Iran releases third letter by detained British sailor

[bemildred]

Source: XINHUA

LONDON, March 30 (Xinhua) -- The Iranian embassy in London released Friday a third letter allegedly written by detained British sailor Faye Turney, saying she was "sacrificed" for the policies of the British and U.S. governments.

"I'm writing to you as a British serviceperson who has been sent to Iraq, sacrificed due to the intervening policies of the Bush and Blair governments," the letter said.

The letter, addressed to the British people, said she had been treated well, unlike the prisoners held at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"Whereas we hear and see on the news the way that prisoners were treated in Abu Ghraib and other Iraqi jails by the British and American personnel, I have received total respect and faced no harm," said the letter.

Read more: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-03/30/content_5917885.htm

---

This one sounds more like the work of the Iranian Ministry of Truth.

[daleo]

1. The Iranians are overplaying their hand now

Three letters from her is definitely overdoing it. She may be going along in the expectation that people will see how preposterous it is. There is a point where propaganda just goes too far and begins to undermine itself.

[BOSSHOG]

5. Kinda like today's right wing noise machine

[daleo]

12. No doubt

The propaganda from both sides will be intense. It is hard to believe that Bush/Blair would dare go for another war, but they have slipped the bounds of sanity.

[bemildred]

7. The price of oil is still going up. What's not to like? nt

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. she had been treated well, unlike the prisoners held at Abu Ghraib

What can you say to that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Actually we don't know

torture takes many forms...physical just being one of them.

So we truly do not know whether any of them have or not.

And no I am not saying they are using cattle prods, but if you think there is nothing going on, you are being naive

And no, this has nothign to do with these being Iranians, it has all to do with the nature of war and these situations

[cali]

27. And your information that she's been

treated well, comes from where? I don't know and you don't know how she's been treated, but the situation in and of itself is inherently coercive. For all you know, she's been threatened or had one of her mates threatened. But I love how trusting you are. You must believe all the shit the repukes spill about how inmates at Gitmo get delicious food, and Koran's and prayer calls.

[ronnie624]

48. One thing is for certain:

They have not vanished into a black hole to be tortured and/or killed, fading from the consciousness of most, as have so many of the thousands of prisoners taken by the US/UK.


(edited for punctuation)

[BOSSHOG]

3. So if she was tortured, she's lying?

That's not what the brilliant military expert limbaugh said happens when one is tortured.

But what if she weren't tortured and she's telling the truth? I'm confused. Or was she tortured and she is telling the truth? Wow, kinda nasty truth for brilliant conservative minds worldwide.

Please would a limbaugh trained lurker jump in here and explain to all of us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. My take, they are writing the letters for her, and forcing

her to transcribe... my take... there is a certain ammount of psycological games being played

[bemildred]

8. I don't really see why she needs to be part of the process at all.

Other than to pose for videos. Letters, anyone can write.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. If they need her handwriting

that't the only way that they may need her

Also they are using her becuase she's a woman.

[bemildred]

18. Yes.

Although they trotted out one of the guys today, too. But I am sure she got to be front and center because she is the only female. I am reminded of that photogenic US soldier that got shot up in a HumVee some years back, and was made much of for a while in the media. It's an attention getting device.

[Kagemusha]

9. You know, poking Iran with a stick is still stupid.

Attacking Iran is even stupider.

Not because the government is run by nice people. In fact, precisely because it's not run by nice people, and the US has enough problems as it is.

[ShortnFiery]

10. too bad our government is being run by "The Keystone Kops"

:scared:

Let's hope cooler heads prevail on both sides?

Diplomacy anyone?

[Kagemusha]

14. That would require Blair stopping his hissy fit about the waterway border

which only exists in his own mind because Iran and Iraq never signed a treaty after that nasty little Iran-Iraq War thingie. I keep saying I think Blair's using Saddam's maps. Well, it's that or they just drew an imaginary line and said, this is Iraqi water, this is Iran water. Small wonder the Iranians don't agree.

Come to think of it, that's how Britain drew lots of borders in the Middle East to begin with, including the sacred Kuwaiti one.

[bemildred]

13. Being confrontational doesn't seem to be making much forward progress.

But I assume protecting Tony's political ass is far more important than getting these people out of Iranian custody.

[ShortnFiery]

16. Being confrontational does serve to feed the Military Industrial Complex ... that's #1 n/t

[MGD]

15. I think they're the ones doing the poking actually.

and that's pretty stupid too.

[Kagemusha]

17. You think the only poking is by Iran, and the US/Britain have done nothing?

...I'll refrain from further comment and let the question stand.

[MGD]

19. Do you think the only poking is by America, and Iran has done nothing?

I think Ahmedinijihad made a lot of campaign promises to his electorate (regarding unemployment and economics) that he can't keep so now he has to have a demon to fight or else his constituency will become fed up with him.

[Kagemusha]

20. And I should praise Bush for providing him with a convenient demon why exactly?

Why should I thank Bush for extending Ahmedinijihad's term in office and buffering the jerk's popularity among his own people?

[MGD]

21. I never suggested that you should or shouldn't praise anyone for anything.

"Why should I thank Bush for extending Ahmedinijihad's term in office and buffering the jerk's popularity among his own people?"
I surely wouldn't know.

[Kagemusha]

24. k, just making a point there.

Nothing personal to you. It's just, I'm the type of person who can't stand using someone else being an idiot as an excuse to behave as an idiot myself (re: the junk out of Iran). (Edit: I think the US/ Britain are doing just that.)

[MGD]

25. I guess we have to agree that both sides are working to bring about the same conclusion

in their own ways. Personally, I think Britain should kidnap a score of Iranian soldiers or diplomats or elitists of some kind or another and use them to negotiate terms.

[Kagemusha]

26. ...Why?

The US has ALREADY DONE THAT.

[MGD]

28. Why not?

"The US has ALREADY DONE THAT?
Iran started the kidnapping game actually if you'll recall. Regardless, I believe reciprocation in kind is the only rational choice in this irrational game. It's not too much and it's not too little, it's a perfectly measured response that avoids escalation to a more precarious game. What's more, it takes the initiative away from Iran and forces them to respond to us. It becomes "their move" so to speak.

[Kagemusha]

29. You're referring to the 1979 hostage crisis?...

So the US captures Iranians in Iraq in Iraq at the invitation of senior figures of the Iraqi government, and Iran captures 15 Brit sailors and marines in disputed waters... and your solution is to find more Iranians to capture because THEY STARTED IT, and Iranian hostages would force them to respond to us.

No one better give you a job in the State Department.

[MGD]

32. Pulease, what would you do? Nothing? or worse yet, appease the Iranians with something?

People around here are very good at complaining and pointing out what they perceive to be flaws in ideas but they aren't very good at coming with solutions. With that in mind, please do tell me, what would be your solution to this problem?

[Kagemusha]

33. Yeah. I'd say, sorry for violating what you think are your waters. Let's do lunch.

Let's make sure we don't have another incident like this, no reason to make a big fuss about it. You have your business, we have ours; never the twain shall meet.

Instead Tony Blair's out there whining to the UN when there isn't even a treaty-defined border in the middle of that waterway. It's either Saddam's maps or Blair's people just drew the damned thing themselves and told the Iranians to stay on their side of the line. The Iran-Iraq War started over such things. Why did Blair think the Iranians would just sit back and take it easy, especially after the US has (with Blair's enthusiastic support) captured Iranian government personnel visiting Iraq for business with Iraq's president, the head of the most powerful bloc in the governing Shiite alliance and the President of Kurdistan? Because he's a twit who doesn't think Iran deserves the diplomacy required for a peaceful resolution.

The Iranians are asking for a little respect and Blair is incapable of giving them that. So, the Iranians huff and puff and drag their feet while Blair whines to the press.

[MGD]

35. The Iranians aren't interested in "doing lunch" they're interested in Uranium enrichment.

and regional dominance among other things and I think it would be extremely foolish to assume that this incident has anything what-so-ever at all to do with a territorial misunderstanding between Britain and Iran.

[Kagemusha]

36. The solution you describe reads like goading Iran into war.

I respectfully disagree with that "solution".

[MGD]

38. They aren't stupid enough to give George Bush casus bellum.

"I respectfully disagree with that "solution"."
How completely unsurprising.

[Kagemusha]

39. Wait, at this point, it surprises you I don't support war with Iran?

Or kidnapping more Iranian government officials for the purpose of provoking the Iranians into firing the first actual shots of one?

Or did you think kidnapping more Iranians served some useful purpose other than that?...

[MGD]

40. I think you need to read that post again

Or did you think kidnapping more Iranians served some useful purpose other than that?...

You're right. taking them out to lunch will solve all of our problems with the Iranians. :rollseyes

[Kagemusha]

41. I don't understand your position at all. ALL of our problems?

Where do you think that kidnapping a bunch of Iranians (I note with some humor that you actually suggested the British do this themselves, on their own...) will solve ALL of our problems with them? Stop your nuclear weapons programme or you'll never see your diplomats again, oh, and give back our men and one woman too? You think they'll go for that?

From Britain, which used to control that area?

[MGD]

49. Obviously not.

"Where do you think that kidnapping a bunch of Iranians (I note with some humor that you actually suggested the British do this themselves, on their own...) will solve ALL of our problems with them?"

What did I say way back when in post #28? It's an irrational game that mandates an irrational choice. I freely admit that it won't solve one single problem between Iran and the west. That was never my intention when I suggested this course of action. Basically, all it is a big fuck you to Ahmedinijihad, Khamene'i, the Guardian council, and the council of experts.

"Stop your nuclear weapons programme or you'll never see your diplomats again, oh, and give back our men and one woman too? You think they'll go for that?"
Not for a second. At best, we may be able to use them as leverage to negotiate the return of the British soldiers and, better yet, without having to discuss any other terms that Iran might want to throw on the table. If it were poker, it would be called seeing their 15 British soldiers and raising them 20 Iranian Revolutionary guardsmen (or Iranian whatevers). If they care to raise the stakes again, then we, once again, demonstrate the strength of our hand by raising the stakes even higher. This is the game we're playing like it or not. You're wanting to fold your cards and I'm wanting to call them on their hand.

[Kagemusha]

50. I said before, what the Iranians want is a little respect.

That is what their game is being played for. Upping the ante will perpetuate the game. Lowering the volume and giving them a little minimal respect for their sovereignty will bring it to an end. Neither you nor Blair want the game to end; you want to win, and winning doesn't mean getting the soldiers back, it means getting the soldiers back without having to concede even a few rhetorical brownie points. Ergo, you and Blair are holding the 15 soldiers hostage to your own stubbornness and ill will. The Iranians' price isn't a square foot of soil, a single oil rig, a single naval ship, a single aircraft; it is the appearance of giving them a bit of respect. Don't blame me for you and Blair viewing that as a price far too high.

[CJCRANE]

37. If Blair just keeps quiet

I think the Iranians will release the sailors pretty soon. They've achieved their propaganda aims by having the British sailors apologise on camera, now they can look magnanimous by letting them go.

(And Blair has also gained a propaganda boost for neocon isolation of Iran).

[Pavulon]

45. The EU will run the show on this

these Iran threads run back years. My position was always that the europeans would run the show. France did threaten to nuke them. really.

Iran made a giant mistake by fucking with the EU. They would have been better off taking americans hostage in international waters. Heads will roll over this one..

[Gen. Jack D. Ripper]

22. I don't know why Iran

feels they have to resort to these sloppy tactics, the coalition does enough to makes themselves look bad.

[Taxloss]

23. "Sacrificed"?

That's not a promising choice of word.

Of course, she didn't choose it, so ...

[brentspeak]

30. Iranians like to take their hostages, don't they?

[Kagemusha]

31. Did the world just sleep past when the US took Iranians hostage in Iraq recently?

Oh but of course that's different.

But doesn't anyone even remember it?...

[bemildred]

34. They "seize hostages", we "arrest detainees".

They "kidnap", we "detain".
They "torture", we "interrogate", or even better "question".
They produce "coerced confessions", we produce "valuable intelligence".
And so it goes.

[daleo]

42. They force women to wear a headscarf

We make men wear women's underpants on their heads.

[kitty1]

44. valid point

[Pavulon]

46. Their people

were in our space, the brits in international waters. The EU is quite pissed. Britian could invoke the nato treaty.

[bemildred]

47. I wasn't really commenting on the merits of the case.

It's clear enough that Iran picked the fight, nobody forced them to take custody of these people, as opposed to just shooing them away, but I doubt the outcome will be determined by the legalities at this point.

[Mika]

43. Not even mentioning that the Shah & Savak were products of the USA..

.. speaking of nearly an entire nation of hostages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK