Worth repeating, I think. Banter about comparative human rights violations has precisely naff all to do with this situation, which is that Iran is in the wrong in this case; it has committed an act of piracy and kidnap, resulting in a very difficult diplomatic situation that could escalate or simply evaporate depending upon their actions and those of the UK government.
Worth repeating, I think. Banter about comparative human rights violations has precisely naff all to do with this situation, which is that Iran is in the wrong in this case; it has committed an act of piracy and kidnap, resulting in a very difficult diplomatic situation that could escalate or simply evaporate depending upon their actions and those of the UK government.
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
ADX Florence was opened in November 1994.
OK, who wants to blame Clinton?
ADX is where the nastiest violent criminals are housed, with the intent of keeping them from killing prison guards and each other.
It's a "special" place.
DR
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,406
Can't imagine that will be it - Ahmedinejad's not stupid enough to think it would stick and it'd be too obvious. (Not to mention the Poms not going for it)
My pick, they'll be home within seven days as Iran shows the world what a wonderful, caring nation it is, spurning the opportunity of torturing or imprisoning "spies" to instead gracefully set them free.
Praise be to Allah.
Art Vandelay
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,787
Do you have a mental condition which prevents you from posting in anything more than the minimum clarity necessary for readers to work out what you're saying, and which causes you to respond rudely when corrections are mentioned?
By that logic, Muslims are in no position to complain about American treatment of prisoners. Some Americans mistreat prisoners, hence no American can comment on mistreatment?
What, exactly, are you claiming to be documented physical injury?
Let's pretend, just for a moment, that you were capable of looking at this rationally. Suppose a British sailor were told: "You can either participate in our propoganda videos, and confess to violating Iranian waters, or you can have a dog chew on your leg". Are we seriously expected to believe that the sailor would choose the former? It's clear to anyone who is neither a complete idiot nor an Iranian apologist that the Iranians have presented their prisoners with the credible threat of injury much, much worse than a dog chewing on their leg.
You said that Iran treats its prisoners better. Not that it comports better with international law, but that it TREATS ITS PRISONERS BETTER. Did you really think that you'd get away with this weaseling?
Why in the world would anyone be appalled equally by Iran and the US?
So, on the one hand, we have unproven speculation, and on the other, we have absolute certainty that the Iranian government supports the current actions of their soldiers.
Even if the US did deliberately order the mistreatment of soldiers, at least they had the decency to stop when caught, and prosecute participants.
I wouldn't, necessarily. Dogs can "chew" without breaking the skin.
Perhaps you could explain why you attack outright strawmen. They don't just photograph women women in headresses, they also do things much, much worse.
Last edited:
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,406
Just being anal retentive then, I suspected as much.
Thomas1016
Scholar
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2007
- Messages
- 102
never under estimate the stupidity of politicians especially those with a personal agenda.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,406
How hard do you think it is to coerce a woman into saying something in order to protect herself?
Art Vandelay
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,787
Any reason why you specified "woman"?
Måske JEG burde opstille i Dansk , og så er der ikke mere , selv om jer beklage sig mig mishandle JERES sprog , JEG tilkendegive jer hen til simpelt hen være " analog retentive ".
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
Chill out Dr. A Heal thyself with this:
Now that your BP has receded and stroke is no longer imminent; please realize that there are many, many people in the USA who would support sinking the Iranian Navy just to see a smile cross old Maggie's face. Are 15 squaddies worth going to war for? My short answer is: yes.
Fear not, the Iranians have much to lose and little to gain by harming these guys in any way. There will be negotiations and compromises demanded and made. Diplomats will blow smoke up each others arses. The Iranians will make the best deal they can, but they are not stupid. They have far more to lose than a group like Hezbollah or AQ, and nothing to gain by going all jihadi on these guys.
-z
Forgot to mention that they'd all end up getting rich off their little Iranian adventure as well. Oh well, at least it's over and no one had to die.
-z
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Yeah, we won, didn't we?
And some of our supposed allies still are whining about it.
Cheers, riz, and remember this: if British troops continue to fight on the side of the USA, and if I support this, it is not because I am supporting trash like you.
And some of our supposed allies still are whining about it.
Cheers, riz, and remember this: if British troops continue to fight on the side of the USA, and if I support this, it is not because I am supporting trash like you.
Last edited:
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Okay, let's do this again.
TESTIMONY BY HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE PATRIOT ACT BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES : Statement of Deborah Pearlstein, Director, U.S. Law and Security Program, Washington D.C. June 10, 2005.
One need not be an expert in U.S. and international human rights law to recognize the urgency of these questions. According to the Pentagon’s own figures, more than 100 people have died in U.S. custody since 2002; this includes 28 cases already classified as homicides, and at least half of those were people who were literally tortured to death. To be clear, this is not a problem about a handful of actors from Abu Ghraib. Only 1 of the criminal homicides occurred at Abu Ghraib; the rest occurred at others of the two-dozen some detention facilities the United States maintains. Well beyond the few young soldiers facing courts martial from Abu Ghraib, 137 U.S. soldiers so far have been punished for acts of torture or abuse. Perhaps worst, the problem appears to be ongoing. At least 45 detainees have died in U.S. custody since Secretary Rumsfeld was informed of the torture at Abu Ghraib on January 16, 2004. This is not a problem first and foremost about our brave troops; this is a command responsibility.
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
You sure did. All you need is a big ole "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner right?
But you don't like "trash" like me? You do yourself no big favours calling other people childish names. I don't really know why you think I'm trash and between you and I, I just don't really care. You make yourself look boorish and puerile when you toss around such terms so carelessly.
-z
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
That meant something?
We won, Iran lost. Deal with it.
Believe me, riz, when I referred to you as "trash", there was nothing careless about it.
Art Vandelay
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,787
Isn't it interesting how first Dr A throws a temper tantrum because he managed to interpret a question as a declaration that the US wouldn't be supporting Britain, then he declares that Britain won, and mocks Americans on the basis of the implied accusation that they are disappointed that they didn't get to go after Iran.