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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. #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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. #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

  9. #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

  10. 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

  11. #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

  12. 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

  13. “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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

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

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

  19. 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

  20. #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

  21. #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

  22. 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

  23. “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

  24. 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

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

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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. #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

  32. 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

  33. 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.