Ahmadenijad the Great vs. Blair the Ingrate
Perhaps some peope won't agree that Ahmadinejad is 'Great' (though I think he is). But, throughout the latest incident he conducted himself both with integrity and grace. Meanwhile, Phony Tony has once again demonstrated to the world what a small-minded, back-stabbing, zionist boot-licker he is.
The 15 British marines and sailors held captive in Iran for nearly two weeks arrived back home today. But Britain’s relief at their safe return was tarnished by questions about how they behaved during their detention and why they had been captured in the first place.At the same time, Prime Minister Tony Bair abandoned the careful, diplomatic language he used during the crisis. Today, when the captives were safely en route to Britain, his tone became tough, almost antagonistic, as he spoke of possible links between the Iranian government and terrorism in Iran.
In short, he's a two-faced ingrate.
The British captives’ homecoming was carefully choreographed.
On Wednesday, before their release in Tehran, they were shown on television wearing outfits issued by the Iranian government — ill-fitting suits for the men and a headscarf and trousers for the lone woman, Leading Seaman Faye Turney. But when they arrived at Heathrow Airport outside London today, the eight sailors and seven marines were dressed once more in military clothing that had been flown in from Britain.
How petty - the sailors are returned both happy and healthy and Brits are complaining that their suits don't 'fit.' At least they're not bright orange with matching potatoe sacks for their heads!
Also worth noting, Iranians sent the sailors back in casual dress to underline the civil relationship that was forged between them and the Iranian people and their government and in recognition of their existence as human beings apart from their roles in the British military.
In stark contrast, the British government couldn't wait to get them back into military jumpsuits, underscoring the expectation that their first allegiance must be to the BRITISH MILITARY, not to themselves and their families.
This is more apparent when you consider how they're being chastised by so-called right-wing 'experts' because they failed to sacrifice their lives for Britian's 'national honor.'
Seized while conducting a routine operation in the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway, just north of the Persian Gulf, on March 23, the captives were repeatedly displayed on Iranian state television, sometimes looking relaxed and smiling. In several cases, they confessed to and apologized for having trespassed on Iranian territorial waters.
The images were jarring, verging on the bizarre. At one point they lined up for handshakes and chats with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The latest television footage showed the detainees sipping cups of tea, accepting goody bags of gifts and answering questions from Iranian journalists about things like whether Iran reminded them of Wales. Several appeared to go out of their way to thank the Iranians for releasing them.
“The treatment has been great,” Leading Seaman Turney said. “Thank you for letting us go. We apologize for our actions.”
The British defense secretary, Des Browne, said the freed marines and sailors had behaved appropriately.
“You have seen for yourself these are very young people,” Mr. Browne told the BBC. “I think they have acted with immense courage and dignity during the time that they have been detained and indeed presented before the media of the world.”
* * * Throughout what became a diplomatic stalemate, Britain maintained that the sailors and marines were sailing in Iraqi water on United Nations-mandated business. Iran contended that they had been trespassing on Iranian waterways and demanded that Britain apologize and never do it again — an apology Britain does not appear to have made, at least publicly.
The focus is now on the detainees.
Just as Ahmadenijad predicted.
were they coerced into their confessions in Iran, or did they speak voluntarily?* * *
Christopher Dandeker, a professor of military sociology at University College London, said he agreed with Colonel Dewar’s assessment. He said, too, that the captives’ behavior raised worrying issues.“I know many military people are concerned about the overly loquacious and positive statements made by the service personnel,” he said in an e-mail message. “But as yet we don’t know what kinds of coercion were present before the ‘hostages’ made their TV statements.”
Several members of the military said in interviews today that the captured Britons had probably had not received a great deal of training in how to behave if taken hostage.
“I’d be surprised if they’d had a lot of in-depth training,” said an officer in the British Army, speaking on condition that his name not be used because he had not cleared the interview with his commanding officer. Before he served in Iraq, the officer said in a telephone interview, “we had about half an hour briefing by some bored guy with slides, and he certainly wasn’t envisaging the type of situation that they got into.”The officer said that the captives’ first priority was, undoubtedly, getting back home. “I’m sure there will be lots of old people back home who will criticize, but most currently serving soldiers would probably say, do what you need to get out.”
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defense said the military offered “basic captive training” but would not elaborate.
“We’re not releasing the details of the training any of the services go through under those conditions because if we do that than it would make it easier to interrogate them” should they be taken captive, the spokesman said, speaking on condition of anonymity in accordance with British government policy.
Writing in the British newspaper The Daily Mail, a popular right-leaning newspaper, a columnist, Steven Glover, compared the captives’ behavior unfavorably to that of their predecessors in earlier conflicts.
“I do not blame the hostages for their apparent willingness to confess and apologize,” Mr. Glover wrote. “But we had better be honest with ourselves. In no previous era — not during World War II or Korea or Suez or the Falklands — would British servicemen have behaved in such a manner.”
The difference which is lost on this right-wing warmonger is that the UK and Iran ARE NOT AT WAR and this was not a military incident but a legitimate police action incident to what Iranians perceived, fairly expectedly, as foreign trespass in their maritime waters.
Besides, he's just upset that these sailors demonstrated for the world that a little diplomacy and goodwill goes a long way in maintaining peace with Iranians.
The UK has apparently appointed one of the freed marines as an official spokesperson and fed him a tale to tell.
Of course, if they were blindfolded and kept under harsh conditions, like this guy alleges, the Iranians would have been less likely to let them go.
I call bullshit on the Brits.
It will be interesting to see whether the British government will allow the rest of the freed sailors to speak to the press.
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.
Moscow to Get New Air Defense System in August
___________ IMPLICATION: Russia, and the rest of the world is 'ready' for a showdown, if the KhaZars want to 'play.'
Created: 06.04.2007 14:46 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 14:51 MSK, 9 hours 17 minutes ago
http://MosNews.com
According to a senior air defense commander Russia plans to put new air defense systems on combat duty around Moscow in the end of August.
___________ IMPLICATION: They are protecting their largest city from ANOTHER Ashkenazi GENOCIDE --- they will NOT allow another "Bolshelvik" to happen.
“We are expecting to receive S-400 systems to protect the airspace around the capital in July-August,” Colonel-General Yury Solovyov, commander of the Air Defense Forces Special Command, was quoted by RIA Novosti as saying.
_____________ IMPLICATION: These S-400 air DEFENSE systems are the state-of-the-art in the world, they are highly mobile - thus, making them more resilient to any Zionist Sabotage attempt.
The general said that the system could be also used for limited purposes in missile and space defense, but it is not intended to destroy intercontinental ballistic missiles.
_____________ IMPLICATION: Not "intended" to destroy intercontinental (US/UK) ballistic missiles, but very much capable of doing so.
The system is highly capable of destroying stealth aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles with an effective range of up to 3,500 km and a speed of up to 4.8 km per second, he said.
______________ IMPLICATIONS: Highly capable of destroying Stealth fighters (even the newly F-22), Cruise missiles (remember Gulf War?!!), and Ballistic missles. Range of 3,500 km is damn far --- FYI, it almost the WIDTH OF THE USA from Coast to Coast, or in other words ANYWHERE IN EUROPE, AUSTRALIA, CANADA, USA --- anywhere the KhaZars can hide.
______________ By the way, 4.8 kps is 14 TIMES THE SPEED OF SOUND (343 m/s in Air at 20C), which can EASILY catch up to a Stealth fighter which travels at 3 MACH max for short bursts at that. In other words, it'll take about 11 MINUTES to travel 3,500 KM ---- you can't stop something that travels THAT FRIGGIN' FAST!!!!
The Russian Air Defense Forces currently deploy more than 30 regiments equipped with S-300 missile complexes, which will be gradually replaced with S-400 systems.
________________ IMPLICATION: The Russians KNOW what the Ashkenazis are up to, they are "upgrading" for any future "confrontation".
Blair's attempt to claw back some of his PR losses involves promoting the theory that the roadside bomb that killed 4 UK troops was Iranian-made, with the implication being that Ahmadinejad is a hypocrite who poses as a 'friend' who wants peace as he kills Brits in Iraq. Blair's 'evidence' consists of a statement by a Basra police commander that the bomb may have been Iranian because it hadn't been seen in that area before, and, according to the US, matched a description of an Iranian-designed bomb.
In contrast, Bush, Blair and their agents are sometimes observed going to Israel, ostensibly for "peace talks". The reality is that they have to receive their orders behind closed doors, since phones can be tapped. At the same time, it is no secret that Israel is supplied with US-built weapons, shipped via Scotland or England, to be targeted on Lebanese and Palestinian people. It would be no surprise if Iranians felt threatened by British or US forces. But Lebanon or Gaza pose no threat to the British or US regimes.
Troops posted to Iraq now have additional incentive to 'accidentally' get captured by Iranian forces. If they go to Iraq, the locals try to blow them up. If they go to Iran, they get goody bags with CDs, candy, nuts, books and Iranian crafts, suits - albeit ill-fitting - to take away, they get to go home, and most importantly, they get to shake the hand of a world-class statesman who, unlike almost all the rest, is not a lying, cheating, fawning, double-dealing, parallel-fornicating, genocidal, treasonous, dangerous sociopath.