Kamangir (Archer)

Reader's Comments

1. Serendip | March 29th, 2007 at 3:39 pm

   This is sick. Iran has taken the bait and the strategy of turing the UK and in fact, the world opinion against Iran is working.

2. Matthew | March 29th, 2007 at 3:41 pm

   Photos of these nutbags made CNN http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/29/iran.uk.sailors/index.html

   However, oil prices seem not to suffer when the IR pulls this nonsense. So much for sanctions?
   http://www.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/03/29/oil.prices.reut/index.html

3. Jeanna | March 29th, 2007 at 3:41 pm

   THIS for example is what just one (!) handful of journalists (!) have to say … and if you want to be also one. But your focus is not only annoying but problematically biased as well. It’s Fox-news-style and it’s just too obvious whom it “serves”.

   If Iranian sailors entered British waters, the British would arrest the Iranians. The Iranians would then protest that they had not been in British waters; but the British public would not believe that.

   That is exactly what has happened but in reverse.

   – E Taylor, PARIS

   If the UK soldiers detained by Iran should be returned, then so should the Iranian liaison employees detained by the US on Jan 11th this year, whose fate still remains unknown. Bet then again, recent events have shown that there are two sets of laws, one of which applies to people we like, and the other which applies to those we don’t.

   – Martin, England, UK

   Imagine a situation whereby Iran had invaded and occupied France and routinely sent patrols into the English Channel to search for “smuggled cars” on ships. Would that be tolerable to the UK? If not, why not? The converse situation is a reality with the British occupation of Iraq and Royal Naval presence and activity in the Persian Gulf.

   – M. M. Zaman, UK/Canada

   Tony Blair said …”In the end, it is a question really for the Iranian government as to whether they want to abide by international law or not”. I assume that he dare not ask himself this question as the answer is all too apparent. Last time our troops were held by Iran the same denials and accusations were made by the British govt. They were in fact in Iranian territory violating international law. Our govt lies to do what it wants. Time for a regime to change - ours, not theirs

   – Richard, London

   Will the U.K. now seize Irananian naval vesels patroling off Cardiff in the Bristol channel? The absurdity of the Western military presence in the ‘Persian’ Gulf heralds back to the days of White Man’s Burden. The hyopocrisy of western outrage is comical. Exactly why is a British ship within a thousand miles of the Persian gulf?

   – Bill wontanabee, Canada

   The UK must keep its nose out of other peoples affairs. What sanctions are in place against the military ruler of Pakistan who has atomic weapons, overthrew a democratically elected government and refuses to allow elections in his country. Mugabe has slaughtered hundreds of thousands and no one even talks about invading Zimbabwe. Iran wants nuclear weapons, the UK says these are necessary for security in a modern world.
   It is the hypocrisy of the Western powers that really annoys.

   – Arthur, Derby

   The capture of 15 British sailors is the Iranian response to the UK / the US cat and mouse game against Iran. The UK / the US are testing Iranian response and determination in their preparation for strike against Iran.

   The Iranian rapid response was to send a signal to Blair to stop illegally entering Iranian territorial waters on Arvandrud in the Persian Gulf.

   – Azar, Wheaton, IL , USA

4. Serendip | March 29th, 2007 at 3:41 pm

   Typoe alert:
   turing=Turning

   Kaman, read the lates in Guardian, one of the left wing newspapers in the UK:

   Faced with Iranian blackmail, Europe must show real solidarity

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2045071,00.html

5. Serendip | March 29th, 2007 at 3:51 pm

   There is a problem of maritime boundaries.

   Read this:

   While it is true that the maritime borders are not demarcated, the baselines used by Iran to determine its maritime borders are not accepted by any other country in the Gulf and contravene the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Seas. Iran is a signatory to the Convention and is obliged to obey it under international law. If there is an argument over the boundary, as Murray claims, then the IRGC units are as guilty as the British navy in entering disputed waters.

   Murray is absolutely wrong - the maritime borders were not imposed by the British government, they were drawn up by the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein. The present Iraqi government has accepted the territorial borders demarcated by the Saddam regime. As foreign forces are there on a UN mandate, they are obliged to defend Iraqi territory.

   Even if one accepts the Iranian boundary, Iran is still not permitted to arrest these personnel. If the military forces or civilians of another state violate territorial waters, the first action by the Iranian would be to ask them to leave. These kind of border violations are usually solved by border officials, not by gunboats. Iran has previously abided by this convention by requesting that Azerbaijani boats crossing into territorial waters claimed by Iran in the Caspian Sea leave the area, which they do. Murray should know this, having worked as a diplomat in the region. Moreover, the naval personnel were not belligerent - their light weaponry could not even be used to take out one IRGC boat.

   Iran does have a defence, if its territorial claims could be backed by international law (which does not appear to be the case). While military units do have the right to innocent passage through territorial waters, the British naval personnel were not in the process of passage and Iran could argue that they were not innocent. Nevertheless, they would still be obliged to request the personnel to leave in the first instance.

   The rights and the wrongs of the Iraq War do not enter into the equations. If Murray and Galloway want to justify these arrests by supporting Iran’s spurious legal claims, they are going to lose the argument. Moreover, it makes you wonder whether they are simply spokesmen for a corrupt and despotic regime.

   It is surprising that the Murray - who rightly condemned Uzbekistan’s atrocious human rights record and the practice of rendition - would seek to defend a regime with an atrocious human rights record and which kidnaps and assassinates civilians living abroad. Read the whole thing at (you might have to scroll down a bit):

   http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/

6. Matthew | March 29th, 2007 at 5:03 pm

   Nice post Serendip

7. brando | March 29th, 2007 at 6:20 pm

   Yikes. They must really have intent, if they took the time to make signs and make murder demands.

8. Jeanna | March 29th, 2007 at 8:12 pm

   And again this one isn’t bad too. At least for people who by focus are informed or want it to be:
   http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=816

9. Smileme | March 30th, 2007 at 12:17 am

   Jeanna,

   Great research and very nice comments. I think this behaviour from brit side was extra-over-reaction. Definitely it is a great mistake for them and I think it’s far from the typical british diplomacy that doesn’t get emotional even when is being raped.

   I guess there is something behind the scene. We have to wait and see why UK is behaving so strangely. This behaviour looks like they have a feeling of being loser in a very big gamble. Losing to whom? only God knows!

10. brando | March 30th, 2007 at 12:23 am

    Jeanna, that article uses some insane logic. He thinks perceives America as bad, therefore it’s legal and perfectly reasonable to abduct Britons. That’s fantastic. You think that the article is for people who want to be informed? Is that comedy?

11. Smileme | March 30th, 2007 at 2:14 am

    Ha ha, in this picture, the middle guy holds the board with a wrong spell, Executation :D their English is worse than mine!!!

    Only 5 to 10 people out of 70 million population!

    BTW, I feel like I know these guys. Are they not the same people who banned Nestle some time back?

    Such a pity! first they took Nestle from our children, now they want to take english products from our families. Guys, no more rolls royce, no more Imperial Leather, and no more british petroleum!

    Which country do you think is the next? I bet France! :D

    Nooo! that’s impossible! I cannot imagine how an Iranian lady can live without Yves Rocher, Clinique, Chanel, Christian Dior, oh oh Pierre Cardin!!! that will make a revolution in Iran by sure! a female revolution! :D

12. trainer | March 30th, 2007 at 2:19 am

    Fine, have your fun, some of you.

    Knock Britain and America all you want.

    But remember the war you are fighting. You can only win in the battle for public opinion in the West. You haven’t a hope of success if the public wants Iran plowed and salted.

    If you think that this incident is a win for Iran in the court of public opinion, you are wrong. If Iran’s leaders get really stupid over this, you might just find out how wrong.

13. Kamangir | March 30th, 2007 at 2:42 am

    Smileme,

    Only 5 to 10 people out of 70 million population!

    …with the support of the administration. So, I would rather say, how poor the administration has got!

    BTW, I feel like I know these guys. Are they not the same people who banned Nestle some time back?

    I bet they are the same people.

14. Kamangir | March 30th, 2007 at 2:50 am

    Trainer,

    But remember the war you are fighting.

    The war I am fighting? Excuse me?

15. trainer | March 30th, 2007 at 2:19 pm

    I was addressing those commenter’s who are feeling smug on this and other threads. I am aware of how you feel and I support your efforts.

    Note I said “some of you”.

16. Kamangir | March 30th, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    Trainer,
    :)

17. Smileme | March 30th, 2007 at 11:02 pm

    Trainer,

    Did you mean me? I saw your guns and I am really scared now :D sorry if I said something wrong! ;)

18. trainer | March 31st, 2007 at 2:18 am

    Of course not. The guns are a lifetime hobby. I don’t hunt, and I’ve been out of the service for 35 years. I do like to target shoot.

    Surely there must be some people who like target shooting in Iran. I know Iran usually wins Olympic medals in wrestling and weight lifting, but they also compete in a lot of shooting events. Somebody must be into the sport.

    The ownership of firearms in the United States is guaranteed by our constitution, altho in reality it depends where you live. I live in a very strict (and crowded) state where the ownership of firearms is controlled as tightly as the state can get away with under Federal law.

    Other less populated states have more lenient laws. But even in areas with the absolute worst restrictions (the banning of all handguns, for instance), you can own at least a basic bolt-action rifle anywhere in the country…even if you can’t have it anywhere but home.

19. Smileme | March 31st, 2007 at 5:49 am

    Trainer,

    You may already know that almost all Iranian boys have to waste two years of their lives for a mandatory military service. Very rarely you find a person who has not done it. If you don’t do it completely you won’t get a special identity card that shows you finished your service. Therefore, you cannot get your international passport (in Iran we have two passports, a local one and an international one)

    There are boys who do very dangerous things only to escape from the military service. Unfortunately I have passed this 2 years too and that was one of the most annoying part of my life when I remember it. It is indeed a prision. If you had an experience like me, and if you had seen the real face of war, you wouldn’t even like a rifle for target shooting because it has a different meaning for you.

    I don’t watch any movies which has action, crime, violence, etc. I know many of friends don’t like those movies either. I would like to stay away from any type of violence :)

20. ella | March 31st, 2007 at 8:04 am

    Smileme

    But if you belong to basiji you do not need to do full military service. Furthermore if your military service is like polish military service you do not see the face of real war. True, it is often pretty unpleasant and I know that in my country most poles would prefer not to do it, but it is far cry from the real war.

    As for action movies they are usually as similar to real acts of crime or violence as science fiction is similar to real science. ;-)

21. Kamangir (Archer) - کمانگیر » Blog Archive » The Dawn of Blogging about Iran | April 1st, 2007 at 1:26 am

    [...] pacifist CBC. Unfortunately, I might say devilishly, no one needs me anymore; a few hours after Fars published pictures of the Basij members chanting against the UK, CNN picked the news. I know this might seem a bit pathetic, but how would you feel if when you [...]

22. trainer | April 1st, 2007 at 4:57 am

    I enlisted voluntarily for 4 years in 1968. The draft was still in force, but I wanted to serve. It certainly wasn’t fun, but had to be better than being an unwilling conscript. 2 years isn’t enough time to teach you to be good enough at it to survive, only to be meat.

    The memories I have of those days have been blunted by time. At a gathering two weekends ago in Washingtoon at the Vietnam Memorial, I was energized by being surrounded by 15,000 other vets from the same era and experience, and all the memories were happy ones.

    It wasn’t really like that….but you really have to have served, as you did, to understand what guys in the military actually go through. The service sucks, the government sucks, the officers suck, and the non-coms suck…but you get to play with interesting toys, and make friends that last for the rest of your life.

23. Smileme | April 1st, 2007 at 1:39 pm

    2 years isn’t enough time to teach you to be good enough at it to survive…

    noooooo! that 2 years wasted the best days of my life. I went to the military service when I was full of energy and love. I used to read books like a high speed scanner, I used to play piano, I used to enjoy solving very tough mathematics question and I used to practice martial arts heavily. Everything was beautiful and had a deep meaning that time. Military service took everything from me and my briliant friends. Instead it taught us how to escape from our tasks when officers forced us to do something that didn’t make sense at all.

    It wasn’t really like that….but you really have to have served, as you did, to understand what guys in the military actually go through. The service sucks, the government sucks, the officers suck, and the non-coms suck…

    Absolutely! a bunch of low IQ and sadistic people.

    but you get to play with interesting toys, and make friends that last for the rest of your life.>/i>

    Yes, very true. Those who become your friends in tough times, will remain best friends :)

24. Smileme | April 1st, 2007 at 2:03 pm

    Ella,

    But if you belong to basiji you do not need to do full military service.

    It’s not as easy as you thought, subscribing in a community, pretending to be a good muslim, and after two months you get your certificate. You have to proof that you are an “active” basiji. To do that you have to spend half of your life in mosques and attend all the demonstrations and flag-burnings. Arresting young lover boys and girls, and betray some of your colleagues or classmates to proof it. And this should go for years. Now, which is easier? being an active basiji or taking the 2 years regular military service?

    Furthermore if your military service is like polish military service you do not see the face of real war…

    It’s not matter of a being in a real war. Do you see a real war when you are in a prison? of course not. But you have to live with some people who are really sick. You lose all your hopes and energy. They will try to break your dignity and pride. Probably it’s a much better situation in Poland.

    As for action movies they are usually as similar to real acts of crime or violence as science fiction is similar to real science.

    And as p*rn movies are similar to real life! but we don’t let our children watch p*rn movies whereas we let them watch all the killings and brutalities. We also buy 3D games for them to virtually practice it.

    Human is perhaps going in a better direction. 100 years ago, execution was just a normal thing in every country. Now, we see countries are removing it from their judgement system one by one. I wish one day we prevent showing violence to our children and all countries cancel their military system. Then nobody would get salary for killing other humans just because they are simply somewhere in the other side a line, literally called as “border”!

25. ella | April 2nd, 2007 at 3:58 am

    Smileme

    I don’t know how bad conscript situation during their military service is in Iran, so it is difficult for me to compare, but I have heard horror stories regarding situation of some conscripts in polish army. That said, there is also camaradeship and good memories. I also heard that recently the conscript situation have much improved.
    Mmmm, yes, and some of them have also “cute” toys to play with.

    For myself I would not compare action movies to the porn movies, but that’s a question of individual opinion. Frankly, I would settle for more action/crime movies and for much less real-life violence.

    As for the countries removing death penalty, I spoke with muslims in my country, majority of them want death penalty to return(Poland do not have one), their explanation: “it is in Quran”. I wish they could read your post.

26. DamionKutaeff | March 22nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm

    Hello everybody, my name is Damion, and I’m glad to join your conmunity,
    and wish to assit as far as possible.

Comment