All of this is way beside the point, as you are surely aware. You were constructing an argument in the context of a discussion of a certain topic: the treatment of British sailors by the Iranian military. You brought up certain facts which you claimed were relevant to a wider discussion of the logic of... something. That something was, presumably, the treatment of those sailors. And the point which you were apparently making was that if those sailors were in Iraqi waters, and if they were, as you appear to be suggesting, there illegally, then the actions of the Iranians who themselves would have had to venture (illegally, right?) into Iraqi territory to kidnap them would in some way be justified. So it seems that your original line of argument, the one you apparently now wish to retire, accepts a double standardit is illegal for the Brits to be in Iraqi waters but legal for the Iranians to not only be there, but to apply armed force against those British sailors, and broadcast pictures of them in detention all over the world. Given your willingness to entertain this double standard, your overall take on the situation strikes me as being, well, a little compromised, eh?
Why so anxious to drop your original point, ME? Has it become a little problematic? Let me instead counterpose a question to you: what do you think you'd be saying if the British had come across some Iranian sailors in Iraqui territorial waters and had forcibly detained them, taken tons of footage of them and produced some convenient videos showing the Iranians objecting to their own country's up-to-its-eyebrows involvement in the Iraqi civil war? And had, in the course of this detention, forced one of the soldiers to wear a cross around his neck in accord with the religious symbolism of the Church of England? Before we change the topic to one more convenient to you, why don't you follow out the `logic' of your own implicit argument from your previous post just a bit further?
