Friday, March 30, 2007

Not quite an update... more on the fifteen

Keivan woke up this morning and heard Ahmadinejad saying that the British had to apologize. "The negotiations are over now. Now we have a problem," he said. What he meant was that now an official voice had spoken and Iran's position was getting more firm.

Angus McDowall has a good article about this very issue:

Last night's dramatic footage demonstrates how extremists with a grudge against the West and a burning sense of ambition can force Iran into sudden confrontations that its smoothest-talking diplomats can have trouble defusing. The revolutionary guardsmen and their radical supporters behind this crisis only represent a single faction. But they have been able to take Iran's foreign policy hostage and provoke an international incident.

Taking advantage of the deep fractures in the Iranian state, the revolutionary guards have created a fait accompli, forcing the government to adopt a position from which it will be hard to back down. Driven by their experiences of the revolution and eight bloody years of war with Iraq, many guardsmen want to see Iran take a more aggressive stance against Britain and America. The confusion is caused by Iran's unusual political system, which combines democratic elements such as an elected president and parliament with the theocratic rule of a supreme leader. In practice, this means decisions are rarely made by a single person: they are disputed and fought over by a host of political factions and vested interests, including religious leaders, elected politicians, wealthy merchants -- and soldiers.

I also agree with parts of what The Moor Next Door says about Iran's capture of the 15 British sailors:

This move lacked tact and subtlety. This kind of bold behavior irritates enemies and solidifies their alliances. This sort of action simply validates American perceptions of Iranian behavior (which are often incorrect, and even dangerous, in their judgements, because they are usually hysterical and spasmodic), and serves to potentially transfer those across the Atlantic.

(Found via Global Voices)

Last night, we decided to start a pool (I know, it's crass...) for when the sailors will be released. My guess is 15 months (everyone thinks I am nuts. I hope they are right), Keivan and another friend think sometime next week after Sizdeh Bedar (the 13th day after the New Year and the last day of the New Year's holidays). No one else was brazen enough to hazard a guess.


Vince P said...

This situation wont be lasting that long for you to win your bet.

The war cries in Britian are now starting;jsessionid=1GESG3G0IANULQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/03/30/wiran730.xml

I pasted interesting paragrpahs

The Leftists in America will hate this because it doesn't blame American

Heading for war with Iran?

I start to wonder whether it might not be time for us to get as nasty with other countries as they do with us.

This is all the fault of Russia, to whom Mr Blair routinely cosies up, and whom the civilised world invites to its annual G8 summit meetings. Russia seems to think it isn’t worth “deploring” the kidnap of our sailors, so we had better start to show Russia what we think of it: by uninviting it from the G8 this year, and every year until it learns some manners.

President Ahmadinejad of Iran has already threatened Britain about our involvement of “third parties” - that is, the UN - in the present dispute, showing his utter contempt for that organisation.

Whatever the immediate outcome of this crisis, Britain has some hard decisions to make. Is it worthwhile, any longer, to work through the United Nations?

So long as a morally warped nation like Putin’s Russia calls the shots in the Security Council, no.

We can make debating points about how odd it is that Putin deplores Islamic nutters when they attack his forces but is relaxed about them attacking ours, but in the end there is no point in bothering.

The UN showed itself to be weak with Saddam Hussein. It is no better now.

If we are going to continue to try to be a player in the Middle East, then we have to throw in our lot with the Americans, for no-one else makes the blindest bit of difference there.

This is no time for our clueless Government to be mothballing the Navy and cutting down the other services. For, at some stage, Iran’s lethal contempt for the rule of international law is going to mean war.

halm said...

The whole situation stinks. The facts just don't add up.

1. How come the BBC did a human interest piece just hours before the kidnapping? What excellent timing.

2. With the whole world against a military intervention in Iran, why would they do something to turn public opinion against them? This has completely turned the argument on its head here in the UK so that the military option is back in vogue. Nice work Ahmadinejad.

3. Have you seen the letter to "The Representatives of Parliament" - the Iranian who wrote that wants sacking for for such an blatantly obvious fake.

4. Where the hell was HMS Cornwall while the IRGC were sneaking up on the Brits? This is a warship with the best radar equipment on the planet.

5. If the waters have been disputed since the Iran-Iraq war, why isn't this fact being reported? It would surely allow for an honourable stand-down by both sides - just a misunderstanding.

Look at the net result of these shenanigans - nutters like vince p get to justify their moronic need for death and destruction.

It just all smells wrong to me.

Anonymous said... and click 3/29/2007 "Iranian Hostage Crisis"

christopher said...

how much of this is now about 'face'?
'm really interested whether this is now shifting into that theatre known 'saving face'.

i mean, 15 sailors in rubber dinghies really aren't any kind of direct threat to the islamic state. so it's not about that. and there are those who are saying that this is all about the detained diplomats in iraq. or it's all about nukes. or all about bush wanting hegemony. or all about israel.

but no matter. it seems that as this is unfolding, it is really now, supremely about face.

would some iranian people care to provide their opinions?
(please, westerners, please hold your tongue on this one. let the people inside iran speak)

Vince P said...

christopher: if Iranians know anything about this it's either from propganda from their govt or the same media you and i watch.

the initial video of the sailors was not shown to the iranian people , it was released to an arab satellite station for jihadis.

christopher said...

so vince, i take it that you're not a westerner?
or don't know what 'please' means?

amir said...

I think this is happened becuase of UK behavoiuor !!!why britains are in Persian Gulf?!

Vince P said...

christopher: hehe. like I listen to you and your commands. You people are arrogant.

Vince P said...

amir: They weren't in Iranian waters. The Persian Gulf doesn't belong to Persia.

Hossein said...

For me as an iranian,There are 2 questions actually:
1.Were the brits in our territory?
2.Is the government handling the situation the right way?
As for the 1st question available data are contradicting and I can't say for sure.But I know that since Iran-Iraq war ,water borders are disputed.The map that is constantly shown by BBC is of obscure legitimacy.Also there is this story on BBC persian website that the Iraqi general in charge of iraq water territory,Hakim Jasem,had said he was not sure whether the incident had happened in iraq's territory or not.He also said"The British do not usually operate in that area and we were surprised by their presence " surprisingly I did not find this story in any English website.The story is here and Esther can attest to it:

Anyway if they were in Iranian waters I fully support the guards action.Whether I support Islamic republic or not is irrelevant (I do not)cos it is a matter of territorial integrity.
2.I think the government is totally mismanaging the situation. Especially showing the soldiers on TV causes sympathy with the british not the other way round. A few days of detention and releasing them after a diplomatic talk would have probably worked.
P.S Esther,Keivan will win.I bet one of the s's in my name on it:)

danielspengies said...

Vince P, your lack of understanding of world events fails to amaze me. What exactly would an armed conflict do now? Would it free the "hostages?" Or would it just fan the flames, feed into the continuing cycle of learned violence, destabilize the region even further, and cause hatred and violence for future generations to come?

The fact of the matter is, westerners take this as a form of aggression on the part of Iran, but what does this behavior REALLY mean? What are the cultural elements being displayed here? What is the underlying past history that has led to this event. What are the behavioral underpinnings that have allowed this to happen?

Personally, I don't have the answer to all those questions, because no one besides me is asking them. Trying to respond to a culture the west only vaguely understands in the manner in which Britain is currently is only going to lead to bloodshed.

Of course, I'm sure you are frothing at the mouth for Iranian blood, because they happen to be mostly Muslim, and, for some weird reason, you believe all Muslims are evil and need to be wiped out. At least that's the impression I got from your website.

As far as a prediction for when the prisoners will be released. My bet is sometime soon after April 6. As I said, there is a rumor going around, spread by Russian intelligence, that the US is planning surgical strikes against Iranian nuclear interests for that date. It very easily be true that these individuals were captured for the sole purpose of disrupting this plan (who knows). Or it could be equally true that these sailors were simply in Iranian waters. There is no definitive answer currently, despite what Vince is babbling.

Mimi said...


amir said...

I don't mean that.but Persian Gulf is not in britain's territory...they are too far from their home but iranian just protect their borders!

Anonymous said...

As a Pesian, I beleive that if we put the following facts together, Iran was right in seizing those brits:

1-The war in Irak is an illegal war as many such as Kofi Annan have said. There is no UN mandate to authorize intervention in Irak. It's a deliberate move from US and UK. SO UK naval personnel has nothing to do there, while Iranians are in their waterways and according to international law, are even allowed to trespass the Iran-irak water border in case of a pursuit.

2-Iran and Irak have been in conflict for many years because of this waterway and it's extension to the persian gulf, but no definitive border line has been accepted from both sides. In this case as defined by international law, the brits were in iranian waters.

3- There are too many discrepencies and manipulations from the british side. In fact what they have presented as a GPS coordinate given by Iran and then changed by Iran is a manipulation. Iran gave them several coordinates regarding several intrusions into Iranian waters. And sending an admiral on the TV can not be a proof of anything, and even the indian ship captain is easy to brib.

AS for handling the case, I think that the position UK took first , the stuborn position of making it a public affaire instead of using diplomatic channels to resolve the problem, has worsen the situation, And Iran is now following it in it's track.
As for showing "confessions-Regrets" from the brits on TV was not very smart from Iranian side. I don't think they were forced to say what they said. But they've been briefed on how to behave in such cases by the british Navy, and probably they offered to appologize for their intrusion into Iranian waters, while when they will be at home they will probably say that they forced us under psychological tortur to make confessions.

ET said...

Hossein, I am hoping Keivan wins the bet and you can keep both s's.

Anonymous Persian, While I do agree and do not agree with some of your points, I will make one comment: I think the British foreign office wanted to keep things quiet and keep the negotiations on a friendly level. Unfortunately, public pressure on the British side made this impossible combined with the deep divisions in the Iranian regime. As seems par for the course, the British diplomats and the Iranian diplomats were both over ruled by other forces. In the case of the Iranian diplomats, this seems to be the IRGC who did not allow them to negotiate in good faith. In the case of the British, it was political pressure that did not allow them the time they needed to quietly negotiate.

This is speculation on my part, but it is educated speculation.

ET said...

Halm, Actually the British commander initially said that while they were in Iraqi waters, the Iranians could just as easily say they were in Iranian waters. I believe an Iranian naval commander made a similar point but in reverse.

And yes, Christopher, a lot of this is about face, which makes one really think of Hans Blix and his approximate quote: "The fine art of losing face will someday save the human race."

And anon, I would love to watch the Daily Show video, but after trying to load it for several hours, I just gave up... Poor me.

KiArash said...

Ahmadinejad keeps upsetting countries with nuclear weapons. No wonder he desires to have them himself. Gosh, between he and Bush the world truly has no hope for a future.

Anonymous said...

As a persian,

On the legal side Iran should be the winner in this battle. See the following websites:

website of Craig Murray:

Good disscusion on the border issue :

On the human side, I think having the best
Chelo-kebab in the world is not a torture, especially if they are not eating it from under a hood and duck-taped mouth. And I'm sure they are happy to have been taken out of the war zone, where they can be shot by a lost bullet incidently.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the websites truncated. I hope this time it will work :


Hossein said...

Esther,watch jon stewart from here:

Anonymous said...

Reading some of the comments from Iranians it's clear that they have little concept of the risk their government is taking by abducting these hostages. This is a serious miscalculation that could lead to a full scale war, the destruction of your cities and the death of hundreds of thousands of your people. Yes it could really happen. Bush is looking for a pretext and your idiot government has just given him one.

Anonymous said...

I read the view of the anonymous Persian - this seems to be the view of most Iranians, which is fine. However, I think the time for dialogue has finished. The Persians' justifcations for the sins of their government only assist to damn them for fire that will soon come.

Personally I blame Russia - the third world terroists who took over Persia would never act like this if it was not for Putin trying to show that Russia is a world power again. As someone else said, cut off links with Russia and cut off their gas and oil supply too.

Personally I don't care what happens to the British soldiers. If they are not tried in Iran they should be tried by court martial in the UK for cowardice and dishonouring the English people for being so collaborative with the terrorist regime. All I hope is that the Iranian government and its complicit people receive the just measure of vengeance for their insult to the English (which if GWB has his way, will be soon).

One thing that is admirable is the Iranian right of free speach - if I threw bricks at the Iranian terrorist embassy in London shouting Death to Iran I would get arrested.

Anonymous said...

As a persian,

As Hossein mentioned as well, No matter if we are opposed to the present theocractic regime in Iran, the territorial integrity of iran will be the prime reason for us, of defending Iran as a nation.

danielspengies said...

The west defines territory in a very "exact" sense, using literal division and holding such division as sacred. This, however, is not true of other cultures. Just because the west has drawn lines on a map to claim that some of the gulf is owned by Iraq and some by Iran, it doesn't mean that the Iranian culture interprets this way. This is one of the major problems with western foreign policy. It tries to force everyone to play but ITS cultural rules, and this just isn't possible in most cases.

By the way et, if you are interested, drop by my blog in your free time. I've written a few things on Iran that I'd love feedback on from those who actually live there. I'm fairly slanted against the US, sometimes to a fault. Although the history of the region often leads to the conclusion that the west is full of oil hungry savages who will stomp on everyone to get what they want...

ella said...

To Iranian @ 8::23

point 1.
There is no question of legality or illegality of war in Iraq. You may think what you want about legality of war but as you are not iraqi you have no right to be in Iraqi part of the waterway. Your government did not declare a war on US so your argument is non sequitur.

After the War in Iraq in 2003, the UK was given responsibility, subsequently mandated by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1723, to patrol the waterway and the area of the Persian Gulf surrounding the mouth. They are tasked to make sure that ships in the area are not being used to transport munitions into Iraq.
Point 2
Iraq-Iran border is disputed but Iraq and Iran agreed to ceasfire on August 20, 1988 in which both sides acknowledged that eastern half of Shatt al Arab is Iranian and the western part is Iraqis. Iranian government did not reject ceasfire therefore it is in force. Protection of your border is your right, but it seems that your government do more than just protect your borders, it wants to realize Khomeini wishes.
Iran Focus has different take on the whole operation, but of course they are the opposition outside Iran.
point 3
There are many manipulation and discrepancies from Ahmadinejad government. And sending iranian military on iranian TV is not proof of anything.

The rest
AS for handling the case, I think that the position UK took first , the stuborn position of making it a public affaire instead of using diplomatic channels
Well,. iranian do not want to use diplomatic channels proposed by Turkey and by Scandinavia couple of days ago.
I don't think they were forced to say what they said.
As the woman sailor was not forced to wear hijab. How would you feel if your nearest should go half naked on western television, I am sure that was how the woman sailor felt when she had to wear hijab against her own religious views.!!!

Mikey_Capital said...

First time visitor. Can you point to me to sites or blogs or blog posts that discuss the opinion of younger Iranians to the revolution/government. Here in Australia many columnists seem to imply that 'DEATH TO AMERICA' is the norm of public thinking. But from what I have read it seems more lip service than anything else. Thanks in advance - Mikey

PS See blog here. If you could stick any links in there that would be kewl.

PPS Great blog. Very illuminating.

Anonymous said...

To Ella,
As a Persian,

I have to say that all your points are irrelevant.

When those sailors are found in Iranian waters or even at the edge of Iranian water borders, the question arises what are they doing there? Do Iranians go to the maritime borders of UK?
Then the question of legality of their presence there (and therefor war in Irak) arises. And there is no UN resolution authorizing intervention in Irak. Even your ally, the king of saudi arabia have said couple of days ago that this war is illegal. Therefore the presence of UK and US military personnel is not backed by the original UN resolution, and any sensible mind. But of course once they are there,
other resolutions maybe put forward to accomodate the messy situation they have created.

As for the border Issue, I think it is clear that even a former british foreign office member who has expertise in naval borders has confirmed that Iran is in his right to defend its borders the way it did :

And the discusion about the border in the website
below demonstrates if it was necesary, that those sailors were in Iranian waters:

This will answer your second point too.
And I can assure you that the majority of Iranian outside and inside have the same feeling about the territorial integrity of Iran.

As for manipulation I agree that both sides are masters in this art. And I never said that sending an irannian officer was a better proof. But the proof if necessary is in the website above.

As for the rest...
You have to be very precise. This crisis dates back to 11-12 days. And everyday the general feeling could change. So couple of days ago maybe too far in the crisis. In each crisis there is a beginnig, a middle and an end. You are talking about the middle of the crisis, which is the worst moment to judge the reactions. It could have been prevented at the very beginnig, if Blair hadn't started to make menaces on TV to the Iranian regime that If not...else.

And as for being forced or not to say what they said:
As I said a soldier is taught how to save his/her life when captured. So anything that could save your life or calm the situation is recommended to do. And they were rather saying that in a relaxed atmospher with couple of smiles. And after when they will be at home they will say that they were forced to say so. This is part of the psychological warfare to discredit the other side anyway.

As for the woman-soldier, she was not forced to wear a scarf. This is the law in Iran. If you as a woman decide to visit Iran, once the plane enters Iranian air, You will be told to wear a scarf before landing. That's the law.
Now I agree that it is a disputable law and Iranian women have tried to sort of turn around the law as they could. But using the word hejab, the way she was wearing it is rather exagerated (you see you are manipulative too). And I think wearing that scarf is more respectable for a woman than being forced to be half naked. But if think that your culture equates with women half naked on the TV, then I'm sory for you, you are a desperate case.

ella said...


It seems we won't agree.

To back up your argument you are pointing out to two sites, of which only one is somewhat reliable. And even that guy is former british foreign officer, former british foreign officers are dime a dozen as are former iranian officers, as are former russian officers. The guy you are taking about, Murray, has been booted out of his position so he is as reliable as former shah ministers taking about current crisis.
The second proof is a view point of a blogger, if you prefer to rely on certain bloggers as an evidence in this case, that's your choice. but don't say that a site which always had specific view point [everything bad is fault of brits and US particularly Bush and Balir]is reliabale when taking about persons blogger strongly disagree with.

" Seizing the crew whilst it may not be casus belli is illegal under Maritime Law whatever they were doing. The Law requires they be asked to leave first." They were not asked to leave first and they were ambushed by six heavily armed vessels.

As for legality of brits being in iraqi waters, you did not read United Nations Security Council Resolution 1723, it is UN resolution so your argument is invalid. Resolution is a resolution and either you reject all UN resolutions or you accept all. You can not pick and choose just because some of them support your views while other do not.

King of KSA is not my ally, I am neither british nor american so try not to imply that I am something I am not. King of KSA also said a lot of stuff about your government so perhaps you should read all he is saying.

As for manipulation I agree that both sides are masters in this art. And I never said that sending an iranian officer was a better proof. But the proof if necessary is in the website above.
Two not really reliable sites as a proof, give me a break.!

ou have to be very precise
I am
. This crisis dates back to 11-12 days. And everyday the general feeling could change.
The feelings have nothing to do with proofs. They are feelings nothing else.
So couple of days ago maybe too far in the crisis. In each crisis there is a beginning, a middle and an end. You are talking about the middle of the crisis, which is the worst moment to judge the reactions.
I am not judging the reaction. If I were, yours is the example of how iranians believe their government even knowing that their government lie to them again and again. (Where are the promised reforms aimed at combating corruption, where is the improvement of economy) Your government is manufacturing crisis after crisis and use your usual suspicion of outsiders but you still believe that it .
It could have been prevented at the very beginning, if Blair hadn't started to make menaces on TV to the Iranian regime that If not...else.
It could have been prevented at the very beginning if IRI people asked sailors to leave and not taking them prisoners instead
As for the woman-soldier, she was not forced to wear a scarf. This is the law in Iran. If you as a woman decide to visit Iran,
She did not decide to visit Iran, she was forced to visit Iran by iranians.
And I think wearing that scarf is more respectable for a woman than being forced to be half naked. But if think that your culture equates with women half naked on the TV, then I'm sory for you, you are a desperate case.
No, compelling someone to wear a scarf is as bad as compelling someone to be half naked. In the first case you are saying that the woman have to hide her hair because your men are so sex-deprived that if she would not do that they might attack her. You are compeling her to hide her own beauty [ you also imply that men have no shame] . In the second case you are compeling her to show what she does not want to show.
In both case the point is are forcing someone to do something against her will. If you do not see it I am sorry for you and for iranians who think like you do.

christopher said...

kind of continuing upon my earlier post about 'face', comes the question of humiliation.

now, iran may feel humiliated as a nation that some sailors may (or may not have) crossed a few hundred metres into sovereign waters.

but to humiliate personally an individual by parading them around on television, and making them confess in front of a camera (ie a crowd), is in fact a more grievous humiliation by western standards. whether right or wrong.

someone could say to me 'christopher, i think america is satanic'. i may not agree with them, but i don't know if i would really feel offended by that. however, if someone said, 'christopher, i think you are satan', then that would be offensive and humiliating to me.

so please, lets understand one another here.
the uk may need to acknowledge the humiliation that is felt by iranian people on a more macro level than westerners are familiar with. but iranians also need to acknowledge that the individual, personal humiliation that is being inflicted upon the 15 is directly antagonizing people on the other side.

ella said...


I want to be completely clear. If someone what to wear hijab that's her choice, however I am against compelling any woman against her will to wear something she does not want to wear.

ella said...


should be "wants to wear" i/o "what to wear"

Anonymous said...

To Ella,
As a Persian,

Ella, I don't think you've thought it through on a unbiased and neutral manner. Your hatred for Iran is so big that it obstructs your view. You have already your conclusions and you try to built up some pseudo-facts around them to consolidate your view, like does GWB and Blair.
The main premise for you is Iran=IRI and it could not be right in any way. Actually you could very well be Iranian.
You haven't read my message, as I said you are too busy to deliver yours that you don't listen what people could say.
As for the validity of a Website, it is a matter of it's content. I for one can say that the website that you say "not valid", has used for the basis of it's calculation the international law. So you may not like it because it does not back up your conclusions, but the content is perfectly conclusive, and that after a long discussion with other anonymous people which have left their commentaries, not always to the benefit of what the blogger suggests. If you think that what he said is wrong, tell me what it is, I don't know?! that he misused the international law, that his calculation is false because A+B does not give C, but don't pack it up in a "DISMISSED CAUSE ANTI-BUSH" gift wrap.
As for the other website, you admit that he was from the foreign office. But, after all the Blair lies, being former foreign officer is a plus. It is a sign of credibility, and he precisely had to resign because he said the truth about the dictatorial Central Asian government. If Bush and Blair are so much defending the democracy and freedom(????!!!) why is it that they support that government.

Ella, You may be temporarily allied with bush and Blair views for some personal interest, but you know in your hearts of hearts, that they are not truthful to what they are selling you.

As for the maritime law, it applies in civil cases. In a military intrusion, it is a matter of national security and that law could be overridden. And Iranians were not at
10000 Km of their home land.
If in fact Iran Naval personnel were captured in UK waters, I could never, never honestly take their side.
And your 1734 resolution comes after an Illegal war of occupation for which there is no mandate from UN.
I've already responded to that. If you don't listen what can I do.
As for the King of SA, what he says about Iran (which could be right sometimes) is from the perspective of a competitor which wants to gain power in the region over IRI, and that’s what could make those affirmations dubious. In a sense it is the enemy of IRI, so what could you expect from it. Besides 85% of the violence in Iraq is due to their support of militia groups. But when it criticizes its own ally, that has another value.
You say that there is no proof that UK sailors were in Iranian waters.
Well, how can we know?
Who was present? Iranians and Brits.
What they say? Of course, Iranian government says, they were in Iranian waters, and British government says they were not.
Now how we’re going to find out the truth?
The Brits gave their coordinates. I guess you can trust the British government at least.
If you do, then let us try to put those coordinates and use international law to define the borders, Do you agree?
Okay, now this website I gave you did that. I suggest that you do it too, for yourself, and then we will compare. But up to now the proof is compellingly in favour of Iran.
I’m not going to re-re-answer every single point. Please re-re read the previous message after a glass of wine.
I do not subscribe to the law which forces every woman in Iran to wear a scarf. But that’s the way it is for now. And for you to say it is outrageous to make that soldier wear a scarf is an insult to 35 millions Iranian women to whom this law is imposed. One western women is supposedly forced to wear a scarf, it is scandalous. Where have you been when 35 millions women were forced to do it? If it was really important to you, you would have showed up much much earlier.
That all shows that there is a great deal of dishonesty in your words. You are not interested in what you say. You just want to argue for arguing, and I have to say, you’re not very good at it.

Anonymous said...

As a Persian,

Please let us be more measured in our words. Is it really that humiliating the way they were exposed to the media. Let’s be fair, and not fall into this trap. The best answer actually comes from your fellow countrymen:

Terry Jones; Call that humiliation.

Ronan Bennett; A peculiar outrage.

christopher said...

are you very familiar with mr. jones?

maybe it's because i'm not british, but up to this point i haven't really looked to him as a primary source of analysis on matters like this.

Anonymous said...

As a Persian
to Christopher,

Luckily I gave you two different names. How about the second one?

And what if I would have given you the article without the name of the author? Are you saying let's discard it because he wrote it? or are you saying that regardless of who wrote it, it is nonsese?

christopher said...

i guess that i'm saying that in the blogosphere one can always find someone, even a sarcastic british comic, to buttress a particular point.

but it's not really necessary to make your case. if you're right, it doesn't matter how many sarcastic british comics agree with you or not.

look, abu graib was a travesty. nobody
disputes that. i understand the argument that there exists double standards. they exist in almost every situation in the world. i mean, one usually gives more understanding to actions of their own spouse or friends than they do of someone elses, right?

so if an offense is commited against you, you can effect the course of events by then making an offense in return. to appeal to some sense of getting even. or you can stop the cycle of bad, and make a gesture of conciliation knowing that you could have done something bad and still claimed it as your right.

Anonymous said...

Hello. My name is Nazanin and I'm interested in talking with you, the View From Iran author, about press coverage of the British naval officer issue in Iran. I'm a radio producer in the U.S. Please e-mail me if you're interested:

Anonymous said...

To Christopher

My point was not; you did that, now take this.
And I think those things you mentioned are not comparable to "happy and smily faces, eating food and playing chess".

The west actually is playing in another league in terms of acts of humiliation.