PDA

View Full Version : How Dare Iran Treat "Our" Boys & Girl Decently!


Freethinker
04-04-2007, 09:37 AM
Call that humiliation? No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings.

These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch. And compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world -- have these Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour?



How Dare Iran Treat "Our" Boys & Girl Decently!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329764373-103677,00.html

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters.

It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills.

And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour?

For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe.

Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later.

If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all.

Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.

And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement.

That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay.

The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn't rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it's just invaded.

The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!

What's more, it is clear that the Iranians are not giving their British prisoners any decent physical exercise. The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT.

This takes the form of exciting "stress positions", which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles.

A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground.

This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It's all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.

And this brings me to my final point. It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turney has been put under pressure.

The newspapers have persuaded behavioural psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is "unhappy and stressed".

What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her "unhappy and stressed". She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face.

This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib.

The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on.

As Stephen Glover pointed out in the Daily Mail, perhaps it would not be right to bomb Iran in retaliation for the humiliation of our servicemen, but clearly the Iranian people must be made to suffer.

Whether by beefing up sanctions, as the Mail suggests, or simply by getting President Bush to hurry up and invade, as he intends to anyway, and bring democracy and western values to the country, as he has in Iraq.

Terry Jones @ Guardian

WindWip
04-04-2007, 04:12 PM
Bad satire. US actions don't excuse Iran's actions.

dharmabum
04-04-2007, 04:26 PM
Iran's actions are that they did not hurt the sailors and they are releasing them.

Why does that need excusing?

They pardoned them and released them unharmed.

I would say that is to be applauded.

Meanwhile, the Taliban has executed three "british spies", but we don't hear about that in the corporate media.

WindWip
04-04-2007, 04:50 PM
Iran's actions are that they did not hurt the sailors and they are releasing them.

Why does that need excusing?

They pardoned them and released them unharmed.

I would say that is to be applauded.
They should not have been imprisoned in the first place. As mikezilla said, why should you excuse a car thief if he decides to return the car. He still stole it!

Meanwhile, the Taliban has executed three "british spies", but we don't hear about that in the corporate media.
Are you really trying to equate the Taliban with Iran?

"Well, they did it too..." is not an excuse. Why would that make Iran's actions correct? What does that have to do with this issue? We are not arguing about news coverage here.

dharmabum
04-04-2007, 05:04 PM
They should not have been imprisoned in the first place. As mikezilla said, why should you excuse a car thief if he decides to return the car. He still stole it!

There is no evidence that is what happened. The sailors themselves said they were tresspassing and they don't appear to have been under any duress.

Right now that issue is just he said/she said. The bottom line is that they were released unharmed.

Freethinker
04-04-2007, 08:33 PM
Bad satire. US actions don't excuse Iran's actions.

You evidently completely missed the point of the piece.

It is making no attempt to "excuse" Iran's treatment of the 15 Brits, but is instead highlighting the fact that the U.S. is treating prisoners far, far more inhumanely than what the supposedly "evil" Iranians have done.

It is a very good satire in my view.

dharmabum
04-04-2007, 08:46 PM
You evidently completely missed the point of the piece.

It is making no attempt to "excuse" Iran's treatment of the 15 Brits, but is instead highlighting the fact that the U.S. is treating prisoners far, far more inhumanely than what the supposedly "evil" Iranians have done.

It is a very good satire in my view.

Agreed.

Very good satire from one of the masters.

Darth Be'lal
04-04-2007, 10:27 PM
You evidently completely missed the point of the piece.

It is making no attempt to "excuse" Iran's treatment of the 15 Brits, but is instead highlighting the fact that the U.S. is treating prisoners far, far more inhumanely than what the supposedly "evil" Iranians have done.

It is a very good satire in my view.

Of course, it's a very different story when the "insurgents" capture U.S. soldiers. About three or four were tortured horribly and then mutilated then their bodies were boobied trapped so the retrieval of the bodies were that much harder. Then the "insurgents" have taken to capturing Iraqi police and army recruits, taking them back someplace and executing them.

More to the point, had the British prisoners been mistreated, it may have riled the English to actually do something. Iran got some good propoganda PR out of the prisoners and now they'll be free. It'll be a totally different story if and the U.S. or Britain ever has an open conflict with Iran, as Ahmandinejad has promised, dammit.

dharmabum
04-05-2007, 12:10 AM
So we should be mad at Iran because of what Iraqi insurgents do?

WindWip
04-05-2007, 12:21 AM
You evidently completely missed the point of the piece.

It is making no attempt to "excuse" Iran's treatment of the 15 Brits, but is instead highlighting the fact that the U.S. is treating prisoners far, far more inhumanely than what the supposedly "evil" Iranians have done.
Yes, we all know that the US is treating their prisoners very inhumanely. However, for the most part, those that we have imprisoned were imprisoned for killing, or conspiring to kill. The Brits simply crossed an imaginary line in the ocean. The Iranians should have said, "get out of our waters" first instead of throwing them in a cell.

That is why I said it was a poor comparison.

WindWip
04-05-2007, 12:28 AM
So we should be mad at Iran because of what Iraqi insurgents do?

No and I think you know what he was talking about. He mentioned that because of the situation at hand; justification for why we treated our prisoners badly. I don't agree that we should have treated them as badly as we did, but then again, Iran had no justification for arresting those 15.

--------

Consider this - you are arrested and thrown in jail in the US because you stepped on your neighbors lawn. You are treated quite nicely in jail and set free in a week.

Darth assassinates his neighbor in Canada. The police arrest him, interrogate him and treat him quite badly.

From this we can conclude that Canadians treat their prisoners horribly, while the US treats them very nicely. Canadians are horrible, horrible people.

dharmabum
04-05-2007, 12:42 AM
Yes, we all know that the US is treating their prisoners very inhumanely.

I don't think that "we all" do know that. There are a lot of kool-aid drinking Fox News watchers who think we treat them too nicely or that our treatment is warrented and justified.

However, for the most part, those that we have imprisoned were imprisoned for killing, or conspiring to kill.

That is the claim of the Bush administration, but who believes them anymore?

I understand wanting to believe that to be the case, but I don't think such a simplistic view is accurate.

Because of the secrecy and lack of transparency that taints the whole program, we do not really know who those people are or why they were really picked up.

Then are the hundreds of people who have been released and declared "innocent" after being captured and held for months or years.



The Brits simply crossed an imaginary line in the ocean.

Just like our borders and our territorial waters. They are just as "imaginary".


The Iranians should have said, "get out of our waters" first instead of throwing them in a cell.

From all indications they were not "thrown in a cell". They say they were treated well and were not harmed.

Escorted into a cell perhaps, but not thrown.

If you were talking about Abu Ghraib, one could easily believe that prisoners were literally thrown into a cell.

dharmabum
04-05-2007, 12:44 AM
There is NO justificaton for treating our prisoners badly.

None.

People who think there is have been brainwashed by watching too much 24.

Phyrex
04-05-2007, 12:47 AM
Im sure the debrief of these 15 would be interesting to hear.

Freethinker
04-05-2007, 12:53 AM
Of course, it's a very different story when the "insurgents" capture U.S. soldiers.

Yes, it is very different.

Different country, different type of confrontation, different faction being taken captive, different faction doing the capturing, etc.

The author of the piece this thread is based on is contrasting Iran's treatment of British prisoners versus this country's treatment of prisoners it is holding in Guantánamo.

dharmabum
04-05-2007, 12:55 AM
Consider this - you are arrested and thrown in jail in the US because you stepped on your neighbors lawn. You are treated quite nicely in jail and set free in a week.

Darth assassinates his neighbor in Canada. The police arrest him, interrogate him and treat him quite badly.

From this we can conclude that Canadians treat their prisoners horribly, while the US treats them very nicely. Canadians are horrible, horrible people.

Problem with that whole scenario is that you are assuming that the people being treated badly all did something to deserve it. They "assasinated" someone in your scenario.

What about all the people that Canada picked up, accused of assasinating someone, tortured them and then decided they were innocent after all and released them?

Oh and by the way, you can't sue Canada for doing that to you. You have no recourse. Tough luck.

Is it still justified?

Would you still think it is wrong to state the Canadians are horrible people???

.

Freethinker
04-05-2007, 12:57 AM
Yes, we all know that the US is treating their prisoners very inhumanely. However, for the most part, those that we have imprisoned were imprisoned for killing, or conspiring to kill.

?!?

Not according to what I have read.

What I read stated that the majority of them have been or are scheduled to be released after having been found to not have killed anyone nor carried out any terrorist activity...........IOW, they are being held on phony charges.

WindWip
04-05-2007, 01:04 AM
I don't think that "we all" do know that. There are a lot of kool-aid drinking Fox News watchers who think we treat them too nicely or that our treatment is warrented and justified.
In any case, we are in agreement for the most part on this.

That is the claim of the Bush administration, but who believes them anymore?

I understand wanting to believe that to be the case, but I don't think such a simplistic view is accurate.

Because of the secrecy and lack of transparency that taints the whole program, we do not really know who those people are or why they were really picked up.

Then are the hundreds of people who have been released and declared "innocent" after being captured and held for months or years.
I don't think either of us have the information to make a reasonable judgment on that. I haven't seen numbers on the how many were released even though they were innocent. We already agree that is was a massive infringement on basic human rights and that it was very inhumane.

Just like our borders and our territorial waters. They are just as "imaginary".
And when we catch someone who crossed the boarder, we send them back.

From all indications they were not "thrown in a cell". They say they were treated well and were not harmed.

Escorted into a cell perhaps, but not thrown.

If you were talking about Abu Ghraib, one could easily believe that prisoners were literally thrown into a cell.
Regardless of how they ended up being detained, they were detained.

WindWip
04-05-2007, 01:08 AM
Problem with that whole scenario is that you are assuming that the people being treated badly all did something to deserve it. They "assasinated" someone in your scenario.

What about all the people that Canada picked up, accused of assasinating someone, tortured them and then decided they were innocent after all and released them?

Oh and by the way, you can't sue Canada for doing that to you. You have no recourse. Tough luck.

Is it still justified?

No, but lets assume there was at least some evidence to support that they might have done it. That is more of a reason to jail someone than for trespassing.

WindWip
04-05-2007, 01:11 AM
?!?

Not according to what I have read.

What I read stated that the majority of them have been or are scheduled to be released after having been found to not have killed anyone nor carried out any terrorist activity...........IOW, they are being held on phony charges.

I would be interested in reading that. Do you know where you found it?

dharmabum
04-05-2007, 01:22 AM
No, but lets assume there was at least some evidence to support that they might have done it. That is more of a reason to jail someone than for trespassing.

To me the choice here is between the merits of secret evidence and stated, if dubious, evidence.

I would take the stated evidence anyday, the dubiousness of it then works in my favor.

It is logical to assume that the dubious credibility of the evidence is what they are hiding by keeping it secret.

It is all about Habeus Corpus, basicly, the right of a man to see his day in court, to face his accusers and see the evidence against him.

We have lost touch with the value of that.

I have no evidence to support this but my belief is that the sailors were probably mistakenly inside Iranian waters and Ahmadinejad purposely made a spectacle out of it to draw exactly this contrast and make himself look like the benevolent and level headed one by comparison.

Problem with his plan is that it is completely transparent.