Britain and the Shatt al-Arab
orca | 24.03.2007 22:31 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | World
I bought a newspaper tonight with a headline about the fifteen British sailors and marines seized by Irans revolutionary guard. The girl selling it to me pointed to the headline and said 'That's it, we are all going to get nuked'. I pointed out Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and she responded 'Well, they are starting taking our sailors, we have to nuke them'. I pointed out the captives and their families probably wouldn't agree with her.
That is the worst thing about propaganda, it doesn't have to be any good to be effective. There are hopeful signs both Britain and Iran are beginning to play this incident down. The Iranians have take the arrested sailors to Tehran, which preceded the release of the previous arrested British sailors and marines. The British haven't released the names of the service personnel involved, which they would have if they were trying to stoke up tabloid fury, although the tabloids seem furious enough already.
I watched this story unfold on TV and the internet. The initial report was that fifteen UK service personnel had been seized from international waters. This was quickly changed to state that they were seized from Iraqi waters. The Iranian news agencies took some time to respond but robustly and consistently claimed they arrested the British personnel in Iranian territorial waters. Now, according to Iraqi Brigadier General Hakim Jassim who is tasked with patrolling these waters they were not in Iraqi waters. He told AP "We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control, we don't know why they were there" [1]. Although this is a highly disputed border if both the Iraqis and the Iranians are saying they were in Iranian waters, they were in Iranian waters. If Argentinian marines had just been arrested while boarding Falkland Islander vessels I doubt the same consternation would have been expressed. This truly is 'an act of provocation' but it is a British not an Iranian act. It comes in the context of an escalating and transparent campaign designed to justify a war with Iran.
The marines may have made an honest mistake about where they were, but they are equipped with far more accurate GPS systems than are available to the public so that seems implausible. Eight Royal Navy personnel were held in Iranian waters in June of 2004, and were released as soon as Jack Straw phoned and apologised. The Iranians have complained of ongoing incursions since then but haven't arrested any more personnel until now. There is an Iranian naval excercise going on there at the moment which perhaps explains both why the latest personnel were able to be arrested, and perhaps explains why they were sent there.
In recent political context, what does seem likely is the marines were ordered into Iranian territory in order to provoke such an incident and the subsequent wave of hysterical anti-Iranian propaganda. There is a vote in the UN this weekend on further sanctions against Iran. The US has prevented an Iranian delegation from travelling to the vote, in breach of UN regulations which require free access to diplomats. There has been an ongoing propaganda campaign against Iran which is getting ever more virulent, seemingly indicating a forthcoming military strike against Iran. Iran has been getting blamed for training and supplying insurgents in Iraq with little evidence, while at the same time respected US journalists such as Seymour Hersh have been briefed that US special forces are doing exactly the same thing inside Iran [2]. This is classic 'Goebbels' propaganda, to commit an atrocity then attack your enemy for commiting a similar if fictious atrocity. British soldiers arrested in Basrah in Arab dress, and armed to the teeth, were never brought to trial thanks to a spectacular jail-break. No explanation was ever given as to what they were up to.
This is how countries are led unwillingly to war and the best way to combat it is to expose the lies. There have been independent sources stating that US forces are preparing for a military strike in April, before their last major ally, Tony Blair, is forced from office. [3]
In historical context, the British should never be in that area as they have a long and shameful history there [4]. The confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that constitutes the Shatt al-Arab forms the southern border between modern day Iraq and Iran. It is interesting that in the UK we know it exclusively by it's arab name (Coast of Arabs) and not the more widely used Persian name, the Arvandrud (the arvand river). It has been disputed between rival empires for millenia and may just be the most politicised surviving border in history. The key to winning a chess game is arguably controlling or threatening the centre four squares on the board. I doubt any river has washed away so much blood. Treaties have been forced upon rival dominions down that waterway since the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was fought over by, at various stages, by many of the world's greatest and bloodiest empires: the Babylonians, the Persians, the Parthians, the Macedonians, the Mongols, the British, the Russians, the Ottomans; and now the American empire. There is a minor argument over whether the border lies on one side of the river or the other, or straight down the middle. The Arvandruds strategic value before the discovery of the oil fields on either side may seem hard to grasp today, but it is a defendable river that cut across East/West trade routes in the so-called 'cradle of civilisation'. Today it's value is hard to ignore, a central site on top of the 'worlds greatest natural resource', the oil fields on either bank. As the only Iraqi route for the export of their oil the deliniation of the border has grown even more bloody as history progresses.
Today we are being told there has been a British military presence there for 'almost 70 years', which is nonsense. In the 'Great Game' played out for world dominion between 19th century superpowers this waterway was yet again 'dead centre', marking the first British military presence there, long before Winston Churchill bombed Kurdish villages with poison gas. I doubt many Brits have even heard of the Anglo-Persian war of 1856-57 [5]. Most Persians have, but then we Brits have so many foriegn wars of conquest to be expected to remember them all. Is there a country we haven't been at war with at some point?
In 1639, the Treaty of Zuhab was signed establishing a peace between the Ottomans and Persians and defining the border between the two empires on this waterway. Back then the Royal Navy were little more than prirates euphemistically known as 'privateers' who were licensed to attack Spanish galleons for a share of the spoils - a heritage that even today means they fly the 'skull and cross bones' after a 'kill' such as sinking the Belgrano. The MoD claim today that the sailors were on a 'routine piracy operation' does make me smile. In 1746, after more war, the Zuhab treaty was reaffirmed. In 1823, after more war, the treaty was reaffirmed. After that, the Russians and British vied for control of the region which is why there are both Russian and British cemetaries well-tended to this day in Tehran. In 1847, after more war, a new treaty was agreed - but by the foreign powers who were both fearful of German influence. In 1932 Iraq appealed in vain to the League of Nations that the border be established at the mid-point of the river (the 'thalweg' principle). In 1953 the CIA toppled the Iranian government and put in place a proxy, an absolute monarch known as the Shah with a secret police called the SAVAK who tolerated no dissent but were partial to torture. In 1958 there was a nationalist revolution in Iraq and the border issue became a major point of conflict again.
Britain has recognised the border differently to suit it's current ally in the region, and has flip-flopped several times in my lifetime in a policy that could only be aimed at destablising the entire region.
In 1975 there was a minor war over the waterway called the Arvandrud Skirmish. The British supported the Shahs claim to all of the river as he was the US regional policeman at the time. Iran prevailed.
From 1980 to 1988, Saddam - the former CIA hitman- tried to seize the territory by force from Iran, and due to the Shah being deposed Britain armed and supported his claim. This is perhaps the bloodiest war of the latter 20th century, and one the UK is culpable for. Iraq's stated war aims were to recover rights of exclusive navigation of the Shatt al-Arab.
In the 1990-91 Iraq-Kuwait conflict, the UK attacked Iraq after Saddam had misread US signals and invaded Kuwait after cross boder drilling by Kuwait [6]. They didn't dare actually remove Saddam as he was still a regional balwark against their main enemy Iran. They implented an illegal no-fly zone 'to protect the Kurds' while allowing Iraqi troops to massacre them on the ground and Turkish troops to bomb the kurds from the air - taking off from the same airstrips the RAF pilots were using. They also implemented draconian sanctions against Iraq that according to the UN killed 500,000 Iraqi children - noone knows how many adults died but Saddams family only prospered due to them. The British made no statement on the border dispute except to stop Iraqi warplanes (not helicopter gunships) to fly over it. In this war the only Iraqi warplanes that had survived anyway were ones that flew to Iran for sanctuary - the Iranians impounded them.
And now, yet again, British troops are pawns for British political intrigue over a little river many thousands of miles away and which we have no right or duty to administer, and which historically, we should be ashamed to even comment upon. I'd bet none of those fifteen service personnel have any idea of the history of British Machiavellian machinations in the area. Now given this border is so volatile, maybe there is an argument to have a neutral international force policing it. Which ever countries were to contribute to that, the British should never be there for reasons that are blatantly obvious to anyone who has heard of Lord Curzon or has witnessed in their own lifetime the continuing 'playing the Iraqis and Iranians against each other' for our gain. First the British impose a border down the middle, then they support the Shahs claims to the entire river, then they support Saddams claim to the entire river. The UN once tried to mediate but was rebuffed by the British, now the UN says it isn't their concern but for the two countries involved in territorial disputes to decide. That is cowardly perhaps but it certainly isn't any concern of the British to impose an arbitary border upon countries half the world away, and there should be no UK troops there. They signed up to be part of Royal Navy, and so part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The Persian Gulf is not part of the North Atlantic.
NOTES
[1]
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4658473.html
[2] http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact
[3] http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/kuwait/Viewdet.asp?ID=9548&cat=a
http://www.sundayherald.com/international/shinternational/display.var.1152839.0.america_poised_to_strike_at_irans_nuclear_sites_from_bases_in_bulgaria_and_romania.php
[4] http://www.defencejournal.com/jul99/shatt-al-arab.htm
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_War
[6] http://www.mises.org/story/818
LINKS
These other links are just recommended background reading, but I'd be happy to answer any critics of anything I've said if they have taken the time to read up on this.
Sailors 'admit' entering Iranian waters
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1244613,00.html
Pawns in a deadly game of high stakes
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1560787.ece
Iran condemns illegal entry of British sailors into its waters
http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-24/0703245528110620.htm
Iran condemns British border transgression
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=3612§ionid=3510101
Iran President Fails to Attend UNSC Session Due to US Obstruction
http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-22/0703244786014657.htm
Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatt_al-Arab
Iran-Iraq War and Waterway Claims
http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/ice/IRANIRAQ.HTM
1975 Arvandrud Skirmish
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/1975_Arvandrud_Skirmish
Parthian-Iraqi War
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Parthian-Iraqi_War
I watched this story unfold on TV and the internet. The initial report was that fifteen UK service personnel had been seized from international waters. This was quickly changed to state that they were seized from Iraqi waters. The Iranian news agencies took some time to respond but robustly and consistently claimed they arrested the British personnel in Iranian territorial waters. Now, according to Iraqi Brigadier General Hakim Jassim who is tasked with patrolling these waters they were not in Iraqi waters. He told AP "We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control, we don't know why they were there" [1]. Although this is a highly disputed border if both the Iraqis and the Iranians are saying they were in Iranian waters, they were in Iranian waters. If Argentinian marines had just been arrested while boarding Falkland Islander vessels I doubt the same consternation would have been expressed. This truly is 'an act of provocation' but it is a British not an Iranian act. It comes in the context of an escalating and transparent campaign designed to justify a war with Iran.
The marines may have made an honest mistake about where they were, but they are equipped with far more accurate GPS systems than are available to the public so that seems implausible. Eight Royal Navy personnel were held in Iranian waters in June of 2004, and were released as soon as Jack Straw phoned and apologised. The Iranians have complained of ongoing incursions since then but haven't arrested any more personnel until now. There is an Iranian naval excercise going on there at the moment which perhaps explains both why the latest personnel were able to be arrested, and perhaps explains why they were sent there.
In recent political context, what does seem likely is the marines were ordered into Iranian territory in order to provoke such an incident and the subsequent wave of hysterical anti-Iranian propaganda. There is a vote in the UN this weekend on further sanctions against Iran. The US has prevented an Iranian delegation from travelling to the vote, in breach of UN regulations which require free access to diplomats. There has been an ongoing propaganda campaign against Iran which is getting ever more virulent, seemingly indicating a forthcoming military strike against Iran. Iran has been getting blamed for training and supplying insurgents in Iraq with little evidence, while at the same time respected US journalists such as Seymour Hersh have been briefed that US special forces are doing exactly the same thing inside Iran [2]. This is classic 'Goebbels' propaganda, to commit an atrocity then attack your enemy for commiting a similar if fictious atrocity. British soldiers arrested in Basrah in Arab dress, and armed to the teeth, were never brought to trial thanks to a spectacular jail-break. No explanation was ever given as to what they were up to.
This is how countries are led unwillingly to war and the best way to combat it is to expose the lies. There have been independent sources stating that US forces are preparing for a military strike in April, before their last major ally, Tony Blair, is forced from office. [3]
In historical context, the British should never be in that area as they have a long and shameful history there [4]. The confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that constitutes the Shatt al-Arab forms the southern border between modern day Iraq and Iran. It is interesting that in the UK we know it exclusively by it's arab name (Coast of Arabs) and not the more widely used Persian name, the Arvandrud (the arvand river). It has been disputed between rival empires for millenia and may just be the most politicised surviving border in history. The key to winning a chess game is arguably controlling or threatening the centre four squares on the board. I doubt any river has washed away so much blood. Treaties have been forced upon rival dominions down that waterway since the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was fought over by, at various stages, by many of the world's greatest and bloodiest empires: the Babylonians, the Persians, the Parthians, the Macedonians, the Mongols, the British, the Russians, the Ottomans; and now the American empire. There is a minor argument over whether the border lies on one side of the river or the other, or straight down the middle. The Arvandruds strategic value before the discovery of the oil fields on either side may seem hard to grasp today, but it is a defendable river that cut across East/West trade routes in the so-called 'cradle of civilisation'. Today it's value is hard to ignore, a central site on top of the 'worlds greatest natural resource', the oil fields on either bank. As the only Iraqi route for the export of their oil the deliniation of the border has grown even more bloody as history progresses.
Today we are being told there has been a British military presence there for 'almost 70 years', which is nonsense. In the 'Great Game' played out for world dominion between 19th century superpowers this waterway was yet again 'dead centre', marking the first British military presence there, long before Winston Churchill bombed Kurdish villages with poison gas. I doubt many Brits have even heard of the Anglo-Persian war of 1856-57 [5]. Most Persians have, but then we Brits have so many foriegn wars of conquest to be expected to remember them all. Is there a country we haven't been at war with at some point?
In 1639, the Treaty of Zuhab was signed establishing a peace between the Ottomans and Persians and defining the border between the two empires on this waterway. Back then the Royal Navy were little more than prirates euphemistically known as 'privateers' who were licensed to attack Spanish galleons for a share of the spoils - a heritage that even today means they fly the 'skull and cross bones' after a 'kill' such as sinking the Belgrano. The MoD claim today that the sailors were on a 'routine piracy operation' does make me smile. In 1746, after more war, the Zuhab treaty was reaffirmed. In 1823, after more war, the treaty was reaffirmed. After that, the Russians and British vied for control of the region which is why there are both Russian and British cemetaries well-tended to this day in Tehran. In 1847, after more war, a new treaty was agreed - but by the foreign powers who were both fearful of German influence. In 1932 Iraq appealed in vain to the League of Nations that the border be established at the mid-point of the river (the 'thalweg' principle). In 1953 the CIA toppled the Iranian government and put in place a proxy, an absolute monarch known as the Shah with a secret police called the SAVAK who tolerated no dissent but were partial to torture. In 1958 there was a nationalist revolution in Iraq and the border issue became a major point of conflict again.
Britain has recognised the border differently to suit it's current ally in the region, and has flip-flopped several times in my lifetime in a policy that could only be aimed at destablising the entire region.
In 1975 there was a minor war over the waterway called the Arvandrud Skirmish. The British supported the Shahs claim to all of the river as he was the US regional policeman at the time. Iran prevailed.
From 1980 to 1988, Saddam - the former CIA hitman- tried to seize the territory by force from Iran, and due to the Shah being deposed Britain armed and supported his claim. This is perhaps the bloodiest war of the latter 20th century, and one the UK is culpable for. Iraq's stated war aims were to recover rights of exclusive navigation of the Shatt al-Arab.
In the 1990-91 Iraq-Kuwait conflict, the UK attacked Iraq after Saddam had misread US signals and invaded Kuwait after cross boder drilling by Kuwait [6]. They didn't dare actually remove Saddam as he was still a regional balwark against their main enemy Iran. They implented an illegal no-fly zone 'to protect the Kurds' while allowing Iraqi troops to massacre them on the ground and Turkish troops to bomb the kurds from the air - taking off from the same airstrips the RAF pilots were using. They also implemented draconian sanctions against Iraq that according to the UN killed 500,000 Iraqi children - noone knows how many adults died but Saddams family only prospered due to them. The British made no statement on the border dispute except to stop Iraqi warplanes (not helicopter gunships) to fly over it. In this war the only Iraqi warplanes that had survived anyway were ones that flew to Iran for sanctuary - the Iranians impounded them.
And now, yet again, British troops are pawns for British political intrigue over a little river many thousands of miles away and which we have no right or duty to administer, and which historically, we should be ashamed to even comment upon. I'd bet none of those fifteen service personnel have any idea of the history of British Machiavellian machinations in the area. Now given this border is so volatile, maybe there is an argument to have a neutral international force policing it. Which ever countries were to contribute to that, the British should never be there for reasons that are blatantly obvious to anyone who has heard of Lord Curzon or has witnessed in their own lifetime the continuing 'playing the Iraqis and Iranians against each other' for our gain. First the British impose a border down the middle, then they support the Shahs claims to the entire river, then they support Saddams claim to the entire river. The UN once tried to mediate but was rebuffed by the British, now the UN says it isn't their concern but for the two countries involved in territorial disputes to decide. That is cowardly perhaps but it certainly isn't any concern of the British to impose an arbitary border upon countries half the world away, and there should be no UK troops there. They signed up to be part of Royal Navy, and so part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The Persian Gulf is not part of the North Atlantic.
NOTES
[1]
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4658473.html [2]
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact [3]
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/kuwait/Viewdet.asp?ID=9548&cat=a http://www.sundayherald.com/international/shinternational/display.var.1152839.0.america_poised_to_strike_at_irans_nuclear_sites_from_bases_in_bulgaria_and_romania.php [4]
http://www.defencejournal.com/jul99/shatt-al-arab.htm [5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_War [6]
http://www.mises.org/story/818 LINKS
These other links are just recommended background reading, but I'd be happy to answer any critics of anything I've said if they have taken the time to read up on this.
Sailors 'admit' entering Iranian waters
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1244613,00.html Pawns in a deadly game of high stakes
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1560787.ece Iran condemns illegal entry of British sailors into its waters
http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-24/0703245528110620.htm Iran condemns British border transgression
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=3612§ionid=3510101 Iran President Fails to Attend UNSC Session Due to US Obstruction
http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-22/0703244786014657.htm Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatt_al-Arab Iran-Iraq War and Waterway Claims
http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/ice/IRANIRAQ.HTM 1975 Arvandrud Skirmish
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/1975_Arvandrud_Skirmish Parthian-Iraqi War
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Parthian-Iraqi_War
orca
Additions
two more points...
25.03.2007 19:22
Two more points I've seen posters elsewhere make that are worth repeating:
1) A BBC TV crew arrived on HMS Cornwall the day before the incident - how 'lucky' was that ?
2) If the official story is to be believed, then several Iranian gunboats were able to penetrate deep into Iraqi waters close to the Cornwall without being detected or repulsed. Surely that is military negligence that should have the captain of the Cornwall immediately on court-martial charges ? Seemingly not.
This is a repeat of the dodgy-dossier without even bothering with the paperwork. And yet the only response from our 'resident paid posters' to this article is to question the conversation I had with a newsagent. The sad fact is there isn't a mainstream journalist in the UK who has dared question the glaring flaws in the story and even the spooks seem shamefaced.
(cough)Gulf-Of-Tonkin(splutter).
1) A BBC TV crew arrived on HMS Cornwall the day before the incident - how 'lucky' was that ?
2) If the official story is to be believed, then several Iranian gunboats were able to penetrate deep into Iraqi waters close to the Cornwall without being detected or repulsed. Surely that is military negligence that should have the captain of the Cornwall immediately on court-martial charges ? Seemingly not.
This is a repeat of the dodgy-dossier without even bothering with the paperwork. And yet the only response from our 'resident paid posters' to this article is to question the conversation I had with a newsagent. The sad fact is there isn't a mainstream journalist in the UK who has dared question the glaring flaws in the story and even the spooks seem shamefaced.
(cough)Gulf-Of-Tonkin(splutter).
orca
Comments
Hide the following 8 comments
.
25.03.2007 22:36
Your points are as crap as your made up story with the paper girl
"A BBC TV crew arrived on HMS Cornwall the day before the incident - how 'lucky' was that?"
So, what value have they added apart from statements from the ships captain? Its just what any military wants, a news crew there whilst their staff are missing?!
The Iranians have been conducting excerises in the area for the last week, a narrow waterway with iranian boats nearby would have been normal practise in the area. They could easily crossed into the iraqi side and taken their hostages before cornwall was able to react, even if they had reacted with their overwhelming force I can imagine your your response then.
Your tiresome seemingly drone like acceptance of any conspiracy theory and conincidence belies your apparant stupidity.
Right I'm off to cash my chq from MI5
.
Dear Dotty
26.03.2007 20:34
There is an important point for IM posters here. I tried to personalise the updated article with a true and easily verifiable anecdote. This was a big mistake when I knew I was going to attract the wrath of the pro-establishment posters. When they cannot criticise or correct a single fact or link you have included they always opt to distract or smear on the most minor personal point. It's a compliment in a way, and certainly vindication of everything else I wrote.
"So, what value have they added apart from statements from the ships captain? Its just what any military wants, a news crew there whilst their staff are missing?!"
Yes, exactly. They have hardly tried to downplay the story have they ? This is deliberately staged in full view of the media to get the great unwashed ready for a new war.
"The Iranians have been conducting excerises in the area for the last week, a narrow waterway with iranian boats nearby would have been normal practise in the area. They could easily crossed into the iraqi side and taken their hostages before cornwall was able to react, even if they had reacted with their overwhelming force I can imagine your your response then."
I doubt they could have given the pinpoint nature of the weapons systems and radar on HMS Cornwall. What I do know is that they never did stray into Iraqi waters. I knwo that because the Iraqi Brigadier General responsible for patrolling the waters says so.
"Your tiresome seemingly drone like acceptance of any conspiracy theory and conincidence belies your apparant stupidity."
I presume you meant to say my tiresome drone-like acceptance of any conspiracy theory CONFIRMS my apparent stupidty. That would be an interesting smear if it wasn't so obvious, wasn't so badly spelled and didn't say the opposite of what you meant to say.
"Right I'm off to cash my chq from MI5 "
Oh I seriously doubt it, MI5 prefer to employ graduates not dunces. You are just an irate, drunk, former squaddie aren't you ?
orca
Brig. Gen. Hakim Jassim
26.03.2007 21:47
Al Alam is terrestial-television broadcast into Iraq and the wider region without the need for a satellite box or decrypter, it is fairly middle-of-the-road stuff by comparison to most of the propaganda channels and is widely viewed by all communities. You may assume that Jassim is a Shia, and you may therefore infer pro-Iranian bias. I cannot identify his religion and I know that is totally irrelevant as most Iraqis are Shia.
The fact is most Iraqis believe that the British personnel were illegally in Iranian waters. Even most Sunni will believe this, they don't have rose-tinted spectacles when it comes to the occupying forces.
A government minister has come out and stated the British were in Iraqi waters. The government is widely seen domestically as a puppet government as far as I can distinguish from the UK. They would be expected to say that regardless, and ministers won't be believed, Hakim Jassim will be believed, the Iraqi fishermen will be believed.
So, it hardly matters to us where the British troops were. They are seen as occupiers preparing for another illegal invasion of another Mulim country. The troops have lost the so-called battle for hearts and minds. If you truthfully support the troops, you should be demanding they are brought home before the next neo-con strike places them on the front-line of a new world war. If you support the Iraqis and Iranians, you should be demanding the same.
The only people here who have any reason to demand more killing is the paid Blairites and MI5 stooges who presumably all have oil-portolios - who will have made a great personal profit from this debacle given the subsequent rise in the price of oil.
orca
Not Dotty either!
27.03.2007 09:22
Not Donald Rumsfled
Homepage:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/03/366108.html
Let Mummy Go ( To War )
27.03.2007 10:14
Well, I was wrong to credit the MoD with trying to underplay this, they are drip feeding information for maximum effect. Like in any good marketing campaign it keep the story in the headlines longer.
The Sun today has the headline "Iran kidnaps: Let mummy go" based on a statement released by her family through the MoD reading “While we understand the media interest in the ongoing incident involving Faye, this remains a very distressing time for us and our family. We are grateful for the support shown to us by all personnel involved and appreciate it, but would request that our privacy is respected.”
Since no one knew the name of the personnel it seems self-contradictory to issue a national press release requesting that their privacy is requested.
orca
The Daily Elite
27.03.2007 10:52
E.g. "seized at gunpoint" instead of "detained by armed forces".
MI5/6 obviously doesn't hold the intellect of the average Telegraph reader is high esteem, since anyone who did Linguistics as their third subject in first year would have taught how to spot connotative manipulation in their first week.
The scary thing is that 10 Downing Street has enough cronies (or assets) in the MSM to be able dictate what the 'Big Story' is, and the public get it rammed down their throats.
The snatching of Vanunu with MI6 complicity never made such a splash.
Not Donald Rumsfled
And they're scared of you
27.03.2007 13:40
Where you from, who's your friends?
What's your beliefs? What group you in?
Are you an anarchist? How long you been?
Where's your meeting? What time is that?
What day's the rally? Where's it at?
How big's your group? Who's part of it?
What's your stance on violence?"
COINTELPRO
They've been watching from the street out front
Where the unmarked car is parked
They've been calling on the phone at night
Snooping around in the dark
They've been talking to your parents at work
Making sure they're overheard
They've been talking to your neighborhood
Making sure they hear the word
COINTELPRO
They've been knocking on the door in the morning
When the sun ain't even rose
They've been watching where you go each day
Following you close
They've been listening on the line
They'll remember what you've said
They've been looking on your website
Showing up at your events
COINTELPRO
They've been taking notes on your conversations
Remembering names and dates
They've been watching who you talk to
With whom you associate
They're ear is open to all you do
They're on your email list
They're collecting all your posters
Taking your finger prints
COINTELPRO
Things ain't been the same
Since they started coming around
Seems like if you look the other way
They'll come and take you down
They're paid to make you feel this way
To keep you on your knees
They sow the seed of paranoia
And it spreads like a disease
COINTELPRO
This ain't the 1960's
It's 2006
And the Feds are back with the same old badge
And a brand new bag of tricks
They've got a long bloody history
Of ruining people's lives
You gotta keep on keeping on
Stand strong and organize
They've got guns and jails and a budget
They'll string you out on fear
But you've got the strength of numbers
That's why they are here
That's how it's gone before
When their threats start coming through
It means you're work is successful
"What's your name? where you live?
Where you from, who's your friends?
What's your beliefs? What group you in?
Are you an anarchist? How long you been?
Where's your meeting? What time is that?
What day's the rally? Where's it at?
How big's your group? Who's part of it?
What's your stance on violence?"
COINTELPRO
They've been watching from the street out front
Where the unmarked car is parked
They've been calling on the phone at night
Snooping around in the dark
They've been talking to your parents at work
Making sure they're overheard
They've been talking to your neighborhood
Making sure they hear the word
COINTELPRO
They've been knocking on the door in the morning
When the sun ain't even rose
They've been watching where you go each day
Following you close
They've been listening on the line
They'll remember what you've said
They've been looking on your website
Showing up at your events
COINTELPRO
They've been taking notes on your conversations
Remembering names and dates
They've been watching who you talk to
With whom you associate
They're ear is open to all you do
They're on your email list
They're collecting all your posters
Taking your finger prints
COINTELPRO
Things ain't been the same
Since they started coming around
Seems like if you look the other way
They'll come and take you down
They're paid to make you feel this way
To keep you on your knees
They sow the seed of paranoia
And it spreads like a disease
COINTELPRO
This ain't the 1960's
It's 2006
And the Feds are back with the same old badge
And a brand new bag of tricks
They've got a long bloody history
Of ruining people's lives
You gotta keep on keeping on
Stand strong and organize
They've got guns and jails and a budget
They'll string you out on fear
But you've got the strength of numbers
That's why they are here
That's how it's gone before
When their threats start coming through
It means you're work is successful
And they're scared of you
ryan harvey
NSwiki links
26.04.2007 08:29
--Goobergunch
NSwiki Founder
Goobergunch
Homepage:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/