Fury as Bishops back Iran

[Timothy_486]

Do you have any documentation for this statement? All the maps I saw showed the Brits in Iraqi waters by about 1 1/2 miles.

here is an article explaining how the GPS navigation was sketchy:

craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/04/possible_proble.html

here was the british mishap of releasing 2 different locations:

craigmurrayfriends.blogspot.com/2007/04/british-mod-issued-two-different.html

here is an article on the fake boundaries:

craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/03/fake_maritime_b.html

and here is an essay on the on going problems between iraq and iran waterways:

american.edu/ted/ice/iraniraq.htm

 

[geezerbob]

here is an article explaining how the GPS navigation was sketchy:

craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/04/possible_proble.html

here was the british mishap of releasing 2 different locations:

craigmurrayfriends.blogspot.com/2007/04/british-mod-issued-two-different.html

here is an article on the fake boundaries:

craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/03/fake_maritime_b.html

and here is an essay on the on going problems between iraq and iran waterways:

american.edu/ted/ice/iraniraq.htm

There is absolutely nothing in any of these links which support the original statement. In fact, craigmurray only raises questions and asks for answers.

Both sets of coordinates were still within what was considered Iraqi waters by most of the world, Iran excluded, of course.

A disputed border should hardly be called fake. There’s got to be a demarcation somewhere and the fact that it’s been disputed for over 350 years doesn’t change that. Also, the fact that it’s disputed doesn’t automatically make the Iranians right and the British wrong. If the area is disputed, either side can claim to be right with equal authority. Common sense says to avoid confrontations and arrests, hostage taking, or whatever you want to call it, in disputed areas. That’s how wars get started.

Finally, this thread is supposed to be a discussion of the bishop’s statement. Discussions about who was right and who was wrong in the incident should be taken to an appropriate thread in the War on Terror forum.

 

[Timothy_486]

Finally, this thread is supposed to be a discussion of the bishop’s statement. Discussions about who was right and who was wrong in the incident should be taken to an appropriate thread in the War on Terror forum.

well you were the one who asked so thats why I gave you my answer

 

[LRThunder]

Here we go again, the whole “X=Hitler” analogy. I’ve noticed those who use that formula the most tend to use Hitler’s logic and techniques the most also

Don’t even go there. Maybe I should’ve said Iran is untrustworthy on the fact that it’s a theocratic dictatorship? Would that have been a more respectable answer? The fact remains that Iran cannot be trusted. We can trust what democratic leaders can say, but not dictators, be it a German, Italian, Soviet, or Iranian dictator.

 

[Timothy_486]

Don’t even go there. Maybe I should’ve said Iran is untrustworthy on the fact that it’s a theocratic dictatorship? Would that have been a more respectable answer? The fact remains that Iran cannot be trusted. We can trust what democratic leaders can say, but not dictators, be it a German, Italian, Soviet, or Iranian dictator.

Wasn’t Hitler democratically elected?

oh wait… and so was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!

So I guess your saying we can trust them because they were democratically elected right?

 

[LRThunder]

Wasn’t Hitler democratically elected?

oh wait… and so was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!

So I guess your saying we can trust them because they were democratically elected right?

Elections in countries don’t always indicate democracies. Hitler might have been “elected” (actually, he was appointed Chancellor by the German President after the Nazis got a significant number of votes for the Reichstag) and so might have been the Iranian President, but I wonder how many true opposition parties there were. In any case, Iran’s government is not based on secular democracy, but on Islamic law, which is pretty much a dictatorship.

But that’s getting off the track. While it is a possibility that the British might have been in Iranian waters, I don’t think the Iranians making that claim makes it true in of itself. Iran has a history that proves it to be untrustworthy. Maybe if it didn’t have a history of sponsoring terrorism, I could believe Iran easier. But since they have a history of sponsoring terrorism, I’m not going to take their word for it and neither should anybody.

 

[Timothy_486]

Elections in countries don’t always indicate democracies. Hitler might have been “elected” (actually, he was appointed Chancellor by the German President after the Nazis got a significant number of votes for the Reichstag) and so might have been the Iranian President, but I wonder how many true opposition parties there were. In any case, Iran’s government is not based on secular democracy, but on Islamic law, which is pretty much a dictatorship.

But that’s getting off the track. While it is a possibility that the British might have been in Iranian waters, I don’t think the Iranians making that claim makes it true in of itself. Iran has a history that proves it to be untrustworthy. Maybe if it didn’t have a history of sponsoring terrorism, I could believe Iran easier. But since they have a history of sponsoring terrorism, I’m not going to take their word for it and neither should anybody.

even a broken clock is right twice a day

And I’m sure Iran could also point to acts that our government and their branches like the CIA have done in the past (like supporting the Shah) that would be considered “terrorism” by them. They may not be a great and free nation (I’m certainly more glad to live here than there) but considering how often our government has been lying more and more I am willing to bet you will hear more truth from the Tehran Times than you will from the White House spokesman.

 

[Holly3278]

Personally I agree with the bishops.

 

[MikeWM]

And I’m sure Iran could also point to acts that our government and their branches like the CIA have done in the past (like supporting the Shah) that would be considered “terrorism” by them.

Indeed. Or overthrowing their democratically-elected government because we wanted their oil revenue. See ‘Operation Ajax’. We may have forgotten that, but they certainly haven’t.

They may not be a great and free nation (I’m certainly more glad to live here than there) but considering how often our government has been lying more and more I am willing to bet you will hear more truth from the Tehran Times than you will from the White House spokesman.

I wouldn’t say more, but I don’t trust anything either side say when an incident that can be used for so much propaganda, like this one, has occurred.

Thanks for the Craig Murray links, btw, I haven’t looked at his blog for a while but it is always an interesting read.

As for this statement

We can trust what democratic leaders can say,

Even if they contradict one another? Ok, I’ll believe every word that Hugo Chavez says from now on then

As for the good Bishop, I see no problem with what he said. It is Easter, after all. Anglican Bishop Nazir-Ali has different reasons for what he said, and I’m not convinced by him at all, but our Bishop Burns seems pretty decent.

Mike