Article: Iranians are "uncivilised"

Darth Garth

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
6,207
Reaction score
268
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 is a film director, actor and Python
 
Last edited:
Pointless. This was the entire point of this whole debacle and people like the guy fall for it hook, like and sinker. Perhaps he could take a moment to explain how Iran entered Iraqi waters to capture some british sailors so they can have this press field day.

Jesus what a waste of a few paragraphs of text and 5 minutes of my time.
 
Western powers do not hold some moral high ground. Their leaders lie and commit illegal acts as much as anybody.
 
Silly - just like the author.

What people are just not seeing is that Britain is NOT at war with Iran. Why then is Iran capturing British military personnel in Iraqi waters?

And if you think some more. What was an Iranian gunboat doing in British controlled Iraqi waters? They should have been stopped by the British navy and not the other way around.
 
Ah, I see we've decided that this happened in Iraqi waters and not disputed territorial waters after all. Is this reported fact, did you guys toss a coin or are you guys just biased as all fcck?
 
telling it like it is

(but we're biased?)

//and what does the body of the article have to do with disputed waters (whether, whether not?)
 
Last edited:
telling it like it is

(but we're biased?)

//and what does the body of the article have to do with disputed waters (whether, whether not?)

Both icyrus and skeptic refer to the incident having occurred in Iraqi waters. I was under the impression they were disputed waters.

Unless there has been some concensus as to whose waters the incident took place in I would think deciding that Iraq is in the right regarding the matter would suggest a bias against Iran.

So I was suggesting that icyrus and Skeptic are biased against Iran and that all the comments and opinions are tainted by that bias. In other words their refuting of Jones article is based on an assumption that the incident that the prisoners were taken in Iraqi waters and was there fore illegal.
So unless that is true they are in fact biased as fcck.

I'm not sure why you refer to a "we" unless you agree with them in which case yes you are also biased as fcck. Unless of course you have some compelling reason to believe that the waters in question are indeed Iraqi territory.

As to what any of this has to do with the body of the article - its a smidgen off topic but I didn't go there in the first place and my own foray in that direction was a mere two sentences in response to to icyrus and skeptic. Besides which, do I need your permission for anything?
 
Ah, I see we've decided that this happened in Iraqi waters and not disputed territorial waters after all. Is this reported fact, did you guys toss a coin or are you guys just biased as all fcck?
The GPS positions show that they were in Iraqi territory. Besides, if the waters are disputed by both sides - and Iran claims they were 500m into their zone, is it reasonable to arrest the sailors?

Don't forget that Iran gave the coordinates and then quickly 'corrected' them when found also to be in Iraq.

Does that not raise suspicion in you.

Is it also reasonable for Iran to breech the Geneva Convention by parading their prisoners on TV??
 
The GPS positions show that they were in Iraqi territory. Besides, if the waters are disputed by both sides - and Iran claims they were 500m into their zone, is it reasonable to arrest the sailors?

Don't forget that Iran gave the coordinates and then quickly 'corrected' them when found also to be in Iraq.

Does that not raise suspicion in you.

Is it also reasonable for Iran to breech the Geneva Convention by parading their prisoners on TV??

Fair enough then. Still not reason enough to jump to conclusions either way surely?

As to the Geneva convention. Are you fccking serious? Britain has been aiding and abetting far worse contraventions of the frikkin Geneva convention by their close allies the USA for the last 6 or 7 years. Thats sort of the point Jones is making if I'm not much mistaken.
 
The point of the article has nothing to do with who is in the wrong (well it does, but it's not about territory.)

[-]Duct tape, torture and bags over the head. How do you miss this?[/-]

On the reread my apologies Nick333.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, legal marriage (and consummation thereof) for 9 year old girls, is highly civilised. They also kill people for being gay. Not even Bush & co are that bad.
 
As to the Geneva convention. Are you fccking serious? Britain has been aiding and abetting far worse contraventions of the frikkin Geneva convention by their close allies the USA for the last 6 or 7 years. Thats sort of the point Jones is making if I'm not much mistaken.
You cannot get more serious than the Geneva Convention. It also mandates access to prisoners by organisations such as the Red Cross. Iran has not even told anyone where the prisioners are.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X