iranian money was divested to just in case your governments vote sanctions).
Meanwhile - the western press seems to agree that the latest "crises" between the UK and Iran which has no particularly new or original elements - has forced (or manipulated) many states to allign with Blair against the Persians. But be it one week or month, a year or a century till we see those British sailors back - Persia and the UK will not talk alone for either the West or Islam. It's time to take it all down a few levels. The states which execute the most minors, infringe the most human rights, trounce civilised values are the very same states you're being asked to choose between. So don't rush to your decisions. It's your "vote", "support", "weight" - use it well. I'd use a motto of one of the orders of hospitallers if I thought you'd know what it meant, but in the curious language of the troubedours (a cross between catalan and occitan) it basically was "the world out there is very ugly and contagious - but in here you've the best medical care our arabic neighbours can teach us".
"Know which side thy bread be buttered on"
http://www.arableagueonline.org/las/index.jsp
You'll notice by the way that most of the middle east, north Africa, Israel and Iran are currently talking about Lebanon. You remember that? Just like Darfur? You remember how Omar Sharrif's land was destroyed? How it started? Did you write a book about it? Good characters? plot development? Has it got a moral? This week saw a lot of important stuff happen at "global politics". And four of those things resulted in "regional former enemies" moving closer to some kind of engagement with each other. They all have big time problems with the imperialists who use them all the time. But the outcome of the League of Arabs, the African states, the Ulster parties and the Basque lot are quite clear. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/843902.html http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/844165.html

As I wrote yesterday sometimes the best diplomat is in fact a powerless enemy soldier. Since the time and before of Tirant lo Blanc. That's coz I know an awful lot about the crusades both their short wars and more noteworthy periods of peace. It amazes me people don't shout about the peace of Saladin or Llull only the war of Guiffrey. If you're interested you can go to my blog and find all the links you need for the source material - in Catalunya big efforts are being made to ensure it is all digitalised and made "accesible" so that everyone realises how "pax = shalom = saleem = siochain = paix = bake" = you know how it goes. I can't explain why all the words for peace are the same. You work inside out.

by Ascent Fri Mar 30, 2007 23:30

Nathan Thomas Summers apologised on Iranian TV for "trespassed without permission" into Iranian territory. He wasn't wearing a headscarf and he wasn't even wearing dirty US service womens underwear on his head as the US Zionist-Christian fascist Pigs forced Innocent Iraqi prisoners seized 800miles inside their own territorial waters to do!

The British Invader leaders cowering 3000 miles from the war in their gentlemens clubs issued a statement that they apalled that the Iranians are exploitation military personnel for "blatant propaganda" purposes. You don't have to alanis morissette to think that is Ironic considering Blair has sent hundreds of their comrades to die for Uncle Sam and Israel while at the same time being complicit in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Innocent Iraqi Civilians and the destruction and theft of Billion and billions of Iraqi property.

by pat c Sat Mar 31, 2007 16:32

Only an innocent or a charlatan would take that confession at face value. He is a prisoner of war being held by an Islamo-Fascist state which refuses him his rights as a POW. Just as the Imperialist US refuses to grant POW rights to those captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. All POWs are entitled to be treated decently. Using POWs for propaganda purposes is in breach of the Geneva Convention.

The Irish section of Amnesty International has referred to the British military personnel as POWs and has stated that Iran is breach of the Geneva Convention. If you have a problem with that then take it up with Amnesty:

email: info@amnesty.ie
phone: (+353 1) 677 6361

by Tony Sat Mar 31, 2007 16:56

Come on Pat C - you knew I would get on your case. You're happy to align yourself with Amnesty over the capture of British military in the Middle East (what right have they to be there in the first place?)
Here in Australia the most well-known Amnesty member is the Liberal Party (i.e. Tory) Minister Phil Ruddock, who is infamous for his savage treatment of refugees, while continuing to wear his Amnesty badge.
Politics is about priorities. You are happy to stand alongside the British yellow press. Surely the priority for socialists is to oppose their own capitalist class and that of their allies. Your radicalism starts and ends with islamophobia.
The fact is that, as even ex-Python Jones can see, the captured British military have been treated infinitely better than the kidnapped Guantanamo prisoners, such as David Hicks. And what about the Iranian Consulate officials illegally kidnapped by the occupiers of Iraq?
Why not concentrate on what is clearly an attempt by the occupiers of Iraq to create a casus belli, a latter day Tonkin incident?

by Mars Sat Mar 31, 2007 16:59

With Phil the Geek relegated to the sidelines and exposed as a plagiarist and Pushkin seems to have faltered, no stamina, so we are left with Pat C ( same trend can be seen on other threads)defending the wests murderous interference in countries thousands of miles from their own patch. And he highlights his own insulting arrogance by advancing the idea that because he is pro-choice he could not be a mysogonist. I know many a woman how would beg to differ on that score. So get a grip, you do not have a monopoly on the truth. One thing is for sure, Britian and USA have no right, moral or otherwise to be waging war in this region. Their smart bombs and even smarter recruits have slaughtered more innocent civilians than the maddest Mullah could even dream about.

by pat c Sat Mar 31, 2007 17:10

I would caution you against writing off Amnesty just because you don't like one of their statements or one of their members. All POWs are entitled to decent treatment. Unless we argue that then how can we expect anyone to take us seriously when we say that the "Illegal Combatants" are POWs? Supporting decent conditions for POWs can not be rationally described as supporting the Yellow Press.

Yes I think this might well be a Gulf of Tongking type incident and I have written just that on another thread. I condemned the seizure of the Iranian diplomats & Revolutionary Guards. I think they should be exchanged for

Suypporting the Iranian Opposition +is not Islamophobic. I opose any military intervention by the US/UK but I also want to see the end of the dictatorial regime in Iran. Thats why I support the Iranian Resistance who oppose both US/UK Imperialism and the Iranian Junta. . When it comes to Iran I take my lead from the WPI. Unfortunately you seem to be uncritical of the Iranian Regime.

by Anarchy Rules Sat Mar 31, 2007 17:37

Okay I've heard enough of this POW malarky. And for record, I cannot find anything on the http://www.amnesty.ie site that refers to the British captives as POWs. I'm not saying that it's not there, I'm saying I cannot find it. Also even if Amnesty does say that these captives are POWs, they are wrong, plain and simple.

Simple logic alone should be enough to prove that the detainees are not POWs (prisoners of WAR). Do the British consider themselves at war with Iran? Does Iran consider itself at war with the UK? How can a prisoner of war exist if no war exists?

When I asked Google to define a prisoner of war it seemed pretty sure of its response: "A detained person as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. In particular, one who, while engaged in combat under orders of his government, is captured by the armed forces of the enemy.
http://www.aiipowmia.com/histories/histdef.html "

If this is not enough, how about a look at the convention in question itself: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Articles 4 and 5 in particular deal with POWs. Article 4 defines what a POW is and I quote: "A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:"

I could quote the rest of Article 4, but what I have quoted is enough. Has Britain either declared war on or referred to Iran as an "enemy?" or has Iran declared war on or declared the UK an "enemy?"

If there were no wars, there would be no prisoners of war. In this particular case, neither party considers themselves at war with the other party. The British captives are not prisoners of war.

Funnily enough, Pat C has made this point himself, when it suited him to do so: http://www.indymedia.ie/index.php?obj_id=53&story_id=81...87745

by pat c Sat Mar 31, 2007 17:52

"Okay I've heard enough of this POW malarky. And for record, I cannot find anything on the http://www.amnesty.ie site that refers to the British captives as POWs. I'm not saying that it's not there, I'm saying I cannot find it. Also even if Amnesty does say that these captives are POWs, they are wrong, plain and simple."

If you consult todays Irish Times you will see Amnestys position.

"Simple logic alone should be enough to prove that the detainees are not POWs (prisoners of WAR). Do the British consider themselves at war with Iran? Does Iran consider itself at war with the UK? How can a prisoner of war exist if no war exists?"

Your opinion does not qualify as logic , simple or otherwise. It is merely your opinion. I have a different position. As do Amnesty. Amnesty refer to the British as POWs and say that the Iranians are in breach of the Geneva Convention. But thats only Amnestys opinion. Some may hold your opinion in higher esteem.

"When I asked Google to define a prisoner of war it seemed pretty sure of its response: "A detained person as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. In particular, one who, while engaged in combat under orders of his government, is captured by the armed forces of the enemy.
http://www.aiipowmia.com/histories/histdef.html ""

I wouldn't rely on google for definitions, legal or otherwise. I will take Amnestys opinion over an a serch engines.

"If there were no wars, there would be no prisoners of war. In this particular case, neither party considers themselves at war with the other party. The British captives are not prisoners of war."

Well, thats your opinion. But that sort of "logic" would tend back up the US position that prisoners detained in Iraq and Afghanistan are not POWs./

"Funnily enough, Pat C has made this point himself, when it suited him to do so: http://www.indymedia.ie/index.php?obj_id=53&story_id=81...87745"

You will see no such point there. I suggested, as I do on this thread that the British might be trying to provoke an incident.

by Anarchy Rules Sat Mar 31, 2007 18:16

I'd like to point out that Pat C has been referring to the captives as POWs from the very first comment on this thread. This comment predates todays Irish Times.

I also note that Pat C keeps referring to my argument as an opinion only. My opinion is grounded on fact. Pat C's opinion is grounded on nothing - as I've said his opinion predates todays Irish Times.

Pat has managed to slag off the link I gave that Google suggested. Again this opinion is grounded in nothing (zilch nada F.A.)

Despite my quoting the relative Geneva Convention and supplying a link, Pat C has avoided like the plague, either quoting from me in this or attempting to refute it in his supposed 'refutation' - more air.

Allow me to quote Pat C from the link I gave to a quote from him: - "The Iranians should treat them as unlawful combatants and try them before kangaroo courts."

This quote does not to me seem to suggest that Pat C cares about what happens to the British captives. Regardless as to their status as prisoners in Iran. (not POWs).

To add more colour to this allow me to quote some more of him from the same thread: http://www.indymedia.ie/index.php?obj_id=53&story_id=81...88052 "Well talking of eye for an eye, maybe they are being duckboarded or having dogs set on them. Maybe the Iranians are treating them as illegal combatants, What do you think? The US have already seized Iranians in Iraq. A swap would seem to be the sensible solution."

As can be seen, Pat C is taking the other side of the argument on the other thread. I.E. on this thread it's not ok to abuse the prisoners - on the other thread it is ok to abuse the prisoners.

Conclustion: Pat is not campaigning for or against rights, he's simply being beligerant.

by R. Isible Sat Mar 31, 2007 18:41

Beat the crap out of her, drown her, smear menstrual blood on her, bomb her country and then lecture her about democracy and human rights. That's what I call civilisation and a clash of cultures. Oh, and don't forget to electrocute her, set dogs on her, and maybe throw in a little bit of rape (when are the remaining Abu Ghraib tapes going to be released anyway?)

Terry Jones has the usual whining left-wing position here:

by message sent Sat Mar 31, 2007 19:23

Pat C has been very consistent & spot on too. He called for "swap" ruled out last night, and then stuck with his POW thing - which I had called "hospitality" reminding of the origin of the concept and how it is now replaced by the Geneva conventions which of course Pat C reminded ye of & then Amnesty did the swotting and typing for you all. I also called for letters, great things - Beckett has confirmed that she's got a diplomatic letter from FM Tehran and sent one back. They'll have expensive envelopes probably won't carry stamps & you wouldn't be reading words like "psychic or pubes" in them.

Hospitality if its putting up lepers and syphilitcs who just want to cross your lands so they can gawk at Sion - is very good stuff. Diplomacy which is writing letters and doing legal things is very good stuff. Quite simply because once you start on pulling psychic pubic hair it accelerates - quicker than you say tutamkahmum you're watching psychic gonads being ripped out and put in a gold case in a museum for everyone to gawk at - as I wrote last night elsewhere. If you've ever gone to the British museum you'll see loads of gonads many of which are still wanted back. & if you ever even look at a postcard of Jerusalem you'll see the biggest psychic gonad of them all : covered in gold which as I say is not too digestible - in one of the museums with the worst visiting conditions on the planet.

None of this is putting milk in the mouths of infants or has anything to do with why Lebanese charity worker Omar Sharrif was the last smouldering & trustworthy Arab man seen on Western TV or why Darfur still doesn't merit an ounce of the "hoo haa duty" or "our brothers" of Iraq. If the world leadership need us, they know where to find us & how to ask us questions.

by Barry - 32 csm Sun Apr 01, 2007 03:12

First of all they are most definitely not Prisoners of War because Britain and Iran are not at war . They are British troops who have violated Iranian sovereignty by entering the national territory illegally while in possession of weapons without any lawful justification . Which makes them criminals who have carried out an illegal act and nothing more . Therefore the Geneva convention on Prisoners of war does not apply and there is nothing remotely untoward about their being interviewed by the media as common criminals , albeit heavily armed ones.
As regards headscarves it is Iranian custom and law for women to wear them , just as its often western custom and even law for women not to wear items of islamic dress . It wouldnt be considered mysogynistic for example to demand a lady from the Amazonian rain forest to cover up her breasts while living in Britain . Its simply the done thing according to local sensibilities . A simple scarf is hardly a burqa . The British army dress code is a lot more strict than what is demanded by Iranian custom .

by uncle samuel & jonathan bull Sun Apr 01, 2007 08:17

Conversation overheard in Abu Gharib (or was it Guantanamo)

Uncle Samuel:
Now whut the fugg is that ?
Never heard of the darn thing !

Jonathan Bull:
Now take it easy Samuel old chap.
Let's not be too hasty. We may need to invoke it ourselves one day.

Uncle Samuel:
Shut your fuggin cakehole, poodle !

by Tony Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:10

Pat C says of me "Unfortunately you seem to be uncritical of the Iranian Regime.". In fact my post doesn't mention either the Iranian regime or some of its opposition.
I concentrated my fire, as serious revolutionaries should, on "my own" country and its allies.

by Anarchy Rules Sun Apr 01, 2007 17:29

During a demonstration today outside the British Embassy in Tehran (what!? folks are allowed to demonstrate in Iran?) approximately eight homemade devices were thrown at the embassy. The resulting explosions were minor and nobody has been hurt, this has been confirmed by the British embassy. According to the mainstream media, this occurred whilst scuffles broke out between the police and the crowd of protestors which apparently numbered around 200.

The UK intends to send an officer of its navy to Tehran in the next few days to offer assurances to the Iranian government in the hopes that the situation can be resolved quickly. However Downing street seems to have shot this piece of propaganda in the head by warning the public that this may be a long haul situation.

Britain has stepped a few steps closer today to learning some manners by realising that diplomacy works better than threats and bullying. They have not admitted culpability, but one British official is quoted as saying: "We are quite prepared to give the Iranians a guarantee that we would never knowingly enter their waters without their permission, now or in the future.

"We are not apologising, nor are we saying that we entered their waters in the first place. But it may offer a route out of the crisis."

It seems a good thing that the British government are checking out the old diplomatic route, as a few recent polls suggest that the British population themselves are in favour of diplomacy.

by Linker Sun Apr 01, 2007 18:24

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article24...4.ece

by Croppy Boy Sun Apr 01, 2007 18:58

'First of all they are most definitely not Prisoners of War because Britain and Iran are not at war . They are British troops who have violated Iranian sovereignty by entering the national territory illegally while in possession of weapons without any lawful justification . Which makes them criminals who have carried out an illegal act and nothing more . Therefore the Geneva convention on Prisoners of war does not apply and there is nothing remotely untoward about their being interviewed by the media as common criminals , albeit heavily armed ones.!'

The British would also say that the Geneva Convention would not cover RIRA or CIRA prisoners. But I think those men are prisoners of war. Barry don't start getting legalistic because it can backfire on us very easily. But having said that much I must confess I would have lost no sleep if the Iranians had offed them in a firefight.

by Anarchy Rules Sun Apr 01, 2007 19:18

I wasn't aware that the UK had applied the Geneva Conventions (with regard to POWs) to republican prisoners.

And there's somewhat of a difference between the British prisoners and republican prisoners. The British prisoners are not insisting that they are in a state of war with the Iranians.

Methinks comparing republican prisoners to the British prisoners is a bit more than comparing apples and oranges.

by Croppy Boy Sun Apr 01, 2007 19:27

But thats just it. The British wll not recognise the Republicans as pows. Because the ould Geneva convention says they are not. But I still think they are pows. Dont get caught up with conventions or laws. Dont get me wrong. I hate those Brits as much as you do. But if we start getting legalistic over prisoners then we wil only shot ourselves in the foot.

Think of the Republican Prisoners at Easter.

by Croppy Boy Sun Apr 01, 2007 19:27

But thats just it. The British wll not recognise the Republicans as pows. Because the ould Geneva convention says they are not. But I still think they are pows. Dont get caught up with conventions or laws. Dont get me wrong. I hate those Brits as much as you do. But if we start getting legalistic over prisoners then we wil only shot ourselves in the foot.

Think of the Republican Prisoners at Easter.

by Anarchy Rules Sun Apr 01, 2007 20:05

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

There are plenty of legal arguments that say that republican prisoners are POWs, in the particular Geneva convention - see link above and check out articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. There are no legal arguments whatsoever that suggest the British prisoners in Iran are POWs.

You say lets respect the idea of a POW but let's not examine the law that defines it?

I'd suggest with respect that that is somewhat illogical. If that argument had merit the British would be able to argue that the prisoners in Iran were POWs. One should lose forever this ficticious notion of an 'illegal combattant' or an 'unlawful combattant' they were terms invented to circumvent the Geneva Conventions and other treaties.

If you decide to check out the Convention I gave the link to, please remember that just because the republicans cannot become signatories to it, that the British are and that this is what should guarantee rights to republican prisoners.

by pat c Sun Apr 01, 2007 20:27

"I'd like to point out that Pat C has been referring to the captives as POWs from the very first comment on this thread. This comment predates todays Irish Times."

Thats because I always regarded them as POWs.

"I also note that Pat C keeps referring to my argument as an opinion only. My opinion is grounded on fact. Pat C's opinion is grounded on nothing - as I've said his opinion predates todays Irish Times."

The fact that my opinion predates yesterdays IT is irrelevant. I based my opinion on my understading of the issue. I cant see what fact your opinion is based on. What you put forward is your understanding of the situation, that is known as an opinion. My opinion is just as valid as yours. Unless you have qualifications in International Law. I suggest Amnestys opinion is superior to yours.

"Pat has managed to slag off the link I gave that Google suggested. Again this opinion is grounded in nothing (zilch nada F.A.)"

No, in my opinion, information gathered from Google cannot be regarded as unshakeable fact. You choose to believe the search results. I agree with Amnesty.

"Despite my quoting the relative Geneva Convention and supplying a link, Pat C has avoided like the plague, either quoting from me in this or attempting to refute it in his supposed 'refutation' - more air."

No, you give your interpetation of the Convention, I have my interpetation. I dont see why your opinion should be superior to mine. I can see why Amnestys opinion is superior given their long experience in this area.

"Allow me to quote Pat C from the link I gave to a quote from him: - "The Iranians should treat them as unlawful combatants and try them before kangaroo courts."
This quote does not to me seem to suggest that Pat C cares about what happens to the British captives. Regardless as to their status as prisoners in Iran. (not POWs)."

I always regarded them as POWs and always said they should be decently treated. I was being ironic there given how the US treated POWs. All through that thread I argue for decent treatment. You are trying to invent contadictions where none exist.

"To add more colour to this allow me to quote some more of him from the same thread: http://www.indymedia.ie/index.php?obj_id=53&story_id=81...88052 "Well talking of eye for an eye, maybe they are being duckboarded or having dogs set on them. Maybe the Iranians are treating them as illegal combatants, What do you think? The US have already seized Iranians in Iraq. A swap would seem to be the sensible solution."
As can be seen, Pat C is taking the other side of the argument on the other thread. I.E. on this thread it's not ok to abuse the prisoners - on the other thread it is ok to abuse the prisoners. "

You are totally misrepresenting what I said. I was giving a warning that the chickens might come home to roost and that the POWs might be mistreated. I always supported decent treatment for the British prisoners.

"Conclustion: Pat is not campaigning for or against rights, he's simply being beligerant."

You are the belligerent one, you are so intolerant that you cannot allow anyone to disagree with you. I believe that they are POWs, Amnesty believe they are POWs.

Lets just agree to disagree because nothing will be acheived by continuing this exchange. Let the Indy readers make their own minds up based on what has been put before them. Let them consider your opinion against that of Amnesty and see which they agree with.

by iosaf mac diarmada Sun Apr 01, 2007 20:43 barcelona

There are a few varieties, local and regional variations on the same original parameters of competetive sport. Most of them came from the same corner of the woods as agriculture and chess. We call that corner of the woods Iran now. One of the first thing both players must decide is how many POW's they are holding. I can see none of us stopped to think about throwing a few coins in my "blue peter badge for basques a billion by a.s.a.p. please" kitty. No. not a one of you, all to busy working out how 15 british sailors are worth 5 US held iranians. I call that soft maths. I'm not going to patronise anyone by swelling further on the POW game. It's great to see an Irish audience jump past both that and oh so we're at war with Iran & don't need to nuke them anymore hurdle.
What was on the boat HMcornwall wanted to stop? Or is that all forgotten about as well? What are a bunch of contraband washing machines to the career of Gabriel Garcia Marquez? We my friends live and think at the vanguard of an Irish generation who have learnt the BritHun inside out. May ye all smile now, chosen people of mine - turn to your partners, family members, domesticated animals or neighbours & smile - we're going to be free.

I'm expressing an opinion on the news of conflict between 2 states my own is still offering hospitality and letters to. They're establishing market values which are of prime interest to both our home and diasporia & our declared longterm wishes for economic development in hot countries.

Have a good week. Whatever you call it. We Irish think it's very symbolic and important. I hope you paid attention - I was only going to write that once.

by Anarchy Rules Sun Apr 01, 2007 20:51

You sure went to a lot of typing to just say let's agree to disagree. It's a pity that this new attitude didn't temper your arrogance and lack of manners when you first decided to insult and lecture me with banalities on this thread.

You insist that your opinion has some relevancy, eventhough it's blatantly wrong. You offer no backup to your opinion whatsoever and still you act like the definition of POW is a matter of opinion. You admit that your opinion predates the article you used to justify and ground your opinion.

Well that's just bollocks. This is a news site not a bulletin board or a diary for your personal fantasies.

I challenge you to define POW and to show how your definition allows for the British prisoners to be labelled as POWs. And please remember that you've said you possess some interpretation of the Geneva Convention that differs from mine, please explain how this is so rather than just alluding to it. If you wish to use the same sorry line about Amnesty disagreeing with my interpretation then point out where they disagree with me too. Tis all very well you shouting 'wrong!!' all the time. Try explaining, or is that beneath you too, and I mean explaining by illustrating that you know what you're talking about as opposed to you justifying your right to have an opinion by pissing on my right.

I'm sure you'll be happy to comply with this very simple request as it should take a lot less effort than it has taken for you to throw your imagined weight around and insult folks just beause you think your flawed opinions outweight facts and the rights of others to express these facts.

by big swinging micky Mon Apr 02, 2007 06:24

OK Pat my boyho, so that's what you "believe".

But would your "belief" stand up in a(n) (international) court of law - at least one not subject to US-USA "judge and/or jury-packing" ?

Have you got any evidence or rational arguments to support your "belief" or is it just that: a subjective and largely irrational "belief" ?

by Mars Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:21

Reading through this and other postings from the likes of Pat C, Pushkin, Phil the Geek, it's easy to identify the bullyboys. When their points regarding what is happening in Irag, Iran and Afghanistan are challanged, they all finish off by telling us that Islam "treats women like animals"

On BBC news last night, a report on the student demonstration outside the British Embassy included an interview with one of the student demonstrators. The interview was conducted with a CONFIDENT, WELL NOURISHED, ARTICULATE, IRANIAN FEMALE STUDENT. Believe what you see folks and ignore the islamaphobic sock puppets..

by pat c Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:27

AR

All you are doing is repeating the same tirade. You did a google search which convinced you that they are not POWs. I used my own analysis believe that they are POWs because they were captured in a military engagement. Going on your "logic" the prisoners captured by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be POWs. I dont believe that you are an expert on international conventions.

You have given nothing to back up your opinions other than the google search and pointing to the Geneva Convention text.

Amnesty International say they are POWs and thats good enough for me.

Your opinion is just an opinion and the same is true of my opinion. But Amnesty Internationals should be judged as an expert opinion. I honestly believe that most rational people would believe Amnesty rather than you.

BSM

I'm not sure which exact comment or part of a comment you are referring to. but I will try and answer it.

"But would your "belief" stand up in a(n) (international) court of law - at least one not subject to US-USA "judge and/or jury-packing" ?"

I dont know for certain. But going on Amnestys interpetation I reckon it would.

"Have you got any evidence or rational arguments to support your "belief" or is it just that: a subjective and largely irrational "belief" ?"

All opinions are subjective. Different people may take different interpetations of the same paragragh. But I dont see how it is irrational. Soldiers are captured in a military engagement. I reckon they are covered by the Geneva Convention. Amnesty International also take that interpetation. As I have said, I regard Amnestys opinion as an expert one. Perhaps you regard ARs opinion which is based on a Google search as being superior.

Perhaps you think that Amnesty are also irrational.

by Mod Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:29

Anarchy Rules. "It's a pity that this new attitude didn't temper your arrogance and lack of manners when you first decided to insult and lecture me with banalities on this thread."
Pot-kettle. After reading some of your other comments on Indymedia I surmise that you really are a hypocrite. You make your point and then argue with people who disagree, resort to name calling and making moronic wisecracks in order to try and cheapen their comments and then try to take the moral high ground. Before making the type of comment denoted above I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself.

by pat c Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:41

"Reading through this and other postings from the likes of Pat C, Pushkin, Phil the Geek, it's easy to identify the bullyboys. "

I'm a bullyboy because I disagree with you?

"When their points regarding what is happening in Irag, Iran and Afghanistan are challanged, they all finish off by telling us that Islam "treats women like animals""

What events? I oppose the US/UK occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan, I oppose any invasion of Iran. Women are treated like animals in Iran. Its what the opposition say, its what Amnesty say.

"On BBC news last night, a report on the student demonstration outside the British Embassy included an interview with one of the student demonstrators. The interview was conducted with a CONFIDENT, WELL NOURISHED, ARTICULATE, IRANIAN FEMALE STUDENT."

And that proves what? That one Iranian female stufent is well nourished and articulate? What about the imprisoned students? What about the female students murdered by the regime?

"Believe what you see folks and ignore the islamaphobic sock puppets.."

So all of the Amnesty Reports and Human Rights Watch reports and the reports by the Iranian Opposition should be ignored because one female student supports the Iranian Regime on the BBC!

Supporting the Iranian Socialist Opposition is not Islamophobic. Supporting Iranian Socialist Feminists is not Islamophobic

by Anarchy Rules Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:42

I suggest mod that you put up some links and put your attack from the shadows into context.

I'd argue in my defence (not that you've shown anything that warrants such a defence), that any wisecracks, slurs or whatever, were in answer to cheap shots like your own feeble effort.

I reckon you'd be very hard put to show by example a singular instance where I started a mud slinging incident. If I'm to be tarred for defending myself - then guilty as charged.

by Anarchy Rules Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:18

Well I see that you are stepping backwards with regard to your want to agree to disagree. Not surprising really.

I didn't use a Google search to found my opinion on. I used a Google search to back my opinion up and have not seen you in any way attempt to either discredit the link or the argument given on the site that Google suggested. Thats typical of you too. My opinion pre-existed the Google link and was founded on my understanding of the Geneva Conventions. One does not have to be an international legal expert to understand the Conventions. Most soldiers who are expected to understand and apply the Conventions are but kids and in no way are they considered to be legal experts. Legal experts are only needed when differences in interpretation occur. You have no interpretation legal or otherwise quoted here, other than your belief that Amnesty considers the prisoners to be POWs.

I also note that you refuse to expand on or explain your opinion that the British captives are POWs. Typical too. I note that you again rely on your oft repeated claim that Amnesty considers the British captives to be POWs. How about providing a link or a quote from Amnesty themselves that states this position? Please don't ask me to ring Amnesty, I'm not the one making claims on their behalf, citing a piece of toilet paper as my source. Your backward justification of your opinion, reminds me of Ireland's backward justification of our complicity in illegal wars perpetrated by the US and its allies, that was backwardly justified quite some time after the war and our complicity began by the UN. Again typical.

You have now re-iterated many times that if the British prisoners are not POWs then neither are personnel captured under combat situations and kidnapped on the pretext of being enemies, to be considered POWs. This too is typical of your brand of logic and typical of most of the opinions you express. I'll not again explain the difference between prisoners captured by an enemy versus prisoners captured by a non-enemy, I'll not even go into the FACT that the UK is not claiming to be in Iraq fighting a war, but as part of a UN mandate, I'll not waste my time again. I'll just say that neither the UK nor the US have referred to the British prisoners as POWs. And since the parading of POWs before the media for propaganda purposes is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, this omission is significant. I suggest that you contact the UK's embassy and tell them of your opinion. I'd initially thought that Iran wasn't signed up to the Geneva Conventions, but I was wrong, they are. So your 'opinion' could be very valuable directly to the UK and US as opposed to its indirect propaganda value.

by Mars Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:27

Regarding the university female student interviewed on the BBC Pat C retorts;

"And that proves what? That one Iranian female stufent is well nourished and articulate?"

No it proves that in Iran, university is open to both male and female. You do not oppress anyone by educating them. And it must be painful for you to have had your islamophobia so ruthlessly exposed by the BBC randomly stopping a student for comment how happened to be a handsome, well nourished articulate woman who you would have us believe by your generalised bald statements is being oppressed.

Stop eating the neo-con propaganda

by pat c Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:42

You are just repeating yourself at great length. I have answered you. you just dont like the answers.

All I will say is:

1. Your opinion is just an opinion as is mine. Both are subjective.

2. Amnesty International are experts in the area of Human Rights and International Law. They have almost 50 years experience in this area. I humbly submit that their opinion carries more weight than yours or mine. I dont have Saturdays iT with me but its in it.

3. "So your 'opinion' could be very valuable directly to the UK and US as opposed to its indirect propaganda value."

So now I am an agent of Imperialism, and all because I disagree with you. You are truly bizarre. I suppose you reckon that Amnesty International are also working on behalf of the US/UK.

by pat c Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:47

"No it proves that in Iran, university is open to both male and female. You do not oppress anyone by educating them."

Yes you do if you seperate them and prevent any democratic organisation among the students.

" And it must be painful for you to have had your islamophobia so ruthlessly exposed by the BBC randomly stopping a student for comment how happened to be a handsome, well nourished articulate woman who you would have us believe by your generalised bald statements is being oppressed."

An interview with one woman who is a supporter of the regime is not proof of anything. The graves of tens of thousandsa of those who resisted the Mullahs is the real evidence.

Supporting womens rights is not islamophobic. Supporting Gay Rights is not Islamophobic. Supporting Trade Union Rights is not Islamophobic.

Women and gays are stoned to death or hanged in iran. Trade Unions are oppressed and their members imprisoned.

"Stop eating the neo-con propaganda"

Stop swallowing the Islamist propaganda. I take my line from the Iranian Resistance.

by pat c Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:07

I phoned Amnesty International, they say they haven't issued a statement that its just the interview in the Irish Times. (I'm still puzzled as to why "Anarchy Rules refers to the IT as a piece of toilet paper).

The IT requires a paid subscription so I can only access this much of the relevant article:

"Treatment of prisoners likely to be in breach of Geneva Conventions
IRAN: The Iranian treatment of the Royal Navy personnel taken prisoner in the Persian Gulf would appear to be in breach of the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners.

Login or subscribe for more.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2007/0331/117500....html "

I anyone has a sub, maybe they would be kinf enough to post the entire article.

If anyone really thinks I am making all of this up then here are the Amnesty International contact details:

Web site www.amnesty.ie
email: info@amnesty.ie
Telephone + 353 1 677 63 61
Fax number + 353 1 677 63 92
Address Sean MacBride House
48 Fleet Street
Dublin 2

by Mars Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:38

Keep talking Pat C, with every word you expose your lack of understanding of the issues that you are addressing. You say that it is possible to oppress while educating and explain as follows:

"Yes you do if you seperate them and prevent any democratic organisation among the students."

This statement demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of the effect of education on the human person. It suggests that education cannot emancipate unless accommpanied by "democratic organisations among students" That is utterly rediculous. Emancipation occurs through the process of expanding knowledge and encouraging intellectual curiosity. It gives the student the ability to read and understand complex concepts that they would struggle with if uneducated. Education allows the student to critically challange all views and concepts and most importantly it lessens dependence and promotes self confidence, much like that shown by the student in the interview.

You go on:

"An interview with one woman who is a supporter of the regime is not proof of anything."

Tell us Pat C., who told you this woman supports the regime? A conclusion that fits with you biased view and exposes your lack of objectivity.

"The graves of tens of thousandsa of those who resisted the Mullahs is the real evidence."

You don't have to go to that part of the world to find mass graves. Remember our own famine. There are mass graves in every country you set foot in and if recent reports are accurate, the US/British military are responsible for the most recent cases. 600,000 slaughtered so far in Bush's little crusade.

"Supporting womens rights is not islamophobic. Supporting Gay Rights is not Islamophobic. Supporting Trade Union Rights is not Islamophobic."

Who said they were? Just another strawman or two to seek refuge in when feeling challanged. But once again I say there is plenty of work to be done in these areas here at home. No need to travel seeking out enemies.

"Women and gays are stoned to death or hanged in iran. Trade Unions are oppressed and their members imprisoned."

Again lets look at the leader of the western world's record. State execution is widespread and the vast majority of those on death row are poor, afro-americans. We have seen cases where people with the mental age of children are mercilessly put to death in Bushs high tec execution suites.
This is happening in our neck of the woods. Do you not think that we should sort that out before we start preaching to others? It's a simple question, and your references to "internationalism" don't get the job done.

by Anarchy Rules Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:44

Where in that quote does it say that the British soldiers are POWs? (it refers to them being taken as prisoners not POWs) Whether their rights are being abused is not the subject of a debate. Besides that quote doesn't suggest that rights are being abused, it is suggesting that rights might be presently being abused. That's hardly definitive considering that Amnesty normally only print stuff they are sure of, hence the need for the Times to carry the flag in their stead. And it's interesting that eventhough the IT is not being definitive, that Pat C is. This is probably why any Amnesty site hasn't been updated with regard to British POWs having their rights violated. Consider too that each Amnesty site has been updated many times since the story broke, including since Pat broke with his claim that the British prisoners were POWs. The UK's Amnesty site has even updated with the release of the UK resident that was freed from Guantanamo.

Methinks Pat might be waiting a while for Amnesty to label the prisoners as POWs. Maybe if the UK goes to war with Iran they will be considered as POWs and Amnesty will update at this point?

by pat c Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:44

You are now repeating the same nonsense that you started on another thread.

The facts remain:

1. Women are stoned to death for adultery in Iran.
2. Gays are hanged in Iran or thrown off a high place.
3. Trade Unions are repressed in Iran.

Now talking about straw men, I oppose the death penalty so dont try and blame me for executions in the US.

But I am not aware of any non-Islamic country where women and gays are executed for expressing their sexuality.

I oppose US/UK Imperialism but I also oppose the Iranian form of Fascism practiced by the Mullahs.

by pat c Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:47

You are being truly pathetic. Those are the opening lines of the article. Suddenly AR is becoming an expert on how Amnesty operates! You are truly hilarious!

by hobbled Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:49

ok- if the men fighting on this site about the veiled woman would just give it a rest
for one silly little moment and realise that this is what causes stupid wars.

1. propaganda.
2. one upmanship.
3. manipulation.

and if you spent more time and energy getting laid or whatever gives you your kicks
then maybe the focus could slide to the inequities in your society too.

Chill out.
1. Pushkin is a women's rights activist.
2. Mercury is competing.
3 Nothing ever gets done in Ireland cos stupid boys like to sword-fight!

Grow up- and go and join the nurses pickets.
or teach a kid to read or clean a sick persons vomit.

Please- quit the shite now!

[btw:- Bush is at it too. he'll be taking his erectile little bombs
out to protect the lovely little British Girl next, afterall one of the reaons for war in Iraq
"was to liberate Iraqi women"]

by Marlboro Man Mon Apr 02, 2007 13:07

Puskin is a womans rights activist. Says who? You? And you are?

by Kev Lar Mon Apr 02, 2007 16:53

The Brits can not be classed as pows because they are not (oficially) at war with Iran.
At the same time they are being detained by the Military authorities and not the civilian police so they do not have a standing as criminals.
They are not political prisoners and they sure as hell are not guests!
So what do we categorise them as? Military detainees?
What do the Brits categorise the Iranians they are holding as? Can we not categorise the Brits under the same category?

by iosaf Tue Apr 03, 2007 06:04

I wrote as much in the comment above "do you know how to play the POW game?" This morning's English independent newspaper has come up with a good answer of what I called "soft maths". I like soft maths it comes out quickly. This is how the brits can now blame the americans. Which suits the Iranians perfectly, that's who they want to blame too. Diplomacy is cool. If I were ignored less, more people would know how it works and there would be less war.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article...0.ece

by white nigger Tue Apr 03, 2007 07:48

Ah pat c if you had but taken the trouble to study the Major McDowell - Douglas Gageby - "white nigger" story you might have realised that the Irish times is in essence and in spirit a (covert) organ of British propaganda.

And it can be put to good use at times like this to promote Britain's global agenda.

by Tony Tue Apr 03, 2007 08:07

Pat C says:
"The facts remain:

1. Women are stoned to death for adultery in Iran.
2. Gays are hanged in Iran or thrown off a high place.
3. Trade Unions are repressed in Iran."

You have an unhealthy interest in the methods of killing, don't you?
Let's go one at a time, using the example of Iraq, since the US hasn't yet taken the opportunity to kill large numbers of Iranians.
So -
1) Women are stoned to death for adultery in Iran.
Yes they are, but how many female adulterers has the US killed in Iraq?
2) Gays are hanged in Iran or thrown off a high place.
I'll take your word for it - I'm not so turned on by the methods of killing as you are.
But how many gays has the US killed in Iraq?
3) Trade Unions are repressed in Iran.
Yes, they are, though not nearly as much as imply - not, for example, as much as in real fascist regimes, as opposed to your fascism that doesn't fit the useful definition of fascism
But again - how many trade unionists has the US killed in Iraq?

We've been through this before. You say, ah, but the US didn't kill adulterers BECAUSE they are adulterers, didn't kill gays BECAUSE they are gay, doesn't kill trade unionists BECAUSE they are in unions.

So what? They're still dead, aren't they?
As Yossarian from Catch 22 would say, what difference does it make what the MOTIVES were?

The US is the essential underpinning of world capitalism, and not even you say that about Iran.
If the Iranian regime falls, it's hardly likely to lead to the collapse of capitalism on a world scale, whereas if the US were defeated whole world system of capitalism would be vulnerable.

Can you just see an anti-war movement led by Pat C? Could you imagine it ever saying that the defeat of, say, the US, would be the lesser evil? That's the position that real revolutionaries in the major imperialist countries take, from WW1 , the Malvinas (Falklands), despite the Galtieri regime, Kenya under the British, despite the ideas of the Mau Mau, and so on.

Pat C day after day makes the case that Iran is qualitatively worse than the US - how on earth can such a movement then turn round and say "we are for the defeat of the US in any war with Iran"?

Pat, you're a faker.

by Mars Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:12

Pat C says
"You are now repeating the same nonsense that you started on another thread"

That's because Pat C never answers a question. He/she is engrossed in her/his own view of things and when challanged we get the same ole stalinist tactic, name calling and bluster.

He/She goes on

"The facts remain:
1. Women are stoned to death for adultery in Iran.
2. Gays are hanged in Iran or thrown off a high place.
3. Trade Unions are repressed in Iran."

What grizzly matters your mind has to contend with. The point I repeatedly make is that we are no better and there is plenty of injustices in our own backyard to keep us occuppied without becoming cheerleaders for a nutcase to wage war.

And the disclaimer

"Now talking about straw men, I oppose the death penalty so dont try and blame me for executions in the US".

The fact is that in the US executions are carried out on human beings who usually are the most vulnerable and regardless of the methods used the consequences are the same. People die.
The point is that people in glass houses should not throw stones.

And the over riding fact is that the invasion and other activities of the US/British are evil and all right thinking people should condemn them out of hand. What your contribution to the discussion has sought to do is to give some degree of legitimacy to their murderous behaviour.

And the gem,

"But I am not aware of any non-Islamic country where women and gays are executed for expressing their sexuality."

So it's ok to kill people providing the reason for doing so is not related to issues surrounding people's sexual oriention.

And in conclusion:

" I oppose US/UK Imperialism but I also oppose the Iranian form of Fascism practiced by the Mullahs."

Your opposition to US/UK imperialism is less than wholehearted. Your posts clearly show this. You seem content to accommodate a wrong or an evil if it attacks another wrong or evil that according to your set of values, is more evil/ wrong. This is self obsessed opinionated hypocrisy.
The invasion of Iraq and the planned invasion of Iran are the product of greed and other base motives. Stop giving these atrocities credibility

by pat c Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:24

I have tried to be polite to you but it just does not work. Were you sober when you wrote your latest piece? You have admitted in the past that you were drunk while you posted comments on Indymedia.ie. You have also lied, claiming that you were housebound due to being disabled. Then when you were caught out due to contradictions, you admitted that you were not housebound.

Why are you obsessed with me? Why not post on an Australian Indymedia. Your country is an Imperialist one, campaign against it instead of me. I am an anti-Imperialist who also happens to support Anti-Imperialists Secular Socialists in Iraq and Iran.

"If the Iranian regime falls, it's hardly likely to lead to the collapse of capitalism on a world scale, whereas if the US were defeated whole world system of capitalism would be vulnerable."

So the Iranian people must wait for the World Revolution before the Iranin Regime goes! Get a life!

"Can you just see an anti-war movement led by Pat C? Could you imagine it ever saying that the defeat of, say, the US, would be the lesser evil? That's the position that real revolutionaries in the major imperialist countries take, from WW1 , the Malvinas (Falklands), despite the Galtieri regime, Kenya under the British, despite the ideas of the Mau Mau, and so on."

Read what I wrote about the Malvinas its on this thread. The Mau Maus were slandered and it looks as if you swallowed some of the Imperialist slander. Thens of thousands of Kenyans were slaughtered, less than 100 whites.

"Pat, you're a faker."

You are the faker. Posting your rambling comments as you gurgle from your stubbies. Campaign against your own Imperialist government.

If you think that Amnesty and the Iranian Opposition are pro imperialist then contact them and tell them just that.

by pat c Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:34

"That's because Pat C never answers a question. He/she is engrossed in her/his own view of things and when challanged we get the same ole stalinist tactic, name calling and bluster. "

Ahem, you are the one who is getting insulting here. Yoiu are using a Stalinist tactic. I have answered your questions. You just dont like the answers.

"What grizzly matters your mind has to contend with. The point I repeatedly make is that we are no better and there is plenty of injustices in our own backyard to keep us occuppied without becoming cheerleaders for a nutcase to wage war. "

I am not a cheereleader for war. I oppose any intervention by the US/UK. You however condem any criticism of Iran. I think that makes you a cheerleader for Islamic Fundamentalists.

"The fact is that in the US executions are carried out on human beings who usually are the most vulnerable and regardless of the methods used the consequences are the same. People die.
The point is that people in glass houses should not throw stones."

I'm not in a glasshouse. I condemn executions in the US. The difference is that outside of Islamic societies women and gays are not executed for exploring their sexuality.

"And the over riding fact is that the invasion and other activities of the US/British are evil and all right thinking people should condemn them out of hand. What your contribution to the discussion has sought to do is to give some degree of legitimacy to their murderous behaviour."

I have continuously made the point that I oppose any Imperialist intervention in Iran. It is possible to oppose Imperialism and also support the Iranian Opposition. You are giving support to the murderous Iranian Regime.

"So it's ok to kill people providing the reason for doing so is not related to issues surrounding people's sexual oriention."

I didnt say that. You are just being childish now.

And in conclusion:

"Your opposition to US/UK imperialism is less than wholehearted. Your posts clearly show this. You seem content to accommodate a wrong or an evil if it attacks another wrong or evil that according to your set of values, is more evil/ wrong. This is self obsessed opinionated hypocrisy."

I fully oppose Imperialism. I cant see where you get any contrary evidence. You are back to setting up men of straw. Effectively you are supporting the Iranian Regime against the Democratic Opposition.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Apr 03, 2007 14:52

An Iranian diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, kidnapped in the Karradah district of Baghdad on February 4th by uniformed Iraqi gunmen, was released this morning and returned to Teheran. In Baghdad a senior foreign ministry official said, anonymously (lol!!) that his government was "intensively" seeking the release of five more Iranians detained there by U.S forces!!

Hostages, POWs, kidnapped sldiers, quid-pro-quos or what?

Two days after the Sharafi raid, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said President Bush approved the strategy of 'raiding' Iranian targets in Iraq as part of efforts to confront the government in Teheran.

Can we, in this thread, concentrate on real events and try to analyse (and calmly discuss) their importance for the region, and us here in Ireland, instead of name calling and ‘getting angry’ with those we disagree with? Can we revisit these events above, and take on board the fact that Iran is surrounded by 40,000 troops in the east, 150,000 troops in the west and God knows how many battleships in the south? And figure out who exactly is benefitting in Iran by this strategy of threat and tension?

by pat c Tue Apr 03, 2007 15:07

Real events:

1. Thousands of opposition members in prison in Iran.

2. Strikes outlawed in Iran.

3. Independent Trade Unions outlawed in Iran.

4. All opposition parties outlawed in Iran.

No Imperialist intervention in Iran & no support for the Dicatatorial Iranian Government.

Support the Iranian Democratic Opposition.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Apr 03, 2007 15:35

PatC

The four points you outline above are real, unfortunately very real for many Iranians. And we have agreed in the past, and confirm today, that the Iranian democratic opposition must be supported.

However, let us pls take the debate forward somewhat. If you have the time, I would like you to consider some of the comments in [http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/hersh-qaeda/] by New Yorker columnist Seymour Hersh who says the “single most explosive” element of his latest article involves an effort by the Bush administration to stem the growth of Shiite and Iranian influence in the Middle East (specifically the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni groups. This article can be found in http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_...hersh

Hersh says the U.S. has been “pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight” for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to “stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.” Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of “three Sunni jihadist groups” who are “connected to al Qaeda” but “want to take on Hezbollah.” Would there be a link there with the growing influence of the Saudis in the region? [See M Jansen's article in last Saturday's Irish Times]. And pls pls don't tell me that the Saudi feudal mullahs and princes are any better than their Iranian counterparts.

Hersh summed up his scoop in stark terms: “We are simply in a situation where Bush is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11.”

by pat c Tue Apr 03, 2007 15:39

I am aware of what you just published. I still stick to my line that very sharp criticisms must be made of the Iranian Junta at the same time as we criticise the Imperialists. Otherwise ordinary people will think that we are stooges for Islamic Fundamentalists.

by Goblin Tue Apr 03, 2007 15:55

How the hell could you have read anything of note on the links provided by Michael in 4 minutes flat which includes the time it took for you to type the reply? Classic self obsessed behaviour with limp acknowledgment of others peoples efforts but unflinching in their absolute belief in their own agenda. And I am calling it an agenda because 'discussion' with Pat C is tantamount to banging your head off a brick wall. Bland calls, dismissive arrogance and a tunnel vision approach to socialism which only sees human rights abuses as far away. No doubt Pat thinks he is holding his own, but all he does is flip criticism back almost ver batum at those who criticise him. Denial? Arrogance? Inability to argue the points with his customary default position of quote and counter quote. Long in word-count, pittance in substance.

One would almost be led to think that the pseudonym 'Pat C' is meant to mean something

by pat c Tue Apr 03, 2007 16:26

"How the hell could you have read anything of note on the links provided by Michael in 4 minutes flat which includes the time it took for you to type the reply? "

I readit. Nothing new in it. Perhaps you have to put your finger on each word as you read, I dont. Try a speed reading course.

"Classic self obsessed behaviour with limp acknowledgment of others peoples efforts but unflinching in their absolute belief in their own agenda. "

Thats meaningless buzz. Not my agenda. I support the agenda of the Worker-communist Party of Iran.

"And I am calling it an agenda because 'discussion' with Pat C is tantamount to banging your head off a brick wall. Bland calls, dismissive arrogance and a tunnel vision approach to socialism which only sees human rights abuses as far away."

Nope, I'm invoved in campaigns here as well. If you were an activist you would know that. Why do you have to invent things?

"No doubt Pat thinks he is holding his own, but all he does is flip criticism back almost ver batum at those who criticise him. Denial? Arrogance? Inability to argue the points with his customary default position of quote and counter quote. Long in word-count, pittance in substance."

Well you havent come out with anything original yourself. I stick by my opposition to Imperialism AND to my support for the Iranian Opposition. You support the Iranian Government if you so wish.

"One would almost be led to think that the pseudonym 'Pat C' is meant to mean something "

How very clever! Worthy of an 8 year old. Its not a pseudynom as you would know if you were actually involved in anything as disctinct from mouthing off on Indymedia.

by pat c Tue Apr 03, 2007 16:57

"If I was an activist I would know who you are? How far up your own arse is it possible for you to get? "

Not at all. I use a real identifiable name. I have been posting on iNdymedia for 5 years. From your behaviour I suspect you resemble your pseudynom.

"'Pat C' means nothing to me, except you came out from behind another pseudonym on the Nally thread and declared you where 'Pat C' and that you where no longer supporting Travellors etc etc. "

Thats a lie. I said that elderly people had the right to defend themselves against violent thugs, no matter what the ethnic origin of the thugs.

"I'm sure posters there suddenly dropped to their knees in reverence and that Travellors cursed themselves for losing such a prominent and respected figure from their corner."

That attempt at smart aleckery fell rather flat. Why not try political debate instead? Whats your actual position on Iran? What have you got against the Iranian Opposition?

"Thiers only one such muppet who blows his own trumpet as much on the 'activism scene' and if you're him I know exactly what kind of 'activist' you are- the kind that would step over a beggar on his way to an anti-poverty rally."

Whats that supposed to mean? I havent blown my trumpet. I pointed out that I use pat c and have done so for 5 years on Indymedia. Its my first name and the first letter of my surname so that should help you work out whether or its me you are referring to.

In the meantime your identity remains a mystery.

by pat c Tue Apr 03, 2007 17:46

An Iranian diplomat seized two months ago in Iraq by uniformed gunmen has been released — a move that suggested progress Tuesday in British efforts to win the freedom of 15 sailors and marines held by Iran.

Neither British, U.S. nor Iraqi officials would say if the release of diplomat Jalal Sharafi was linked directly to Britain's efforts to gain its sailors' release. Britain has publicly sworn not to negotiate.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Apr 03, 2007 18:00

PatC,

I don't like doing this but I'm going to repeat one of my paragarphs above: "Can we, in this thread, concentrate on real events and try to analyse (and calmly discuss) their importance for the region, and us here in Ireland, instead of name calling and ‘getting angry’ with those we disagree with? Can we revisit these events above, and take on board the fact that Iran is surrounded by 40,000 troops in the east, 150,000 troops in the west and God knows how many battleships in the south? And figure out who exactly is benefitting in Iran by this strategy of threat and tension?"

I am not going to dispute that you're a fantastic speed reader and read (and understood?) a 17-page document in four minutes as well as listened to and digested a video. I will accept, however, that you may had read and studied that stuff before I posted them.

What I am going to dispute and disagree with you is your assertion that this is 'old stuff' and there's nothing new in it. The US, and particularly the Bush cabal, financing secretly Sunni jihadists in order to provoke a Sunni v Shia civil conflict both in Iraq and Lebanon? Nothing new? 'Old stuff'?

Wow PatC, you're really ahead of us all in this country. I have seen nowhere any of that stuff mentioned, I have read no commentary about it either in the mainstream press or in Indymedia! Of course, I do not partake in the elevated political circles where these types of discussions take place....what can I say?

Furthermore, you have no commentary, no political point to make about it, except tha you're against imperialism? And, that all those people trying to argue with you, are in the pay or secret supporters of Islamic fundamentalism? In the meantime, I, whom you accused a couple of days ago of being in the pay of the Iranian Embassy, am still trying to figure out what the WPI or the 2004 split of it, the WPI-H, have to say about recent events in Iran...nothing in their websites so far.

Surely you agree with me that all these deveopments have something, however small, to do with the development, or not, of the democratic opposition. Agreed?

by Mars Tue Apr 03, 2007 18:02

The most charitable interpretation that I can put on the postings and the position of Pat C is that he/she fails to undestand that critcism of the Iranian regime posted on a thread related to the barbaric antics of the US/British in Irag, Afghanistan and coming soon to Iran, actually gives succour to those antics. I remind you, when Bush was caught out on the WMD excuse for going to war, he actually started to bleet about freeing the "women folk"
What Pat C needs to do is to condemn the invasion because it is wrong and to open another thread to express concerns etc. with the internal governance of Iran. A lot of people will tell you that's it's none of your business and that any necessary change must come from within if it is to be in the best interests of all those that live in Iran. And to be frank, I will have no hand,act or part in imposing our values on those people. God knows they have suffered enough.
Your last sentence, "Effectively you are supporting the Iranian Regime against the Democratic Opposition" is plain silly.Thankfully all I have said on the matter remains on the record.
And I will leave you and Pushkin with this:
Do you think that if Bush invades Iran, that a) he will do so with honourable intentions and objectives and b) do you believe that they will leave behind a country governed on the principles of equality and justice?

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Apr 03, 2007 18:06

PatC,

There was a guy I know from the iawm who posted the news of Sharafi's release at 14:52 earlier in this thread (see above). What's the idea of repeating it more than 3 hours later? To strees its importance? Sometimes you make me laugh. And I thought you said you read that stuff!!!

by pat c Tue Apr 03, 2007 18:12

You are just repeating the same things time after time.

How many times do I have to say that I oppose any Imperialist intervention? I oppose the US/UK Imperialists. Your questions are therefore irrelevant .

Unlike you I happen to support the Iranian Opposition. They also oppose Imperialist intervention. Thats all there on the thread. That seems to bother you, so I believe it is reasonable for me to presume that you support the Iranian Regime. You certainly have offered no support to the Iranian Socialist Opposition.

by Mars Tue Apr 03, 2007 18:28

Your conclusion is offensive and it appears you can reach them just as quickly as to you can speed read. Is there a "speed conclusion reaching" class you can recommend?
In any event I can live with your name calling but will you simply answer the queations?

by A Fan of Toufan - Party of Labour of Iran (Toufan) Tue Apr 03, 2007 18:48

Stop the war!
No sanctions, no bombs against Iran

The US has, directly after its occupation of Iraq, been building up
several military bases close to the Iranian border.

The US has made repeated demands on the Iranian government to
accommodate to US policies concerning the ¡°new American order¡±. Replacement of the regimes in Iraq, North Korea and Iran is, and has been, part of the Bush doctrine. Right now, as the US has failed in Iraq, its war-mongering against Iran is on the increase.

But the capitalist clergy regime in Tehran has the character of sellingout to the US for the sake of power. All factions within the Tehran regime have shown marked tendencies of compromise with the US. Examples of this are that the Islamic regime, during bombardments of Iraq and Afghanistan, has been collaborating with ¡°the alliance Britain-US and, according to its own statement, the US wouldnt succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan without help from
Iran.

Iran was one of the first states to recognize the stooge regime in
Baghdad. The Tehran regime has from the very beginning been acting against the resistance movement in Iraq, and has been close to the US line, while yet being accused of responsibility for the US failure in Iraq.

The US doesnt care about the form or medieval character of the Iranian regime. History has shown that the US may collaborate with any kind of Satan to realize its aims and goals.

by pat c Tue Apr 03, 2007 18:50

If you find my conclusions offensive then thats your problem. You have gotten the only answers you will get from me.

by Yassamine Mather Tue Apr 03, 2007 18:58

Yassamine Mather editor of Iran bulletin:

Last week, when the militarist faction in the Iranian regime realised they had captured 15 British marines and sailors, it must have seemed like a gift from heaven. Yassamine Mather reports

The timing could not have been better. At the start of the country’s longest public holiday for the Iranian new year, the ministries, parliament and press in Tehran were all out of action, ensuring little or no criticism of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the military for creating such a dangerous situation at a time of major crisis.

Faced with the continued threat of US military action and with the escalation of rhetoric on both sides, the Iranian people are experiencing a very grim new year holiday. However, as the demonstrations of the last days and even the last hours of the year showed, unemployment, low wages, religious interference in people’s private lives and lack of freedom remain the priorities of protesters in Tehran and elsewhere, despite the threat of war.

Hundreds of Iranian teachers were beaten and arrested in a rally at the education ministry and outside the parliament in mid-March, following a series of demonstrations on successive days. Around 70% of Iranian teachers live below the poverty line. Most are forced to take two or even three jobs to survive - often driving taxis late into the night or working in shops. Many teachers are paid hourly and are on short-term contracts - one of their main demands is the coordination and harmonisation of salaries.

by pat c Tue Apr 03, 2007 19:06

Michael Y if you were getting as much personalised abuse on this thread as I am from some goons then you might also miss a comment. Mars , Goblin, Tony create a lot of disturbance.

"I am not going to dispute that you're a fantastic speed reader and read (and understood?) a 17-page document in four minutes as well as listened to and digested a video. I will accept, however, that you may had read and studied that stuff before I posted them."

I read your comment. I didnt go to the links. I am well aware of the situation in Iran. The stuff is onlie elsewhere.

"What I am going to dispute and disagree with you is your assertion that this is 'old stuff' and there's nothing new in it. The US, and particularly the Bush cabal, financing secretly Sunni jihadists in order to provoke a Sunni v Shia civil conflict both in Iraq and Lebanon? Nothing new? 'Old stuff'? "

it has been about before. Hershs stuff is also on the Iran Bulletin site. I believe it but I dont actually see the smoking gun this time. I

"Wow PatC, you're really ahead of us all in this country. I have seen nowhere any of that stuff mentioned, I have read no commentary about it either in the mainstream press or in Indymedia! Of course, I do not partake in the elevated political circles where these types of discussions take place....what can I say?"

I wish you would just say nothing but theres not much chance of that. As I said you will find it on Iranian opposition sites.

"Furthermore, you have no commentary, no political point to make about it, except tha you're against imperialism?"

If you bother to read what I wrote I think you'll find a little more than that. Quit the misrepresentation.

"And, that all those people trying to argue with you, are in the pay or secret supporters of Islamic fundamentalism? "

No I dont say that. But if you bother to read the thread you will see that some goons continuosly accuse me of bigotry, racism, pro-imperialism. Its hardly suprising that I would respond by querying if they support the Iranian Government.

"In the meantime, I, whom you accused a couple of days ago of being in the pay of the Iranian Embassy, am still trying to figure out what the WPI or the 2004 split of it, the WPI-H, have to say about recent events in Iran...nothing in their websites so far."

Well you are the person who is in contact with the Embassy of a fascist dictatorship. To even suggest organising debates for them. Please think again about that. I didnt actually say you were paid by them. You could show more distance.

"Surely you agree with me that all these deveopments have something, however small, to do with the development, or not, of the democratic opposition. Agreed?"

Oh, I would. I'll get some stuff in English. Not being as well funded as the Iranian Regime, the opposition doesnt always get its stuff out as quickly. Haven't anything in English from the Hekmatists yet (got onto them again about it today) but a little bird tells that two opposition articles are on the thread. ;)

by Mars Tue Apr 03, 2007 19:22

Pat C says,
" You have gotten the only answers you will get from me."

Where are those answers? Did I miss something?

In the next posted reply to Michael we have the last refuge of false prophets, "Victimhood" Speaks volumes.

by pat c Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:02

I oppose any Imperialist intervention in Iran. I believe that such an intervention would be:

1. An act of Imperialist aggression.
2. Would stir up nationalist sentiment in Iran and would strengthen the hand of the Regime.
3. Any regime change should only come about through the internal action of the Iranian opposition.

I thought that those points were clear from my previous postings but due to your tenacity I presume that they were not. I am not claiming to be a victim, I was merely explaining to Michael Y that I missed his post because I had so many others to respond to. Thats all.

by pat c Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:16

This is a response I got from the Worker-communist Party of Iran - Hekmatist :

We are in the process of
translating an article on the subject. Since this
article is targeted at Iranian audience I think it
would be more aproperiate if we carry out an interview
and deal with your specefic question.

I'll do an interview and publish it on Indy.

by pat c Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:43

At the link you will find an interview with Maryam Namazie. Maryam is Director of the Worker-communist Party of Iran's International Relations Committee; co-editor of WPI Briefing and Vice President of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association.

Iran - Regime change from within?

What are the prospects for regime change from within - by and for the Iranian people?

Over the last year, Iran has seen rising levels of resistance to President Ahmadinejad's repressive regime. Strikes by bus workers and teachers, women's rights protests, student occupations and protests by Iran's suppressed national minorities, especially the Kurds, Baluchis and Ahwazi Arabs. On his weekly TV programme, Talking With Tatchell, human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell interviews Maryam Namazie, Iranian broadcaster, feminist and communist.

by pat c Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:01

I got this response from the Worker-communist Party of Iran:

We do have soemthing but it is in Farsi. I hope to have it translated this weekend. We could also do an interview if you'd like.
So I should have a couple of more contributions from Iranian opposition parties in the next couple of days.

by Mars Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:09

Pat c outlines her position thus

"1. (An invasion would be) An act of Imperialist aggression.
2. Would stir up nationalist sentiment in Iran and would strengthen the hand of the Regime.
3. Any regime change should only come about through the internal action of the Iranian opposition."

Have no problem with this except the third. Ideally change should only come about through internal actions of the Iranian PEOPLE and that change must be confirmed by free elections.

However, I don't think that this discussion was apropriate on a thread that complained about the treatment of military personnel.

Good luck with your work.

by Goblin Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:38

You see Pat, if you put this kind of energy into tackling problems closer to home there could be a chance that those problems might be solved.

You are consistently missing the point. The critique I had was of you and your insistence that you being 'Pat C' is in itself a sufficient rebuttal to any question asked of you. No other explanation offered bar a trotted out list of well voiced rhetoric.

We actually agree on a hell of a lot here, BUT I like others will not interfere with Iranians finding a solution to their internal problems. In doing this it is incredibly presumptuous of you to claim by proxy that I or anyone else of a similar take are supporting the Iranian Mullah regime. That is absolute nonsense. It has been stated elsewhere that all factions within Iran are corrupt to some degree. I feel we should adopt a wait and see position before hats are thrown into the solidarity ring.

Nor can I give imperialist forces in Iraq any solace by being able to point to that solidarity with Iranian Resistance as further justification for bombing the hell out of Iran.

Regime change can and must be peaceful. The lessons in Iraq are not being learned.

This is also a highly complex situation and dogged entrenched positions are not helpful.
This is my position on Iran and why I don’t give unreserved support to Iranian resistance. You can twist this anyway you like Pat C because in terms of Iranians dying it will mean nothing.

Which leads me to what sparked off this little spat. I took acceptation to you and your self appointed position of moral and political authority on all things Iranian. I took acceptation to you claiming to be higher up the activist food chain and therefore infallible in your opinion (and that is all it is, an opinion)

I agreed with Mars fundamentally that far away activism is a fudge on issues that are closer to home. You decided to berate this position on points of what I assume where personal insult rather than clarify your own position with reasoned thought out arguement or do you presume to be above such.
Activism fatigue has resulted in many worthy domestic campaigns waning and I have witnessed the large migration of activists from one campaign to the other resulting in this activism being spread far too thin to be of any effect what so ever.

In closing I will not denounce foreign governments when our own are just as open to criticism and whilst problems here go unchallenged. That does not interpret into support for those foreign governments either.

by pat c Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:57

We can agree to differ as to whether or not foreign governments should be criticised. If I was not involved in activities locally the you would have grounds to criticise me, but I have a record of involvement in environmental, anti-imperialist, trade union, anti-fascist and pro-choice issues.

It would be wrong for me to try and force my views on any foreign groups, but I am not doing that. I am merely supporting positions taken up by the Iranian opposition.

by pat c Wed Apr 04, 2007 13:07

First of all I would like to say that I regret any nstiness that occurred on this thread. Sometimes in the heat of the moment when tempers are frayed, intemperate remarks are written. I made some personalised comments which were not warranted.

"Pat c outlines her position thus"

His actually.

""3. Any regime change should only come about through the internal action of the Iranian opposition."

Have no problem with this except the third. Ideally change should only come about through internal actions of the Iranian PEOPLE and that change must be confirmed by free elections."

The Iranian regime were not elected by genuine elections. Since 1979 there has never been a free and fair election in Iran. I would hope for a peaceful transfer of power but this might not be possible. I certainly wouldn't attempt to tell the Iranians how the Mullahs should be removed. But I agree that any new government would have to be conf9irmed by free and fair elections.

"However, I don't think that this discussion was apropriate on a thread that complained about the treatment of military personnel."

Had a look back on the thread. The debate sort of organically grew on both sides from the very start.

"Good luck with your work."

Thank you.

by pat c Wed Apr 04, 2007 15:13

M.Y. can stand down the IAWMs international brigade. The sailors have been released. Must admit I thought Ahmady would hold out for the release of the Iranians held captive by the US in Iraq. Just goes to show: you can't rely on the Iranian capitalist clergy, they always capitulate to imperialism.

Iran 'to release British sailors'

Iranian media said the British crew 'shouted for joy' at the news
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf will be freed. He repeated allegations that the British sailors and marines "invaded" Iranian waters, but said they would be freed as a "gift" to Britain.

He made the announcement at a news conference, in which he also awarded medals to the commanders who captured the British personnel in the Gulf.

by iosaf .:. ipsiphi Wed Apr 04, 2007 15:42

most of them are worthless. Diplomacy has taken its course since the 23rd day of the last month, it has included the usual games - I hope Irish telly showed pictures of the British sailors relaxing in cheap tracksuits typical of any mid asian (whilst their uniforms were washed) and playing chess. I tried to remind the readership amidst all these bickering comments "on how we would change Iran" above that the POW game originated in the same area as Chess. The results are not quite "peace in our time", but if we were serious about our campaigns against the war on Iraq in 2002-2003 we have remained serious about wanting peace.
Peace in the middle east be it for Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqi or Kurd must include diplomatic and non-aggressive co-operation between states which for too long were sidelined by the Bush administration. I have written many times that we are about to leave the crass-ness of the Cheney Bush presidency. Peace will not erupt one day. There will be no last hewey helicopter out of Baghdad - but this war was not nor was ever going to be a crusade. Crusades are called and supported by myriad interests for one purpose - "assisting europeans in their millenial desire to gawk at Sion or however much is left of it".

This hostage crises has shown the capabilities of all sides to play more than one game - that of a proxy mostly covert war which has led to millions of lives being ruined or lost and the ancient agreed routes of pilgrimage to either Sion or Mecca made unsafe. We require peace & thus must remember how to play the other games. Naturally the Iranian soldiers as the British will get feathers in their caps. Naturally the Democrats will take the White House. Naturally the number of those left in Gitmo and the other facilities reduce. All war is the negotiation of peace. all peace leads from or upto war. Every war has its turning point. The future of Iraq and Kurdistan may only be stable, and may only allow the development of worker and social rights with the immediate support and influence of both Iran and Syria.

I'd suggest to readers who wanted to see it all happen step by step to ignore most of the comments above as being superflous twaddle.

.:. pax = saleem = shalom

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Apr 04, 2007 15:50

PatC

"First of all I would like to say that I regret any nastiness that occurred on this thread. Sometimes in the heat of the moment when tempers are frayed, intemperate remarks are written. I made some personalised comments which were not warranted." So you say. And that's OK. Accepted.

Then, back you are with clever little barbs about the iawm. Sure, sure, those of us in the anti-war movement who are not in the swp have no sense of humour - don't understand jokes!!

I just hope that now the usefulness of this thread is coming to an end that you will get onto your high horse and start arguing, in another thread, that the Iranians captured and held by the Empire should also be freed! I am really looking forward to that. Or don't they count because they're close to the "Islamo-fascist" regime?

We, in the iawm, are delighted the sailors are coming home - we only wish their other comrades/colleagues from Iraq and Afghanistan followed as quickly as possible. Then, there would really be no need for international support of the resistance. Finally, to translate the release of the sailors as a 'weakness' for the mullahs is missing, for the nth time dear friend, the forest from the trees!! But then, we are what we are....and little can change that.

To Mars and Goblin, the best of luck comrades. Happy Easter and continue the good work.

by pat c Wed Apr 04, 2007 16:06

"Then, back you are with clever little barbs about the iawm. Sure, sure, those of us in the anti-war movement who are not in the swp have no sense of humour - don't understand jokes!! "

Well you must have a sense of humour to act as RBBs adjutant in the IAWM. I remember the days when you wouldnt have played second fiddle to RBB.

"I just hope that now the usefulness of this thread is coming to an end that you will get onto your high horse and start arguing, in another thread, that the Iranians captured and held by the Empire should also be freed! I am really looking forward to that. Or don't they count because they're close to the "Islamo-fascist" regime?"

Whatever are you on about? I think they should be freed. How many times have I pointed that out on this thread. My opening comment said they should be swapped for the British.

"We, in the iawm, are delighted the sailors are coming home - we only wish their other comrades/colleagues from Iraq and Afghanistan followed as quickly as possible. Then, there would really be no need for international support of the resistance. "

Ah! The resistance again! Of course you see sectarian militias as the resistance.

"Finally, to translate the release of the sailors as a 'weakness' for the mullahs is missing, for the nth time dear friend, the forest from the trees!! But then, we are what we are....and little can change that."

Yes you cant tell an islamic fundamentalist from a real freedom fighter. Well, if you just scroll up the thread a little you will see that the Toufan predicted that the mullahs would cave in.

Happy Crucifixion to you!
I hope the Easter Bunny visits!

by Tony Wed Apr 04, 2007 16:11

It's easy to think that Indymedia is some kind of democratic debate site.
It's easy tho think that I have no reply to Pat C's posting:
So here's Pat's post:

I have tried to be polite to you but it just does not work. Were you sober when you wrote your latest piece? You have admitted in the past that you were drunk while you posted comments on Indymedia.ie. You have also lied, claiming that you were housebound due to being disabled. Then when you were caught out due to contradictions, you admitted that you were not housebound.

Why are you obsessed with me? Why not post on an Australian Indymedia. Your country is an Imperialist one, campaign against it instead of me. I am an anti-Imperialist who also happens to support Anti-Imperialists Secular Socialists in Iraq and Iran.

"If the Iranian regime falls, it's hardly likely to lead to the collapse of capitalism on a world scale, whereas if the US were defeated whole world system of capitalism would be vulnerable."

So the Iranian people must wait for the World Revolution before the Iranin Regime goes! Get a life!

"Can you just see an anti-war movement led by Pat C? Could you imagine it ever saying that the defeat of, say, the US, would be the lesser evil? That's the position that real revolutionaries in the major imperialist countries take, from WW1 , the Malvinas (Falklands), despite the Galtieri regime, Kenya under the British, despite the ideas of the Mau Mau, and so on."

Read what I wrote about the Malvinas its on this thread. The Mau Maus were slandered and it looks as if you swallowed some of the Imperialist slander. Thens of thousands of Kenyans were slaughtered, less than 100 whites.

"Pat, you're a faker."

You are the faker. Posting your rambling comments as you gurgle from your stubbies. Campaign against your own Imperialist government.

If you think that Amnesty and the Iranian Opposition are pro imperialist then contact them and tell them just that.

So did I fail to respond?

No - I didn't -but INDYMEDIA failed to leave my reply on site.

Seems that anarchists don't really believe in free speech. Could it have anything to do with the fact that Pat C. is an Indymedia insider?

by Pat c Wed Apr 04, 2007 16:53

I'm not an Indy insider.

Your posts are hidden because they are repetitive, contain abuse and are generally untrue. You are now trolling by reposting hidden comments.

Why are you obsessed with me?

Why not campaign against your own (Australian) Imperialist Government?

by R. Isible Wed Apr 04, 2007 17:00

The purpose of Indymedia is to provide NEWS. Not to provide a bulletin-board forum for the exchange of insults and unsupported opinions. This particular story above and the subsequent comments are not of the high standard contributed by many local journalists.

Quoting Tony: It's easy to think that Indymedia is some kind of democratic debate site.

Only if you haven't read our editorial guidelines. This whole "exchange" should stop now. I look forward to the disappearance of this comment and many of the preceding ones as "bulletin-board, non news" and to the contribution of real, original news instead. See Q.2 in link below and the include URL pointing to the editorial guidelines: