Gay Patriot Header Image

British Hostages In Iran — Where’s the Outrage?

You know all of those “human rights” groups that pop up every single time there are mere allegations of a real or (as is usually the case) a media-invented story about American “torture”? 

Well, where are they now when a Iran is blatantly violating the Geneva Convention accords?

The third Article of the Geneva Conventions clearly prohibits the public exhibition of Prisoners of War. The display on Iranian State Television of Leading Seaman Faye Turney flouts this provision. The letters which the Iranian Government have released which they allege were written by the same Royal Navy sailor, calling for withdrawal from Iraq and “confessing” to entering Iranian waters, indicate intimidation and coercion as banned by Articles three and seventeen of the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The relevant articles describe these as “serious breaches”.

Furthermore it seems that access by a humanitarian organisation such as the International Committee of the Red Cross is being denied while British Diplomats are being given the run-around in trying to determine the location, status and health of these hostages. Again this is contrary to the Geneva conventions.

So who is responsible for these acts? The Geneva conventions make this clear too. In Article twelve it defines the responsibility as being with the Government of the “Detaining Power.” In other words, President Ahmadinejad is responsible.

Whether you like it or not, and despite the worldwide intelligence failure on (obvious and large amounts) of WMD…the USA and UK are in Iraq enforcing many United Nations-approved mandates.  Iran truly is in complete violation of international law with their criminal hostage-taking of the British sailors.

And speaking of which, when will the United Nations stand up for Western liberal democracies instead of always seeming to support terrorist and anti-Isreal causes?

The time is now.  I think the United States future support of the United Nations should result directly how the UN handles the “Iran problem”.

And finally, I ask our liberal lower-case clanists…. where’s your outrage with Iran?  Bueller?  Bueller?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

83 Comments

  1. Yeah Gryph… If you care about the Geneva Convention so much (which we know you don’t really; it was always just convenient rhetoric for you)… Where the hell are you on this one?

    You may be banned here, but you could still denounce the Iranians on your own blog that nobody reads (though we know you won’t, due to lack of honest / actual moral courage).

    Comment by Calarato — March 30, 2007 @ 12:00 pm - March 30, 2007

  2. Of course their not going to speak out, they automatically blame the US or Britain for being in the wrong, just like Rosie O’Donnell did on her show yesterday. We are the only ones capable of doing wrong and harm to other people, while asnything thing done to us is either deserved or somehow acceptable.

    Comment by ousslander — March 30, 2007 @ 12:06 pm - March 30, 2007

  3. Going on a U.N. tangent…

    The organization “UN Watch” has a great video of them confronting the UN Human Rights Commission, a commission that relentlessly scapegoats Israel (and by extension, the West) while ignoring severe human rights abuses in the commission’s member states.

    http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=3698367

    The cowardly commission leader calls the statement “inadmissible” afterward, and you can hear the quavering in her voice – almost as if she secretly knows her commission is, in fact, a moral monstrosity. Hat tip Powerline: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017195.php

    Comment by Calarato — March 30, 2007 @ 12:06 pm - March 30, 2007

  4. Well, you won’t find any outrage from the Air Pelosi Democrats, who refused to put a resolution in support of the British up for a vote.

    Maybe Queen Nan is still basking in the glow of her vote to surrender and opposed to doing anything that might hint at standing up to terrorist aggression Or maybe she’s just terrified of offending Rosie O’Donnell, who has been screeching that the whole hostage-taking is a “false-flag” operation and who, by body-weight alone, accounts for 22% of the mass of the Democrat base.

    Comment by V the K — March 30, 2007 @ 12:11 pm - March 30, 2007

  5. Rosie is a moron – as are the trained monkeys in the audience who clap everytime she says something stupid (they must never stop clapping, I guess). She has becomoe what so many liberals have, and that’s a charicature (sp?) of herself and her silly political view. She aides and comforts the enemy and hides behind freedom of speech. She, like her liberal cronies, is a traitor. She should try being gay in Iran!! LOL!! I would pay money to see how she’d be treated!! But she still feels the need to side-up with the enemy (who sees her as a 2nd class citizen) every chance she gets. Typical of the liberal mental mentality. Truly a mentally ill point of view. “Useless Idiocy” strikes again!!!

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — March 30, 2007 @ 12:44 pm - March 30, 2007

  6. Hi Bruce,
    So is the thrust of your post that the Geneva Conventions matter, or that the left is not being consistent on its expectations as to when it is followed? And has the left’s supposed commitment to the importance of the Geneva conventions ever included any expectation that a country like Iran would ever follow it when they should? Does the left’s supposed expectation that America follow the GC ipso facto mean that it rationally expects that Iran actually would? If the left has higher expectations of America than Iran, is that a bad thing?

    And yes, Rosie is a moron.

    Comment by torrentprime — March 30, 2007 @ 1:29 pm - March 30, 2007

  7. I’m probably the only one here who thinks there’s no innocent party (state) in the Middle East including Israel (especially its atrocious settlement policies in Palestinian lands) and that the United States does itself a disservice by insisting on sending multimillions to a Palestinian Authority that refuses to rid itself of its terrorist vermin and sending multibillions to an Israeli state that continues to build the WMDs it refuses to acknowledge and annexes land “for national security” (and whose per capita GDP exceeds $26K, PPP Index).

    As for the U.N., well, only a fool would place faith in its ability to accomplish much. I guess its only purpose is that it allows us to bequeath to it the problems we no longer wish nor have the will to solve. This way we can pretend we are guiltless (Rwanda), we have a convenient scapegoat (Kosovo), and the premise of failure (Iraq). What else could we possibly gain from an organization that features North Korea as a member?

    I can’t remember who said it (Kruschev?), but I agree: If you want to keep the United States in the United Nations, keep the United Nations in the United States. There’s been talk of moving it to Berlin. Fine with me. I propose we immediately change our status to Observer Nation.

    Comment by HardHobbit — March 30, 2007 @ 1:54 pm - March 30, 2007

  8. torrentprime – It’s not a bad thing that we should act more civil than Iran (we already do on all levels). The problem is that “the left” gives moral equivalency to Iran, where there is none. “The left” has no reality-based expectations of America – they hate America and all it stands for (as they gleefully exploit the freedoms offered). They will use the convenience of this type of issue to pretend there is any connection between our mentality and the Islamo-fascist mentality. It is one more example of liberal denial and wishing the world was how they see it. Those of us who know the world, know wishing something to be, and the reality of it, are usually 2 different things. Such is the liberal universe. Wanting something to be a certain way has little to do with how it really is. Rosie is the poster child of liberal inaneness.

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — March 30, 2007 @ 1:55 pm - March 30, 2007

  9. I’d also like to know why the MSM is not alleging that the taped and written confessions are not due to them being coerced as they did with KSM? Whay is what the British hostages are saying taken as the truth? Th UN will never stand for Western democracies since they have no way of making any money off of us as they did with Iraq and the Oil for Food buffet, I mean program.

    Comment by jon — March 30, 2007 @ 1:58 pm - March 30, 2007

  10. HardHobbit – you’re kidding right? The only illegal occupation in the ME is that of Lebanon by Syria. The “palestinians” are a mythical bunch, created in 1967, intentionally by the Arab world, to terrorize Israel. Also, last time I checked, Israel wasn’t threatening to wipe any other nation off the earth with their nukes (which are for defense only). Again, you are trying to morally equate a civil nation to that of a bunch of terrorists, hell bent on the former’s destruction. For the LOVE, get it right.

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — March 30, 2007 @ 2:00 pm - March 30, 2007

  11. Too true, Jon, too true.

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — March 30, 2007 @ 2:01 pm - March 30, 2007

  12. I just wached “300” and made me feel gooood!

    Comment by Juan Otero — March 30, 2007 @ 2:02 pm - March 30, 2007

  13. #10 Reread my post carefully. Did I state that I consider Israel and the Palestinians moral equivalents? No? Good. Did I state that I’m against Israel having WMDs? No? Good. I certainly didn’t intend to imply either. I have no problem with a lopsided policy, but I believe our policy in the Israel/Palestinian conflict is too lopsided, misguided, and counterproductive.

    (Now just watch. Certain participants will start calling me an anti-Semite merely because I have the audacity to disagree with Israel.)

    The Palestinians (or whatever you choose to call them — I’m using the term because it’s what everyone uses) are not mythical people. They are real and have some legitimate gripes, primarily the way they’ve been treated by the sham government the United States insists on funding.

    My argument has to do with 1) the ineffectiveness of the United Nations and our motivations for remaining a member and 2) how our policies of foreign aid actually exacerbate the problems we are ostensibly trying to solve. I’ve got this quaint idea that foreign aid should be in the form of in-kind donation rather than merely cutting a check that the American taxpayer must underwrite. This way, we can avoid money falling into the hands of those who would do

    Comment by HardHobbit — March 30, 2007 @ 2:40 pm - March 30, 2007

  14. Strange. Website refused some of my post. I’ll try again.

    #10 Reread my post carefully. Did I state that I consider Israel and the Palestinians moral equivalents? No? Good. Did I state that I’m against Israel having WMDs? No? Good. I certainly didn’t intend to imply either. I have no problem with a lopsided policy, but I believe our policy in the Israel/Palestinian conflict is too lopsided, misguided, and counterproductive.

    (Now just watch. Certain participants will start calling me an anti-Semite merely because I have the audacity to disagree with Israel.)

    The Palestinians (or whatever you choose to call them — I’m using the term because it’s what everyone uses) are not mythical people. They are real and have some legitimate gripes, primarily the way they’ve been treated by the sham government the United States insists on funding.

    My argument has to do with 1) the ineffectiveness of the United Nations and our motivations for remaining a member and 2) how our policies of foreign aid actually exacerbate the problems we are ostensibly trying to solve. I’ve got this quaint idea that foreign aid should be in the form of in-kind donation rather than merely cutting a check that the American taxpayer must underwrite. This way, we can avoid money falling into the hands of those who would do us harm or who are simply corrupt or avoid the impression that we are funding a regime’s military that is pointing directly at its neighbors. (I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that the millions we send to the Palestinians ain’t being spent on medicine.)

    Israel’s economy can support itself and I think it’s time we allow it to do so (an idea with considerable support in the Knesset, by the way). If we must fund with direct contributions, I propose we spend money investing in countries that are truly poor such as Kenya and Tanzania, nations that need investment if they are to prevent the kinds of problems faced by Somalia and Sudan, problems I believe could have been prevented had we been a bit more involved. Africa is potentially rife with terrorists and with a relatively small investment in finances and diplomacy, we could avoid future problems.

    I’d like our foreign policy to be pro American, meaning what is best for the American citizen in both the short and long term. By this, I don’t mean a Fortress America/isolationist approach and I certainly don’t mean our current Team America: World Police approach. We need to get rid of the old paradigm of the Marshall Plan and begin to focus on other areas of the world that need both our short-term economic aid and a long-term diplomatic vision, something the current administration does not possess. I wonder if anyone does.

    Comment by HardHobbit — March 30, 2007 @ 2:43 pm - March 30, 2007

  15. Ok HardHobit, “you win”. I just don’t have the will to argue today. It’s a beautiful day and it’s Friday. Happy Hour can’t get here any faster. I don’t happen to think you hate Jews – I just think you’re misinformed/misguided. Have a nice weekend.

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — March 30, 2007 @ 2:57 pm - March 30, 2007

  16. LNC, you rock and have a great weekend!

    Comment by Calarato — March 30, 2007 @ 3:12 pm - March 30, 2007

  17. #15 We just differ in opinion. Have a good weekend yourself!

    Comment by HardHobbit — March 30, 2007 @ 3:13 pm - March 30, 2007

  18. Cool, HH. I know I get a bit acerbic, but I can be a real sweetie pie 😉

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — March 30, 2007 @ 3:14 pm - March 30, 2007

  19. Have a cocktail for me LNC!!!

    Comment by jon — March 30, 2007 @ 3:17 pm - March 30, 2007

  20. Calarato – 🙂

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — March 30, 2007 @ 3:27 pm - March 30, 2007

  21. no prob, jon!!

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — March 30, 2007 @ 3:28 pm - March 30, 2007

  22. LNC, you may describe yourself as “acerbic,” but to me you are just like lemonade – very sweet and refreshing with just a touch of tang!

    And might I add, a great addition to the blog.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 30, 2007 @ 3:31 pm - March 30, 2007

  23. Speaking of which – let me echo Bruce’s request. Where are the lower-case-libtrolls and their “outrage” over the treatment of British citizens? Or is this a classic case of “blame the victim” mentality so prevalent among the Perpetually Indignant Groupies (PIGs)?

    We’re waiting.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 30, 2007 @ 3:33 pm - March 30, 2007

  24. Peter (my brother’s name, btw), I humbly thank you! You’re a sugar dumplin’!!! 😉

    Ok, my day/week is OVER!!! Wooooo-hooooooo!!! Enjoy the weekend all!!

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — March 30, 2007 @ 3:37 pm - March 30, 2007

  25. Why should there be outrage? This is all a ploy on the part of the Brits and of course, GWB to start a war with Iran. As long as the ‘left’ believes that the US is the root of all evil, anything that happens to our soldiers and and our allies’ soldiers is adequate reciprocity for all the horrible things we have done in this world.

    Comment by jon — March 30, 2007 @ 4:19 pm - March 30, 2007

  26. I consider Israel to be like 51st State. It is to our honor that we have cast our lot with the Jewish State.

    There is right and wrong in this universe and of all the things the poor Israelis have to put up with the worst of them is their abdonment by Europe and other so-called free nations.

    Genesis says God will “Bless them who bless you and curse them who curse you” and what other peoples on Earth have maintained a single identity as long as the Israelis? Perhaps the Chinese but no one else.

    But even beyond that dimension, Israel needs to be allowed to have a military victory. That includes annexing lands lost at war and the relocation of foreign population to lands of their kind. And teh Arabs need to feel the sting of permanent defeat.

    No more god damned cease fires. These cease fires are doing way more harm then good.

    Has the Korean Cease Fire worked? No
    Has the Indian-Pakistan Cease Fire worked? No
    The Israeli – ‘Palestinian’ Cease Fire worekd ? No
    Did the UN – Iraq Cease Fire work? No
    Did the Israel – Lebanon Cease Fire work? No
    Will the Israel – Hezbellah Cease Fire work? No

    Let the war happen and let it finish the wars must finish.. with a winner and loser.

    Comment by Vince P — March 30, 2007 @ 4:20 pm - March 30, 2007

  27. >Cool, HH. I know I get a bit acerbic, but I can be a real sweetie pie

    But I thought you were a Lesbian? (joking) 🙂

    Comment by Vince P — March 30, 2007 @ 4:46 pm - March 30, 2007

  28. From a Realpolitik-standpoint, let the Iranian Mullahs and the Revoluntionary Guard thugs digger their own hole deeper and deeper. The deeper the hole, the less international sympathy for the Mullah’s (mis)government, and the less willingness of the Iranian populace to condone or tolerate it. Strike too soon, and Iranian public sentiment will swing to the Mullahs.

    And remember that Iran’s weakspot is NOT their nuclear facilities…it’s gasoline. Iran imports 60% of their domestic gasoline by tanker, and possesses only one gasoline refinery. How long can an industrial society with a vocal middle-class survive without gasoline? You just have to time-it so that popular sentiment is against the Mullahs; and that it blames the Mullahs duplicity and stupidity for the lack of gasoline, rather than having that rage turn against the US and the West.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — March 30, 2007 @ 5:15 pm - March 30, 2007

  29. What is so disturbing regarding the Left’s silence is that it shows complacency as well as a lack of leadership.

    Speaking of which, SanFranNan (or as I like to call her, “Bela Pelosi”) and her Pelosicrats left DC for their spring break without even a word about the British hostage crisis in Iran.

    But never fear – Miss Thang knows who her enemies are, because she is going to Syria in direct violation of White House policies following the Congressional recess.

    So let’s review: SanFranNan does not care about how America’s strongest ally in the region is being threatened, but will cozy up to a nation that sponsors terrorism.

    Whose side is she on, anyway?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 30, 2007 @ 5:22 pm - March 30, 2007

  30. I said elsewhere today… multiculturalism killed liberalism.

    Why else does Iran get a pass? Why does Syria get a pass? Because the height of morality is to show that one does not judge other cultures. No criticism of what they do or how they treat their people. We must *never* judge others.

    We’re only allowed to judge ourselves, to point out our own failings. Israel is sort of in our camp so we can freely condemn them any time we like. But point out that Iran is violating the rights of the British sailors by making them a public spectacle and causing incredible religious and moral offense by taking the female sailor out of her uniform and putting her in a robe and scarf. That burns me. More than I can even express. It’s no less offensive culturally than if they’d stripped her bare and put her in front of the camera naked. They removed her uniform, not the uniform of the men. It’s like calling her a whore. Saying it’s for proprieties sake is taking *possession* of her and taking the role of protector.

    When, exactly, do we get to insist that others respect *our* culture?

    Comment by Synova — March 30, 2007 @ 7:07 pm - March 30, 2007

  31. LOGAN ACT:

    “Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

    Use it!

    Comment by Tom — March 30, 2007 @ 8:23 pm - March 30, 2007

  32. Bruce, the conventional diplomatic sense is that groups like the UN Gen Secy’s Office and British allies usually keep a low profile in these hostage takings that involve a military ops –and with good reason. No one wants to give the hostage takers even an invalid excuse to withdraw from discussions. And the Brits are capable, very capable.

    I want to believe that all of this would be a lot different if the PM was Thatcher or John Major… I just hope it doesn’t drag on as long as the imprisonment of our US airmen by China a few years ago.

    Til then, I hope the UN Secy Gen’s Office does stay the Hell out it. Unless it’s to trade some oil for soldiers… then, the UN Secy Gen Office are unique experts.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 30, 2007 @ 8:28 pm - March 30, 2007

  33. What TorrentPrime is allduing to in #6, without actually saying it, is that the Iranians are poor, sand eating Jawas and we shouldn’t expect better of them. We shouldn’t expect folks who choose to live in the 7th century to be able to comply with 20th century rules. They should be given a pass because that’s the only way they can stand up to such super powers that oppose them. They can’t fight America or Britain, so they have to play penny-ante kidnapping games.

    In other words, we should be more tolerant and understanding of the Jawa victims. They’re admirable “freedom fighters” after all.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 31, 2007 @ 5:45 am - March 31, 2007

  34. what a joke this is. all this blow-hard talk of iran not fulfilling terms of the geneva convention, when we all know the us, under bushco, has thumbed its nose at the geneva conventions by advocating torture of enemy combatants. typical right-wing hypocrisy; typical of this blog.

    for what it’s worth, iran’s acts are despicable. but, the brits share some of the blame too, for straying into iran’s waters and starting this mess. kind of like how the us parades into iraq under false pretenses and then tries to take the high road about saving the world. we have no credibility any longer in terms of us/mideast policy. we blew it and it can’t be repaired until the charlatan is out of office. britain’s credibility is on the ropes with this, and it appears they’re pressing buttons to see if the us/uk “spreading democracy” campaign for oil pans out.

    Comment by rightiswrong — March 31, 2007 @ 10:49 am - March 31, 2007

  35. #31: No, what TorrentPrime is obviously alluding to is that one wouldn’t necessarily expect a radical authoritarian theocracy to live up to civilized expectations.

    I recall the right wing having wargasms in the recent past over reports that the US is engaged in covert operations in Iran and that the US has taken Iranian hostages er, detainees in Iraq in spite of Iraqi objections. How then do you folks work yourselves into such a state of high dudgeon over the Iranians taking the Brits if they actually crossed the Iranian border? So far I have seen no proof one way or another to determine who is telling the truth here. Indeed, the border appears to have been in dispute for decades and even the British supplied coordinates of the capture apparently show a location closer to Iranian territory than Iraqi.

    All that said, the Iranians have made their point and should release the Brits immediately.

    Comment by Ian — March 31, 2007 @ 11:30 am - March 31, 2007

  36. I seem to remember seeing the GPS coordinates on ALL the networks that showed the Brits were in Iraqi waters. Plus Iraqi fishermen stated the same thing. But, why believe them, right? I mean they were only there. Why believe the scientific facts of GPS? IF the British and Iranians were at war, then this act would be considered acceptable. But, they are not at war and Iran has kidnapped them.

    As for our ‘violating’ the rights of prisoners, how? Has our government paraded them on TV for the world to see? No, that would be the US media who did that. Have we made them make apologies for doing anything? No, I do not think so. Hell, they are all anxiously awaiting the new Harry Potter Book this summer. They get to keep a copy of the Koran and say their prayers daily. And speaking of which, just a somewhat off course question, but since the military base at Gitmo is a PUBLICLY funded location, where is the outrage on the ‘left’ that they can even say prayers?

    Comment by jon — March 31, 2007 @ 12:31 pm - March 31, 2007

  37. #36:

    I seem to remember seeing the GPS coordinates on ALL the networks that showed the Brits were in Iraqi waters.

    Two things. First, when there is no agreement as to what constitutes the border, how do you determine “Iraqi waters”? Two, I think you’ll find that the GPS claims and images were all made after the incident so how do you know they would match what exactly transpired.

    Comment by Ian — March 31, 2007 @ 1:56 pm - March 31, 2007

  38. The “outrage” is to point out the flaming hypocrisy of those who so blatantly excuse anything and everything done by those who oppose the west and have little hissy fits because of some imperfection in the West.

    It’s clear, crystal clear, that it’s not the geneva convention that matters. No one cares about the geneva convention except that it exists as a club to bash America. If the convention mattered then it would matter whoever violated it.

    It doesn’t. So it doesn’t.

    So stop pretending anyone cares about how people are treated and only cares about demonizing the US and then using that to totally and utterly excuse everyone else.

    This is NOT about moral suasion or holding the high ground. If it were, we’d absolutely and overwhelmingly hold the high ground and the moral suasion that goes with it.

    Clearly, it’s about excuses.

    Excuses to side with Iran, a country that hangs gays and murders rape victims.

    Yay for you!

    Good thing you know who the real abusers of human rights are. I’m so proud!

    Comment by Synova — March 31, 2007 @ 4:11 pm - March 31, 2007

  39. #37…You argument kind of blows your friend’s statement in #35 out of the water since he they seem to believe the Brits caused it by straying into Iranian water, does it not? Also, the only re-make of the GPS coordinates were done by the Iranians when the original ones they showed proved the Brits were in Iraqi waters.

    What do the Iranian regime have to do to prove to everyone that they are dangerous? As stated by another reader, they already hang gay men just for the mere suspicion of being gay. You’d think that’s be enough to get some people riled up, but no.

    Comment by jon — March 31, 2007 @ 4:28 pm - March 31, 2007

  40. when we all know the us, under bushco, has thumbed its nose at the geneva conventions by advocating torture of enemy combatants.

    Who’s this “we”, douchebag? YOU “know” based on what the DNC and MorOn.org tells you so. You don’t know JACK.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 31, 2007 @ 11:08 pm - March 31, 2007

  41. What we all know is that there’s plenty of vaginal discharges out there who hate America so much that they’re willing to accept the word of our enemies. Nevermind that they’ve been taught since birth to lie to the infidel (read: YOU) and were taught in their training camps to claim they were tortured regardless if it’s true or not.

    Hence we get fabricated stories from Newsweek about whole Korans being flushed in toilets. If the libs are so damned worried about what our “allies” think of us, why then are they so hell bent on lying to make things worse? They want to run around pretending they give a rat’s arse about America, why don’t they actually do something constructive rather than tear it down to regain political power?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 1, 2007 @ 5:25 am - April 1, 2007

  42. Ian – please explain to me how you can draw a moral equivalence between the Iranian government and that of the US or the UK.

    I can’t begin to fathom the logical twists and turns it must take to get here from there.

    And, big point, it’s my understanding that the British ship was the base for some sort of UN/multinational maritime patrol. You know, the ever-so-reliable ally of the West UN. The one and only international institution with any legitimacy to your average lefty.

    Comment by Robert — April 1, 2007 @ 10:47 am - April 1, 2007

  43. #39:

    they already hang gay men just for the mere suspicion of being gay.

    Yes, and the US looks the other way while the the theocrats it backs in Iraq systematically hunt down and murders gay Iraqis.

    You’d think that’s be enough to get some people riled up, but no.

    Indeed.

    Look, no one is defending the Iranians but the war drum beating every time there’s some “incident” is foolish and not in America’s interest. The gang of incompetents in this Administration have started two wars already, botched one and are in danger of doing the same for the other with no end in sight for either. I’m afraid a third war with idiot neocons in charge would be an even greater disaster for the US and the West in general. If we have to start another war in the Mideast, let it be with a different and hopefully more capable Administration.

    #42:

    please explain to me how you can draw a moral equivalence between the Iranian government and that of the US or the UK.

    I’m not drawing a moral equivalence between Iran and the others, I’m just saying don’t blindly accept propaganda put forth by any of them. It’s one lesson you ought to have learned over the past six years.

    Comment by Ian — April 1, 2007 @ 12:53 pm - April 1, 2007

  44. Ian, where are the news articles supporting your claim? I honestly have not seen any, though I am not denying that this could be happening. I have, however, seen the articles detailing the deaths of many young gay Iranians. The article, by the way have appeared on many right leaning blogs, and yet, I have not heard of any being posted on the Gay blogs. Why?

    It is not in the interest of the Gay leadership to recognize this is happening because it does not fit their agenda at the moment. That is what is the most deplorable act of all.

    Comment by jon — April 1, 2007 @ 3:32 pm - April 1, 2007

  45. http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2006/07/from_inside_ira.html

    Many other gay bloggers have covered the issue.

    Comment by vaara — April 1, 2007 @ 4:22 pm - April 1, 2007

  46. Look, no one is defending the Iranians but the war drum beating every time there’s some “incident” is foolish and not in America’s interest.

    Maybe not defending, but I’m hard pressed to see any indication that you have any interest in how the sailors being treated. Just as the libs have ZERO interest in how AQ treated their prisoners.

    Perhaps when the liberals have the same quasi-orgasmic hyperventilation that they have when our prisoners (who are trained to do so) claim they were tortured, I might be inclined to believe them. So far, it doesn’t seem to me that the left gives a damn about how the British sailors are treated.

    The sailors are captured and their rights are violated, the left yawns.

    The libs in congress load down a military funding bill with $20+ BILLION in pork bribes, the left yawns.

    The libs in congress put up a budget that would add thousands in higher taxes for the middle class and thousands of poor would have to start paying taxes, the left yawns.

    So forgive me if I doubt your sincerity.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 1, 2007 @ 6:48 pm - April 1, 2007

  47. #44:

    where are the news articles supporting your claim?

    Here, here, and here for starters. The problem of course, is not Iran or Iraq, it’s Islam and its despicable attitude towards gay people. It’s why we need to effectively fight radical Islam worldwide and insist that secular Western democracies remain that way. Fundamentalist authoritarian religion of any sort is simply incompatible with our freedoms.

    Comment by Ian — April 1, 2007 @ 8:07 pm - April 1, 2007

  48. I love this.

    Look, no one is defending the Iranians but

    And we can stop right there, because Ian goes on to do it.

    I’m not drawing a moral equivalence between Iran and the others, I’m just saying

    And he goes on to say it.

    This is the classic Democrat mentality. Ian is so anti-American, so anti-Bush, so anti-everything that he insists the British and the United States are lying and that Iran is perfectly justified in what they are doing.

    And this is my favorite:

    I’m afraid a third war with idiot neocons in charge would be an even greater disaster for the US and the West in general.

    So leftist Ian is now saying he will never support any military action, regardless of the provocation, as long as the Bush administration is in power.

    This is why Iran is not waiting. They know that they will have the support of leftists like Ian as long as they vaporize Israel prior to January 2009.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 1, 2007 @ 10:02 pm - April 1, 2007

  49. i thought calling people on here names like ‘douchebag’ would merit deletion of such comments. oh, guess not…but only if it’s the right calling names. typical republican hypocrisy. typical of this blog.

    Comment by rightiswrong — April 2, 2007 @ 12:00 am - April 2, 2007

  50. sorry, synova, but naturally you’re wrong again. we’ve stooped to the iranian levels with episodes like abu ghraib; thus, we’ve already lost.

    i thought we were better than that, but bushco keeps reminding us that we aren’t. george w. bush – failed presidency, filthy human being.

    Comment by rightiswrong — April 2, 2007 @ 12:03 am - April 2, 2007

  51. I’m afraid a third war with idiot neocons in charge would be an even greater disaster for the US and the West in general.

    And liberals in charge of bending us over and grabbing our ankles will do what for this country?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 2, 2007 @ 1:33 am - April 2, 2007

  52. we’ve stooped to the iranian levels with episodes like abu ghraib

    But, since you’re supporting Iran and excusing their actions, who cares?

    This incident exposes your hypocrisy, rightiswrong; as Synova pointed out, you and yours don’t give a damn about anything other than bashing the United States. And that’s why Iran is doing this; they know leftists like you and Ian are so insanely anti-Bush that you’ll protect and make excuses for everything they do.

    It’s why we need to effectively fight radical Islam worldwide and insist that secular Western democracies remain that way.

    And to do so, leftist Ian, you demand we immediately withdraw all troops from everywhere in the world, stop any and all surveillance, release all frozen funds that could be related to terrorism, stop tracking any such transactions, and just wait for something to happen before we react.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 2, 2007 @ 1:43 am - April 2, 2007

  53. we’ve stooped to the iranian levels with episodes like abu ghraib; thus, we’ve already lost.

    So we suck again, eh?
    There’s a huge difference and if you had a lick of sense, you’d know it.

    i thought we were better than that, but bushco keeps reminding us that we aren’t.

    So next, I suppose you’ll tell us how much you love America and support our troops, right? Save it and shove it sideways.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 2, 2007 @ 1:44 am - April 2, 2007

  54. #48: What’s the matter NDT, afraid to quote me completely? Do have a problem with this statement of mine:

    the war drum beating every time there’s some “incident” is foolish and not in America’s interest?

    or this one:

    don’t blindly accept propaganda put forth by any of them?

    Bush cultists may eagerly lap up the BS put out by their Dear Leader but that doesn’t mean it’s the wise thing to do, especially in light of the crap the American public’s been fed by this Administration for the past six years. America, via Congress, needs to put its foot down and insist there be no more wars started by Bush.

    BTW NDT, when you imagine Iran vaporizing Israel by 2009, are there traces of foam in the corners of your mouth?

    Comment by Ian — April 2, 2007 @ 10:11 am - April 2, 2007

  55. BTW IgnoAndNaus, when you imagine Iran vaporizing the West with no announcement and no fear of reciprocation, do you get a massive hard-on?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 2, 2007 @ 10:40 am - April 2, 2007

  56. What’s the matter NDT, afraid to quote me completely? Do have a problem with this statement of mine:

    Not in the least, Ian. I’m simply saving bandwidth by pointing out the obvious — you are defending Iran’s actions, you are saying that what they did was right, and you are insisting that anyone who says otherwise is engaging in “propaganda”.

    Never mind that the Iranians changed the coordinates — after the first set they released showed clearly that the team was NOT in Iranian waters — a fact which you ignore and deny.

    Never mind the fact that the team was, at any rate, under UN mandate — which, according to your leftist beliefs, means they should have been able to do whatever they wanted.

    Never mind the fact that they have forced the female member of the team to immediately conform to sharia law in terms of her dress and head covering — a sign of “radical Islam” which you affect to despise and consider wrong.

    Never mind the fact that their broadcasts using team members are in direct and complete violation of the Geneva Conventions — which you libs demand that anyone who violates be removed from power and sent to the Hague for “war crimes”.

    And never mind the fact that they are quite obviously compelling these team members to write propaganda statements.

    Of course, we know why you’re defending this; this is anti-Bush, which means you love it, and the Iranians are canny enough to be making those propaganda statements sound like they came straight from the pen of Democrat propagandist Cindy Sheehan, who demands the immediate withdrawal of all troops from BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan. You can’t very well be opposing publicly what your party espouses.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 2, 2007 @ 12:41 pm - April 2, 2007

  57. rotf pencil dick peter. it’s a good thing that the panty waisted brit sailors let their lame asses get snagged., cus the real war on “the terror”, being executed by the proxy ethiopians in mogadishu, is getting drive_byed now these guys are real patriots, unlikely some we have seen perform. mission: eliminate the enemy period.

    Comment by markie — April 2, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - April 2, 2007

  58. #55:

    do you get a massive hard-on?

    Quit fantasizing about me Peter; this isn’t one of your favorite XXX chat rooms, you know.

    Comment by Ian — April 2, 2007 @ 1:28 pm - April 2, 2007

  59. #56:

    direct and complete violation of the Geneva Conventions

    Oh you mean the ones that “Abu” Gonzales termed “quaint.?” Leave it to a Bush apologist to whine about the Geneva Conventions! Have the Brits been waterboarded and photographed in naked pyramids yet?

    Comment by Ian — April 2, 2007 @ 1:37 pm - April 2, 2007

  60. Unfortunately, Ian, there is an enormous difference here.

    Let me show you precisely what entitles one to protection under the Geneva Conventions, Part 1, Article 4:

    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:

    1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

    2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

    (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

    (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

    (c) That of carrying arms openly;

    (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

    3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

    4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

    5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

    6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

    The British soldiers satisfied that to a T.

    The Abu Ghirab prisoners, as well as the insurgency and al-Qaeda, do not.

    Why? Because terrorists would be wholly ineffective if they and their supporters had to identify themselves — as is required by the Geneva Conventions in order to be protected by them.

    Now, let us make clear what is taking place here, leftist Ian.

    You and your fellow leftists are blabbing that the British soldiers are NOT entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, despite obeying them to the letter, and that Iran is fully justified in their actions.

    Meanwhile, you whine and cry that terrorists and insurgents who blatantly target civilians, who refuse to identify themselves, and follow none of the rules of war are entitled to the full protections of the Geneva Conventions.

    Again, Synova hits the nail right on the head.

    It’s clear, crystal clear, that it’s not the geneva convention that matters. No one cares about the geneva convention except that it exists as a club to bash America. If the convention mattered then it would matter whoever violated it.

    It doesn’t. So it doesn’t.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 2, 2007 @ 2:16 pm - April 2, 2007

  61. #60:

    Unfortunately, Ian,…

    Unfortunately, NDT, the Administration for which you’re an apologist considers the Geneva Conventions “quaint.” Deal with it.

    Comment by Ian — April 2, 2007 @ 2:28 pm - April 2, 2007

  62. IgnoAndNaus – please. As if I would spare some of my precious time thinking about you. What conceit.

    And markie, might I suggest “Hooked on Phonics” for your next posting? Thank you.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 2, 2007 @ 2:32 pm - April 2, 2007

  63. “quaint”, lmao. the current administration has never had the savvy needed to conduct foreign policy. even kissinger thinks so.

    Comment by markie — April 2, 2007 @ 3:08 pm - April 2, 2007

  64. Unfortunately, NDT, the Administration for which you’re an apologist considers the Geneva Conventions “quaint.” Deal with it.

    LOL…..so really, you’ve proven our point; you don’t care about what the Geneva Conventions actually SAY, just whether or not they can be used to bash the Bush administration.

    And that’s why they’re “quaint”; they’re a relic of a time during which the left actually supported human rights. But when it became obvious that leftists would blast the United States for not granting protections to prisoners who weren’t eligible for them, and support people violating protections to those who were as long as those people were anti-American, they became rather pointless.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 2, 2007 @ 3:53 pm - April 2, 2007

  65. So I don’t get it, Ian. Are you agreeing with Gonzales or what?

    Why can’t you, and the mode of thought you represent, be consistent. Do the conventions matter or not? Either they matter or they don’t, to *you*.

    It would seem to me that they don’t matter to you. That someone *else* seems to dismiss them (how quaint!) matters to you. That they can be used (wrongly) to condemn US behavior matters to you. But the conventions themselves don’t matter and you show that. If they matter, then they matter all the time.

    So, since they don’t matter as some sort of standard that everyone can be compared to, what does matter?

    The moral high ground?

    So who’s got that? Iran? Egypt? Sudan? Syria?

    Compare *anyone* back to some standard of behavior, particularly in the middle east, and its indisputable that the US has the moral high ground. So, I suppose we have to figure that this isn’t about who has the moral high ground after all.

    So what’s it about?

    Comment by Synova — April 2, 2007 @ 5:02 pm - April 2, 2007

  66. Are all you people for real, Geneva convention was thrown away by the allies (read americans) time and time again in their abuse of detainees in every theatre since vietnam.

    Wake up Grow up and understand the true aggressor’s do not wear turbans but smart three piece suits.

    Comment by Martin — April 2, 2007 @ 7:52 pm - April 2, 2007

  67. I think Martin is a plant. You lefty sorts want to claim him or not?

    I wouldn’t expect anyone on the left to say something so blatantly silly without grammar or punctuation or something being in line with it.

    The statement is just so classic. Usually there’s some nuance to make the sentiment seem more genuine.

    Comment by Synova — April 2, 2007 @ 8:24 pm - April 2, 2007

  68. [Comment deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]

    Comment by markie — April 2, 2007 @ 9:17 pm - April 2, 2007

  69. Leftists kill me. The French, Germans, a lot of Muslims hate and despise America. As do leftists and Democrats in the USA. Now what aggitates them is that the Conservatives in the USA don’t agree with them. Get over it. We consider our country a shining light on a hill. Which is why millions world wide would rather be here than there. If more leftist Americans would give up their seats, maybe we could immigrate more who actually want to be here.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 2, 2007 @ 9:23 pm - April 2, 2007

  70. #65:

    Do the conventions matter or not? Either they matter or they don’t, to *you*.

    Of course they matter, or at least they did. But when the leader of the free world publicly denigrates the Conventions as “quaint” and employs torture to elicit “information” from its detainees, how the hell do you expect an authoritarian Islamic theocracy to behave? You don’t think the rest of the world is saying “well at least the Iranians aren’t putting them in naked pyramids?” Geeze, come on!

    Comment by Ian — April 2, 2007 @ 11:57 pm - April 2, 2007

  71. #70 No Ian, I think the rest of the world *is* saying “well at least the Iranians aren’t putting them in naked pyramids.”

    And frankly *that’s* what gives the go-ahead more than the naked pyramids or “torture” (and yes, I’m gonna put that in scare quotes) because Iran knows, and so does Al Qaida and whomever else, that they can count on “the world” attacking us and ignoring them.

    For you to present Abu Ghraib as moral permission for what *they* do is to equate what went on there before we arrived with what went on there afterward.

    How can you equate them? If Iran only lived *up* to Abu Ghraib we’d be doing pretty d*mn good. If Al Qaida had the morals of Lindy England we’d be sitting pretty.

    The thing that excuses and empowers the human rights abuse by various actors in the middle east is not the fact that we aggressively interrogate prisoners or that we had a handful of criminally unsupervised perverts loose in Abu Ghraib. What empowers them is that *you* can be counted on to howl about our “abuses” while ignoring much more serious abuses. And a whole lot of people can be counted on to howl with you.

    (They can also be completely counted on to ignore that naked pyramids violated *our* standards and we were already taking action when the news broke.)

    Comment by Synova — April 3, 2007 @ 12:30 am - April 3, 2007

  72. Gene of Pennsylvania,

    Why should liberals leave? If conservatives would move to Iran or China, there would be plenty of room for people who actually want to come here and this would be a friendlier, freer place.

    Comment by Elais — April 3, 2007 @ 1:10 am - April 3, 2007

  73. “We shouldn’t expect folks who choose to live in the 7th century to be able to comply with 20th century rules.”

    Do you actually know anything about Iran or Iran’s history? This comment suggests to me that you do not. For starters, read a book. Until then, thanks for not being in the diplomatic corp.

    Comment by fnln — April 3, 2007 @ 5:06 am - April 3, 2007

  74. Anyone who wants to see a “friendlier, freer place” as Ms. Elias has described need only be a Republican in either Berkeley or SF. Then we’ll see how friendly and free people can be towards you.

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 3, 2007 @ 9:30 am - April 3, 2007

  75. [Comment deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]

    Comment by markie — April 3, 2007 @ 12:21 pm - April 3, 2007

  76. You talkin to me, marxist? You don’t know a thing about me, so I suggest you troll elsewhere.

    SNAP – you are dismissed.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 3, 2007 @ 12:33 pm - April 3, 2007

  77. Synova, good points. What I don’t understand is why after this act of war, the Brits are not defending their troops and their logistics the same way they did 25 years ago in the Falklands. That truly was a provocation by the Argentine government.

    I guess the only question is when a “provocation” becomes significant enough nowadays that the free world actually decides to hit back. Maybe the nuking of Tel Aviv will cross that line.

    Then again, I can picture that while a mushroom cloud still lingers over Tel Aviv, these lower-case-libtards will be insisting that we give diplomacy time to work. Typical.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 3, 2007 @ 1:11 pm - April 3, 2007

  78. Of *course* the world would be friendlier and freer and just plain more pleasant if everyone were in ideological accord.

    Problem is that *wanting* that isn’t the same thing as wanting liberty. Liberty means fractious and messy humans doing fractious and messy things. And the people who want to come here? They’re less likely to be as tolerant as conservatives who are here now. Unless the immigrant group in mind is overwhelmingly native Swedish. And it’s not.

    Comment by Synova — April 3, 2007 @ 6:16 pm - April 3, 2007

  79. Hmmm, let’s see here. Nancy Pelosi visits Syria for talks with its leaders and is condemned for doing so by Bushco. She is vilified by the wingnuts simply for wearing a scarf to a mosque even though Laura Bush and Condi Rice have done the same. Today, Iran agrees to release the Brits and now it comes out that Syria played a role in resolving the problem. All just a coincidence? Maybe, but Pelosi’s looking like a really effective leader just now. Of course, there’s also the breathtaking campaign fund-raising by the Democratic candidates. Wow, 2008 is shaping up to be a great Dem sweep!

    Comment by Ian — April 4, 2007 @ 6:25 pm - April 4, 2007

  80. LOL…..big difference, Ian.

    Laura Bush and Condi Rice wore them out of respect.

    Nancy Pelosi wore it out of submission to her proper masters.

    After Pelosi promised that she and her fellow Democrats would force Israel to the “peace table” and give Syria everything it wants, including support of Hizbollah and Hamas and pressure on the UN to spike the investigation of Syria’s meddling and assassinations in Lebanon, then the Syrians deigned to “involve themselves”.

    Personally, I think what more likely changed Iran’s tune was when the EU made it clear that export credits were going away. But feel free to believe what you like.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 4, 2007 @ 7:16 pm - April 4, 2007

  81. #80:

    Laura Bush and Condi Rice wore them out of respect.

    Nancy Pelosi wore it out of submission to her proper masters.

    Goodness, your head must be about to explode!

    Comment by Ian — April 4, 2007 @ 7:35 pm - April 4, 2007

  82. Not really. The world is just starting to see what most of us in San Francisco already know; Nancy Pelosi is an unscrupulous politico obsessed with power to the point that she will support terrorist groups and people who demand submission of women if she thinks it will garner her votes here in the United States.

    Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 4, 2007 @ 7:48 pm - April 4, 2007

  83. I’m all for treating the terrorists in Guantamo like the Geneva conventions allow. After all, we do follow them.

    2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

    (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

    (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

    (c) That of carrying arms openly;

    (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

    What? They aren’t covered by the signed and ratified conventions of the U.S.?

    Good.

    Kill.

    Them.

    All.

    It’s the least they’d do to us. Simple fact. They want us dead. It doesn’t matter if it’s me (1/4 jew) my sister (educated woman) or my mom (educated gay woman) it doesn’t change they want us all dead.

    So far I’ve not seen any of our frakking lib posters condemn Iran without a “But…” I’m pretty sure if Iran does Nuke Israel they’ll complain that the terrorists in Israel are unfairly treated because they were caught in the blast…

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 6, 2007 @ 11:20 pm - April 6, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.