[GreatBriton]

Quote:

It's the Brits who should be kissing Irans ass right now for this... trespassing into their own territory with their rubber dingys... serves them right.

The British were in IRAQI waters under the UN.

The British aren't gonna be kissing Iran's ass - we'll be kicking it soon if we don't get our soldiers back.

[Calgary123]

GreatBriton wrote:

Quote:

It's the Brits who should be kissing Irans ass right now for this... trespassing into their own territory with their rubber dingys... serves them right.

The British were in IRAQI waters under the UN.

The British aren't gonna be kissing Iran's ass - we'll be kicking it soon if we don't get our soldiers back.

Quote:

The British were in IRAQI waters under the UN.

Really?... prove it. And no need to post some piece of crap from Sky News either. I don't read propoganda... other than for a laugh.

[EyeBrock]

Calgary123 wrote:

GreatBriton wrote:

Quote:

It's the Brits who should be kissing Irans ass right now for this... trespassing into their own territory with their rubber dingys... serves them right.

The British were in IRAQI waters under the UN.

The British aren't gonna be kissing Iran's ass - we'll be kicking it soon if we don't get our soldiers back.

Quote:

The British were in IRAQI waters under the UN.

Really?... prove it. And no need to post some piece of crap from Sky News either. I don't read propoganda... other than for a laugh.

No you just believe the enemies propaganda.

[Tricks]

Calgary123 wrote:

GreatBriton wrote:

Quote:

It's the Brits who should be kissing Irans ass right now for this... trespassing into their own territory with their rubber dingys... serves them right.

The British were in IRAQI waters under the UN.

The British aren't gonna be kissing Iran's ass - we'll be kicking it soon if we don't get our soldiers back.

Quote:

The British were in IRAQI waters under the UN.

Really?... prove it. And no need to post some piece of crap from Sky News either. I don't read propoganda... other than for a laugh.

So why do you post all those articles? Those are textbook propaganda. R-tard.

[Calgary123]

EyeBrock wrote:

Calgary123 wrote:

GreatBriton wrote:

Quote:

It's the Brits who should be kissing Irans ass right now for this... trespassing into their own territory with their rubber dingys... serves them right.

The British were in IRAQI waters under the UN.

The British aren't gonna be kissing Iran's ass - we'll be kicking it soon if we don't get our soldiers back.

Quote:

The British were in IRAQI waters under the UN.

Really?... prove it. And no need to post some piece of crap from Sky News either. I don't read propoganda... other than for a laugh.

No you just believe the enemies propaganda.

Nice dodge.

Perhaps if the Brits weren't sticking their noses in other countries affairs like they historically do... then they wouldn't be in this predicament.

[ridenrain]

Not like that friendly Iran who's guards keep turning up dead in all sorts of strange vacation places.
Calgary123: You're demands of proof are funny because you have no grasp of what proof actually is.

[Calgary123]

ridenrain wrote:

Not like that friendly Iran who's guards keep turning up dead in all sorts of strange vacation places.
Calgary123: You're demands of proof are funny because you have no grasp of what proof actually is.

And your assumptions, like the rest of the warmonger crowd here are just as funny

Most of you here already have labeled Iran an "enemy"... for the most rediculous and uneducated reasons I have ever seen.

Here's something for all of you to "believe"... Iran has WMD's!! It's TRUE!! Really... it is... this time.

[ridenrain]

Kidnapping foreign sailors would sound like a pretty hostile act from a friendly and benevolent nation, wouldn't it?

[GreatBriton]

Quote:

A senior Iranian official told the Fars news agency that the 14 British men and one woman had been taken to Tehran for further investigation. He added that 'documents and evidence existed' - including from the sailors' own GPS equipment - that demonstrated that they knew they had strayed into Iranian waters.

The claims were hotly denied by British officials and US officials, who said that the two high-powered British 'ribs' - rigid inflatable boats - were 'miles' inside Iraqi waters when they were surrounded by Iranian patrol boats on Friday.

The British claim appeared to be backed up by an eyewitness account from an Iraqi fisherman who told Reuters that he saw the capture of the servicemen, following their inspection of a ship suspected of carrying smuggled cars. The fisherman added that the ship was anchored on the Iraqi side of the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, the border between the two countries.

Quote:

The demand was supported by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who pledged 'support and solidarity' yesterday for Britain over the seizure, and said the incident must not complicate a push to impose further sanctions on Iran.

'We are doing our utmost in co-operation with the British authorities,' Solana told journalists at an EU summit in Berlin. 'They have our support and solidarity.'

He said a second UN Security Council resolution to impose sanctions on Iran would go ahead regardless. 'The resolution will follow its course,' he said.

The demand for the men's release was echoed by Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Foreign

guardian.co.uk

[Calgary123]

ridenrain wrote:

Kidnapping foreign sailors would sound like a pretty hostile act from a friendly and benevolent nation, wouldn't it?

You mean the "sailors" (that's actually funny) that are parked on Iran's doorstep?

I would have a lot more sympathy, if Iran had an armada parked off of the coast of the UK, and had taken these "sailors"... unfortunately, that isn't the case.

As far as this being a "hostile" act... the US did the same thing a few months ago... where is all the outcry? Oh ya... that's right... they were "meddling" in Iraqi affairs

For all intensive purposes... this war has already started... just like in Iraq, when Halliburton was already setting up camp well before the "shock and awe" campaign even started. Many reputable journalists (Seymor Hersh) have already reported on covert operations already taking place inside of Iran to create instability... mark "targets", etc.

[GreatBriton]

Calgary123 wrote:

And your assumptions, like the rest of the warmonger crowd here are just as funny

Most of you here already have labeled Iran an "enemy"... for the most rediculous and uneducated reasons I have ever seen.

So kidnapping foreign soldiers in foreign waters is Iran's way of showing that it is a "friendly" country?

I don't think it's ridiculous to label Iran an enemy after it has kidnapped British soldiers in Iraqi waters.

[GreatBriton]

Calgary123 wrote:

You mean the "sailors" (that's actually funny) that are parked on Iran's doorstep?

Well, they ARE sailors, considering they all work onboard HMS Cornwall in the marine armed force.

And being on Iran's doorstep matters not - they were in IRAQ, with UN support, and they had just inspected a ship suspected of smuggling cars.

[ridenrain]

".. ah yes,that's because the UN is simply a puppet of GWB and those bastard Americans.". or some other ranting jibberish.

[Tricks]

Calgary123 wrote:

ridenrain wrote:

Kidnapping foreign sailors would sound like a pretty hostile act from a friendly and benevolent nation, wouldn't it?

You mean the "sailors" (that's actually funny) that are parked on Iran's doorstep?

I would have a lot more sympathy, if Iran had an armada parked off of the coast of the UK, and had taken these "sailors"... unfortunately, that isn't the case.

As far as this being a "hostile" act... the US did the same thing a few months ago... where is all the outcry? Oh ya... that's right... they were "meddling" in Iraqi affairs

For all intensive purposes... this war has already started... just like in Iraq, when Halliburton was already setting up camp well before the "shock and awe" campaign even started. Many reputable journalists (Seymor Hersh) have already reported on covert operations already taking place inside of Iran to create instability... mark "targets", etc.

Why do you keep putting sailors in quotes?

[RUEZ]

Tricks wrote:

Why do you keep putting sailors in quotes?

Maybe he prefers the term seamen?