Iran seizes 15 British sailors

This is going to be interesting.

 

Iran did this same thing a few years ago. They paraded the troops blindfolded on tv, made some noise, and then released them. Most likely they are going to do the same thing again. I believe our two countries, with others, should make Iran an example of why such hostile acts of war are not a good idea. Sadly neither Bush nor Blair has the leadership skills to take such harsh measures. Even if they did Bush's failed policies in Iraq have gotten us stuck in Iraq and have taken away the world's fear of our military might. Therefore they are going to have to hope that Iran is planning on doing the same thing they did last time and they are going to have to hope that diplomacy will work.

 

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/

 

It does seem like Iran is determined to start an international incident.

 

Maybe Prince Charles can rescue them.

 

It also appears that they do some outrages thing when the UN Security counsel is about to vote on a new resolution against them. Currently the Un is set to vote on stronger sanctions.

 

Or the neocons are determined to get a pretext to bomb Iran by making an 'international incident' inevitable.

 

Is this happening because Iran now has the highest building in the world standing? Or, could it be we are not giving them attention--of the OOOwws and AAhhh'ss as well as not spending our money to tour their senic views from attop with our OOOwwww's and AAAhhh'sss? Or is it that they want to be also targeted by you know who, by airplanes smacking the tall buildings? What?

 

This is the first I've heard of such. What is it called? I did a search on yahoo and didn't find anything.

 

Yes it does. Walid Phares says that the Iran regime needs an external conflict in order to put down the many domestic challenges it is facing. They are counting on a US/UK military response. "The [Iranian] plan is to drag its opponents into a trap"

 

Well according to MSNBC last night our good friend Rosie believes that this is all a set-up so that Bush can justify a war against Iran. :laugh:

Honestly I think that Iran will release those soldiers in the next few days. I think we saw them start laying the foundation for that yesterday with the news that they are trying to determine if the violation of their waters was accidental or deliberate. I could be wrong, after all I am not an international expert, but I have heard others who know much more than I do say the same thing. Let's pray that this does happen and that cooler heads prevail. The LAST thing we need right now is another war.

From CNN today:

""It should become clear whether their entry was intentional or unintentional. After that is clarified, the necessary decision will be made," AP quoted Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mehzi Mostafavi as saying." -SOURCE

 

Well according to MSNBC last night our good friend Rosie believes that this is all a set-up so that Bush can justify a war against Iran.

That is why she needs to just keep hanging upside down and popping prozac.

 

That's it! Has to be!

I wonder if it was Bush or Cheney who called up iran and suggested they take some Britons hostage so we could bomb 'em.

We have to remember that only neocons are capable of scheming for what they want, never Iranians.:tonofbricks:

 

Poncho beat her to the punch.

 

While part of me wonders why the marines did not open fire when they were initially kidnapped another part of me thanks God they had the wisdom to keep their weapons down.

They could have probably escaped but the world-wide consequences would have been incredible.

It is amazing that Bush and Blair are being blamed again by some. :BangHead:

This is the second time Iran has done this. Iran is constantly provoking the international community and still its Bush and Blair in the wrong.

Oh well, give it a generation or two and if the Lord tarries His coming many will probably be praying for such leaders as we have now, but by then it may be too late.

 

Apparently they were outnumbered and outgunned by the Iranians.

 

'Bumping into the Iranians can’t be helped in the northern Persian Gulf, where the lines between Iraqi and Iranian territorial water are blurred, officials said. "No maritime border has been agreed upon by the two countries," Lockwood said.'


That is Royal Australian Navy Commodore Peter Lockwood. He is the Commander of the Combined Task Force in the Northern Persian Gulf. SOURCE (Craig Murray former British Ambassador.)


Before the spin doctors could get to him, Commodore 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".


That is precisely right. The boundary between Iran and Iraq in the northern Persian Gulf has never been fixed. (Within the Shatt-al-Arab itself a line was fixed, but was to be updated every ten years because the waterway shifts, according to the treaty. As it has not been updated in over twenty years, whether it is still valid is a moot point. But it appears this incident occurred well south of the Shatt anyway.) This is a perfectly legitimate dispute. The existence of this dispute will clearly be indicated on HMS Cornwall's charts, which are in front of Commodore Lambert, but not of Mr Blair.


Until a boundary is agreed, you could only be certain that the personnel were in Iraqi territorial waters if they were within twelve miles of the coast and, at the same time, more than twelve miles from any island, spit, bar or sandbank claimed by Iran (or Kuwait). SOURCE (Craig Murray former British Ambassador.)



George Bush to Tony Blair...

Tony Blair said in reply he was...

Source (Newspaper)

The waters were known to be under dispute for years. Their is no set boundary line, as Tony Blair would have you believe. Sailing in those waters anytime is running the risk of Iranian involvement they knew that before hand, and we already knew that Bush and Blair would gladly risk the lives of whoever was to fly the fake UN plane for a pretext for the Iraq invasion. So why wouldn't they be as equally willing to risk the lives of a few British sailors for a pretext to bomb Iran?

That's how Bush and Blair support the troops Carpo. What a proud example to follow huh?

Maybe Rosie has actually sat down and done some basic research on the subject, like reading the newspaper and the easily obtainable documents.

Why? It's their MO to dream up fake incidents for pretexts. See above.

 

:laugh: :laugh:

 

Poncho, get a grip!

The Iranians have changed their story - doesn't that say something? The first set of coordinates indicate that they were operating in the Iraqi waters, but then they later changed these coordinates to concur with the presently agreed boundaries. This put them in an entirely different place miles away from the original coordinates.

The Iranians have not treated the 15 kidnapped British and are clearly telling them what to write and what to say.

The Iranians have not allowed access to British diplomats.

The Iranians have not adhered to maritime law which allows innocent passage:

1. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm

2. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/IRN_1993_Act.pdf

The second link is a pdf and I grant that in Article 9 exceptions are made. But the British arrested were not in a warship, they were in inflatables, hardly definitive of a warship.

The British were doing what they had been doing for many months under a UN mandate - stopping smuggling in order to establish the Iraq economy.

The Iranians could have simply warned them they were in disputed waters and ordered them to leave, but they kidnapped them instead.

The Iranians could have arrested them but released them as soon as it was discovered that they were innocent.

This article (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/danielhannan/mar2007/iranlaw.htm) makes some very good points.

It is the Iranians doing the provoking here, not the UK.