Did Tehran free the sailors under an implicit threat?

[Syndyre]

How can you make such asinine claims?! Did you not read my post? "Unjustifiably taking people hostage?" Look to your own before blaming others!!

SO NONE of you have anything to say about the false wars created by George Fascist Bush and his hounddog Tony Puppy Blair?!

I've never claimed that Bush etc are blameless but that doesn't make the Iranians actions any more justified.

 

[kilo39]

I've never claimed that Bush etc are blameless but that doesn't make the Iranians actions any more justified.

Oh, not blameless? That must be the understatement of the year!! Vomit.

So: it's okay if Georgie (with tony complicit) does it; but everybody else is a terrorist? Your hypocrisy and refusal to acknowledge any wrong reaches new heights! Iran justified? Now let's see: occupying countries, killing hundreds of thousands, instigating false wars based on lies and torturing and throwing away the key on hundreds if not thousands of people (but Iran is the bullyboy!) Catch a wakeup and move into the real world because your hypocrisy and rose tinted specs do not cut it in my world of truth and accountability. Liars!!

Everybody? No just LG, Kilo and some othr freaks that support the terrorists

That's what I meant.

 

[The_Assimilator]

kilo, I hope that you realise that no-one takes you seriously and that your greatest contribution to these threads is as comic relief.

Did Tehran free the sailors under an implicit threat? Of course. To believe anything else is to assume that the leaders of Iran's government suddenly experienced a collective IQ increase of 50 points each. No, Iran finally woke up to the fact that if the sailors weren't released, Coalition forces would be on the Iranian doorstep within days.

 

[Angelo]

How can you seek goodwill after unjustifiably taking people hostage? Idiots.

Iran could have killed the captives, I think they are justified in asking for some goodwill.

 

[Syndyre]

Iran could have killed the captives, I think they are justified in asking for some goodwill.

So if someone hijacks you and takes you hostage but eventually releases you without killing you they're entitled to goodwill?

 

[Skeptik]

So if someone hijacks you and takes you hostage but eventually releases you without killing you they're entitled to goodwill?

LOL
Simple logic is all it takes to defeat Angelo's arguments. However don't expect him to concede.

 

[Angelo]

So if someone hijacks you and takes you hostage but eventually releases you without killing you they're entitled to goodwill?

Totally irrelevent, they were not hijacked by criminals but were caught trespassing but were never punished...I call that goodwill and I'm sure their families do too. This is a diplomatic situation.

 

[bwana]

Totally irrelevent, they were not hijacked by criminals but were caught trespassing but were never punished...I call that goodwill and I'm sure their families do too. This is a diplomatic situation.

Sorry - who was trespassing?

 

[Angelo]

Sorry - who was trespassing?

a senior British defense official stated: “We are quite prepared to give the Iranians a guarantee that we would never knowingly enter their waters without their permission, now or in the future.”

.

 

[kilo39]

kilo, I hope that you realise that no-one takes you seriously and that your greatest contribution to these threads is as comic relief.

Did Tehran free the sailors under an implicit threat? Of course. To believe anything else is to assume that the leaders of Iran's government suddenly experienced a collective IQ increase of 50 points each. No, Iran finally woke up to the fact that if the sailors weren't released, Coalition forces would be on the Iranian doorstep within days.

Oh, let it be you then that will answer the charges, as NO ONE ELSE HERE seems prepared to:

There was never a mandate to fight a false war based on lies.

Colin Powell did not go to the UN with the mandate of Saddam being a despot but Saddam producing WMD which were an "imminent threat to the rest of the world."

All based on lies, proven, again and again. So no, they have no mandate and never did (as a mandate shouldn't be granted on a scam.)

This latest story re-inforces that it was all lies:

No Iraq-Qaeda co-operation - report April 06 2007
Washington - Interrogations of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and documents seized after the 2003 US-led invasion, confirmed that his regime had not been co-operating with al-Qaeda, the Washington Post reported on its website on Friday.

The report contradicted a strong argument for the invasion made by the administration of President George Bush that Baghdad had a working relationship with al-Qaeda, the Afghanistan-based group led by Osama bin Laden blamed for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
-
But since the invasion, a number of intelligence officials have alleged that the White House and its backers ignored their intelligence and "cherry picked" information that supported their campaign to persuade Americans of the need to go to war.

In a radio interview on Wednesday Cheney insisted on a prewar link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, saying that the group was working in Iraq "before we even arrived on the scene."

"As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq," Cheney told conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh.

And NOTE they are STILL lying.

Actually I'm shocked we even have the story above when the lies and false intel has been apparent from the start:

Similar story, different location:

Pentagon unit defied CIA advice to justify Iraq war
. 'Alternative' agency set up to link Saddam to al-Qaida
· Mainstream intelligence was cast aside, Senate told
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Saturday February 10, 2007
The Guardian

An "alternative intelligence" unit operating at the Pentagon in the run-up to the war on Iraq was dedicated to establishing a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, even though the CIA was unconvinced of such a connection, the US Senate was told yesterday.
A report presented to the armed services committee by the Pentagon's inspector general, Thomas Gimble, exposes the Bush administration to new charges of manipulating intelligence to make its case for going to war against Saddam nearly four years ago.

And seems not only did they lie about that but completely got it wrong and lied about the aftermath too:

White House Ignored CIA Warnings on Iraq
October 13, 2005

Washington, D.C., October 13, 2005 - The White House disregarded intelligence projections on post-Saddam Iraq according to a newly-declassified CIA report, "Intelligence and Analysis on Iraq: Issues for the Intelligence Community," posted today on the website of the National Security Archive.

"In an ironic twist," the report finds, "the policy community was receptive to technical intelligence (the weapons program), where the analysis was wrong, but apparently paid little attention to intelligence on cultural and political issues (post-Saddam Iraq), where the analysis was right."

The report, from July 2004, is the third of three prepared by a group of intelligence experts led by Richard J. Kerr, a former deputy director of central intelligence, to examine the U.S. Intelligence Community's assessments in the months before the U.S. invasion. The first two reports remain classified despite the fact that many of their key findings are summarized in the July report and in unclassified reports produced by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The Kerr report also identifies a number of weaknesses in the Intelligence Community's analytical products, particularly the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraqi weapons programs, which the report says was prepared "under an unusually tight time constraint" and was "the product of three separate drafters, drawing from a mixed bag of analytic product." The October 2002 NIE was at the center of Bush administration claims about...

And here is the proof Tony Blair is an equal liar (and let's not forget this cost a prominent british scientist and researcher his life.)

Microsoft Word bytes Tony Blair in the butt
Home > Privacy > Blair's Iraq Dossier

Richard M. Smith ([email protected])
June 30, 2003
Microsoft Word documents are notorious for containing private information in file headers which people would sometimes rather not share. The British government of Tony Blair just learned this lesson the hard way.

Back in February 2003, 10 Downing Street published a dossier on Iraq's security and intelligence organizations. This dossier was cited by Colin Powell in his address to the United Nations the same month. Dr. Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in politics at Cambridge University, quickly discovered that much of the material in the dossier was actually plagiarized from a U.S. researcher on Iraq.

You can read Dr. Rangwala's original analysis of the dossier from Feb. 5, 2003 at this URL:
http://www.computerbytesman.com/privacy/blair.htm
http://wikileaks.org/

NOW will you please stop with the lies, justifications, and general bullsh#t regarding your 'morality and correctness.'

And until someone steps forward and answers to the above YOU ALL have NOTHING to say!!

//and I say it again: I can show the same false charges of "enriched uranium" regarding Iran. MORE LIES. So when warmongering nations squat off the coastlines of countries and threaten war do not be surprised if those countries "take steps" to "project themselves" against a world of hypocrites and nuclear armed killers.