really funny

[PangQuan]

No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch

Terry Jones
Saturday March 31, 2007
The Guardian


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
www.terry-jones.net

[Black Jack II]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Wow, the view of a liberal actor, man that is new.

Coming from the Guardian no less.

[PangQuan]

haha

i think this says it all

http://www.terry-jones.net/picten.htm

[Black Jack II]

LOL!

Now that is funny.

[David Jamieson]

"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime." -Twain


It is interesting to note that despite the apparent well being of the brit naval folk, the home office is consistent in their "this is unacceptable" rant.

The Iranians, if nothing else have a talent for making the British look like the asses they actually are being.

[golden arhat]

its true tho

they are better with us than we are with them

right ?

so is this "liberal" (as if being liberal is bad) right ?

come on now admitt it black jack

what he said "made sense"

i know its hard but sometimes u gotta take it as it is


also i'm sure u have never read the guardian newspaper

[Black Jack II]

The Iranians, if nothing else have a talent for making the British look like the asses they actually are being.

Being asses....if you call being taken from open water and held captive being an ass.

Remeber this is the same sh!tbag group of people who on November 4, 1979, Istormed the United States Embassy in Tehran and took approximately seventy Americans captive. This terrorist act triggered the most profound crisis of the Carter presidency and began a personal ordeal for Jimmy Carter and the American people that lasted 444 days.

[cjurakpt]

I can't imagine why the Iranians were so upset with the US to begin with? what ever did the US do that might have incited them in such a way? :rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

The Iranians, if nothing else have a talent for making the British look like the asses they actually are being.

Being asses....if you call being taken from open water and held captive being an ass.

Remeber this is the same sh!tbag group of people who on November 4, 1979, Istormed the United States Embassy in Tehran and took approximately seventy Americans captive. This terrorist act triggered the most profound crisis of the Carter presidency and began a personal ordeal for Jimmy Carter and the American people that lasted 444 days.

according to the data they have presented which the british have not disputed but instead opted for the "this is unacceptable" gig, the brits were taken from Iranian territorial waters and not international waters.

The brits did not step forward immediately with info to counter this and this is why the 2 or 3 day late presentation of gps data is suspect on their account.

as for the embassy, you really really really need to open a history book and find out the why's and wheretofors of that situation. The americans brought it upon themselves in essence by installing a totaliterian regime in Iran namely the Shah. The Iranians demanded their right to their own givernment of their own choosing instead oh an american installed king. The Americans resisted and told the sovereign nation of Iran to go suck an egg. What did America expect? That they would just take it lying down? Do the British expect the same when they send in military forces?

Would you take it lying down if Chinese gunboats were patrolling the atlantic off the coats of New York? Would you not capture said boats and detain the occupants until their government could explain to you why they were there in your territorial waters?

Don't be a myopic jerk. It makes americans look stupid when people like you pipe up with your sentimental garbage. If Britain cannot take responsibility for it's actions, then it deserves a spank.

If America and Britain really want to be the spreaders of democracy, then they should practice what they preach period instead of behaving like the hypocrites that they have been behaving like and lying to save face only loses more face in the end.

Be a man Britain and accept that you are far from perfect and far from correct in the whole of the matter. Despite wanting to have an enemy, democracy at it's foundations will not bend to the corruption that it is being subjected to by the Blair and Bush administrations over these last 6 years.

[Black Jack II]

It figures the main socialist on this board would side with kidnapping and justify it under some sort of romantic delusion of fighting off oppression....:rolleyes:


The Iranians demanded their right to their own givernment of their own choosing instead oh an american installed king

I think that line kinda spells it all out.:cool:

This specific terrorist action was in response to the exiled shah's admission to the U.S. for medical treatment. Now the relationship was strained before this with the overthrow of Muhammad Reza Pahlevi but hey lets be honest here, these people don't need much excuse to get into the violence game against non-combatants now do they.

Kinda funny how in 2000 some former hostages got together and sued Iran under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, which allows U.S. citizens to sue outside governments in cases of state sponsored terrorism.


Despite wanting to have an enemy, democracy at it's foundations will not bend to the corruption that it is being subjected to by the Blair and Bush administrations over these last 6 years

Such a elitist. Take it easy there Karl Marx.

As for what is happening now with the british hostages...you should follow the event better. GPS data showed different.

[Mr Punch]

according to the data they have presented which the british have not disputed but instead opted for the "this is unacceptable" gig, the brits were taken from Iranian territorial waters and not international waters.

The brits did not step forward immediately with info to counter this and this is why the 2 or 3 day late presentation of gps data is suspect on their account.
...I'm not saying you're wrong about Britain's government's hypocritical attitude in general (though obviously I'd rather you didn't tar the rest of us with the same brush) but the above statement is plain wrong.

The Iranians first released GPS data that proved in fact that the sailors had been in Iraqi water according to the current international rulings, and when the British pointed this out, released their own photo from a patrol showing that the boat the sailors had stopped and been 'arrested' by was 1.7 miles into Iraqi water and released GPS data to prove it, two days later the Iranians released a completely different bearing without saying how they'd come by it.

Don't forget the Iranians have done exactly this before (in 2004), when they were also making it up for political expediency.

Like I said, I'm not defending any of the Brit govt stance here, but you're acting like the sun shines out of the Iranian extremist govt's arses. The fact that we helped them get in (like good old Saddam) is neither here nor there.

[Mr Punch]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Wow, the view of a liberal actor, man that is new.
But it was pretty d@mn funny! :D


It figures the main socliast on this board would side with kidnapping and justify it under some sort of romantic delusion of fighting off oppression....:rolleyes: ...Don't tar all the socialists with the same brush either... besides, everyone knows DJ's a conservative stooge to make lefties look stupid! :D

[The Willow Sword]

Hey maybe we can trade some weapons to secure their release:rolleyes:

[cjurakpt]

It figures the main socialist on this board would side with kidnapping and justify it under some sort of romantic delusion of fighting off oppression....:rolleyes:
there is a big difference between explanation and justification; for some reason, the knee-jerk conservative response is to conflate the two, crying liberal laissez-faire whenever someone points out that there is such a thing as often times complex cause and effect as opposed tp a priori hatred of western democratic ideals and whatnot; nothing justifies kidnapping per se - it is, in and of itself, wrong to foreibly deprive anyone of their basic liberty; however, there are factors that go a long way to explain why the minset of a group of people would move them to engage in this sort of behavior - it doesn't just happen out of nowhere


This specific terrorist action was in response to the exiled shah's admission to the U.S. for medical treatment. Now the relationship was strained before this with the overthrow of Muhammad Reza Pahlevi but hey lets be honest here, these people don't need much excuse to get into the violence game against non-combatants now do they.
"those people"? where do you get off on such a hig-and-mighty unilateral condemnation of Iranians? no argument, there are some seriously violent factions and individual's there, and certainly the society is much more oppressive and restrictive than in the west; but as you are implying a comparison, do you really think "we" are any more innocent? as for violence against non-combatants, read your history a bit, and you will see that "the West", the US, UK, whatever, are no less guilty of that - maybe not in the last 50 years, but that's a blip on the radar screen compared to the scope of history - something that doesn't support an easy good/bad or us/them mentality, but that's life


Kinda funny how in 2000 some former hostages got together and sued Iran under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, which allows U.S. citizens to sue outside governments in cases of state sponsored terrorism.
ok, so they can sue Iran - if they win, so what? Phyrric victory anyone? what's your point on that?

again, don't get me wrong, and furthermore, try not to pigeon hole me as a bleeding heart liberal; I do hold extremely liberal views in many areas, but it doesn't blind me to the reality of life and history; in other words, I am keenly aware that survival involves violence, vis a vis humanity's history of fighting over limited resources (if everyone was well-fed and had enough space to live etc. etc. we wouldn't give a crap about what another group wanted to call "god" or any of that sort of thing); I don't think the Iranian government is by any means the model for society; and IMHO, the whole thing with the Brits was clearly, to me, a fabrication - I think they were taken exactly where the Brits said that they were taken, and the Iranian's used it as a propoganda stunt to prop up flagging morale at home - job done, Brit's released;
so, it's complex (:eek: ) - the Iranians have no reason to love the US, but at the same time, they engage in behavior that in and of itself is unpalatable; and so does the US - maybe the mechanisms by which to justify it are different (they use the Koran, we use the Constitution), but the end result is the same - innocents die;

[Black Jack II]

By those people I basically mean a good sized share of the current muslim world in general. It's really that simple to me at this point and there is no need to hide any feelings on the matter.

If you want to get specific about that statement, we can step away from 1979 and take a look at the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Here is a guy who honestly told people that he would destroy the "little satan" meaning Israel, and then vow to destroy the "big satan" meaning America.

We are talking an evil man here, so it fits as part of the parcel when I say those people. Let's get serious, this is a country that also funds terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and has given cold hard cash to Hama to help wage their proxy war against the country of Israel.

I know the difference between explanation and justification. What he stated was a justification and its clear as day. Lines like....what were they supposed to do....what would you do with gunboats off the bay....pssh.

[David Jamieson]

will have to look into the gps data release question. seems the press staggered releases of whats and whens and at this point, after reading your contributions, the matter is once again unclear.

I'm not pro- Iranian any more than I'm pro-American.
I believe both are active in so called state sponsored terrorism. I believe that virtually any country that uses underhanded and not on the table methods of dealing with other nations is more or less involved in this activity, including my own country.

Iran with their funding of militant radical fundamentalist Islamic terror groups and the USA with their funding of covert activities carried out by various agencies under it's care and watch and it's involvement in proxy wars over the years and not to mention that it is simply one of the largest arms dealers on the planet along with it's bedmate the UK.

Anyway, one could say that this will be solved diplomatically because it likely will be. I think Iran is seeking to not be attacked in another pre-emptive strike by the Americans and is appealing to the British to prevent this. So long as the Bush admin sits in office, it is hard to say how far he will take things in the middle east.

It's pretty much clear that his ideas are not working and that his and his administrations entire way of thinking on the matter is elitist and exclusionary to virtually everyone else but those in aggreement with what they have done and are continuing to do. Even the senate and congress are having a hard time balancing and checking this presidents agenda because he threatens to veto any progressive action. So now, he needs to have his wallet taken away to make him stop.

I wonder if he'll listen for one minute to Blair on the matter of Iran.

[Black Jack II]

Hostages just got released.

Just caught it on the internet. Iran says they "gave pardon to the british hostages."


Even the senate and congress are having a hard time balancing and checking this presidents agenda because he threatens to veto any progressive action

Stopping the funding for front line troops is not progressive at all. Very wrong choice of words. That type of action will cost the democrats in the coming election.

[David Jamieson]

Hostages just got released.

Just caught it on the internet. Iran says they "gave pardon to the british hostages."



Stopping the funding for front line troops is not progressive at all. Very wrong choice of words. That type of action will cost the democrats in the coming election.

allowing the president to continue to suck cash for the war instead of forcing him to think about correct management of each and every dollar is not a bad thing. You are speaking from the spin point of the administration.

congress wants to stop funding the continuance of the war. they will not provide more money unless it is in line with bringing home the troops that are in the protracted conflict that has degenerated into civil war.

Bush clearly has no plan and seems to be happy with continuing to throw money at it until...well whatever it seems. He hasn't tabled any sort of reconstruction plan, any sort of withdrawal plan, any plans at all really other than the original one of going into Iraq and taking Baghdad. Ok, Saddam is gone, Baghdad and the rest of the country is a mess of destroyed infrastructure and people thrown into deeper impoverishment and resentment towards the occupying forces...so now what?

so congress should keep giving him money? why?
I think it's more about the ability to regain a positive position in the worlds point of view more than its about some election in a year or two. I personally don't care who gets elected as far as the parties go. As far as I'm concerned they both supported this war for all the same convoluted and incorrect reasons.

You know, like how the heck did Iraq come to be the target anyway? % years later and people are still spinning that down to minutia from wmds, to UN oil scandals, to a revision of a resolution, to getting Saddam and now it is simply "winning the conflict".

winning what? sand? the oil fields? hearts and minds?

someone needs to put the checks and balances on the current executive administration. It may as well be the American people through their congress and that's exactly what's happening. You will continue to see the powers of this president further diminished seeing as he has so horribly abused them in his terms.

[Black Jack II]

First off lets be specific, its not the whole body of congress, its vastly the democrat line within congress.

There is a big difference between de-funding the troops and ending the war. De-funding cancels the cash for veterans and defense hospitals so people can get treated, it denies body armor for front line troops, it means those same troops may have to spend a longer time in the theater because reinforcements are slower coming down the pike.

The money in the defense bill just pays for a standing army. Additional funding is always needed for recurrent costs. The democrats are just digging there own grave with this tactic. It's just to look pretty because in the end its going to get the veto anyway. All they are doing is going for public brownie points.

[The Willow Sword]

It's time to leave Iraq, People. Its time to get out of the way of the sectarian civil war that is going on now and let em fight it out and see who emerges victorious and be on the sidelines consulting and establishing relations with whomever wins it. Sounds simple doesnt it? well it would be if we werent so d@mn thirsty for the oil in that region. I mean how much more time do we need to buy for the iraq parliment to get its sh!t together? or actually what we SHOULD be saying is how much more time do we need to buy for whatever oil pipeline is being routed to wherever so that we can start reaping the benefits of the Heist?

I find it funny also that Bush will Veto any bill that is sent to him with regards to this war(Yayyy it is now official that the iraq war has lasted longer than WW2).
is he not veto'ing the Will of the american people now?

Peace,TWS

[Black Jack II]

werent so d@mn thirsty for the oil in that region

That statement is soooooo overused.

If we wanted oil we could of taken it the first time we were there sitting at Bagdads gates. Let's even look beyond that little tidbit, if all we wanted was oil, we could just roll into a country like Venezuela and take it, they have tons of crude oil.

Plus even if this is true, which I believe it to be less valid than my grandmothers f@rt, what is wrong with going to war for oil if it was really needed, you want a working car right or would you want society to grind to a standstill?

The above is more of a joke but it kinda showcases how lame extreme's are.


is he not veto'ing the Will of the american people now?

No he is not.

He is going to veto a pork laden democratic bill. It is his job as commander and chief to see to the countries wellfare and that is what he believes he is doing by bringing the war over to them. It's not his job to bow down to pressure from any political party with a opposing viewpoint.

Instead of having the right amount of checks and balances we now should have with the new configuration its just getting to be a tug of war.

[cjurakpt]

have to agree, it's not about oil - per se; it's about a lot of different things, namely geo-political strategy, having troops widely distributed, enabling rapid "response" to various volatile areas - even the idea of just having troops in an area "just in case" is not a bad idea; this is, of course, a very hawkish viewpoint, and to a large degree is predicated on the premise that there was a reason for the need, which the US with it's typical unilateral foreign policy helped to create a climate for;

as for the veto and denying different things to different elements - this is the problem with piggy-backed legislation: you have so much stuff in one bill, that it can almost be diametrical: like funding front line troops and veteran's hospitals; of course, it's a useful way to squeeze in something you want, etc. etc., but it can also backfire; again, no simple answers...

as for Muslims: most muslims I know are anti-violence - there is a small mnority advocating things of a violent nature; however, one of the great dilemmas facing the muslim world is the lack of resolve on the part of the "silent majority" who may privately state their liberal views, but have yet to unify under one voice to create the sense of internal outrage necessary for extremist factions to loose their sense of moral imperative, that is, the notion that they speak for islam in general - this is of course somewhat of an oversimpification, but it expresses a general sentiment;

as for israel - how to be an arab / muslim and not hate them - pretty hard; I mean, say what you will , but you certainly can't contend that the treatment of Palestine has been anything but abhorent - now it's a matter of self-defense, true, but again, you need to look historically to see that israel is certainly not guiltless in terms of creating and precipitating the whole situation; again, no easy answers here - best to be done at this point is bilateral disarmament and raprochment, but unfortunately the rogue elements on both sides will inevitably cause a flair up - and only a minor incident is needed at this point (remember how the whole thing started this time? some Israeli pol visited the wrong holy place, and off went the bombs again - i mean really, if you are that easily inflammed then what's left?

but then again, we live in a world where an angry mob kills a person because of a RUMOR that he desecrated the Koran (desecrated=threw on the ground; good a reason to off someone as anything...) - this is fanaticism, and unfortunately, the problem will only go away when humanity grows up and realizes the dead end that is theism (just my opinion on that, feel free to disagree); now accuse me of oversimplification on this one, but I think it almost makes its own argument - i mean, at least it would eliminate the smoke screen that allows things like Sunni / Shia conflict to take on overtones of "god aid so" and contextualize it in the reality that is "you lok / sound / smell different from me so I want to kill you, especially because I / my great to the nth degree grandfather saw you / your great to the nth degree grandfater eyeing my water / food / woman / goat...