| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Easter "gift": Iran says freeing kidnapped British sailors |
| 2007-04-04 |
| The President of Iran shook hands with the British hostages this afternoon after announcing he was freeing them. The men were dressed in The sailors will leave Tehran early Thursday and arrive at London's Heathrow airport around 1200 GMT, said Robin Air, father of Royal Marine Capt. Chris Air. Families will be reunited with the crew later Thursday at a military base, he said. |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #41 Good catch tw. I was inclined to cite the same money quote in Joe's post. There's usually a few nuggets to dig out of his grammatical hash. If he's right, there may even be hope for post-2008 America after all. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-04 23:22 |
| #40 I really don't think either party really wants to be in charge over the next presidential term. We are due for this business cycle to end and the boomers are going to start retiring. But 08 is going to be a much better cycle than 2012 is. Thats when the boomers are retiring in DROVES. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2007-04-04 23:19 |
| #39 wow...TW actually reads that stuff! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-04 22:43 |
| #38 A DEMOCRAT POTUS AFTER 2008 MAY NOT BE ENUFF TO SAVE RADICAL ISLAM FROM DEFEAT. Hear, hear! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-04-04 22:37 |
| #37 Question #8: If it's an Easter gift when they give them back, what gift was it when they took them? Answer: Passover |
| Posted by: Master of Obvious 2007-04-04 22:19 |
| #36 Moud is PC indirectly warning the Brits catastrophic, 9-11 style-or-greater WMD Terror will occur in Britain iff Britain doesn't separate from America. IMO Dubya will NOT "blink" + pull the USA out of the ME NOR "REDEPLOY". IMO DUBYA WILL STAY IN THE ME EVEN IFF HIS LIFE IS ON THE LINE vv AMER HIROSHIMA, EVEN IFF THE USG-NPE + WASHINGTON DC, etal. GLOW IN THE DARK. The day is looming where not even nuke weapons NOR an anti-US, isolationist, pro-Globalism "DEFEAT = VICTORY, RETREAT = PROGRESS,"AMERICA = RUSSIA/CHINA/ ASIA",.......etc. post-Dubya POTUS will help Moud + Radical Islam's agendas. A DEMOCRAT POTUS AFTER 2008 MAY NOT BE ENUFF TO SAVE RADICAL ISLAM FROM DEFEAT. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-04-04 21:20 |
| #35 Come on, crosspatch. We both know that you cannot prove a negative. Besides, you also know darn well that such monetary transfers aren't made through banks, they're made using diplomatic pouches. I maintain that the conspicuous absence of punishment for Iranian misdeeds lends greater probability to some sort of appeasement having happened. It is a more than reasonable and well-justified assumption to make. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-04 20:17 |
| #34 No April 6th then? |
| Posted by: Victor Emmanuel Grusong8179 2007-04-04 20:14 |
| #33 "unverified" is the operative word. I would be interested in your sources. But to be honest, some countries pay ransoms all the time. The Italians with Iraqi terrorists and Germans with Taliban are a couple of examples. As for punishment ... go down to your bank and try to make a wire transfer to a bank in Iran. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2007-04-04 20:09 |
| #32 Unverified Italian and Philippine ransoms are just the beginning. More than anything, it is the conspicuous lack of punishment for previous trangressions that make such deals more probable than not. If we were actively punishing Iran for its aggression there would be no need of any quid pro quo. Iran is not being punished, conspicuously or not, therefore deals are indicated. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-04 20:02 |
| #31 "far too many back-channel deals have been made without the least bit of light being shed upon them. " Specifics, please Exactly which "back channel deals" are you talking about and how do you know about them? |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2007-04-04 19:56 |
| #30 ONLY the Iranians say they are getting access to the 5 future deadguys captured in Iran. Their word is less than worthless |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-04 19:49 |
| #29 But no actual facts. I don't know if you've noticed, crosspatch, but of late far too many back-channel deals have been made without the least bit of light being shed upon them. The final upshot is that there is very little reason to believe that more of the same has not happened this time around. Like the Palestinians, Iran rarely misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity for showing the least semblance of sanity or rationality. Britain's last go 'round with Iran certainly lends ZERO credibility to any substantial threats having been made against the mullahs. My money remains on appeasement especially, by "Soft Power" Britain. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-04 19:44 |
| #28 Post #24 in the "Iranian leader pardons detained Britons" thread: From The Corner (and this guy reports daily on Iran) his thoughts are scary. Hostages Freed: What Was the Quid Pro Quo? [Mario Loyola] Iranian president Ahmadinejad did just announce that the Brits will be released today. As some of us predicted, the quid pro quo included concessions by the United States—we know that Iranian officials will now be allowed to visit the five Iranian "diplomats" detained by the United States in Iraq for supporting the insurgency. What we haven't seen yet—but it probably won't be long—are the details of the promises Iran extracted concerning its territorial integrity. Iran knows that as it races towards nuclear breakout, it is getting very close to a military confrontation with the United States. Getting the British to agree to back down from the nuclear standoff—and getting them to promise not to allow the U.S. to use the airbase at Diego Garcia—would be an enormous victory for the Mullahs. And it shouldn't be long before they start bragging about it. Posted by Sherry Well, that didn't take long, did it? Let's see if this proves out. My cynicism meter has been pegging since I first saw the prisoner release announcement. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-04 19:36 |
| #27 "While we are both making assumptions, mine tends to be supported more by previous patterns" But no actual facts. On the other hand, I quoted Tony Blair who made an explicit reference to a 48-hour time period and in the same breath mentioned that there were two possible paths while hinting that the second path would be a difficult one yet he was prepared to embark on it if required. When you get some evidence of your speculation, please do post it because it would be very interesting. What we have given them is a chance to save some face and not look completely idiotic. As far as I know the only thing they have been given is a chance to visit with their operators who were arrested inside Iraq. If you have any specific knowledge of anything else, please, don't hold back. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2007-04-04 19:30 |
| #26 Zen - I guess we'll have to wait to see how long before they pull the stunt again. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-04-04 19:24 |
| #25 I did read somewhere around here about Clinton firing all the prosecutors, including the one investigating him. By wacking them all, he got rid of the overzealous guy chasing after him. Funny, I don't remember a big outcry at the time. Hey! Maybe that's what Swan was talking about? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-04-04 19:23 |
| #24 The bottom line is, Iran blinked. How can you be so sure? Too many previous back door deals, secretly paid ransoms and "prisoner |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-04 19:21 |
| #23 uh huh....riiiggghhtttt. The media has ignored the prosecutor firing story? Are you high? Ohhhh an academic.... nevermind |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-04 19:09 |
| #22 I hope you don't mind an off-topic comment, but this is important: There is a great post on The Carpetbagger Report from a few days ago about the mainstream media's (specifically Time magazine's) ignoring the prosecutor purge scandal. http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10367.html What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldnÂ’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something? It wouldnÂ’t be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldnÂ’t talk about it. |
| Posted by: Swan 2007-04-04 19:05 |
| #21 ok then if you want to send a message to the mullahs that you mean business, but don't want the world to think your starting a war wouldn't subs not coming home send a nice message. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2007-04-04 19:03 |
| #20 yes - diesel electrics (3 or 4, IIRC, neither CIA fact book or FAS.org list actual numbers) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-04 19:01 |
| #19 I wonder if Iran still has all it subs, don't they have a few? |
| Posted by: djohn66 2007-04-04 18:50 |
| #18 I'm also in the "Iran blinked" club. The hostages had no additional PR value. Blair DID issue a veiled 48 hr deadline. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-04 18:42 |
| #17 "We'll probably find out in a decade or so." Or maybe even two. The bottom line is, Iran blinked. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2007-04-04 18:14 |
| #16 We'll probably find out in a decade or so. |
| Posted by: Mac 2007-04-04 18:10 |
| #15 "Great Britain made no "48 hour" utilmatum." Yes they certainly did. What Blair said in public was: the next 48 hours would be "fairly critical" in resolving the dispute. "All the way through this, we've had two tracks on this," Blair said in an interview with Real Radio in Glasgow. "One is to make sure Iran understands that the pressure is there available to us if this thing has to be hard and tough and long." The other option is a peaceful resolution, the prime minister said. According to The Ledger. The AP reported: Blair said earlier Tuesday the next 48 hours would be critical to resolving the standoff over the British personnel Remember that what is said in public and what is said in private are two different things. But in bringing up a specific time ... 48 hours ... Blair was sending an important message to the public that things were going to take a dramatic change after that point if the issue wasn't settled. It was settled within that time. I was saying that I wondered what was told privately to Iran. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2007-04-04 18:07 |
| #14 So did the US give back any Iranian "diplomats" caught in Iraq as part of the quid pro quo? The pain in my side said "yes." But that's just me. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2007-04-04 17:43 |
| #13 Strike that: I meant "two generations" ago this matter would have been settled. Those people knew what it meant to be free and what it took to remain free. |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2007-04-04 17:43 |
| #12 Great Britain made no "48 hour" utilmatum. GB folded. A deal was cut. We don't know the particulars, but they'll be made known in due course. The EU, UN, and NATO left GB hanging dry. Abandoned. But that is no excuse. GB, once upon a time, had the wherewithal to handle the crisis on their own. That is no longer true. GB's military personnel folded quicker than their gov't. Folded w/o pressure or coersion. Anybody see a bruise on the faces of the Brit personnel laying prostrate at the feet of Islam on television. No? Neither did I. The Brit military returning home as a "gift" from the Iranian state of terrorism should be shunned for flagrant cowardice "under fire". No...not under fire...under "threat" of fire...Sheesh. Your military best be able to point to scars and bruises earned while holding out against the onslaught of Iranian torture. No brusies? No scars? Then you're all just punks, right? If the Brits have any hope and want to remain part of Western Civ, they might want to recall the example set by Fabrizio Quatorrchi. Who was he? Just an Italian MAN who taught the muzzies how a MAN is prepared to die. Clearly, the Brits know nothing of the example set by Fabrizzio. Or of John Moyse. Think I am too harsh with the Brits? Fu*k you and your parents. Your parents raised you to be pussies. And your parents are pussies. Which is why we are where we're at now in this war. A generation ago, by this time, this is all over. And the good guys win. I can't say that now because of the cowards I have to share this country with now. I'm angry. It's well past time to start killing. |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2007-04-04 17:34 |
| #11 Seems Syria is claiming that they 'helped'. You have to wonder if Nancy make any promises in the name of the United States while she was there.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2007-04-04 17:24 |
| #10 The HMS Vengence can now go back to targeting Argentina. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-04-04 17:19 |
| #9 I'm still waiting to see what the quid pro quo was for all this. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-04 17:05 |
| #8 If it's an Easter gift when they give them back, what gift was it when they took them? |
| Posted by: plainslow 2007-04-04 17:02 |
| #7 Muslims don't celebrate Easter. Of course, Zenster, but the Brits do, and now they get to be grateful to Iran for giving them reason to celebrate instead of mourn -- in Ahmadenijad's mind he's the magnanimous Muslim protecting the dhimmis from their own rulers. From further in the posted article: Mr Ahmadinejad said he had pardoned them as an Easter present for the British people and to mark the birthday of the Prophet Mohammed. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-04-04 17:00 |
| #6 I got an easter gift for Armadhicokcy. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-04-04 17:00 |
| #5 I see the Iranians have their hostages tricked out in civilian clothing. They look more like a varsity debate team than members of British Naval Service. Which I suppose was the intent. |
| Posted by: mrp 2007-04-04 16:42 |
| #4 Muslims don't celebrate Easter. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-04 16:41 |
| #3 Looks like Blair's 48-hour ultimatum worked. Wonder what it contained. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2007-04-04 16:34 |
| #2 Fixed... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-04-04 16:22 |
| #1 Sorry. Posted too soon again -- this should be Iran. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-04-04 16:17 |