The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Dealing With Terrorist States (Iran Hostage Thread)
Posts
Then your a fucking moron for being so naive.
So, when an American politician does something wrong they don't represent the government but when an Iranian poliitician says something they are clearly speaking for the government.
As measured by "number of civilians needlessly killed" then Westerners are more evil.
If measured by the moral ideology of our societies then Muslim theocracies are more evil hands down.
Can we leave "evil" out of the equation, since its not really a defineable variable and can be skewed to mean whatever someone wants.
Evil defined as number of Native Americans killed? USA #1!
Evil defined as number of suicide bombers financed? Iran, with Japan taking honorable mention!
See what I mean? When we start talking about "Evil" we end up having our elected officials saying stupid shit like "Axis of Evil" and getting a moderate Western friendly government voted out of office in favor of right wing hard liners.
The American government says that it has the right to use any force they wish against countries that dare to challenge it's superiority in any arena whatsoever.
Please explain how "we can kill who we want, when we want" is any better than muslim theocracy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=446679&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490
...
So is that like the New York Times? :P I corrected my post anyways. I'm curious as to how most UK folk (besides Gorak) are thinking about this outcome?
I remember visiting New Zealand in 1999 and the number question I was asked was about Monica Lewinsky, ha ha.
Daily Mail is like Fox News, but without the credibility.
I also think you're ignoring intent. Western liberalism's intent is not to "kill, convert, or subjugate anyone who disagrees." Even neocons believe they are "freeing" the Iraqis, not subjugating and humiliating them as dhimmis. You can make the argument that we just want oil, but then Muslim countries have fought over oil and Iraqis are currently embroiled in a sectarian war over which side controls the oil of Iraq. That's just warfare over economic resources, which has been consistent among all cultures throughout all history.
I agree with Chomsky that America has become an evil empire and we have a shitload of blood on our hands. But I've noticed that you seem to think any criticism of any other nation or ideology is invalid because "we're just as bad!" Even if we were just as bad—which I disagree with—that doesn't invalidate or even interact with our criticism of other countries.
America has been pretty horrible through recent history. That doesn't excuse the actions of other horrible places in the slightest. At the most you could merely argue that Western atrocity has promoted foreign atrocity in various ways... But again, there is no excuse.
I mean, folks, the US has gotten up to some dastardly shit. That's historical fact. That other countries are also dastardly is irrelevant to criticism of the United States for its misdeeds. You could make the argument that Average Dastardly Behavior creates a standard, and the US falls below or at that standard, making it merely following a norm, but I would argue that the standard is set by the ideal. In this case, that would probably be Sweden or Switzerland or some such well behaved country. Likewise, that the US is dastardly has nothing to do with all the dastardly shit Iran does.
I know that I have both the time and the burning hate to criticize everyone! I don't have to enact some conservation-of-condemnation policy.
And people taking Chomsky seriously is kind of funny/sad.
So, apparently, we're against us.
I can see that for politics, evolution and artificial intelligence, but you gotta take him seriously on linguistics, given that he basically re-invented the entire discipline.
When the criticism is being boiled down to something like "they're evil", then it is definitely worth pointing out that they are behaving the same as every other government does. Also, the most vociferous claimants of Iran's evil seem to be those completely unable to recognise this double standard.
I believe it's known as the "Clinton Doctrine".
How ironic.
Anyways, I could see this just being Iran toying around with the west and making Britain look weak, but it seems like there is something more to this story. I mean, they were pretty clearly lying about their intentions for capturing the sailors in the first place (even though those intentions were not indecipherable). Though this incident has fanned the America/Britain/The West sucks flames, as is immediately evident.
Parading? Cruel? Hostages? I saw one video of the marines in holding and then a couple of videos of them doing (most likely staged) video press releases. I didn't see any parading, or bags over heads, or nudity, or simulated sexual acts or anything I could even loosely describe as cruel. I don't know, maybe htey gave them a really shitty brand of cigarettes to smoke? Also they weren't hostages, they were prisoners. They weren't holding them to ransom, they weren't making any demands. Seriously, are you're posts edited by Fox News or what?
Iran are cunts and I wouldn't trust their president with a sack of gravel but I just get the impression your chomping at the bit for a fucking war with them.
And equally nor do you or LondonBridge know fuckall. It's all abject speculation. The only thing we do no for sure is that they are coming home.
A threat of some sort, but if the Iranians were smart, it was probably subtle. Probably. It'll still be funny to watch US and British officials get huffy and puffy about their treatment.
What's the point in speculation? It would be based on my own bias anyway. They could've been tortured, they could've been told that if they just said this they'd get to go home, they might've been sent into Iranian waters with the specific intention of getting captured so that Iran's response could be smeared across the press in an attempt to precipitate a war with Iran, they might be alien clones sent from mars to destabilize global politics to soften the world up for an invasion, or they might just have thought it was their best hope of getting on YouTube.
The point is, any speculation on that topic is purely speculation and nothing shows up a persons motives and prejudices like the flavor of their speculations.
I will certainly give you that.
Although, side note, every one of my linquistics-majoring friends (the entire Chinese language department at Michigan State) absolutely despises him. I suspect professional jealousy, or hearing/seeing his name pretty much everywhere.
I love the people choking up about (but not directly saying) that they can't have their war with Iran now.
They were so happy. What have you done with our jingoistic warmongers, Iran? What have you done?
This whole thing could have been a monty python skit.
What would they be carrying in their luggage? I'd imagine Iran confiscated all their military equipment. Were they carrying toiletries, duty free fags and a change of undies along with them on their water patrol?
I'm very curious to know how they were coerced. However this whole thing just went surreal. The Iranians gave them goody bags? If anybody won it's the sailors as they're instant celebrities now. Now all they have to is make publishing and movie of the week deals, maybe guest star on Dr. Who.
"Thank you for having us"
"More tea?"
"Dont mind if I do"
"Oh, and dont foget your goodie bags before you go"
"Why thank you, you've been so very nice to us"
And you have all these pissy ambassadors who have finally gotten into the room going "wait... what?"
Seriously monty python...
"I'm a prisoner of war?"
"No you're not"
"Yes I am, I was taken at gunpoint!"
"We said please"
"I was detained for 12 days!"
"We gave you goodie bags, and new suits"
"..."
"Do prisoners of war get goodie bags?"
"..."
"come on..."
"no."
"and to prisoners of war get new suits?"
"no"
"so..."
"So we're NOT prisoners of war?"
"hooray!"
That was the point. Iran wanted to prove they can fuck with our shit ni the Middle East any time they please.
:^:
Yet ironically they apparently decided to dress the woman up like a parking cone
They looked like they were tucking into a pretty good curry on the video too.
As for why they'd make the statements they did; I think I saw some retired general type on the BBC saying that they tell the troops to make any statements the group holding them asks for because no-one is ever going to hold them responsible for it when they're released.
I'm telling you man, they entered Iranian waters to get their faces on YouTube. 'We're going to make a fortune!' 'YouTube's free you idiots!'