Hi there, !
Today Wed 03/28/2007 Tue 03/27/2007 Mon 03/26/2007 Sun 03/25/2007 Sat 03/24/2007 Fri 03/23/2007 Thu 03/22/2007 Archives
Rantburg
493025 articles and 1740413 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 74 articles and 409 comments as of 4:13.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Background    Non-WoT    Opinion    Local News       
UNSC approves new sanctions on Iran
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 1: WoT Operations
6 00:00 wxjames [6478] 
17 00:00 JosephMendiola [6513] 
19 00:00 JosephMendiola [6516] 
22 00:00 Special Brew [6514] 
7 00:00 49 Pan [6475] 
9 00:00 DragonFly [6466] 
18 00:00 trailing wife [6469] 
28 00:00 JosephMendiola [6497] 
39 00:00 JosephMendiola [6520] 
0 [6473] 
0 [6479] 
1 00:00 Glenmore [6469] 
4 00:00 Pappy [6476] 
0 [6470] 
17 00:00 USN, ret. [6473] 
4 00:00 Jackal [6481] 
1 00:00 Jackal [6472] 
0 [6469] 
4 00:00 USN, ret. [6471] 
0 [6468] 
0 [6467] 
1 00:00 Procopius2k [6473] 
0 [6466] 
0 [6466] 
4 00:00 Zenster [6471] 
2 00:00 trailing wife [6513] 
Page 2: WoT Background
16 00:00 Gerthudion Thomoque2794 [6514]
0 [6462]
4 00:00 Zenster [6468]
0 [6466]
3 00:00 FOTSGreg [6471]
1 00:00 Shipman [6473]
0 [6465]
2 00:00 Sneaze [6476]
1 00:00 trailing wife [6466]
0 [6465]
0 [6468]
0 [6467]
5 00:00 xbalanke [6470]
1 00:00 Shipman [6463]
5 00:00 Zenster [6462]
0 [6473]
2 00:00 Jackal [6469]
11 00:00 Kalle (kafir forever) [6471]
2 00:00 Jackal [6463]
11 00:00 gromgoru [6526]
3 00:00 JohnQC [6467]
Page 3: Non-WoT
0 [6468]
9 00:00 Throger Thains8048 [6470]
2 00:00 Mac [6469]
11 00:00 exJAG [6472]
0 [6463]
8 00:00 imoyaro [6474]
0 [6468]
8 00:00 Robjack [6462]
1 00:00 Jackal [6463]
0 [6463]
1 00:00 Sneaze [6463]
7 00:00 rwv [6508]
1 00:00 xbalanke [6463]
8 00:00 John Frum [6459]
8 00:00 Jackal [6493]
Page 4: Opinion
1 00:00 wxjames [6459]
1 00:00 Mac [6518]
3 00:00 twobyfour [6464]
4 00:00 Shipman [6467]
6 00:00 Shipman [6467]
4 00:00 Dave D. [6465]
18 00:00 Sgt. Mom [6499]
9 00:00 Zenster [6471]
Page 5: Russia-Former Soviet Union
6 00:00 Eric Jablow [6468]
11 00:00 Zenster [6511]
2 00:00 Zenster [6465]
9 00:00 Jan [6512]
Afghanistan
7 insurgents killed in S Afghanistan
(Xinhua) -- Clashes between Taliban militants and Afghan police left nine persons including seven militants dead in south Afghanistan, officials said Saturday. "Five Taliban fighters and two policemen were killed as they came in contact in Chora district of Uruzgan province early Saturday," police chief of Uruzgan province Mohammad Qasim told Xinhua. Four policemen were injured in the fire exchange, he added.

Two more Taliban fighters were killed and six others sustained injuries on Friday night in the neighboring Helmand province as militants and police exchanged fire near Zabul's provincial capital Qalat, a local police officer Mohammad Asif said.
Posted by: Fred || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6466 views] Top|| File under:


Africa Horn
Somali government shuts down Al-Jazeera bureau
The bureau of satellite television Al-Jazeera in the capital Mogadishu was indefinitely shuttered on Thursday following an order from intelligence officials of Somalia's Ethiopian-backed transitional government, according to news reports.

The bureau of the Qatar-based broadcaster was “effectively closed” today after the station received a letter from the transitional government’s National Security Agency (NSA) ordering the termination of its operations, correspondent Mohammed Adow told CPJ. The letter did not disclose the reason for the move, Mogadishu bureau head of operations Abshir Mohamed told the Associated Press (AP). But AP quoted Somali Information Minister Madobe Nunow Mohamed as saying that he had not seen the letter. “But I will tell you that Al-Jazeera has conveyed the wrong messages to the world. We will shut down additional radio stations and channels if they distort facts,” he said. Adow denied the allegations.
Posted by: Fred || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6481 views] Top|| File under:

#1  just like washington should do
Posted by: sinse || 03/25/2007 11:30 Comments || Top||

#2  I like what these are doing, for the most part. I think they have stayed the course and surprised many in their attempts to really, this time, set up some sort of stable gov't. And the fact that they are not putting up with the Al-Jizz crap only reinforces my thoughts.
Might be time, however to rachet up the ehat on the domsetic insurgency ( the punks that mutilated the bodies last week comes quickly to mind).
Posted by: USN, ret. || 03/25/2007 20:30 Comments || Top||

#3  ehat = heat
domsetic = domestic

When, or when am I gonna realize that Preview IS my friend?
Posted by: USN, ret. || 03/25/2007 20:32 Comments || Top||

#4  Is AJ really all that much worse than, say, the NYT?
Posted by: Jackal || 03/25/2007 21:32 Comments || Top||


Mogadishu rests on fragile ceasefire
(SomaliNet) Mogadishu, Somalia capital has resumed on Saturday calm after three days of heavy gun battles between transitional government forces and clan based insurgents who oppose the leadership of president Yusuf. Some of the key streets in the capital which had been blocked during the war reopened as businesses restarted normally. The tranquility follows a ceasefire deal signed by top Ethiopian military officials and traditional elders of Hawiye tribe in the capital after intensive meetings.

Despite the situation remains calm, rival sides of interim government troops and local insurgents are still face off and the fear is high of possible war again. Thousands of families fled the capital due the three-day bloody battles which engulfed the lives of 30 people and wounded more than 200 others.

Ten of the government soldiers two of whom dragged through Mogadishu streets have been killed while dozens more were wounded in the heaviest and bloodiest clashes ever in the capital since their arrival late December 2006 after the ouster of the Islamic Courts Union. The courts ruled much of southern and central Somalia for six months returned peace and security. On Friday at least six people have been killed and dozens more were injured in fresh clashes around former Said academy in south of the capital between the government forces and its rival.
Posted by: Fred || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6472 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Here's a technical question:
If there are no joooooos in the area, can a CeaseFire™ be broken? Or will any non-moslem suffice to break it?
Posted by: Jackal || 03/25/2007 21:33 Comments || Top||


Two killed, nine injured in police-rebel clash near Khartoum
(Xinhua) -- One Sudanese policeman and one soldier were killed and nine others wounded in an armed clash on Saturday between the police and a former rebel faction which had signed a peace accord with the government last year, confirmed the police. Some armed men belonging to the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM)led by Minni Arkou Minawi and some armed police troops opened fire at each other on the streets in Omdurman, northwest of Khartoum, according to witnesses.

Sudanese police spokesman Mohammed Najeeb told reporters that the clash was touched off by a traffic accident between a group of SLM members and local citizens. The SLM group beat the citizens and seriously injured them, he said, adding when the police started criminal investigations into the incident after receiving complaints from the citizens, the SLM refused to handed over the suspects to the police.

Following the negotiations between the police and the SLM failed, the police had to take actions in order to arrest the suspects, Najeeb said. According to the spokesman, SLM members opened fire at armed policemen who were trying to break into the rest house where the SLM members were residing, while another group of the SLM members were attacking from the back of the policemen. The police had managed to control the situation after detaining 41 members of the SLM in spite of the casualties, he said.

Minawi, who leads the main faction of the SLM, signed the Darfur Peace Agreement with the Sudanese government in the Nigerian capital Abuja on May 5, 2006 and was sworn in as the senior presidential assistant in Khartoum in August of the same year.
Posted by: Fred || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6468 views] Top|| File under:


Africa North
Three tonnes of explosives found in Egypt
Egyptian authorities found three tonnes of explosives in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula, a security source said on Saturday. "The TNT explosives were found in a warehouse hidden under agricultural land in the Al-Towayel area," the source said, adding that they were hunting those involved in the cache.

The explosives could belong to disgruntled local Bedouin tribes who are suspected of being behind a number of terrorist attacks against Red Sea tourist resorts in southern Sinai over the last three years. On February 23, Egyptian security forces discovered a tonne of explosives near the border with Israel, while on February 4, arms caches containing rockets and grenades were discovered. Israel has long complained that Egypt is not doing enough to stem the flow of weapons and explosives into the Palestinian territories, though there have been announcements nearly every month of caches being discovered.
Posted by: Fred || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6476 views] Top|| File under:

#1  a warehouse hidden under agricultural land

What? You can't say "Buried"? Or "Cached"?
Posted by: Redneck Jim || 03/25/2007 12:02 Comments || Top||

#2  What kind of volume is three tonnes? Are we talking the equivalent of a shallow grave (or several), a two-car garage, or a suburban grocery store? In other words, is this like those air conditioned and fully lit tunnels the Gazans are fond of digging under their borders?
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/25/2007 14:05 Comments || Top||

#3  Three tonnes of water is three cubic meters or four cubic yards. Explosives are heavier but they are not a solid block and thre is intersticial space full of air thus two or theree cubic meters is not abad approximation.
Posted by: JFM || 03/25/2007 15:11 Comments || Top||

#4  Israel has long complained that Egypt is not doing enough to stem the flow of weapons and explosives into the Palestinian territories, though there have been announcements nearly every month of caches being discovered.

Discovering caches is one thing. Preventing the caches from being created (or simply reburying them) is another.
Posted by: Pappy || 03/25/2007 15:48 Comments || Top||


Bangladesh
2 JMJB cadres arrested in Bagmara
Police in separate drives arrested two more cadres of outlawed Islamist outfit Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh (JMJB) in Bagmara upazila of the district early yesterday. The arrestees are Habibur Rahman, 36, of Ismailpur village, and Akram Hossain, 26, of Konabaria village under the upazila. They were produced in a court, which sent them to jail. The law enforcers have so far arrested 24 JMJB leaders and activists in the upazila. Police said Akram and Habib were wanted in police assault and killing cases.
Posted by: Fred || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6469 views] Top|| File under:


SMGs, explosives seized from JMB men, outlaws
Rapid Action Battalion (Rab) seized eight SMGs with ammunition and a huge cache of explosives and bomb making materials busting the dens of the PBCP and JMB operatives in Pabna and Jamalpur in the last two days. The law enforcers also held an outlaw and two militants during these raids.

Our Pabna correspondent reports: Tipped off, a team of Rab-12 raided Malanchi union under Pabna Sadar upazila yesterday and captured Faruq Ahmed Paban, regional chief of Purba Banglar Communist Party (PBCP-Red Flag). Following the information extracted from him during interrogation, Rab members took Faruq along with them and raided a garden of village Shimulchhara in Ataikula upazila at noon. They dug a place in the garden and recovered eight China made SMGs (sub machine guns), 1,498 SMG bullets and 25 SMG magazines. Kamrul Master, the gang's former chief who died in an encounter with Rab last year, used to maintain the arms store, Rab officials said.

After his death, Faruk became the political chief and Mantu alias Mukul became the commanding chief of the outfit in Pabna region and they started to look after the firearms and ammunition. Hailing from Baraichora village in Ishwardi upazila of Pabna, Faruq did his masters from the Pabna Edward College in 1997 and joined the outlawed faction in 2000, sources said.

Our staff correspondent reports: A Rab team of intelligence wing raided several JMB dens at Charaildar village under Melandah upazila in Jamalpur on Friday night and recovered the explosives cache. The seized cache includes -- 13.5 kg power gel, 75 pieces of iron-made improvised grenade body, 80 grenade heads, 117 Islamic books on jihad and four compact disks (CDs), top Rab officials told a press briefing at its headquarters in Dhaka yesterday. They also captured two JMB Ehsar members Mohammad Sohel and Mohammad Sultan during the raid.

The raid was carried out following the confessions of JMB Ehsar members Habibur Rahman Yusuf and Kamrul Hasan who were arrested on March 21 with three grenades. They were fleeing after hurling a grenade at two on-duty policemen at Bhatara Bazar in Sarishabari upazila of Jamalpur. However, there were no casualties as the grenade did not explode. At the press briefing the detained JMB members told the journalists that one Abu Zafar Abdullah is now leading them across the country, but they never met him.
Posted by: Fred || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6471 views] Top|| File under:

#1  wow.. this is a bit more of a houl than the usual "shutter gun" and "3 rounds of bullet"

go get em RAB

Posted by: Abu do you love || 03/25/2007 0:32 Comments || Top||

#2  Kamrul Master, the gang's former chief who died in an encounter with Rab last year,

I remember that one, happened ummmm.... around 2 a.m. local, under a tony upazilla, I seem to recall a hideout, a sensing of the RAB presence, shots rang out, tragic death, him ded Jim. 12 Systems, 4 round bullet, 3 countrymade, 1 rosebud.
Posted by: Shipman || 03/25/2007 4:42 Comments || Top||

#3  lol
Posted by: RD || 03/25/2007 13:33 Comments || Top||

#4  Wonder of the YouTube vidoe of 'the extraction' will ever be posted? Is 'the information' located directly behind or below any important body organ or part? Bet it wasn't enjoyable for at least one participant.
Posted by: USN, ret. || 03/25/2007 20:37 Comments || Top||


India-Pakistan
Nephew of tribal chief shot dead in Wana
Malik Haji Sher Muhammad Abdullahi, the nephew of tribal chief Malik Khair Muhammad Mahsood Abdullahi, was shot dead on Saturday by unknown armed men. He was killed at Sher Chowk, Charsada Road, in Peshawar. His body will be taken to Tank on Sunday morning. His funeral will be held in Spain mosque. Tribes of Kaniguram have condoled with Abdullahi’s family.
Posted by: Fred || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6470 views] Top|| File under:


Iraq
Iranians Had Showdown With U.S. Forces
Via Jihad watch

As the British government demanded the immediate release of 15 of its sailors whose boats were seized by Iranian naval vessels in the Persian Gulf on Friday, U.S. News has learned that this is not the first showdown that coalition forces have had with the Iranian military.

According to a U.S. Army report out of Iraq obtained by U.S. News, American troops, acting as advisers for Iraqi border guards, were recently surrounded and attacked by a larger unit of Iranian soldiers, well within the border of Iraq.

The report highlights the details: A platoon of Iranian soldiers on the Iraqi side of the border fired rocket-propelled grenades and used small arms against a joint patrol of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers east of Balad Ruz. Four Iraqi Army soldiers, one interpreter, and one Iraqi border policeman remain unaccounted for after the September incident in eastern Diyala, 75 miles east of Baghdad.

During a joint border patrol, both American and Iraqi soldiers saw two Iranian soldiers run from Iraq back across the Iranian border as they approached. The patrol then came upon a single Iranian soldier, on the Iraqi side of the border, who did not flee.

While the joint U.S.-Iraqi patrol was speaking with the soldier, according to the report, the patrol was "approached by a platoon-size element of Iranian soldiers." An Iranian border captain then told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that "if they tried to leave their location, the Iranians would fire upon them." During this conversation with the Iranian captain, Iranian forces began firing and continued when U.S. troops tried to withdraw.

Iraqi and American forces returned fire "to break contact and left the area to report the incident," the report noted. "The Iranian forces continued to fire indirect fire well into Iraq as Coalition Force soldiers withdrew; for reasons unknown at this time, the Iraqi Army forces remained behind."

No American soldiers were wounded in the incident.

It is possible that Iranians thought they were in Iranian territory, according to U.S. military officials. Such border confusions and disputes happen routinely.
After all the entire world belongs to asllah with the mullahs appointed to rule over all.
Rest at link
Posted by: ed || 03/25/2007 15:37 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6478 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Why was not a flock of A-10s called to intervene? To a man, that "Iranian platoon" should have been churned into damp red sand, border or no.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 16:08 Comments || Top||

#2  Zenster that was my thoughts exactley were was the fire support then the ending Iraqi forces stayed behind please don't tell me they stayed and fought as we egressed out I would find that very unlikley unless orders from above so deemed such.

But on the bright side at least we didn't pull a Britian and surrender when asked to then with a Frigate nearby launched a helicopter to watch record our frog march back across the border into Iranian space wereas of course helo must turn back.
Posted by: C-Low || 03/25/2007 16:23 Comments || Top||

#3  We need a "Shoot on sight" policy enforced on the Iranian border.

No prisoners. Leave the dead where they fall, for the crows to eat, and kill any of the Iranians that come and try to get them.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/25/2007 17:11 Comments || Top||

#4  There are no Iranians near me but plenty of traitors to be getting on with. War start now.
Posted by: Excalibur || 03/25/2007 17:42 Comments || Top||

#5  Iran War 2007
Posted by: Jesing Ebbease3087 || 03/25/2007 20:05 Comments || Top||

#6  Yes, war now, and the Israelis should start it with a broad attack on anything Iranian that they can reach. First, however, they have to replace Egbert with the toughest bastard they can find, then kick ass on all fronts. The US and UK et al will be there because we already are and there's no choice but to kill in increasing numbers.
let's see, on side B, we have Iran, Syria, anyone else ? Heh, KSA ? Egypt ? Turkey ? Want in ?
Posted by: wxjames || 03/25/2007 20:33 Comments || Top||


Death toll of blast in Baghdad reaches 56
(KUNA) -- Death toll of a blast by a suicide terrorist in the district of Al-Dorah in the Iraqi capital on Saturday reached 36, while 20 people were injured. Speaking to Kuwait News Agency, an Interior Ministry official said the blast was caused by a booby-trapped car and targeted a police station, noting that the dead persons included three prisoners, 14 policemen and three civilians. The injured included 19 policemen, added the source who added that the detonated vehicle carried between 500 kilograms and a ton of explosives.
Posted by: Fred || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6473 views] Top|| File under:


US air strike kills three terrorists
(KUNA) -- A US air strike killed three "terrorists" on Saturday, said the Multi-National Force (MNF). In a press release, the MNF said "During an operation in a rural area southeast of Ar Rutbah, Coalition Forces attempted to detain four armed terrorists. One terrorist detonated an explosive device killing himself. The other three attempted to escape in a vehicle." The three terrorists were pursued and "terminated," noted the MNF statement. Meanwhile, coalition forces captured a total of 12 suspected "terrorists" in Baghdad, the cities of Mosul and Balad.
Posted by: Fred || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6479 views] Top|| File under:


Three blasts kill eight Iraqis near Syrian borders
(KUNA) -- Three suicide blasts killed eight Iraqis and injured 20 others at Al-Qaem town near the border with Syria. Speaking to Kuwait News Agency (KUNA), an Iraqi police source said within close times, three booby trapped cars targeted two police stations and a security checkpoint in the town. The severity of injuries varied between the 20 wounded persons who were transferred to a nearby medical center, said the source.
Posted by: Fred || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6469 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Car bomb factory on the Syrian side of the border?
Posted by: Glenmore || 03/25/2007 8:13 Comments || Top||


Suicide bombing kills 10 people in N Iraq
(Xinhua) -- A suicide bomber blew himself up Saturday in a popular market in the town of Tal Afar, some 420 km northwest of Baghdad, killing at least 10 and wounding three others, a local police source said. "At least 10 people were killed and three others injured when a suicide bomber wearing an explosives belt blew himself up inside a sweets shop in the Souq al-Saray market in central Tal Afar on Saturday afternoon," the source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity.

Earlier Saturday, a suicide truck bomb hit a police station in southern Baghdad, killing at least 11 people and injuring 23 others. In another attack on Saturday, at least eight people were killed and more than 40 others wounded when a suicide car bomb hit a mosque in Iraq's southern city of Hilla. Violence persists in Baghdad despite the presence of tens of thousands of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers across the capital in a major security crackdown aimed at curbing insurgency and sectarian violence in the war-torn country.
Posted by: Fred || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6467 views] Top|| File under:


Channel Offers Unusual Takes on War, Courtesy of Soldiers on the Front Lines
Soldiers submit video clips from their service in Iraq and Afghanistan to the Military Channel, part of the Discovery Channel. The clips represent a wide range of life on the front line -- soldiers in battle, goofing around in their off time, taking target practice. The soldiers who have submitted video clips said it is important for them to get their stories out without the traditional journalistic filter.

The footage is raw, jerky and crude. In one clip, two American soldiers wrestle, one so skinny he barely has a chance. He is easily flipped to the floor, to the laughter of his buddies. In another, a mortar goes off near a guard tower, and the camera is suddenly still as soldiers abandon filming to defend their position against the repeated shuddering blasts.

The video clips -- edited only for length and screened for operational security -- have been running every hour for about a month on the Military Channel, an outlet of Discovery Communications Inc. available through digital and satellite television. Called "Voices from the Front," the segments, about 45 to 50 seconds each, are culled from video recorded by troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The clips offer viewers a look at how troops equipped with digital cameras and Internet access are recording their own tales of life at war, without the storytelling conventions imposed by journalists or historians. The troops want to show the American public that they are not just getting blown up, maimed and killed. More than their predecessors in past wars, these troops have the technology and the know-how to give a direct account of what their lives are like.

Viewers have seen troops boxing, blowing up explosives, dodging gunfire, driving through a sandstorm and hanging out at a swimming pool. These are striking and unusual glimpses of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which are in their fifth and sixth years, respectively.

In one video segment, an unidentified soldier talked about fear.

"To be honest with you, I never thought I'd be doing something like this," he said. "You go out and you train and it never hits you. It doesn't even hit you when you get on the plane to come over here. It hits you when you get in your first fight -- reality."

Sgt. Robert Waples of the Maryland Army National Guard's 115th Infantry Regiment, who is a Charles County sheriff's deputy, has sent in three video clips he recorded during a tour of duty in Iraq with a camera his wife gave him. One was a video will for his family; he positioned himself in front of an American flag and told his wife and three daughters that if they were watching, he had been killed. Another showed him getting dressed in battle gear.

In the third clip, the only one that has run on the channel, Waples recorded schoolchildren lined up in a dirt courtyard. Other soldiers from his unit were shown stringing barbed wire around the school, which was a polling place in Iraqi elections. At the end, Waples asked: "Hey, do you think we're making a difference for what you see over on the other side of the wall?" A fellow soldier answered, "I believe we are."

More at link...
Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6473 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Which is why a number of senior PAO REMF should be fired cause they don't understand the new media and the means to use it to get the message out. Another model of the battleship Admirals prior to Pearl Harbor who obstructed exploiting new technology.

On one hand, you have one part of the command who understands that you've got to empower the soldier on the battlefield and not constrain him in doing his job in killing the enemy. They can see that at the point of the bayonet. However, the same command chain is inhabited by deskborne ranger powermongers who can't get through their head that in a similar fashion they need to let those same troops take on the other enemy, MSM, by getting the real story out, not one fabricated in newsrooms in New York or Washington.
Posted by: Procopius2k || 03/25/2007 10:15 Comments || Top||


Sri Lanka
Over 40 people killed in Sri Lanka's north and east
(Xinhua) -- Some 44 people including soldiers, Tamil Tiger rebels and civilians have been killed in clashes in Sri Lanka's trouble-torn north and east since Friday, defense officials here said Saturday. Officials said 31 members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) were killed in the exchange of mortar and artillery fire with the troops in the eastern Batticaloa district and the northern Mannar district.

Troops in the northern Jaffna district's Muhamalai forward defense lines shot dead an LTTE member Saturday morning at 8:00 a.m. local time (0230 GMT) while at 10:40 a.m. (0510 GMT) an LTTE suicide wing member was shot dead by the troops in the Jaffna city. Military sources said that in addition to the nine soldiers who were killed on Friday, a soldier perished in Jaffna when the suicide cadre's bomb exploded.

Prasad Samarasinghe, the military spokesman, said that a seven-year-old child was killed on Saturday at Chenkaladi in Batticaloa district when the rebels fired mortars from the nearby Thoppigala area. Samarasinghe stressed that the troops will continue their operation to free civilians from rebel control.
Posted by: Fred || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6466 views] Top|| File under:


Syria-Lebanon-Iran
'To Fight Would Not Be Clever'
BBC interview with Admiral Sir Alan West. Noteworthy excerpt:

Q: What are the rules of engagement in this type of situation?

A: The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting. The reason we are there is to be a force for good, to make the whole area safe, to look after the Iraqi big oil platforms and also to stop smuggling and terrorism there. So we try to downplay things. Rather then roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away.


Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 14:38 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6513 views] Top|| File under:

#1  You sir and The Captain of that ship should resign.
Posted by: djohn66 || 03/25/2007 14:46 Comments || Top||

#2  The End of The End of The End. Fool Britannia!
Posted by: M. Murcek || 03/25/2007 14:54 Comments || Top||

#3  And thus, Britain goes quietly into that dark night.
Posted by: bigjim-ky || 03/25/2007 15:03 Comments || Top||

#4  The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting

Don't I recall the British general doing this over in Europe when the Russians ran ahead of everyone to cordon off an area and claim it as their own? I believe the American general was Wesley Clark, and he told the British general to take them out and they refused citing the same excuse.
Posted by: gorb || 03/25/2007 15:30 Comments || Top||

#5  there's a fine line between clever and stupid
Posted by: Nigel Tufnel || 03/25/2007 15:32 Comments || Top||

#6  Civilians run away from things cos they dont have guns!!! ARMED forces. What does that suggest, £20 billion a year for this crap!
Posted by: devilstoenail || 03/25/2007 15:39 Comments || Top||

#7  The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting.

Not even against our most dire enemies. That persistent high pitched whirring sound you hear in the background is Churchill spinning in his grave.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 15:39 Comments || Top||

#8  This time I have to agree with the Admiral. If the enemy can goad you into striking at a time and place of their choosing, they can easily ambush the snot out of you.

While it might have been emotionally gratifying to have ordered the British ship to engage the enemy, they might have been very ready not only to sink that ship, but to engage several other targets.

Right now they are doing what Muslim pirates have always done, take hostages to bargain with. There is a long standing protocol for doing that among them.

The trick will be to convince them you are going to kick their ass, and this can be unusual, such as the election of Ronald Reagan resulting in the immediate release of the Iranian hostages.

This is all diplomatic ritual, and the US State Department and British Foreign Office will have much better luck getting those sailors back than will the DoD.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/25/2007 15:41 Comments || Top||

#9  Nah, Moose, you're wrong here. This is not a case of discretion being the better part of valor. The Brits are too clever by half, which is to say, not clever at all.
Posted by: regular joe || 03/25/2007 16:00 Comments || Top||

#10  Anymoose, your reasoning is fine if it's based on the tactical situation (i.e. potentially sacrificing the lives of 15 of your finest is necessary because you are not able to handle hostilities when Iran chooses to open them) AND there is a time and a place of the West's choosing in which hostilities will commence. Otherwise, your just getting ready to pay the Danegeld.

Personally, I think Iran is running scared and wants to change the game by provoking an attack. However, I disagree with that, had the Brits shot back and it had escalated, this would have played well for Iran. Their supreme leader is dying, Amaninejad's economic policies have failed, the Russians just pulled out of the reactor program, people don't like the gas rationing, a bunch of their terror network has been rolled up and/or defected and the UN just sent the strongest possible (if still ultra lame) message of diplomatic isolation.

If I was Blair I'd make an open statement to the Iranian people to the effect that they have a week to overthrow the mullarchy and rescue my marines or the US and UK will destroy their Navy, Air Force, shore batteries, nuke sites, troop concentrations and oil refineries and blockade their country. If they do overthrow the mullarchy all options are on the table including Western support for their nuke program, diplomatic relations with the US, etc. It's up to them if they want to be civilized or die.

Of course, I am daydreaming. They'll pay the Danegeld.
Posted by: JAB || 03/25/2007 16:35 Comments || Top||

#11  It's up to them if they want to be civilized or die.

I'm starting to believe that only one of those options is actually attainable.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 16:40 Comments || Top||

#12  If the enemy can goad you into striking at a time and place of their choosing, they can easily ambush the snot out of you.

Moose: Personally, I think they were bluffing and weren't prepared to handle a full-on attack by the Brits. I do think they were counting on the Brits sitting on their hands. I don't think the scenario you have in mind applies here.
Posted by: gorb || 03/25/2007 17:41 Comments || Top||

#13  The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting.

/It's all right, honey. Those men don't really want to hurt us but they will if we try to fight. All they want is to draw attention to their cause and they can't do that if they hurt anybody. Soon the plane will land and then we will take you to Disney World just like we promised.
Posted by: Excalibur || 03/25/2007 18:01 Comments || Top||

#14  gorb: As you can see from the other thread about the encounter between the US and Iraqi border guard and the Iranians, it might not be wise to assume that there aren't a lot of guns trained on you at the moment.

Remember that the Iranians have had a heavy Corps of soldiers on the border with Iraq for well over a year now. They are also very conscious of the US presence.

I would not be surprised if they start sending ground and naval probes into Iraq and Afghanistan, just to see what happens. They have very little intelligence gathering capability that ground or water.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/25/2007 18:54 Comments || Top||

#15  The Brits screwed up, pure and simple.
First off, we are dealing with a regime which will take and keep prisoners. Second, we have a big group of them already captured. Third, 'No one gets left behind.'
If I were an Admiral, and one of my ships returned from a task missing crewmen, I'd soon be promoting another Captain, 'cause that one would be discharged.
Posted by: wxjames || 03/25/2007 20:44 Comments || Top||

#16  Sir West must be a butt-buddy of Olmert; where else can such stupidity run so deep?
Yes to quickly retaliate may have played into Tehran's hand; but I agree with others; set a timeline and then have the balls to execute if necessary. And the point / place that the retaliation starts is not shared with Dinnerjacket and company. So they have no idea when or where the fecal material will begin to impact the rotary air movement device.
Posted by: USN, ret. || 03/25/2007 20:47 Comments || Top||

#17  The famed Brit MASTIFF is famous, in part, for barking little but possessing a huge, powerful body the Hulk would be proud to call his own. The Mastiff doesn't move unless it wants to move. Iff there's one thing that riles the Brits its international, diplom treatises being violated, espec LAWS OF THE SEA.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 03/25/2007 23:29 Comments || Top||


Blair: Sailors Weren't in Iranian Waters
BERLIN (AP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Sunday that the 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran were not in Iranian waters and warned that Britain viewed their fate as a "fundamental" issue.

The group was seized at gunpoint on Friday, and the Foreign Office in London said British officials do not know where Iran is holding them.

"It is simply not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters," Blair said at a news conference in Berlin, calling the situation "very serious."

"I want to get it resolved in as easy and diplomatic a way as possible," he said, but added he hoped the Iranians "understood how fundamental an issue this is for the British government."

Blair's comment, at celebrations for the 50th birthday of the European Union, follows British and European Union demands for Iran to release the 15, who were seized at gunpoint in disputed waters between Iran and Iraq on Friday.

Britain and the United States have said the sailors had just completed a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al Arab waterway when they were intercepted by the Iranian navy.

Iran, however, says they illegally entered Iranian waters. Iranian state television reported that its Foreign Ministry called in British Ambassador Geoffrey Adams, "to protest the illegal entry." Britain disputed the Iranian account, saying the meeting was called at the ambassador's request.

The capture and detention of the British service personnel risks escalating an already fraught relationship between Iran and the West.

The U.N. Security Council of Saturday agreed to moderately tougher sanctions against Iran for its refusal to meet U.N. demands that it halt uranium enrichment. Many in the West fear Tehran's nuclear program is not for power generation but for arms making, a claim Iran denies.

The approved sanctions included ban on Iranian arms exports and freezing the assets of 28 additional people and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. About a third of those are linked to the Revolutionary Guard, an elite corps whose navy seized the British sailors and marines.

The British Foreign Office said requests for access to the 15 Britons had been denied and officials did not know where they were being held.

Iran's Gen. Ali Reza Afshar said Saturday that the seized Britons were taken to Tehran for questioning where they "confessed" to illegally entering Iranian waters.

Lord Triesman, a Foreign Office undersecretary who had held talks with Iran's ambassador on Saturday, told Sky News the issue of whether the sailors had strayed into Iranian waters was a technical one.

"I've been very clear throughout that the British forces do not ever intentionally enter into Iranian waters," he said. "There's no reason for them to do so, we don't intend to do so and I think people should accept there's good faith in those assertions."

"We believe there's good strong evidence that they were in Iraqi water at the time," Triesman said. "That's a technical issue and I think it could be resolved as a technical issue."

French President Jacques Chirac expressed support for Britain's position: "It appears clear that these soldiers were not in the Iranian zone at the time."

Peter Hain, Britain's Northern Ireland Secretary, described Tehran's refusal to return the sailors as a dangerous development.

"It's essential that this occurs and it's essential not just for the well-being of our soldiers but also for stability in the region," he said.
Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 11:11 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6516 views] Top|| File under:

#1  iran is just asking for an ass kickings aren't they
Posted by: sinse || 03/25/2007 11:28 Comments || Top||

#2  Yeah, easy and diplomatic way, that's the ticket. Watch out for Fleet Street Tony, you might be gone quicker than you think.

Posted by: Shipman || 03/25/2007 11:41 Comments || Top||

#3  Peter screw stability of the region, somebody anybody needs to slap Iran down so hard that Iman from the well will think 4 times before thinking of coming out.
Posted by: djohn66 || 03/25/2007 11:43 Comments || Top||

#4  "Diplomacy grows from the barrel of a gun" remember that quote Tony? USE IT, STOP TALKING AND START SHOOTING IF YOU EVER WANT TO SEE YOUR SAILORS AGAIN,
Posted by: Redneck Jim || 03/25/2007 12:08 Comments || Top||

#5  Seems to me there's some kind of clause in the NATO framework, that if one nation were attacked, it would be viewed as an attack on all NATO countries. I think it's time to implement that clause. Iran has perpetrated an act of war against Britain. All NATO countries, through the NATO commander, should issue an ultimatum that the British sailors be returned to Iraq within 24 hours, unharmed, or the NATO alliance will attack Iran and all its assets, regardless of where in the world they are. Then follow through.
Posted by: Old Patriot || 03/25/2007 13:24 Comments || Top||

#6  I wonder if the Brits will declare their capture an act of piracy? If they do, it invokes all sorts of interesting international treaties and conventions.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/25/2007 14:00 Comments || Top||

#7  Seems to me there's some kind of clause in the NATO framework, that if one nation were attacked, it would be viewed as an attack on all NATO countries.

I recall that this only operates if the attack is on the NATO member's home territory.
Posted by: Angie Schultz || 03/25/2007 14:18 Comments || Top||

#8  Out of curiousity: If they wanted to show the world - objectively, indisputably - that their boats weren't in Iranian waters, how would they do that? Satellite photo? UAV?
Posted by: Geoffro || 03/25/2007 14:57 Comments || Top||

#9  Vice President Dick Cheney Allegedly Offers to Trade Jimmah Carter for British Hostages

(2007-03-25) — A source close to Dick Cheney said today that the vice president has suggested freeing 15 British sailors and marines from Iranian captivity by trading former President Jimmy Carter for the hostages.
by Scott Ott
Posted by: RD || 03/25/2007 15:13 Comments || Top||

#10  It'd be a dream come true RD
Posted by: devilstoenail || 03/25/2007 15:36 Comments || Top||

#11  "Vice President Dick Cheney Allegedly Offers to Trade Jimmah Carter for British Hostages"

Terrific. Now I gotta find a cloth to wipe down my monitor...
Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 15:38 Comments || Top||

#12  Qatar's Peninsula News quotes an Iraqi fisherman who saw the incident as saying they were in Iraqi waters - as if it matters - this was an act of war
Posted by: Frank G || 03/25/2007 15:46 Comments || Top||

#13  Blair: Sailors Weren't in Iranian Waters

Well, alrighty then, this makes Iran's actions and act of war now, doesn't it? What about it, Tony? Will you respond accordingly with respect to your own statements?

Blair has this one last chance to make good on the superb oration he put forth at the Global War on Terrorism's onset. His legacy is riding upon the outcome of this situation. Should he opt for negotiation, it will forever neuter his efficacy in such a role at all points in the future.

There are times when a statesman must lay aside all peaceful options knowing that they represent an inappropriate response to what confronts his nation. This is such an occasion and Blair's personal reputation must forever after be poisoned should he decline to answer with military force against Iran's thugs.

The safety of all British people, at home and abroad, hinge upon a swift and unmistakable military reply. Otherwise, through his inaction, Blair will have sewn a bulls-eye onto the back of every living Briton.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 15:54 Comments || Top||

#14  Just so, Zenster, but it appears that Blair feels he can no longer walk the talk, and as a result is completely incapacitated.
Posted by: regular joe || 03/25/2007 16:03 Comments || Top||

#15  Have the US and UK had enough time to round up or otherwise neutralize Hizballah cells --based on info provided by the recently defected iranian General?

This could be a desperate move by Iran to provoke war before most of their terrorist cells have been destroyed. Then possibly Tony Blair may be delaying military action until his domestic forces tell him they've neutered a sufficient number of cells.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) || 03/25/2007 17:47 Comments || Top||

#16  If Her Majesty's elected Ministers cannot defend the Realm - if Her armed forces cannot even defend themselves - it is time to dismiss Parliament and rule by Privy Council. Time to sweep out the stables.

First, all men and equipment to be returned within 24 hours. After that, they are to be declared missing and presumed dead and all Iranian shipping is to be designated as a pirate fleet. Escalating consequences up to an including a nuclear attack on Qom are to follow.

Second, all enemy aliens in the UK are to be interned and their property seized prior to deportation. As a short-hand, if you or any of your relations by birth are named "Mohammad" you are to be shown the door. Protesters are to be considered in a state of insurrection and to be shot on sight.

Third, all university arts and social science department faculty are to be fired. The BBC is to be closed pending privatization. All press are to be subject to war-time censorship.

None of this is going to happen in the short term, of course. But if once again our elected representatives fail us, our history, our civilization and all our sons and daughters to come after then the day I will sound reasonable to my fellow subjects will come all the sooner. I only hope that by the time Her Majesty or her grand-son realize they have no choice but to act it will not be too late. All I see now is a nation of slaves begging for the Moor's knife at their throats.
Posted by: Excalibur || 03/25/2007 17:51 Comments || Top||

#17  If they weren't in Iranian waters, I presume they were in Iraqi waters (unless they were waaaaaay out to sea). So we have an act of war by Iran against Iraq. They could speed this process along, I think.
Posted by: Jackal || 03/25/2007 21:39 Comments || Top||

#18  I believe ya, Tony, therefore as a worthwhile legacy use teeth to bite instead of wasting saliva in wimpish rethorics. According to a report, your own helicopter also witnessed this nighttime outrage.
Posted by: Duh! || 03/25/2007 23:17 Comments || Top||

#19  Many Netters have used twangs from GPS Maps to International agreements to prove why the Brits' claims is the more correct, ergo doesn't matter to legalism-happy anti-US Lefties and Radicalists. THE LATTER HAVE ALL BUT DESTROYED ANY CLAIMS OF WANTING THE USA TO BE LIKE, AND TO ADOPT, EURO-SOCIALISTS/SOCIALISM.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 03/25/2007 23:49 Comments || Top||


Blair warning over captured sailors
Well, not exactly a "warning", but...

The seizure of 15 British Navy personnel by Iran is a "very serious situation", Tony Blair said as he publicly entered the diplomatic crisis for the first time.

The Prime Minister appealed for a swift end to the "unjustified and wrong" detention of the sailors and Marines.

He warned Tehran that it was a "fundamental" issue for the UK and insisted they had not strayed into Iranian waters.

"I have not been commenting up to now because I want to get it resolved in as easy and diplomatic a way as possible, because it is the welfare of the people that have been taken by the Iranian government that is most important," he said.

"But this is a very serious situation."

Speaking from an EU meeting in Berlin, he said: "There is no doubt at all that these people were taken from a boat in Iraqi waters. It is simply not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters, and I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us.

"We have certainly sent the message back to them very clearly indeed. They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong."

Mr Blair said he hoped the issue could be resolved diplomatically in the next few days, adding: "But the quicker it is resolved, the easier it will be for all of us."
Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 11:09 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6514 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I think I know what Blair may be planning.
Posted by: Perfesser || 03/25/2007 11:19 Comments || Top||

#2  Oh NO! Not the . . . . .
Posted by: Throque Gonque2829 || 03/25/2007 11:23 Comments || Top||

#3  Oh Shit! Not that!
Posted by: Shipman || 03/25/2007 11:42 Comments || Top||

#4  Damn. They're sending in JoJo the Supernanny, aren't they? DJ is going to have to sit on the Naughty Bench for a *month*!
Posted by: Seafarious || 03/25/2007 12:41 Comments || Top||

#5  Yet another sad installment in the farce called "Trying to reason with the unreasonable..." Pathetic.
Posted by: M. Murcek || 03/25/2007 12:58 Comments || Top||

#6  All funny aside, if the UK does decide to act it will take 30-50 days to get their naval forces in place to enforce an impound and blockade.
Posted by: Shipman || 03/25/2007 13:28 Comments || Top||

#7  actually, like the US, they were enforcing a UN-ordered/authorized intercept and inspection tasking. That said, we are prolly going to do that blockade for them
Posted by: Frank G || 03/25/2007 13:32 Comments || Top||

#8  No threat of force. Empty voice.
Posted by: Icerigger || 03/25/2007 13:51 Comments || Top||

#9  I want to get it resolved in as easy and diplomatic a way as possible

Code for: We lack sufficient courage to justly punish the most belligerant gang of conniving thugs to walk this earth despite having the necessary moral authority handed to us on a sterling silver platter.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 14:37 Comments || Top||

#10  Cover your ears, I suspect the next stage will be to bang his spoon on his high chair!
Posted by: gorb || 03/25/2007 15:32 Comments || Top||

#11  In my opinion Blair needs a threat of what will happen if the sailors aren't returned, not this very serious situation crap. If I went into school and abducted 15 kiddies, I reckon the police would be phoned, special forces police the whole lot. What Blair is doing at the moment represents a letter home.

- I hope people make sense of this.
Posted by: devilstoenail || 03/25/2007 15:46 Comments || Top||

#12  Gosh, I hope this doesn't escalate to the dreaded Strongly Worded Memo™.
Posted by: xbalanke || 03/25/2007 15:55 Comments || Top||

#13 
Posted by: Special Brew TROLL || 03/25/2007 19:24 Comments || Top||

#14  Re #13: ROFLMAO, Mods!

That's the FIRST time I've ever not wanted to kill that goddam paper clip. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 03/25/2007 20:40 Comments || Top||

#15  That's the FIRST time I've ever not wanted to kill that goddam paper clip

I've got special pliers with serrated jaws resting in a velvet-lined glass case just waiting for the day I finally lay hands on the little bastard.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 20:46 Comments || Top||

#16  C'mon Tony, your call.
Oh, nevermind, I forgot for a minute there that you were only holding half a pair; not much that that can beat, huh?
Posted by: USN, ret. || 03/25/2007 20:53 Comments || Top||

#17  Where does that paper clip come from?
Posted by: Andy Hertzfeld || 03/25/2007 21:45 Comments || Top||

#18  AH, the paperclip shown is a Microsoft personal assistant, largely known for annoying the living crap out of anyone with a pulse.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 21:55 Comments || Top||

#19  The original was something the Microsoft people thought would be friendly and helpful, Andy Hertzfeld. Rantburg's Clippy is a Moderator special. Cute, don't you think?
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/25/2007 22:06 Comments || Top||

#20  #19: "The original was something the Microsoft people thought would be friendly and helpful"

Tells me everything I need to know about the Microsoft podpeople, TW.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 03/25/2007 22:16 Comments || Top||

#21  About Clippy: just remember that it was a vast improvement over Microsoft Bob.
Posted by: xbalanke || 03/25/2007 22:52 Comments || Top||

#22  Against Iraq we had weapons of mass Destruction, we have been looking for an excuse to go to war against Iran, anyone thought about the fact we have probably kidnapped the 15 ourselves just as an excuse to go to war again?
Posted by: Special Brew || 03/25/2007 19:24 Comments || Top||


UK envoy seeks access to detained sailors in Iran
Jaw-Jaw Binks
The British envoy to Tehran on Sunday requested access to 15 detained British naval personnel who Iran says entered Iranian waters illegally despite Britain's insistence they were in Iraqi territory, a diplomat said.

Iranian forces captured 15 British sailors and marines on Friday at the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which marks the southern stretch of Iraq's border with Iran. It has sparked a diplomatic crisis when tensions are already high with the West over Tehran's nuclear program. The U.N. Security Council imposed new sanctions on Iran on Saturday. Britain's Ambassador Geoffrey Adams met Iranian Foreign Ministry official Ebrahim Rahimpour to discuss the issue at London's request, a British diplomat in Tehran told Reuters.

"We have repeated the line asking for their release. We asked for details of where they are and asked for consular access," the diplomat said. "The (Iranian Foreign Ministry) promised to look into these requests and dialogue is continuing," the diplomat added. Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported on Saturday that the 15 sailors and marines had been transferred to Tehran. But this has not been independently confirmed.

Jack Straw, leader of Britain's House of Commons and former Foreign Minister, told BBC television that one of those detained was a woman and said British Foreign Ministry officials were "working very hard indeed to try to secure their safe return". "It requires some very careful and intense diplomacy," Straw said.

Diplomacy isn't going to get you anywhere with the MMs unless you demonstrate your willingness to back it up with violence. Do that, and you'll be shocked at how effective diplomacy can be; fail to do it, and you achieve nothing more than self-humiliation. Whatever you do, don't repeat Jimmy Carter's pathetic performance in 1979-1980 because that's what got us into this damned mess in the first place.

Iran wants this to turn into a war. It's a reenactment of the 2004 incident, but it's also a reenactment of this summer's Israel-Hezbollah war. Brigades of Green Helmet Guys are standing by, even as we speak blog, just waiting to point the finger at the injuries inflicted on the innocent Muslims. Iranian and Hezbollah missiles will probably rain down on Israel as soon as the hostilities start, and a few of the newer missiles will be launched at European and British and maybe even American targets. Probably the Hezbollah sleeper cells will be activated as well. The OIC nations will start pushing for an immediate "ceasefire" as soon as the hostilities begin, and as soon as it's pushed through the security councile Iran will announce "victory." The official press will start speculating whether Mahmoud is in reality the Mahdi about then, too, and he'll modestly reveal himself.

As an alternative to a declaration of war, I'd suggest the missiles rain down on Iran every time there's a mass demonstration anywhere, and that both the Brits and the U.S. deny all responsibility.
Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 06:38 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6475 views] Top|| File under:

#1  We have repeated the line asking for their release.

They're not listening. Just days ago Iran said they were going to kidnap westerners. Hours ago they said they would put them on trial if they didn't get their five guys back. Sounds like denial to me.
Posted by: gorb || 03/25/2007 9:01 Comments || Top||

#2  "It requires some very careful and intense diplomacy," Straw said.
Behold! The awe-inspiring power of jaw-jaw.
Posted by: eLarson || 03/25/2007 9:19 Comments || Top||

#3  Let's try a quarantine first. And some special ops at the refineries. I'd like to see how the Mullahs explain the gas lines to all those Iranians used to paying $0.25 per gallon. It's an Iranian problem, it should get an Iranian solution.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/25/2007 10:06 Comments || Top||

#4  Indeed, start with a naval blockade, up to no-fly out, then no-drive out.
Posted by: Shipman || 03/25/2007 10:38 Comments || Top||

#5  Anyone remember the Pueblo?
Apparently modern 'superpowers' are more willing to crawl and grovel than engage in conflict. US included.
Posted by: Skidmark || 03/25/2007 11:07 Comments || Top||

#6  You're right about the Pueblo Skid. Should have done a Philadephia on that ASAP. It's still not too late, even now it would be advantageous to destroy that ship to insure mutual understanding.
Posted by: Shipman || 03/25/2007 11:45 Comments || Top||

#7  I always thought it would be the US or Israel to hammer Tehran. Looks like it just might be the Britts. This will get interesting.
Posted by: 49 Pan || 03/25/2007 14:37 Comments || Top||


Iran ‘to try Britons for espionage’
(Times) FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying.

A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.

Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

The warning followed claims by Iranian officials that the British navy personnel had been taken to Tehran, the capital, to explain their “aggressive action” in entering Iranian waters. British officials insist the servicemen were in Iraqi waters when they were held.
Related Links

* Iran raises the hostage stakes

* Keep up the pressure

* Hostage fears over servicemen seized by Iran

The penalty for espionage in Iran is death. However, similar accusations of spying were made when eight British servicemen were detained in the same area in 2004. They were paraded blindfolded on television but did not appear in court and were freed after three nights in detention.

Iranian student groups called yesterday for the 15 detainees to be held until US forces released five Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq earlier this year.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat, a Saudi-owned newspaper based in London, quoted an Iranian military source as saying that the aim was to trade the Royal Marines and sailors for these Guards.

The claim was backed by other sources in Tehran. “As soon as the corps’s five members are released, the Britons can go home,” said one source close to the Guards.

He said the tactic had been approved by Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, who warned last week that Tehran would take “illegal actions” if necessary to maintain its right to develop a nuclear programme.

Iran denounced a tightening of sanctions which the United Nations security council was expected to agree last night in protest at Tehran’s insistence on enriching uranium that could be used for nuclear weapons.

Lord Triesman, the Foreign Office minister, met the Iranian ambassador in London yesterday to demand that consular staff be allowed access to the Britons, one of whom is a woman. His intervention came as a senior Iranian general alleged that the Britons had confessed under interrogation to “aggression into Iran’s waters”.

Intelligence sources said any advance order for the arrests was likely to have come from Major-General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards.

Subhi Sadek, the Guards’ weekly newspaper, warned last weekend that the force had “the ability to capture a bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks”.

Safavi is known to be furious about the recent defections to the West of three senior Guards officers, including a general, and the effect of UN sanctions on his own finances.

A senior Iraqi officer appeared to back Tehran’s claim that the British had entered Iranian waters. “We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control,” said Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim, who is in charge of Iraq’s territorial waters. “We don’t know why they were there.”

Admiral Sir Alan West, the former head of the Royal Navy, dismissed suggestions that the British boats might have been in Iranian waters. West, who was first sea lord when the previous arrests took place in June 2004, said satellite tracking systems had shown then that the Iranians were lying and the same was certain to be true now.
Posted by: Ebbomong Cloting7438 || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6469 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The British soldiers wore uniforms. Hence according to Geneva Conventions they are BY DEFINITION not spies.

Expect loud, massive demonstrations across the West to denounce Iranian violations of the GC. Right?

Notwithstanding that aspect (and the lack of integrity on the part of leftist "human rights" groups in the West) all statements coming out of Iran in recent days are tantamount to a declaration of war.

When will the West take their words seriously and act in self-defense? are there no men left among Western leaders?
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) || 03/25/2007 0:23 Comments || Top||

#2  If Maggie was still in power she would give the Iranians exactly 24 hours to release the marines before eliminted the Iranian Navy. I wonder what Blair is planning?
Posted by: Cyber Sarge || 03/25/2007 0:52 Comments || Top||

#3  The first treasonous kunt who calls these men "insurgents" in my presence is getting such a slap.
Posted by: Excalibur || 03/25/2007 2:20 Comments || Top||

#4  Iran has just crossed the line. Before this development it seemed likely that negotiations could have led to the return of the sailors - now this is blossoming into a potential military confrontation.

It was not that long ago that major Israeli operations were triggered by Iranian-backed Hezbollah's unprovoked attack and capture/abduction of several soldiers. Now Iran is repeating its use of this tactic.
Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 || 03/25/2007 3:52 Comments || Top||

#5  "be held until US forces released five Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq earlier this year."

OK. From 10,000 feet without a parachute, over the Amahdi'nejad's mansion
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/25/2007 4:35 Comments || Top||

#6  What we need to do now is make sure some bombs are emplaced in the Rev Guard leadships cars, snipe a few, take a fea wives and kids and send back ears and fingers.

Its like dealing with the mafia. Youhave to let them know you mean business.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/25/2007 4:37 Comments || Top||

#7  I'm unclear on the timing of the latest events.

Did Ahmadinejad cancel his UN appearance before or after the abduction of the Brits?
Posted by: Gladys || 03/25/2007 5:10 Comments || Top||

#8  A sop to moonbats world wide.
Posted by: gromgoru || 03/25/2007 5:52 Comments || Top||

#9  After, Gladys, after.
Posted by: Bobby || 03/25/2007 7:14 Comments || Top||

#10  When will the West take their words seriously and act in self-defense?

Only after Beslan in Brookline.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/25/2007 8:08 Comments || Top||

#11  The Russers took it seriously after Beslan, too. Then the attention span wore off.
Posted by: Fred || 03/25/2007 8:54 Comments || Top||

#12  Make a deal. We will give them a nuke a day until the soldiers are released. We'll start with a nuke over your refineries.
Posted by: DarthVader || 03/25/2007 9:18 Comments || Top||

#13  I wonder... does this escalation have anything to do with the recent House bug-out vote?
Posted by: mrp || 03/25/2007 9:27 Comments || Top||

#14  Introduce them to Ebola about 2 mins before releasing them in the Terhan airport.

Posted by: 3dc || 03/25/2007 10:40 Comments || Top||

#15  Iranian student groups called yesterday for the 15 detainees to be held until US forces released five Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq earlier this year.

Bush must not let America be swayed by British interests in this situation. Somehow Britain must arrive at the conclusion that only military action will resolve this in a manner favorable to the West. Iran must not be allowed to constantly violate all international conventions without experiencing any actual consequences.

He said the tactic had been approved by Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, who warned last week that Tehran would take “illegal actions” if necessary to maintain its right to develop a nuclear programme.

Once again, when will the West take Ahmadinejad at his word. This fanatic has openly stated his intention to abuse every diplomatic form and negotiating tactic in the book. What further demonstration of bad faith is needed from this treacherous maggot?

Will we wait until Hizbullah detonates a nuclear device on American soil?

Only after Beslan in Brookline.

Should such a horrific day come, and our politicians certainly seem to be content with that prospect, our response, while non-nuclear, should be the destruction of whole cities in the MME (Muslim Middle East).

What is it that the West cannot bring itself to simply declare out loud that no further terrorist atrocities will be tolerated and that whole population centers will serve as reprisal targets for collective punishment of Islam's followers?

Dhimmitude is the epitome of collective punishment. We must find the moral fortitude to repay Islam in its own coin. Nothing less will gain their attention. Our continued boots-on-the-ground response to what is a broad international terrorist conspiracy remains laughable and Iran is laughing at us once again.

This is not a matter of typical Arab-style humiliation, although Iran will certainly play it that way. This is a matter of using the appropriate tools to obtain results that can only be gained through correct application of force. For all of our efforts, so far, we may as well be sending the Navy to fight a battle in Timbuktu.

Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 15:01 Comments || Top||

#16  Hey, folks. The Brits in their rubber-dub-dubbies were targets of opportunity. Iranians took 'em. The move is in the playbook. It was very succsssful in '79. By induction, do it again.

Ball is in Tony's court now. The US didn't set a very good example in the Embassy hostage thing. I hope that somebody on our side starts getting some good sense and a willingness to stop the MMs appropriately through a blockade with the threat of total annhilation.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 03/25/2007 15:27 Comments || Top||

#17  On the subject of a blockade - don't the Iranians have Sunburn anti-ship missiles? And if so, what defence do we have against them?
Posted by: Elmavith Sinatra5823 || 03/25/2007 17:53 Comments || Top||

#18  Where are the dreaded dolphins, pray tell? They're supposed to be awfully good at mines. ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/25/2007 20:07 Comments || Top||


Blair convenes Cobra team as crisis in Iran escalates
A little more information...
THE official notification, delivered in secure calls yesterday morning to senior Whitehall figures, was the latest dramatic behind-the-scenes move to get to grips with a crisis that is now engulfing the government.

After a day of shadow-boxing with a notoriously slippery regime, Tony Blair is set to up the ante: the plight of the Shatt al-Arab 15 is officially a crisis and he will need the Cobra team to handle it.

The clutch of VIPs will gather in an operations room several floors below Downing Street as early as this afternoon to plot an escape from a military spat that now threatens to become an international incident.

The decision came just 24 hours after the crew of HMS Cornwall had been caught in the confusion of direct confrontation with Iranian vessels in the searing heat of the Gulf.

As the crew members were surrounded in their two rubber dinghies, the Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, frantically radioed back to his own top brass for instructions.

The response to the inquiry, which had been immediately patched through to Ministry of Defence headquarters in Whitehall, was to hold fire.

The order to show restraint has been observed throughout the forces and the British government in the 48 hours since, but it is unclear how long both sides will be able to maintain control.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett's first response to the gathering crisis on Friday was to keep to diplomatic conventions. After a hurried phone call to Blair, she immediately summoned Iran's ambassador, Rasoul Movahedian, to her office to explain their behaviour.

After a meeting described by officials as "brisk but polite", Beckett emerged to stress that she was "extremely disturbed" by events.

It was an understated description of the deep concern now gripping the government. Not only was Blair's administration alarmed at the risk to the 15 military personnel, which included at least one woman, but it was in no doubt over Tehran's ability to use their plight to make a wider point.

During a flurry of diplomatic activity in the hours after the snatch, the Iranians' rhetoric repeatedly elevated their action, and the alleged motives of the British, to a multinational affair. It was the eve of a second UN Security Council resolution imposing sanctions over Iran's refusal to halt its programme to enrich uranium. The Shatt al-Arab 15 were, from the start, pawns in a perilous international game.

"It looks like too much of a coincidence," a senior Foreign Office insider confirmed.

The response was a no- nonsense demand for Iran to relent - and Britain freely used the international community to back up its case. Beckett dispatched the UK chargé d'affaires, Kate Smith, to confront the government in Tehran, armed with the insistence that the British sailors had been in Iraqi waters.

In the meantime, Blair made a personal call to European allies, including EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, to secure a public denunciation of the Iranians' actions.

"It was impressed on everyone how important it was to raise the diplomatic temperature, rather than keep a low profile and let them make a song and dance of the situation," one defence official said.

"There is nothing to be gained in provoking a confrontation, because that would be playing into their hands. But neither should we let them have it all their way. We tried that before and we're still trying to get our kit back."

The smaller-scale precedent, the taking of six British marines and two sailors on the same waterway in June 2004, was a painful lesson. The personnel were only returned after they had been paraded blindfold on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally. Three years on, the government is still pressing Iran for the return of its boats and kit, including valuable radar equipment.

The degree of concern felt across Whitehall was demonstrated yesterday, when Movahedian was called back to the Foreign Office, this time to see Beckett's minister, Lord Triesman. The British were clearly attempting to warn off Tehran before it could begin to use the servicemen and women as a significant propaganda tool.

It was, however, a race against time - and through it all, the diplomats and the politicians were acutely aware that Tehran has built a foreign policy on disregarding diplomatic niceties.
Yeah, we've noticed that, too...
Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6497 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Tony had better bomb Iran shortly or he'll go down in history as Chamberlain II.

England having tied with Israel in a poor soccer game should ensure that hordes of hooligans are ready to focus on beating up some foreign wankers. /half-sarc
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) || 03/25/2007 0:32 Comments || Top||

#2  OK, I don't have all the facts, don't know the precise tactical situation. But, exsqueeze me, WTF, the RN has a Type 22 frigate on the scene and they decide NOT to interven to nip this in the bud?

Count me as generally unimpressed with the UK's approach to these things (discipline is great, making a fetish out of not using force usually costs more lives on both sides in the medium and long runs). But this smells of gross incompetence.

And now look where it puts the UK govt. - strategizing about how to out-maneuver some 3rd-rate dictatorship.
Posted by: Verlaine || 03/25/2007 0:33 Comments || Top||

#3  The clutch of VIPs will gather in an operations room several floors below Downing Street as early as this afternoon to plot an escape from a military spat that now threatens to become an international incident.

I am going to choke on my own bile before this thing is done. So, who's for "occupying" the closest Iranian diplomatic mission?
Posted by: Excalibur || 03/25/2007 2:24 Comments || Top||

#4  "The response to the inquiry, which had been immediately patched through to Ministry of Defence headquarters in Whitehall, was to hold fire."

Wrong fkking move bucko.

Right move: Train the frigates 5" and fire a warning shut across the bow while launching the helicopters, and callingthe local US nuc carrier to send the cap over STAT! to overfly at Mach1.5 for the sonic boomie.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/25/2007 4:40 Comments || Top||

#5  The lesson here is the Iranians will continue STARTING provocations util the Britishfinally END them forcefully.
Posted by: OldSpook || 03/25/2007 4:42 Comments || Top||

#6  Maybe time for a freedom of navigation exercise.
Posted by: Shipman || 03/25/2007 4:58 Comments || Top||

#7  Now the Brits are going to pay through the nose for their years of neglecting national security.

Just a few weeks ago, the Telegraph ran a series of articles which described a rapidly shrinking British defense establishment: fewer fighter-bomber squadrons, fewer infantry battalions, a Royal Navy reduced almost to 'national Coast Guard'. And those idiots in Parliament didn't know (or didn't care) that their enemies were closely watching... and waiting?
Posted by: mrp || 03/25/2007 9:06 Comments || Top||

#8  It makes me ill to think that these are the decedents of Nelson.

How the mighty have fallen.
Posted by: DarthVader || 03/25/2007 9:20 Comments || Top||

#9  Iran est delenda
Posted by: Canaveraldan || 03/25/2007 9:22 Comments || Top||

#10  Sad to say, Britain has zero military power of any consequence without the US to back it up.
Posted by: Perfesser || 03/25/2007 10:03 Comments || Top||

#11  More like descendants of Chamberlan then Nelson (or Churchill)...
Posted by: CrazyFool || 03/25/2007 10:26 Comments || Top||

#12  Thinking of names and Kill Bill....
California Mountain Snake would imply a lot more intent to do something than "Cobra Team".

Posted by: 3dc || 03/25/2007 10:37 Comments || Top||

#13  My impression is that the nature of the British response will be inversely proportional to the nastiness of the critter after which the committee ("team") is named.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/25/2007 10:40 Comments || Top||

#14 
S/B: Iran delenda est.
Posted by: Master of Obvious || 03/25/2007 10:56 Comments || Top||

#15  Yeah, what MoO sed, kicker Iran and then burn the cropse.
Posted by: Shipman || 03/25/2007 11:48 Comments || Top||

#16  Where is Rogue Warrior when you need him?
Posted by: SwissTex || 03/25/2007 13:14 Comments || Top||

#17  what would vince flynn do
Posted by: Icerigger || 03/25/2007 13:40 Comments || Top||

#18  My impression is that the nature of the British response will be inversely proportional to the nastiness of the critter after which the committee ("team") is named.

Sooo, if they come up with "Cottontail Committee" or "Project Pooh", we'll know it's On? Interesting...
Posted by: Angie Schultz || 03/25/2007 14:11 Comments || Top||

#19  The response to the inquiry, which had been immediately patched through to Ministry of Defence headquarters in Whitehall, was to hold fire.

Find whoever it was that answered the phone, then try them for treason and cowardice. Weapons are decorative without any will to use them. We have a stupendous amount of hardware floating just off of Iranian shores. It speaks volumes that Iran had the temerity to pull off a stunt of this magnitude right under the combined noses of so much firepower.

After a point, not imposing consequences equates to rewarding a transgressor.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 15:15 Comments || Top||

#20  This reads like an Oscar Wilde drawing room farce:
As the crew members were surrounded in their two rubber dinghies, the Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, frantically radioed back to his own top brass for instructions.

"Chappies it's Commodore Nick -- whatever should I do?"

The response to the inquiry, which had been immediately patched through to Ministry of Defence headquarters in Whitehall, was to hold fire.

"Do nothing, but tell the Iranians to brace for some brisk but polite negotiations."
Posted by: regular joe || 03/25/2007 15:55 Comments || Top||

#21  a military spat that now threatens to become an international incident

Threatens? Threatens?

It is an international incident you frikkin' morons! It's beyond "a military spat", it's a freaking international incident and it's freaking about to blow sky high into a freaking military confrontation!

Except the damned Brits are too freaking "polite" to respond to the provoation in the manner in which they should (which involves killing lots of people and blowing stuff up).

Grow a pair, Tony, or give up. It's not a hard choice.

Posted by: FOTSGreg || 03/25/2007 18:59 Comments || Top||

#22  AS: Sooo, if they come up with "Cottontail Committee" or "Project Pooh", we'll know it's On? Interesting...

If they were interested in a tough response, they'd name the committee something neutral-sounding, in order to avoid being labeled warmongers. "Cobra" is a way to sound tough without being tough. Kind of like Hillary's tough-sounding pronouncements on defense, which have not been accompanied by the appropriate votes.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/25/2007 20:06 Comments || Top||

#23  My feeling is that the Iranians will simply hold these men as hostages. If they torture or execute them, the pressure on Blair to escalate would be unbearable. And I think the Iranians understand that.

But there's a side possibility - Ahmedinejad may execute these men just to show the Iranian people that American and British forces are merely paper tigers, and that his plans for Iranian territorial expansion are not only not fantastical, they are eminently practical against an emasculated West. If so, the weeks and months ahead promise to be eventful ones.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 03/25/2007 20:16 Comments || Top||

#24  COBRA

Committee On Being Really Assertive?
Posted by: Pappy || 03/25/2007 20:25 Comments || Top||

#25  With all due respect for the lives of those British soldiers, I've got to hope that Ahmadinejad is idiotic enough to go with Zhang Fei's Plan B.

Nothing less than cold-blooded murder is going to stir up a British hornet's nest. If the Muslim farce in Britain has not persuaded it to rise up against Islam's constant predations, then perhaps the loss of over a dozen of its finest young men will.

I will not discount Ahmadinejad's ability to do something so ill-advised that it might galvanize British opinion. His genocidal rhetoric has polarized much of the this world's community already. After breathing his own exhaust for so long, one can be sure that he sees very little as being beyond his grasp.

Iran has already claimed untold hundreds, if not thousands of American lives. If another fifteen British ones must be sacrificed in order that punative action begins against Tehran, then so be it. Iran's comeuppance is so incredibly long overdue as to be shameful.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 20:40 Comments || Top||

#26  If the Muslim farce in Britain has not persuaded it to rise up against Islam's constant predations, then perhaps the loss of over a dozen of its finest young men will.

I doubt it.

The logic will be, they were asking for it. Why were they over there in the first place being Bush's poodles? Serves them right and it should show the rest of our youth they shouldn't waste their time or endanger their lives by joining the fascist military.

Sickening, but probable.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/25/2007 21:39 Comments || Top||

#27  NS, I'm hoping that you have overlooked the likelihood of Ahmadinejad having them executed on television for Iranian public consumption. That sort of ignoble end to innocent young life would have a more incendiary effect on the British population than you might think. At least I've got to hope so, otherwise Britain is lost.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 21:59 Comments || Top||

#28  COBRA > MOD > means the Brits are considering/contemplating, and planning, a MIL OPTION. Doesn't mean said mil option will happen.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 03/25/2007 23:34 Comments || Top||


Blair crisis plan to free Iran captives
TONY Blair plans to raise the stakes over the plight of the British sailors captured by Iran, by activating the Government's crisis management team to deal with the escalating dispute.
Oh, good grief... "raise the stakes"??? Tony, you want to give the towelheads a real warm, runny feeling, then lob a few SLCMs at Qom and then say "Ahem!"
The Prime Minister has ordered senior colleagues and civil servants to prepare to convene the COBRA emergency committee, in a sign of the Government's growing concerns for the safety of the 15 marines and Royal Navy personnel snatched on Friday in the Shatt al-Arab waterway.

The rest is all background, covered in other stories...
Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6520 views] Top|| File under:

#1  "Growing concerns" works with effeminate EU politicians in Brussels. Not with blood-thirsty mullahs in Tehran.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) || 03/25/2007 0:34 Comments || Top||

#2  Sorry, but I'd argue that the phrase "growing concerns for the safety of the 15 marines and Royal Navy personnel" is a devastating indictment of the UK's seriousness and competence. "Safety" of military personnel (outside an industrial accident or plane-crash scenario)??? WTF? "Safety"? Uh, how about national interests, national security, strategic imperatives, etc.

If the Iranian "student group" comment reported elsewhere is to be believed, this is a crude attempt to try to spring the al Quds excrement we snatched in Irbil. Is it too much to hope that Petraeus and Fallon and the WH are telling Blair "uh, you f**ked up big-time, and we're not going to bail you out"?
Posted by: Verlaine || 03/25/2007 0:38 Comments || Top||

#3  Verlaine - if they do somehow release the Quds excrement somebody should make sure of the following: 1 they sing soprano, 2 they have gps trackers and mics implanted in their bods 3 they have a dose of Marburg Virus just before being freed. (Ebola kills too fast)

Posted by: 3dc || 03/25/2007 1:02 Comments || Top||

#4  If they really did this to get their Quds swine back, we should send just the heads. That would send a nice sweet message that would likely get results. Fast.
Posted by: Mike N. || 03/25/2007 1:18 Comments || Top||

#5  It's pretty difficult to suddenly morph into Clint Eastwood if you spend most of your time talking about Climate Change™. Although it has be said that, as acronyms go, COBRA is pretty damn cool.
Posted by: Sonar || 03/25/2007 1:50 Comments || Top||

#6  ... you want to give the towelheads a real warm, runny feeling, then lob a few SLCMs at Qom ...

Dave, I really take exception to juvenile name-calling like "towelheads". I also take exception to lunatic bullshit hostage taking like what's going on in Iran.

Let's please compromise and have Tehran and Qom get the crap bombed out of them for good measure. Eh?
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 2:43 Comments || Top||

#7  The five Iranians in Iraq were responsible for the killings of coalition troops. Now the Iranians are kidnapping coalition troops.

Tony Blair should announce that the Iranians have SIX HOURS to release the 15 or the Royal Navy will commence sinking the entire Iranian fleet, which they have the power to do. If the Mullahs kill any of the 15, they should then hit the capital mercilously.

The Iranian supported Hezbollah took two Israeli troops, and the IDF IMMEDIATELY invaded Lebanon, kicking serious Hez Butt. Did they kill the two Israeli's? NO. Will the Iranians murder the 15 POW's? If so, The US, Brittain, and Israel should unleash on Iran and Syria a decisive defeat.
Posted by: Ho Chi Glager5496 || 03/25/2007 3:07 Comments || Top||

#8  Let's please compromise and have Tehran and Qom get the crap bombed out of them for good measure. Eh?

And Isfahan, it has all the best architecture.
Posted by: Sonar || 03/25/2007 3:08 Comments || Top||

#9  Chi Glager5496, right, 6 hours.

That would be the correct time frame if we had leaders with brains, spine and balls.

What better casus belli can you ask for?

There is one thing I do not get. What are the effing British ROE? This simply should not have happened.
Posted by: twobyfour || 03/25/2007 3:32 Comments || Top||

#10  Why do I see the USS San Pablo docked on the Yangste and hear the rump rump rump a company of United States Marines at port arms, doubletimeing thru the streets to the rescue....? Lets show these worthless goat buggering phuechs what we're made of! GSTQ!
Posted by: Besoeker || 03/25/2007 5:15 Comments || Top||

#11  IMO: Blair's gonna do nada, zip, and zilch.
Posted by: gromgoru || 03/25/2007 5:58 Comments || Top||

#12  This should be an Act of War, or at the very least warrant some bombing at some important sites. Sadly Blair won't do anything. Neither would the US I think, though this might be a test run to see if we would. Afterall, if Britain doesn't do anything when this happens, doesn't that mean the United States won't?
Posted by: Charles || 03/25/2007 6:24 Comments || Top||

#13  "Dave, I really take exception to juvenile name-calling like "towelheads"."

Tough.

Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 8:47 Comments || Top||

#14  I would rather call them "diaper heads"--my personal preference.
Posted by: JohnQC || 03/25/2007 8:49 Comments || Top||

#15  The Prime Minister has ordered senior colleagues and civil servants to prepare to convene the COBRA emergency committee

COBRA Cabinet Office Briefing Room A

"You have your orders, 007"
Posted by: Q || 03/25/2007 8:53 Comments || Top||

#16  How about "pinheads" instead?
Posted by: gorb || 03/25/2007 8:53 Comments || Top||

#17  IMO: Blair's gonna do nada, zip, and zilch

dittos
Posted by: RD || 03/25/2007 13:40 Comments || Top||

#18  Iranians don't wear kuffiah
Posted by: gromgoru || 03/25/2007 13:48 Comments || Top||

#19  I'm getting really, REALLY tired of Iran. They definitely need to face the wrath of someone. I hope the US has the cojones to act, even if Britain doesn't. Iran declared war against the United States in 1979, and here we are, 28 years later, still trying to decide how to respond. Our entire government needs to be forced to step down, and someone with some brains put in their place.
Posted by: Old Patriot || 03/25/2007 13:51 Comments || Top||

#20  Tough.

No problem. Thank goodness we live in a free country where we are at liberty to disagree. I just happen to feel that your arguments are of sufficiently high quality where they are degraded by name-calling. That's just my own read. Do not think for one second that I, too, don't often feel inclined to abuse these maggots with far more colorful language.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 15:21 Comments || Top||

#21  Towelheads is rather childish. Towelhead fucks on the other hand...

The real problem here is not that they may or may not wear towels on their heads. As I see it, the real problem here is that they have heads.
Posted by: Mike N. || 03/25/2007 15:25 Comments || Top||

#22  "I just happen to feel that your arguments are of sufficiently high quality where they are degraded by name-calling."

And I don't. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 15:34 Comments || Top||

#23  Think of this as punctuation for the argument! :-)
Posted by: gorb || 03/25/2007 15:37 Comments || Top||

#24  Yeah. What gorb said.
Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 15:45 Comments || Top||

#25  S'alright. Let's just not allow it to deflect our arrows from their proper target.

Islam has gotta go. Sooner, not later. By violence more likely than not.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 16:00 Comments || Top||

#26  The real problem here is not that they may or may not wear towels on their heads. As I see it, the real problem here is that they have heads.

Bravo, exceptionally well-written, Mike N.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 16:02 Comments || Top||

#27  not too fan the flame too much, but I've always liked the term little sheet heads lol
Posted by: Jan || 03/25/2007 16:28 Comments || Top||

#28  It does bother me that nothing is being done, and these "towelheads" are learning that they can do anything they want to without any reprocussions.

What will it be next, they will keep pushing and pushing. They need to be stopped and quickly.

I promote another learning curve, one of action. Blair starts taking out stategic sites until they are released. Like Steve I think it was said yesterday.

Posted by: Jan || 03/25/2007 16:53 Comments || Top||

#29  "It does bother me that nothing is being done, and these [CENSORED] are learning that they can do anything they want to without any reprocussions."

Same here. It occurs to me that *ALL* of this trouble we've been having with Islam the last couple of decades is because we've reached such a highly refined level of "civilization" that the MMs and their ilk cannot but view it as weakness-- and they find the urge to rumble simply irresistable.

We, on the other hand, are having a truly terrible time wrapping our minds around the fact that what we are dealing with are primitive savages barely advanced beyond the Bronze Age: brutish, larcenous, superstitious and tribalistic. For all their superficially modern trappings, they may as well be wearing loincloths and boiling missionaries in pots.

They understand only force. And we've grown allergic to exercising it.

Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 17:07 Comments || Top||

#30  Dave, please, no censorship, especially self-censorship. You're a better man than that and we both know it. I'll take the towelhead and diaperhead comments sooner than see this place censor itself. Somehow, I'm sure that was your explicit intent.

They understand only force. And we've grown allergic to exercising it.

How the f&%k is it that we can train all these excellent troops, build all of these superb weapons and yet not concommitantly assemble enough spine to put them to their intended use? America's economic and military preeminence are a direct byproduct of our superior governmental system and represent the absolute core of any moral authority we need to confront this enemy.

Aside from defeating Soviet communism, no finer example than Islam itself can be brought forth to demonstrate exactly why we built this military arsenal. Instead, confronted with clear and present danger we cower at the thought of unleashing these guardians of our very survival. This shit's gotta stop before we slit our own wrists in the attempt to better appease Islam.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 17:24 Comments || Top||

#31  "Somehow, I'm sure that was your explicit intent."

Moi????? How could you possibly think...

"How the f&%k is it that we can train all these excellent troops, build all of these superb weapons and yet not concommitantly assemble enough spine to put them to their intended use?"

We had that conversation yesterday or the day before. It's the rot. Not necessarily its more extreme manifestations, like those, but the lower-level, more pervasive cultural insecurity that goes along with that shit.

It will have to be extirpated. Or very few of us alive today will have great-grandchildren.

Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 17:53 Comments || Top||

#32  When my son was home several years ago, during his time off he worked at the recruiters office and visited his old high school while in his uniform.
I was so very proud of him and all his accomplishments that he was able to bring back to show and tell the younger kids at the school.
But the response of the parents and even some friends was horrible, how can you do that with his influence blah blah blah.
Later I learned how some of my friends protested at that very recruiters station, and were so happy about protesting and getting arrested. I told them that was where my son worked as a recruiter, and he just went on to say how he was brainwashed and how I was so misinformed.
The MSM is really hurting our country. The info I get from my son from being in it over there VS what you hear on the news, it's no wonder we have such nut jobs running around like this.
We need to get the truth out to the people. We're going to die of gangrene or the rot as you say, with our country breaking down from the inside.

And to have such a wonderful strong military only to be held back by all this wishy washy stuff kills me.
What can the ordinary person do here? I stand up to my friends, but now they have me labeled as brainwashed too because of my son. I've tried to reason with these "friends" but to no avail.
Sad that they don't see the light here.
I might add some of the kids of these friends have been in all kinds of trouble, but do you think they address that? No, instead they ignore their own family and go protest.
end rant
Posted by: Jan || 03/25/2007 19:23 Comments || Top||

#33  Jan, I hear ya. Since 9/11 my circle of friends has changed almost 100%. The group I now consider friends no longer resembles the group I formerly considered friends. My list of friends is now much smaller and far more family like and I am a better man for it.
Posted by: Mike N. || 03/25/2007 19:47 Comments || Top||

#34  Dave D.

I would like to congratulate you on your very mature observation that the Iranian Mullah's and their thugs run around with linens on their heads. The term "towel heads" so apptly applied brings instant and concise visualization of the individuals that are the subject of your initial comment.

I hope that others show respect and not come in to attempt to publicly criticize such concise free speech as being childish. Even though such individuals that do so may think such criticism makes them feel they are on a higher plane, it in reality, only makes them appear vain and "childish".

:-)

Like Bill the Cat once said, "When people are trying to piss me off, it takes 42 muscles to frown and only 4 to extend my middle finger and tell them to bite me!"
Posted by: Ho Chi Glager5496 || 03/25/2007 19:52 Comments || Top||

#35  Jan, all you can do is avoid the subject with your friends if you want to keep them. They've demonstrated their mental limitations, and the fates of their children only prove it, sadly. Be proud that you've done so well with your own son. While you're at it, thank you for that and thank him, too, from all of us for his service.
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/25/2007 20:18 Comments || Top||

#36  yes my choice in friends has been evolving.
It's just hard to see folks that I've been friends with for more than 25 some 30 years have such gravely different views on the world politics.
I must admit that I had similar views until my son joined, before 9/11, and to be more abreast of what was going on I started reading everything I could get my hands on, not just the MSM. I never used to be that well read of a person, listening to the TV for most all of the news.
So I guess I'm the one that changed, but thankfully so. I still have alot to learn, with alot to catch up on.
Posted by: Jan || 03/25/2007 22:23 Comments || Top||

#37  Has anyone noticed that the islamo turbaned heads also have greasy unwashed face and a transparent mask of deceit about them?
Posted by: Duh! || 03/25/2007 22:36 Comments || Top||

#38  Jan, just another Rantburger hoping that you would please thank your son for me. His courage and service to our country are priceless.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 23:30 Comments || Top||

#39  HHHHHHHMMMMM, so iff CHINA allegedly reportedly wants US or Western recognition that NORTH KOREA is a VASSAL/TRIBUTARY STATE OF CHINA - you know, NorKor independence and sovereignty, NKies = UNDECLARED CHINESE? - dare IRAN wants similar or higher recognition vv IRAQ???
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 03/25/2007 23:44 Comments || Top||


Iran raises the hostage stakes
Hardliners demand British captives be used to teach West a lesson

THE 15 British sailors and Royal Marines captured by Iranian Revolutionary Guards in a waterway separating Iran and Iraq were yesterday trapped in an outbreak of aggressive political brinkmanship that may mark a bleak turning point in the West’s relations with Tehran.

Officials in London and Washington remained publicly optimistic that Iran would respond to international pressure and free them within days, despite claims by a senior military official in Tehran that the captives had “confessed” to illegally entering Iranian territorial waters on Friday in a pair of rigid inflatable boats known as RIBs.

Yet there were ominous signs from Tehran that hardline religious elements were seeking to turn the incident into a major confrontation with the West. Several conservative student groups called on the Iranian government not to release the service personnel until five Iranians detained by US forces in Iraq earlier this year were released.

The groups also called for the cancellation of United Nations sanctions imposed on Iran after a unanimous security council vote in New York last night. The new sanctions were in response to Tehran’s refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment programme, which may be used to build nuclear weapons.

Iran shrugged off the vote and vowed to pursue its nuclear goals. “Suspension is neither an option nor a solution,” said Manouchehr Mottaki, the foreign minister. “I can assure you that pressure and intimidation will not change Iranian policy.”

There was also a demonstration by 500 student radicals gathered on the Iranian shore of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the Britons were seized shortly after they had completed a routine antismuggling inspection of a dhow laden with vehicles. In a sinister echo of the US embassy hostage crisis in Tehran in 1979, the students chanted “Death to Britain” and “Death to America”.
This shit is getting REAL old...
The British captives were said by one Iranian source to have been moved yesterday into the notorious dungeons of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) at the Ghasre Firouzeh military complex in Tehran.

Their seizure followed a series of embarrassing military setbacks for the IRGC, founded by the late Ayatollah Khomeini after the Iranian revolution of 1979, and which now answers directly to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme religious leader.

There was widespread speculation that the seizure may have been a reprisal for the arrest by US troops of five members of the IRGC’s elite al-Quds Brigade, which has been accused by the Pentagon of arming and assisting Shi’ite militias in Iraq. The IRGC has also been stung by a series of apparent defections of high-ranking officers.

Intelligence sources in the region had warned that the IRGC may have been planning retaliation for what it claimed was a western plot to destabilise Tehran’s military command.

The Sunday Times last week quoted Reza Falker, a writer for the Revolutionary Guards’ weekly newspaper, as saying: “We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks
Enough with the bellicose penis nonsense, huh?
The Sunday Times article also quoted a Jordanian intelligence officer as saying: “In Iraq, the Quds force can easily get hold of American and British officers.”

The Shatt al-Arab waterway was an obvious target for a premeditated kidnap. Its waters have been disputed for centuries and were a prime cause of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. It is still littered with the wrecks of bombed-out ships.

“The problem is that nobody knows where the border is,” said Lawrence Potter, a professor of international affairs at Columbia University, New York. “The British might have thought they were on their side, the Iranians might have thought they were on their side.”

British officials have long been aware of the area’s potential navigational hazards. In June 2004 eight sailors and marine commandos were seized in a similar incident when Tehran accused them of straying into Iranian waters. On that occasion the men were blindfolded and paraded on Iranian television, then released three days later. Tehran never returned their boats.

The British personnel seized on Friday were in Iraqi waters, according to their commanding officer, Commodore Nick Lambert of the frigate HMS Cornwall, who said he had “absolutely no doubt” about their position.

After their uneventful inspection of the dhow, the Britons were on their way out of the area when they were surrounded by six larger vessels armed with heavy machineguns. The crews of the RIBs had rifles and pistols.

A Royal Navy helicopter spotted the Iranian vessels towing the inflatables towards a military base on the Iranian shore. The helicopter made radio contact with the Iranians, and was told there had been no fighting and that nobody was hurt.

US military officials publicly supported Britain’s claim that the seized sailors and marines were inside Iraqi waters, but sources in Washington privately acknowledged it was a difficult case to prove. The Iraqi military commander in nominal charge of territorial waters cast further doubt on the British claim.

“We were informed by Iraqi fishermen . . . that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control,” said Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim in Basra. “We don’t know why they were there.” Yet the main concern in both London and Washington was that legal niceties would rapidly become irrelevant if the incident spirals into a stage-managed confrontation over Iran’s nuclear weapons programme and its alleged subversion in Iraq.

Yesterday’s UN resolution presents Tehran with a tougher sanctions regime, and several US analysts speculated that the Iranians may feel they have nothing to lose by precipitating a diplomatic crisis that has conveniently distracted popular attention from recent setbacks to the country’s nuclear programme, a source of intense national pride.

A Russian decision to suspend supplies of nuclear fuel to the Bushehr reactor in southern Iran had shaken confidence in the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But the Shatt al-Arab incident has “helpfully changed the subject”, said one Iranian opposition source.

The Tehran foreign ministry’s spokesman, Mohammad Ali-Hosseini, yesterday accused Britain of “illegal and interventionist” entry into Iranian waters. Kate Smith, the British chargé d’affaires in Tehran, was summoned to the Iranian foreign ministry on Friday to receive a formal protest. Geoffrey Adams, Britain’s ambassador to Iran, had been out of the country and was returning this weekend.

Most worrying for London were recent belligerent remarks by Khamenei, who was said by an Iranian source yesterday to have personally approved the order to abduct the Britons.
Khamenei's severed head belongs on a lamppost in downtown Tehran.
The fact that the IRGC has custody of the captives will further complicate efforts to find a diplomatic solution. The force, considered the elite of Iran, operates independently of Ahmadinejad’s government.

Sources in Tehran said the British prisoners were almost certain to be suffering similar conditions to those endured by the eight captives held in 2004. They were subjected to mock executions and told they would be put on trial as spies. If Tehran concludes this time that its status in the Middle East will be enhanced by a show trial of British “aggressors”, this crisis could last for months.
Give them 24 hours-- then Qom gets glassified.
Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6473 views] Top|| File under:

#1  They're asking for it. They've been asking for it over the last 28 years. Yes, Qom must go. Next, we should destroy Tehran -- like Berlin and Tokyo.

After that, national strategic policy should be principled, systematic destruction of any capital host to anti-Western tyranny. Starting with Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and North Korea. Give their people 7 days unconditional warning -- either they get rid of their tyrant or we destroy their capital. And they should not expect one cent of aid, no matter what.

Ceterum censeo, Mecca delenda est.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) || 03/25/2007 0:44 Comments || Top||

#2  ... hardline religious elements were seeking to turn the incident into a major confrontation with the West.

Far be it from us to deny them their wish.

And they should not expect one cent of aid, no matter what.

Bing-effing-oh, Kalle. There must be an end to nation building. Let it please begin with Iran!
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 3:07 Comments || Top||

#3  “The problem is that nobody knows where the border is,” said Lawrence Potter, a professor of international affairs

Well shit that's easy. The international offshore border is exactly where the United States Navy says it is.
Posted by: Shipman || 03/25/2007 5:05 Comments || Top||

#4  Time to up the ante for Iran. Iran is a second or third rate power annoying the rest the world. Time to swat the pests hard.
Posted by: JohnQC || 03/25/2007 8:23 Comments || Top||

#5  What we should do:

Give 24 hours to get them back, then start bombing the government and religious sites. If the UN condemns us, withdraw all funding.

What we will do:


.
Posted by: Jackal || 03/25/2007 9:09 Comments || Top||

#6  I dunno folks? Something doesn’t smell right on this one. The obvious assumption is that the Iranians are up to their usual nefarious activities but there are still a couple of unanswered questions. First and foremost is; Why haven’t the Brits provided conclusive evidence of their position? (ie; Satellite imagery, GPS coordinates) Second is why didn’t the Brits take action at the time of the capture? I’m gonna go out a limb here but me thinks maybe…just maybe they indeed were within Iranian territory.
Posted by: DepotGuy || 03/25/2007 12:13 Comments || Top||

#7  It's WAR, When will Blair quit Fucking around and realize it?
Posted by: Redneck Jim || 03/25/2007 12:22 Comments || Top||

#8  "First and foremost is; Why haven’t the Brits provided conclusive evidence of their position?"

They probably felt they didn't need to.

"Second is why didn’t the Brits take action at the time of the capture?"

Timidity. Fear of confrontation. Fear of being thought less than "nice".

"I’m gonna go out a limb here but me thinks maybe…just maybe they indeed were within Iranian territory."

I couldn't give a candy-coated crap if the Brits were parading through downtown friggin' Tehran in full battle-rattle: the message the West needs to be sending out now is "Do not f*ck with us. EVER."

The Islamic world is in dire need of adult supervision. STERN supervision, that will insist on peeling back the Foreskin Of Ignorance and applying the Wire Brush of Enlightenment with firm, brisk strokes.

Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 12:31 Comments || Top||

#9  YIKES, DD! that hurt just to read it!
Posted by: Frank G || 03/25/2007 12:44 Comments || Top||

#10  Just you wait: I haven't invoked the Dremel Tool Of Tranquillity yet...
Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 12:56 Comments || Top||

#11  Ima thought Rachel Carzone outlawed DTT.
Posted by: Shipman || 03/25/2007 13:32 Comments || Top||

#12  I couldn't give a candy-coated crap if the Brits were parading through downtown friggin' Tehran in full battle-rattle: the message the West needs to be sending out now is "Do not f*ck with us. EVER."

The Islamic world is in dire need of adult supervision. STERN supervision, that will insist on peeling back the Foreskin Of Ignorance and applying the Wire Brush of Enlightenment with firm, brisk strokes.


DD that's some of the best I've read. seen. FELT! ;-)

sincerely
Bravissimo!
Posted by: RD || 03/25/2007 13:46 Comments || Top||

#13  Iran and its mullahs has to go. Nuke Qom, Tehran, and Bandar Abbas, for starters. Destroy every choke point in the nation. Take out anything that even might possibly be capable of hiding a nuclear facility, every airfield, every port, every gas pipeline, every refinery, and any building more than two stories tall. At the same time, do the same thing to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Send two divisions of Marines (even if you have to call up the old farts to martial that many troops) and shut down the United Nations, put everybody aboard whatever cruise ship is in US waters, and send them to Africa, along with their families. NEVER let them back in, even if they're "American" citizens. Send two divisions of Army troops to take control of State, investigate anyone that's living beyond his/her salary, and deport them with the UN group. Fire Rice and replace her with John Bolton, and tell Congress they have 24 hours to confirm him or the President will issue arrest orders for treason for anyone that voted for that stupid "surrender" document. Nationalize the National Guard, order ALL reservists to active duty, and nationalize State, County, and Local police. Shoot every member of the ACLU, and meet "peace demonstrators" with an M-1 and a beehive round. STOP PRETENDING WE ARE AT "PEACE": WE HAVE BEEN AT WAR FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS, AND IGNORED THE FACT. It's going to take drastic action to recover from the sins of the past. The sooner we start, the sooner we can get this damned war over with.
Posted by: Old Patriot || 03/25/2007 14:01 Comments || Top||

#14  “They probably felt they didn't need to.”

Hmmm… I seem to recall a little something called sovereignty. And like it or not, for the time being, I believe that still applies to Iran. One would think providing evidence of their positions would clarify the situation rather quickly.
(Notice I didn’t say “resolve” the situation)

Timidity. Fear of confrontation. Fear of being thought less than "nice".

The suggestion that the commander sat idle and watched 15 of his comrades captured so as not to offend the Iranians seems like an odd explanation. My understanding is that RN interdiction crews are not only tight knit but also tough sonsobitches.
Posted by: DepotGuy || 03/25/2007 14:09 Comments || Top||

#15  Old Patriot you just got my vote for 2008. Fred Thompson will have to wait.
Posted by: jds || 03/25/2007 15:06 Comments || Top||

#16  I couldn't give a candy-coated crap if the Brits were parading through downtown friggin' Tehran in full battle-rattle: the message the West needs to be sending out now is "Do not f*ck with us. EVER."

It is also the only message we should be sending. Instead, the mixed signals coming from the West require a supercomputer to decipher.

The Islamic world is in dire need of adult supervision. STERN supervision, that will insist on peeling back the Foreskin Of Ignorance and applying the Wire Brush of Enlightenment with firm, brisk strokes.

I remember when you first posted this and it made me laugh just as hard then as it did now. Great writing! Iran and the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) must be made to feel the West's pain. Until we ensure that they bleed a torrent for every paper cut they inflict against us there will only be more of the same. The MME must be made to writhe in agony with every atrocity Islam commits. Muslims must be subjected to such intense devastation that they rush to slit the nearest Wahhabi imam's throat with each new attack on the West.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 15:34 Comments || Top||

#17  So we are at something like 48 hours and still dithering about what to do...... Since there has been no mushroom clouds erupt over the greater Tehran metropolitan area, I can only deduce that the testicullarly-challenged West will remain so. And whatever fate befalls the 15 Brits will be on not only the Heads of the various States, but all that sat idly by and (maybe) engaged in some major-league hand-wringing.
(If only I were wrong)
Posted by: USN, ret. || 03/25/2007 21:13 Comments || Top||


Iran ‘to try Britons for espionage’
FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying. A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted. Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded:
“If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”
“If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

The warning followed claims by Iranian officials that the British navy personnel had been taken to Tehran, the capital, to explain their “aggressive action” in entering Iranian waters. British officials insist the servicemen were in Iraqi waters when they were held. The penalty for espionage in Iran is death. However, similar accusations of spying were made when eight British servicemen were detained in the same area in 2004. They were paraded blindfolded on television but did not appear in court and were freed after three nights in detention.

Iranian student groups called yesterday for the 15 detainees to be held until US forces released five Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq earlier this year.
Iranian student groups called yesterday for the 15 detainees to be held until US forces released five Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq earlier this year.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat, a Saudi-owned newspaper based in London, quoted an Iranian military source as saying that the aim was to trade the Royal Marines and sailors for these Guards. The claim was backed by other sources in Tehran. “As soon as the corps’s five members are released, the Britons can go home,” said one source close to the Guards. He said the tactic had been approved by Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, who warned last week that Tehran would take “illegal actions” if necessary to maintain its right to develop a nuclear programme.

Iran denounced a tightening of sanctions which the United Nations security council was expected to agree last night in protest at Tehran’s insistence on enriching uranium that could be used for nuclear weapons. Lord Triesman, the Foreign Office minister, met the Iranian ambassador in London yesterday to demand that consular staff be allowed access to the Britons, one of whom is a woman. His intervention came as a senior Iranian general alleged that the Britons had confessed under interrogation to “aggression into Iran’s waters”.

Intelligence sources said any advance order for the arrests was likely to have come from Major-General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards. Subhi Sadek, the Guards’ weekly newspaper, warned last weekend that the force had “the ability to capture a bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks”.

Safavi is known to be furious about the recent defections to the West of three senior Guards officers, including a general, and the effect of UN sanctions on his own finances.
Safavi is known to be furious about the recent defections to the West of three senior Guards officers, including a general, and the effect of UN sanctions on his own finances.

A senior Iraqi officer appeared to back Tehran’s claim that the British had entered Iranian waters. “We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control,” said Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim, who is in charge of Iraq’s territorial waters. “We don’t know why they were there.”

Admiral Sir Alan West, the former head of the Royal Navy, dismissed suggestions that the British boats might have been in Iranian waters. West, who was first sea lord when the previous arrests took place in June 2004, said satellite tracking systems had shown then that the Iranians were lying and the same was certain to be true now.
This article starring:
Admiral Sir Alan West
Ayatollah Khamenei
Lord Triesman
MAJOR GENERAL YAHYA RAHIM SAFAVIRevolutionary Guards
Revolutionary Guards
Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6471 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Also features "Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim, in charge of Iraq’s territorial waters" -- who should keep his mouth shut.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) || 03/25/2007 0:46 Comments || Top||

#2  How long it takes to sift through data to pull the image sequence? Publish it worldwide and declare that Iranians have 24 hours to release the soldiers, equipment inclusive, or else. I would not specify what else, I would have them guessing. Not only they would not be guesing next time, there won't be the next time if the deadline were not met.
Posted by: twobyfour || 03/25/2007 1:41 Comments || Top||

#3  They should just have a sign in front of their table at the UN that says "We kidnapped yours so we'll have something to trade for ours." We have SWAT teams to take care of this element at home, what is so different about this? Terrorism at its 'finest'. I don't know why we give this any weight at all. It is illogical. Warn them that we are going to go after retribution in two or maybe three stages if necessary. Stage one is to sink their entire navy. Stage two will to be to bomb centers of their economy at times of our choosing. Until we get ours back. Alive. They are responsible for the "alive" part. Then sink their navy. The whole thing. Then give them a day to think it over. This Mr. Nice Guy thing is just a toy for their uncivilized leadership to play with, that's all. The government needs to be taught a lesson, and the people need to see it and understand that they are just being used as pawns and shields while a few thousand bad guys try to cause all kinds of trouble in the name of they don't even know what or why. If they can't return them all alive, proceed to stage three which I think should be to keep bombing until they give up their nuclear program and maybe even the mullahs who are key to all this horse$hit. Take Iran down and the rest of the middle east won't have anyone to hide behind and perhaps there will be some true peace over there after all.
Posted by: gorb || 03/25/2007 2:59 Comments || Top||

#4  Word, gorb.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/25/2007 16:13 Comments || Top||


Key Elements of U.N. Resolution on Iran
The U.N. Security Council imposed new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, expanding on sanctions approved in December. The key points of the two measures:

LATEST RESOLUTION:

_ A ban on Iranian arms exports and on any country buying Iranian weapons.
What Iranian weapons? Was anyone buying them anyway?
_ A call on all nations "to exercise vigilance and restraint" in supplying tanks, combat aircraft and other heavy weapons to Iran.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever...
_ An asset freeze on 15 individuals and 13 organizations and companies.
Ouch. Talk about a kick in the nuts...
_ A call on all governments and financial institutions not to make any new commitments "of grants, financial assistance, or concessional loans" to the Iranian government.
See "A call on all nations..." above...
_ A call on all countries to exercise "vigilance and restraint" on the entry or transit through their territory of the individuals who provide support or are involved with Iran's nuclear activities.
See previous item...
_ A requirement that all countries report the transit or entry of any of people whose assets have been frozen to the Security Council committee monitoring sanctions against Iran.
Oh, man, THAT will cause welts...

DECEMBER 23 RESOLUTION:

_ Demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment and reprocessing-related activities.

_ Banned Iran from exporting a lengthy list of items related to its nuclear and missile programs.

_ Ordered all countries to stop supplying Iran with a lengthy list of materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs.

_ Imposed an asset freeze on 10 companies and 12 individuals related to those programs.

_ Banned technical or financial assistance to Iran for its nuclear or missile programs.

_ Called on all states "to exercise vigilance" regarding the entry or transit through their territory of the Iranians on the U.N. list.

_ Asked all countries to notify the Security Council sanctions committee when those Iranians show up in their country.

_ Limited the International Atomic Energy Agency's technical cooperation with Iran to food, agricultural, medical, safety and other humanitarian purposes.

_ Called on all countries to prevent specialized teaching and training for Iraqis that would help develop the country's nuclear program.

Yawn...
Posted by: Dave D. || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6513 views] Top|| File under:

#1  In other words, the latest UN "sanctions" make barely any difference relative to the impact of the previous "sanctions".

The UN is an obstacle to the free world and an aid to tyrants everywhere. Add it to the axis of evil.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) || 03/25/2007 0:49 Comments || Top||

#2  Hopefully the arms export ban means to Hizb'allah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Not that it would make much difference at this point, they've already been fully stocked.
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/25/2007 20:30 Comments || Top||


Good morning....
Bangladesh interim govt. probes links between top politicians, mafiaKey Elements of U.N. Resolution on IranIran ‘to try Britons for espionage’Jihadist recruiter Hassan Butt renounces radicalismNephew of tribal chief shot dead in WanaMogadishu rests on fragile ceasefireArmy chief says order restored in Kinshasa
Posted by: Fred || 03/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6466 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I'll take Vivian Porter over 72 virgins any day of the week. Hama yama.

And uhh, oh yea, INVADE IRAN!!!!
Posted by: garbagecowboy || 03/25/2007 0:46 Comments || Top||

#2  With all of that lace, delicate upper garmets, etc, Vivian will definately need to be fitted for a 9mm thigh rig.
Posted by: Besoeker || 03/25/2007 1:27 Comments || Top||

#3  That's what we are fighting for lads. BOMB IRAN.
Posted by: Excalibur || 03/25/2007 2:17 Comments || Top||

#4  Bomb, bomb, bomb
bomb bomb Iran
Posted by: Bobby || 03/25/2007 7:30 Comments || Top||

#5  Vivian can get rid of that cumbersome curtain in another month here in the south and be comfortable. Of course she could get rid of it now and I wouldn't mind.
Posted by: JohnQC || 03/25/2007 8:35 Comments || Top||

#6  Bedspreads - I know why I hate them;(
Posted by: Spot || 03/25/2007 8:37 Comments || Top||

#7  If she'd just smile a bit...
Posted by: Old Patriot || 03/25/2007 13:07 Comments || Top||

#8  Top Round and Rump Roast. Umm Um Gud!
Posted by: Hannibal Lecter || 03/25/2007 13:17 Comments || Top||

#9  Go Gators!
Posted by: DragonFly || 03/25/2007 15:09 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
74[untagged]

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.

Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.

Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has dominated Mexico for six years.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
Pappy
lotp
Scooter McGruder
john frum
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark
Alaska Paul

Two weeks of WOT
Sun 2007-03-25
  UNSC approves new sanctions on Iran
Sat 2007-03-24
  Iran kidnaps Brit sailors, marines
Fri 2007-03-23
  LEBANON: 200 KG BOMB FOUND AT UNIVERSITY
Thu 2007-03-22
  110 killed as Waziristan festivities enter third day
Wed 2007-03-21
  40 killed in Wazoo clashes
Tue 2007-03-20
  Taha Yassin Ramadan escorted from gene pool
Mon 2007-03-19
  5000+ kilos of explosives seized in Mazar-e-Sharif
Sun 2007-03-18
  PA unity govt to meet officially on Sunday
Sat 2007-03-17
  Gaza gunnies try to snatch UNRWA head
Fri 2007-03-16
  Syrians confess to Leb twin bus bombings
Thu 2007-03-15
  9 held in Morocco after suicide blast
Wed 2007-03-14
  Mortar shells hit Somali presidential residence
Tue 2007-03-13
  Lebanese Police arrest a Palestinian carrying a bomb
Mon 2007-03-12
  Talibs threaten Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Mexico, Samoa
Sun 2007-03-11
  U.S. calls Iran, Syria talks cordial
Sat 2007-03-10
  Captured big turban wasn't al-Baghdadi. We guessed that.

Better than the average link...



Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
3.239.4.127
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Background (21)    Non-WoT (15)    Opinion (8)    Local News (4)    (0)