Freed RN Sailor's Statement

[Crazed Rabbit]

Apparently, the Iranians weren't so nice, the British were actually in Iraqi waters, and the Iranians came looking to kidnap some Brits:


"Yesterday we were reunited with our families after a 14 day ordeal that none of us will forget.

"On arrival at London Heathrow we were given the news that four UK servicemen and a civilian interpreter had been killed in Iraq. We would like to pass on our thoughts and condolences to the families of those who died serving their country.

"We would also like, as a group, to thank the staff of the British Embassy in Tehran and the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence for all their work in securing our release. We understand a great deal of effort has been going on behind the scenes to enable us to be returned to the UK and for that we are very grateful.

"We would also like to thank British Airways and London Heathrow for making our return so comfortable, quick and easy.

"Lastly I would like to thank the very many members of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines who have been working so hard over the last 2 weeks supporting our families and friends and for arranging our return to here."

Lt Carman went on: "On Friday 23 March I along with 14 of my colleagues were part of a routine boarding patrol. We deployed from HMS Cornwall in two Rigid Inflatable Boats and patrolled into an area south of the Shatt Al Arab waterway. This was meant to be a routine boarding operation and followed approximately 66 similar such boardings over the previous four weeks.

"We approached an unidentified merchant vessel that our supporting helicopter had identified as worth investigation. We carried out a completely compliant boarding with the full cooperation of the Master and crew. The RM secured the vessel and the RN element of the boarding party then arrived and commenced a thorough search of the ship. This was in complete accordance with our UN mandate and as part of an International Coalition. "We were equipped with Xeres true navigational equipment and hand held GPS for backup. The helicopter in support provided continuous navigational confirmation and we were also linked to HMS Cornwall who were monitoring our exact position at all times. Let me make it absolutely clear, irrespective of what has been said in the past, when we were detained by the IRG we were inside internationally recognised Iraqi territorial waters and I can clearly state we were 1.7 nautical miles from Iranian waters."

Capt Air continued: "It was during the boarding that we noticed the helicopter had returned to 'Mother', and we started calling the ship on VHF to find out why. A short while later two speed boats were spotted approaching rapidly about 400 metres away.

"I ordered everyone to make their weapons ready and ordered the boarding party to return to the boats. By the time all were back on board, two Iranian boats had come alongside. One officer spoke good English and I explained that we were conducting a routine operation, as allowed under a UN mandate.

"But when we tried to leave, they prevented us by blocking us in. By now it was becoming increasingly clear that they had arrived with a planned intent.

"Some of the Iranian sailors were becoming deliberately aggressive and unstable. They rammed our boat and trained their heavy machine guns, RPGs and weapons on us.

"Another six boats were closing in on us. We realised that our efforts to reason with these people were not making any headway. Nor were we able to calm some of the individuals down.

"It was at this point that we realised that had we resisted there would have been a major fight, one we could not have won with consequences that would have had major strategic impact. We made a conscious decision to not engage the Iranians and do as they asked. They boarded our boats, removed our weapons and steered the boats towards the Iranian shore."

Lt Carman said: "On arrival at a small naval base, we were blindfolded, stripped of all our kit and led to a room where I declared myself as the officer in charge and was introduced to a local commander.

"Two hours later we were moved to a second location and throughout the night were subjected to random interrogations. The questions were aggressive and the handling rough, but it was no worse than that.

"The following morning we were flown to Tehran and transported to a prison where the atmosphere changed completely. We were blindfolded, our hands were bound and we were forced up against a wall. Throughout our ordeal we faced constant psychological pressure.

"Later we were stripped and then dressed in pyjamas. The next few nights were spent in stone cells, approximately 8ft by 6ft, sleeping on piles of blankets. All of us were kept in isolation.

"We were interrogated most nights, and presented with two options. If we admitted we had strayed, we would be on a plane back to the UK soon. If we didn't we faced up to seven years in prison. We all at one time or another made a conscious decision to make a controlled release of non-operational information.

"We were kept in isolation until the last few nights when we were allowed to gather for a few hours together, in the full glare of Iranian media.

"On day 12 we were taken to a Governmental complex, blindfolded and then given three piece suits to wear. We watched the President's statement live on TV, and it was only then that we realised we were to be sent home.

"It goes without saying that there was a huge moment of elation. We were made to line up to meet the president, one at a time. My advice to everyone was not to mess this up now - we all wanted to get home.

"Afterwards - and still blindfolded - we were taken back to the hotel and for the first time met with UK representatives including the Ambassador before boarding our flight back to Heathrow."

Capt Air added: "In the short time we have been back we have not been able to see all that has been broadcast or written about our ordeal. We are aware that many people have questioned why we allowed ourselves to be taken in the first place and why we allowed ourselves to be shown by the Iranian authorities on television.

"Let me be absolutely clear, from the outset it was very apparent that fighting back was simply not an option. Had we chosen to do so then many of us would not be standing here today. Of that I have no doubts.

"The Iranian Navy did not turn up lightly armed; they came with intent, heavy weapons, and very quickly surrounded us. We were equipped, armed and had rules of engagement for boarding operations within Iraqi water.

"We were not prepared to fight a heavily armed force who it is our impression came out deliberately into Iraqi waters to take us prisoner. Reasoning with the Iranians was our only option. We tried. We did our utmost to de-escalate the situation, but our words fell on deaf ears. They had come with a clear purpose and were never going to leave without us.

"The Iranians are not our enemies. We are not at war with them. Our rules of engagement at that time stated that we could only use lethal force if we felt that we were in imminent danger of a loss of life. By the time the true intent of the Iranians had become apparent - and we could have legitimately fought back - it was too late for action.

"We were completely surrounded, and in addition to the loss of life, any attempted to fight back would caused a major international incident and an escalation of tension within the region. Our team had seconds to make a decision and we believe that we made the right decision. We still believe this was the right thing to do."

Lt Carman went on: "Some have questioned why HMS Cornwall did not provide greater protection for the team. HMS Cornwall is there to guard the vital oil platforms and command the coalition forces. She is also the platform by where boarding teams can launch from and patrol out. Not only should she not have been closer to us but she physically could not have been, the water is simply too shallow. We are all immensely proud to be members of her crew and look forward to rejoining her.

"I would just like to stress three points at this stage:

* "When taken by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard we were well inside Iraqi territorial waters.
* "The detention was clearly illegal and not a pleasant experience.
* "We as a group held out for as long as we though appropriate. We then complied up to a point with our captors.

"We remain Immensely proud of our team. Their courage and dignity throughout their illegal detention was in line with the best tradition of the service.

"Throughout our ordeal we have tried to remain very much a team. No one individual should be singled out but we are now very aware of the special treatment singled out to Faye Turney. Faye is a young mother and wife. She volunteered to join the Royal Navy and is very proud to continue to serve. She is a highly professional operator and we are incredibly proud to have her as part of our team.

"The fact she is a women has been used as a propaganda tool by Iran. This is deeply regrettable. She is coming to terms with what has happened to her and not only Faye and her family but all of us are finding the press focus very uncomfortable and difficult and specifically request that you give all of us the space and privacy we need when we return to our homes."

But it's still all big bad Britain's fault it's soldiers - fulfilling a UN mandated mission - were kidnapped by invading Iranians and psychologically tortured.

Crazed Rabbit

[Kralizec]

I agree with you otherwise, but since when do you consider such methods "torture" :inquisitive:

[Lemur]

Apparently this wasn't the first time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html) Iran tried to get some hostages.


U.S. soldiers from the 5th Squadron 73rd Cavalry 82nd Airborne were accompanying Iraqi forces on a routine joint patrol along the border with Iran, about 75 miles east of Baghdad, when they spotted two Iranian soldiers retreating from Iraqi territory back into Iran. A moment later, U.S. and Iraqi forces came upon a third Iranian soldier on the Iraqi side of the border, who stood his ground. As U.S. and Iraqi soldiers approached the Iranian officer and began speaking with him, a platoon of Iranian soldiers appeared and moved to surround the coalition patrol, taking up positions on high ground. At that point, according to the Army's statement, the Iranian captain told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that if they tried to leave they would be fired on. Fearing abduction by the Iranians, U.S. troops moved to go anyway, and fighting broke out.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I agree with you otherwise, but since when do you consider such methods "torture" :inquisitive:

I'm just repeating what the British soldiers said.


Apparently this wasn't the first time Iran tried to get some hostages.

Quite. I recall one pundit theorizing that Iran wanted soldiers of the enemy to parade around and show as weak to boost troop morale about possibliy fighting Americans. Seems we would have enough cause to go to war with that.

CR

[Kralizec]

I'm just repeating what the British soldiers said.

1) right...
2) the term "torture" isn't used once in the article.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh, yes, here's the link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=447110&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490


The men said the hostages were subjected to "constant psychological pressure" which Lt Carman described as amounting to "torture". While it stopped short of physical abuse, it helps explain their apparent willingness to appear in Iranian propaganda broadcasts before their release on Thursday.

Crazed Rabbit

[ICantSpellDawg]

1) right...
2) the term "torture" isn't used once in the article.


"Nah-ah! No you didn't!"




Oh, yes, here's the link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=447110&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490



Crazed Rabbit

"You got SERVED!"



I would'nt call it tourture, but many people think tourture is alot more lame than it actually is.

[HoreTore]

*hints at the interview of the squad leader stating that they were spying on Iran*

[Crazed Rabbit]

Observing from outside Iranian waters is different from spying. Are you saying that excuses the Iranians, who seemingly knew nothing about the interview or observing and just wanted hostages? What is your purpose in bringing up that interview?

Crazed Rabbit

[Brenus]

It is torture when the Iranian do it, it is not in Guantanamo…

[Ignoramus]

Just because the Americans might be doing it is no excuse for other nations to follow suit.

[Tribesman]

Oh look ....
Let me make it absolutely clear, irrespective of what has been said in the past, when we were detained by the IRG we were inside internationally recognised Iraqi territorial waters and I can clearly state we were 1.7 nautical miles from Iranian waters.

absolute bollox , I wonder if he was tortured or pressured into spouting that rubbish:laugh4: .....the US says ....Iraq's lack of a maritime boundary with Iran prompts jurisdiction disputes beyond the mouth of the Shatt al Arab in the Persian Gulf
There is no recognised boundary , there is no internationally recognised Iraqi territorial waters .
Simple isn't it .:yes:
Iraq lacks a maritime border that is recognised , without a border there are no recognised territorial waters .

If however the internationally recognised treaty(recognised by Britain , Iraq and the UN) for establishing maritime borders is used they were not within Iraqi waters .

So lets recap on a few facts .
The British admiralty says the British navy cannot operate in disputed waters , the waters are unquestionably disputed .
errrrr.....oh yes ....the important bit there for those who missed itthe British navy cannot operate in disputed waters :yes:

The British admiralty is undertaking a revue of its operations to establish exactly where it can and cannot operate withoutbreaking its own rules regarding disputed waters .
As a result of this fiasco bi-party talks are being resumed to attempt to establish what will become the internationally recognised maritime boundary between Iran and Iraq . Until such time as those talks are completed and the border is estabished there is no internationally recognised Iraqi teritorial waters in the Gulf

[Slyspy]

But also, then, no defined Iranian waters? So the Iranians had no legal right to detain the British personnel. What is good for the goose....

[Gawain of Orkeny]

absolute bollox , I wonder if he was tortured or pressured into spouting that rubbish .....the US says ....Iraq's lack of a maritime boundary with Iran prompts jurisdiction disputes beyond the mouth of the Shatt al Arab in the Persian Gulf
There is no recognised boundary , there is no internationally recognised Iraqi territorial waters .
Simple isn't it .
Iraq lacks a maritime border that is recognised , without a border there are no recognised territorial waters .


Thank you for showing that international law is worthless just like the UN. Just as it cant condemn the Palestinians because they dont have a nation. Its only as good as the nations partaking in it want it to be.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Apparently this wasn't the first time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html) Iran tried to get some hostages.


U.S. soldiers from the 5th Squadron 73rd Cavalry 82nd Airborne were accompanying Iraqi forces on a routine joint patrol along the border with Iran, about 75 miles east of Baghdad, when they spotted two Iranian soldiers retreating from Iraqi territory back into Iran. A moment later, U.S. and Iraqi forces came upon a third Iranian soldier on the Iraqi side of the border, who stood his ground. As U.S. and Iraqi soldiers approached the Iranian officer and began speaking with him, a platoon of Iranian soldiers appeared and moved to surround the coalition patrol, taking up positions on high ground. At that point, according to the Army's statement, the Iranian captain told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that if they tried to leave they would be fired on. Fearing abduction by the Iranians, U.S. troops moved to go anyway, and fighting broke out.

Good find, Lemur. This is the first time I've heard this. However, I hope this information was shared with the Brits before this recent hostage crisis. I'm still trying to figure out why the apparent complacency ocurred in providing security coverage for the Brit interdiction/search team, it's not like it's rocket science or new evolving tactics. Not to mention what got smuggled during the lapse. I think they need to step up these patrols and do it right.

Some people seem to think the Iranians are united in their foreign relation actions. They are not. There is a hardliner rogue element that makes it much more difficult for any of the moderates to have much success.

[Adrian II]

Not to mention what got smuggled during the lapse.Nothing, apparently. The Royal Navy said the merchant ship was transporting cars. The sailors had checked it the day before and found nothing amiss. What makes you think they were not telling the truth?

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

But also, then, no defined Iranian waters? So the Iranians had no legal right to detain the British personnel. What is good for the goose....

I suspect the have the rights since the Americans apparently have the right to abduct and torture (not light, Iranian-style torture, mind you) an Iranian diplomat.

Linky (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070407/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_diplomat)

[Fragony]

Ah he is Iranian so it must be true, excellent diplomat indeed.

[Grey_Fox]

Once they heard my response that Iran merely has official relations with the Iraqi government and officials, they intensified tortures and tortured me through different methods days and nights

Wonderfully vague, isn't he?

[HoreTore]

Observing from outside Iranian waters is different from spying. Are you saying that excuses the Iranians, who seemingly knew nothing about the interview or observing and just wanted hostages? What is your purpose in bringing up that interview?

Crazed Rabbit

It is very possible that the iranians knew that the ship was observing their movements, regarded this as aggressive, and wanted to send a message that they do not tolerate such things.

I'm quite sure any nation would have done the same.

[Grey_Fox]

And Iranian ships don't do the exact same thing? Come on, it's standard practice in every navy in the world.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Nothing, apparently. The Royal Navy said the merchant ship was transporting cars. The sailors had checked it the day before and found nothing amiss. What makes you think they were not telling the truth?

Considering search operations have been suspended since the abduction, and shipping traffic in the area has not...seems the perfect opportunity.

[Tribesman]

But also, then, no defined Iranian waters? So the Iranians had no legal right to detain the British personnel. What is good for the goose....
Nope , since for that to work the Iranians would have to declare the waters were not Iranian , they are claimed by Iran and Iraq thus they are disputed........so to remind those who are either exceptionally dense or don't like facts ....according to the British Admiralty which has authority over those sailors that were siezedthe British navy cannot operate in disputed waters .

Now then........ the Iranians can claim jurisdiction , the Iraqis can claim jurisdiction ,that is a matter of dispute .
The British cannot claim jurisdiction and cannot operate in areas of disputed soveriegnty .
If however they chose to intervene on one side and challenge the claimed jurisdiction of one party over the other party then that is (especially if it is an armed intervention to challenge territorial claims as it was) an act of aggression into the territorial claims of another country , which is an act of war(which the Iranians say is their justification for the action) .
Now the British could as a soveriegn state could go to war over the dispute between Iran and Iraq , though it would be helpful if the so called allies that they are intervening for actually went to war over the dispute .
But and that is a bloody bigBUT they cannot do that and cliam to be operating within the terms of the mandate that they claim to be operating under .
If they cannot claim the legitimate mandate for their actions then their actions have no legality at all .
End of story ....unless of course someone can surpass the British governments bull excrement and actually produce a map that is internationally recognised which defines Iraqs territorial waters , which would be quite an amazing feat since there are no recognised maritime borders for Iraq .


So since I am under warning not to insult peoples intelligence could I ask any future posters who wish to support the claim made by the British government to either
asupply an internationally recognised map defining the current maritime borders of Iraq and Iran .
bsupply a statement from the US government declaring that there is an internationally recognised maritime border between the States of Iran and Iraq .
csupply a declaration by Britain that it is abandoning its mandate and declaring that it is militarily intervening as a belligerant to establish Iraqi territorial claims , in other words a declaration of war between Britain and Iran .
dsupply a map of maritime borders that complies with international treaties that the UK and Iraq are signatories to .

Until then you havn't a leg to stand on ....simple isn't it .

Though to be fair to Syspy , yes in a way . Iran using militery force to assert its jurisdiction in disputed waters would be an act of aggression ...against Iraq .:yes: But that would have bugger all to do with the British Navy under the mandate it has....unless of course......
Has the Iranian backed Iraqi government taken this as a declaration of war , or would the fact that the incident was 7 miles from the Iranian coast but 9 miles from the Iraqi coast scupper their legal justification for a war as far as territorial waters are concerned ?
And has the British government signed on as a belligerant ally to the Iranian backed Iraqi government against Iran ?

[Adrian II]

Some people seem to think the Iranians are united in their foreign relation actions. They are not. There is a hardliner rogue element that makes it much more difficult for any of the moderates to have much success.It's the same on the American side where the rogue element is led by Cheney. The increasing U.S. support for terrorism in the region means that not only Iraq, but Iran too must be wary of what (or who) may be smuggled across it's borders. The Iranian show of force on the border mentioned by Lemur points to this. In the end I think the bomb attacks in Khuzestan triggered the arrest of the British sailors.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well here's the thing.

Iran provided two positions, one inside what were Iraqi waters and the other, once this was pointed out, within Iranian waters.

So in that instance they recognised the maritime border.

[Tribesman]

Iran provided two positions, one inside what were Iraqi waters and the other, once this was pointed out, within Iranian waters.

Ahem ....So since I am under warning not to insult peoples intelligence could I ask any future posters who wish to support the claim made by the British government to either
asupply an internationally recognised map defining the current maritime borders of Iraq and Iran .
bsupply a statement from the US government declaring that there is an internationally recognised maritime border between the States of Iran and Iraq .
csupply a declaration by Britain that it is abandoning its mandate and declaring that it is militarily intervening as a belligerant to establish Iraqi territorial claims , in other words a declaration of war between Britain and Iran .
dsupply a map of maritime borders that complies with international treaties that the UK and Iraq are signatories to .

Until then you havn't a leg to stand on ....simple isn't it .

There is no internationally recognised maritime boundary , therefore there are no internationally recognised waters , hence the claim by the British that the first position was in Iraqi waters is clearly bull excrement .
So Wigferth can you provide abcor dor are you doing a long john silver impression ?

[Adrian II]

Let me do a quick rerun for all campers who couldn't join us the first time.

Suppose that the British GPS reading was accurate, then it remains to be shown that the location indicated is, in effect, Iraqi territorial water. And in that respect, the demarcation provided by the British Ministry of Defense is not adequate.


https://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3003/shattalarab1kk2.gif (https://imageshack.us)

British demarcation

Punters may recall that the maritime border is 'disputed' and recognised as such by the UK and Iraq. In this case, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is applicable since both Britain and Iraq have acceded to it, Iran has recognized the Convention's demarcation principle in its 1993 Maritime Law and the Royal Navy patrol was taking place at Iraqi request and under UN auspices.



Article 15
Delimitation of the territorial sea between States with opposite or adjacent coasts
Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith.Hence the correct demarcation would include the shaded area in Iran's territorial waters:


https://img257.imageshack.us/img257/7643/shattalarab2tq3.gif (https://imageshack.us)

Adrian's demarcation

[Crazed Rabbit]

It is very possible that the iranians knew that the ship was observing their movements, regarded this as aggressive, and wanted to send a message that they do not tolerate such things.

I'm quite sure any nation would have done the same.

They would have invaded and kidnapped people observing them from outside their borders? No, actually, they wouldn't. I guess we haven't seen how deep the rabbit hole goes as far as people defending the Iranians.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Hence the correct demarcation would include the shaded area in Iran's territorial waters
No it wouldn't , since the outer boundary on your map is taken from the British map and the British map is wrong . The limit is 12 miles from land , the oil platforms the British used for drawing the outer boundary cannot be used .

Which actually puts HMS Cornwall in international waters not disputed waters , what a surprise , must be something to do with it not being allowed in disputed waters eh:yes: be a bit of a bugger if the Iranians seized a big ship instead of some rubber boats .

[Adrian II]

No it wouldn't , since the outer boundary on your map is taken from the British map and the British map is wrong . The limit is 12 miles from land , the oil platforms the British used for drawing the outer boundary cannot be used .Nah, it's 12 nautical miles out, which equals 22,2 kilometers. So the British-indicated outer boundary seems about right.
I think your demarcation is disputable. ~;)

[Tribesman]

I guess we haven't seen how deep the rabbit hole goes as far as people defending the Iranians.

And we havn't yet seen how far down the rabbit hole people will go attempting to defend things when they are unquestionably without any foundation and contrary to easily established and irrefutable facts .

It has nothing to do with defending the Iranians , it has every thing to do with saying the British are clearly lying .
So unless by some miracle you can show that the lies being told by the British are not lies then you clearly have nothing of any relevance to say on the subject .
Simple isn't it .
So .....a,b,c or d rabbit , any one will do .:yes:
Until then you havn't a leg to stand on ....simple isn't it .

[Sasaki Kojiro]

https://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1803/94866rtu4.jpg

https://img76.imageshack.us/img76/6594/emotawesomepm9.gif




I don't see what the big deal is. It seems like people trying to play with the headlines.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Tribesy -


according to the British Admiralty which has authority over those sailors that were siezed

The same British Admiralty that states, through these sailors, that they were 1.7 miles from Iranian waters?

Yeah, you're making a big deal of the 'disputed waters' thing. How does that justify the Iranians kidnapping, with planned intent, soldiers on a UN mission? IT certainly takes away any justification that the Iranians claimed.

That's the point of this, along with how the Iranians treated their captives.

Crazed Rabbit

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Rabbit:

Let me sum up Tribesy's argument -- he loves to argue from the letter of semi-obscure agreements without deigning to grace us with sources and links -- so that his point is clear for those not willing to do 20-30 minutes+ of research for each thread in a recreational forum.

1. The watery region in question is "disputed" with both Iraq & Iran claiming sovereignty.

2. Assuming the positions stated by the British were correct, they would be within waters CLAIMED by Iraq.

3. Since, however, the dispute has not been formally resolved, the British Navy should not have been operating -- even on a mission for the UN -- in waters that were "under dispute."

4. Since the navy can be presumed to have been aware of the status of these waters, the RN (and Blair's Government) are lying to attempt to provide legitimacy to what was an illegal and unsanctioned exercise in power.

5. Tribesy also implies, but does NOT state, that the Iranians (who also claim that stretch of wet), who have never formally signed on to the treaty that Britain and Iraq (UNCLOS) did but who practice a modified form of it under their own laws, were on better legal and moral grounds in acting as they did.

In truth, I don't think Tribesy is approving of the Iranians per se, as much as he is saying Blair is a lying sack of excrement and deserves to be humiliated for having brought this on his country.



I, on the other hand, am still underwhelmed with the Iranian way of doing business and would probably approve of an "escalating" response. My view of the world is a bit more paleolithic. Perhaps someday I will develop a forebrain.

[Tribesman]

The same British Admiralty that states, through these sailors, that they were 1.7 miles from Iranian waters?


Yep thats the one, the one that contradicts its own claims .
When it contradicts its own claims then to establish which of its claims are the truth and which are the the lie you must compare them with easily established and irrefutable facts .
The facts say the waters are disputed so no matter how many times they repeat the lie that it was in Iraqi waters , it is and will remain a lie .
So.....a,b,cord please .


That's the point of this, along with how the Iranians treated their captives.

Ah treatment of captives . :idea2:
Perhaps given your stated views on torture and detainment ,that would be a topic you should try to avoid , unless you want the H word to fit you like a well crafted snugly fitting glove .:yes:


Seamus gets it :2thumbsup: Simple isn't it ,

[Crazed Rabbit]

The facts say the waters are disputed so no matter how many times they repeat the lie that it was in Iraqi waters , it is and will remain a lie .


So, then, it would be a lie for Iran to claim they were in Iranian waters?

How does that justify the Iranians kidnapping, with planned intent, soldiers on a UN mission?

CR

[Tribesman]

So, then, it would be a lie for Iran to claim they were in Iranian waters?


Nope , that would be a matter of dispute :idea2: .
However it would be a lie for them to claim that they were in internationally recognised Iranian waters .:logic:


How does that justify the Iranians kidnapping, with planned intent, soldiers on a UN mission?

They cannot have been on a UN mission since the UN mission must be carried out in compliance with the resolution setting up the mission , as it was not in compliance with the resolution it wasn't a UN mission was it .
Simple isn't it .

Squirm and dodge as much as you like rabbit , on the issue you cannot avoid facts , you may not like the facts but it would be foolish to continue in a position that is clearly contrary to fact .
So while it is perfectly reasonable to criticise the Iranian action , it is absolutely impossible to justify the British action .
So far every attempt you have made is to condemn the Iranian action but justify the British action .
You have painted yourself into a corner :yes: and the only way out of the corner is to drop the attempts to justify the British action .

[KukriKhan]

"Let me be absolutely clear, from the outset it was very apparent that fighting back was simply not an option. Had we chosen to do so then many of us would not be standing here today. Of that I have no doubts...


This is the part that has struck me as not hitting the right chord. If the boat guys and 'Mother' actually thought that they were righteously in Iraqi waters, doing an authorized mission - only to be tactically overtaken by a numerically-superior "foreign" force (who, by definition, would be invaders) on a snatch-and-grab mission - I cannot imagine any responsible commander NOT immediately calling for all aid and assistance from all available allied air and sea assets to combat that invasion.

Instead, Brit weapons were lowered, helicopters hovered about, watching their mates being taken away, and the "invasion" into "Iraqi" waters went tactically unchallenged.

Something else had to be operating there. Presuming Tribesman is correct that the RN has a "no ops in disputed waters" rule, THAT certainly answers the questions I had about why such a feeble/non-response to a territorial incursion/kidnapping, that in more righteous circumstances would have warranted the application of swift and terrible force to defend Iraq territory and Brit sailors & marines.

Either that, or the entire chain of command of HMS Cornwall are dithering idiots, which I doubt sincerely.

[Tribesman]

Presuming Tribesman is correct that the RN has a "no ops in disputed waters" rule
No need for presumption , I quoted Adam West in the earlier topic , and he happens to be Batman so he should know :oops:
Or was it Fred West ? nope thats the murdering builder . Mae West ? nope that can't be right ? John West ? something fishy about that one .
Ah I get it . It was that British Navies first lord of the Admiralty geezer ......Admiral West .:2thumbsup:
Knew I would get there eventually:sweatdrop:

Now there happens to be a reason why they are not allowed in disputed waters , some might even say it is a really really sensible reason .
Conducting military operations to assert a territorial claim of jurisdiction just happens to be viewed as commiting an act of aggression on the party whose claims you contest .
Iran in this case said it was a ....errrrr... what was it again ??????
oh yeah ....an act of aggression . :yes:
Damn , this is just too simple , I wonder how some people cannot grasp it yet .

[KukriKhan]

Conducting military operations to assert a territorial claim of jurisdiction just happens to be viewed as commiting an act of aggression on the party whose claims you contest .

Sure. 'Course that didn't slow anyone down in March '03. Why the difference this time, do you suppose? Different country, different environment (water vs land)? Bad timing?

[Tribesman]

Why the difference this time, do you suppose?
I do like these easy questions:2thumbsup:
Despite the rhetoric the coilition know that they are overstretched and in a very precarious position (both militarily and economically) , they know they are buggered and they know the Iranians know they are buggered .
They willingly entered a game where the Iranians had rigged the deck and dealt them duff hands , they can keep on throwing their money into the pot pretending they are still in the game , but the Iranians know it is only a bluff.

[KukriKhan]

Some folks (don'cha love unattributed sources?) would argue that the entire Iraq adventure has been a "bluff" from the beginning.

So you see portents of a change in policy - at least on the part of the Royal Navy - from "We assume authority, because we can and should" to "We'd rather have better political & legal 'cover' for any action(s) we take", because of military and economic umm... conflicting interests?

How does such a change affect the negotiations over Iran's nuke capabilities? Or is this separate, you think?

edit to add: Meanwhile, speaking of economics, there's apparently money to be made, as well as Iranian-tailored suits:


"One of the hostages, Dean Harris, 30, an acting sergeant in the Royal Marines, told a Sunday Times reporter yesterday: “I want £70,000 [$137,000]. That is based on what the others have told me they have been offered. I know Faye has been offered a heck more than that. I am worth it because I was one of only two who didn’t crack.”


USA Today (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/04/british_sailors_1.html)

[Tribesman]

KukriKhan Some folks (don'cha love unattributed sources?)

wll I could seethatas a slight onmy posts on this subject , but since I have manged to name(but not link of course) ll sources for any ciontentious information thenI must assume that it isinstead an attack on those who cannot provide anyinformation of any substance whatsoever to support their position, naughty boy Kukri ,how dare you question te intelligence of thosewhose posts make no sense

[KukriKhan]

So... you don't see this affair and how it was handled as a change in policy? OK.

[Kralizec]

Oh, yes, here's the link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=447110&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490



Crazed Rabbit

That's not the article you first quoted (wich apparently came from the NY times? :inquisitive: )
I checked a number of other news sites (including FOX news) and it appears the only one that has the RN sailors' quoted with "torture" is the Daily Mail.

Do you believe that the sailors' treatment qualifies as torture? If so, why don't waterboarding and other tactics employed by the USA qualify as such?

[Tribesman]

So... you don't see this affair and how it was handled as a change in policy? OK.

Yep , no change in policy , same policy as before , the only possible changes have been the continuing absolute insistance that what are clearly lies are truth (which didn't happen in '04) , and the insistance that no deal was done .
oh ....plus giving the media a bigger feeding frenzy and letting the sailors and marines sell their crap to the highest bidder .


it appears the only one that has the RN sailors' quoted with "torture" is the Daily Mail.

Really ? I take it "concerned of Tunbridge Wells" might come into play there :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Do you believe that the sailors' treatment qualifies as torture? If so, why don't waterboarding and other tactics employed by the USA qualify as such?
Shhhhhhhhh , be quiet will you .....Ah treatment of captives .
Perhaps given your stated views on torture and detainment ,that would be a topic you should try to avoid , unless you want the H word to fit you like a well crafted snugly fitting glove .
you must avoid suggesting the H word , since that is seen as a personal attack:yes:

[Crazed Rabbit]

They cannot have been on a UN mission since the UN mission must be carried out in compliance with the resolution setting up the mission , as it was not in compliance with the resolution it wasn't a UN mission was it .
Simple isn't it .

Well, it might be - if they were in disputed waters. Yes, we know they haven't signed a treaty detailing the maritime border, but the boundary that matters, the boundary that applies, was agreed upon in a 1975 treaty and confirmed by Saddam in 1990.

This boundary detailed land boundaries. And, because of the tidal flats, it applies to the area where the Iranians captured the British.

And as an Easter present, here's the link:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/resources/iran-iraq/

It's got a nifty little map.

This, of course, means that the waters the British were operating in were not disputed, they were in Iraqi waters, and thus had no restrictions imposed by British Admiralty rules or any UN resolution.

So, it turns out Iran was, unsurprisingly, in the wrong, and looking for hostages.

Not that I see how operating in disputed water makes you eligible for a 2 week imprisonment.


That's not the article you first quoted

Indeed.


Do you believe that the sailors' treatment qualifies as torture?
No.


(don'cha love unattributed sources?)
They just make my day.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Nice try Rabbit , but no , since you have clearly got some knowledge of the '75 treaty (what with providing a picture and everything) :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: you will undoubtably know which sections of the treaty clearly state that the picture you provided is without foundation:book:
hmmmm....try again eh :idea2:
Now you could argue that the tidal flats could constitute a fulfillment of d , but with them being tidal flats which are ever shifting that would be impossible without an a bi-party or international declaration , no such declaration exists so they remain disputed(thats why the unfulfilled clause from the '75 treaty is important) .
Oh and BTW Iran never ratified the return to that treaty did they.


This, of course, means that the waters the British were operating in were not disputed
Oh dear ...this is really getting quite monotomous, there is no established internationally recognised maritime boundary between Iran and Iraq , it is disputed , just ask your government . Just as the Iranian Maritime boundary in the straits of Homuz is disputed .


But hey , fair play to ya Rabbit , at least you tried~:cheers:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Now you could argue that the tidal flats could constitute a fulfillment of d , but with them being tidal flats which are ever shifting that would be impossible without an a bi-party or international declaration , no such declaration exists so they remain disputed(thats why the unfulfilled clause from the '75 treaty is important) .
No, actually not. Tidal flats are recognized as part of a nation's land territory.
Unstable -perhaps. But according to the experts:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/news/boundary_news/?itemno=5298&rehref=%2Fibru%2F&resubj=Boundary+news%20Headlines


The unstable nature of the coastline of the northern Gulf means that it is possible that Iran has a different interpretation of the median line than Iraq, but it would need a dramatic reconfiguration of the coastline marked on current charts for the median line to run to the west of the point at which the incident occurred.

Given the charts and such, any Iranian claims are going to be short on truth.


Oh and BTW Iran never ratified the return to that treaty did they.

Doesn't matter. Once signed, it remains valid until both parties agree to a new treaty.



Oh dear ...this is really getting quite monotomous, there is no established internationally recognised maritime boundary between Iran and Iraq , it is disputed , just ask your government

And we're not talking about maritime boundaries, are we? The land boundary is recognized, and that's where the British were.

Crazed Rabbit

[Geoffrey S]

Looks like the MoD is taking its distance, what with allowing those involved to make themselves unpopular with interviews for cash.

[Tribesman]

Doesn't matter. Once signed, it remains valid until both parties agree to a new treaty.

Nope . It was nullified ,, the return to the treaty is only valid once the conditions of the treaty have been fulfilled . They have not been fulfilled have they . It was one of the problems they ran into in '04 when the sailors were taken

Given the charts and such, any Iranian claims are going to be short on truth.

Nope , they are going to be a matter of dispute .


And we're not talking about maritime boundaries, are we? The land boundary is recognized, and that's where the British were.


Oh dear , thats really getting quite desperate isn't it .
Let me just point out to you one really major flaw with the link you are working from source UKHO charts:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What does the convention say about whose large scale charts are needed to be recognised?
Is the UK the coastal State in question? :no:
Nice try Rabbit , I am so glad you are actualy putting some effort into this , but you really must try harder.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Tribesman - everything you say contradicts the International Boundaries Research Unit from Durham University.

So forgive me if I believe them instead of your assertions.

CR

[Tribesman]

Tribesman - everything you say contradicts the International Boundaries Research Unit from Durham University.
I suggest you read it again Rabbit , and read what I have written .
Especially concerning the major flaw and the status of the '75 treaty .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Whether the point is legally considered land or territorial sea, it is difficult to see how Iran could legitimately lay claim to sovereignty over it. The point lies on the Iraqi side of both the agreed land boundary and the median line between the two coasts - and the law of the sea requires that, in the absence of agreement on the territorial sea boundary, neither state may extend its territorial sea beyond the median line unless historic title or other special circumstances justify doing so. Iran has never argued that such circumstances apply with regard to its boundary with Iraq. The unstable nature of the coastline of the northern Gulf means that it is possible that Iran has a different interpretation of the median line than Iraq, but it would need a dramatic reconfiguration of the coastline marked on current charts for the median line to run to the west of the point at which the incident occurred.

:rolleyes:

CR

[Tribesman]

Roll your eyes as much as you like Rabbit , read what you just posted :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
then work this out....
Let me just point out to you one really major flaw with the link you are working from source UKHO charts
What does the convention say about whose large scale charts are needed to be recognised?
Is the UK the coastal State in question?

Nice try , but no cigar:yes:
Here try to work out why this bit from the website is really funny.....No maritime boundary has ever been agreed between Iran and Iraq. However, the boundary in the Shatt al Arab river agreed in 1975 (1) extends to the mouth of the river at the astronomical lowest low-water line, which is located nearly 10 nautical miles seaward of the high-water line that most maps show as the coastline. The southern terminal point of the agreed boundary lies just under 1.7 nautical miles northeast of the position at which the British Ministry of Defence claimed that incident on 23 March took place.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: what years is it ? and what is the status of that '75 agreement:idea2:
Note also these wordsthat most maps show whose maps would have to be agreed for the area to not be disputed?
Errrrrrr.....thats a hard one isn't it , it wouldn't by any chance be the coastal state involved would it :yes:


So forgive me if I believe them instead of your assertions.

It helps if you actually read and analyse the things that you say you want to believe .:oops:

[Adrian II]

Tribesman, you can take a horse to disputed water but you can't make it drink.

[Slyspy]

Are we done with the measuring of penis size?

[Tribesman]

Tribesman, you can take a horse to disputed water but you can't make it drink.
Yeah , well it might be fun to point out to Rabbit that the director of the research unit whose work he seems fond of says that ......errrr....."it would be inadvisable to categorically state that the incident took place in Iraqi territory due to the disputed nature of that territory" .
But I wouldn't want to quote anything too complicated to easily understand .:eyebrows:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Note also these wordsthat most maps show whose maps would have to be agreed for the area to not be disputed?
Errrrrrr.....thats a hard one isn't it , it wouldn't by any chance be the coastal state involved would it

And what makes you think they would be so radically different from British charts (and I suspect the British know a bit about charts) so as to alter the underlying premise? :laugh4: :book: :idea2:

Kind of puts a damper on your huge font size declarations that this happened, without doubt, in disputed waters, doesn't it? :laugh4: :laugh4:

Tell me tribesy - how does any of this justify Iranians kidnapping UN soldiers? Iran really has no legitimate sovereignty claim over where they captured the soldiers.

CR

[Tribesman]

I see you didn't like me quoting the director whose infomation you thought supported your position .:tomato2:


Kind of puts a damper on your huge font size declarations that this happened, without doubt, in disputed waters, doesn't it?
Not in the slightest , you see there is this slight problem that you can not or will not understand . It really is very very simple to understand , in fact it is simplicity itself , but as someone noted .


you can take a horse to disputed water but you can't make it drink.:yes:


Tell me tribesy - how does any of this justify Iranians kidnapping UN soldiers? Iran really has no legitimate sovereignty claim over where they captured the soldiers.

well all that has been gone through already , but unfortunately you are unable to comprehend .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

well all that has been gone through already , but unfortunately you are unable to comprehend.

A simple "I think that's already been answered above." Would have made your point equally well and avoided the sneering tone of the original.

[Slyspy]

Sneering has become a dominant feature of much of Tribesman's input of late, which is a shame.

[ajaxfetish]

It is indeed. He has a lot to offer to our discussions here, but it's hard for me to respect his input as it is. I tend to stop reading his posts when the tone gets to me too much, and I fear I may be missing something important.

Ajax

[Tribesman]

A sneering tone , well the tone I would have thought was more appropriate when someone is trying in the face of irrefutable facts to deny the facts would be more than a sneering tone .

I mean fair play to Rabbit , he tried , he tried very hard , but it was a bit of an uphill struggle since he would have had to show that the official stated political positions on this issue of every party involved was false and without foundation (not to be confused with the public claims made by the British during the episode).


So.....would this be less sneering ?

And what makes you think they would be so radically different from British charts (and I suspect the British know a bit about charts) so as to alter the underlying premise?
Unless they are charts are from the coastal state in question and are internationally recognised they are completely irrelevant , the matter remains disputed .


Kind of puts a damper on your huge font size declarations that this happened, without doubt, in disputed waters, doesn't it?
Nope the fact remains and will remain as a fact until the dispute is resolved by all parties involved , the waters are and remain disputed .


Tell me tribesy - how does any of this justify Iranians kidnapping UN soldiers? Iran really has no legitimate sovereignty claim over where they captured the soldiers.
Please keep up , for them to have been UN soldiers they would have had to operating in compliance with the UN mandate . It cannot have been a kidnap it was an arrest under disputed circumstances in disputed territory . The legitimacy of the soveriegnty claims is disputed .
All this has been written before , perhaps it would be wise to check and accept facts as facts even if you don't like them .

Any better?

[Vladimir]

It is indeed. He has a lot to offer to our discussions here, but it's hard for me to respect his input as it is. I tend to stop reading his posts when the tone gets to me too much, and I fear I may be missing something important.

Ajax

Huh. All I hear is mumbles. :shrug:

[Tribesman]

Huh. All I hear is mumbles.
yeah well it has picked up quite a bit lately , especially since the waters have cleaned up and its attracted investment , its a great place for ~:wave: ~:wave: ~:wave: ~:wave: ~:wave: ~:wave: ~:wave: , that may be why your hear of it more now:yes:

[Adrian II]

yeah well it has picked up quite a bit lately , especially since the waters have cleaned up and its attracted investment , its a great place for ~:wave: ~:wave: ~:wave: ~:wave: ~:wave: ~:wave: ~:wave: , that may be why your hear of it more now:yes:They say it's the line-up of great restaurants on the boulevard what did it. That new planting of rhododendrons looks fine as well.

Say hello to Dylan for me. ~:wave:

[Tribesman]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Those rhododendrons are a bad idea though ,considering the prevailing onshore . They spread like anything and are really difficult to eradicate , something to do with each leaf having a seperate root system or something like that .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A sneering tone , well the tone I would have thought was more appropriate when someone is trying in the face of irrefutable facts to deny the facts would be more than a sneering tone .

I mean fair play to Rabbit , he tried , he tried very hard , but it was a bit of an uphill struggle since he would have had to show that the official stated political positions on this issue of every party involved was false and without foundation (not to be confused with the public claims made by the British during the episode).


So.....would this be less sneering ?

Unless they are charts are from the coastal state in question and are internationally recognised they are completely irrelevant , the matter remains disputed .


Nope the fact remains and will remain as a fact until the dispute is resolved by all parties involved , the waters are and remain disputed .


Please keep up , for them to have been UN soldiers they would have had to operating in compliance with the UN mandate . It cannot have been a kidnap it was an arrest under disputed circumstances in disputed territory . The legitimacy of the soveriegnty claims is disputed .
All this has been written before , perhaps it would be wise to check and accept facts as facts even if you don't like them .

Any better?

Yes, distinctly. You toss in a jab or two, but keep the rejoinders on point and very clearly directed to the points Rabbit made. Kudos.

[Vladimir]

Yes, distinctly. You toss in a jab or two, but keep the rejoinders on point and very clearly directed to the points Rabbit made. Kudos.

I agree. A moment of clarity. :barrel: :2thumbsup:

[Devastatin Dave]

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

:laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

When I saw you posting this Dave, I briefly wondered if Faye was showing up on page 3.....

Good news bit.

[drone]

When I saw you posting this Dave, I briefly wondered if Faye was showing up on page 3.....
I had the same thought. "Is this link going to be safe-for-work?" :creep:

[Devastatin Dave]

I keep my private stash... private.:beam:

[Adrian II]

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

:laugh4:Imagine what she would have said to Ahmedinejad if the Sun had given her another 100.000 quid.

The Royal Navy will be so proud of her.

[Devastatin Dave]

Imagine what she would have said to Ahmedinejad if the Sun had given her another 100.000 quid.

The Royal Navy will be so proud of her.
Ouch...

[Ice]

Any better?

Much

[ajaxfetish]

Any better?
:bow:

Ajax