Time to begin the Naval blockade of Iran.

Posted by: km at March 30, 2007 8:30 AM

time to take down lone oil refinery, and several well placed strikes.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 30, 2007 8:36 AM

Blair called for "patience" in dealing with the crisis, adding: "They most important thing is to ensure people are returned safe."

No, fool, the most important thing is that the Iranian regime understands actions such as this will not be tolerated. The captured personnel are active servicemen, and as such were well aware that their jobs involved risking their lives.

But its probably already far too late for the type of action necessary - I guess ahmmadandambad already has the speeches written about he 'humbled' the mighty British, probably held in thrall by his green glow...

Posted by: thomas ato at March 30, 2007 8:37 AM

I wonder if there are any Iranians beating the drums on behalf of these hostages the way the idiots beat the drums for terrorist filth being held at Gitmo. It also wouldn't surprise me if KSM gets better treatment than these poor people are getting as well.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at March 30, 2007 8:39 AM

Time to begin the Naval blockade of Iran.

And begin the mass media campaign advocating the health benefits of exercise as outlined in this interview by Hugh Hewitt withNewt
:

HH: Super. It wouldn’t be a debate, just a conversation. Now let’s get to the first major issue of the day, which is Iran. Mr. Speaker, if the United Kingdom feels obliged to use force, if diplomacy fails to get their people back, will you applaud?

NG: I think there are two very simple steps that should be taken. The first is to use a covert operation, or a special forces operation to knock out the only gasoline producing refinery in Iran. There’s only one. And the second is to simply intercede by Naval force, and block any tankers from bringing gasoline to Iran…

HH: Would you do, would you urge them…

NG: And say to the Iranians, you know, you can keep the sailors as long as you want, but in about 30 days, everybody in your country will be walking.

HH: So how long would you give them, to give them that ultimatum, the Iranians?

NG: I would literally do that. I would say to them, I would right now say to them privately, within the next week, your refinery will no longer work. And within the following week, there will be no tankers arriving. Now if you would like to avoid being humiliated publicly, we recommend you calmly and quietly give them back now. But frankly, if you’d prefer to show the planet that you’re tiny and we’re not, we’re prepared to simply cut off your economy, and allow you to go back to walking and using oxen to pull carts, because you will have no gasoline left.

HH: I agree with that 100%. Would your recommendation to the United States President be the same if Iran seized our forces?

NG: Absolutely. I mean, the reason I say that,it is the least violent, least direct thing you can do. It uses our greatest strength…you know, the mismatch in Naval power is absolute. And so you don’t have to send troops into Iran. Everybody on the left is waiting for conservatives to say things that allow them to run amok and parade in San Francisco, and claim that we’re warmongers. I want to avoid war by intelligently using our power to eliminate the option of sustaining an economy, so that the Iranian dictatorship will be shown to be the hollow dictatorship it is, so the people of Iran decide they’d like to have a decent government with real electricity and real gasoline, so they overthrow it. And I want to do that without risking a single American life, or being engaged in a single direct confrontation. And Naval power lets you do that.

Posted by: justamomof4 at March 30, 2007 8:44 AM

Yes save a Brit the new fashion tells us we must get in shape the minni skirt is back I already have some of those cut stockings to wear all kinds of different prints. So cute for those cool summer evenings.

Now must look for the shoes!!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262530,00.html
The Minidress Is Back ... If You've Got the Legs for It
Thursday , March 29, 2007
By Catherine Donaldson-Evans

Yes save a Brit save gas and walk rollerblade or bike get into shape and save the world at the same time!!!

Who says you can’t look good and make a difference at the same time?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262584,00.html
IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS DISCOVER 2 SMUGGLING TUNNELS ALONG U.S.-MEXICO BORDER
Thursday, March 29, 2007

SAN DIEGO —
Two incomplete tunnels have been discovered along the U.S.-Mexico border in what authorities describe as a failed attempt to sneak people into the United States illegally.

http://www.beecy.net/frank/

What was it W.B. Jones say about all the arabs [or was it mulsums] in central America??

Part of the merican Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN

Posted by: Catherine at March 30, 2007 8:46 AM

Newt in 08!

nabi ZK

Posted by: zonie kafir at March 30, 2007 8:48 AM

Still waiting for that vast progressive, pro-Western Iranian majority to exert their influence over the isolated and impotent Islamic regime. I hear they are waiting to embrace our value system. Just like the Iraqis.

Posted by: pez at March 30, 2007 8:56 AM

Newt is brilliant, a leader for the times. we can win by isolating Iran. The Iranian people will take care of the rest.

Posted by: sounder at March 30, 2007 8:58 AM

Suggest Blair,Brown & Beckett[3 B's-no pun intended] are offered to Little Monkey man in exchange for 15 Marines.
Mahmoud gets to torture them for hours whilst recounting wonderous ways of coming Mahdi leaping
from well etc. Trio of stupid Dhimmis get to understand what a wonderful religion Islam is as
Tony & Gordon are forcibly circumcised & Margaret
appears in a burka[might be an improvement].
At last Tony is able to star in his own video before to accompaniement of Islamic Guards chanting "merciful & compassionate Allah," he is hanged from a crane and goes down in History[something our Tony was always keen on] as THE WORST PRIME MINISTER BRITS HAVE EVER HAD!

Posted by: Morgane at March 30, 2007 8:59 AM

Ok, it's obvious to all that the "confession" is as phony as a three-dolar bill.

Something else is troubling, however. How come these men agree so easily to be propaganda tools? Shouldn't they be trained to withstand pscychological pressure, even torture to a cerain degree? Back in WWII the Gestapo had to resort to inhuman measures to get information out of resistance fighters, most of them ordinary civilians. Iranians seem to get their way without breaking sweat.

Posted by: Witch-king of Angmar at March 30, 2007 9:02 AM

Posted by: Witch-king of Angmar

Agreed, it seems that modern military training isnt what it used to be. Shouldnt it just be 'Name, Rank, Serial Number'?

Posted by: thomas ato at March 30, 2007 9:08 AM

Did the Muslims who perpretrated 9/11 ask for anybody's permission to fly an aircraft without a valid pilot licence ?

What "licence to kill" did the Muslim scums have for bombing Mumbai trains and buildings ?

The problem is that Islam wants a laizzez faire for its evil and no licence for others' retaliation.

The only way to talk to such people is to respond like the US did to Afghanistan.

Posted by: proud-hindu at March 30, 2007 9:13 AM

The Brits have GPS recordings and satellite imagery showing that the sailors and marines were in IRAQI waters and that the Iranians made an incursion into Iraqi territorial waters to capture them.

Posted by: CGW at March 30, 2007 9:13 AM

Psychological pressure can be enormous, such as we already know where most of your family lives because of agents that we have in Britain. Pressure like that can make people say whatever their captures want them to.

Posted by: Mackie at March 30, 2007 9:20 AM

I do not blame any of these service people for this, I wonder how many fake execustions they have been put through...

Posted by: Daffersd at March 30, 2007 9:23 AM

The detainee "confession" was made under coercieon and duress. It is simply a propaganda tool by Iran. Look through this smokescreen and you will find a forced "confession".

Posted by: Johnathan at March 30, 2007 9:27 AM

Just to clear things up: I'm not jumping to judgement here. I don't know what they have been through, but from the clips I saw they don't seem to have any physical injuries. Mackie could be right, but that's even more a cause to worry. It would show that he level of infiltration is beyond what anyone has imagined.

Posted by: Witch-king of Angmar at March 30, 2007 9:34 AM

For those who criticise Tony Blair, one of the principal reasons why things are so difficult for him to do anything can be summed up in the following examples, taken from a posting on Little Green Footballs, and there's the typical animosity towards Blair and Bush whilst the Iranians are in the right as usual.

-----------------------------------------------

Blair calls the detention of the sailors as unjustified and wrong. Does the same not apply to the Guantanamo detainees? These double standards do not help the situation. Justice is a universal thing and does not just apply to one small group.

- Eb, England

A cynical ploy to start a war with Iran?

Someone needs to speak up before the two B's stir up another hornets nest!

- Fyodor, Congleton

This smells of deliberate provocation. I'm sure Bliar will be doing anything to scupper a peaceful resolution. They must be rubbing their hands in Israel.

- Stuart, Manchester, England

This is a plot between the two "Bs" to start a war with Iran. Let them put themselves up as hostages so that the war does not start as if it does then God help us all.

- Ron Turner, Blackpool Lancs

Let's hope the Iranians don't follow the US example and keep them locked up for years without trial. Best way out is a 'cold war' type solution, we swap them for the five Iranians currently held prisoner in Iraq.

- Andrew, UK

Someone get a straight jacket and take Blair away before he and his crony Bush start WW3.

- Kate, Newcastle

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at March 30, 2007 9:41 AM

Saturday, March 31: UK London Protest at Iranian Embassy for the Capture of the 15 Marines

From the 910 Group Forum: Assuming the Marines are still captive, we are organizing a protest for Saturday, March 31 at 3pm outside the Iranian Embassy. It will be in Kensington Rd (S side) 200 yard east of the junction with Prince's Gate - that's as near the Embassy as you are allowed to go to protest. Nearest tube is South Kensington - it's about 10 minutes walk from there. It is on several bus routes though. Please come and please bring placards. The UK Vigilant Freedom Coalition will bring a few leaflets but please bring some of your own. Best is a copy of the front page of Thursday’s Sun, maybe with the email address of the Iran Embassy and postal address too so people can write. The objective will be to get people to write/email the Iran Embassy to protest, and get press coverage of the public’s outrage. Can anyone make placards? For example, the smirking face of Ahmadinejad with "International Criminal: Release the 15 Marines Now" on it - can anyone do that?

Posted by: mekkarekka at March 30, 2007 9:46 AM

For those who criticise Tony Blair...

He does not need the approval of a single one of these lunatics to take the proper action against Iran, only sufficient resolve to take a stand against the chimp-in-chief.

Posted by: thomas ato at March 30, 2007 9:48 AM

I thought that some sort of deniable sabotage f Iranian infrastructure was called for as soon as they found that Iran was supplying Shia insurgents with IED components to kill British servicemen. Putting their refinery or power stations out of action would be just the ticket - the Geneva convention about not targeting civilians should be about not killing or injuring them - not to prevent inconveniencing them.
The drawback with an oil blockade is that would give Russia a chance to become Iran's friend for life by supplying them overland.

Posted by: wallyUK at March 30, 2007 9:49 AM

"Meanwhile, EU foreign ministers on Friday demanded Iran release 15 Britons, though some warned against escalating the dispute and said their diplomatic ties with Tehran would not be immediately affected, The Associated Press reported."

Traitors.

Posted by: Sheik er' Bouti at March 30, 2007 9:49 AM

Yes, I've read a lot of comments, and far far worse, attached to some of the news stories. But why should that make things 'difficult' for Blair?

They not only make it difficult for Blair, but they also make it difficult for anyone who succeeds him, and this same attitude towards Bush also exists in the US. It is widespread. And no politician dare forget that these people have votes, and the present mood in both the UK and US is to throw out at the next Election, and punish in mid term elections any Prime Minister, President or party which dares to openly make a stand against evil tyrannies like the one which rules Iran. The whole mood today is 1930's-style appeasement from massive sections of the population, press and media.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at March 30, 2007 9:59 AM

We need to separate Iran from the world financial system. No banks - no bourses - only burkas and burros.

That will make the devil's head spin.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 30, 2007 10:03 AM

The whole mood today is 1930's-style appeasement from massive sections of the population, press and media

I agree with you - and thats depressing enough. But its not a good enough reason for a determined and decent politician not to take action. You think there weren't these sentiments 25 years ago when Thatcher sent the navy to reclaim the Falklands? There was a massive amount of negative opinion, there just weren't the public forums in which it could so easily and glibly be expressed (an interesting aside to this is that Michael Foot, the sine qua non of far-left, pacifist lunacy in the British Labour Party, agreed with the sending of the Task Force).

Maggie, where are you when we need you?

Posted by: thomas ato at March 30, 2007 10:05 AM

I'm not sure if we can find an example, but to anyone who read Ahmadinejab's letter to America that was published in the Treason Times NYC, these so-called confessions and apologies read as if they were written by the same Iranian speechwriter.
Especially the acknowledgement that the Iranian people as a whole are good and kind to them when in reality they have probably been exposed to a very small number of Iranians.
And also in reality the public is being shown as calling for their deaths.
Maybe the UK should pull their troops from Iraq and deploy them across the border. After all, if Iran doesn't recognise Iraq's sovereign rights why should the rest of the world recognize theirs?

Posted by: auntbea at March 30, 2007 10:08 AM

Spirit Of 1683 l read all the leftist talking points, the big main difference with these British service men, is that had a uniform from the country they fought for. those fu.....g loser in Gitmo have nothing as uniforms and represent no country. if that would of happened during WW2 those out of uniform would be shot on the day of their capture.
remember "300" take no prisoners!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 30, 2007 10:09 AM

These are MILITARY hostages - not kidnapped children, if 'the most important thing' is that 'they be returned safe' the once mighty 'Great' Britian is at the mercy of any tinpot dictator.

Gee! I wonder what unspeakable tortures were inflicted on Mr. Summers and the others to get them to do what to me is TREASON. I'd wager, none. At the very least they could have subtly sabotaged the propaganda broadcast with '1,000 mile stares' and more of a monotone drugged voice. If they get out and were truly tortured I apologize.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 30, 2007 10:20 AM

Spirit of 1683, I really do not know, I am begining to feel even as a European that Europe deserves the Islamic storm coming our way.

How about a deal, freedom loving Europeans like me swap our houses, assets and property with America hating Americans, we will even take our nations tools of war so that the people left in Europe can peacefully engage with the leaders in the Middle East, seems like an ideal solution.

I get to live in a country that will defend itself to the end and I have will the satisfaction of watching the peace of Islam being applied to these people who I now believe deserve everything that is coming their way.

Posted by: Daffersd at March 30, 2007 10:20 AM

Are there anymore Brits here like me that are almost blue with suppressed outrage and anger at the supine way that our Government and the International community are handling this flagrant kidnapping of our service personnel? Is the sum total of there knowledge of history gleaned from reading the back of Cornflake packets at breakfast? History might not repeat itself but it sure does rhyme as Mark Twain once said. Do they even know or have even heard about THE VENLO INCIDENT in 1939 when two British Officers were kidnapped in Holland and taken to Germany. During the kidnapping a Dutch army office was killed. The Dutch acted just as supinely as the British are acting now, but it didn't save them from the German invasion the following May, in fact that other megalomaniac Hitler used it as one of his excuses to invade as if he need any. What about the GLEIWITZ INCIDENT which was stage managed by the Germans to put the Poles in a bad light before they invade. I am only an amateur historian but my conclusions and the lessons I have learned from what I have read, tell me that if bullies and meglamanics who want to establish a new WORLD ORDER are not dealt with quickly, the result is usually lots of tears lots and lots of tears.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at March 30, 2007 10:20 AM

I agree with you - and thats depressing enough. But its not a good enough reason for a determined and decent politician not to take action. You think there weren't these sentiments 25 years ago when Thatcher sent the navy to reclaim the Falklands? There was a massive amount of negative opinion, there just weren't the public forums in which it could so easily and glibly be expressed (an interesting aside to this is that Michael Foot, the sine qua non of far-left, pacifist lunacy in the British Labour Party, agreed with the sending of the Task Force).

Mrs Thatcher would have just as difficult a time as Blair if she were Prime Minister today. Those sentiments did exist 25 years ago, but they were nothing like as prevalent. Today, appeasement is the default mode. Those attitudes carry far more weight nowadays than in 1982. For starters, in 1982, there was a different demographic. We were in a Cold War which showed no visible signs of ending. Also, there was an expectation that our Armed Forces members would have to fight whether it was in a war against the Soviets, the Argentinians, or in Northern Ireland. And we had a different makeup of voters. The World War I and II generations admired strong leadership and were far more numerous, and the latest generation was the Cold War generation. Today, the World War I generation has practically died out, the World War II generation has been reduced massively, and a new post Cold War generation has reached voting age, and is producing another post Cold War generation. And the Muslim vote is at least a million more than in 1982, and will vote as as bloc against anyone who wages war against a Muslim country. And the upshot of all this is that leaders who show strength on the world stage are viewed as warmongers these days.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at March 30, 2007 10:23 AM

If British servicemen had been captured by the Nazis during WWII, whatever else may have been threatened, they would not have faced:

"We have many Nazis now with British citizenship living in the UK who will kill your family if you don't co-operate".

How times change. Now these fifth columnists are probably been supported by social security.

Posted by: Celsius at March 30, 2007 10:30 AM

The parading of enemies, a staple of cruel and totalitarian regimes, begins with examples of Enemies of the State (domestic version), and those Soviet show trials of the Old Bolsheviks such as Bukharin, accused of the crime of being "wreckers" -- "wrecking" things built on the glorious path to Communism. The foremost prosecutor was the inimitable Andrey Vyshinsky, back in the 1930s, and along with being "wreckers" those Old Bolsheviks (old enough to have known Stalin when he was just one more young psychopath, not yet powerful enough to find a 6000-mile-wide outlet for his peculiar urges). For more see Alexander Weisberg, "The Accused" or read, still better, the actual Soviet transcripts of the trials (the paper can crumble in your hands, so watch out).

Baby versions of the Soviet trials were also arranged in the countries of Eastern Europe, once they were seized by the Red Army and its local collaborators. After the noble Tomas Masaryk (the son) was murdered, thrown out of a building's window by the NKVD in the Second (or for purists, Third) Defenestration of Prague, and the Communists came to power, there was scarcely time to hold one's breath before Rudolph Slansky, and others, mostly but not exclusively Jews, were removed from power, and charged with treason. Stalin, back in Russia, was just warming up to the pleasing idea of finishing off Hitler's unfinished symphony of mass murder of the Jews, and the idea of the Doctors' Plot, and what would naturally follow, was hatching in his wolf-like primitive brain. The Slansky Trials followed, very quick, very efficient, readings aloud by the accused of confessions prepared carefully by the NKVD, and a good time was had by all.

Then came the Parading of Enemies (foreign style). The Chinese Communists did a lot of this, and the North Koreans: the bestial Americans, whether soldiers or civilians, captured and paraded, derided and berated. But this was still in the days before television was for the masses, so the parading was mainly for the world press.

The Iranians, in their earlier androlepsy (strictly speaking, a word that applies only to the seizure of diplomatic personnel), the seizure of the American Embassy in Teheran, and the parading of the blindfolded diplomats (one of those whom the Americans hostages saw on several occasions -- see the testimoony of Don Sharer and others -- was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), to be taunted and jeered and jostled about, all for the delight of the hysterical Iranians, in the first flush of their Khomeini madness.

Now it is the turn not of the Great Satan (America) or the Little Satan (Israel) but the Old and Cleverest Satan (in the Iranian mythology), England. The letter from Turney, the abashed confession given by British male sailor was at this point willing to yield (there will no doubt be others) -- all of this is of a piece with Stalin or for that matter with those Chinese professors forced to wear dunce caps, and have affixed to their chests their own "confessions" before being paraded in the streets and then killed (or sometimes merely condemned to a lesser fate) during the "Cultural Revolution."

Any country or regime that puts on such parades, just as any country that has giant photographs of its leaders, shows its own country to be unfit for human habitation, and should be accorded not automatic respect (for its display, as the Iranian government thinks, of its might) but automatic contempt. No other proof is needed. It has conducted its own show trial. It accuses itself. It confesses to its own crimes, which it does not recognize as crimes. And it condemns itself, as Iran is now condemning itself.

And it will be punished.

Posted by: Hugh at March 30, 2007 10:31 AM

Holger Dansker, just like you I am steaming mad, I understand the European Union countries have not even cut off diplomatic contact, but did we expect anything else?

Posted by: Daffersd at March 30, 2007 10:35 AM

50 years ago, an Iranian seizure like this one would've been considered an act of war and dealt with accordingly. How lucky they are that the west has lost its nerve.

Posted by: alexon at March 30, 2007 11:00 AM

Let's clear the air here. It stinks. First of all, British naval command has vigorously rejected the Iranian accusation that these sailors, who were sitting ducks while practicing ceremonial procedures of embarking and disembarking from several types of floating devices, were anywhere near Iranian waters. Secondly, the captured personnel are active servicemen, and as such were well aware that their jobs involved risking their lives. When Blair calls for "patience" in dealing with the crisis, he is of course correct. Remember the massive rush to World War I? But the most important thing is not necessarily to ensure that these servicemen are returned safely.

In my opinion, in times of war, rather than mouth these scripted responses and allow themselves to be televised prostrate and humbled, these servicemen should tear a page out of the history books of their contemporary allies, the early American patriot, Nathan Hale, who legend has it, when facing the British gallows for his revolutionary ways, uttered simply, "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country." There have been attempts to discredit this bit of American lore as apocraphal, and perhaps it is, but in times of war, death in the service of one's nation is always a considered possibility.

Why not now? Why not stand up for what one believes instead of cowering before the evil regimes as they work their own propaganda machine to its maximum potential. We see global jihadists everywhere sacrificing their own lives to murder innocents. Why can't the West energize a few good men and women trained well enough to neutralize and even turn the psychological war tactic of vicious thugs wrecking havoc all over the region, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon jump immediately to mind, into a victory against this sworn enemy?

Why not now? The fact that this serviceman's name is "Nathan" from "Hayle" is purely coincidental to this plea for strength among our servicemen and women.

Posted by: Gabriel_the_American at March 30, 2007 11:01 AM

We should all give a big hand of applause to good old Jimmy Carter for making this mess possible. This is part of his great legacy. Had he been a little forceful during the 1979 hostage takeover by these maniacs perhaps they would have thought twice before doing it here.

But that's OK-Jimmy will keep on making fine speeches on Islamic goodness and will keep on making a fortune. By the way, what does the great sage have to say about this hostage mess (besides
"I'm glad it's not me again")? No doubt his fans eagerly await more of his wisdom.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at March 30, 2007 11:04 AM

But this is a violation of the Geneva Conventions!

Where's Mahmoud's pal Sean Penn?

Amnesty International?

Greenpeace?

PETA?

Weakness encourages the predators.

England invites more of this.

Get ready, Londonistan.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 30, 2007 11:10 AM

And it will be punished.
Posted by: Hugh

l have read and heard enough from the left giving the same old thing about the islamist being held in Gitmo and now comparing the treatment and way these Britts were taken. It cannot be soon enough for the snake's head "Iran" to be taken down to Mahmoud's
pant size!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 30, 2007 11:28 AM

Blair has done nothing about the kidnapped BBC journalist in Gaza which emboldened Iran to take these sailors hostage, and he has also been very weak in handling this current crisis.

Debka is reporting the US military in Bahrain is telling American citizens to pack up and leave and the media is arriving in droves which signals military action is very near.

Posted by: Bonniea at March 30, 2007 11:28 AM

time to support the iranian revolution against teh unpopular Ahmadinejad adn to give moral support to iranians fighting the islamic fundamentalists. if we bomb their cities will will turn even the most hardened western supporter in iran to that shit head Ahmadinejad, dont you people get it?
Iran has far too much support from china and russia and the middle east for us to simply rambo style take out their one lone oil refinery or nuke 2 of their cities as some poserts on here have suggested.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at March 30, 2007 11:28 AM

i'm dsylexic today...

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at March 30, 2007 11:35 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6507451.stm

this BBC report suggests support for the iranian regime. note how this report blames the US (as usual)

"The country is diplomatically isolated and feels under a constant and building US military threat."

"Iran is now also militarily encircled by the US forces. American troops are based in almost every country bordering Iran - Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan and Azerbaijan."

"The sense of being under siege is compounded by the US military's detention in January in Iraq of five Iranians."

TIME TO BOYCOTT THE BBC, DO NOT PAY THEIR LICENCE FEE AND OVERSEAS USERS CANCEL YOUR CABLE SUBCRIPTION TO THE BBC. THEY ARE THE ENEMY.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at March 30, 2007 11:41 AM

The time for decisive action has passed the moment the Iranian "speedboats" approached those sailors. At that moment they were still armed, mobile and a British frigate (might as well have been a party boat) was in the vicinity. It is one thing to avoid conflict when encountering another warship, and completely different to let your crew get snatched by speedbpoats under the firepower of a warship. The fighting moment was then and there. Now it is all crying for the spilled milk. Ayatollahs appeasers, fifth column, leftists all became empowered by the inaction of one navy officer. It is scary enough when a society is giving up without a fight. It is a nightmare when the military does it.

Posted by: Excommie at March 30, 2007 11:41 AM

So is Amnesty International and the International Red Cross in Tehran to see that these 15 prisoners needs are adequately and properly cared for?

Do I hear International lawyers or groups like the ACLU condeming the kidnapping of these British Sailers as they constantly do when it comes to Guantanamo who is holding enemy combatents?

Does anybody have some answers on these questions?

Posted by: Mackie at March 30, 2007 11:44 AM

"What about the GLEIWITZ INCIDENT which was stage managed by the Germans to put the Poles in a bad light before they invade."
-- from a posting above

More on this important event:

"The Gleiwitz incident was a staged attack on 31 August 1939 against the German radio station Sender Gleiwitz in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, Germany (since 1945: Gliwice, Republic of Poland) on the eve of World War II in Europe.

This provocation was one of several actions in Operation Himmler, a Nazi Germany project to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which would be used to justify the subsequent invasion of Poland."

The Gleiwitz Incident has been mostly forgotten outside Germany, except -- naturally --in Poland, and mostly forgotten even in Germany, despite the recent movie about the matter. Yes, there's been a whole lot of forgetting going on in Germany, despite the halfhearted, almost perfunctory efforts by the Allies, and that forgetting began rather promptly in May, 1945.

Posted by: Hugh at March 30, 2007 11:45 AM

Androlepsy
(from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Androlepsy, in ancient Greek law, was a custom in Athens that if a citizen was killed abroad, and the criminal was not delivered for punishment, it was held lawful to take three citizens of the offending community, and punish them for the homicide. This the Greeks called androlepsia, and the Romans clarigatio.
The word is formed of άνήρ, "man", and λαμβάνω, "I take".

Some authors also use androlepsia for reprisals.

Posted by: StillBreathing at March 30, 2007 11:48 AM

I'M PRACTICING MY "ALLAH AKBARS"

It's time to start learning Arabic, for it is the language of our overlords, and they will want us to worship Allah using the proper language.

The EU sounds weaker than the UN...and I never would've imagined in my wildest dreams that that was even possible! Did the EU actually "demand" the release of the British sailors and at the same time assure that this blatant act of war would not "harm" the EU's relations w/ Iran and warn AGAINST ENGLAND escalating the situation (ie...giving the Iranians more than just empty threats but actually making them forever regret their barbarism.)

When Iran gets that message from the UN, what is Iran supposed to think? Who is the EUROPEAN Union actually supporting, Britain or Iran?????? Clearly, that statement is FAR MORE SUPPORTIVE OF IRAN than it is of Britain!!!!

If Tony Blair has any gonads like President Bush he won't beg the EU or the UN or the Boy Scouts or the National Organization of Women or any other entity for approval, AND HE WILL DO WHAT ANY REAL LEADER WOULD FEEL OBLIGATED TO DO IN THIS SITUATION. Real leadership sometimes requires us to make hard, unpopular decisions. Don't worry about the Iranian-supporting EU. Set a deadline for their return, and if they are not every single one returned b4 the deadline healthy and unharmed, take out Iran's ENTIRE NAVY so they can't do this anymore to British sailors. These are ONLY BRITISH SAILORS that have been made prisoners of war by evil Iran. Don't ask any foereign country for help or advise. IT'S NOBODY'S BUSINESS BUT BRITAINS, AND BRITAIN HAS TO DO WHAT IT HAS TO DO FOR IT'S OWN PEOPLE.

As for me in the USA, I'm learning Arabic and buying a Koran to appease my overlords, bc since the Dhimmicrats have taken over and Bush only has one more year, I predict our government will offer LAND FOR PEACE to the big mean Muslims and give them all of America so that they don't hurt us w/ their big mean guns...

Posted by: Tookson at March 30, 2007 12:08 PM

Why haven't we heard from the Red Cross?
Where are the shrinkwrapped bibles served by white-gloved waitrons on a silver tray?

Do the sailors get to exercize and play sports?

HRW
Amnesia
Dhimmi Carter
Welsey Clark
Ramsey Clark

These are the emboldeners and the enablers.

We have them in all our countries. Which makes this problem much much worse.

Can't make nice with the Borg.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 30, 2007 12:10 PM

Historical thug points of reference accomplish nothing in finding solutions to problems as the event is the event and a thug is a thug for all time.

There are 2 doctrines which equate to the Iranian situation which met with success in history.
First, General Lee due to "hit em on the end" tactics gave a much larger Union force continuous problems. General Grant's officers were continually speaking the phrase, "Bobby Lee did this....".

Grant finally having enough of that sternly told his officers, "Stop worrying about what Bobby Lee is doing and start applying yourself to what you are going to do to Bobby Lee".

The Iranian is a fixed and static deficit with limited warfare range and abilities. It's great missile exercise of recent fame has been exposed as high grade movie edits and it's Shahab 3's fired were really Shahab 2's painted as a 3.
Iran is a danger, but a finite danger to be dealt with.

Doctrine 2 in policy is the General Thomas Moore Doctrine which he advocated to a shaken President Nixon staff during Vietnam.
The North Vietnamese communists who are equals to the Islamocommunists of Iran were torturing, parading and humiliating United States soldiers with the help of certain Jane Fonda's.
The North Vietnamese refused talks, refused to be humane and refused to budge. General Moore told Nixon to bomb the bajesus out of them.

The B 52's immediately started round the clock bombing. The result was the North Vietnamese were terrified of an American invasion and were terrified they were about to die as only a 2000 pound bomb dropped in clusters in downtown Hanoi could do.
After a few weeks of this, the North Vietnamese saw the light of talks and peace. Our POW's reported immediately their treatment improved to humane levels and the "confessions and parades" stopped.

The solution to this is simple:

America rents from England the base Diego Garcia and houses our long range bombers. England simply requests as part of the "lease" hires the American B'52, B 1 and B 2 bombers for round the clock bombing until Iran sees the light.
America still has tons of the old iron bombs and carpet bombing with stray munitions would do wonders in sending a message that war is not precise.
England on it's own measures will knock out Iranian power stations, al Jazeera propaganda and send the expressed message, "If Iran escalates, it will be met with a nuclear response as British hostages are an act of war and soldiers will not be a shield protecting Iran."

This is a solution to the United States problem and the world's over Iranian nuclear weapons all in the factor of retrieving British soldiers or their dying in glory as bombs put the fear of God into Ahmadinejad and the other Supreme Council.

Tony Blair has got to stop the Neville Chamberlain running around for diplomatic solutions. It might not be historical, but a line from Star Trek by Scottie is true to this day, "The only diplomacy I need is a loaded phaser bank".

Warn the Iranians, Mr. Blair and then unlock and unload with the expressed intent that if Iran does not hand over the hostages or they die in the British hits a nuclear response will be carried out by Great Britain.
The Iranians chose Britain as it can not muster an armed response. The British must therefore hire American bombers and then utilize the only means they have in nuclear submarines devastating Iran.

The problem will be solved and that will be the end of hostage taking the world over.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 30, 2007 12:11 PM

"It's time to start learning Arabic, for it is the language of our overlords, and they will want us to worship Allah using the proper language."

"I for one welcome our new Arabic overlords."
/Dhimmi moment

Posted by: JadeDragoness at March 30, 2007 12:13 PM

Imagine the outrage if the Brits captured some Iranian women who were in Iraqi waters, and brodcast an admission that they were at fault, and forced them to NOT wear a head covering?

Moose

Posted by: Moose at March 30, 2007 12:13 PM

NOW FOR SOME GOOD NEWS

full article at:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879211495&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Recent modifications made to the Arrow enable Israel's ballistic missile defense system to successfully intercept and destroy any ballistic missile in the Middle East, including nuclear-capable missiles under development by Iran, Arieh Herzog, the head of the Defense Ministry's Homa Missile Defense Agency, has told The Jerusalem Post.

In a rare interview that will appear in full in Monday's Post, Herzog provides an inside look at the decision-making process behind Israel's missile defense systems, led by the Israeli- and American-developed Arrow missile, one of the only operational ballistic missile defense systems in the world.

On Monday, the IAF successfully tested a newly modified Arrow interceptor.

Iran and Syria, Herzog said, were investing unprecedented amounts of money in long-range ballistic missile capabilities - with the help of North Korea - and had all but given up building modern air forces.

"The Iranians are continually increasing the range of their missiles," he said. "They are buying technology and in some cases even complete systems from North Korea and other countries."

Herzog also said that while there might be missile systems in Iranian hands that the Arrow could not intercept, all of the ballistic missiles "currently operational" in the Islamic Republic could be destroyed by the Israeli defense system.

"Our Arrow operational system can without a doubt deal with all of the operational threats in the Middle East, particularly in Iran and Syria," he declared.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at March 30, 2007 12:18 PM

We should be thanking the Iranian mullahs right now. This is exactly the type of incident to be hoped for, one that will bring Allies closer together and marginalize Islam further. It will help wake the dozing members of the West and it will surely end up with an exclamation point that Ahmadinejad is not foreseeing, but I have been.

The only sufficient response to this kind of thuggery is violent reprisal, and the thinking men and women of the West can not, without huge twanging of collective conscience, allow Iran to slip through the noose again for the 100th time.

I have not called for missiles against Iran all these years and months because I'm insane. I've called for it because it is the only course of action left.

To not destroy Iran's ambitions at this point -- that would be insane.

Posted by: Foehammer at March 30, 2007 12:28 PM

"Iran Knew enough not to take Americans. The People would have demanded Iran be Rubble by now."

just a question and no disrepect, but do US forces patrol the same gulf waters by small boats along with other multi-national forces?

seems like the Iranians picked an easy target rather than trying to capture US forces on patrol in downtown baghdad.

but i agree, they took the british knowing the response would be pathethic, but what is iran trying to gain from this action? international credibility? or i'm prolly gonna answer my own question, an islamic victory (albeit a very small one).

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at March 30, 2007 12:31 PM

Those who read the American Constitution for the profit and pleasure it affords, sometimes read a phrase or two that they do not understand exactly, and ordinarily they move on, without paying too much mind, to the next phrase, which they do understand, and then the next.

In the enumeration of powers belonging to Congress --Article I, Section 8 -- and remember, we possess a government of enumerated powers, not of any damn powers someone thinks the government should have -- one such phrase occurs early on:
Congress shall have the exclusive right to issue "letters of marque and reprisal."

Well, perhaps, given the bogging-down in Tarbaby Iraq, is the time for Congress to exercise that power, and exercise it world-wide, issuing to all kinds of groups and individuals permission to act against Iran and Iranian interests everywhere, and then we will all be able to learn the meaning, that is not the only thing the Western world appears to have forgotten, of the beautiful and haunting phrase "letters of marque and reprisal."

Posted by: Hugh at March 30, 2007 12:37 PM

StillBreathing--

The definition you provide could be supplemented by that of the law dictionaries, as in that below:

"ANDROLEPSY. The taking by one nation of the citizens or subjects of another, in order to compel the latter to do justice to the former. Wolff. Sec. 1164; Molloy, de Jure Mar. 26."

I don't have my OED here, and I can't get to it easily, but I do recall that Webster's 2nd has a definition of "Androlepsy" that says the "citizens" of another government who are seized are, specifically, diplomats -- which is why earlier I wrote that the word "androlepsy" fit perfectly the Teheran Embassy seizure, but not quite so perfectly that of foreign military men seized not within the country, but outside it, even if it is claimed, obviously falsely, that they were in the territorial waters of Iran, in what must surely be the unpleasant debouchment at the base of what is, for English ears, so memorably called the Shatt al-Arab.

Posted by: Hugh at March 30, 2007 12:43 PM

Excellent points, Hugh. If anyone doubts what the course of action should be in today's world when dealing with the thieves and bandits of Islam, one need only consider the way the old, famous songs go...

“From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli...”

The war with the Ottoman bandits of North Africa ushered in the very first time that the Stars and Stripes were planted on foreign soil.

And one of the most amazing facts of all, is that Francis Scott Key was inspired to write the Star-Spangled Banner, the national anthem of the U.S.A., from a song he originally composed commemorating William Eaton’s victory over the sultan of Tripoli in 1805.

War with Islamic states is hardly new, but how many U.S. kids today do you think even have an inkling that their own nation's military and its National Anthem were forged in battle with Muslim powers?

Old lessons need to be taught in schools again.

A good source for more information:

Victory in Tripoli: How America’s War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation. By Joshua E. London. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2005.

Posted by: Foehammer at March 30, 2007 1:17 PM

This is how Muhammad would treat human beings also; the nature of this whole story is out of the book of the Koran. I am not sure if inbreeding has produced personality types of this nature on the people or it’s just a brainwashing system that makes people this way. Iran is so paranoid about their international role that this is a small chunk from the greater threat they pose with nuclear energy. This story is a fraction of what is happening with its international sanctions over energy because as you can see this time the dog actually does bark as loud as its bite and you can not just let it do so even if some neighbours are too lazy to wake up. But because they have young children (people) they will wake them up them selves to get the parents (politicians) to act and not be complacent.

----------------------------
My post from another page.

I have an idea after they kill the soldiers the British politicians should say they know Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance because they forget to mention tolerance don't they? Then they should allow a Muslim in parliament and Build a new Mosque to show that they don't blame Islamic rules due to its religion of peace for killing the soldiers. Come on Britain you sound like this already why don't you send money to the Iranians too show that you are not trying to offend the religion for the sake of Political correctness I want to see how annoying you can be so its in the history books.

Posted by: jesusisthelamb at March 30, 2007 1:25 PM

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462149,00.html

@ savitch

In English: "Hooray! We are capitulating!"
by Henryk M. Broder

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 30, 2007 1:26 PM

Back in WWII the Gestapo had to resort to inhuman measures to get information out of resistance fighters, most of them ordinary civilians. Iranians seem to get their way without breaking sweat.

Posted by: Witch-king of Angmar

The reason for this discrepancy is that - sadly - these sailors are operating in a climate of political correctness. I heard a report that they were told to hold their fire by the Ministry of "Defence" at the highest level.

Do you think these WW2 partisans asked permission from HQ if they were accosted by Nazis?

The sailors, by contrast were ordered NOT to defend themselves by their own command. How demoralizing is that?

Britain, as do all our countries, needs a Huge move to the Right.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 30, 2007 1:31 PM

One or two people have suggested that soldiers are being a little too compliant. But don't forget that the Iranians, as reported by previous hostages, are well-versed in gangster techniques. They don't need to threaten individuals directly but simply take them to one side and tell them if they don't comply then something nasty will happen to their comrades. It's one thing being responsible for your fate and quite another to be told you're responsible for everyone else's. You'd have to be something of psychopath yourself to resist that kind of pressure.

Posted by: zaltys at March 30, 2007 1:31 PM

Someone get a straight jacket and take Blair away before he and his crony Bush start WW3.

- Kate, Newcastle

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683

These and the others like it could well be "Tokyo Roses". Notice all the nice Anglo-saxon names. Give me a break!

It's Abdullah posting as "Arthur" and so on and on.

They seek to sway your opinions and demoralize the rest. They seek to make it appear that the looney left is even stronger than it is.

Unfortunately I see internal conflict between the Left and True Patriots in all our countries within the next ten years.

Better than a silent handover of our lands to the ifascists though.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 30, 2007 1:36 PM

"Meanwhile, EU foreign ministers on Friday demanded Iran release 15 Britons, though some warned against escalating the dispute and said their diplomatic ties with Tehran would not be immediately affected, The Associated Press reported."

Traitors.

Posted by: Sheik er' Bouti

Re. the EU ministers: Sometimes it's better to keep your mouths shut rather than letting the whole world know what cowards and backstabbing lo you are.

Those pompous poodles!

We need Maggie...

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 30, 2007 1:42 PM

The whole mood today is 1930's-style appeasement from massive sections of the population, press and media.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683

I see this too. Where does it come from? What is wrong with some of our own people that they could be this weak and mush-headed?

Is this a case of the media manipulating public opinion or is it a case of the media reflecting it?

I can't imagine that too many Britons are keen on what these iranian devils are doing to their sailors. Nor what islam wrought upon them on 7/11. And all the other lovely things they've sugffered since islam began sneaking in the country.

I have a feeling the vast silent majority has yet to be heard from. Hopefully they will make some noise at the polls next election.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 30, 2007 1:46 PM

Yes, watch for the film of the hostages converting to Islam just before they are released. Right, Steve Centani?
This re-inforces the Muslim superiority complex, as these hostages are symbolic of Great Britain itself. What joy they find in little victories.

Posted by: crusader rabbit at March 30, 2007 1:51 PM

The book recommended above, that by Joshua London about William Eaton's overland trip from Cairo, even after being discharged by Jefferson, in an attempt to rescue the hundreds of Americans held hostage by Yusuf Karamanli, bey of Tunis, and to replace him with his less-vicious and more-compliant brother, should be assigned to every Marine as part of their training. It will do them good, and help teach them about the history of Islamic conquest, and Muslim attitudes -- immutable as the sacred texts of Islam itself -- wihtout a knowledge of which so many Marines, and soldiers, and sailors, and airmen, simply will not be able to understand the nature of the enemy -- this year's enemy, and that for the foreseeable, possibly endless, future.

The American government has a captive audience: its military. It should use the training period to teach them about Islam, and if that offends some Muslims outside or inside the military, that is simply too bad. As long as it is based solidly and irrefutably on the texts of Islam, and on what Muslim Qura'nic commentators, theologians, historians have said -- such as those whose statements on Jihad are collected in Andrew Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad" -- such an effort will be unassailable.

And it needs to be done, lest the officers and men, in their justified disenchantment with the wasteful and misguided effort in Iraq, an effort that, if understood rightly, is mererly another form of appeasement, of refusing to recognize that Islam, and not merely "extremists" who "if we don't stay will take over Iraq," is and will remain the problem, and that "democracy" or "freedom" is not, pace Lewis, the solution, but the only solution, when facing an enemy that cannot be changed in its essence, is first to render less immediately menacing the forces of that enemy overall -- to weaken the Camp of Islam by permitting rather than attempting to prevent, the natural divisions within it -- and then to help create the conditions that, little by little, will cause non-Arab Muslims to recognize Islam as a vehicle for Arab imperialism, eventually whittling down Islam, or re-dimensioning it, until its universalit pretensions are revealed as phony, and it again can be reduced or pruned back until it becomes what it always, in truth, has been -- the "Arab National Religion."

Educate the officers and then the men, in the history of Islam, and the tenets of Islam, and in the historic treatment, over 1350 years, of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Start now -- not in ten years. The future of the West depends on such measures being taken, while there is time.

Posted by: Hugh at March 30, 2007 1:52 PM

And one of the most amazing facts of all, is that Francis Scott Key was inspired to write the Star-Spangled Banner, the national anthem of the U.S.A., from a song he originally composed commemorating William Eaton’s victory over the sultan of Tripoli in 1805."
-- from a posting above

Yes, and from what I would guess is the same source, Oren's "Power, Faith, and Fantasy," one learns that the Bartholdi's Statue of Liberty was originallly intended for Egypt.
_________________________________________________

Contest Time: What was the name of the foreign playwright, whose play was being shown when the Star-Spangled Banner was given its first public performance, and what other connection does he have with American history?

This isn't an easy one.

Posted by: Hugh at March 30, 2007 1:57 PM

Holger Dansker, I am not a Brit but I feel 100% as you do. I feel rage at the fact that I do not have the influence to make Germany and the rest do the right thing on this one.

I am constantly in arguments with other Germans about these issues. Going back farther than the Falklands. I was for the toughest of reprisals for the original hostage takers in iran.

Looks like history proves me right on all counts.

PS. There's a weird strain of anti-Americanism in Germany. Maybe it's resentment over the two lost wars. They seem to love the French but they complain about Poland and Czech a lot when it comes to EU-internal discussions. At the same thime these leftists are welcoming to Turkey's EU ambitions. If they think Poland and Czech are resentful drains on the coffers of the EU.. just wait till the camel come in the tent - body and all.

Stupid Germans. I can say it. I'm one of them.

PS. I keep hoping that there will be a rise of the Silent Majority some day in Germany and elsewhere. These leftists own the media so they're always the loudest.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 30, 2007 2:14 PM

Britain under Blair deserves this humilation. Remember, Blair is the biggest pusher of the "Religion of Peace" lie. He also was Clinton's biggest ally in the criminal bombing of Serbia, so now it's just chickens coming home to roost.

If Britian had a real leader, they would diplomatically give Iran a list of 15 Iranian cities and tell them they've been targeted. Each city matches one hostage. If a hostage is paraded again on TV or harmed in any way, that city is bombed. If a hostage is killed, that city will be nuked.

Then wait 24 hours and meet again with the Iranian diplomats. Tell them that in exactly 24 more hours, Britian will consider that the hostages are all dead and and will launch the missiles.

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 30, 2007 2:28 PM

"There's a weird strain of anti-Americanism in Germany."
-- from a posting above

Not weird. Not any weirder than the vicious anti-Israel reporting that is permitted in Germany, and the concomitant rise in anti-Israel sentiment which, of course, only a fool at this point would deny both is prompted by, and helps to spread in others, antisemitism. Germans, especially but not only young ones, unless they are morally aware (and how few are, anywhere), are likely to welcome the chance to demonstrate, to themselves, that the Germans really weren't so unusually beasstly because, you see, those who supposedly defeated the Nazis and claim to have "liberated" us are just as awful (read: Americans), and those we supposedly did terrible things to turn out, when they have half a chance, to turn into those very Nazis (read: Jews, under the acceptable name for cruel treatment "Israelis").

A good recent article on the matter can be found at Der Spiegel on-line. I'll look for it.

Posted by: Hugh at March 30, 2007 2:38 PM

Here it is:

Evil Americans, Poor Mullahs
By Claus Christian Malzahn

Forty-eight percent of Germans think the United States is more dangerous than Iran, a new survey shows, with only 31 percent believing the opposite. Germans' fundamental hypocrisy about the US suggests that it's high time for a new bout of re-education.

AP
A German man carries a banner with a picture of Bush as Hitler during a 2003 demonstration against the Iraq war in Leipzig. Bush-bashing is something of a national sport in Germany.
The Germans have believed in many things in the course of their recent history. They've believed in colonies in Africa and in the Kaiser. They even believed in the Kaiser when he told them that there would be no more political parties, only soldiers on the front.

Not too long afterwards, they believed that Jews should be placed into ghettos and concentration camps because they were the enemies of the people. Then they believed in the autobahn and that the Third Reich would ultimately be victorious. A few years later, they believed in the Deutsche mark. They believed that the Berlin Wall would be there forever and that their pensions were safe. They believed in recycling as well as in cheap jet travel. They even believed in a German victory at the soccer World Cup.

Now they believe that the United States is a greater threat to world peace than Iran. This was the by-no-means-surprising result of a Forsa opinion poll commissioned by Stern magazine. Young Germans in particular -- 57 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds, to be precise -- said they considered the United States more dangerous than the religious regime in Iran.

The German political establishment, which will no doubt loudly lament the result of the poll, is largely responsible for this wave of anti-Americanism. For years the country's foreign ministers fed the Germans the fairy tale of what they called a "critical dialogue" between Europe and Iran. It went something like this: If we are nice to the ayatollahs, cuddle up to them a bit and occasionally wag our fingers at them when they've been naughty, they'll stop condemning their women to death for "unchaste behavior" and they'll stop building the atom bomb.

Forum

Anti- Americanism in Germany: Justified Or Not?
Discuss the issue with other SPIEGEL ONLINE readers!

That plan failed at some point -- an outcome, incidentally, that Washington had long anticipated. Iran continues to work away unhindered on its nuclear program, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reacts to UN demands with an ostentatious show of ignorance. The UN gets upset and drafts a resolution.

Another item on the Iranian president's wish list is the annihilation of Israel. But that will take a bit longer. In the meantime, just to make sure it doesn't get out of practice, the regime had 15 British soldiers kidnapped a few days ago. But it's still all the Americans' fault -- that much is obvious.

Inherently evil

We've known just what they're like for a long time. The 19th-century German author Karl May taught us about the American Wild West, and Karl Marx warned us about unbridled capitalism. Besides, we've all been there at least once -- on vacation, of course. Be it in California or Florida (that's where you get the best deals on rental cars, you know), we can see right through the Americans.

For us Germans, the Americans are either too fat or too obsessed with exercise, too prudish or too pornographic, too religious or too nihilistic. In terms of history and foreign policy, the Americans have either been too isolationist or too imperialistic. They simply go ahead and invade foreign countries (something we Germans, of course, would never do) and then abandon them, the way they did in Vietnam and will soon do in Iraq.

Worst of all, the Americans won the war in 1945. (Well, with German help, of course -- from Einstein and his ilk.) There are some Germans who will never forgive the Americans for VE Day, when they defeated Hitler. After all, Nazism was just an accident, whereas Americans are inherently evil. Just look at President Bush, the man who, as some of SPIEGEL ONLINE's readers steadfastly believe, "is worse than Hitler." Now that gives us a chance to kill two birds with one stone. If Bush is the new Hitler, then we Germans have finally unloaded the Führer on to someone else. In fact, we won't even have to posthumously revoke his German citizenship, as politicians in Lower Saxony recently proposed. No one can hold a candle to our talent for symbolism!

Anti-Americanism is the wonder drug of German politics. If no one believes what you're saying, take a swing at the Yanks and you'll be shooting your way back up to the top of the opinion polls in no time. And on the practical side, you can be the head of the Social Democratic Party and endear yourself to the party's hardcore with a load of anti-American nonsense, and still get invited back to Washington -- just look at Gerhard Schröder. In fact, you could, like leading German politicians in the debate over the planned American missile shield in Europe, be accused of having "an almost unbelievable lack of knowledge" by a former NATO general, and even that wouldn't matter. It's all about what you believe, not what you know.

Anti-Americanism is hypocrisy at its finest. You can spend your evening catching the latest episode of "24" and then complain about Guantanamo the next morning. You can claim that the Americans have themselves to blame for terrorism, while at the same time calling for tougher restrictions on Muslim immigration to Germany. You can call the American president a mass murderer and book a flight to New York the next day. You can lament the average American's supposed lack of culture and savvy and meanwhile send off for the documents for the Green Card lottery.

Not a day passes in Germany when someone isn't making the wildest claims, hurling the vilest insults or spreading the most outlandish conspiracy theories about the United States. But there's no risk involved and it all serves mainly to boost the German feeling of self-righteousness.

Not so safe

Iran is a different story. The last time someone made a joke on German TV about an Iranian leader, the outcome was not pleasant. Exactly 20 years ago, Dutch entertainer Rudi Carell produced a short TV sketch portraying Ayatollah Khomeini dressed in women's underwear. Carell received death threats. The piece, which lasted all of a few seconds, led to flights being cancelled and German diplomats being expelled from Tehran. Carell apologized. Jokes about fat Americans are just safer.

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, the American historian who in his 1996 book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" deprived the Germans of the belief that they didn't know what was going on back in the day, is currently studying the history of genocides in the 20th century. One of the things he has noticed is that the politicians or military leaders who planned genocides and had them carried out rarely concealed their intentions in advance. Whether the victims were Hereros, Armenians, kulaks, Jews or later Bosnians, the perpetrators generally believed that they were justified and had no reason to hide their murderous intentions.

Today, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about a world without Israel while dreaming of an atom bomb, it seems obvious that we -- as Germans of all people -- should be putting two and two together. Why shouldn't Ahmadinejad mean what he says? But we Germans only know what we believe.

The Americans are more dangerous than the ayatollahs? Perhaps the Americans should take the Germans at their word for a change. It's high time for a new round of re-education. The last one obviously didn't do the job."

Claus Christian Malzahn is SPIEGEL ONLINE's Berlin bureau chief.

Posted by: Hugh at March 30, 2007 2:43 PM

I have a feeling the vast silent majority has yet to be heard from. Hopefully they will make some noise at the polls next election.

They'll either vote for the party that is against the war or they'll vote for the party that promises tax cuts. That is how they'll vote. Appeasement and tax cuts is all the voters in Britain are interested in - above all else.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at March 30, 2007 2:45 PM

Anti-Americanism? Here's a lump of it, with my rebukes, that manifested around me while I was carelessly surfing the Net. I left a comment and the next thing I know I was in a nationalist pissing match:

Comment response so long that it’s now an article

And I have to admit, you've got me completely stumped with that playwright question, Hugh. I doubt Google will help me answer it easily either.

Posted by: Foehammer at March 30, 2007 2:52 PM

No, it won't. I've taken my questions from a far countrie, where Google cannot follow.

Posted by: Hugh at March 30, 2007 2:58 PM

Hugh wrote:

"Yes, and from what I would guess is the same source, Oren's "Power, Faith, and Fantasy," one learns that the Bartholdi's Statue of Liberty was originally intended for Egypt."

--

No, I've not read Oren's book, but I recalled the above information from a Christopher Hitchens book review of Joshua London's, which in turn I have another JW reader and commentator on my site to thank for pointing me to.

Posted by: Foehammer at March 30, 2007 2:59 PM

Cheeky Brits Have "Incorrect Attitude"

Ali Larijani, the head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, declared that an offer of an early release of Leading Seaman Turney has now been rescinded. "It was announced that a woman in the group would be freed but this development was met with an incorrect attitude", he said.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at March 30, 2007 3:00 PM

More likely she has refused to leave her comrades, as any loyal soldier should, female or otherwise, rich or poor, admiral's son or daughter or not.

Posted by: Foehammer at March 30, 2007 3:04 PM

Sounds like the porcine abdullah and his al-saud gang have invested those p.r. petrodollars wisely in Eurabia. He has those Germans trained to sit, stay, roll over, and play dead.

Posted by: Infidel33 at March 30, 2007 3:04 PM

As Debka had it earlier/first so goes it:

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/03/30/afx3568630.html

Bahraini's buggin out!

Posted by: akak at March 30, 2007 3:05 PM

Spirit of 1683:
The whole mood today is 1930's-style appeasement from massive sections of the population, press and media.

Allahfanculo:
I see this too. Where does it come from? What is wrong with some of our own people that they could be this weak and mush-headed?

Is this a case of the media manipulating public opinion or is it a case of the media reflecting it?

It is left-wing thought. And it is prevalent throughout the media (nearly 100%), in judges, many politicians. Have a look here and read this about media bias:

www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=436794&in_page_id=1770

=====
Quote:
In 1984 I returned to BBC Scotland after covering the Tory conference in Brighton. The IRA had come close to assassinating Margaret Thatcher with a bomb and the country was in shock. Apart, that is, from some of my BBC colleagues. "Pity they missed the bitch," one confided to me.

By the time I moved to London to work on the Money Programme in 1989, Thatcherite economics could no longer be dismissed: they worked.

The Left's bitterness towards Thatcher, however, was undiminished.
=====

Read it all. it is worth it.

It shows up in the UK as:

1) Selection in schools is wrong.

2) No pupil must ever lose - everyone must get a prize (it will get to the point where exams are so dumbed down everybody will get A's. When that happens, how do Universities & Employees chose people? They can't. More to the point - this attitude does not prepare you for life - you will at some point lose - everyone does - but that is healthy, it is how you deal with it that matters).

3) Political correctness:
All religions, all cultures, all sexuality (even paedophiles) are all equally valid and therefore none of them must be excluded.
And you often get quotas and affirmative action programs to make sure that the Army, Police Force etc are employing enough minorites.

4) Poor self-image & self-hatred by the host countries peoples of itself. Example: You can't put up an English flag just in case it "upsets" the immigrants (Note : In the immigrants countries that would never figure in their thoughts). This often shows up in local councils.
Sometimes the natural citizens rights (who pay taxes) are worse than new immigrants (who do not pay taxes).

5) Civil rights/Human rights - this can get so out of hand that it caters for peoples selfishness. No sense of obligation and pride in your country, or sense of responsibility.

6) The under-no-circumstances-must-you-go-to-war brigade. We routinely have demonstrations by the left in London who attack the US & UK going to war in Iraq. They want troops back now. Appeasement is routine.

With regards to JW/DW, Muslims have a usually healthy self-image. They know who they are and where they are going to. In contrast this left-wing thought saps the Wests strength.

This entirely wrong. I must say, this is where the USA is ahead of the UK on this one. The USA citizens have a better sense of self-image than the English do.

And I disagree with left-wing thought economically as well. Left-wing thought never creates wealth, instead they want to know, "who is going to pay for the vast social programs I wish to run?".
Take France. It needs reform, economically. It needs to move rightwards. And the people know it. If Segolene Royal gets in, there is a chance that France will go bankrupt. It has been talked about.

Right-wing thought does create wealth. It always have. It goes back to Adam Smith - 1776 - "The wealth of Nations". He is talking trade. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

Now on that 6th point of war.
I disagree with Bush & Blair on war in Iraq.
And my basis for disagreement is they lied to our electorates (Weapons of Mass Destruction & Iraq was in cahoots with Al'Queda).
Clintons policy of Iraq containment was working (yes there was the oil-for-food scandal, but that is a matter of cleaning up corruption, applying the screws on Saddam even tighter and reforming the UN).
But I am not a pacifist. Sometimes war is the best option. It is certainly a good option if a face a dicatator who play constant games of brinkmanship as Saddam did. You have to show that his games will cause him stiff tough penalties.
So I tend to think that Bush has gone wrong.
He never diagnosed that Islam is the problem. And during his presidency he has wasted time on something that is not really the enemy.
But that means the left-wing apparatchiks in every country are having a field day. They can point to right-wing policies having gone wrong. And they are correct. But it does not mean that their policies will solve things, far from it.
All it means is that Bush has cocked up his opportunities. The left-wing policies will achieve death in the West.

On the 5th point of human rights:
The UK signed up to European Humand Rights Act.
BIG BIG Mistake.
The biggest mistake of Blairs career.
It means that crooks, illegal immigrants, paedophiles, Muslims can all run rings round us legally. Legal delaying tactics are used to drag out

And that is exactly what happens.
But more importantly, Muslims know how to exploit this.

If it ever a case of left-wing versus Islam, I would back Islam every time. Muslims are past masters, geniuses of knowing what levers to pull in left-wing thought. Sometimes they even get them to do their work for them (e.g. People objecting to a Mosque being built in their area? Left-wing prosecutes the people for acting against a minority). But these left-wing types are unaware, oblivious, choose not to see that Muslims are plotting for them to become their slaves.

Human Rights/Civil Rights are not bad iof it worked out they were universally respected.
But not by Islam they are not.
Consequently, Western civilisation has to be defended, and that means hard choices.

So yes, I think much of the media is out of step with Western people.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at March 30, 2007 3:07 PM

As per Hugh's idea,

I'll bet some angry/hungry Iraqi's would jump at the chance to kick some iranian a** on US/Britain's tab (merc units).

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Congress shall have the exclusive right to issue "letters of marque and reprisal."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_marque_and_reprisal

A letter of marque and reprisal was an official warrant or commission from a national government authorizing the designated agent to search, seize, or destroy specified assets or personnel belonging to a party which had committed some offense under the laws of nations against the assets or citizens of the issuing nation, and was usually used to authorize private parties to raid and capture merchant shipping of an enemy nation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_marque_and_reprisal

Posted by: squire at March 30, 2007 3:08 PM

Excommie wrote:

“The time for decisive action has passed the moment the Iranian "speedboats" approached those sailors. At that moment they were still armed, mobile and a British frigate (might as well have been a party boat) was in the vicinity. It is one thing to avoid conflict when encountering another warship, and completely different to let your crew get snatched by speedbpoats under the firepower of a warship. The fighting moment was then and there...”

This was perhaps planned by Iran to avoid interaction with American forces. Had U.S. ships been there I’ve a good feeling we would not be talking about hostages at all.

During Desert Storm, a friend of mine was on the USS Missouri when they were told to brace for shock (incoming missile). The missile never hit however as a British ship shot it down. I have no doubt they would do the same now. This is clearly a commander’s folly and I would be surprised if he doesn’t stand trial for inaction much unlike the commander of the USS Vincennes who shot down an Iranian Airbus in 1988.

GHW Bush said this at a news conference on 2 August 1988 "I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don't care what the facts are" in reference to the incident. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

In situations like this, you don’t get permission, you act unapologetically. As one poster just wrote: “Just Shoot first and forget about asking questions later”

flowerknife...right on point.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at March 30, 2007 3:08 PM

Yes, watch for the film of the hostages converting to Islam just before they are released. Right, Steve Centani?
This re-inforces the Muslim superiority complex, as these hostages are symbolic of Great Britain itself. What joy they find in little victories.

Posted by: crusader rabbit at March 30, 2007 01:51 PM

If DHS does it how is it not a viable strategy on their part? -see Debbie S

Posted by: akak at March 30, 2007 3:09 PM

And in case there is any question about going to war with Iran (which has had war declared on us for a few decades)...

Two U.S. carrier battle groups (Stennis and Eisenhower) have been launching aircraft into the air right off the coast of Iran. We also have bases of operation in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan as well which gives us three, maybe four launch points into Iran. Now is a good time for the Thug-in-Chief to cooperate.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at March 30, 2007 3:16 PM

MOD briefing shows Royal Navy personnel were in Iraqi waters

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.8545

Illustration of positions:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/conMediaFile.27810

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at March 30, 2007 3:21 PM

"Why not stand up for what one believes instead of cowering before the evil regimes as they work their own propaganda machine to its maximum potential"

...posted above by Gabriel_the_American

There are those who refuse to play the role. They never make it to iranian TV. (I suspect the captured Israeli soldiers are of this ilk, and were probably slaughtered for it.)

Posted by: Infidel33 at March 30, 2007 3:35 PM

"Newt in 08"

He may rival Taft in 'cabinet' size.

Tom Tancredo is to make his run official come Monday.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at March 30, 2007 4:07 PM

side and tell them if they don't comply then something nasty will happen to their comrades. It's one thing being responsible for your fate and quite another to be told you're responsible for everyone else's. You'd have to be something of psychopath yourself to resist that kind of pressure.

was there not a saying that Benjamin Franklin said if they were captured by the British, about all hanging together? it seems this is lost with today's
pc correctness.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 30, 2007 4:22 PM

The Bush Administration bases its policy of defending the West against the Jihad on appeasement. It appeases in every way. It refuses to call that Jihad by its right name, instead issuing treacly remarks, beginning with those triggered, apparently, by the 9/11/2001 attacks, for it was only then that Bush, later joined enthusiastically by Rice, began to speak about the "peaceful religion" of Islam which a "handful of extremists" have "hijacked" and "for their own purposes," and only after that attack that the White House initiated the Iftar Dinners held for those smiling representatives of countries whose malevolent peoples and governments do not and cannot wish us, as Infidels, well, and interpret the holding of Iftar Dinners in the White House, by Infidels, as one more sign of the coming inexorable triumph of Islam.

While Europeans appease in their own way, at home, the Administration's continued monomaniacal insistence on remaining in Iraq, to pursue a goal -- a "mission" that makes no sense if we are attempting to weaken the Camp of Islam, and in fact squanders men, money, materiel, and morale both military and civilian, for a "mission" that is the very opposite of what, from our point of view (and I'm indifferent to the point of view of Iraqis, even the sweetest ones, even the nice bloggers who of course want us to remain, just the way nice Mr. Chalabi and nice Mrs. Rend al-Rahim Francke and nice Kanan Makiya all wanted the Americans to enter Iraq to get rid of the regime of Saddam Hussein -- those bloggers, of whom there must be a huge and very convincing number, at least 6 or 7 such blogs still going in a country of 27 million, whom George Bush finds so very compelling and convincing).

The Iraq War is America's seeming display of toughness, but it is in fact an act of monumental, wasteful, self-deluding appeasement. For by refusing to call the war of self-defense against the Jihad precisely that, and instead calling it a "war against terror," and then believing or basing policy on the belief, increasingly difficult to maintain, that somehow Iraq (inevitably now run of, by, and for Shi'a Arabs) can be a Model, a Light Unto the Muslim (Sunni) Nations, if only we bring and transplant "democracy" for the "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East -- then we need not worry about what happens in India, or Thailand, or about the most important problem, which is the islamization of Western Europe, by means of the money weapon, Daw'a, and demographic conquest.

Bush is an Appeaser who, to his loyal followers, appears to be the opposite. That is only one of the unendurable paradoxes of this Comedy, or Tragicomedy, or Tragedy of Errors, known as the "war on terror" which is being fought "in Iraq" because, you see, as some Senators continue to foghorn-leghorn it from the podium, "if we don't fight them over there, they will follow us home and we will have to fight them over here."

Posted by: Hugh at March 30, 2007 4:33 PM

Condi two-steps it between Israel and the arab world as if there were no problems in Iraq; should not she make an occasional trip to Iraq to see if her charms might lower the IED attacks on our boys, or, better yet, bring some harmonay to the warraing clans? Of course it would be pointless, but we have 150, 000 troops in Iraq, and shouldn't Miss. Rice be working to come up with some salvage plan to put a bit of lipstick on the pig known as Iraq to allow our getting out of dodge? Might she not give an interview or even visit Iran to see if we can help secure the release of the 15 English soldiers?

I'm not saying any of this would do a bit of good. But her actions of focusing only on the arab league, Israel, arab league, Israel... makes it look like we have no other problems in the middle east(Iraq and Iran do no exist). Perhaps to her eyes, all roads do lead through Israel. She is doing her best dhimmitude act, showing our friends the Saudis how much she cares about the poor Palestinians(no people have suffered as much). Maybe she doesn't know the address of Baghdad or Iran?

It boggles the mind. Imagine when Pearl Harbor was bombed if FDR took a trip to Tornonto and berated them about trade policies. It is illogical, but I'm sure Karen Hughes approves. What a mess. Nice job W. Well done.

Posted by: biorabbi at March 30, 2007 4:37 PM

XDRC

Tancredo has Bay Buchanan now as one of his supporters. I don't want to play guilt by association, but Bay Buchanan's views on Islam are anything like her brother's (who tends to be pro Palestinian, pro traditional Muslim (like Dinesh D'Souza)), it may not necessarily be a good development. Having read the chapter 'Clash of Civilizations' in Tancredo's book 'In mortal danger' (Robert makes a cameo appearance at the end of the chapter on the congressman's 'Nuke Mecca' comments).

But if he runs, he's my choice. I do wonder whether he can consolidate the Conservative votes behind him, while McCain and Giuliani split the Liberal votes in the GOP.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 30, 2007 5:17 PM

XDRC

Tancredo has Bay Buchanan now as one of his supporters. I don't want to play guilt by association, if but Bay Buchanan's views on Islam are anything like her brother's (who tends to be pro Palestinian, pro traditional Muslim (like Dinesh D'Souza)), it may not necessarily be a good development. Having read the chapter 'Clash of Civilizations' in Tancredo's book 'In mortal danger' (Robert makes a cameo appearance at the end of the chapter on the congressman's 'Nuke Mecca' comments), I have no doubts about where he stands.

But if he runs, he's my choice. I do wonder whether he can consolidate the Conservative votes behind him, while McCain and Giuliani split the Liberal votes in the GOP.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 30, 2007 5:19 PM

In 1868 in a long forgotten war, I doubt if any people reading these comments know about it, a British General called Sir Robert Napier marched a British army from the Red Sea coast to the Capital of Abyssinia to rescue a small group of British Hostages. He marched his army through hundreds of miles of unknown territory took the Capital released the hostages and march back safely to the coast. The whole affair cost somewhere in the region of 25 wounded apart from the ones who died from disease. It cost the British taxpayer the staggering sum of 9,000,000 pound which was about the money the British spent on there fleet at the beginning of the last century, certainly not pocket money by any means. He was able to do this because at that time he was given a large amount of discretion. He would not be able to do that now, the telegraph wireless and satellite communications have taken that away from the generals and the admirals. They have no discretion now, the desk jockeys in the Pentagon and Whitehall, now decide, because instantaneous communications give them the ability to decide. They therefore tend to keep there soldiers and sailo