Release the detained Iranians!

[majorjohn]

This is in response to those that blindly support the increasing aggression of the US or UK because of the captured British sailors by the Iranians. Why is it that when the US or the UK are the wrongdoers, some people seem to not think it was a big deal, or if so, hardly condemn their acts - or if they do, then shly so. Yet when it happens from the other side, it's all hell on earth? My opinion does not support their immoral acts -from either side- neither does it support responding to a wrong act with another, but my whole frustration is that if the Iranians are pressured and isolated by the whole world in order to release the British sailors, then why isn't the same thing being done for the captured Iranians? One is better than the other? Double-standards? Call it what you may.


------------*Edit*------------
Some people seemed to have forgotten about the captured Iranians. Therefore, check the articles below:

BBC: "US Iraq raid draws Iranian anger"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251167.stm

CNN: "U.S. raid on Iranian consulate angers Kurds"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/11/iraq.main/index.html

[USA_1]

1. Amen!

Stop Bush aggression and release those innocent Iranians - who, by the way, are diplomats and are supposed to have immunity by law!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. our dirty little secret that MSM keeps hidden.

why is that, i wonder.

[majorjohn]

39. So they can feed us more BS n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

3. But, you don't get it! The UK and USA are the righteous superpowers of the world and Iran has no

right to 'mouth off' to its superiors!

[matcom]

4. link to us capturing Iranians?

i remember something about this happening recently. got a link to the story?

[majorjohn]

7. January 11 is when it happened

BBC: "US Iraq raid draws Iranian anger"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251167.stm

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

8. Here is link from CNN

U.S. raid on Iranian consulate angers Kurds
POSTED: 4:05 p.m. EST, January 11, 2007

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/11/iraq.main/index.html

[majorjohn]

14. thanks!

will add that up there.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

22. Your welcome. This story made MSM and disappeared off of the radar very quickly. nt

[William769]

10. What does this have to do with the Brits?

[majorjohn]

16. Did you read my post?

:eyes:

[William769]

17. Yes I did once again I will ask what do the Brits have to do with it?

[majorjohn]

18. Pressure the US to release the Iranians, maybe? n/t

[William769]

20. Sorry that dog don't hunt.

Your using that justification is the same as the types of justification repukes use to justify what they do.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong. Want to try again?

[majorjohn]

23. What the hell are you talking about? n/t

[William769]

26. Two wrongs don't make a right. Get it?

[majorjohn]

27. Yes, and?

What exactly is your point? Did I ever suggest another wrong should be made?

I already mentioned that I am not supporting the capturing of the British sailors, but about how the media are using that story when they hardly even covered the capturing of the Iranian diplomats two months ago.

[William769]

29. So now it's the Media?

Why don't you just come out & say Iran release the brits! And I think we all know the answer to that question. :eyes:

[majorjohn]

33. Media = What people believe

and by the way, I am saying "Iran release the brits", but what your dead brain doesn't get is that I am also saying "US release the Iranians" which YOU don't seem to think is right?

[The Stranger]

37. You seem to be missing the point entirely.

No one is trying to justify the Iranian actions. What they are trying to do is understand the entire context of which the events are taking place. The U.S. is holding Iranians, and the Iranians are holding Brits, who are part of the "coalition forces" consisting now of the U.S. and the U.K.

Is it becoming clear yet?

[majorjohn]

38. Thank you!

Glad to know someone knows what they're talking about!

[Richard Steele]

41. He "seems" to do that rather often.

Key word being "seems", if ya catch my drift. :eyes:

[William769]

44. Wanna talk about someone being pegged?

[pampango]

28. Seems to be a pretty common strategy in the Middle East

and perhaps other areas, as well. If the West has custody of some of your people who you want back, you "capture" some soldiers (Israeli) or sailors (British) and start the negotiations. In time the West usually caves in and works an exchange. (Israel usually gets dead bodies in exchange, but the US and Britain can reasonable expect to get their people back alive.)

If the organized crime or urban gangs could ever perfect this technique in the US, it would be hard to keep many of the in jail for any significant period of time.

[moodforaday]

40. And why would the Iranians be making that distinction?

from TIME:

Is a U.S.-Iran War Inevitable? | TIME
by Robert Baer

But then again you'd be missing the grim fatalism that has settled over Iran of late, the resigned belief that a war with the U.S. is all but inevitable. This week Iranian diplomats are telling interlocutors that, yes, they realize seizing the Brits could lead to a hot war. But, they point out, it wasn't Iran that started taking hostages — it was the U.S., when it arrested five members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Erbil in Northern Iraq on January 11. They are diplomats, the Iranians insist. They were in Erbil with the approval of the Kurds and therefore, they argue, are under the protection of the Vienna Convention.

Iranian grievances, real and perceived, don't stop there. Tehran is convinced the U.S. or one of its allies was behind the March 2006 separatist violence in Iranian Baluchistan, which ended up with 20 people killed, including an IRGC member executed. And the Iranians believe there is more to come, accusing the U.S. of training and arming Iranian Kurds and Azeris to go back home and cause problems. Needless to say the Iranians are not happy there are American soldiers on two of its borders, as well as two carriers and a dozen warships in the Gulf. You call this paranoia? they ask.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1604546,00.html

[majorjohn]

42. Good find! n/t

[William769]

45. Iran is looking for a fight and I hope they get one.

Once again the Brits are not the U.S.! they may be allies but thats it.

[majorjohn]

49. Hoping for a war?

That's the most childish thing I ever read. Will not bother debating with you in the future.

[William769]

50. Your loss not mine.

See ya.

[bryant69]

5. Which Iranians are you talking about?

Your argument would be stronger if you had some names, along with why they are being held and why it's bullshit that they are being held. Because in the absence of specific names you are simply revealing the prejudices (both positive and negative) of your audience.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[majorjohn]

13. I edited the post with a link n/t

[bryant69]

34. Thank you.

You should be proud of your memory.

Bryant

[treestar]

6. True, but even so the captured soldiers are no reason for

an all out war on the Iranian people, and furthermore, only the UK should do it if they insist.

If this country lets Chimpy use this as an excuse for another war it has gone :mad:

[William769]

9. What detained Iranians are you speaking of?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[majorjohn]

11. I added the Link in the post

look it up.

[SIMPLYB1980]

12. I was thinking the same thing.

I really hope the Brits will get out of this O.K.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iranians16jan16,0,2678083.story?coll=la-home-headlines
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/world/middleeast/25iraq.html?ex=1324702800&en=57bbb45f8e61b7ba&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[NNN0LHI]

15. I think Bush was planning on hanging them right before the next election to fire up his base

Just like with Saddam. Every Bush supporter I knew appeared sexually aroused when Bush had Saddam hanged.

Don

[cali]

19. I haven't seen one solitary

post that supports bushco's idiotic hard on for attacking Iran. Perhaps I missed one? Do provide a link.

And if you check in the thread of the OP I wrote, to which this seems to be a misguided reaction, you'll find that there are claims, with links, that the Iranians have been offered their captured countrymen. I don't know the truth of that but, I'll get the link for you.


edited to add link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=536760&mesg_id=538057

[seemslikeadream]

21. bush = blair

[cali]

24. Yawn.

Simple is as simple does, I guess. You want to have a Forrest Gump view of the world, that's your prerogative.

[seemslikeadream]

30. Who then enabled bush to destroy Iraq?

BTW read some history

nternational Crisis & Neutrality US Foreign Policy Toward the Iran/Iraq War
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=538316&mesg_id=538316

The war claimed at least 300,000 Iranian lives and injured more than 500,000
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=538332&mesg_id=538332



US "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=538296&mesg_id=538296

[cali]

31. As I said,

simple is as simple does. It's not my thing, but it's clearly yours.

[seemslikeadream]

32. It's not simple at ALL

That's your problem

BTW Who did create Iraq?

[NNN0LHI]

35. Notice when things are going hunky dory Britain is referred to as our "coalition" partner?

But when everything turns to crap we barely know one another. Odd, isn't it?

Don

[majorjohn]

36. scary - n/t

[majorjohn]

25. You're missing the point

I can hardly find any links that support the act of capturing Iranians, because I can hardly find any articles about them! What this means is that the media and some people are not focusing on the wrong-acts of the US or the UK, but only on what "our enemies did wrong". If indeed there are a few articles about the incident, it quickly disappears because of the flooding of other stories that cover them up. The question is WHY?

Why not condemn the attacks from both sides? Why not release the Iranians that have been captured for well over two months now. On the other hand Iran is being threatened daily, and is being pressured by so many countries, because of the captured British sailors? Why didn't the same thing happen two months ago for the Iranians?

[bigtree]

46. you're certainly on to something there

Here we are, massed without provocation save resistance to the U.S. campaign (Elizabeth Cheney 'democracy-czar' overseeing a funded office of regime change) to subvert and overthrow the Iranian government; an escalation of U.S. troops massing next-door; battleships off their coast for months, not just in response to this, openly trying to disrupt Iran's oil market . . . kidnapped these Iranians as bargaining chips to get al-Qaeda prisoners Iran is holding, bin-Laden's son said to be among them . . .

[majorjohn]

47. and there's yet to be a loud voice condemning that act n/t

[majorjohn]

43. Bush attacks Iran over captives

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6514567.stm

[stirlingsliver]

48. Exactly Right

What right does the US or the UK or the EU have to thunder to Iran that it must give up the British people who invaded its sovereign territory?

The US must be made to give back all the Iranians it has illegally seized and is currently holding.

[Jeremiah]

51. Are they even alive? nt