A little bit of background to the kidnappings in the Gulf
Anonymous | 26.03.2007 01:14 | Analysis | Iraq | Other Press | World
On 23 March 2007, 15 Royal Navy personnel were taken at gunpoint by Iranian forces in the Gulf. Five days before, on 18 March 2007, the Sunday Times ran a story predicting that an incident like this had been threatened by Iran, and explained the reasons why.
The last two paragraphs read as follows:
Despite the Iranian threat to retaliate in Europe, Iraq is seen by some analysts as a more likely place in which to attempt abductions.
“In Iraq, the Quds Force can easily get hold of American — and British — officers,” said a Jordanian intelligence source.
I had not heard about this story before coming across it by chance today, despite following a good deal of the media coverage of the incident in the Gulf on Friday.
====================
The Sunday Times, 23 March 2007.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1530527.ece
IRAN is threatening to retaliate in Europe for what it claims is a daring undercover operation by western intelligence services to kidnap senior officers in its Revolutionary Guard.
According to Iranian sources, several officers have been abducted in the past three months and the United States has drawn up a list of other targets to be seized with the aim of destabilising Tehran’s military command.
In an article in Subhi Sadek, the Revolutionary Guard’s weekly paper, Reza Faker, a writer believed to have close links to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, warned that Iran would strike back.
“We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks,” he said. “Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.”
The first sign of a possible campaign against high-ranking Iranian officers emerged earlier this month with the discovery that Ali Reza Asgari, former commander of the Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force in Lebanon and deputy defence minister, had vanished, apparently during a trip to Istanbul.
Asgari’s disappearance shocked the Iranian regime as he is believed to possess some of its most closely guarded secrets. The Quds Force is responsible for operations outside Iran.
Last week it was revealed that Colonel Amir Muhammed Shirazi, another high-ranking Revolutionary Guard officer, had disappeared, probably in Iraq.
A third Iranian general is also understood to be missing — the head of the Revolutionary Guard in the Persian Gulf. Sources named him as Brigadier General Muhammed Soltani, but his identity could not be confirmed.
“This is no longer a coincidence, but rather an orchestrated operation to shake the higher echelons of the Revolutionary Guard,” said an Israeli source.
Other members of the Quds Force are said to have been seized in Irbil, in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq, by US special forces.
“The capture of Quds members in Irbil was essential for our understanding of Iranian activity in Iraq,” said an American official with knowledge of the operation.
One theory circulating in Israel is that a US taskforce known as the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG) is coordinating the campaign to take Revolutionary Guard commanders.
The Iranians have also accused the United States of being behind an attack on Revolutionary Guards in Iran last month in which at least 17 were killed.
Military analysts believe that Iranian threats of retaliation are credible. Tehran is notorious for settling scores. When the Israelis killed Abbas Mussawi, Hezbollah’s general secretary, in 1992 the Quds Force blew up the Israeli embassy in Argentina in revenge.
Despite the Iranian threat to retaliate in Europe, Iraq is seen by some analysts as a more likely place in which to attempt abductions.
“In Iraq, the Quds Force can easily get hold of American — and British — officers,” said a Jordanian intelligence source.
Despite the Iranian threat to retaliate in Europe, Iraq is seen by some analysts as a more likely place in which to attempt abductions.
“In Iraq, the Quds Force can easily get hold of American — and British — officers,” said a Jordanian intelligence source.
I had not heard about this story before coming across it by chance today, despite following a good deal of the media coverage of the incident in the Gulf on Friday.
====================
The Sunday Times, 23 March 2007.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1530527.ece IRAN is threatening to retaliate in Europe for what it claims is a daring undercover operation by western intelligence services to kidnap senior officers in its Revolutionary Guard.
According to Iranian sources, several officers have been abducted in the past three months and the United States has drawn up a list of other targets to be seized with the aim of destabilising Tehran’s military command.
In an article in Subhi Sadek, the Revolutionary Guard’s weekly paper, Reza Faker, a writer believed to have close links to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, warned that Iran would strike back.
“We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks,” he said. “Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.”
The first sign of a possible campaign against high-ranking Iranian officers emerged earlier this month with the discovery that Ali Reza Asgari, former commander of the Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force in Lebanon and deputy defence minister, had vanished, apparently during a trip to Istanbul.
Asgari’s disappearance shocked the Iranian regime as he is believed to possess some of its most closely guarded secrets. The Quds Force is responsible for operations outside Iran.
Last week it was revealed that Colonel Amir Muhammed Shirazi, another high-ranking Revolutionary Guard officer, had disappeared, probably in Iraq.
A third Iranian general is also understood to be missing — the head of the Revolutionary Guard in the Persian Gulf. Sources named him as Brigadier General Muhammed Soltani, but his identity could not be confirmed.
“This is no longer a coincidence, but rather an orchestrated operation to shake the higher echelons of the Revolutionary Guard,” said an Israeli source.
Other members of the Quds Force are said to have been seized in Irbil, in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq, by US special forces.
“The capture of Quds members in Irbil was essential for our understanding of Iranian activity in Iraq,” said an American official with knowledge of the operation.
One theory circulating in Israel is that a US taskforce known as the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG) is coordinating the campaign to take Revolutionary Guard commanders.
The Iranians have also accused the United States of being behind an attack on Revolutionary Guards in Iran last month in which at least 17 were killed.
Military analysts believe that Iranian threats of retaliation are credible. Tehran is notorious for settling scores. When the Israelis killed Abbas Mussawi, Hezbollah’s general secretary, in 1992 the Quds Force blew up the Israeli embassy in Argentina in revenge.
Despite the Iranian threat to retaliate in Europe, Iraq is seen by some analysts as a more likely place in which to attempt abductions.
“In Iraq, the Quds Force can easily get hold of American — and British — officers,” said a Jordanian intelligence source.
Anonymous
Comments
Hide the following 37 comments
they are NOT kidnappings
26.03.2007 02:17
' little bit of background to the kidnappings in the Gulf'
they are not kidnappings...the soldiers were CAPTURED. They have violated Iran territorial integrity, what would UK do if it found iranians in its territorial waters?
brian
Careful...
26.03.2007 08:10
Bob a Job
Well, Brian,
26.03.2007 08:11
You use the word 'capture'. That is used of countries at war. Perhaps Iran is trying to provoke an incident.
And if they are 'captured soldiers', one hopes the Iranians will abide by the Geneva Conventions.
GPS
you shut up.
26.03.2007 12:32
dont see you asking for definitive proof that they were in iraqi waters.
"perhaps iran is trying to provoke an incident"!!! what about the us and uk??? blatant build up to a war on their part. don't you people remember the lead up to iraq...
guess we have to wait for the bombing campaign to start. or maybe you will ask for proof when that happens.
f*** those british soldiers. they shouldn't be in iranian waters, and they sure as hell shouldn't be in iraqi waters, iraqi land, arab land or ANYWHERE ELSE that isn't their own damn country. whoever gets those murderers - i say GOOD. and if anyone can 'kidnap' british or americans in iraq -GOOD. this is war - war against the whole bloody region, against all oppressed people of the world. don't live life according to their rules of engagement... who says only the coalition has the right to detain anyone. time they got a taste of justice.
open your eyes. listen to what you are saying and who you are supporting.
pissed off
Piss off pissed off
26.03.2007 14:19
GPS
Follow the Leader
26.03.2007 15:40
John
e-mail:
johnsfreelunch@hotmail.co.uk
Big difference
26.03.2007 17:02
GPS
GPS & The Barrackroom Lawyers
26.03.2007 19:41
A combatant is a combatant is a combatant. An opposing force has to stick by the conventions it subscribes to, unless 12 months previously they began the derrogation process, or were not even signatories to start with. The U.S. is still a signatory- believe it or not. But funnily enough it never ratified the ICC convention. It wanted an exemption for its troops! Pathetic and highly dubious.
Just 'cause Uncle Rummy said otherwise, doesn't make it true. In fact. if he said black was black, I'd seek a second opinion.
The vast likelihood is that Tehran will eventually release them unmolested onto a UK flight stripped of their gear.
Not Donald Rumsfeld
GPS
26.03.2007 19:59
Going to the ICRC site and reading them is recommended.
You'll be no doubt surprised to discover that bombing the Iraqi water supply, power plants, oil depots, mosques, schools, factories, hospitals, ambulances, food supplies, airports are all clear cut war crimes, as is the use of indiscriminate weapons like cluster bombs and white phosphorous in areas with civillian presence.
For future reference, you may wish to note that bombing nuclear facilities is also a war crime, as is the deployment of any nuclear warhead.
I ran hasn't the greatest of track records for a lot of things, but given that the people who are are squaring up to them at the moment as major war criminals I'd be very cautious about taking the word of Blair and Bush at face value. I'd also be very wary of any statements coming out of Tehran, but I'm less concerned about Iran's potential for mass murder than I am about the "Coalition's".
Things are looking dangerously familiar regarding the old Iraq doubly whammy, starve them first them bomb them into Stane Age.
Not Donald Rumsfeld
The only difference is in your double-standards
26.03.2007 20:15
According to the Iraqis they weren't in Iraqi waters and they don't know what they were doing there. The Iraqis have completely disowned the UK personnel. In fact it is a bit dramatic to even say they were 'captured', they have merely been arrested. The Iranians are under no legal obligation to reveal their whereabouts, and they have good reason not to given the recent UK jailbreak of it's undercover soldiers in Basra.
"If you carry arms and are not in uniform, you cannot claim Geneva Convention rights."
Funny how you forget those British spies in Basra were treated by the Iraqis according to the Geneva convention despite being armed and out of uniform, you seem to expect different legal rules according to the colour of a suspects skin. Your country right or wrong ?
Maybe you are referring to the Afghans in Guantanamo - well, while the few of them that are Taliban wouldn't have had a uniform, few of the warring parties in Afghanistan would have had unfiroms, including the northern alliance and their US 'military trainers. Perhaps the US should have bought them all unfiorms before bombing the hell out of them.
The US embassy staff in 1979 were held by students in the middle of a revolution which is hardly the same thing, and they were released unharmed in circumstances that prove how venal the US can be. However the US has recently illegally kidnapped five Iranian diplomats who were in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government. If you were genuinely concerned about prisoners whereabouts being known then you would have been posting here to demand the location of the five Iranian diplomats kidnapped in Iraq. Or the thousands of prisoners illegally held in CIA 'black-prisons' without charge.
It is telling how weak your argument is that you have to lie so readily and blatantly.
orca
Fuck the British army
26.03.2007 20:17
...
Wrong again
26.03.2007 20:22
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva
from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
"1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
"2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. "
see
GPS
Actually GPS
26.03.2007 20:59
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
[...]
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
But I guess that part didn't suit your arguement. Just like you seem to have overlooked the Conventions' presumption of entitlement to GC protection until status has been determined by a legally sound tribunal.
Now you are going to tell me that the US tribunals that have been ctriticed by the Red Cross meet that criteria...
I'll tell you what though, those Orange Jumpsuits proved a hit with 'Al Qaeda in Iraq'- God bless America!
Not Donald Rumsfeld
Homepage:
http://www.easiteach.co.uk/visitors/examples/Literacy/Lessonlist.htm
yes, you are wrong again
26.03.2007 21:13
GPS>Wrong again
No the poster you are trying to ridicule is quite right. Your desparation and ignorance is showing GPS. Why don't you go and calm down and then read up on some basic facts ?
First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" (first adopted in 1864, last revision in 1949)
Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" (first adopted in 1949, successor of the 1907 Hague Convention X)
Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929, last revision in 1949)
Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV)
orca
Homepage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention
orca : spot on!
26.03.2007 21:17
1.) Iran is not in state of waging an illegal war. It is not even threatening it. The US & UK is involved in a war that Kofi Anan himself clearly declared "illegal". The casus belli was outrageously concocted with the flimsiest of lies and the standing UNSC resolutions blatantly twisted to the point that other permanent members were outraged.
2.) The US has consistently refused inspection access to its WMD and chemical bio warfare programmes. Remember Hans Blix telling us that Saddam had pretty much disarmed? Remember the hunt for WMD (the casus belli).
3.) The US and UK have long been in breach of their nuclear weapons non-proliferation responsibilities. In fact, the old boys network between the two are now ready to steal £75B+ from the poor of the UK to pay for more illegal weapons.
4.) The US is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons. And if they repeated the same behaviour again they would be commiting the highest war crimes since the GC ruled out indiscriminate weapons.
5.) The US/UK (France and USSR) have a long history of destabilising regimes in the Middle East (and beyond). Iran has no history of deposing any western states.
You see, if you apply the same critical parameters to to the US & UK, Iran starts looking pretty tame. Yeah, we know it has human rights problems, we know that their government is a mess. But we also know that the average Iranian (like most people) is very progressive, is not looking for war. an according to some polls they also don't like their president very much because all he seems to do is wind up America to deflect criticism that he hasn't delivered on his promises to the poor. The guy has therefore little popular support.
If you want to identify the biggest problem in the Gulf, then look at the US and their glove puppet Israel.
I won't be so blinded to presume that Iran above playing tit for tat. But given the track records of each party, I'll start with the presumption that anything Blair & Bush have to say is a pack of outrageous lies dreamt up as an excuse for more war crimes and mass murder.
Plus, after you have finsihed reading the GC properly, you may wish to read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter and see how the contents square with recent history.
Not Donald Rumsfeld
Support for the UK cause from Iraq
26.03.2007 21:22
GPS
Oops!
26.03.2007 22:00
Not Donald Rumsfeld
Support for the UK cause
26.03.2007 22:04
The Iraqi goverment is seen by most Iraqis as an imposed 'quisling' government - due to the sacking of the Iraqi army by Bremner they could all be dead in a week if our troops withdrew. They are going to say whatever they are told to say by London and Washington. They won't be believed by people on the street. When a British appointed Brigadier General denies in two interviews that the marines were in Iraqi waters, he will be believed. The Iraqi fishermen will be believed. Remember, many Iraqis blame every car-bomb, every mortar round on the occupying forces. Whether they are right or wrong to do so is irrelevant, 'the battle for hearts and minds' has been lost. Supporting more British and Iraqi and perhaps Iranian slaughter is immoral and unreasonable. Perhaps there is a need for a peace-keeping force there. There are two countries that cannot in conscience contribute to that force, and that is the US and the UK.
Support the UK cause - bring our troops home now and make finacial reparations for the awful damage we have caused.
orca
You reap what you sow.
26.03.2007 22:51
Well conspiracy theories aside, they are effectively directly responsible for every car bomb, IED, mortar round and sniper.
They may not be running around in disguise like some people claim, but the irrefuteable fact of the matter is that the illegal invasion and the occupational failure to uphold its obligations under the Geneva Conventions has directly resulted in this desperate lawless situation. And every single Iraqi must know that to be true. Especially the ones in urban concentrations where they are more or less under house arrest most of the time.
If the Coalition were the slightest bit interested in the Iraqis they would sit down with the internal factions and plan a phased withdrawal and peacekeeping plan that would then be put to the UN for approval.
But we know fine well they are hanging in there using prospectless kids from poor areas to act as glorified security guards for the assets they came to seize.
And it looks like their smash & grab plans are being thoroughly thwarted by the very people they came to "liberate". I'd be surprised if any significant quantities of oil come out of Iraq while the Coalition still occupy.
Now, I wonder why they have decided to pick on Iran for alleged links to insurgency in Iraq and is apparently totally blind to their "allies Saudi" being less than comptent at stopping people coming in and out their borders?
Another double standard.
I wonder why they aren't threatening Israel with death & destruction for not opening up to the IAEA?
Another double standard.
Any competent military strategist would tell you that US/UK policy in the Middle East and Arab countries is unwinnable. But Donald Rumsfeld sacked all the competent ones that refused to rubber stamp 'Shock & Awe'.
Not Donald Rumsfeld
Thread drift
26.03.2007 22:56
They were in uniform, members of recognised armed forces, and so are due the correct treatment under the Geneva Convention. Whether you like it or not, and whether you want to broaden the debate out is up to you, but those are the facts.
GPS
GPS
26.03.2007 23:12
Where is the is evidence of mistreatment thus far?
As yet there is no proof that they will be prosecuted for espionage. If they were indeed in Iranian waters scoping out targets for an attack they are well within their rights to take them prisoner.
In fact, didn't the US set some sort of precedent for "pre-emptive" strikes on foreign soil with that scary superpower Afghanistan- with their Intercontinetal Ballistic Goats?
These prisoners may well be paraded on TV again, and much as don't like the idea, you have to ask yourself what the Coalition thought they were up to by doing much the same thing and worse in Iraq.
What goes around comes around, but unfortunatle it'll never be the people responsible on the receiving end, just those at the bottom of the pecking order.
When the superpowers throw away the rule book they surely must expect a free-for-all!
Not Donald Rumsfeld
"rantings on the topic are irrelevant"
26.03.2007 23:55
Now if you are an 'honest broker' or 'independent mind' it must make you think twice. Nothing that has been said here is wild or irrational or inaccurate. We have good evidence that this was deliberate provocation. We have independent witnesses. And any independent witness can see those reporting on this are being smeared. Yet there isn't a single mainstream western journalist who is yet prepared to question the 'official story'. That has got to make you slightly suspicious we are in the middle of a major propaganda drive to a war no one wants. You wouldn't admit to wanting a war with Iran would you ?
This isn't isolated though. Do a search on Iran on IM over the past six months and anyone should be able to see exactly the same false propaganda that led us by the nose into a disasterous and bloody occupation of Iraq. You can't defend that.
You know what, I admit I have no way of knowing where the NATO troops were. I can't be sure that this is a provocation by the Iranians, or as the evidence seems to indicate a provocation by the British. I only have credible witness statements to judge by. I do know for sure that NATO troops should be stationed in the North Atlantic, and I do know border disputes in the Persian Gulf are best left to the Iraqis and Iranians to sort out without foriegn involvement. And I do know that for shameful historical reasons the least credible nation in the entire world to intervene is such disputes is the UK, closely followed by the US. Forget all that recent imperial slaughter of ours, just concentrate on the new war-drums our 'free press' are pumping out .
orca
sorry sorry sorry!
27.03.2007 02:39
I find this whole thing very disturbing: it's like having flash backs to the dodgy dossier, but you know precisely what is going to happen, and that part of your brain that I'm sure a lot of us had, telling us, however quietly, that there was no way our democratically elected government would issue such outright lies to justify a war, is now switched off for good.
We'll be at war with Iran soon enough, and the mainstream media is quite happy to forget the context of things like the detention of these fifteen servicemen. If the Americans and British have been detaining Iranian servicemen, what can they expect in return? And sure, Iran has a pretty bad record in terms of how it treats its citizens, but we can be pretty certain the current Iranian government would not be in charge if the Americans and British hadn't waded in to protect their interests in 1953. And those interests, as we all know, were black and shiny and viscous and buried under the ground.
Remember Mossadegh...
the bloke that originally posted the article
the bloke that originally posted the article
27.03.2007 06:35
I am unable like everyone but a handful of individuals on this planet to acertain what happened on the day, but as you state we've been duped time and time again by scenarios like this.
Maybe they were indeed "kidnapped", maybe this was done in retaliation for the recent "kidnapping" of Iranians in Iraq. Geopolitics is often a shady place.
But one thing is for sure, anything the UK and US governemnts are telling us has to be presumed to be utter fiction until the facts are on the table.
There is very good reason to be scared this is going to be used as an excuse to murder innocent people and to slaughter people who have a contract with their governments to defend their countrymen from REAL danger- not protect some capitalists' bank accounts under false pretexts.
I have to say, that I am very shocked that someone has reverted to arguing the Geneva Convention on this incident. The US and UK have done all but wipe their backsides in public with the treaty.
And THAT alone is a greater threat to military personell and national security than this incident in the Gulf.
I thought the US had enough of bare knuckle boxing and wanted to put the gloves back on. It should, it's plainly punch drunk.
Not Donald Rumsfeld
Ledt me make one tiny prediction
27.03.2007 08:53
GPS
GPS
27.03.2007 09:48
At any rate, it's nice to see you starting to acknowledge the complex cause & effect that surrounds these issues.
Maybe, one day you'll it'll dawn on you that the people you seem to be siding invaded Iraq illegally, and seem to be gearing up to do the same with Iran.
Unlike Iraq, Iran isn't backed into a corner shitting itself at US bullyboy tactics. Iran also knows full well that any serious US/UK incursion into their territory will be a monumental disaster for the US/UK and will make Iraq look like mugging a pensioner. There is a serious potential for wildfire instability in the region if Iran gets attacked.
This alone makes the gravity of the situation far more precarious than any other US bungled burglary. This one could unleash a total cohesive meltdown in the area. And for all the technology we have in the West, our military is too flabby, shoddy and unmotivated for a real war.
Then maybe you'll also one day understand why some people really don't like the idea of the last remaining superpower slaughtering civillians with umpunity.
Personally, I have no love for any form of government, but like most people I have a far greater distaste for injustice and a total revulsion for dehumanised murder.
If you have failed to notice the build up for a pretext for wholesale war against "Evil Islam" since the Bush admin got into power, then I guess there is little hope on you getting much agreement here.
End of story.
Not Donald Rumsfled
Tiny predictions and little arithmetics
27.03.2007 10:22
By putting the word diplomats in inverted commas you are inferring they weren't really diplomats. A diplomat is anyone, like these people, who has diplomatic papers.
As for your tiny prediction, well, I hope you are right and I hope it doesn't take that long but you should bear in mind the Iranians aren't being held by the British, they are held by the americans. And Tony Blair hasn't a great record on influencing the neo-cons to release even UK citizens from illegal detention.
orca
By putting 'diplomat' in inverted commas
27.03.2007 10:52
GPS
diplomatically speaking
27.03.2007 11:01
No, it is a legal definition. Of course not all diplomats are diplomatic - John Bolton is proof of that. And the UK secret agents who placed the fake rock in Moscow are certainly spies, but as they also carried diplomatic papers they were immune from any prosecution bar expulsion. As should have been the case with these Iranians. Now maybe these Iranians were spies, so according to interntional law they could have been expelled by the host country. The host government invited them there and so for a third country to detain them is to all intents and purposes kidnap.
That's the thing about roses, they grow better with a little fertiliser.
orca
diplomats and arrests
27.03.2007 11:49
GPS
Diplomats
27.03.2007 11:59
But it is an open secret that diplomacy is riddled with spies. You can bet that London has a contingent of CIA agents with diplomatic papers. And in the US we'll have MI6 doing the same.
Not Donald Rumsfled
murky waters
27.03.2007 12:37
No, but that isn't what happened. The Iranians arrested armed foriegn soldiers patrolling their waters, at least as far as the Iraqi coastguard and the Iranians are concerned. Any nation would do the same.
I mention the Iranian diplomats who were illegally detained simply for context.
Now the MoD is 'threatening' to release 'proof' that the marines were in Iraqi waters if they aren't released in the next few days. I would welcome that and can see no valid reason why they haven't done that at once if they genuinly could. If they have such proof, it will prove something else too - where the frigging border is according to the British. Is it the Shahs border that they supported when he was there man ? Or is it Saddams border which they supported when he was thier man ? And I look forward to the Attorney Generals legal advice on why the British are qualified to impose a border on two unrelated nations without recognised border treaty when the British were instrumental in persuading the UN not to rule on this, and have changed their own opinion everytime it suited them.
Even I wouldn't expect someone who buys the Sun to understand any of his though. Maybe they'll get lucky and the female detainee will show her tits, or maybe the best excuse they will come up with is a joke about female drivers since she was driving the vessel.
orca
Arresting ...
27.03.2007 13:07
GPS
quite so
27.03.2007 13:26
They haven't been this time yet. And besides, what consular access have the Iranian diplomats had ? and where are they being held ? And what about all the illegal detainees held in 'Club X-Ray' on full view not only to the worlds media, but to the elements ?
Same rules apply. The UK marines and sailors are better treated than we accord to our captives.
orca
Further reading
27.03.2007 13:41
Not Donald Rumsfled
...
27.03.2007 13:41
at least then you can support your side properly.
ross
Our captives?
27.03.2007 14:34
GPS