OK, first, let me say that I personally call for troops out of Iraq, preferably on a timetable that looks more like a catastrophe than an apocalypse.
But seriously, Iran, you’ve got a person captive by force of arms. Do you really fucking think anybody saying "oh, here’s a woman saying the troops should withdraw from Iraq, I guess it’s a sincere heartfelt sentiment since she’s got a fucking gun to her head. Seriously, what the fuck do these assholes think they’re accomplishing? Maybe they’re trying to demonstrate that at least their prisoners can send and receive messages unlike those at Guantanamo bay?
A long time ago I gave up thinking that world leaders were working for anything like the common good. But I still comfort myself by thinking that even though many of them are depraved, evil, and corrupt, can be at least relied upon to make cold, calculating, reasoned decisions in the best selfish interests of themselves and the countrites they represent. In so doing they make the world a little more predictable, if not actually better. I want to think we have that in common with our “enemies” and that we’re just on the wrong side of lines drawn by history. But this latest stunt just raises in me the stereotypical urge that we’re dealing with a bunch of stupid, ignorant camel jockeys who rule their nations by trivial ruses that a child could see through. Seriously, what do these dickheads think they’re accomplishing by airing a confession under duress, from an unknown underling of the British empire?
Returning to the disclaimer, I have a matching set of very similar rants for the US government, but it’s sort of old hat at this moment.
This is nothing specific to Iran, really. What really bakes my noodle is that the nimrods who come up with the statements for captured people to read actually think anyone is fooled into thinking that the captives wrote these things themselves.
About as believable a text as your average Nigerian scam letter, frankly.
Personally, I think the British should identify by name 15 ships in the Iranian navy and declare that if a hostage dies, a ship will be sunk by cruise missiles.
Too obvious. How about this instead: Britain gives Iran another 15 hostages-- just pulls some of their troops from Iraq, and hands them right over, publically, with enormous media attention and patronizingly ostentatious ceremony.
“Only 15 hostages? Good heavens, man! That’s hardly worth mentioning, Mahmoud, old top! Please, take a few more; we insist! No, no-- don’t bother to thank us. We’re confident they’ll be safer in your hands than on the ground in Iraq.”
Then, after a few days, Britain offers another 15 hostages, and so on. Surely there’s a few dozen people in the British military who’d be willing to risk their safety for the unique opportunity to totally fuck with Iran’s collective mind.
The Iranians are used to being attacked and threatened… but have they been confused?
I don’t believe the Iranians have 15 naval vessels over the size of a patrol craft in active service right now. Using a cruise missile to junk a PT boat under 50ft in length strikes me as a waste of a good missile. Refineries, now… on the other hand.
Case in point… Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured. We didn’t put him on TV that night confessing to acts of terrorism while denouncing them. When the “confession” did come out many months later, half the country muttered "no big surprise, he’s been tortured for a year, he’ll say anything. I guess it’s possible Iranians are also calling bullshit on this political statement under duress, but my gut tells me otherwise.
Using a cruise missile to junk a PT boat under 50ft in length strikes me as a waste of a good missile. Refineries, now… on the other hand.