UK captives tell of ill treatment

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


In fact, as Human beings we have a tendancy to emulate what we are subject to, even if it is not "direct". So your scenerio holds truth where you think it doesn't. If you are beat by your father, chances are you are going to grow up and be abusive to random others,

I was beaten by my father
but I didn't grow up to be abusive to random others (well outside of posting at forums )
this is because I know the difference between right and wrong
this is because I am a human being
but like you said
theres nothing humane about military power
except the people who get ruined by it
but in this case that doesnt apply
they weren't combatants engaged in hostilities
they were on a routine patrol in waters of a nation they are not at war with

as an equivalent it would be like the english taking 15 welshman hostage for fishing off the scottish coastline
i.e. not very likely
noone would be commending the British leadership for an action
and clearly anyone supporting the Iranians in this action has an agenda

Originally posted by Togetic
I haven't heard this; is there supporting documentation?

Certainly:

yahoo news
The two were arrested in 2002 in Gambia while trying to return to Britain with electronic equipment that authorities described as suspicious. The men's lawyers claim it was a battery charger.

Their lawyers have said the two were arrested after British intelligence agents passed on information about their travel plans to the United States.

"Leaving my best friend Jamil el-Banna behind in Guantanamo Bay makes my freedom bittersweet," al-Rawi said in his statement. "He too should be released and reunited with his family."

Center for Constitutional Rights.org- FACES OF GUANTÁNAMO
GUANTÁNAMO’S MANY WRONGLY IMPRISONED
Nazar Gul’s family fled Afghanistan to Pakistan when he was a child and he only returned after the fall of the Taliban. He was mistaken for an Afghan commander who served during the 1990s while Mr. Gul was working in his family’s bakery in Pakistan.

[...]

Mr. Gul spent the night in a home in Gardez. He was awakened that night by the sound of gunfire and military personnel entering the home. Although he was unarmed and cooperated fully, the military mistakenly confused him for another man - Chaman Gul, an Afghan military commander during the 1990s.

Originally posted by Togetic
Why, if those rights are universal, does it matter if they were captured in this place or that? I don't understand.

I think you misunderstand me. The reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was to show that the United States is honour bound to not torture people or deny them of their liberty without due process of the law. The same applies to Iran, who also signed the document.

Originally posted by Togetic
I haven't heard anything like this; is there supporting documentation? I'm not willing to rule anything out, but on a topic this sensitive proof is an important commodity.

Please read the above citations for proof of what I said being true.

Originally posted by Togetic
While you have decent points, the attitude brought to this discussion by all sides is not constructive. I hope I am not also guilty of it.

I only post in discussions where I think the outcome will be constructive. Hence I try not to shoot myself in the foot by being destructive with my posts. I'm being as constructive to this discussion as I can.

[edit on 7/4/07 by subz]

Originally posted by subz

[url=http://ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/docs/FACES_OF_GUANTANAMO.pdf]Center for Constitutional Rights.org- FACES OF GUANTÁNAMO

.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is a left wing anti-American law agncy who is attempting to undermine the structures and foundations of American society Hardly what I would consider a good source to quote as being honest. Put them on the level of the ACLU



Also time to remind posters of Intrepids post about taking this thread off topic.

Orginally posted by Intrepid
OK guys, I understand that it's easy to pick at members that supported or denied what happened at Gitmo et. all. but find this to be bad, that's not the topic though. Let's keep to it please.

[edit on 4/7/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by cavscout


OFF TOPIC: Selfless, you made 5 posts within an hour, interrupted by no one. That is generally considered poor form. There is an edit button you can use. Not an attack on you, just FYI.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by cavscout]

Poor form? what are you a robot?

You didn't even answer my question...

Originally posted by Marduk
there weren't american soldiers fresh from torturing terrorist suspecta at gunatanimo
they weren't even combat troops engaged in hostilities
they were sailors engaged in routine patrols in a nations waters who they were not at war with
and they were kidnapped by a foreign nation with obvious hostile intent

Well they were arrested on suspicion of espionage, so Iran believed it had the right. Neither you nor I know if that's true or not so don't try to tell us facts about it.

And what, just because they haven't tortured anyone at Gitmo you expect them to be given a nice 5-star hotel?

When coalition forces kidnap Iranians they aren't exactly nice to them, so why should Iran be nice to coalition forces?

because we aren't at war! Duh

Originally posted by Peyres
because we aren't at war! Duh

So?

If a Brazillian navy team boarded an American ship in American waters...the us would detain and interrogate, wouldnt they?

Originally posted by malganis


When coalition forces kidnap Iranians they aren't exactly nice to them, so why should Iran be nice to coalition forces?

Those are allegations that have been made and were not proven to have taken place. Every Iranian that alleges to have been captured always echo the same.

In the instance we are discussing here there is no doubt the 15 British sailors were in Iranian custody, they put it on TV for everyone to see.

[edit on 4/7/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by Agit8dChopSo?

If a Brazillian navy team boarded an American ship in American waters...the us would detain and interrogate, wouldnt they?

I don't follow. The Royal Navy boarded an Indian ship in Iraqi waters

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus

Originally posted by Agit8dChopSo?

If a Brazillian navy team boarded an American ship in American waters...the us would detain and interrogate, wouldnt they?

I don't follow. The Royal Navy boarded an Indian ship in Iraqi waters

yup exactly, I think Agit8dchop is getting mixed up with the two flags.

Might I add, the Indian crew also insisted that the troops were in Iraqi waters.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone

And I'm surprised you didn't get a warning for your comments.

No I am suprised half of them on this thread, have not had warnings yet, they have turned this thread into anotherUS V Iran bashing thread....

[edit on 7-4-2007 by spencerjohnstone]

Twisting things a bit aren't you? i said this to a person who treated another member a dumb ass and he didn't generalize either, it was directed at one person.

So next time maybe you should include the part where the person called the other person a dumb ass in your quote if you are going to say such things...

And about this thread being off topic, we all pretty much consider this to be on topic, the thread is about mistreatment of the British troops and well Gitmo is very much related to all of this on a world wide base.

This is not a bash USA thread it's a thread where people are rising up and letting it know that we don't support any form of wars or torture.

I can let you know that i don't support torture Hitler did, the torture the Japaneses did, the torture anyone ever did. I don't support any wars and i don't support dividing the world into multiple false consciousness either like
LastoutfinitevoiceEternal said.

We are all on the same side here, we all want peace.

I hope.

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus

Originally posted by Agit8dChopSo?

If a Brazillian navy team boarded an American ship in American waters...the us would detain and interrogate, wouldnt they?

I don't follow. The Royal Navy boarded an Indian ship in Iraqi waters

Sigh,

Peryes say, that this matters because we ARENT at war with Iran.
I say, it DOESNT.
For arguments sake, if brazl navy entered us waters and boarded a ship,. the US would detain, isolate and interrogate to find WHY they entered there waters.

its the same here.
ASSUMING brits DID enter Irans waters, they did exactly what any other nation would do.

Detain, Isolate and interrogate.

Detain: because its your territory and they are armed forces of another nation.
Isolate: so they cant collaborate on a foney story
Interrogate: To see exactly what they hell they were doing, entering your borders.

Illtreatment, yeah right.!

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Agit8dChop]

Regardless, they don't parade them on telly, force them to write letters against their wishes, make demands for their release, or cock weapons whilst blindfolding the captives.

This is the cruxt of the problem. The Iranians have not provided any evidence regarding their suspicions of espionage.

It was an eloborate PR stunt, why can't you admit it. I'm not fussed about the isolation, or the blindolds, but the Iranians tried to put across a 'vacation' illusion to the world, using state run media to do so.





[edit on 7-4-2007 by Peyres]

Originally posted by Marduk

they were illegally seized
illegally held
illegally subjected to abuse both mental and physical
now anyone who did this in the west would be subject to a war crimes trial for committing an atrocity under the Geneva convention
its a bit sickening to hear some of you posters standing up for the iranian side because of guantanimo and other such places
ask yourself
how many iranians were at guantanimo and how many british troops were guarding them

so by standing up for Iran you are in effect saying
"hey its ok for anyone to use any justification for anything even when its not related"
and that quite frankly is a load of crap
like I should come round and smack your mother in the mouth because my sister once got slapped by an ex boyfriend when he was drunk
get real

I think you didn't get the point marduk, there are some detainees at Gitmo who are innocent as well so there is no justifying any side but let's not also just look at one side and ignore the rest either.....

We don't ''support'' Iran, we don't ''support'' Britain, we don't ''support'' USA

We support the world, big difference.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by Agit8dChopits the same here.
ASSUMING brits DID enter Irans waters, they did exactly what any other nation would do.

Detain, Isolate and interrogate.

Detain: because its your territory and they are armed forces of another nation.

No, other countries may ask them some questions there and then, but they would certainly escort them out of their waters. Why did they not detain the crew of the merchant vessel as well? If they were in Iranian waters, and interacting with the Royal Navy, why didn't the Iranians ask them even one question?

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus

Originally posted by Agit8dChopits the same here.
ASSUMING brits DID enter Irans waters, they did exactly what any other nation would do.

Detain, Isolate and interrogate.

Detain: because its your territory and they are armed forces of another nation.

Why did they not detain the crew of the merchant vessel as well?

I never even thought of that!

The crew also informed the Iraqi authorities that they were adamant both the merchant vessel and the British were in Iraqi waters.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Peyres]

Originally posted by Peyres
This is the cruxt of the problem. The Iranians have not provided any evidence regarding their suspicions of espionage.
It was an eloborate PR stunt, why can't you admit it. I'm not fussed about the isolation, or the blindolds, but the Iranians tried to put across a 'vacation' illusion to the world, using state run media to do so.
[edit on 7-4-2007 by Peyres]

Im not saying it wasnt a major PR propoganda stunt.
Im just saying, people say Iran acted illegially in taking them and isolating them. And that they didnt follow normal procedure when TAKING them.

Parading on TV?
I do not understand why this is such a big deal. Id be more worried about how both nations cannot prove the exact location...

But maybe it was a proof of life?
I mean, everyone here is accusing them of doing illtreatment by isolating them.
Imagine the accusations flying when the imaginations kick in after they DONT show them on TV.

The letters were nothing but poltiics. Iran knows as soon as they are recieved they would be dismissed. Its not like it said '' dear mom they are going to kill me unless we leave Iraq ''

The Iranians are making a 'vacation' mirage, they showed them during detention. Its not like they can turn that around now..

I think what they are trying to tell you, is that we took care of them.
They were fed, we clothed them, we allowed them to show to their famileis ' we are ok, dont worry '

Its a hell of a lot more than the coalition is doing atm.
Yet people still jump up and down making a fuss how bad they are.

The British and US had entered on MANY occasion.
The last time the British were captured, a promse was made never to do it again.

Maybe thats why this time they decided to take them, and make sure the west got the message.

Iran arent going to be pushed around by the west.

And as for the ship,

in my scenario, if it was an accepted ship the US knew about in iits borders, why would they interrogate them?

as for this indian ship, its said to be a local in the area, to frequent it often.

I found this little tibit very telling



I just had to post that portion because it clearly shows how ruthless they were with the British Prisoners. One minute they parade them in front of the president and many claimed oh look how nice they are being treated. Well here you have the real truth. All was not as fit appeared to be

Originally posted by shots
it clearly shows how ruthless they were with the British Prisoners.

what an absolute hoot shots
How can you honestly say, while holding you chin up that it was ruthless.

Jesus, i am flabergasted that youd type such things.

Your excuse of it being in print, thus you are just wording the article is bs.

Its your choice to spew the propoganda you read.

What a load of bs,.