So who's bullshitting? Iran or UK... The Poll!

[Andy the Don]

They've been holding 5 Iranian troops for months for the same reasons Iran is giving for having arrested the British troops. Fucking hypocrites already have the bargaining chips if they want to use them.

The Iranians taken by the Americans in Kurdistan were not ordinary troops they were senior officers of the Quds detachment of the Revolutionary Guards. The elite forces of Iran. That would be like members of UK/US special forces being captured holed up in a consulate in a provincial city in Iran.

 

[bluestreak]

the truth doesn't matter really... it's the actions that count...

 

[Fruitloop]

Interesting theory might also give a hint as to the possible get out clause/u-turn by the UK gov; "We were looking at the wrong maps" Didn't this line get used in Kosovo when they bombed the Chinese embassy?

Maybe the sailors were just 'a few bad apples'. Actually, maybe that one's wearing a bit thin.

 

[TAE]

So thin that you can see through it.

 

[ska invita]

erm...i dont think its a simple question of 'who is bullshitting', its a bit more ambiguous than that. from what i gather there arent any internationally agreed borders round that area, iran and iraq have different ideas over where it is. its a misunderstanding poorly handled by both sides. essentially its school playground stuff, everyones being stubborn and immature and not really thinking of whats best for anybody.

Interesting piece in the.. ahem...Daily Mail... which says that there jsut aren't any official boundaries in that waterway;

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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...rticle_id=445896&in_page_id=1787&in_a_source=

If true this explains a lot.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Interesting piece in the.. ahem...Daily Mail... which says that there jsut aren't any official boundaries in that waterway;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...rticle_id=445896&in_page_id=1787&in_a_source=

If true this explains a lot.

Read who the piece is by: CRAIG MURRAY, Former Ambassador to Uzbekistan and Head of the Foreign Office's Maritime

He has his own blog here: http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/weblog.html

I'd believe him more than the UK gov or Iranian government...

 

[bendeus]

The Iranians taken by the Americans in Kurdistan were not ordinary troops they were senior officers of the Quds detachment of the Revolutionary Guards. The elite forces of Iran. That would be like members of UK/US special forces being captured holed up in a consulate in a provincial city in Iran.

Aye. And heaven forfend that any consulates or embassies under the British flag have ever hosted members of elite regiments or intelligence operatives.

 

[kyser_soze]

This was a planned action by the Iranians to draw attention away from the whole nuclear issue that confortably insulates them from any kind of response the US might make to the imprisoning of it's soldiers - they knew that the UK couldn't and most likely wouldn't authorise the use of force to extract them.

Let's hope Britain gets a good bloody nose this time.

What, you mean all the prisoners get beheaded live on webcams?

Load of bollocks - it's harsh but so long as this keeps generating publicity and debate in the media it's working to Iran's advantage; if it was quietly slipped down the priority list and attention focussed back on the IAEA inspections Iran would be letting them go ASAP.

 

[ska invita]

This was a planned action by the Iranians to draw attention away from the whole nuclear issue that confortably insulates them from any kind of response the US might make to the imprisoning of it's soldiers.

I'm not sure about that - I think it actually puts the spotlight on iran rather than taking it off them.

I reckon (pure guess) that this is an atempt by Ahmadinejad to stir up nationalist support amongst Iranians - last time I heard his approval ratings were way down - I wouldn't be suprised to see them taking a little bounce back now. Its a show of strength primarily to a home audience, rather than an international one, I reckon.

I expect these soldiers will get released eventually without harm...

 

[kyser_soze]

I'm not sure about that - I think it actually puts the spotlight on iran rather than taking it off them.

I reckon (pure guess) that this is an atempt by Ahmadinejad to stir up nationalist support amongst Iranians - last time I heard his approval ratings were way down - I wouldn't be suprised to see them taking a little bounce back now. Its a show of strength primarily to a home audience, rather than an international one, I reckon.

I expect these soldiers will get released eventually without harm...

But it takes much of the media spotlight away from the nuclear issue - I wasn't saying it takes the spotlight off Iran (I personally think that Ahemddinejead and the regime are quite happy with the attention for regional and domestic reasons - 'See us in our moral stand against the West' positioning) - and it shores up support for an unpopular populist President.

 

[camouflage]

The British are bullshitting, and here's PROOF!

The good general told Associated Press the day after the March 23 incident: "We were informed [about the British troops' arrests] by Iraqi fishermen, after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control. We don't know why they were there.'"

Gen. Jassim---again, working for the Anglo-American occupiers of his nation---does not sound outraged by the Iranian action. And notice how the Iraqi client-state apparatus, which for some time has been telling Washington, "Don't drag us into your anti-Iranian projects" is not calling the detained Britons "hostages." It has indeed (with much of the world) protested the illegal U.S. detention of Iranian diplomats in Irbil, in Iraqi Kurdistan.

(That particular instance of "inexcusable behavior" hasn't gotten much press in this country. Nor has the subdued Iranian response to the provocation.)

Gen. Jassim would agree that the Shatt al-Arab river where the Brits were seized has no clearly marked boundary and has been the focus of past quarrels between Iraq and Iran. (Commodore Peter Lockwood of the Royal Australian Navy, commanding the Coalition task force in the waterway last October, said as much: "No maritime border has been agreed upon by the countries.") Craig Murray, once head of the British Foreign Office's maritime section, writes that Prime Minister Blair "is being fatuous" in stating that he is "utterly certain" the British ship was seized within Iraqi territorial limits. Murray, best known as the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan (who exposed British complicity in torture in that country) writes as follows:

"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."

Gen. Jassim might privately agree that this border issue in any case is the business of Iraqis and Iranians---rather than British and American imperialists popping up in the region at no one's invitation, on false pretexts, slaughtering people and expecting as they do so that the conquered locals will say "Thanks, boss!"

From here

 

[Barking_Mad]

Interesting read and not a choice on the poll!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...rticle_id=445896&in_page_id=1787&in_a_source=

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Yup linked to above, check out his blog I linked to up there /\

 

[kyser_soze]

The British are bullshitting, and here's PROOF!



From here

All that shows is that both sides are bullshitting:

"No maritime border has been agreed upon by the countries."

"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."

Since the Iranians are claiming the boat was in their waters and the Brits are claiming it wasn't. If the area is disputed or it's not under ANY kind of agreement, neither side is in the right...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Interesting read and not a choice on the poll!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...rticle_id=445896&in_page_id=1787&in_a_source=

Interesting quote.

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.

 

[kyser_soze]

TBH that simply sounds like the sound of Murray's axe grinding - it was the Iranians who first publicised the arrests of the marines, loudly, to the rest of the world so it's hardly 'No 10 Spin Doctors', and he basically says what I said above - if there is no clear border there then the Iranians have absolutely no rights to be holding those troops either.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Sure, but maybe it's not clear from my quote, but what he's saying is that the FO et al wanted to acknowledge that there are no clear borders and deal on that basis, but Number 10 stepped in and started talking like the borders were clear.

I think he's got a reasonable point, you'll note that the commodore in charge of the operation was quite open that nobody knows where the boundary is just there and it would make total sense given what we know of the No 10 crowd for them to try to distort the truth of the matter in order to portray Blair as being all resolute and stuff. I'm surprised he didn't take to wearing a blue twinset while he was at it in celebration of the anniversay of the Falklands.

I think it makes much more sense to cut a face saving and essentially meaningless deal over boundaries with the Iranian Foreign Ministry than to bluster and end up strengthening the hand of the Pasdaran in any internal discussions the Iranians may be having what to do with the RN party.

It seems very likely that the Pasdaran grabbed them because of US actions in Arbil and other kidnappings of their guys, so dealing on that basis is much less attractive as an option, because it immediately involves the dickheads in the White House as well as the dickheads in Number 10 who are quite bad enough in my view.

 

[kyser_soze]

True, but look at it realistically - if No 10 hadn't come out with an aggressive response and had looked to the softly softly approach, the press would have been all over it calling Blair and the FO and MoD weak for not being more belligerent, which will in turn have driven public opinion.

Altho the knowledge that the Iranians had no actual claim over the waters firms up, in my mind, the idea that this was a planned operation by the Iranians to please a domestic crowd and to shift international media attention away from the nuke question.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Did you see that Indy article I just posted on the other thread? Patrick Cockburn reckons, quite plausibly, that this was a retaliation for the US trying to grab two senior Iranian intelligence guys who were having an official meeting with Iraqi government representatives in Arbil. They ended up just grabbing five more junior guys who haven't been seen since. Nonetheless, with that and the various other kidnappings and disappearances of their officers, you can see why they might be a pissed off and looking for a way to retaliate.

With friends like the US, you can be sure of having plenty of enemies ...

 

[kyser_soze]

Well that also goes back to what I said earlier as a possibilty - that the Iranians snatched the Brits cos they know there's no chance of military retaliation happening.

Which means that the Iranians are bullshitting on two levels - one over their 'right' to arrest them over territorial infringement, and the second over the reason if it is a tit-for-tat with the seppoes...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Sure, but in this case, it may be that the Iranian Foreign Ministry is trying to chill things out by making the issue one of borders (and not even our borders so anything we say about them is essentially meaningless)

My guess is that the Pasdaran grabbed them in retaliation, but Iran's Foreign Ministry decided to make it a borders issue instead, so they could save a bit of face with a fairly minor concession and give them back pronto, rather than get into an escalation involving the US as well as the UK.

 

[Fruitloop]

Interesting how the poll has changed. Neck and neck now, more or less!

 

[kyser_soze]

Sure, but in this case, it may be that the Iranian Foreign Ministry is trying to chill things out by making the issue one of borders (and not even our borders so anything we say about them is essentially meaningless)

My guess is that the Pasdaran grabbed them in retaliation, but Iran's Foreign Ministry decided to make it a borders issue instead, so they could save a bit of face with a fairly minor concession and give them back pronto, rather than get into an escalation involving the US as well as the UK.

My first reaction was that they were grabbed before anyone in the Iranian FM knew what was happening and were presented with a fait accompli, and that internally they didn't have the weight to force the Pasdaran to back down.

Doesn't change my basic position tho - the Iranians are the ones who have fucked up here whichever way you look at it; if they wanted to retaliate for their guys being snatched they should have had the balls to arrest/kidnap some Yanks, not British marines.

 

[Fruitloop]

Why, 'cos the British marines are known to be such pansies?

 

[kyser_soze]

 

[Fruitloop]

Sorry. Did the last line of chang at half six and only a cold shower, bongs and valium got me to work at all. Ignore everythgin henceforth

 

[kyser_soze]

Fucking good work fruity!

 

[Spion]

Doesn't change my basic position tho - the Iranians are the ones who have fucked up here whichever way you look at it; if they wanted to retaliate for their guys being snatched they should have had the balls to arrest/kidnap some Yanks, not British marines.

Hmm, I can't see wherer you're coming from.

A) There's obviously no such thing as THE Iranians. There are groups fighting out their position and being seen to be tough on foreign troops in the region is one way that battle is being fought in Iran
B) Given that, it seems to me the fuck up came when a navy as powerful as the UK's, with all it's radar and air cover, allowed a boat to stray into disputed waters with Pasdaran forces wandering around

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Hmm, I can't see wherer you're coming from.

A) There's obviously no such thing as THE Iranians. There are groups fighting out their position and being seen to be tough on foreign troops in the region is one way that battle is being fought in Iran
B) Given that, it seems to me the fuck up came when a navy as powerful as the UK's, with all it's radar and air cover, allowed a boat to stray into disputed waters with Pasdaran forces wandering around

On point b) it's particularly careless of them to have sent their air cover wandering off when the US has been apparently systematically kidnapping and disappearing Pasdaran and other Iranian officials over the previous few weeks.

On the other thread I linked an article from the Times about a week before the incident occurred where they were quite clearly predicting that the Pasdaran would most likely try to grab some US or UK forces in retaliation.

If they can figure that out, you'd really expect those who are supposed to be the professionals in these matters to do so also, and to take appropriate precautions.

 

[nino_savatte]

Hmm, I can't see wherer you're coming from.

A) There's obviously no such thing as THE Iranians. There are groups fighting out their position and being seen to be tough on foreign troops in the region is one way that battle is being fought in Iran
B) Given that, it seems to me the fuck up came when a navy as powerful as the UK's, with all it's radar and air cover, allowed a boat to stray into disputed waters with Pasdaran forces wandering around

Justement. There are too many people who place far too much faith in technology. It is neither "impartial" nor 100% flawless.

Interestingly enough, on the day of the capture, BBC News 24 screened some footage of the woman sailor (sorry I've forgotten her name) being interviewed - presumably by BFBS. One can only surmise why the BBC felt the need to air this footage but it all contributes to the narrative put out by the MoD and others that the Iranians are inherently evil and hell-bent on our destruction.