« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | Democrats in Michigan are Complete Idiots »

What the British Marines and Sailors Endured

The Daily Mail has details of the circumstances under which the freed British hostages lived while they were held against their will in Iran:

The British sailors released by Iran have today told how they were kidnapped and blindfolded and subjected to 'constant psychological pressure'.


The sailors and marines were told if they did not admit they had strayed into Iranian waters they faced seven years in prison.

Two of the freed captives shared the reading of a prepared statement at Royal Marines Base at Chivenor, north Devon, where they revealed the first details of their time as hostages.

Lieutenant Felix Carman confirmed the sailors were in Iraqi waters when they were detained by Iran. "We were 1.7 nautical miles from Iranian waters," he said.

The sailors and marines said they were bound, blindfolded and lined up against a wall while weapons were cocked, making them "fear the worst".

[...]

Marine Tindell, from Shooters Hill, south east London told BBC News 24: "On day two the mood completely changed, they changed from the military dress to all black, their faces covered.

"We thought we were going to the British embassy but we got taken to a detention centre, all 15 of us.

"We had a blindfold and plastic cuffs, hands behind our backs, heads against the wall. Basically there were weapons cocking. Someone, I'm not sure who, someone said, I quote 'lads, lads I think we're going to get executed'.

"After that comment someone was sick and as far as I was concerned he had just had his throat cut.

"From there we were rushed to a room, quick photo and then stuffed into a cell and didn't see or speak to anyone for six days."

Iran's reaction to the British Sailors and Marines' press conference:

Iran's state television said the British military "dictated" to its sailors what to say in a press conference on Friday.

The former captives told reporters they were pressured while in custody to admit to being in Iranian waters.

In its news report on the sailors, Iranian state TV said they held a "pre-organised" press conference in which "the British sailors only read from pages dictated to them."


"They made statements completely different from what they had said in Iran and claimed that they were in Iraqi waters when detained," the TV newsreader said.

The newscast then turned to an in-house "political analyst," who called the sailors' press conference "a show."

"British military officials dictated it, but this show will not change the reality or undermine the credibility of the fact that the British sailors were in Iranian waters," said the analyst, who spoke to TV by telephone and was identified only by his family name, Zaraei.

Hmmm. Who will the world believe, the British Marines or the Iranian government? Gee, tough call. (That's sarcasm for you lefties.)

Update: Who's the real Ahmadinejad? Human Events has an interesting piece that provides details of Ahmadinejad's past that very few people know:

The answers to these questions actually lie within Ahmadinejad's history, something about which he and the Iran government have been less than forthcoming. According to sources inside Iran, before becoming president, Ahmadinejad served the Iranian regime in several capacities. First, as a militant student leader chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini shortly after the revolution, he was a co-founder of Khomeini's Office for Consolidating Unity (OCU), an organization that stormed universities and jailed students and professors. He next worked as a professional interrogator, responsible for questioning and torturing political prisoners, including U.S. hostages. A member of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) from its inception, Ahmadinejad fought on Iran's northwestern border during the Iran-Iraq War. At that time, he participated in a special operations mission in Kirkuk, deep inside Iraq. It is now widely acknowledged that Iran is heavily involved in sending roadside bombs, explosives, and arms into Iraq to kill American forces, all with the full backing of Ahmadinejad and the supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. Ahmadinejad knows exactly what they are capable of in Iraq because he conducted missions there himself. He has also served as a senior commander of an elite section of the IRGC, which later became the Qods Force. In this role he conducted secret operations to assassinate the regime's enemies in Europe and the Middle East.


The "everyman" perception of Ahmadinejad as a big-city mayor who came from behind to win the presidency is based on a fiction put forward by the regime. In reality, Ahmadinejad was carefully selected for his post based on his military expertise, devotion to the regime's fundamentalist brand of Islam, and strong ties to the supreme leader.

Read the rest.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What the British Marines and Sailors Endured:

» Blogs 4 Brownback linked with We Can Only Hope

Comments (54)

Let's review: *... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Let's review:

* Iran crossed into Iraqi waters.
* While in Iraqi waters, Iran captured and held hostage uniformed military personnel from Great Britain, without a state of war existing between Iran, Great Britain, or Iraq.
* Iran accused uniformed military personnel of being spies.
* Iran used psychological torture and humiliation techniques including blindfolding, stripping naked, mock executions, solitary confinement, deceit about the situations of the other hostages, and threats of prison and incarceration for nonexistent crimes.
* Iran forced hostages to read "confessions" and used these confessions for propaganda.
* Iran paraded hostages in front of TV cameras for propaganda purposes.

All of these things are illegal under either the commonly accepted rules for military engagement or the Geneva Conventions. And when the US uses similar techniques against captured terrorists, Leftists say that we "torture" them.

Amnesty International? UN Human Rights Council? Congressional Democrats? Liberal bloggers?

Hello?

Speaking of "dictation," I ... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Speaking of "dictation," I hope everyone reads this interesting analysis of the "confessions" read by the British, which appear to have been written by someone with a less than average command of common English.

Amnesty International? U... (Below threshold)
Who's John Galt?:

Amnesty International? UN Human Rights Council? Congressional Democrats? Liberal bloggers?

Oh, allow me to explain: These Brit sailors were not members of a group repressed by Zionist, necktie-wearing, Euro-imperialists. In this case, they deserve every bit of what they got. Questions?

Apparently the Geneva Conve... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Apparently the Geneva Conventions only seem to apply when the President is named Bush, and not Ahmadinejad.

That's some despicable beha... (Below threshold)
mantis:

That's some despicable behavior on the Iranians' part. The question is, what is the appropriate response (from us, the British, the UN)?

Mike, you don't pay much at... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Mike, you don't pay much attention do you? The Democratic controlled Senate passed a resolution condemning Iran's actions.

The Bush administration could not condemn Iran's treatment of the Brits because of their own position on "harsh" interrogation techniques.

I don't think there is any ... (Below threshold)
Eneils Bailey:

I don't think there is any question as who to believe.
But, a note to self:
If you ever go to Iraq, surround yourself with men of THE UNITED STATES MARINES, men with gravel in their gut, spit in their eye, ammo in their guns, and a sense that what they have sworn a commitment to enforce may at times involve the ultimate sacrifice.

Barney, I was sincerely hop... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Barney, I was sincerely hoping that someone would point that out. There are those who believe it was actually the strongly worded condemnation of the Democratically controlled Congress delivered to the Iranians via Syria via Pelosi that tippped the scales for the sudden release that took even the British by surprise. Oops, sorry, my mistake. It's only you who feels that the Democratic condemnation was a big deal.

Is it just me, or is the "t... (Below threshold)

Is it just me, or is the "torture" these Brits received incredibly mild such that one would expect them to have been able to hold out? Oooo, someone put a gun to their heads. They're Marines! No one was physically abused, apparently. No toenails extracted, no electrocutions. I hope and expect U.S. Marines to be able to endure such "torture" rather than turn willing propaganda tool.

Iran used psychological... (Below threshold)
Larkin:

Iran used psychological torture and humiliation techniques including blindfolding, stripping naked, mock executions, solitary confinement, deceit about the situations of the other hostages, and threats of prison and incarceration for nonexistent crimes.

Oh, please. Nothing the British sailors say they experienced comes even close to qualifying as "torture". That's ridiculous especially coming from people who don't believe that waterboarding is torture.

So, given the fact that the British were at worst "roughly blindfolded", we have to question why they were so quick to confess. The only reason I can come up with is that they actually were in Iranian waters and they knew it.

Can you imagine United States Marines agreeing to make false enemy propaganda statements after a couple of days of isolation? John McCain endured weeks of brutal torture (real torture not this sissy kind of "torture" that Mike refers to) at the hands of the Vietnamese before he finally agree to sign a false statement.

And maybe the British can explain why a small, lightly armed vessel was allowed to go to close to the border (or possibly across) with no escort or protection? I find it amazing that there would not be a helicopter or some other sort of escort. Maybe we have some US Navy readers who can tells us whether standard operation procedures allow such small vessels to go within 2 miles of enemy territory alone.

I think the jury's still out on this whole episode. I'm personally leaning toward the explanation that the British bungled the operation and the IRG swooped in on the opportunity handed to them (in Iraqi waters). But I CERTAINLY would not believe that this incident did happen in Iraqi waters just because Bush and Blair say so. In fact, that's reason to believe it did not.


I wonder if Iran released t... (Below threshold)

I wonder if Iran released the hostages because of that rumor about a planned attack for Good Friday. Looks like they blinked.

Barney, I was sincerely ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Barney, I was sincerely hoping that someone would point that out. There are those who believe it was actually the strongly worded condemnation of the Democratically controlled Congress delivered to the Iranians via Syria via Pelosi that tippped the scales for the sudden release that took even the British by surprise.

...and there are those who believe (with much more justification) that it was the impending arrival of a fresh new United States task force, with a Really Big Aircraft Carrier, off the Iranian coast that pushed the Iranians into blinking.

So... which is more probable? Pelosi in a scarf (saying things that were heartily approved of by several well-known international terrorists), or the USS Eisenhower?

Of course it all goes back ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Of course it all goes back to the lying Bush and Blair. Not the friendly, kind Iran. Being blindfolded is not torture, hearing rifles cocked is not torture, being isolated and told you broke the law and would be in an Iranian prison isn't torture, just friendly role playing. Oh, and now the lefties say their hardened marines, not kids like they usually do. Such hatred and self loathing to come to a conclusion that America and Britain are at fault. ww

Dave:Syria, Iran's c... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Dave:
Syria, Iran's close ally, said it played a role in winning the release. "Syria exercised a sort of quiet diplomacy to solve this problem and encourage dialogue between the two parties," Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said in Damascus.

Actually dave, my point was that Democrats were much more forceful in their denouncement of Iran than the blood stained hands of the Bush administration.

"So, given the fact that... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"So, given the fact that the British were at worst "roughly blindfolded", we have to question why they were so quick to confess."

Rumor has it that there are quite a few Republican Congressman who regularly pay out good money to be "roughly blindfolded"...

heh.

Actually dave, my point ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Actually dave, my point was that Democrats were much more forceful in their denouncement of Iran than the blood stained hands of the Bush administration.

The actual resolution:

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the seizure by the Government of Iran of 15 British naval personnel from Iraqi territorial waters as a provocative and illegal act; and

(2) calls for the immediate, safe, and unconditional release of the personnel from captivity.

Yeah, I'm sure that scared the living hell out of those Iranians. Heck, if they hadn't complied, they might have also passed a resolution that used words like "irrevocable" and "drastic."

Actually dave, my point was that Democrats were much more forceful in their denouncement of Iran than the blood stained hands of the Bush administration.

President Bush: "Iran must give back the hostages. They're innocent, they did nothing wrong and they were summarily plucked out of the water."

Let's see... which is more forceful? A bunch of folks who have, in actuality, no real military power, or the guy who's got a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier sitting off the Iranian coast?

I'd have to go with "B" on this one. Again.

Strongly worded condemnations, by themselves, have never worked. Ever. Neverever. It's what moron diplomat-wannabees do when they have some spare time and no actual response handy.

Now, a strongly-worded condemnation, backed by a task force and a few billion dollars in weaponry? A bit more "forceful," one would think...

The question is, what is... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

The question is, what is the appropriate response (from us, the British, the UN)?

A naval blockade for 15 days would be apropos.

Of course that should've been done at the outset, so maybe the point of a blockade would be moot.

Are you freaking kidding me... (Below threshold)
Reality_Check:

Are you freaking kidding me? You would side with the Iranians and claim they were right and the Brits were wrong. You cowardess bastard!!! Not torture? How about being stripped naked, blindfolded and having a weapons bolt action cycled next to your ear? If that's ok maybe we should institute it a Gitmo. Have you ever backed this country? Have you ever given of yourself for this country? Have you ever given up part of your life for this country? You discussing leach, riding on the backs of those who served and driving a knife in that same back every chance you get.
Yeah you can say anything you want I gave up part of my life and some of my friends gave up the rest of their's so you can. I don't want you to shut up, you have the right. But kiss my ass so do I and I'm sick of people like you. Freedom of speech goes both ways.

What pissed me off was show... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

What pissed me off was showing the Brits in a naked pyramid..This degradation only shows how barbaric those ragheads really are ...and of course showing them standing..hooded..on a box..with stuff connected...

Have they no sense of shame?

Syria, Iran's close ally... (Below threshold)

Syria, Iran's close ally, said it played a role in winning the release. "Syria exercised a sort of quiet diplomacy to solve this problem and encourage dialogue between the two parties," Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said in Damascus.

And BarneyG believes Syria. Isn't that precious? It's not surprising that Syria would try to take the credit for this. Now I guess we owe them, right Barney? I think not.

cirby, the Senate did every... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

cirby, the Senate did everything in their limited power. Can you say the same for the Brush? I don't think so!

By the way, how many days did it take Bush to talk tough with the Iranians?

oh yeah "Reality",,,Your Ve... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

oh yeah "Reality",,,Your Vet status allows you to tell others to Kiss your ass..
as a vet..can i ask..if underneath your pic..are the words "Service Connected"?
My V.A. card has this..so I have the same right to say..."Kiss My Destroyed Right Ankle Serviced Connected Right Ankle"

Barney, I have just grown s... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Barney, I have just grown so weary of the "Bush this, Bush that" thing. And that's really what you implied. If Bush is not forceful enough in his words he is criticized. If his words are too strong he is aggravating the situation. One must clearly accept that there is nothing, nothing at all that Bush can do to please you. The Senate resolution is a no brainer which why this current Democratically-led Senate got it out there so quickly and is the same reason the previously Republican-led Senate would have been able to accomplish it so expediently as well. I couldn't care less if you folks want to fawn all over the Syrians for their help in this matter. Unfortunately, it should not have taken ANY outside agency for the Iranians to realize they really did screw up. So hail, hail to the Syrians all you want. I expect, however, those with actual responsibility for our foreign policy and security to be more circumspect about the intentions of these countries whose long term past performance warrants such caution.

Well Dave since you did not... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Well Dave since you did not answer my question, Bush's tough talk was two days AFTER the Senate passed their resolution.

As far as Syria, they have opened up to us in the past:
-Gulf War I
-9/11 Renditions
-Help W/Release of British Hostages

Every time there is a crack in the door the Bush administration pisses through the crack.

The ISG said that Syria was the key to peace in the ME. It is time to at least open up a dialogue.

Maybe Syria figured out the... (Below threshold)
kim:

Maybe Syria figured out they are running out of idiots to push into Iraq for al Qaeda, and that the Sunni tribesmen are turning against foreign instigators, and that there are a lot of Kurds between them and their sponsors in Iran, and that there are more Lebanese pissed at them than not; and, too, that they're not sure about the new king in Saudi Arabia.
=================================

Before long, we'll be rescu... (Below threshold)
kim:

Before long, we'll be rescuing Syria from sectarian violence.
===================================

Even without these descript... (Below threshold)
cat:

Even without these descriptions, it was absolutely clear at the time of the broadcasts that the Iranians' treatment of the prisoners had been outrageous. No military personnel would ever have allowed themselves to be used for such propaganda unless they had been subjected to illegal duress. However, according to Wizbangers and the US Attorney General, this kind of treatment is completely acceptable.

I disagree with Iran, Wizbang and Alberto Gonzales. It is not acceptable under any circumstances.

But let's suppose that you and Iran are right and the Geneva Conventions mean nothing. Even then, it cannot be said that the British operation took place "1.7 nautical miles from Iranian waters" since the maritime border does not exist. For there to be an accepted border, talks are necessary - an idea that Wizbangers denounce as treason.

I THINK THE REAL TOTURE WAS... (Below threshold)
jerseychris:

I THINK THE REAL TOTURE WAS SUPPLIED BY THE MARINES' COMMANDER WHO FAILED TO PROVIDE COVER FOR HIS TROOPS. IF I WERE A CAPTURED MARINE I'D TELL THE IRANIANS ANYTHING THEY WANTED TO HEAR SO THAT I COULD GET HOME TO HAVE A CHAT WITH THAT A-HOLE.

BEST COMMENT OF THE DAY, jc... (Below threshold)
kim:

BEST COMMENT OF THE DAY, jc.
====================

I think the most astute thi... (Below threshold)

I think the most astute thing said so far was by the person who pointed out that "kids" had now transmorgified into "hardened marines."

Also, it's nice to know that making someone fear for their life isn't considered torture by the left anymore. I'm sure that our interrogators will appreciate the change in policy.

Well, Synova, I agree, and ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Well, Synova, I agree, and I'm pretty sure some people barf after waterboarding, just as after baptism.
================================

Synova, I'm interested to l... (Below threshold)
cat:

Synova, I'm interested to learn that I am not "the left." In China during the Cultural Revolution, I would certainly have been condemned as a "rightist," but I didn't think I'd be considered that on this website.

cat:No, the U.S. p... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

cat:

No, the U.S. position when it comes to "illegal combatants" is NOT in violation of the GC. These "combatants" do not have a country nor wear the unfirom (unless a towel counts) of their country; nor are their organizations signatories of the GC. Iran, however, as a 1949 signatory of the GC took prisoners who were in the uniform of their country and clearly violated their rights under the GC.

Furthermore, maritime borders DO exist under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Iran has not ratified this convention (neither has the U.S.), thus they can arbitrarily decide to close their waterways to sea traffic.

Peter F. Yes, you are right... (Below threshold)
cat:

Peter F. Yes, you are right that Iran has not ratified UNCLOS. Non-ratification, however, does not preclude a bilateral agreement of the border. That is why negotiations are urgently needed so that both Iran and Iraq can establish a clear definition of that border. That would remove loopholes that allow this recent mess to occur.

Well Dave since you did ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Well Dave since you did not answer my question, Bush's tough talk was two days AFTER the Senate passed their resolution.

...after several days of making comments in favor of a British-led resolution of the issue, while pledging our full support of our ally.

The House has done nothing. Mostly because Pelosi has been in a completely different country, contributing nothing to our side, but reinforcing the position of the bad guys and trying to take credit for things she had nothing useful to to with.

"That is why negotiation... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"That is why negotiations are urgently needed so that both Iran and Iraq can establish a clear definition of that border."

Yep - nothing is going to get resolved until the Republicans are out of the White House. Until then the White House will keep things stirred up and volatile. They've played the middle american suckers for their votes, using "terror" as a club, while the only ones benefiting from the WH's middle east policies is Halliburton and the rest of Cheney's pals.

Republicans are selling off American lives and American tax dollars under this phony "War on Terror" principally to enrich their corporate pals. Cheney should be jailed.

Yep - nothing is going t... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Yep - nothing is going to get resolved until the Republicans are out of the White House.

That way, the Democrats can hurry up and redraw the Iraqi borders about 50 miles to the west. It's already obvious that they consider the borders to be at least 2 miles further west than anyone else (except the Iranians, of course).

Hey, Lee, George Soros just... (Below threshold)
kim:

Hey, Lee, George Soros just put 2% of his fortune into Halliburton. Does that qualify him for going hunting with Cheney?
=================================

Does that qualify him fo... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Does that qualify him for going hunting with Cheney?

Now there's a hot ticket.

I thought you'd like that o... (Below threshold)
kim:

I thought you'd like that one.
===================

"The newscast then turne... (Below threshold)
Steigen:

"The newscast then turned to an in-house "political analyst," who called the sailors' press conference 'a show.'"

From the quoted report from Iranian TV, it sounds like Iran TV has decided to emulate Fox News and the trail it has blazed in the US.

LOL! Now even the notion o... (Below threshold)

LOL! Now even the notion of propaganda on state controlled television is blamed on America.

Lord almighty, I hope we take our horrible influence to Tau Ceti in short order so the rest of the world can stop being forced to emulate us.

For those few of you who ha... (Below threshold)
greatcometof1577:

For those few of you who have questioned the Brit hostages actions, consider this.

They were not defending their own country. They are defending ungrateful Arabs. I personally am not going to die for a bunch of Iraqi muslims (Shia or Sunni). Nor am I going to die for any of the Arabian states. Lets be honest what this is all about. If we are going to bomb Iran because they threaten the U.S. then lets turn them into rubble but if we are going to do patrols and naval parades up and down the Persian Gulf so the House of Saud can feel safe count me out.

The point is the average "grunt" and "marine" is losing faith in this war and it don't matter if you are from the UK or the US. Who are they fighting for etc? This is a bad mind set for putting up a strong fight and being ready for battle. Add to that the stupid rules of engagement and you have the makings of further hostage takings.


Look at this picture in this link

What does the average soldier think when he or she sees that? What is the mission about? The reasons the Iranians are bold is because we are in Iraq. They know we can't counter them or risk losing the Shia for good (My opinion is we already have lost them and never had them to begin with....its Islam stupid).

Bad trees give bad fruit...

Now we have to eat it.

That is why negotiations... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

That is why negotiations are urgently needed so that both Iran and Iraq can establish a clear definition of that border.

Iraq has already signed the Convention, cat. The only loophole that exists is that Iran has failed to ratify it. So your bilateral argument/urging means squawdoosh...and Iran can continue to claim where Iranian waters end and where they begin. It's on Iran's shoulders to comply/ratify, not Iraq's.

Peter F. Whether Iran ratif... (Below threshold)
cat:

Peter F. Whether Iran ratifies UNCLOS or not, the maritime border still has to be negotiated. It doesn't just magically happen.

So what was the point of Ir... (Below threshold)
kim:

So what was the point of Iran changing the co-ordinates?
====================================

Why is it that everyone her... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Why is it that everyone here knows how to solve all our problems but we still have them? Could it be that all this back and forth in nothing more then a bunch of BS from a bunch of bored know it alls? (including me) Added that to save you the trouble.
P.S. How about the "smartness" one here take over the running of this country and solve our problems. What? No one stepping up? Got to be easy because all you have to is read the post here to see that it is loaded with solutions.Oh well, I guess most don't want the scorn that comes with the job. Much easier to tell someone else how to do it. Thanks for putting up with me Jay but this will be my last post. Just getting tired of reading all the BS that spews out of hate just for one man. Got more pleasent things to do then to listen to then BDS. ("pucker puss" (lee lee) you can keep this monicker if you want as it fits you to a T) Also barneygoggle so can you as you come across as a carbon copy of the character. Have a good rest of your life. (even if a Rep. gets elected again)

Oh stick around. I'm still... (Below threshold)
kim:

Oh stick around. I'm still laughing over your response to someone who told me that they had me where it hurts.
==============================

Oh, yes, a 'tight grip'. H... (Below threshold)
kim:

Oh, yes, a 'tight grip'. Har de har har.
========================

Cat:Even then,... (Below threshold)
marc:

Cat:

Even then, it cannot be said that the British operation took place "1.7 nautical miles from Iranian waters" since the maritime border does not exist.

Did you star in a movie called "Clueless in Seattle?"

By a 1975 treaty, the border between Iran and Iraq lies along the so-called "thalweg line," the midpoint of the deep-water channel. The precise status of this treaty is currently unclear, however, as Saddam Husayn abrogated it when he launched the Iran-Iraq War in 1980.

With no intervening treaty the U.N. has reverted to that line of demarcation.

greatcometof1577:

If we are going to bomb Iran because they threaten the U.S. then lets turn them into rubble but if we are going to do patrols and naval parades up and down the Persian Gulf so the House of Saud can feel safe count me out.

You stuffed that "bomb Iran" strawman rather full didn't you?

The U.S. has been patrolling the Arabian Gulf since before the Iran/Iraq tanker war in the early eighties.

Regardless of the presence of King Saud we still would be there even if the King's court jester were in change.

The vast majority of ASIAS (and much of the EU's) oil products flows thru the Gulf to market. The U.S. by default (because no one is willing or able to do it) it has been the U.S. Navys job to keep that line of supply open.

Your ignorance of the global situation is only surpassed by the extremely racist tone of your comment.

Pelosi condemned the action... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Pelosi condemned the actions of Iran eh? Somehow, when one is wearing a burkha it just doesn't have the same impact...

"Your ignorance of the glob... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

"Your ignorance of the global situation is only surpassed by the extremely racist tone of your comment."

Posted by: marc at April 7, 2007 09:42 PM

Hello! Hate to break it to you oh wise one of the "global situation", but Islam is not a race.

You're fired!!!

Talk about clueless.... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

Talk about clueless.

For the full story of the U... (Below threshold)

For the full story of the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf during 1987 and 1988, see my new book Inside the Danger Zone. Read an excerpt at http://www.insidethedangerzone.com




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy