Jump to content


Photo

Britain VS Iran


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#1 Elerium

Elerium

    Road test? Me? But I gotta go save the world!

  • Project Team
  • 631 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Temporal Agent

Posted 27 March 2007 - 03:52 PM

I think you've seen what's been going off in Britain, but anyways Iran has captured and interrogated 15 Marines, and sort of refuse to give them back. Tony Blair has said that Britain will go further if they don't give them back, and this was all done the day before the UN sanctions. It appears that Europe seems to be backing us up somewhat to let them go with the Germans showing concern, but Iran still doesn't seem to want to let them go, at least that's the impression I'm getting.

If Iran doesn't give back the Marines this could lead to a prelude to war. Thoughts?
Posted Image
Posted Image

#2 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 27 March 2007 - 03:59 PM

What's the US standpoint on the issue? If they back us up, there'll be war. If not, nothing will happen. Perhaps a small special forces incursion attempt to get them back, but certainly no shooting war.

#3 Solinx

Solinx

    .

  • Undead
  • 3,100 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Projects:Real Life
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Retired Leader / Manager

Posted 27 March 2007 - 05:59 PM

How did Iran get to capture those marines? I suppose they were on the wrong side of the border?

Solinx
Posted Image

"An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr


#4 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 27 March 2007 - 06:10 PM

i would say that if there are GPS evidence that the british troops were in iraqi waters at the time the iranians took them they better let them go pretty fast and come with a hell of an excuse. naturally the Iranians most likely won't excuse themselves to the western world right now as that would be looked upon as a sign of weakness in the nuclear case which is what keeps the current government afloat.

i don't really have anything against some military action against Iran, but i don't see it as a very viable option, as it would be Iraq times 4, and one would have no chance at occupying it without getting together some draft or everyone in . taking out anything will probably piss them off greatly and cause trouble so you either have to do it all or do nothing more or less.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#5 Silent_Killa

Silent_Killa

    Village Idiot

  • Project Team
  • 790 posts

Posted 28 March 2007 - 07:54 AM

Brits'll send in the SAS, which will probably end with dead Iranians. Dead Iranians mean angry Iranians. I guess whether or not they blow something up will have to do with how angry the Iranians are.
My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64


"Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility." -Sigmund Freud
"Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government." -Pierre Joseph Proudhon
"You sleep safe in your beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do you harm." -George Orwell

#6 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 28 March 2007 - 08:03 AM

well if a handful of sas-troops would be enough to get into a capitol, find a bunch of probably very well hidden captured troops, get in into the probably very well defended military base they are hidden in, get out with all 15 before the entire army is there, and then get into a chopper and out of the country before their airforce shoots them out of the sky is questionable.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#7 chemical ali

chemical ali

    Pie! Be nice I'm staff and I can ban0rz j00!

  • Members
  • 4,739 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Projects:building an empire of doom
  •  chief mischief maker

Posted 28 March 2007 - 01:09 PM

well if a handful of sas-troops would be enough to get into a capitol, find a bunch of probably very well hidden captured troops, get in into the probably very well defended military base they are hidden in, get out with all 15 before the entire army is there, and then get into a chopper and out of the country before their airforce shoots them out of the sky is questionable.


Pftt, that's nearly an insult to the SAS. Bare in mind also in the group are Royal Marines also top notch troops, evidence has been released now by the government and the only woman in the group will be released tomorrow. If the troops aren't released by the end of the week then I do expect the 22 Regiment will be deployed and they will mean business, on the other hand the Americans are supporting us on this issue with at least three NATO aircraft carriers in the gulf and several SSN's then we could safely destroy their navy.

Dead Iranians so what, its their fault now. They have lost all credibility in the international community and if they think the world trusts them with a nuclear programme then they have another thing coming.
Posted Image

Quotes
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine." -Erwin Rommel

Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56

#8 Athgar

Athgar
  • Project Team
  • 207 posts
  • Projects:Czerion
  •  Crazy Monkey Pirate

Posted 28 March 2007 - 01:22 PM

I dont support Iran, but look at it from their point of view. In the recent weeks alot of pressure has been on them, from both USA and Britain. After all the recent poking at Iran, and all the accusations i'd be pretty jumpy, and if some British sailors accidently cross the border i'd probably also panic.

I dont think they should capture them and refuse to hand them over, but neither do i think they captured those marines on Iraq waters, to hold them hostage.
Posted Image

#9 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 28 March 2007 - 02:01 PM

If nothing happens, I'll honestly be shocked.
Britain will not abandon them to Iran, and it will not allow Iran to call the shots.
Iran will not give anything to Britain, and would probably love to keep captives whom they are alleging were in Iranian waters (Which is false).
This is a prelude to war.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#10 Solinx

Solinx

    .

  • Undead
  • 3,100 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Projects:Real Life
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Retired Leader / Manager

Posted 28 March 2007 - 05:30 PM

well if a handful of sas-troops would be enough to get into a capitol, find a bunch of probably very well hidden captured troops, get in into the probably very well defended military base they are hidden in, get out with all 15 before the entire army is there, and then get into a chopper and out of the country before their airforce shoots them out of the sky is questionable.


Pftt, that's nearly an insult to the SAS. Bare in mind also in the group are Royal Marines also top notch troops, evidence has been released now by the government and the only woman in the group will be released tomorrow. If the troops aren't released by the end of the week then I do expect the 22 Regiment will be deployed and they will mean business, on the other hand the Americans are supporting us on this issue with at least three NATO aircraft carriers in the gulf and several SSN's then we could safely destroy their navy.

Dead Iranians so what, its their fault now. They have lost all credibility in the international community and if they think the world trusts them with a nuclear programme then they have another thing coming.

Yes, and the defending party will be peasants with pitch forks. :p

I know they are good, extremely good, but don't you think Iran has some sort of elite force too?

As for the location:

The seizure of the Britons took place in an area where boundaries between Iraqi and Iranian waters have long been disputed. A 1975 treaty set the center of the Shatt al-Arab — the 200-kilometer-long (125-mile-long) channel known in Iran as the Arvand River — as the border.

But Saddam Hussein canceled the 1975 treaty five years later and invaded Iran, triggering an eight-year war. Virtually all of Iraq's oil is exported through an oil terminal near the mouth of the channel.

The seized sailors, from the British frigate HMS Cornwall, are part of a task force that maintains security in Iraqi waters under authority of the U.N. Security Council. Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said he hoped the detention was a "simple mistake" stemming from the unclear border.

Iraq's military commander of the country's territorial waters, Brig. Gen. Hakim Jassim, told AP Television News that Iraqi fishermen had reported that the British boats were "in an area that is out of Iraqi control."

Seems to me that it's not all that certain Iran is wrong here...

And this:

Friday's incident was not the first time Iran seized British troops in the same waterway. In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were captured, then paraded blindfolded on Iranian television. They admitted they had entered Iranian waters illegally but were released unharmed after three days.

Can be seen as a confirmation from the british that that waterway is indeed Iranian water. Disputable, but from the Iranian point of view it will be seen and used as a confirmation.


From the same newsitem I noticed something very funny:

"The United Kingdom will not be blackmailed. Iran has a choice: to act responsibly; or face greater isolation," said Menzies Campbell, leader of the opposition Liberal Democrats.

I suppose threatening to increase isolation is not blackmail?
Heh, the sanctions they've put on them is already blackmail.

Foxnews: Iran: British Sailors, Marines Confessed to Illegally Entering Waters - March 24 2007

Edit: I guess I should add that I do agree that Iran shouldn't keep the British marines hostage.
I'm just critical when it comes to any gouvernment making claims.
And I do not think the western countries have any right to do whatever they wish without having to answer for it. Iran may be wrong, but that doesn't make the UK right.

Solinx
Posted Image

"An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr


#11 chemical ali

chemical ali

    Pie! Be nice I'm staff and I can ban0rz j00!

  • Members
  • 4,739 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Projects:building an empire of doom
  •  chief mischief maker

Posted 28 March 2007 - 07:48 PM

Iran's special forces is no match for Her Majesty's Special Air Service of 22nd Regiment. The UK has produced evidence backed by the Iraqi and American administrations that the marines were in Iraqi waters. They just put the woman on TV, forced her to read a statement and made her wear a headscarf which I find is disgusting. In 2004 they were forced to say that with a gun pointed to their head, this will happen the first time.

I bet if they haven't been released by the end of the weekend then 22nd will go in from Afghanistan or Iraq and get them out, kill lots of Persians. Then with the combined US carrier groups finish off Iran's military to the point that they are defenceless. I would like to give the Israeli's the IFF codes for flying over Iraq and just give them free reign over Iran as a present. The United Kingdom doesn't get fucked, in 2004 it was appeasement because of the nuclear issue and the EU talks, this time if they don't them back then that's it war. The public is in overwhelming support for action, everyone I've talked to this week has been send the SAS in and then decommission a Trident missile on them for good measure. Western countries do have the right of sovereign states that abide by international law, meanwhile the Iranians stone teenage girls and hang gay people from cranes.
Posted Image

Quotes
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine." -Erwin Rommel

Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56

#12 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 29 March 2007 - 12:03 AM

Personally I think Iran is forcing the issue because it wants to reveal the fact that after all, in the end, and when it's said and done, there is nothing that will be done about it.

I'd be very surprised if any shots were fired. Iran is so crazy, that if you fired at them, you'd have to go the full distance. If you only take pot shots, you'll end up putting your own forces in jeopardy.

I very highly doubt there would be much a coalition in regards to going into Iran.

Iran has drawn a serious line in the sand to see if the western powers have the balls from there far away capitals in Europe and N America.

What needs to happen right now is the EU/Nato/Australia to begin drawing up serious "what if plans" regarding if they ever needed to invade Iran, you know just in case that they need them, for good propaganda. :p

Begin discussing what countries will give what support and estimated troops levels. It's hard to deny Iran's goal to force a "clash of civiliaztions".

But on the world stage what are you to do at this point? We actually have an enemy with a flag. This isn't Al Qaeda. If we get serious we might be suprised how quickly the system collapes from the inside once Iranian Generals do the math and realise they can't win against a WORLD invasion from western powers.

See you don't really have to resort to beating up a bully, you just take a couple of friends down in front of his house and yell to him, "why don't you come out, we'd like to have alittle talk with you?" :)

#13 Comrade Kal

Comrade Kal

    Blur are better than Oasis

  • Members
  • 2,491 posts
  • Location:A small town in an archipelago in northwest Europe
  • Projects:The revolution
  •  Terrorist

Posted 29 March 2007 - 04:18 PM

The idea that the SAS could rescue them is sheer fantasy
Posted Image

"To be governed is tragic, to govern is pathetic."

#14 Elerium

Elerium

    Road test? Me? But I gotta go save the world!

  • Project Team
  • 631 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Temporal Agent

Posted 29 March 2007 - 04:19 PM

And I do not think the western countries have any right to do whatever they wish without having to answer for it. Iran may be wrong, but that doesn't make the UK right.


New evidence has suggested the British were in Iraqi waters, not Iranian due to the Xeres? backpack system on one of the marines which basically shows the direct position of the British marines to the mothership, being HMS Cornwall, which were in Iraqi waters at the time of capture. After capture the Iranians drew a new map up saying 'they were here'.

Edited by Elerium, 29 March 2007 - 04:26 PM.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#15 chemical ali

chemical ali

    Pie! Be nice I'm staff and I can ban0rz j00!

  • Members
  • 4,739 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Projects:building an empire of doom
  •  chief mischief maker

Posted 29 March 2007 - 05:31 PM

The idea that the SAS could rescue them is sheer fantasy


I love your detailed explanation of how the worlds best fighting group couldn't rescue them.
Posted Image

Quotes
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine." -Erwin Rommel

Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56

#16 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2007 - 05:43 PM

The worlds (debatably) best fighting group are flesh and blood and there is no chance in hell they could locate where they were hidden, get inside, and get out with all the prisoners in tow.

#17 Solinx

Solinx

    .

  • Undead
  • 3,100 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Projects:Real Life
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Retired Leader / Manager

Posted 29 March 2007 - 07:50 PM

Iran's special forces is no match for Her Majesty's Special Air Service of 22nd Regiment.

one vs one, likely, but I doubt they will be able to rescue these 15 marines. But seeing as we both can't exactly prove our case, let's leave this point be.

The UK has produced evidence backed by the Iraqi and American administrations that the marines were in Iraqi waters.

In this matter, Iraq is the pupped of America, and America has a lot to gain by backing this claim. Besides, doing otherwise would hurt their relation with their firmest ally in the war against terror, something they can ill affort. Unless other administrations, who have no gain in the matter, back this up, I won't give claims too much credit.

In addition, the boundry indicated on the map presented by Blair seems to be subject of a long dispute:

Before the spin doctors could get to him, Commodore Lambert said:

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in their territorial waters. The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated".

The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.

But there are two colossal problems.

A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

None of which changes the fact that the Iranians, having made their point, should have handed back the captives immediately. I pray they do so before this thing spirals out of control. But by producing a fake map of the Iran/Iraq boundary, notably unfavourable to Iran, we can only harden the Iranian position.

The boundary between Iran and Iraq in the northern Persian Gulf has never been fixed. (Within the Shatt-al-Arab itself a line was fixed, but was to be updated every ten years because the waterway shifts, according to the treaty. As it has not been updated in over twenty years, whether it is still valid is a moot point. But it appears this incident occurred well south of the Shatt anyway.) This is a perfectly legitimate dispute. The existence of this dispute will clearly be indicated on HMS Cornwall's charts, which are in front of Commodore Lambert, but not of Mr Blair.

Until a boundary is agreed, you could only be certain that the personnel were in Iraqi territorial waters if they were within twelve miles of the coast and, at the same time, more than twelve miles from any island, spit, bar or sandbank claimed by Iran (or Kuwait).

That is very hard to judge as the British government refuse to give out the coordinates where the men were captured. If they really are utterly certain, I find that incomprehensible. Everyone knows the Gulf is teeming with British vessels and personnel, so the position of units a few days ago can hardly be valuable intelligence.

Until a boundary is set, it is not easy to posit where it should be. It has to be done by negotiation or arbitration. I have participated in these negotiations, for example on the boundary between the Channel Islands and France.

With a dead straight coastline with no islands, and a dead straight border between two countries hitting the coast at a right angle, you could have a straight maritime border between the two running out from the coast at a right angle. This never happens.

Fake Maritime Boundaries - Iran and Iraq
Written by Craig Murray. From a quick glance at his bio he seems to be quite critical about a lot of things, but in my opinion this intercept is too factual to skip this source.

With this source I do not want to say that Iran is right. What I want is for you to start putting up some questions about what politicians say. Not just Iranian politicians, but also our own.


They just put the woman on TV, forced her to read a statement and made her wear a headscarf which I find is disgusting.

And you would probably have a moslima remove her headscarf, which they would find disgusting. It's the culture of their country, part of their main belief. A headscarf isn't going to kill her, it just hides her hair. I find it more important whether she is disgusted by it, or perhaps doesn't really mind wearing a headscarf. On the picture I saw, it was not like she had to wear a burka or anything.

As for the forcing, yes, it's likely she was told to write such a letter. Perhaps it was written for her to copy, perhas she was given the subjects she could write and not write about, perhaps she actually wasn't forced or limited... Point is that we don't know. (Although I would find it very surprising if she was not even told which parts she could write about and which not.)

The more important part is that we don't know if anything from the letter is false or truth. All we can do is speculate.


In 2004 they were forced to say that with a gun pointed to their head, this will happen the first time.

True, as far as I know, those of 2004 were forced to say such things, however, note that I said this in my previous post: "Disputable, but from the Iranian point of view it will be seen and used as a confirmation."

Meaning it's not my own view, but rather likely that of the Iranians.

I bet if they haven't been released by the end of the weekend then 22nd will go in from Afghanistan or Iraq and get them out, kill lots of Persians. Then with the combined US carrier groups finish off Iran's military to the point that they are defenceless. I would like to give the Israeli's the IFF codes for flying over Iraq and just give them free reign over Iran as a present.

So, you basically want to start a duplicate of the Iraq war? Have you any idea how messed up that war was and still is?

The United Kingdom doesn't get fucked, in 2004 it was appeasement because of the nuclear issue and the EU talks, this time if they don't them back then that's it war. The public is in overwhelming support for action, everyone I've talked to this week has been send the SAS in and then decommission a Trident missile on them for good measure.

The public you describe are probably all British, meaning that it's normal to show such a reaction, but not impartial. Or rational and realistic for that matter.

Western countries do have the right of sovereign states that abide by international law, meanwhile the Iranians stone teenage girls and hang gay people from cranes.

Stoning or hanging any being is aweful. I want no confusion about that.

Iran is indeed breaking international law at that, but waging a war with Iran over it will not do the Iranian people, including the gay Iranians and the teenage girls, any good. The fight will be among their homes, and among their people.


Personally I think Iran is forcing the issue because it wants to reveal the fact that after all, in the end, and when it's said and done, there is nothing that will be done about it.

I'd be very surprised if any shots were fired. Iran is so crazy, that if you fired at them, you'd have to go the full distance. If you only take pot shots, you'll end up putting your own forces in jeopardy.

Similar things can be said about the US. You wouldn't sit still if another country would take pot shots at the USA.

I very highly doubt there would be much a coalition in regards to going into Iran.

Iran has drawn a serious line in the sand to see if the western powers have the balls from there far away capitals in Europe and N America.

We think alike on the first point, and while I agree with the second, I think there is more to it than just that.

Iran has no wish to attack. Well, perhaps they do have the wish, but anyone is sensible enough to know that an attack won't go without repercussions.

I actually think Iran feels being put under pressure, I think it actually fears an attack.

Iran and the USA haven't been the greatest of friends, and Iran is bordering to both Iraq and Afghanistan, meaning that they are currently surrounded by American forces. In addition, there is a nice naval force in the area, which adds to the possible threat. In the past these forces were occupied with the war on terror and the iraq war, both common enemies of Iran and USA. However, these wars are running on their end...

What needs to happen right now is the EU/Nato/Australia to begin drawing up serious "what if plans" regarding if they ever needed to invade Iran, you know just in case that they need them, for good propaganda. :cool2:

To make "what if plans" might be a good idea, but the day the plan becomes public would probably be the day the plan is needed. Iran would put an halt to any diplomatic solution, unless the coalition would offer generous terms to get them back on the table. And I don't see that happening.


Begin discussing what countries will give what support and estimated troops levels. It's hard to deny Iran's goal to force a "clash of civiliaztions".

Indeed, hard to deny, but I have a feeling some of the western countries don't mind or are actually doing the same...

But on the world stage what are you to do at this point? We actually have an enemy with a flag. This isn't Al Qaeda. If we get serious we might be suprised how quickly the system collapes from the inside once Iranian Generals do the math and realise they can't win against a WORLD invasion from western powers.

See you don't really have to resort to beating up a bully, you just take a couple of friends down in front of his house and yell to him, "why don't you come out, we'd like to have alittle talk with you?" :p

A few notes:
- The western countries are not the world.
- Iran is not an enemy, even though it may become one in the future.

And who would be the bully? Iran? If you come to their doorstep with a posse, you have become the bully.
They probably already identify the USA as the bully.

And I do not think the western countries have any right to do whatever they wish without having to answer for it. Iran may be wrong, but that doesn't make the UK right.


New evidence has suggested the British were in Iraqi waters, not Iranian due to the Xeres? backpack system on one of the marines which basically shows the direct position of the British marines to the mothership, being HMS Cornwall, which were in Iraqi waters at the time of capture. After capture the Iranians drew a new map up saying 'they were here'.

So much certainty... while the conflict is actually one administrations word against another...


The goal of this post is to make it clear that what we hear from the government and media is usually only one side of the story... the side that makes us look like the heroes.

Before hell breaks loose, I'll also make it clear that I simply do not know who is right. I can speculate, but I do not know. There is also quite a bit of history that I am pretty ignorant of, nor do I know enough about the culture, beliefs, feelings and opinions of the Iranian people.

Solinx
Posted Image

"An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr


#18 Tom

Tom

    title available

  • Undead
  • 8,475 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Life
  •  Co-Founder of Revora

Posted 31 March 2007 - 12:21 PM

Iran will not give anything to Britain, and would probably love to keep captives whom they are alleging were in Iranian waters (Which is false).

To be honest we don't know if this is false. They've been trying to get a reason to cause conflict with Iran for a while. Of course this would be considered another deluded conspiracy theory to even suggest they would send their own sailors in just to get a reason. But i'm not saying that. I'm saying aggrivating Iran or even if the sailors accidently crossed the line is still a possibility. We cannot assume that they were not in Irans waters just because the corporate media and some lying neocon pigs suggested they weren't.

I think theres something a little fishy to it to be honest but then again we all believe Iran is the "bad guy" and we should start nuking them now because we have been told that.

I don't know what the situation entails and I don't know what the results will be, but bitching and having a slanging match between Britain and Iran will not solve anything. I'm also sure Iran does not want to be involved in a war either, so in all honesty there is no point in causing conflict or blackmail. The ones who want the war are the corporate controlled states of the USA and Britain. I expect Iran would only consider it if they had support from other arab nations.

#19 Tom

Tom

    title available

  • Undead
  • 8,475 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Life
  •  Co-Founder of Revora

Posted 31 March 2007 - 12:55 PM

Because of players turn on them they will get pwned :xcahik_:

I was being sarcastic about nuking iran. I do enjoy taking the piss out of the mindset of media brainwashed people. Believing everything they hear from medias owned mainly by corporations. I stopped watching the news for over a year, now when i watch it i can't believe how childish and ridiculous it is. How it dictates untrue stories to people. Excellent examples of how bollacks and controlled media is on such subject is this:

http://www.youtube.c...o...ted&search=
http://www.youtube.c...w...ted&search=

If that doesn't ring alarm bells about corporate media and even its purpose today i don't know what.

Edited by Hybrid, 31 March 2007 - 01:11 PM.


#20 Elerium

Elerium

    Road test? Me? But I gotta go save the world!

  • Project Team
  • 631 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Temporal Agent

Posted 31 March 2007 - 01:31 PM

Come on though, Iran is run by a bunch of islamic facists.
Posted Image
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users