British hostage chick makes Ahmadinejad sweat

[Widescreen]

This chick is awesome.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007160379,00.html


GUTSY Faye Turney turned the tables on Iranian tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as he freed her in front of TV cameras — making him SQUIRM.

She was the first of the 15 hostages ushered forward during the cynical stunt in the madman’s own Tehran palace garden.

As Faye stood in front of bearded Ahmadinejad he asked her through a translator: “How is your daughter?”

Faye fumed in response: “I don’t know, Mr President, I haven’t seen her for 13 days — remember?”

The Islamic fanatic stuttered: “Oh yes. But haven’t you been allowed a phone call to her?”

Faye replied: “No I most certainly have not”.

Taken aback by her forthright response, Ahmadinejad was momentarily lost for words. Red-faced, he then muttered: “Er, well, good luck in your life and your future”.

And with that he nervously signalled to flunkies to move Faye on so he could meet the next hostage.

[C&CDean]

meh.

[tommieharris91]

I kinda wish she had a firearm on her as she said that.

[proud gonzo]

well, I thought the interesting part of the story was that they gave her a doll for her daughter and she's going to keep it. That kid'll have a hell of a show-and-tell story someday.

[C&CDean]

well, I thought the interesting part of the story was that they gave her a doll for her daughter and she's going to keep it. That kid'll have a hell of a show-and-tell story someday.

There's no way in hell I'd give my kid a doll from that sad sack. In fact, I'd ask for a lighter so I could burn it in effigy in front of the cocksucking murderer.

[proud gonzo]

hehe

[Okla-homey]

If those had been US GI's, there would have been no "makey-nicey" with that bastage.

I also doubt a US officer would have surrendered without a fight. In fact, if that had been a SEAL officer, and US Marines, there would have been a lot of dead Iranians.

I'm sick of the whole mess. It turns my stomach that those Brits folded like they did.

[royalfan5]

If those had been US GI's, there would have been no "makey-nicey" with that bastage.

I also doubt a US officer would have surrendered without a fight. In fact, if that had been a SEAL officer, and US Marines, there would have been a lot of dead Iranians.

I'm sick of the whole mess. It turns my stomach that those Brits folded like they did.
British military history is littered with them surrendering. Yorktown, Singapore, against John Paul Jones, etc. They just don't quit as a country that often

[SicEmBaylor]

If those had been US GI's, there would have been no "makey-nicey" with that bastage.

I also doubt a US officer would have surrendered without a fight. In fact, if that had been a SEAL officer, and US Marines, there would have been a lot of dead Iranians.

I'm sick of the whole mess. It turns my stomach that those Brits folded like they did.

Likewise, I assume the US Navy wouldn't just sit there like a wooden dingy and do nothing while a half dozen of its sailors and officers were carted off as hostages. I'd sink every damned ship in the whole damned Iranian Navy before I'd let that happen.

And I've never been in a hostage situation so I'm not necessarily criticizing these people, but I would have liked to see more "rank, name, and serial number" and less "here is a map of where we were and we're very sorry for breaking the law and crossing into Iranian waters."

[mdklatt]

If those had been US GI's, there would have been no "makey-nicey" with that bastage.
...
I'm sick of the whole mess. It turns my stomach that those Brits folded like they did.

If they had resisted, and any of them had been killed, we'd almost certainly be in an armed conflict with Iran right now. Would that be better?

[SicEmBaylor]

If they had resisted, and any of them had been killed, we'd almost certainly be in an armed conflict with Iran right now. Would that be better?

They'd have been well within their right to defend themselves. If it came to that then the blame most certainly would not be on the individual sailors protecting themselves, but for the Iranians brewing up a false international incident (claiming they were in Iranian waters) and then exacerbating the incident by attempting to take hostages. If armed conflict came then the blame would be squarely on Iran.

[mdklatt]

If armed conflict came then the blame would be squarely on Iran.

No doubt, but do we really want a shooting war in Iran, wrong or right? All 15 hostages are home, and no WWIII--seems like a good thing to me.

[Okla-homey]

If they had resisted, and any of them had been killed, we'd almost certainly be in an armed conflict with Iran right now. Would that be better?

The generally accepted norm is not to surrender until you no longer have the means to resist.

I doubt it would have prompted a "shooting war" had they fired- up the Iranians who were attempting to take them captive. I'm quite certain no US commander would order troops on a clandestine (or any other mission) to acquiesce to capture if the bad guys showed up.

Hell, a few years back we shot down one of their flippin' airliners when we mistook it for an attack on one of our Aegis-class cruisers if memory serves...and the Iranians didn't do crap.

Here's the skinny from wikipedia:


Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655) was a commercial flight operated by Iran Air that flew from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Dubai, UAE. On Sunday July 3, 1988, the aircraft flying IR655 was shot down by the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes between Bandar Abbas and Dubai, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children. The Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the shoot-down.

According to the U.S. government, the Iranian aircraft was mistakenly identified as an attacking military fighter. The Iranian government, however, maintains that the Vincennes knowingly shot down a civilian aircraft.

[NormanPride]

Oh man, at least Armageddon would be all Iran's fault. That makes me feel better.

[tommieharris91]

They'd have been well within their right to defend themselves. If it came to that then the blame most certainly would not be on the individual sailors protecting themselves, but for the Iranians brewing up a false international incident (claiming they were in Iranian waters) and then exacerbating the incident by attempting to take hostages. If armed conflict came then the blame would be squarely on Iran.

The media would find some way to blame Bush anyway.

[mdklatt]

The generally accepted norm is not to surrender until you no longer have the means to resist.

So, you would prefer that we were engaged with Iran right now as long as they had resisted?

[Okla-homey]

So, you would prefer that we were engaged with Iran right now as long as they had resisted?

The Iranians wouldn't have done crap. See my above post.

[SicEmBaylor]

No doubt, but do we really want a shooting war in Iran, wrong or right? All 15 hostages are home, and no WWIII--seems like a good thing to me.
True, but I still wish they'd stuck to their rank, name, and serial number.

[TUSooner]

If those had been US GI's, there would have been no "makey-nicey" with that bastage.

I also doubt a US officer would have surrendered without a fight. In fact, if that had been a SEAL officer, and US Marines, there would have been a lot of dead Iranians.

I'm sick of the whole mess. It turns my stomach that those Brits folded like they did.
Ever heard of the USS PUEBLO?
Methinks thou art too hard on the Brits; you weren't there.

[C&CDean]

So, you would prefer that we were engaged with Iran right now as long as they had resisted?

Let me give you an analogy.

I go to the doctor and he says I am gonna need surgery some day. I say "how about today?" He says "well I don't know if it'd be smart to do it today, but some day." I say "why not today?" "Well we're safe right now, today, so let's just wait until THE ****ING TUMOR GROWS SO BIG IT ****ING KILLS YOU1111111111

Get it? We're going to have to face this cancer eventually. Why not now?

[mdklatt]

True, but I still wish they'd stuck to their rank, name, and serial number.

Why? What actual harm did they do by, you know, not dying?

[sooner_born_1960]

Gee Dean, did you have to bring cancer to this fun little party.

[TUSooner]

British military history is littered with them surrendering. Yorktown, Singapore, against John Paul Jones, etc. They just don't quit as a country that often
Today must be "Tuba-vision day." We just commeorated an American surrender in 1942. The point is that a bunch of "Armchair Rangers" posting on the innerweb from the comfort of home or office should execrcise restraint when telling guys in the field when and how to deal with a face full of automatic weapons.



(French surrender jokes are still OK, though. :D )

[royalfan5]

Today must be "Tuba-vision day." We just commeorated an American surrender in 1942. The point is that a bunch of "Armchair Rangers" posting on the innerweb from the comfort of home or office should execrcise restraint when telling guys in the field when and how to deal with a face full of automatic weapons.



(French surrender jokes are still OK, though. :D )
I just wanted to make fun of the British losing, and to see if anyone would jump on my statements. Carry on.

[mdklatt]

Get it? We're going to have to face this cancer eventually. Why not now?

Are we really prepared for another sustained conflict right now? Are we going to rotate unit into Iran as soon as they get home from Iraq or Afghanistan? Maybe we could sustain an air campaign, but to what end?

[TUSooner]

Why? What actual harm did they do by, you know, not dying?
They chicken-heartedly refused to give up their lives in order to provoke the military response that we think is overdue anyway.
What more do you want?

[C&CDean]

Are we really prepared for another sustained conflict right now? Are we going to rotate unit into Iran as soon as they get home from Iraq or Afghanistan? Maybe we could sustain an air campaign, but to what end?

I don't know if we are or not. But then again, I wasn't ready for my 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th kid either and I made out OK.

[SicEmBaylor]

They chicken-heartedly refused to give up their lives in order to provoke the military response that we think is overdue anyway.
What more do you want?
It has nothing to do with provoking a military response and everything to do with not disgracing yourself or your country.

Like I said, I haven't been in that situation....but it seems to be somewhat indignant for 13 sailors (and officers who should be held to a higher standard) after only 2 days. There are prisoners who have endured a hell of a lot worse than some of the mind games they were subjected to who didn't break.

[mdklatt]

They chicken-heartedly refused to give up their lives in order to provoke the military response that we think is overdue anyway.
What more do you want?

What's really sad is that even the friggin' Daily Show was ragging on them last night. Et tu, Jon Stewart?

[Okla-homey]

Ever heard of the USS PUEBLO?
Methinks thou art too hard on the Brits; you weren't there.

Pueblo was an unarmed vessel if memory serves. They were attacked by PRK warships and MiGs. One guy died and a bunch of them were wounded and they had nothing with which to return fire. These blokes OTOH, were on a mission and well-armed in their inflatable 007 zodiacs and gave up without even a whimper.

Pueblo was taken into port at Wonsan and the crew was moved twice to POW camps, with some of the crew reporting on release they were starved and regularly tortured while in North Korean custody. This treatment was allegedly worsened when the North Koreans realized that crewmen were secretly giving them "the finger" in staged propaganda photos. Ever seen those? Pretty cool cuz they didn't klnow about that whole middle finger dealio

Commander Lloyd M. Bucher, skipper of the Pueblo was tortured and put through a mock firing squad in an effort to make him confess. Eventually the Koreans threatened to execute his men in front of him, and Bucher relented. None of the Koreans knew English well enough to write the confession, so they had Bucher write it himself. They verified the meaning of his words, but failed to catch the pun when he said "We paean the North Korean state. We paean their great leader Kim Il Sung."

In short, no makey-nicey. Just a lot of p1ssed off sailors acting in the highest traditions of the Naval Service.

[TUSooner]

But Homey, as I recall, the Iranians got the jump on the Brits pretty good and it would have been a suicide shootout. I'm not knocking the PUEBLO sailors, either. Would I have liked to see the Brits shoot up some Iranian sailors? Sure thing. I still think we need to put some of those Iranian patrol boats on the bottom. But all I can say, is I hope none of the critics and second-guessers ever have to show what they would really do in similar circumstances.

[Okla-homey]

But Homey, as I recall, the Iranians got the jump on the Brits pretty good and it would have been a suicide shootout. I'm not knocking the PUEBLO sailors, either. Would I have liked to see the Brits shoot up some Iranian sailors? Sure thing. I still think we need to put some of those Iranian patrol boats on the bottom. But all I can say, is I hope none of the critics and second-guessers ever have to show what they would really do in similar circumstances.

If I've got a round left, its going downrange. Then, maybe I'd surrender. But that's just me. I'm old skool.

[Widescreen]

I wonder what message the Brit's lack of response sent to the Iranians? The essentially kidnapped British service personnel in Iraqi waters and they got away with it.

[Harry Beanbag]

Pueblo was an unarmed vessel if memory serves. They were attacked by PRK warships and MiGs. One guy died and a bunch of them were wounded and they had nothing with which to return fire. These blokes OTOH, were on a mission and well-armed in their inflatable 007 zodiacs and gave up without even a whimper.

Pueblo was taken into port at Wonsan and the crew was moved twice to POW camps, with some of the crew reporting on release they were starved and regularly tortured while in North Korean custody. This treatment was allegedly worsened when the North Koreans realized that crewmen were secretly giving them "the finger" in staged propaganda photos. Ever seen those? Pretty cool cuz they didn't klnow about that whole middle finger dealio

Commander Lloyd M. Bucher, skipper of the Pueblo was tortured and put through a mock firing squad in an effort to make him confess. Eventually the Koreans threatened to execute his men in front of him, and Bucher relented. None of the Koreans knew English well enough to write the confession, so they had Bucher write it himself. They verified the meaning of his words, but failed to catch the pun when he said "We paean the North Korean state. We paean their great leader Kim Il Sung."

In short, no makey-nicey. Just a lot of p1ssed off sailors acting in the highest traditions of the Naval Service.


Yes, the Pueblo was a unarmed research ship, not a maneuverable raft full of automatic weapons. If the Brits were in fact not in Iranian waters, which I don't know is true or not, they had the duty to do everything in there power to not be taken prisoner, especially if they were on some kind of secret mission.

If troops met by a larger force always said "**** it, we quit", then what's the point of having training, weapons, discipline, uniforms, or even the armed forces themselves?

[Harry Beanbag]

But Homey, as I recall, the Iranians got the jump on the Brits pretty good and it would have been a suicide shootout.


I don't know the exact circumstances of the incident, but since it was in the ocean I'm guessing they could see about 9 miles in all directions, assuming it was a clear day of course.

[Vaevictis]

If the Brits were in fact not in Iranian waters, which I don't know is true or not, they had the duty to do everything in there power to not be taken prisoner, especially if they were on some kind of secret mission.

Of course, we don't have any clue what their orders were. For all we know, those orders restricted what actions they could take in that situation.

(I agree that your statement is generally true, but without knowledge of the orders they were under, it's hard to say for sure.)

[Rogue]

I thought the craft commander asked for permission to fire and was denied?

[Harry Beanbag]

Of course, we don't have any clue what their orders were. For all we know, those orders restricted what actions they could take in that situation.

(I agree that your statement is generally true, but without knowledge of the orders they were under, it's hard to say for sure.)


If they weren't allowed to defend themselves, then the blame falls on their superiors. For all they knew, the minute they gave up their weapons they were condemned to have their heads sawed off on internet television. That is not acceptable.

[TUSooner]

Well, folks. It's time to confess ignorance. What I am reasonably sure of is that the Brits were not on a secret mission, but a routine type of vessel search for which no trouble was expected. I also recall some Brit officer saying that the Brits were out-gunned so that resistance was not practical.

I'm guessing that they were totally surprised under the circumstances - being on routine mission in international or Iraqi waters: The Iranians got away with it because it was so unjustified as to be unexpected. The Brits got suckered, in other words.

Like Homey, it aggravates me that the Brits apparently went like sheep to the slaughter, and that the Iranians got away with some chickensh*t.
But I'll draw my line at second guessing these guys, because they were at the sharp end, and because I don't know the whole story - especially what were their rules of engagment.

I'm pretty sure that had they been on a seek-and-destroy-type mission, rather than the sort of "traffic cop" deal I understand they were on, they would have resisted, to say the least.

I'm ready to be informed if anyone has more concrete information.

From now on, though, I don't think there should be any misgivings about fighting back, or fighting first, any time they start poking around. A couple of Iranian patrol boats burned and sinking might give them food for thought.

[Vaevictis]

If they weren't allowed to defend themselves, then the blame falls on their superiors. For all they knew, the minute they gave up their weapons they were condemned to have their heads sawed off on internet television. That is not acceptable.

No disagreement. Just saying that to jump on the sailors for a failure to do their duty is a bit of a stretch given that we have no real idea what their orders were. For all we know, they were ordered to stand down and allow themselves to be taken prisoner.

And if that's the case, then their bravery and devotion to duty should get some serious praise given that, for all they knew, the minute they gave up their weapons they were condemned to have their heads sawed off on internet television.

;)

EDIT: Although, I think we can all agree that somebody amongst the Brits behaved like a bitch -- we just don't really know who to put it on at this point.