My money on that the Brits submit.

Posted by: Elric66 at April 4, 2007 8:32 AM

"“Appropriate action”

.....temporarily suspended.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 4, 2007 8:37 AM

Unless the Brits cave in (as we know they will) there is no "diplomatic" solution. If Iran was reasonable, they would have resolved the issue with "hey you Brits, you're on our side of the line, could you please go back to your side?"

This was a ploy to get concessions and everyone on the planet, with the possible exception of Tony Blair and George Bush, know it.

Posted by: walterc at April 4, 2007 8:46 AM

My oh my! Churchil, were art thou?!!

I cant believe how low euro-dhimmis will bow down in the name of multiculturalism, or Arab oil.

When will people realize that you can't make deals with Muslims? Look at the Palestinians. If they can't keep their word to their own Muslim AND Palestinian brothers, do you think they will keep it with us "najes" (unclean) people?

Wake up Britain!

Posted by: Crusader at April 4, 2007 8:51 AM

My oh my! Churchil, were art thou?!!

I cant believe how low euro-dhimmis will bow down in the name of multiculturalism, or Arab oil.

When will people realize that you can't make deals with Muslims? Look at the Palestinians. If they can't keep their word to their own Muslim AND Palestinian brothers, do you think they will keep it with us "najes" (unclean) people?

Wake up Britain!

Posted by: Crusader at April 4, 2007 8:52 AM

"When will people realize that you can't make deals with Muslims? Look at the Palestinians."

...look at every Non Muslim entity that was unfortunate enough to be in Muslim lands in the Entire Muslim history....all have died at the hands of Muslims...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 4, 2007 9:05 AM

It will be interesting to hear how the bleating 'false flag' conspiracy theorists play things when this is all settled without a shot being fired, and suitable warm dhimmitude toward Iran, interesting indeed.

Posted by: thomas ato at April 4, 2007 9:10 AM

Take that Britian!!!

Ahmadinejad Vows Iran Will Not Tolerate Invasions by Any Country

TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Iran would not tolerate invasions of its borders by any country Wednesday at a press conference in which he presented awards to navy personnel involved in the capture of British sailors and marines.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,263924,00.html

Posted by: Elric66 at April 4, 2007 9:13 AM

Kinda disgusting and kinda humiliating.

Is this the British lion ?

Can we get Pelosi in a hijab (as Damascus Nancy) ?

If these bastards claim they love death, and we have the power to administer it to them, why isn't it being done ?

All hail the political class.

Posted by: dgene at April 4, 2007 9:13 AM

Amid fighting the "war on terror" rhetoric (and that's exactly what it is), the world is caving in to Islam. At the current pace of wars of half measure, "Secretary of State" Pelosi trotting around the world in surrender and dhimmitude, it will be many more years of this sh*t before the brakes are finally applied by some (unknown)bold and strong leader, but by that time the roller coaster will be cresting the most mountanous curve, uncontrollable, careening into the abyss, where mankind dare not go.

If we don't wake up, the needless autricity of our time is nearing.

My God help us all.

Posted by: sounder at April 4, 2007 9:16 AM

I understand Britain's plight. After all, if you get entangled in a thorny plant, you have to extricate yourself carefully, not rashly.

But then, Britain has caved in to Islamic demands before. The Muslims of Britain have got an anti-blasphemy law, but not the British Christians and others.

The British Muslims also made a demand to amend the Crown's title as ".....the defender of the Faiths......" instead of the singular "Faith" used now.

Time and again India presented documentary evidence to Britain and US about the involvement of Pakistani / Arab Muslims (present in Britain) in terrorist pogroms in India. But instead of extradition, all that came to India was a long lecture on human rights. Now Britain understands the problem because these Muslims have started turning against Britain itself.

All the best for Britain, and may this problem be solved successfully with least damage.

Posted by: proud-hindu at April 4, 2007 9:18 AM

Has anyone heard anything else about the former FBI agent that has gone missing in Iran while working with an independant film maker?

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at April 4, 2007 9:19 AM

The hairy troll said he will release the hostages as a "gift" I wonder what deal Britian made. I wonder if we will ever know.

Posted by: Elric66 at April 4, 2007 9:22 AM

‘Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said his country will free the 15 captured UK sailors and marines as a "gift" to Britain.’

Well thanks hairy primate, hopefully one day soon we will be able to give you a few gifts of our own.

Posted by: Mert at April 4, 2007 9:24 AM

How much did they pay?
not importent, what price did we all pay thats the question.

Islam Questions & Answers
www.islam-qa.com
Question Reference Number:: 13241
Title: Treatment of prisoners-of-war in Islam

Home > Islamic politics > Rulings on Jihaad >
Question:

How are prisoners of war treated in Islam?

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Islam is the religion of mercy and justice; it commands us to call others to the religion of Allaah in a kind and good manner, and to encourage people to enter this great religion.
[b]If some people persist in rejecting the religion of Allaah and stand in the way of ruling by that which Allaah has revealed on earth, or they fight against the call to Allaah, then we give them the choice of three things:

Either they become Muslim; or if they refuse they pay the jizyah (whereby they pay a specified amount to the Muslims in return for being allowed to remain their land, and the Muslims undertake to protect them); or, if they refuse that, there is nothing left but the way which they themselves have chosen, which is fighting and dealing violently with those who have persecuted the Muslims and put obstacles in the path of the Islamic da’wah. [/b]In this way the Muslims will gain the upper hand and the enemies will be humiliated; then when we have killed and wounded many of them and gained the upper hand over them,
we may take prisoners and bind a bond firmly on them [cf. Muhammad 47:4], because in that case it is more in tune with the idea of mercy by choice (not because we are afraid of them); at that point war should not continue any longer than is necessary.
War in Islam should not be waged for the sole purpose of shedding blood or seeking vengeance.
If the Muslims capture them and take them to a place that has been prepared for them, they should not harm them or torture them with beatings, depriving them of food and water, leaving them out in the sun or the cold, burning them with fire, or putting covers over their mouths, ears and eyes and putting them in cages like animals.
Rather they should treat them with kindness and mercy, feed them well and encourage them to enter Islam.
Thumaamah ibn Athaal – the leader of Bani Haneefah – was brought (to Madeenah) as a prisoner and tied to one of the pillars of the mosque.
The Messenger(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came to him and said, “What do you think, O Thumaamah?” He said, “What I think, O Muhammad, is good.
If you kill me, you will kill one with blood on his hands – i.e., I will deserve to be killed because I have killed Muslims – and if you release me you will release one who will be grateful.
If you want money,then ask, and I will give you whatever you want.” The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) left him for three days, and each day he would come and ask him similar questions, and Thumaamah would give similar answers.
After the third day,
he commanded that he should be released. Thumaamah went to a stand of date-palms near the mosque where he bathed (did ghusl), then he came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said, “I bear witness that there is no god except Allaah and I bear witness that Muhammad is the slave of Allaah and His Messenger.”
Then he said: “O Messenger of Allaah, by Allaah there was no one on earth whose face was more hateful to me than yours, but now your face is the most beloved of all faces to me.
By Allaah, there was no religion that was more hateful to me than your religion, but now your religion has become the most beloved of all religions to me.
By Allaah, there was no land more hateful to me than your land, but now your land has become the most beloved to me. Your cavalry captured me when I was on my way to perform ‘Umrah, so what do you think I should do?”
The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) congratulated him, and told him to go for ‘Umrah. When he came to Makkah, someone asked him, “Have you changed your religion?” He said, “No, but I have submitted with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and by Allaah you will not get a grain of wheat from al-Yamaamah unless the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) gives permission.”
Think about this story, may Allaah bless you, and how the kind treatment of Thumaamah led to his embracing Islam, which could not have happened were it not primarily by the grace of Allaah, and also the kind treatment which Thumaamah received.
In the Qur’aan, Allaah says of the righteous (interpretation of the meaning):
“And they give food, in spite of their love for it (or for the love of Him), to the Miskeen (the poor), the orphan, and the captive,
(Saying): ‘We feed you seeking Allaah’s Countenance only. We wish for no reward, nor thanks from you’”
[al-Insaan 76:8-9]
Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “Ibn ‘Abbaas said: in those days their prisoners were mushrikeen; on the day of Badr the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded them to be kind to their prisoners, so they used to put them before themselves when it came to food…
Mujaahid said, this refers to the one who is detained, i.e., they would give food to these prisoners even though they themselves desired it and loved it.”
The ruling on tying up prisoners:
It is well known that if prisoners are able to escape they will not hesitate to do so, because they may be afraid of dying and they do not know what awaits them.

Hence the Muslims were commanded to tie up their prisoners and to tie their hands to their necks, lest they run away. This is something that still happens and is well known to all people.

The wisdom behind permitting the taking of prisoners is so as to weaken the enemy and ward off his evil by keeping him away from the battlefield so that he cannot be effective or play any role; it also creates a means of freeing Muslim prisoners by
trading the prisoners whom we are holding.
Detaining prisoners

[b]Prisoners should be detained until it is decided what is the best move. The ruler of the Muslims should detain prisoners until he decides what is in the Muslims’ best interests.

He may ransom them for money, or exchange them for Muslim prisoners, or release them for nothing in return, or distribute them among the Muslims as slaves, or kill the men, but not the women and children, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade killing the latter. [/b]
The purpose behind detaining prisoners is so that the Muslims may be protected from their evil.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to enjoin the Muslims to treat prisoners well, whereas the Romans and those who came before them the Assyrians and Pharaohs, all used to put out their prisoners’ eyes with hot irons, and flay them alive, feeding their skins to dogs, such that the prisoners preferred death to life.

Ahkaam al-Sijn wa’l-Sujana’ wa Mu’aamalat al-Sujana’ fi’l-Islam by Hasan Abi’l-Ghuddah, 256 (www.islam-qa.com)

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

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at April 4, 2007 9:36 AM

War with Iran is inevitable, how could it not be with threats to wipe Israel off the map along with their chants of 'death to America' whilst enriching uranium for the 'the islamic bomb'. Kiss ass, beg for mercy, just get the sailors and marines out of there before Iran gets its day of reckoning...

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at April 4, 2007 9:57 AM

Re: “The British should agree to their mistake and change their behaviour"

Notice how Iran constantly accuses Britian of being in the wrong.

Iran uses deceptive propaganda to make the case that evidence supports their position that Britian made a mistake.

Moral high ground rhetoric is used by Iran to fight in the public relations war.

British G.P.S. coordinates clearly indicate that the vessels were in Iraqi waters and yet Iran claims that their "evidence" confirms that Britian violated the boundary demarcation and therefore voyaged into Iranian waters.

Iran is acting like that big bully on the street that needs to be taught a lesson or two.

One day Iran will be put in their place by a brave country that finally has the courage to stand up to them.

Posted by: Johnathan at April 4, 2007 9:59 AM

what is the fate of the Israeli prisoners taken long ago?....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 4, 2007 10:02 AM

The fox brings a bag of feed to the henhouse.

Posted by: americanmadestrat at April 4, 2007 10:04 AM

what is the fate of the Israeli prisoners taken long ago?....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 4, 2007 10:02 AM

Seems no one in the MSM cares. Neither does any human rights groups. My guess is they are being treated much worse then the scum at Camp Gitmo.

Posted by: Elric66 at April 4, 2007 10:05 AM

"what is the fate of the Israeli prisoners taken long ago"

No one cares. No one at Human Rights Watch, the UN, Amnesty Intl, etc. Go to any of those websites and you will not find any mention of western or Israeli victims of such abuse. Listen to the latest Shire Network News episode or go to UNWatch.org and see exactly how anyone pleading the case for Israel is shut down and comments stricken from the record.

Frankly, if you are Jewish or from a western country, no one else has your back. It is your fault that you are in the predicament you are in.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at April 4, 2007 10:11 AM

I would suggest that Eldad Regev, Gilad Shalit and Ehud Goldwasser are probably dead.

Posted by: Mert at April 4, 2007 10:14 AM

"A gift", i.e. "As a magnanimous gesture, made from a position of total choice and undisputed superiority". This if nothing else is Ahmadinejad's victorious achievement from this whole affair. The West can hit the snooze button right now, but it'll pay the price later, just as it was last century.

Posted by: ZionistYoungster at April 4, 2007 10:16 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6525905.stm

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf will be freed.
He repeated allegations that the British sailors and marines "invaded" Iranian waters, but said they would be freed as a "gift" to Britain.

He made the announcement at a news conference, in which he also awarded medals to the commanders who captured the British personnel in the Gulf.

GOSH, A GIFT, FROM AMADINEJAD, HOW SWEET, THANK YOU!

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 4, 2007 10:16 AM

GOSH, A GIFT, FROM AMADINEJAD, HOW SWEET, THANK YOU!

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer

Thats what my fox comment was referring to...good ol' Ahmi what a nice guy.

Posted by: americanmadestrat at April 4, 2007 10:21 AM

Does anybody know where I can get a Vanguard class submarine wrapped?

Posted by: Mert at April 4, 2007 10:22 AM

"I would suggest that Eldad Regev, Gilad Shalit and Ehud Goldwasser are probably dead.

Posted by: Mert "

....I concur....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 4, 2007 10:23 AM

I would suggest that Eldad Regev, Gilad Shalit and Ehud Goldwasser are probably dead.

Posted by: Mert at April 4, 2007 10:14 AM

It would explain why Olmert hasnt cut a deal.

Posted by: Elric66 at April 4, 2007 10:24 AM

quote

This view was taken further by Mehrangiz Kar, a respected Iranian human rights activist and lawyer who has moved to the United States after being jailed for two months in Iran for attending a conference about her country in Berlin.

She argued that Iran was doing little to defend its national security by exploiting Faye Turney, the sole woman among the 15 Britons.

“Rather than displaying her on national television with an imposed headscarf, they should have immediately released the captured woman sailor, with the commentary that in Islam a mother is truly respected,” Ms Kar wrote on the liberal news website Rooz ( roozoneline ).

end quote

"Tehran bloggers see through smoke and mirrors"
by Michael Theodoulou

The " imposed headscarf" on Faye Turney was a sign of submission to Islam. It was a humiliation for a Dhimmi woman to have to wear it, and was intended to degrade her from warrior to the status of women under Islam. Their use of the headscarf shows what the status of women under Islam is. Its a mark of submission and humiliation to men and to Islam.

Jill Carroll had to wear such a headscarf too while she mouthed her captor's words. They want this scenario of submission acted out. For them, this is Islam. That's why their religious police can beat or arrest their women for not wearing it. We need to recognize what this constant humiliation and mark of submission to Islam means.

Hanoi Jane Fonda AA gun v. Jill Carroll Captive Photo

"In Islam a mother is truly respected." Are women or mothers truly respected in Islam? Or are the headscarfs, etc. a sign they are truly humiliated and degraded in and by Islam?

Oriana Fallaci believed the latter when she pulled off her headscarf in front of Khomeini and called it a "medieval rag".

Search

Oriana Fallaci Khomeini medieval rag

This was in Khomeini's house.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 4, 2007 10:26 AM

"15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf will be freed"

What other 'gifts' does St. Ahmedinajad have for the rest of us? I am picturing him on a parade float, something like a ballistic warhead, throwing out Bazooka bubble gum to everyone.

Encouraging news once they are safe in Britain. How much of Tony Blair's soul was lost in the deal?

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at April 4, 2007 10:26 AM

I don’t know about his soul, in truth I’m not sure he has one, but his premiership as sure took a blow.

Posted by: Mert at April 4, 2007 10:28 AM

Reminds me more and more of the scene in the film of the C.S. Lewis "Narnia" story where the lion Aslan is tied down and his mane is brutally chopped off to the mocking laughter of his enemies.

(Somehow I don't think the humiliated British lion will 'break the table of law' and revive in greater glory.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 4, 2007 10:29 AM

I am awaiting the sequel to :

"The Empire strikes back"

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 4, 2007 10:30 AM

And let's not forget the good Dhimmis in the news media -- such as Christiane Amanpour of CNN who makes the case that the 'aggrieved party" here is Iran -- the audacity of those evil Brits -- tch, tch, tch!! after all, trespassing and boarding ships filled with contraband and smugglers should, by all means, be prohibited by the Irans. As we all know, smuggling is of two kinds -- the legal variety (which Christiane no doubt would insist is what the Iranians conduct) and the illegal variety (which only the Brits conduct). I mean, it's all so very, very simple (in terms of "justice").

Then, of course not to be outdone by CNN, the Canadian Dhimmis immediately contact a former "guest of Iran" back in the 80s (that's Ken something or other) to provide his "expert" Dhimmi opinion, and thus concludes that the British sailors were, obviously, "not hostages" O NO, heaven forfend -- the Brits were nothing more than common trespassing criminals, detained by the noble and virtuous Iranians. Let us all bow down to that wondrous "religion" of Islam!

Posted by: J.S. at April 4, 2007 10:44 AM

The only difference between today and 1982 is the leader. Today we have a leader who will do anything to stay in power except the right thing. Blair would not have sent a task force to the Falklands; he is trying to off load Gibraltar to Spain. He only backs wars where he can’t lose and he’ll back everyone of those.

Thatcher knew it wouldn’t be easy, but she did it anyway. And that is what we need today.

Ultimately Blair and his party have no excuse for getting Britain into this situation, our stripped down military made to fight on multiple fronts to the order not to fire at Iranians are all his responsibility.

I believe that Labour will spend a long time in the wilderness after the next election. If they don’t then this country is surely doomed.

Posted by: Mert at April 4, 2007 11:09 AM

"Christiane Amanpour of CNN "

...such an awful slug to listen to.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 4, 2007 11:46 AM

Pelosi Meets Syrian President comments at WaPo

quote

OldAtlantic, You are a close relative of Johnthan Poolard the Spy. We see your posts evry were attacking Islam-today you are so concerned about muslim women burakahusseinobamalovesislam, You are the first cousin of Pollard. Remember that the virgin Mary covered her head too-which is better than women uncovering their ...

By asizk | Apr 4, 2007 3:21:31 PM

end quote

OldAtlantic, Well..Well...so you zionist boy are the self-appointed defender of Muslim women..

By asizk | Apr 4, 2007 3:25:01 PM |

Pelosi Trip Sponsored by NRSC Wonkette

Above quotes in response to:

Its too bad the left didnt wear distinctive clothes when they were agents for Moscow.

By OldAtlantic | Apr 4, 2007 2:50:02 PM

What happened to the time that Western women would help women in bondage to be free? Now Pelosi goes to a poor country and supports subjugation of women. Women didnt wear scarves in the Middle East in the 1960s. San Francisco Pelosi is now their prison warden and not the light of a new path of freedom for women in Syria.

By OldAtlantic | Apr 4, 2007 3:04:46 PM

Pelosi betrayed the women in Muslim lands who yearn to be free. Everywhere under Islam, women are in Islamic dress and yearn to be free. Will Western women stand up for freedom? Or will like Pelosi they lead the way to a new darkness? Or an old one? What about speaking truth to Islam? Why dont they subpoena the imams at CAIR and at radical mosques across America to say whether they repudiate verses in the Quran promoting violent jihad?

By OldAtlantic | Apr 4, 2007 3:08:12 PM

Why do liberals support the marks of subjugation of women if its in Islam?

By OldAtlantic | Apr 4, 2007 3:09:27 PM

rm9300 | Apr 4, 2007 3:08:31 PM is right. She might as well hold up the Quran and say peace in our time, we are now part of the House of Peace. This shows the San Francisco left were really anti-West not pro-women or pro-human.

By OldAtlantic | Apr 4, 2007 3:11:03 PM

Walter Duranty wiki

When you see these threats, you must speak out to end Muslim immigration completely. The safe thing to do when you read these threats is to speak out.

Right now non-Muslims who drive on the highway to Mecca are arrested. Write your congressman and senator and quote Asizk, and ask them why they bring these death threats into our country after the attack on WTC in 1993 and then 9-11 2001 against the Pentagon and the WTC again.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 4, 2007 4:31 PM

More WaPo comments

quote fearful.rus.bear, Nice and accurate argument, but I think even this argument won*t be able to convince a MENTALLY DISEASED person like OldAtlantic

By kay_ceee | Apr 4, 2007 4:30:31 PM

end quote

Note the leftist attack came after the comments frm Asizk, so they associated themselves with him. This is how the left is so full of hate of America it joins with Islam. That is what Pelosi showed by wearing a headscarf in a mosque in Syria.

When you see these threats, you must speak out to end Muslim immigration completely. The safe thing is to speak out now, not wait until we are religiously and ethnically cleansed. Actually that already started on 9-11. 9-11 was Christian and Jew cleansing in this land by legal Muslim immigrants.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 4, 2007 4:56 PM

A glass car park is required where Ahmedinijad is.

Posted by: marilyn at April 5, 2007 12:35 AM