UK Produces Fake MAP of Iran- Iraq Waterways

No golden his post was very accurate on one point: This has nothing to do with the US or the US foriegn policy. If you want to bitch about the US go find an ANTI US thread and not one about britain and iran, otherwise your just another troll out to inflame people. Are you a troll or are you someone who just has a beef with the US?

Originally posted by golddragnet
Of course it should also be pointed out that the British have no right to be in either Iraqi or Iranian waters.

LOL thats funny. No one really thinks about that point too much. Even though admittedly the government has said it was a mistake going to war, I guess it still means we have every right to be where ever we please to be.

Originally posted by Souljah
Great post!

Of course we will not hear this in the mainstream news.

UK marines were "hijacked" and now they are "hostages".

Seen how they were treated good on TV? With cigarettes, eating food, shaved - I wonder if the same would happen with some Iranian soldiers, being captured by UK or US forces. I bet they would soon end up in some Gitmo somewhere, piled in a human pyramid with electrodes applied to their testicles.

Actually the mail on Sunday printed this story - bottom of page 11.

Murray said "The map produced by the MOD with its territorial boundaries set out by a clear red line and the coordinates of the incident marked in relation to it was faked. The boundaries were drawn up by the MoD. They are not agreed or recognised by any international authority. It is imposable to say where a real Iran-Iraq sea boundary might be.

'It was why the instinct of both the Foreign Office and MoD was to play this quietly and negotiate our people back. But No 10 spin doctors stepped in, seeing a propaganda opportunity to portray Blair as fighting evil Iranians. It makes compromise on the captives very difficult.'

Seems to me both sides have a valid point now.

Originally posted by Malichai

Originally posted by deltaboy
The Iranians still haven't explained why they changed the coordinates which they previously gave to the British, unless they made a mistake.

Do you have a source for this, and not just because the Brits say so....

If its any help, the Iranian bloke they interviewed on the BBC (had a qualification in geographical politics or something) claims the UK misinterpreted them. The 2 coordinates given were the two extremes of the possible locations. So dont ask an Iranian for directions

Seriously though, would of thought they would use GPS, if they haven't got their own system (unlikely!) they still got the kit they nabbed in '94!!

Lol

Thankfully they at least look healthy and are being taken care of. No bruises, cuts or marks of any kind. Seeing past pics of prisoners being held , many times they were bruised and battered. Hopefully the Iranians remain civil.

Why do people bother responding to threads that are obviously biased? and filled with Agenda, Let the people who post them rant and rave all they want by themselves. Live in their world of western hatred. If you cant see what Iran is doing you are truly blinded. You don't have to agree with Iraq you can even hate GW , but the FACTS show Iran is in the wrong.

BTW nice Sources lol, You have an article from Prison planet about what one guys said and a link to the guy who said it LOL.

You people crack me up. And we wonder how Terrorists are talked into blowing them selves up LOL. I am sure their cause could use you, so instead of spouting your garbage why not go join the cause, Strap one on and be all you can be!!

[edit on 1-4-2007 by ShiftTrio]

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Why do people bother responding to threads that are obviously biased? and filled with Agenda, Let the people who post them rant and rave all they want by themselves. Live in their world of western hatred. If you cant see what Iran is doing you are truly blinded. You don't have to agree with Iraq you can even hate GW , but the FACTS show Iran is in the wrong.

BTW nice Sources lol, You have an article from Prison planet about what one guys said and a link to the guy who said it LOL.

You people crack me up. And we wonder how Terrorists are talked into blowing them selves up LOL. I am sure their cause could use you, so instead of spouting your garbage why not go join the cause, Strap one on and be all you can be!!

[edit on 1-4-2007 by ShiftTrio]

Wow... if you wanted to state that the other side of the argument was biased, the least you could do is do without the stereotypical biasing of your side of the argument.
Calling them all terrorists?
Strap on one and be all you can be?

Are you trying to make yourself look like a walking billboard for military recruitment?

I know this looks like I'm bashing you, I'm sure you're a great person, but that post was just too far out there.

Originally posted by devilwasp
No golden his post was very accurate on one point: This has nothing to do with the US or the US foriegn policy. If you want to bitch about the US go find an ANTI US thread and not one about britain and iran

What rubbish, why don't you actually try reading the posts before making a one-sided reply. I mentioned USA in reply to his statement that USA wasn't an enemy of Iran.

The Daily Mail take a closer look at the FAKED map Britain produced

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

Commodore Peter Lockwood of the Royal Australian Navy, said last October: 'No maritime border has been agreed upon by the countries.'

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

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

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Craig Murray is a former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan. From 1989 to 1992 he headed the Foreign Office's maritime section. This included responsibility for territorial sea claims and for negotiating maritime boundaries. The expertise of the Royal Navy was invaluable.

To quote Craig Murray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Wow. Finally a fact! I never knew you had it in you.

Thank You for beliving in Me!

Wow. You believe everything you see on TV? Have you ever heard of propoganda? Oh, by the way, since youre so strung up on "justice" and international law, displaying the UK soldiers on TV and parading them around before the public are very blatant violations of such guidelines.

Actually I am a little confused with how U.S. forces treat their prisoners of war; as I recall I have seen them, they were usually in very tough positions, I did not see a single one of those with a cigarette or eating a meal actually. And even they admit they are treated good and as far as I can see there are no bruises on them or any signs of fatigue or insomnia on their faces. As far as laws in concerned, they were captured in Iranian territorial waters and were legally captured - looking from Iranian point of view. But of course MoD has a whole different side of the story...

That, and forcing soldiers to write false statements and further political agendas, like the bogus "confessions" that they wrung out of these sailors, most likely at gun point off camera.

How do you knew they were forced? Have you seen the gun? Or perhaps you are comparing this confession to the confession of the super-terrorist callled Mohammed, who admited he is responsible from A to Z for 9/11, Pearl Harbour, J.F.K. assassination and AIDS.

Maybe. But they wouldn't be paraded on national TV and made to give false statements either.

Sure they would not.

This road goes either both was or nowhere at all...

[edit on 2/4/07 by Souljah]

German Armed Forces University: British Boundary Map "Fictitious"

In today's printed version of the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Prof Khan of the University for the Federal Armed Forces in Munich confirms Craig Murrays statement:

"In their presentation, the British have effectively drawn a fictitious line in their attempt to prove where exactly the soldiers were when taken captive instead of showing a clear border. They couldn't have done the latter in any case as the border between Iran and Iraq around Shatt el-Arab is not clearly identifiable."

Furthermore;

How I know Blair faked Iran map

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

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

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

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

Well it would not be the first time that MoD made a "mistake".

Originally posted by golddragnet
What rubbish, why don't you actually try reading the posts before making a one-sided reply. I mentioned USA in reply to his statement that USA wasn't an enemy of Iran.

I do read the posts, you have been going on about the US in this thread for quite some time. If you have a beef with them then take it somewhere else.

Originally posted by Souljah
Actually I am a little confused with how U.S. forces treat their prisoners of war; as I recall I have seen them, they were usually in very tough positions, I did not see a single one of those with a cigarette or eating a meal actually. And even they admit they are treated good and as far as I can see there are no bruises on them or any signs of fatigue or insomnia on their faces. As far as laws in concerned, they were captured in Iranian territorial waters and were legally captured - looking from Iranian point of view. But of course MoD has a whole different side of the story...

Yet again this has nothing to do with the DOD or thier policy on torture , the MOD does not commit torture nor does it have the facilities to do so. Prove they where in iranian waters, all you have linked is people "saying" that the map is not real, how about compiling some evidence?
www.dur.ac.uk...

Also the 1975 treaty is STILL in effect due to the fact that:

Saddam Hussein confirmed Iraq's recognition of the 1975 agreement in a letter to President Rafsanjani in August 1990

Taken from the above source therefore iran has enterered iraqi waters and therefore broken an agreement they signed (illegal) and technically broken a law they signed but have not ratified (UNCLOS)

How do you knew they were forced? Have you seen the gun?

Because no british servicewoman would write to her "representative of parliment." , they are called MP's when have you ever heard of a british person calling them "representatives."? The wording and way the message is written is clearly faked.

Or perhaps you are comparing this confession to the confession of the super-terrorist callled Mohammed, who admited he is responsible from A to Z for 9/11, Pearl Harbour, J.F.K. assassination and AIDS.

Yet again how does affect britain or even invole us? In no way at all , thats how. Take your US problems somewhere else.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yet again this has nothing to do with the DOD or thier policy on torture , the MOD does not commit torture nor does it have the facilities to do so. Prove they where in iranian waters, all you have linked is people "saying" that the map is not real, how about compiling some evidence?
www.dur.ac.uk...

Spot on devilwasp

You have voted devilwasp for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Here is the correct map as shown in the above post.



Those are the facts... no one has altered the maps or the lines. Maybe you think that this has all been planned since the 1970's??

As I mentioned earlier Iran’s actions over this affair are Highly suspect and call for much closer inspections of all Iranian vessels that exit Iranian waters.

In effect Iran has served to seal them selves off from the rest of the world... that is other than those that sympathise with the hard lined Muslim cause.

I say we call Iran’s bluff and go in and take our men back by force if needs be.

All the best people,

NeoN HaZe.

There's a certain amount of double standards being applied here.

No one denies that the boundry is disputed, that has been made clear by official UK sources from day 1 as I recall from news broadcasts. But strangely, the Iranians seem pretty clear on where the boundry is as they are clear that our guys were on the wrong side of it, even moving the capture location just a couple of miles to ensure that this was the case.

Even more strangely, the clips of the British captives on TV, (screen captures above), appear to show a map which superficially looks very similar to the so called "fake" one and also has a very clear red line drawn on it.

Let's all be honest and agree that this dispute has a lot to due with political posturing and nothing whatever to do with disputed maritime boundries.



[edit on 2-4-2007 by timeless test]

Incidentally this is the actual treaty signed by Iran and Iraq in 1975...

Treaty concerning the Frontier and Neighbourly relations between Iran and Iraq

I refer you to article 7 and 9...

Article 7
1. Merchant vessels, State vessels and warships of the two Contracting Parties shall enjoy freedom of navigation in the Shatt-al-Arab and in any part of the navigable channels in the territorial sea which lead to the mouth of the Shatt-al-Arab, irrespective of the line delimiting the territorial sea of each of the two countries.
2. Vessels of third countries used for purposes of trade shall enjoy freedom of navigation, on an equal and non-discriminatory basis, in the Shatt-al-Arab and in any part of the navigable cannels in the territorial sea which lead to the mouth of the Shatt-al-Arab, irrespective of the line delimiting the territorial sea of each of the two countries.
3. Either of the two Contracting Parties may authorize foreign warships visiting its ports to enter the Shatt-al-Arab, provided that such vessels do not belong to a country in a state of belligerency, armed conflict or war with either of the two Contracting Parties and provided that the other Party is so notified no less than 72 hours in advance.
4. The two Contracting Parties shall in every case refrain from authorizing the entry to the Shatt-al-Arab of merchant vessels belonging to a country in a state of belligerency, armed conflict or war with either of the two Parties.

Article 9
The two Contracting Parties recognize that the Shatt-al-Arab is primarily an international waterway, and undertake to refrain from any operation that might hinder navigation in the Shatt-al-Arab or in any part of those navigable channels in the territorial sea of either of the two countries that lead to the mouth of the Shatt-al-Arab.

Clearly the OP was not in position of this information as it does rather make this post and the situation in Iran clearly floored..

All the best people,

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Neon Haze]

Originally posted by johnsky

I know this looks like I'm bashing you, I'm sure you're a great person, but that post was just too far out there.

Naa I didn't take it as bashing actually that was one of the more polite responses I have seen on here =) , I was more trying to be ironic then anything, more to the point was, I can understand now how people can be easily manipulated into this hard line , radical rhetoric, with out proof and in many cases against overwhelming proof and the brain wash that must occur to actually strap on a bomb and kill innocent people.

Just seems to me any of these fanatical religions (Christians, Jews, or Muslims) are easily manipulated. I mean Do you really want to be with a GOD who would want this type of life from you, this hatred, Death, War in his name? Sounds to me like a real jerk? So why worship a jerk? Not out of love, but out of fear. I for one see no sense in it. Its not very logical and speaks volumes of the people (and I do not mean any group of people but the person him or herself) and how weak minded they are.

It EASY to kill yourself, it EASY to hate others. It REAL EASY to do it in the name of religion. But you have to ask yourself. Is that really a GOD who would want that. Sounds Kinda arrogant to me. Which is why I doubt any of these religions are spot on lol. IMHO But thats a topic for another thread.

Sorry for the Bomb comment, was trying to be funny lol

Originally posted by devilwasp
If you have a beef with them then take it somewhere else.

No, I like it right here

With the whole ordeal over the position of the border, it wouldn't suprise me if the British decided to change the charts so this doesn't happen again in the future...

It would probably look something like this...




lol.
Wouldnt suprise me.