Iran pardons British sailors

Iran to release British hostages - Bangkok Post

Teheran/London (dpa) - The 15 British naval personnel held captive for nearly two weeks by Iran will be pardoned and freed imminently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in Teheran Wednesday.

The government in London, which appeared to be taken by surprise by the sudden development, welcomed the news from Teheran but said it needed to "establish exactly what that means in terms of the method and timing of their release."

The group of sailors and Royal Marines would be taken to the airport in Teheran immediately after the end of the news conference at which Ahmadinejad made his announcement, reports from Teheran said.

"Despite our right for a trial, we will pardon and release the 15 British sailors," he said in a press conference Wednesday, presenting his decision as a "gift."

"On the occasion of the birthday of the great Prophet (Mohammed) ...and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people - with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial - forgave those 15," said Ahmadinejad.

He called on British Prime Minister Tony Blair not to punish the group of 14 men and one woman "for having told the truth," referring to their alleged confessions that they had violated Iranian waters.

Britain has throughout rejected the Iranian contention that the sailors were in Iranian waters in the Shatt al-Arab when they were seized on March 23.

The two patrol boats of the crew of HMS Cornwall were cruising well inside Iraqi waters, London insisted.

Ahmadinejad said the Iranian people had been "very upset" by the Britons' violation of Iranian territorial waters.

He criticized Blair for not having apologized for the incident.

The president also "thanked" the navy commanders and revolutionary guards who arrested the Britons, and awarded them medals.

http://www.bangkokpost.net/breaking_new ... ?id=117878 (http://www.bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=117878)

I was rather annoyed last night that BBCWorld seemed to be broadcasting a long speech by the Irani head of state that seemed to be the Iranian perspective of British and western relations with Iran. It was unclear to me why my tax pound should fund Iranian propaganda...so I went out to dinner with my guest from Hong Kong.

The "ever truthful" Mr. Blair has previously stated that there could be no quid-pro-quos in this hostage taking scenario.

I wonder.

The "ever truthful" Mr. Blair has previously stated that there could be no quid-pro-quos in this hostage taking scenarioWasn't it President Hoppalong who told us that there would be no deals with Iran over the release of the American hostages in the 80's - and then we found out about Iran-Contra? Since the current Iranian president is, reportedly, somewhat unpopular domestically, the whole thing could be purely for domestic consumption. Motives are always mixed. As you say, we will probably not know ... in the short-term

The "ever truthful" Mr. Blair has previously stated that there could be no quid-pro-quos in this hostage taking scenario.

I would not believe a word that Blair utters. He is, unfortunately, the most devious, megalomaniacal, deceitful Prime Minister that the UK has ever had - he even makes Richard Nixon appear pure as the driven snow.

I would not believe a word that Blair utters. He is, unfortunately, the most devious, megalomaniacal, deceitful Prime Minister that the UK has ever had - he even makes Richard Nixon appear pure as the driven snow.Ever? Really? I think your knowledge of British Prime Ministers ever since the 18th century when the office first began is highly deficient. He's more devious than Walpole, for example?

He's more devious than Walpole, for example?
YES

He's more devious than Walpole, for example?
YESAnd your evidence for this assertion is ... ? (Compare and contrast Walpole and Blair)

He's more devious than Walpole, for example?
YESAnd your evidence for this assertion is ... ? (Compare and contrast Walpole and Blair)
Because ever since he took office in 1997 (and even before then) everything he has uttered, with a few minor exceptions, has been couched in terms of spin and deliberate obfuscation with the intention to confuse and/or deceive or has been downright lies. Obviously he has been unfortunate with today's 24 hour media coverage that he cannot open his mouth without being reported. This was not the case in Walpole's day, however if you can demonstrate that Walpole was worse than Blair, be my guest!

It still amazes me that Blair thinks that he can get away with it and seems totally oblivious to the fact that most people can see through his attempts to distort and hide the truth - which has resulted in his increasing unpopularity.

however if you can demonstrate that Walpole was worse than Blair, be my guest!On the contrary, it is you who is asserting Blair is the worst prime minister ever. I am challenging you to prove that statement

What you have given is your opinion - based on nothing but indignation, and ignorance of any period in history but your own, and therefore worthless

[Dboy]

1) those sailors were spies

2) why no mention of the Iranian personnel kidnapped by US military?

3) why no comparison of Iranian treatment of prisoners to US treatment of prisoners?

4) why is US so upset about Iran "meddling"in the affairs of Iraq? I guess invading a country and hanging its president isn't meddling?

5) why is US going after Iran for a nuke program while at the same time India is doing the same damn thing (and ignoring UN)

6) how can US complain about Iraq WMD and biowarfare programs while at the same time running covert biological terror weapon research here in US?

Dboy

Yes yes spies, and they got off far to lightly in my opinion, not one even tortured? The egg all over Blairs face is a joy to behold even while Bush splutters we will not bargain with terrorists, as Nancy Pelosi does a grand tour of the colourful souks of Syria.

OK my "ever truthful" description of Tone was intended irony, but can we discuss things with a bit of balance. The poorly protected seized sailors were inspecting cargo vessels in Iraqi waters. This was an activity legitimised by the current Iraqui government and the reasonable suspicion of armaments smuggling. They were not spies, Tone was not picking a fight with Iran.

The Iranians were testing the boundaries of Western solidarity. When they noted their action was galvanising rather than fragmenting EU diplomatic circles and that the British were willing to play a long hand they cut their losses and attempted to regain some moral high ground.

If Iran can be brought in from the cold the world will be a safer place.

Blair will be gone soon. He will be remembered mostly for the weakness of his argument for joining Bush's invasion, the death of a dedicated scientific civil servant and choosing his friends unwisely. It's a pity. He deserves some credit with Bernie Ahern for helping the unravelling of the Irish knot.

I think they were happy to push through doing a deal with "Tony" to free the filthy despicable spies, just to get up the Americans nose. I agree bring Iran in from the cold and throw the Yankees (no offence) out into it. Problem is that little habit of the Americans for unilateral action, it seems to make no difference what the intelligentsia of the Euro zone are plotting, along come the pit-bulls with their mindless aggression. Will the new regime in America be able to talk, and what will they have to say if anything after fucking up so much of the middle east?

Blair ... deserves some credit with Bernie Ahern for helping the unravelling of the Irish knot.Arguably he was helped along by Osama bin Laden. Until 7/11 the Americans were still happily funding and otherwise supporting certain terrorist organisations around the world, the IRA included. Once they found out that what goes around comes around, the funding dried up and the IRA had little choice but to concede. Also arguably, Blair's support of Bush's "war on terror" at that point was sheer opportunism that has paid off many times over. Unfortunately for that Machiavellian argument, Blair seems genuinely to have believed, at that point, in the entire Bush agenda, and so the IRA outcome was coincidental. However, North Star, I suspect this level of discussion is beyond the reach of some posters here whose world is made up of media sound bites and monosyllabic "opinions"

NB: for those who will earnestly respond "Homintern you silly fool it's 9/11 - 7/11 is a convenience store"; I do know that, but teasing the Americans is a failing of mine, and in that I'm with Edina and Patsy

I suspect this level of discussion is beyond the reach of some posters here whose world is made up of media sound bites and monosyllabic "opinions".

All I know is Blair bad man na.

however if you can demonstrate that Walpole was worse than Blair, be my guest!On the contrary, it is you who is asserting Blair is the worst prime minister ever. I am challenging you to prove that statement

What you have given is your opinion - based on nothing but indignation, and ignorance of any period in history but your own, and therefore worthless
Dear Homo, it was you who inferred that Walpole might have been worse than Blair, so you should be demonstrating why you think my statement is invalid (but obviously you are unable do so) - I have not read anywhere or anything which would indicate that Walpole was worse.

Sure it is my opinion, based on my reading of the political history of British Prime Ministers. You know nothing about me or my background so I fail to see how you can claim it is based on nothing but indignation and ignorance.

I will treat your 'worthless' jibe with the contempt it deserves.

Buaseng wrote:


I would not believe a word that Blair utters. He is, unfortunately, the most devious, megalomaniacal, deceitful Prime Minister that the UK has ever had - he even makes Richard Nixon appear pure as the driven snow.

and then he said:




Sure it is my opinion, based on my reading of the political history of British Prime Ministers.

Not too much knowledge there - if he thinks that Richard Nixon was a Prime Minister of the UK. That cetainly is the assumption he is making with his analogy

Dear Homo, it was you who inferred that Walpole might have been worse than BlairActually, dear boy, if there were inferences going on, it was you who has inferred that I have an opinion about either Blair or Walpole, and which might be the worse. I can imply something in what I write, or you can infer something from what I write, but logically (and within the bounds of the English language) I cannot infer something from what I write. What I challenged was what you said (and I quote) "Blair is the worst British Prime Minister ever". I have no opinion about that, one way or the other. What I'm saying is "Show us, prove your assertions". I introduced Walpole as a possible contender for "bad" Prime Minister as it's fairly well agreed that he was a great nest-featherer; I could equally have chosen Lloyd George or a number of others. What I dispute is that you can possibly justify the use of the phrase "worst ever" about any of them, including Blair. The use of such superlatives is the mark of the uneducated man - and since you don't know the difference between "infer" and "imply" I have additional evidence to infer that you are such a person (without, as you say, knowing anything much about you)

boygeenyus, on the other hand, who has met me several times although he's ashamed of admitting it, doesn't have to infer that I'm an arsehole - he knows it. I was rather taken by an anecdote I read the other day. Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York and no friend of Rudi Giuliani, was asked if he thought Giuliani is a racist. "Oh no," Koch replied, "he's an asshole to everyone"

Also arguably, Blair's support of Bush's "war on terror" at that point was sheer opportunism that has paid off many times over.

I think any Brit would have played that card. The thought must have briefly flitted through many minds in London and Belfast "Now the Americans know what their compatriots are funding" though there was also genuine empathy and compassion. However, Blair believed he was again stepping onto the stage of history ready to do a Winston Churchill impersonation as he had on the death of Dianna. He became so obsessed with that stage he failed to notice that the other Marks brothers were removing their greasepaint and it was only he and Beppo Bush left. When the invasion of Iraq was mooted he was determined to share the limelight, legitimised or not and ended up not so much the running dog as the dog in the stew.

boygeenyus, on the other hand, who has met me several times although he's ashamed of admitting it

Maybe we met when I was here in the "Peace Corps"...bwahahahaha!

[Aunty]

Well I would like to know when these servicemen will be court-martialled for allowing themselves to be firstly, taken prisoner in Iraqi waters, by a foreign power without so much as firing a shot in their own defence, and secondly, as prisoners, cooperating fully with the enemy's lies and untruths by allowing themselves to be turned into apologists on world television.

Doesn't HM Naval Forces have any pride or gumption? Winston Churchill, Lord Nelson, even old Monty would be spinning in their graves.

[Dboy]

"Arthur Batchelor, the youngest of the group, also sold his story, saying he "cried like a baby" in his cell after he was blindfolded, handcuffed and taunted by his Iranian guards." - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=5315 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070409&articleId=5315)

Wow, Brits are complete pussies

Dboy

Yes and now they are selling their lies to the press for lots of cash. It's disgusting how the British government has forced the spies to come out spewing all sorts of anti Iranian lies and propaganda about their capture.
Major news "I thought I was being measured up for a coffin" says the rather fat British woman spy, suppressing an equally fat insincere sob. Ching! ching! Thanks lardy arse spy girl here's 450 000 pounds sterling.
" I felt like a traitor telling the UK how I was spying in Iranian waters" Ching ching, here's another wad of cash, anymore horror stories to tell Obese Spy Thing?

[Aunty]

Well I would like to know if there are others in Britain who are calling for these Royal Navy gentlewomen, and chubby, to be courtmartialled for having a jolly good cry, instead of sticking to their guns and refusing to be taken prisoner at all costs.

What the hell ever happened to making a sacrifice for God, for Queen, and for England???

So now the huge furore from the armed forces and the general public over the decision to allow the sevice personnel to sell their stories to the press may cost a Governement Minister his job.

Clearly they were not spies, and the UK is not at war with Iran, the fact that they were so undefended and unsupported shows the UK forces in a poor light. Their cooperation with their captors is hardly surprising, and has done no harm since they revealed nothing of note.

The population of the UK (and I include myself in this) so often forget what our armed forces are expected to deal with day by day in many dangerous places across the world. At war one minute, and then expected to become peace makers and help rebuild countries torn apart by violence. Do they really have the skills for that?

The peace in Northern Ireland has been costly to achieve, but I am so happy to see it. I feel greatly for the people of Iraq, and fear what the future may hold in that country. As for Darfur......and the continuing aftermath of the "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia....