Iran ‘to try Britons for espionage'?????

The Prime Minister has spoken;

"no doubt British sailors were taken in Iraqi waters" and a "very serious situation"

[edit]

the act has now be declared "unjustfied" by the Prime Minister

[edit on 25-3-2007 by infinite]

Originally posted by Escrotumus
What I find curious about this whole event is a total lack of any reporting about it on American news channels. I mean you seriously even have to dig to find it on any of the major US web news sites.

I am surprised at that, but then not surprised at the same time. I do watch some US channels occasionally and you'd think from most of the reporting that Planet Earth is entirely made up of the USA, except for some annoying bits tacked on the side which need blowing up....

Well, FOXNews just had Eddie Izzard on..

he wasn't talking about Iran

It makes sense that the sailors are being moved around as infinite said to make it more difficult for British military intel to find them. As for the SAS extracting the Sailors from somewhere like Tehran I don't have any immediate answers . Assuming you could get them out by air and provider a fighter escort the question becomes this.

Would Iran risk a war in order to kill or prevent the rescue of the sailors ?
A land based escape seems unlikely due to the distances involved it would only be a remote possibility if multiple special forces teams from the US and the UK enter Iran and went on sabotage missions and made diversionary attacks.

Either way it seems that Air Power would be involved some how.

Originally posted by xpert11
A land based escape seems unlikely due to the distances involved it

It depends if they are near the border with Iraq, which is highly unlikely now.
That could be why they've been moved into Tehran and are being moved around central Iran.

Originally posted by Navieko
Agit8dChop, nicely put. I just don't understand what goes through some of these people's heads, hey. It's like their ego has gotten so big they can't even comprehend that maybe THEIR government are the ones that need to get their asses kicked.

People really need to get it through their heads... ANY mainstream news like Fox News/CNN/BBC etc... are 99% BS propaganda, ESPECIALLY when it comes to politics/world affairs.

[edit on 24/3/07 by Navieko]

and the iranian news agencies aren't'?

What makes you think the Brits were in Iranian waters? The waterway is DISUPUTED, there is nothing legally binding. The UK troops were working for the UN, thus Iran has effectively kidnapped UN troops.

You also obviously know nothing about the BBC, or even CNN for that matter.

[edit on 25-3-2007 by Peyres]

Originally posted by Peyres

You also obviously know nothing about the BBC, or even CNN for that matter.

[edit on 25-3-2007 by Peyres]

Indeed. I think that the BBC has been quite balanced in it's reporting. It has represented both sides and so far doesn't seem to display much, if any, bias.

The newspapers on the other hand, or (shudder) Sky News, are not to be taken litterally. They are the propoganda mills.

There are all sorts of rules out there that define this stuff, SOLAS conventions, etc.... The ship that was boarded should have had AIS, a SOLAS convention for ship identification that includes position data and last time I looked, Iran was party to that convention. UK military ships and most boats larger than a row boat will have milspec GPS onboard - the Cornwall would have had them on radar (as well as AIS receivers getting position data) and any other assets in the area would have also had them on the scopes (AWACS, etc.).

I'm not up on the Iranian specs but I would assume they are either using the US commercial GPS signals or the Russian version and likely not the hiper accurate milspec variety so it's doubtful their position claims are anywhere near as accurate as the UK's....

Back to maritime conventions, even if they WERE in Iran's waters, boarding is OK - taking people is not - unless there were rules being broken and conventions were followed. Iran and the UK are not at war so anything like this is not quite by the books. The typical confrontation would have been radio communication to alert the parties that they are in Iranian waters uninvited and to leave. No action, warning shots happen.... Only then would confiscation and capture be on the table.... Maritime laws are many, lengthy and have been around for a long time now - they are there to prevent this type of crap from happening in the first place....

Tony Blair full statement is being aired now.

He is coming across tough, but fair. With Blair coming out, this will build on the pressure on Iran.

The ball is in Iran's court.

[edit]

British Government: Patience is running thin

[Skynews]


[edit on 25-3-2007 by infinite]

Originally posted by Peyres
The UK troops were working for the UN

Im not saying your wrong,
But why are they there for the UN ?

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
But why are they there for the UN ?

We have a UN mandate.

That why we are there for the UN.

I'm a 25 year old white male from England. about 2 hours drive from where these men are from.

My personal reaction to this is i don't care about them at all.

When international sanctions where placed on Iraq over the years that followed millions of children died as a result

Iran should nuke America and England. We are the cause of all the evil in the world.

hiding behind fake democracy ran by greedy fat white b*stards.



[edit on 25-3-2007 by tombangelta]

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
But why are they there for the UN ?

We have a UN mandate.

That why we are there for the UN.

A UN Mandate? For British naval ships to be in the gulf?

please elaborate... or are you saying this is from the gulf war 1?

Originally posted by stumason
How exactly can they be tried for espionage when they were in Uniform?

I was under the impression that spies tended not to parade around in full military get-up. Tend's to get one noticed, I should think.

They are being tried under Iranian laws, not British laws. Spies wear all clothes, including those of soldiers.

Its about what they were doing, not what they were wearing.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
A UN Mandate? For British naval ships to be in the gulf?

please elaborate... or are you saying this is from the gulf war 1?

For Iraq,
and those waters cover Iraq. And you have to remember that both UK and US provide support to nations such as Saudia Arabia.

I do think some of it goes go back to the first Gulf War.

well this might shed some light on the confusion.

www.iranvajahan.net...

Originally posted by tombangelta
I'm a 25 year old white male from England. about 2 hours drive from where these men are from.

My personal reaction to this is i don't care about them at all.

When international sanctions where placed on Iraq over the years that followed millions of children died as a result

Iran should nuke America and England. We are the cause of all the evil in the world.

hiding behind fake democracy ran by greedy fat white b*stards.







[edit on 25-3-2007 by tombangelta]

Man is the cause of all evil in the world, and you are a very good example of this.

Originally posted by tombangelta
I'm a 25 year old white male from England. about 2 hours drive from where these men are from.

My personal reaction to this is i don't care about them at all.

When international sanctions where placed on Iraq over the years that followed millions of children died as a result

Iran should nuke America and England. We are the cause of all the evil in the world.

hiding behind fake democracy ran by greedy fat white b*stards.



[edit on 25-3-2007 by tombangelta]

Wow. Just...wow. And if it kills you, your friends and your family? Do you and yours deserve that? If it lands near a school, if hundreds of babies and children of all ages are killed? It's THEIR fault? Are you saying they should all die and suffer in order for something to change? Are you then saying that a violent act is the only way to end suffering?

Let me ask you this - you don't agree with the way things are done, so what do you actually do to try and change it? Or do you just complain about the way things are?

I'm never one for reporting posts anywhere on the internet, and I won't here, but I am just shocked at this kind of reaction from someone

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
well this might shed some light on the confusion.

www.iranvajahan.net...

nice find, that adds a very different aspect to this.

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
well this might shed some light on the confusion.

www.iranvajahan.net...

This from the link:

The Shatt al-Arab - which can accommodate big oil tankers and commercial vessels - has been the subject of a dispute dating back more than a century and a half to the old Ottoman Empire and Persia. It has carried over to modern-day Iraq and Iran. The issue is whether Iraq controls the entire width of the waterway, effectively denying Iran the use of the Shatt al-Arab to ship oil from southwestern Iran, or whether Iraq and Iran have equal navigation rights, with the boundary running the length of the waterway through the center of its deepest channel.

In 1975, Saddam Hussein - as the No. 2 man in the Iraqi hierarchy but the de facto ruler - ceded Iran rights to half the waterway. In 1980, Saddam tore up that agreement, which became one of the reasons for the outbreak of the 1980-88 war between the two countries.

In 1990 - two weeks after invading Kuwait and under intense international pressure and threat of military attack by the U.S., Iraq agreed to accept Iran's rights to half the waterway. However, this Iraqi concession has never been formalized in a treaty.

There is still a conflict over property rights with no real answer to the question.

The 'New' Democratic Iraq should be doing everything to define its own borders which would include settling this dispute.