Oliver Willis

26 Responses to “Fox Goebbels Channel”

1. 1 Church Secretary
   Mar 31st, 2007 at 6:05 am

   Criminals take hostages. Nations who have their borders violated by encroaching foreign militaries take prisoners.

   Don’t fall into the Fox News/Corporate Media trap of calling the prisoners ‘hostages.’ The sailors who were likely just doing their part in the UK and U.S.’s Operation Provoke Iran are prisoners.

2. 2 fd10801
   Mar 31st, 2007 at 10:01 am

   A hostage is “A person held by one party in a conflict as security that specified terms will be met by the opposing party.”, or a person held to get demands met.

   I’m not sure if the Iranians want anything in particular, but the British sailors are not prisoners, if they were taken in non - Iranian waters.

   I believe that they were snatched from Iraqi waters, so they are not POW’s.

3. 3 Diamond LeGrande
   Mar 31st, 2007 at 10:42 am

   There is a real possibility that they were taken in Iranian waters.

   All this reminds me of a story my brother told me. Right before the Iraq invasion, my brother was stationed on a refilling ship. One day, for some reason, he was along on smaller ship, patrolling the area. He looked out the window, and noticed another ship, and pointed this out to the captain. After some discussion, the captain realized that the other ship was an Iranian ship, laying mines, and they were in Iranian waters, specifically in a minefield. Needless to say, they turned around and left the area.

   My point with this — these guys were not paying much attention to sovereign waters. I wouldn’t be surprised if something like this happened again, and this time, the Iranians noticed and chose to make an example of the Brits.

4. 4 C.S.Strowbridge
   Mar 31st, 2007 at 11:01 am

   “I believe that…”

   Just FYI, if you start a statemnt with, “I believe,” there’s a very good likelihood that what follows is wrong.

   At this moment, Iran has more credibility than the U.K. or the U.S., which is incredibly pathethic.

   I trust neither side, but I don’t trust the Iranians slightly less.

5. 5 JWG
   Mar 31st, 2007 at 4:11 pm

   Are Church Sec, Diamond, and Strowbridge representitive of leftists? I certainly hope not.

6. 6 Quaker in a Basement
   Mar 31st, 2007 at 5:30 pm

   Are Church Sec, Diamond, and Strowbridge representitive of leftists?

   In what way? In that they don’t relexively believe that the enemy-of-the-month is always wrong and our western allies are always right? No matter what the dispute?

   Yeah, they’re representative.

7. 7 fd10801
   Mar 31st, 2007 at 5:32 pm

   Just FYI, if you start a statement with, “I believe,” there’s a very good likelihood that what follows is wrong.
   Why on earth would that be true?
   I,unlike some other commenters don’t have all the facts. If you choose to believe the Iranian side of the story, that doesn’t mean you know it.
   The same goes for the British side.
   I always find it interesting that any two bit country can accuse the USA of anything, and there are liberals who will believe it (remember the warlike act of bombing that Iranian building — suddenly it was an Embassy, and we had committed an act of war. Of course, the truth discovered later was that it was not a diplomatic building.)

   Are Church Sec, Diamond, and Strowbridge representitive of leftists?
   Maybe not, but there are a hell of a lot more like them.

8. 8 fd10801
   Mar 31st, 2007 at 5:34 pm

   “unlike some other commenters”, should be “like some other commenters”

9. 9 JWG
   Mar 31st, 2007 at 7:14 pm

   In that they don’t relexively believe that the enemy-of-the-month is always wrong and our western allies are always right?

   Church Sec describes Iran as the victim of a US plot.

   Diamond makes the most sane statement claiming it wouldn’t be surprising if the British wandered into Iranian waters, but claims the Iranians are merely making “an example” from the situation. Of course, if the US made the same type of “example” out of the Iranians we captured in Iraq there would be massive outrage.

   And Strowbridge trusts the Iranians more than the US or the British, despite the continued games Iran plays with the UN about its nuclear program.

   Now we have Quaker claiming Iran is merely the “enemy of the month.”

   Absolutely pathetic.

10. 10 Quaker in a Basement
    Mar 31st, 2007 at 8:31 pm

    Now we have Quaker claiming Iran is merely the “enemy of the month.”

    Of course not, brother. We are at war with Iran. We have always been at war with Iran.

11. 11 Diamond LeGrande
    Mar 31st, 2007 at 9:26 pm

    Diamond makes the most sane statement claiming it wouldn’t be surprising if the British wandered into Iranian waters, but claims the Iranians are merely making “an example” from the situation. Of course, if the US made the same type of “example” out of the Iranians we captured in Iraq there would be massive outrage.

    And there isn’t outrage already? And the Iranians are not making an example of the captured Brits?

    I don’t get how I made such a politically incorrect statement. I’m not up and screaming; sure. My government didn’t have anything to do with this incident, and the government that did the capturing — capturing is what happens when sailors of a nation wander into the waters of a hostile nation — doesn’t give a damn what I think. I could piss and moan about the Iranians all day, and it would have the same effect as pissing and moaning about the Hundred Years War.

    Are JWG and Frank representative of wingnuts? No, most are even worse, combining ranting and threats with their dishonesty.

12. 12 David Greene
    Mar 31st, 2007 at 9:47 pm

    As for the comment “we have always been at war with Iran” posted by JWG I would like to respectfully point out there was a time when the Shah of Iran was considered the US’s “policeman of the Mid East” and we backed the ruthless dictator with billions in military aid. Now it is the Russians who supply the military hardware. How the world turns.

13. 13 JWG
    Mar 31st, 2007 at 10:25 pm

    As for the comment “we have always been at war with Iran” posted by JWG

    Huh?

14. 14 JWG
    Mar 31st, 2007 at 10:29 pm

    And the Iranians are not making an example of the captured Brits?

    They are acting criminally, which is much more serious than the soft tone you used.

15. 15 C.S.Strowbridge
    Apr 1st, 2007 at 2:04 am

    “Why on earth would that be true?”

    Past experience.

    “If you choose to believe the Iranian side of the story,”

    God good! Are you that fucking stupid? Yes, yes you are.

    Here is what I said, “I trust neither side, but I don’t trust the Iranians slightly less.”

    To emphasize, I don’t believe either side of the story because neither side has put forth a convincing argument.

    You, JWG, Quaker in a Basement are too fucking stupid to understand a simple sentence. This is why you are conservatives, because you are not smart enough to be liberals.

16. 16 C.S.Strowbridge
    Apr 1st, 2007 at 2:06 am

    “As for the comment “we have always been at war with Iran” posted by JWG”

    He was paraphrasing 1984. That wasn’t meant to be taken as a serious argument.

17. 17 Jay Tea
    Apr 1st, 2007 at 6:26 am

    Interesting how the first set of coordinates Iran cited as where the incident took place were firmly in Iraqi waters. They didn’t get around to “fixing” the error until after the British took those coordinates, put ‘em on a map, and showed that Iran itself was saying it happened outside their waters.

    And to compare this seizure to the capture of Iranians in Iraq is absurd. Borders are much more clearly demarked on land than on the sea, and the Iranians were caught hundreds of miles inside Iraq, not wearing uniforms.

    Finally, where is the outrage over Iran failing to abide by the Geneva Convention vis-a-vis the treatment of these prisoners? I’ve lost count of how many terms they’ve violated so far…

    J.

18. 18 Jay Tea
    Apr 1st, 2007 at 6:29 am

    Here’s a little hint, by the way: simply opposing Bush doesn’t make someone right, a saint, or the Second Coming. Tell us some more how wonderful Hugo Chavez is, for one example. Or give us another round of Cindy Sheehan’s “absolute moral authority” schtick. That one never gets old.

    J.

19. 19 fd10801
    Apr 1st, 2007 at 2:13 pm

    CSS :: I used to be “smart enough to be a liberal”. Now I’m wise enough to be a conservative.

    I said, “If you choose to believe the Iranian side of the story, that doesn’t mean you know it.”

    It’s pretty clear to me that that is an “if - then” usage. I didn’t say you believed the Iranian side of the story, although I must admit to being a little unclear about the meaning of “disbelieving less”.

20. 20 Quaker in a Basement
    Apr 1st, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    Tell us some more how wonderful Hugo Chavez is, for one example.

    WTF? Who said anything about Chavez?

    Or maybe your argument is: Chavez opposes Bush, lefties oppose Bush, therefore lefties love Chavez.

    Is that it, HayTea?

21. 21 Quaker in a Basement
    Apr 1st, 2007 at 2:51 pm

    You, JWG, Quaker in a Basement are too fucking stupid to understand a simple sentence. This is why you are conservatives,

    Haw!

    New in town?

22. 22 Bill L.
    Apr 2nd, 2007 at 1:35 am

    The Iranians really are terribly untrustworthy.

    First they get all up in our grill and take embassy staff hostage after clearly failing to appreciate all the trouble we went to back in the 50’s to get the Shah installed as our puppet dictator. Ingrates.

    Then they had the audacity to buy weapons from us via Israel , putting us in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why we would deal with a country that we consider an enemy of both countries just so our president and his minions could do an end run around Congress and the law and arm a group of terroris…err..freedom fighters. Way ta’ go, fellas.

    To top it off, they had the audacity to offer us aid after 9/11 and even broached talks about their nuclear program to us as though we would ever openly and honestly deal with a card carrying member of the axis of evil. You kids are a hoot.

    Next you’ll tell me that the rumored U.S. covert ops in Iran or the seizing of Iranians in Iraq despite a lack of any evidence of wrong doing and despite protests on Iran’s behalf by the Iraqi government itself justify being all testy with Britain. Come on, Iran can’t expect us to believe that just because the U.S. has conducted a massively illegal war and occupation in Iraq, Iran’s immediate neighbor, while recently moving to place a gi-normous flotilla of naval and air firepower on Iran’s doorstep that they therefore have any reason for being jumpy. Hey, the man said all options were on the table. ALL OPTIONS. War’s just one. Open your mid fer cryin’ out loud.

    Yes, I see that finger wagging, telling us that after Gitmo and Abu Ghraib we have no credibility on issues like the Geneva Conventions. Hypocrites, us? We said they were “quaint.” That’s affection talking. You can’t tell me “water boarding” doesn’t sound bitchin’, like a good time at the beach.

    As for the whole Iran/nuke thing, well, they have no excuses for defying the U.N. Whoever gave them the notion that having nukes was okay? Just because we look the other way as Israel stacks up a major arsenal…or India…or Pakistan (who house, feed, and go raving with al Qaeda and the Taliban), is no reason to think Iran should get a pass. We are 100% committed to non-proliferation, no matter what new nukes or bunker busters we build, or treaties we shred, might lead anyone to believe. Deterrence? Where did that come from? Who ever heard of a nuclear “deterrent?” North Korea? What about ‘em? I firmly believe, based on their missile tests, that they are simply looking for a long range alternative to fishing nets. Pre-cooked and sterilized with just a hint of spicy uranium, too. You just can’t fault the thinking on this one.

    Iran’s long history of taking U.S. meddling in its affairs personally combined with their long standing habit of talking way tougher than they act make me wonder how it is we haven’t attacked already.

    *I do think Iran is stepping in it with this British soldier business,but playing them up as a serious threat is so 2002-2003 Iraq. When your grotesque world vision is failing and domestic support is evaporating, you can always count on another failed war to seal the deal. Besides, Iran would make three, and you simply can’t take a pass on history’s worst military hat trick.

23. 23 Bill L.
    Apr 2nd, 2007 at 5:12 am

    And here I thought I was laying down some snark.

24. 24 PD100
    Apr 2nd, 2007 at 9:41 am

    “Finally, where is the outrage over Iran failing to abide by the Geneva Convention vis-a-vis the treatment of these prisoners? “

    -As spoken from the same stateside-deferred asshat who wants to do away with the Geneva Convention when it comes to fucking up dem brown terror people -never mind what happens at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib.
    Then again, when have the Wizbang Political Rodeo Clowns ever believed in the rules applying to all?

25. 25 Duros62
    Apr 2nd, 2007 at 11:17 am

    I,unlike some other commenters don’t have all the facts.

    Historically speaking, you were right the first time.

26. 26 fd10801
    Apr 2nd, 2007 at 5:57 pm

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho

    Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee

Leave a Reply