Iran Captures and Holds British Sailors - Page 6

Originally Posted by segovius

5) They translate 'Zionism must be destroyed' as 'wipe Israel off the map'.

Originally Posted by vinea

So should religious zealots of every stripe. But I don't see you calling for the destruction of extremist moslems. Just Jewish/Isreali ones.

Heh...he's an american plant. That must be the absolute dumbest thing I've seen on this board...you win!

Vinea

Originally Posted by AsLan^

Just say the US does go to war with Iran.

What do you think the rest of the Arab world will do?

Originally Posted by AsLan^

Just say the US does go to war with Iran.

What do you think the rest of the Arab world will do?

Originally Posted by mydo

I found a rare picture of segovius working at his computer.

Originally Posted by southside grabowski

I don't see him as the buisness suit type.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

EVERYONE... READ THIS ARTICLE

It clearly demonstrates that Downing Street and the MoD DELIBERATELY FAKED MAPS in order to call Iran on this.

Where's V?

Originally Posted by OfficerDigby

Doesn't say that at all. Can ye read English OK? ;-). Try reading the article an not reacting to the headline. LOL!

I have news for you. Those boundaries are fake. They were drawn up by the MoD. They are not agreed or recognised by any international authority.

Originally Posted by OfficerDigby

Doesn't say that at all. Can ye read English OK? ;-). Try reading the article an not reacting to the headline. LOL!

The Navy states the 14 men and one woman were on a routine patrol in rigid inflatables off Iraqi shores - Iran insists they were in its waters illegally.

Read Craig Murray's blog here

A few hours after the 15 were seized, Cdre Lambert said: 'There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in their territorial waters. The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated.'

Another day, another chance for Iran to heap on the humiliation
Iran crisis is Blair's true legacy
Family relieved by Iran footage

And his predecessor in command of the task force, Commodore Peter Lockwood of the Royal Australian Navy, said last October: 'No maritime border has been agreed upon by the countries.'

Both officers told the truth. It is the burial of this truth by No 10 spin doctors, and Tony Blair's remark that he is 'utterly certain' the incident took place within Iraqi territorial limits, that has escalated this from an incident to a crisis. Blair is being fatuous.

How can you be certain which side of a boundary you are when that boundary has never been drawn?

I am best known as the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, but from 1989 to 1992 I headed the Foreign Office's maritime section. This included responsibility for territorial sea claims and for negotiating our own maritime boundaries. The expertise of the Royal Navy was invaluable.

For eight months I also worked with Royal Naval and Defence Intelligence Service personnel in the Embargo Surveillance Centre, a secret unit operating 24 hours a day from an underground command centre in Central London to prevent Iraqi attempts at weapons procurement.

We analysed information from intelligence and other sources, and could instruct Royal Naval craft in the Gulf to board and inspect individual ships. I was responsible for getting the political clearance for operations just like the one now in question, in this exact location. So I know what I'm talking about.

There is no agreed boundary in the Northern Gulf, either between Iran and Iraq or between Iraq and Kuwait. The Iran-Iraq border has been agreed inside the Shatt al-Arab waterway, because there it is also the land border. But that agreement does not extend beyond the low tide line of the coast.

Even that very limited agreement is arguably no longer in force. Since it was reached in 1975, a war has been fought over it, and ten-year reviews - necessary because waters and sandbanks in this region move about dramatically - have never been carried out.

But what about the map the Ministry of Defence produced on Tuesday, with territorial boundaries set out by a clear red line, and the co-ordinates of the incident marked in relation to it?

I have news for you. Those boundaries are fake. They were drawn up by the MoD. They are not agreed or recognised by any international authority.

To put it at its most charitable, they are a potential boundary. It is accepted practice, where no boundary exists, to work by a rule-of-thumb idea of where a boundary, based on a median line between the two coasts, might be.

But to elevate that to a hard and fast boundary, and then base a major international incident on being a few hundred yards one side or the other, is out of order.

Negotiating a maritime boundary is horribly complicated. To set a median line you agree a series of triangulation points on both coastlines and do a geometric triangulation exercise to find a line running out from the coast.

Of course, both sides will argue about which triangulation points on the coast to use. You are allowed, for example, to draw a line across a bay entrance and use that as the coast, but there is plenty of room for the other side to argue over where that line is drawn.

That is only the start. For territorial seas you start at the low tide mark and uninhabited rocks and sandbanks count.

There is huge room for argument - ownership of a useless sandbank is not necessarily a settled thing. Then it really gets complex. What if the sandbank appears only at low tide or moves? In this area of the Gulf, sands shift endlessly.

It is, in short, impossible to say where a real, negotiated or adjudicated Iran-Iraq boundary might eventually lie. It is also why the instinct of both the Foreign Office and MoD was to play this quietly and negotiate our people back.

But the No10 spin doctors stepped in, seeing a propaganda opportunity to portray Blair as fighting evil Iranians.

Navy and Foreign Office experts were horrified at the notion of publishing that map.

In doing so we entrenched Blair's ridiculous boast that our 15 Navy personnel were definitely in Iraqi territorial seas, and claimed the right to dictate Iran's boundary.

It's not surprising Iraq backed British claims - the map is favourable to them. But it makes compromise on the captives very difficult.

Of course, the Iranians equally cannot say unilaterally that these are their territorial waters, and act as if they owned them.

In disputed waters it behoves everyone to act with caution and respect. Plainly the Iranians are not doing that.

None of this vindicates Iran's aggressive behaviour in holding the captives or the so-called confessions.

For Iran to detain the British sailors in these circumstances was provocative and bellicose.

To hold them for a few hours could have been taken as a legitimate, if over forceful way, of indicating their claim to the disputed waters in which the British personnel boarded a neutral vessel.

But Iranian behaviour in the past few days has tipped over into the plain illegal and indefensible.

However I have no doubt Blair is delighted at last to have a Middle East issue with popular support before May's elections.

Yes, Iran has a bad government that is behaving stupidly. But perhaps it is not alone. Both sides have to climb down. We have to state that no agreed border exists and that we had no intention of straying into Iranian waters.

The Iranian government should let our people go immediately. That is the way out of this mess for both sides.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

This issue is without a doubt exactly what George Bush and Tony Blair wanted. They needed an international incident just like this to increase the possibility of starting the war over which they have they have been obsessing.

EVERYONE... READ THIS ARTICLE

I am quite amazed that the Daily Mail, a UK newspaper with a usual content of "trivia and pabulum", has decided to publish this piece by the former Chief of the (UK) Foreign Office's Maritime Section. It clearly demonstrates that Downing Street and the MoD DELIBERATELY FAKED MAPS in order to call Iran on this.

Originally Posted by OfficerDigby

Attack of the teenage one-eyed mutant AI trolls. OK guys. Let's post teh whole article in order not to cherry pick.


Now I disagree with what you say here


Okey cokey? ;-)

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Actually, I think this is the incident you and the other left winger conspiracy wack-a doos have been waiting for. That's what I think.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

That's why I posted the link, in order for people to read the entire article. Duh!
You ignored the part of the article that you find uncomfortable, or inconvenient, ie the factual part re. the Iraq-Iran maritime boundaries being faked, in order to "justify" the UK government's stand.

Diplomacy

Earlier, Britain signalled it was ready to defuse the crisis by discussing operations in the Gulf with Tehran, and by stating the Royal Navy would never enter Iranian waters without seeking permission.

The offer was described by senior Ministry of Defence officials as a "confidence-building" measure, but would not involve an apology, nor acceptance of the claim the patrol was in Iranian waters when captured by Revolutionary Guards on March 23. "We are anxious that this matter be resolved as quickly as possible, and that it be resolved by diplomatic means, and we are bending every single effort to that," the defence secretary, Des Browne, told BBC TV. "It's not my intention to go through the detail of that blow by blow, and it wouldn't be appropriate to do that, but we are in direct bilateral communication with the Iranians."

The bid comes at a time of hardening attitudes in Tehran, where hundreds yesterday abruptly ended a mood of public apathy towards the crisis by demonstrating outside the British embassy. Several, mostly volunteers and pro-government students, threw rocks and firecrackers Riot police fired tear gas

"If Britain had apologised initially it would have solved everything," said Saeed Abutaleb, a leading fundamentalist MP. "But now the matter has dragged on so long I don't think the Iranian government and nation will be satisfied with an apology, and [the sailors] might be put on trial. "Britain should pay attention to what happened to the American hostages, who were kept until Iran had achieved what it wanted," he told the Guardian. "We have the experience of that [1979] embassy siege, and we are ready for it again."

The British initiative follows a diplomatic note from Tehran on Friday which was unusual in not demanding an apology for any alleged incursion, instead seeking a guarantee against future infringements. The Foreign Office replied the same day via the embassy in Tehran.

Defence sources said yesterday there was "no question of negotiations" for the crew's release. Britain would instead simply explain how it conducts its naval operations in the region. The sources also played down newspaper reports on Sunday that a senior naval officer would fly to Tehran to explain the British position.

The "confidence-building" initiative would consist of an explanation to Tehran about the Royal Navy's mission in the northern Gulf and operating procedures when crew stop and board vessels suspected of smuggling weapons to insurgents or of planning attacks against Iraqi oil terminals, officials said. It would involve a discussion of the precautions taken to avoid straying into Iranian waters.

To resolve the crisis, Britain is receiving help from Syria, among other Arab states, the Guardian has learned. Though bilateral relations have been poor, diplomatic sources said Damascus appears to be trying to help. It is one of the closest to Iran, with which it has a defensive pact.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

That's why I posted the link, in order for people to read the entire article. Duh!
You ignored the part of the article that you find uncomfortable, or inconvenient, ie the factual part re. the Iraq-Iran maritime boundaries being faked, in order to "justify" the UK government's stand.

Originally Posted by OfficerDigby

What, stand?

Iran has said the UK govt. should apologize for putting UK seamen in Iranian waters. The UK responds and says that they were in Iraqi water's according to the maps they use.

You imply that the article states that the maps were made up to cause an incident.

If there are 'no maps' how can Iran demand apology for UK crossing the border?

You've implied that that UK govt. has set this up as a pretext to war, and faked the maps carte blanche. I will admit Blair has taken the wrong approach to resolve this issue. I think he knows it now. It would be appreciated if US would just STFU on this, so we can fix it thanks boys. (Particularly the Ape-man currently acting as President).

As for your over-arching interpretation of events based on a very small part of a blog that actually gives a reasoned opinion critical of both sides. I would suggest you put your other eye back-in you one-eyed troll boy.

Originally Posted by segovius

You know what? Such is the density of the winger RDF (apparently it is the most impenetrable solid mass in the known universe) that I'm going to say that again:



One more time:



Link from unimpeachable news source

Originally Posted by Tulkas

And if the inquiry finds that the Brits were not in Iranian waters, will you then accept that, or will they simply be liars again? In the end, regardless of what they say or do, they will be at fault, obviously.

Originally Posted by segovius

You know what? Such is the density of the winger RDF (apparently it is the most impenetrable solid mass in the known universe) that I'm going to say that again:

One more time:

Link from unimpeachable news source

Originally Posted by segovius

You miss the point - inquiries are held when issues are in doubt.

A week ago there was 'no doubt' and things were 'clear', 'unequivocal' and 'proved'.

Now we have some doubt.

It's progress but let's take one step at a time.

Originally Posted by segovius

Quote:
But the Ministry of Defence hinted for the first time it may have made mistakes surrounding the incident. An inquiry has been commissioned to explore 'navigational' issues around the kidnapping and aspects of maritime law.
You know what? Such is the density of the winger RDF (apparently it is the most impenetrable solid mass in the known universe) that I'm going to say that again:

Quote:
But the Ministry of Defence hinted for the first time it may have made mistakes surrounding the incident. An inquiry has been commissioned to explore 'navigational' issues around the kidnapping and aspects of maritime law.
One more time:

Quote:
But the Ministry of Defence hinted for the first time it may have made mistakes surrounding the incident. An inquiry has been commissioned to explore 'navigational' issues around the kidnapping and aspects of maritime law.
Link from unimpeachable news source[/URL]

Originally Posted by Tulkas

So then you are obviously accusing the Iranian leadership of faking their borders too, right?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I could. Not only did they capture them illegally, they violated their rights under the Geneva Conventions, which clearly apply to these soldiers. Secondly, you and the other wingers can blather on about the border if you'd like, but the vast majority of the world knows where the boundry is. Iran likely knows where it is too, as they changed the coordinates after it was shown the Brits were in Iraqi waters.

Iran's conduct is outrageous. From their open refusal to obey UN Mandates to actually taking hostages and then parading them around on TV, coercing and televising "confessions" from them.

How long will the world tolerate this rogue state? Or, will you continue to make excuses for them and claim it is all the Bush Administration's lust for war that is driving things?

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

I second that.

As long as Gitmo exists, the US and any ally who fail to condemn Gitmo are in no position to argue with detaining anybody.

Kidnapping people in foriegn countries without those countries' permission; holding prinsoners in secret "prisons" in various countries (aka, holding hostages is hideouts); smuggling prisoners between countries without the proper documentation (human trafficking); holding people without trial and without access to counsel for years on end, not to mention no outside contact (human rights? What rights?).

Mmm...

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

No, this is...

US jet fighters violate Iran's airspace: military

"US warplanes have violated Iranian airspace in the southwestern oil-rich province of Khuzestan, Al-Alam Arabic language news satellite channel quoted a local military chief as saying on Sunday.

"Two US aircraft trespassed into Iranian airspace northwest of (the southwestern port city of) Abadan before flying southwest into Iraq," a local Revolutionary Guards commander in Abadan identified only as Colonel Aqili was quoted as saying on the channel's website.

"The planes left white vapour trails, attracting the local people's attention," he said, without elaborating on when the alleged incursion took place.

The incident happened close to Iran's border with Iraq, where the US and British military are deployed in force.

The US is in a mounting diplomatic confrontation with Iran over its uranium enrichment and Western suspicions that Tehran is bent on developing nuclear weapons, a charge vehemently denied by Iran.

Washington says it wants a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff, but it has never ruled out a military option.

Tensions have spiked since Iran's seizure on March 23 of 15 British marines and sailors for allegedly entering Iranian waters.

Iran says the Britons illegally entered its territorial waters while London insists they were in Iraqi waters on a anti-smuggling patrol under UN mandate."



The Americans ur comin' violating ur airspace!