15 British sailors captured by Iran "at gunpoint"

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6484279.stm

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:49 (eighteen years ago)

This is not good.

― Ed, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:58 (eighteen years ago)

Uh-oh.

― Matt DC, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:59 (eighteen years ago)

My instinct is that these British guys were engaged in a little freelance black market profiteering and the deal went bad.

"The group boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters."

Yes, yes. Of course.

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 23 March 2007 13:00 (eighteen years ago)

oh great, this helps

― kingfish, Friday, 23 March 2007 15:21 (eighteen years ago)

i think your instincts are a little screwy, Tracer

this is from reuters:

An Iraqi fisherman in Basra told Reuters he had seen the incident in the Shatt al-Arab waterway that marks the southern stretch of Iraq's border with Iran. There was no sign of any violence, said the fisherman, who asked not to be named.

He said Western military personnel on two small boats had boarded a ship the Siban area of the waterway, near the al-Faw peninsula that leads into the northern Gulf. At least two Iranian vessels appeared on the scene and detained them.

― gff, Friday, 23 March 2007 15:33 (eighteen years ago)

Maybe all those pirate movies are finally getting to me.

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 23 March 2007 15:34 (eighteen years ago)

"I don't wanna war. Stop the war."

― Hurting 2, Friday, 23 March 2007 15:39 (eighteen years ago)

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/5/51/250px-MaddoxTonkin1.jpg

― and what, Friday, 23 March 2007 15:41 (eighteen years ago)

tonkin? nah, i think this is part of the constant annoying non-escalating escalation we've been in and will be in for a long time. we sacked their embassy in kurdistan, that didn't change much really

― gff, Friday, 23 March 2007 15:45 (eighteen years ago)

Iran has seized a bargaining chip. The question is what do they want and from whom? Is this to be a wedge driven between the US and UK?

― fife, Friday, 23 March 2007 15:50 (eighteen years ago)

this is from ireland online, can't tell what the source is:

British sailors seized today in Iraqi territorial waters were taken by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards navy, a radical force that operates independently from the regular Iranian Navy, a US official said.

Cmdr Kevin Aandahl of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain also said no shots were fired during incident and that the 15 British sailors appeared unhurt.

Aandahl said the seizure of the British vessels, a pair of rigid inflatable boats known as RIBs, took place in long-disputed waters just outside of the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway that divides Iraq from Iran.

A 1975 treaty gave the waters to Iraq and US and British ships commonly operate there, but Aandahl said Iran disputes Iraq’s jurisdiction over the waters.

“It’s been in dispute for some time,” Aandahl said. “We’ve been operating there for a couple of years and we know the lines very well. This was a compliant boarding, this happens routinely. What’s out of the ordinary is the Iranian response.”

notice there's no indication who this "US official" is (it's not the Navy cmdr quoted right after) and there's no reason given how he knows the captors are revolutionary guards. awesome, guys.

― gff, Friday, 23 March 2007 16:09 (eighteen years ago)

Cmdr Kevin Aandahl of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain also said

The "US official" is Aandahl

― Rock Hardy, Friday, 23 March 2007 16:19 (eighteen years ago)

hm yeah i guess you're right. still don't know how he knows, though

― gff, Friday, 23 March 2007 16:24 (eighteen years ago)

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

This is the force which would pose a threat to US carriers in the Gulf if open hostilities break out.

There was a infamous US military wargame conducted in 2002, I think, in which the USN fleet was surprised and sent to the bottom by an attack of suicide/torpedo boats. What did the military do? They denied the validity of the exercise and restaged it to achieve a favorable result, naturally.

― fife, Friday, 23 March 2007 17:05 (eighteen years ago)

This is almost exactly equivalent to Hezbollah grabbing Shalit last summer. They weren't trying to provoke an attack (though they got one), they wanted something from Israel and needed something to negotiate with. Israel-Hezbollah was a trial run for a US-Iran confrontation, an exercise using client organizations in preparation for the big show.

― fife, Friday, 23 March 2007 17:28 (eighteen years ago)

[Removed Illegal Link]

This from a few days ago. There's an obvious relation to the number of Iranian officers who have been disappearing/defecting/getting apprehended, which seems to be the doing of the US (and Israel?). The UK is already on the way out of Iraq and has voiced doubts about a strike on Iran. Does Iran intend to use Britain for leverage against the US?

― fife, Friday, 23 March 2007 20:23 (eighteen years ago)

I know all about the Middle East. I reckon this is a relatively accidentaly event... British servicemen were or were perceived to be in what Iran considers its waters and were seized. Blum blum blum. Didn't something like this happen a couple of months ago?

― The Real Dirty Vicar, Saturday, 24 March 2007 13:25 (eighteen years ago)

2004

― Tracer Hand, Saturday, 24 March 2007 13:26 (eighteen years ago)

Mistakes can have broad implications in tense times. Iran is being scrutinized and nobody is sure what the US has in the works. I don't think they would have dared to apprehend US servicemen, for instance. That would be too overtly provocative.

But, who knows, they may be released with little fuss.

― fife, Saturday, 24 March 2007 15:36 (eighteen years ago)

reichstag.jpg

― Noodle Vague, Sunday, 25 March 2007 12:28 (eighteen years ago)

I really shouldn't read "Have your say" on the BBC web site.

― onimo, Monday, 26 March 2007 16:22 (eighteen years ago)

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=5882&&edition=1&ttl=20070326172512

― Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy, Monday, 26 March 2007 16:27 (eighteen years ago)

jimmy_carter_hostages.jpg

― That one guy that quit, Monday, 26 March 2007 16:44 (eighteen years ago)

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/sotcaa/newstuff/images/thedaytoday12.jpg

― That one guy that quit, Monday, 26 March 2007 16:48 (eighteen years ago)

The 1st page of have your say is depressing. I don't think i'll read the others

Added: Monday, 26 March, 2007, 16:48 GMT 17:48 UK

Its about time the UK stood by it forces and warned Iran that the Iranian government will be taken to task if anything happens to these men and women. We keep looking for a diplomatic way to let these people off the hook only to be caught out by them every time.
The UK must start to look at bolstering it military forces rather than depleting them. We are in such a state that these people do not take us seriously and now is the time to show them we are not kidding.

George Duffy

Added: Monday, 26 March, 2007, 16:47 GMT 17:47 UK

The Iranian embassy in London should be placed under immediate armed guard. No-one should be allowed in or out and all Iranian embassy staff should be handcuffed and placed in orange jump suits to be paraded on the 6 o'clock news as prisoners of war. Immediate air strikes should commence aimed at the Iranian navy and every Iranian ship should be sunk, followed by ground attacks on military targets. Like it or not, we are now at war with Iran, and its time we started acting like it.

Steve, London

Added: Monday, 26 March, 2007, 16:47 GMT 17:47 UK

So many toy soldiers here itching to go to war over this incident without knowing the full story. Big men that you are! You believe so readily what you are told by the UK government - how gullible can you get? British military personnel have no business being anywhere NEAR that region given their recent actions. We should stop strutting around the world like we own the place and no one would ever get taken hostage. Easy, isn't it?

Mary Allen, Enfield, United Kingdom

Added: Monday, 26 March, 2007, 16:46 GMT 17:46 UK

I think that if UK soldiers are in Iranian waters, then the Iranians have a right to question them. After all the accusations that the UK have thrown at Iran over causing death in Iraq, it is hardly surprising that Iran may want to know more and even perhaps make a point to UK.

T Griffiths, Milton Keymes

The whole point is that they weren't in those waters!!!

[johnboy41]

cooper punX, London, United Kingdom
Added: Monday, 26 March, 2007, 16:45 GMT 17:45 UK

It’s shameful that some two-bit, crack-pot regime can bully a western power like this. There used to be a day when no on would dare challenge you Brits. I’m shamed that the same goes for America these days as well.

If I were PM for a day, I would give Iran 12 hours to fly the soldiers home unharmed. If the troops are not returned after 12 hours, every 10 minutes after the deadline an Iranian city would disappear.

Pete Wagner, Grand Rapids, Michigan, United States

Added: Monday, 26 March, 2007, 16:45 GMT 17:45 UK

Those calling for nuclear attacks against Iran over this incident are PATHETIC. You might think you're being patriotic, but your blustering bravado is actually increasing international sympathy for Iran. Your sailors may well have been in Iranian waters, in which case THEY would be the guilty party. Regardless, your comments show that extremism cuts both ways. Some fanatics are willing to blow up markets full of innocent civilians. Others are willing to drop nuclear bombs on them.

Danny M, Toronto

Added: Monday, 26 March, 2007, 16:45 GMT 17:45 UK

It's a rather simple, 36 hours or we use all our force to either remove the govenment of Iran.

This is a clear act of war, so why is our Nation not acting.

Paul Smith, Liverpool

Added: Monday, 26 March, 2007, 16:45 GMT 17:45 UK

Iran is looking more and more for an excuse to incite trouble for the west from Muslim states. yet another provocative act from an unhinged rogue regime.

[johnboy41]
Added: Monday, 26 March, 2007, 16:44 GMT 17:44 UK

That Iranian president with the funny name seems to be well-advised about British Home news.and the chaotic state of government departments. He couldn't have struck at a better time. I think my forecast of major strife in that region could come true. We might remember that some Israeli soldiers are still
in captivity in that other war-torn region nearby & Iran may go measures other than merely holding our sailors.

[UKIP-O]

Added: Monday, 26 March, 2007, 16:44 GMT 17:44 UK

Have we blindly accepted the UK Government's version of events? Surely, if the navy were on "routine patrols" they would be sufficiently armed to ward off any attack or attempted arrest.

Have we heard the names of the captured personnel? No.

Isn't it possible that they were part of a covert operation? Naturally this would be denied by the FCO - it would be a "deniable operation".

We are at cold war with Iran and have been since the axis of evil speech, its just that its not hot... yet..

Will Parker, London, United Kingdom

Added: Monday, 26 March, 2007, 16:44 GMT 17:44 UK

Interesting statement from the Iraqi's. It looks like Iran were the aggressor. Not to just the UK but Iraq. And it wasn't too long ago when Bush informed the Iranians to keep out of Iraq. Well, the Iranian President is acting like a child seeing how far he can push.

John, Manchester

Added: Monday, 26 March, 2007, 16:44 GMT 17:44 UK

It's about time someone stood up to Iran, this is not the first time this has happened. Mr Blair must give an ultimatum to the Iranian Government, to let the Sailors who were NOT in Iranian Waters or suffer the consequences. Those consequences should be calculated and targeted at Naval installations, of course giving all Civilians the chance to vacate before any action is taken.

Paul, Newhaven UK

― Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy, Monday, 26 March 2007 17:14 (eighteen years ago)

There's one buried down there somewhere with something like "They want nuclear weapons, let's give them them some Tridents!"

― onimo, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:19 (eighteen years ago)

Pete Wagner for PM! Maybe he's got some ideas about Israel aswell.

― Frogman Henry, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:47 (eighteen years ago)

/very chaeap joke. Apologies to all musiclovers.

― Frogman Henry, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:48 (eighteen years ago)

Those consequences should be calculated and targeted at Naval installations, of course giving all Civilians the chance to vacate before any action is taken.

Paul, Newhaven UK

i'm calling you out as a fucking pussy, paul.

civilians? pshaw.

― That one guy that quit, Monday, 26 March 2007 19:50 (eighteen years ago)

Added: Monday, 26 March, 2007, 19:44 GMT 20:44 UK

Predictable weak knee comments by the majority of people here.

The ball is in Britain's court, and your just going to stand there like deaf, blind and dumb? Shame on you.

Joe

Added: Monday, 26 March, 2007, 19:42 GMT 20:42 UK

Enough is enough. These people only understand force. The solution in the middle east is an easy one. MOAB - Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb. We built this with tax payers money and as a tax payer, I say we use it. A few of these and they will get the message.

You want to save American lives? Then use the MOAB!

drp, Ashburn

Added: Monday, 26 March, 2007, 16:59 GMT 17:59 UK

The US and UK should declare war on these idiots and end this once and for all.

Mike, Richmond, VA

― Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:16 (eighteen years ago)

There's like no way we could get a C-130 with a MOAB to any target in Iran safely!!!!

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Monday, 26 March 2007 21:20 (eighteen years ago)

Of course they are taunting the west. The west speaks a totally different language to some of the philosophies and deep rooted religious history of certain countries. The differences will not disappear for centuries unless both sides can find a miracle cure. Some nations do not want or cannot accept the 21st century lifestyle of the west. Who can say who is right or wrong. All I know is given a choice I will choose non religion, hospitals,relative freedom of choice,tv and peace the west has.

tv and peace, man

― onimo, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 10:59 (eighteen years ago)

They don't have hospitals in Iran?

― Tom D., Tuesday, 27 March 2007 11:02 (eighteen years ago)

I will not look at have your say this morning. I will resist.

― Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 11:09 (eighteen years ago)

iran had libraries, spices and culture when henry V was eating cold salted fish on stale bread for his wedding; it's amazing what a few centuries of war and colonisation can do, though - unsurprising that some people are calling for more of it

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 11:36 (eighteen years ago)

Oh yes, Persia, how uncivilised!

― Tom D., Tuesday, 27 March 2007 11:39 (eighteen years ago)

this is all highly pertinent.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 11:46 (eighteen years ago)

"history is bunk" - enrique

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 12:00 (eighteen years ago)

"different phase"

What the hell can that mean? Sanctions aren't likely to make it through the security council and Britain could not blockade even a fraction of the Iranian coast. Air strikes? War?

― Ed, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 12:07 (eighteen years ago)

well certainly the study of history is thriving in modern iran.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 12:09 (eighteen years ago)

cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_conference

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 12:09 (eighteen years ago)

I see we have an ignorance gap with Iran, let us promote further ignorance by denying their history.

― Ed, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 12:12 (eighteen years ago)

i'm not denying their history!

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 12:12 (eighteen years ago)

sorry I was making a facetious comment.

― Ed, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 12:14 (eighteen years ago)

That have your say stuff is still going.

― Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 16:37 (eighteen years ago)

'discreet talks all over the bbc'

― Ed, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 20:57 (eighteen years ago)

well to be honest it does look like iran fucked the dog on this one.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 29 March 2007 07:00 (eighteen years ago)

Internationally, yes. But in Iran itself it's pretty simple way to get great propaganda. "See how little we need to do to show how insecure they are?"

― StanM, Thursday, 29 March 2007 07:13 (eighteen years ago)

they're playing the part of the villain pretty well, aren't they

the letter that turney wrote has a couple of awkward miswordings that no english person would write sincerely but which her captors didn't pick up on - pretty clever

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 29 March 2007 09:45 (eighteen years ago)

Skipping 120 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

i think that those things are in a way true. how well they play, i have no idea; i guess that as with everywhere the maniac you know is better than the maniac who is threatening to MIRV him. i wouldn't be surprised if the brits did stray into iranian waters, but that probably happens daily and it isn't really the point iran was trying to make. it can hardly complain about the sanctity of borders.

2 xposts

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:20 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think a lot of ppl realise just how much we are to blame for what has gone wrong in Iran over the last 60 years or so; by focussing on the 1979 revolution, the hostage crisis at the end of the Carter administration, the fatwa against Rushdie etc we have conveniently forgotten that the Shah was not only a nasty piece of work, he was a nasty piece of work installed by the US and its allies in place of a leader democratically elected by the Iranian people. there will plenty of ppl who will say "what has that got to do with the current situation?", maybe even some ppl who will say "what has this post got to do with the rest of the thread?" but it is exactly that kind of blinkered short sighted attitude which allows our government to get away with its outrageous treatment of ppl in the Middle East, time and time again.

― Grandpont Genie, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:25 (eighteen years ago)

everybody can complain about the sanctity of borders! that's what you get to do, when you're a nation state, it's one of the great privileges.

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:27 (eighteen years ago)

"everybody can complain about the sanctity of borders! that's what you get to do, when you're a nation state, it's one of the great privileges.

-- Tracer Hand, Thursday, April 5, 2007 1:27 PM (4 minutes ago)"

yeah, but it would sound better if iran wasn't -- don't want to sound too neocon here, but -- in deep elsewhere in the middle east.

mark a lot of people realize that. our government hasn't particularly treated iran outrageously in a long time. the shah being a nasty piece of work doesn't excuse the nastiness of the present (ie nearly 30-year-old -- which is older than most iranians) regime. nor does that excuse the us/anglo sabre-rattling.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:37 (eighteen years ago)

doesn't excuse it, but goes a long, long way to explain it.

I think it is outrageous for a govt to try to deny another govt the opportunity to develop power generating nuclear industry on the basis that they might use the technology to develop nuclear arms.

"you might use yr peaceful nuclear capabilities for military purposes"

"you haven't strayed into our territorial waters, but you *might* do"

― Grandpont Genie, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:41 (eighteen years ago)

christ knows i don't like people who want to ramp up to a war or bombing campaign on iran, but i don't think there's much hope for a world order based on the kind of fairness and mutual respect, mark. iran has every "right" as a nation state to develop nuclear weapons, but other interested parties have an equal right to try to stop them. there's no super-national body with the authority to... oh, no, hang on there is! and they are less than keen on a nuclear iran.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:46 (eighteen years ago)

my hope is that only a third of the boat was in Iranian waters at any point, or water being what it is moving around so much that the borderline never knows if it's ebbing or flowing, or they'd been sailing on the very edge for hours just for kicks but then the Iranians unveiled a giant magnet. how do they know what the borders are anyway?

― blueski, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:48 (eighteen years ago)

satnav

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:50 (eighteen years ago)

They're back! Heroes! *tears*

― StanM, Thursday, 5 April 2007 11:32 (eighteen years ago)

NOW WE CAN BOMB THOSE IRANIANS WITH IMPUNITY!

― The Real Dirty Vicar, Thursday, 5 April 2007 12:25 (eighteen years ago)

So who was the anonymous dude? A spy whose name cannot be disclosed?

One captive remains unnamed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6529193.stm

― StanM, Thursday, 5 April 2007 12:27 (eighteen years ago)

henry gale

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 5 April 2007 12:49 (eighteen years ago)

the anonymous dude is whichever dude keeps trying to stand behind everyone else in the photos

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 5 April 2007 16:50 (eighteen years ago)

For those of you who don't normally read it, there's been plenty of loony bits about this over on the rightwing cartoonists thread, too

― kingfish, Thursday, 5 April 2007 16:55 (eighteen years ago)

there are 15 names on that bbc page. i guess it has changed in the last 4 hours.

― koogs, Thursday, 5 April 2007 16:57 (eighteen years ago)

Gah, that "Have Your Say" on BBC News is depressingly dud.

One interesting question though: "Why weren't the Iranians captured when they entered Iraqi waters?"

― StanM, Thursday, 5 April 2007 19:10 (eighteen years ago)

To further respond to chap's post:

Is the mentalist neocon viewpoint that we should have attacked Iran the minute they took our sailors?

-- chap, Wednesday, April 4, 2007 3:30 PM

This bit is a good little summary of what the american warmonger view of this all is:

It is all there- the advocating for war, the sneering condescension aimed at "our diplomat class" (just go ahead and call 'em pussies, McCarthy), the revisionism- one convenient package designed to advocate for the next war. It is only made more frightening when you examine it in the context of the state of our current military- stretched to the breaking point in Iraq.

― kingfish, Thursday, 5 April 2007 22:24 (eighteen years ago)

Faye Turney: "I was offered a hell of a lot of money for my story. I've not taken the biggest offer, I've gone down...because I wanted to speak to yourself {ITV's Trevor McDonald) and the Sun because I knew my point would be put across."

It's the Sun that undermines this a bit.

― Bob Six, Monday, 9 April 2007 09:41 (eighteen years ago)

interesting that it wasn't a murdoch package deal.

"i would be surprised if any of the sailors give an interview, although this is britain we're talking about so who knows

-- Tracer Hand, Thursday, 5 April 2007 02:51 (4 days ago)"

was actually otm -- i really didn't see the MoD allowing this. who benefits, you have to wonder.

― That one guy that quit, Monday, 9 April 2007 09:48 (eighteen years ago)

Inspired by the right wing cartoon thread (and DV):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/biondino/IRAN.jpg

― Mark C, Monday, 9 April 2007 10:29 (eighteen years ago)

Jesus Christ, the American rightwing response is ongoing and/or hilarious:

What ever happened to "Let's Roll"

Where Dean Barnett equates the passengers of United 93 to the 15 guys, and gives lines like:

What a strange and dismal trip it has been for the Western world, going from “Let’s Roll” to “Fighting Back Was Not An Option” in scarcely more than five years. One can only hope that when the history of our era is written, the former will turn out to be the immortal quote, not the latter.

And the rest of the bit is about how soldierin' is about honor & shit and dying in some weird-ass mix of bushido and klingon, and don't blame just the chickenhawk bloggers for this, here's a warmonger vietnam guy on msnbc who said the same thing, so the chickenhawk bloggers must be right and shit. He then ends with

To some, the returning British soldiers may be heroes. If we have so defined heroism down, woe be unto us all.

― kingfish, Monday, 9 April 2007 18:12 (eighteen years ago)

It's really not the worst tactic on their part to advocate for ass-whupping and harsh warlike response in precisely those situations where there's zero chance of anything like that happening -- they're just setting themselves up to respond to every Iran issue unto the end of time by saying "we should have taken care of them back when XXX." (That seems like a ghostly staple phrase of right-wing rhetoric, really: any foreign policy issue, anywhere ... "we wouldn't have this problem if pussies / liberals / communist sympathizers / basic reality hadn't prevented us from annihilating so-and-so back when we had the chance.") (Possibly they say this to their wives about their rebellious teenagers, who knows.)

― nabisco, Monday, 9 April 2007 18:30 (eighteen years ago)

Basically there's an advantage in spending the future saying you wanted to be tougher all along ("look what we've allowed them to do!"), whereas there's no good told-you-so glamour in pointing out the opposite ("umm there are problems, but just think how much worse it could be if we'd getting into worse conflict, amirite guys?").

― nabisco, Monday, 9 April 2007 18:32 (eighteen years ago)

oh noes, you see what happens!

now they have nukes and everything!

someone srsly dropped the ball with this one.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 10:28 (eighteen years ago)

"Taking Things to a Whole `Nother Level!"

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 10:31 (eighteen years ago)

need to ban blair earning money talking about the iraq war after he quits being pm

― Frogman Henry, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 10:31 (eighteen years ago)

i love being "actually OTM"

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 11:12 (eighteen years ago)

Greenslade: 1938, but from the continent come ominous rumblings.

FX: [Rumbling and bubbling cauldron]

Bloodnok: Oho! Oh, this Spanish food! Oh! Waiter! One brandy, and pronto!

Spriggs: One brandy and pronto coming up!

Greenslade: Those were the last words said at peace. At that moment Germany declared war in all directions.

German: Bang!

Bloodnok: Bang? War! I must write me memoirs.

FX: [Typewriter]

(rom The Goons, "Tales of Men’s Shirts", Series 10, Episode 2
First broadcast on December 31, 1959)

― Tom D., Tuesday, 10 April 2007 11:22 (eighteen years ago)

Extraordinary. How did they know?

― Frogman Henry, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 11:34 (eighteen years ago)

WTF @ the mindset that could sit & write that arrational town hall piece.

It's quite convenient for ppl of that particular outlook that the folks on U93 died, isn't it. I mean, dead, they can't contradict the insane bullshit that their collective names are used to prop. Dead, they can be made into totems, emblems of unemotional heroism and self-sacrifice, instead of actual human beings, who if they'd survived, would have been able to speak for themselves. Maybe their collective viewpoint would have been one that backed up the neocon fascist worldview. I doubt it, though, somehow.

― Pashmina, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 11:44 (eighteen years ago)

omg the comments. I just couldn't stop reading. It was terrifying.

― Matt, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 15:18 (eighteen years ago)

A lot of it is akin to when Jill Carroll was released last year, and these folks thought she was a traitor for not dying, for going along with whatever her captors wanted, or maybe that she was pregnant with some brown baby. It's always unpleasant when folks who need to die to support your worldview wind up surviving.

― kingfish, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 15:23 (eighteen years ago)

Has anyone told these people that Britain is not actually at war with Iran? It might also help them understand why these soldiers were detained in the first place.

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 15:24 (eighteen years ago)

you have the option of emailing article, printing it, or "taking action". let's roll!

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 15:31 (eighteen years ago)

"Let's roll" into Armageddon

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 15:32 (eighteen years ago)

"what is with these pu55ies who don't have the guts to assassinate the archduke... what's his name? ferdinand?"

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 15:36 (eighteen years ago)

"We saved your ass in the 100 years war, you'd all be speaking trojan if it wasn't for us"

― Matt, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 15:45 (eighteen years ago)

Might as well start posting these in here:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0410cd.jpg

Also, Britain Was Once Great Britain

...It used to be said that "The sun never sets on the British empire." That is how vast Britain's influence was. And that influence, on balance, was far more positive than negative. Ask the Indians -- or the Americans, for that matter. The British colonies learned about individual rights, parliamentary government, civil service and courts of justice, to name of few of the benefits that the British brought with them. Were it not for British involvement, India might still have sati (burning wives on the funeral pyre of their husband), would have no unifying language, and probably no parliamentary democracy or other institutions and values that have made that country a democratic giant, now on its way to becoming an economic one as well. But today, the sun not only literally sets on an extinct British empire; it is figuratively setting on Britain itself...

While it's true that these assholes don't represent anything near a majority opinion, they certainly hold sway with plenty of people. Prager has a radio show syndicated on the usual rightwing stations, for example.

And douchebags like Jonah Goldberg go on and on about it too

― kingfish, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 15:48 (eighteen years ago)

kingfish you don't really need to post that much more of this stuff, TBH

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 15:50 (eighteen years ago)

maybe that's another way of saying i am oddly immune to the insanity of this rhetoric

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 15:52 (eighteen years ago)

the 100 years war was so 1337

― g-kit, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 15:54 (eighteen years ago)

I just get a kick out of how much these jerks need to wallow in deliberately simplified and brutal storylines, to the point where they'll involve everybody and anything in their grand struggle.

― kingfish, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 15:55 (eighteen years ago)

The people posting comments on that site are so obsessively hateful! You get the feeling these people walk around grinding their teeth together and with veins standing out on their foreheads all the time.

― Pashmina, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 16:23 (eighteen years ago)

Britain Was Once Great Britain

It's called "Great" Britain because of its geographical size - as the biggest of the British Isles - not for any other reason, stupid fucking dipsticks

― Tom D., Tuesday, 10 April 2007 16:29 (eighteen years ago)

... I mean, I know there's been a bit of coastal erosion over the years but it's still pretty much the same size...

― Tom D., Tuesday, 10 April 2007 16:33 (eighteen years ago)

The people posting comments on that site are so obsessively hateful!

i dunno. sometimes being a dick on a messageboard can be therapuetic.

of course, sometimes you're just a dick brownshirt-in-training.

― kingfish, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 16:39 (eighteen years ago)

and these guys really are idiots, and/or great dramatic examples of what modern american conservatism has degenerated into. You have the mindset of 8-year-olds on a schoolyard, where strength can only be expressed in the simplest, most base & direct force, and these guys in a boat were pussies for not shooting back and starting some massive-ass conflagration in a region of the world where assholes on all sides are already running amuck and itching to kill shitloads of civilians to fulfill some dumbass narrative.

You get the idea that they'd regard something like "the art of fighting without fighting" as sheer cowardice.

― kingfish, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 17:58 (eighteen years ago)

Now that the Europeans no longer have such disproportionately more money and better technology than their one-time colonial victims, and considering their relatively smaller population (compared to the developing world), the fact that Britain still can throw its weight around as much as it does, the fact that its on the U.N. security council and that it has nuclear arms mean that its actually punching well above its weight.

― Michael White, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 18:04 (eighteen years ago)

"such...more"

Uh, yeah. Maybe I should lay off the early morning booze.

― Michael White, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 18:05 (eighteen years ago)

the uk does have more money and better technology though, it's like the 4th biggest economy in the world or something. it may have lost direct colonial control but financially it still runs a fair few things -- e.g. selling arms to our former colonial victims in the middle east (like the poor dear victimized house of saud and the ba'athists in iraq) has been a reliable income stream since the sixties. "punching above our weight" is practically the FO's motto, or has been since the war.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 21:55 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.