Iran ?to try Britons for espionage?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RichUK

Lifer
Feb 14, 2005
10,341
678
126
Originally posted by: Aimster
Iran wants the West to attack.

Britain and Iran were actually very close until Bush came into power and started being friends with Blair.

The strong alliance between the UK and the US has nothing to do with Blair and Bush. :confused:
 

libs0n

Member
May 16, 2005
197
0
76
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: libs0n
Originally posted by: amish
Originally posted by: beyoku
This just in.
Iran: British sailors crossed into Iranian waters six times
CNn
Earlier Thursday, Iran said the 15 UK military personnel detained last week entered its waters six times before they were arrested, and announced that the promised release of a woman sailor was suspended due to Britain's "behavior" in the matter.

just because something is "said" doesn't make it true. i prefer facts such as, "global positioning system on the ship proves the vessel was "clearly" 3.1 kilometers (1.7 nautical miles) inside Iraqi waters." that was in your article too. too much he said she said right now. where are the boats?

The problem being that the territorial waters between Iraq and Iran have never been fully defined between them and thus it is not as simple as checking coordinates against a marked map. The demarked line in the British map is of their own creation and has no basis in any treaty. So, the British, having declared what is and is not Iranian waters on their own, have provided a point of capture that is inside Iraqi waters as defined by them, but they made the definition. I have no doubt that the British are accurate on where their boys were, however that does not mean that they were not in Iranian waters, just that they were not in Iranian waters in how the British defined them. The key point of contention being that the British do not have the authority to arbitrarily determine such a delineation.


This was posted in the other thread about this...

British Vice Adm. Charles Style said the global positioning system on the ship proves the vessel was "clearly" 3.1 kilometers (1.7 nautical miles) inside Iraqi waters.

Iran insists the ship was inside its territorial waters and, according to Style, provided a map with coordinates on Saturday in an attempt to prove the point.

Style said those coordinates actually "turned out to confirm they were in Iraqi waters" and Iraq has supported that position.

Upon pointing that out Sunday through diplomatic contacts, Style said Iran then "provided a second set of coordinates" on Monday that were "in Iranian waters over two nautical miles" from the position shown by the HMS Cornwall and confirmed by the merchant vessel the British personnel boarded.

The "change of coordinates," Style said "is hard to legitimate."

I'm not saying that the Iranians are correct on where the British were but that what is considered "Iraqi" or "Iranian" waters has never been determined between Iraq and Iran. The first coordinates provided by the Iranians are inside what Britain has marked to be "Iraqi" waters. The second are in what the British consider "Iranian" waters. There is no such line dividing Iraqi waters from Iranian.

If the contention by Iran is correct, that they believe that the British have trespassed into what "they" consider to be Iranian waters on six previous occasions, then it is likely when they decided to take action that there wasn't too much consideration on where the British were exactly on that occasion, just that they would capture them.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,866
1,515
126
Originally posted by: libs0n
I'm not saying that the Iranians are correct on where the British were but that what is considered "Iraqi" or "Iranian" waters has never been determined between Iraq and Iran. The first coordinates provided by the Iranians are inside what Britain has marked to be "Iraqi" waters. The second are in what the British consider "Iranian" waters. There is no such line dividing Iraqi waters from Iranian.

If the contention by Iran is correct, that they believe that the British have trespassed into what "they" consider to be Iranian waters on six previous occasions, then it is likely when they decided to take action that there wasn't too much consideration on where the British were exactly on that occasion, just that they would capture them.

Did you not understand the article????

Iran said that boat was captured at point A. The Brits and the Iraqis confirm that point A is in Iraqi territory. The Iranians then say, we actually didn't mean point A, we meant point B.

How credible are they after changing their alleged coordinates to fit their story after their first set of coordinates they provided showed that they were actually in Iraqi territory??? DOH!!!!!!


 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: spacejamz
Originally posted by: libs0n
I'm not saying that the Iranians are correct on where the British were but that what is considered "Iraqi" or "Iranian" waters has never been determined between Iraq and Iran. The first coordinates provided by the Iranians are inside what Britain has marked to be "Iraqi" waters. The second are in what the British consider "Iranian" waters. There is no such line dividing Iraqi waters from Iranian.

If the contention by Iran is correct, that they believe that the British have trespassed into what "they" consider to be Iranian waters on six previous occasions, then it is likely when they decided to take action that there wasn't too much consideration on where the British were exactly on that occasion, just that they would capture them.

Did you not understand the article????

Iran said that boat was captured at point A. The Brits and the Iraqis confirm that point A is in Iraqi territory. The Iranians then say, we actually didn't mean point A, we meant point B.

How credible are they after changing their alleged coordinates to fit their story after their first set of coordinates they provided showed that they were actually in Iraqi territory??? DOH!!!!!!

Like I said, Iran groupies are just going to ignore this.

 

libs0n

Member
May 16, 2005
197
0
76
Originally posted by: spacejamz
Did you not understand the article????

Iran said that boat was captured at point A. The Brits and the Iraqis confirm that point A is in Iraqi territory. The Iranians then say, we actually didn't mean point A, we meant point B.

How credible are they after changing their alleged coordinates to fit their story after their first set of coordinates they provided showed that they were actually in Iraqi territory??? DOH!!!!!!

I'm not saying that Iranian assertions are credible, but that there is no delineation into what is Iraqi territory and what is not. I don't expect Iranian operations to be the height of competence, and that they change their position to fit the story is unsurprising. That doesn't mean that something exists which doesn't: clear territorial delineation.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: libs0n
Originally posted by: spacejamz
Did you not understand the article????

Iran said that boat was captured at point A. The Brits and the Iraqis confirm that point A is in Iraqi territory. The Iranians then say, we actually didn't mean point A, we meant point B.

How credible are they after changing their alleged coordinates to fit their story after their first set of coordinates they provided showed that they were actually in Iraqi territory??? DOH!!!!!!

I'm not saying that Iranian assertions are credible, but that there is no delineation into what is Iraqi territory and what is not. I don't expect Iranian operations to be the height of competence, and that they change their position to fit the story is unsurprising. That doesn't mean that something exists which doesn't: clear territorial delineation.

Even if they were in disputed waters, what gives Iran the right to kidnap British sailors? If the Brits can't be in disputed waters, then Iranians shouldn't be there either.

 

libs0n

Member
May 16, 2005
197
0
76
Originally posted by: JD50
Even if they were in disputed waters, what gives Iran the right to kidnap British sailors? If the Brits can't be in disputed waters, then Iranians shouldn't be there either.

I wouldn't put it as something that can be determined from the outside. Nations act according to what they determine their position is; what they believe to be true gives them the right. The Iranians believe that the Brits are playing in waters that are theirs, that they have jurisdiction over that area. That, to them, gives them the right to perform operations to defend their sovereignty, in this case to capture British soldiers as a move to show the Brits to respect their territorial position. Of course, the Brits have their own position, that they know where Iraqi waters begin and end, and that as an occupational power in Iraq they have every right to patrol those waters and conduct boarding raids to protect them from dangerous Toyotas. The Brits' position gives absolutely no right to the Iranians to kidnap their soldiers. The Iranian position gives the Iranians every right.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: libs0n
Originally posted by: spacejamz
Did you not understand the article????

Iran said that boat was captured at point A. The Brits and the Iraqis confirm that point A is in Iraqi territory. The Iranians then say, we actually didn't mean point A, we meant point B.

How credible are they after changing their alleged coordinates to fit their story after their first set of coordinates they provided showed that they were actually in Iraqi territory??? DOH!!!!!!

I'm not saying that Iranian assertions are credible, but that there is no delineation into what is Iraqi territory and what is not. I don't expect Iranian operations to be the height of competence, and that they change their position to fit the story is unsurprising. That doesn't mean that something exists which doesn't: clear territorial delineation.

Even if they were in disputed waters, what gives Iran the right to kidnap British sailors? If the Brits can't be in disputed waters, then Iranians shouldn't be there either.

They don't like nosy neighbors?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: libs0n
Originally posted by: spacejamz
Did you not understand the article????

Iran said that boat was captured at point A. The Brits and the Iraqis confirm that point A is in Iraqi territory. The Iranians then say, we actually didn't mean point A, we meant point B.

How credible are they after changing their alleged coordinates to fit their story after their first set of coordinates they provided showed that they were actually in Iraqi territory??? DOH!!!!!!

I'm not saying that Iranian assertions are credible, but that there is no delineation into what is Iraqi territory and what is not. I don't expect Iranian operations to be the height of competence, and that they change their position to fit the story is unsurprising. That doesn't mean that something exists which doesn't: clear territorial delineation.

Even if they were in disputed waters, what gives Iran the right to kidnap British sailors? If the Brits can't be in disputed waters, then Iranians shouldn't be there either.

They don't like nosy neighbors?


If your neighbor was in the woods behind your house in an area where the property lines were not clearly marked would you kidnap them?
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: libs0n
Originally posted by: spacejamz
Did you not understand the article????

Iran said that boat was captured at point A. The Brits and the Iraqis confirm that point A is in Iraqi territory. The Iranians then say, we actually didn't mean point A, we meant point B.

How credible are they after changing their alleged coordinates to fit their story after their first set of coordinates they provided showed that they were actually in Iraqi territory??? DOH!!!!!!

I'm not saying that Iranian assertions are credible, but that there is no delineation into what is Iraqi territory and what is not. I don't expect Iranian operations to be the height of competence, and that they change their position to fit the story is unsurprising. That doesn't mean that something exists which doesn't: clear territorial delineation.

Even if they were in disputed waters, what gives Iran the right to kidnap British sailors? If the Brits can't be in disputed waters, then Iranians shouldn't be there either.

They don't like nosy neighbors?


If your neighbor was in the woods behind your house in an area where the property lines were not clearly marked would you kidnap them?


Only if God told him to ;)

The fvcking Iranians have GPS .. they have to in order to target ANYTHING they want to fire their weapons at.. The Iranians KIDNAPPED these soldiers for political reasons.. not security reasons

The Iranians should be punished by the Arab League of Nations for this act of agression against Great Britain
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: libs0n
Originally posted by: spacejamz
Did you not understand the article????

Iran said that boat was captured at point A. The Brits and the Iraqis confirm that point A is in Iraqi territory. The Iranians then say, we actually didn't mean point A, we meant point B.

How credible are they after changing their alleged coordinates to fit their story after their first set of coordinates they provided showed that they were actually in Iraqi territory??? DOH!!!!!!

I'm not saying that Iranian assertions are credible, but that there is no delineation into what is Iraqi territory and what is not. I don't expect Iranian operations to be the height of competence, and that they change their position to fit the story is unsurprising. That doesn't mean that something exists which doesn't: clear territorial delineation.

Even if they were in disputed waters, what gives Iran the right to kidnap British sailors? If the Brits can't be in disputed waters, then Iranians shouldn't be there either.

They don't like nosy neighbors?


If your neighbor was in the woods behind your house in an area where the property lines were not clearly marked would you kidnap them?

Sure, why not?
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: libs0n
Originally posted by: spacejamz
Did you not understand the article????

Iran said that boat was captured at point A. The Brits and the Iraqis confirm that point A is in Iraqi territory. The Iranians then say, we actually didn't mean point A, we meant point B.

How credible are they after changing their alleged coordinates to fit their story after their first set of coordinates they provided showed that they were actually in Iraqi territory??? DOH!!!!!!

I'm not saying that Iranian assertions are credible, but that there is no delineation into what is Iraqi territory and what is not. I don't expect Iranian operations to be the height of competence, and that they change their position to fit the story is unsurprising. That doesn't mean that something exists which doesn't: clear territorial delineation.

Even if they were in disputed waters, what gives Iran the right to kidnap British sailors? If the Brits can't be in disputed waters, then Iranians shouldn't be there either.

They don't like nosy neighbors?


If your neighbor was in the woods behind your house in an area where the property lines were not clearly marked would you kidnap them?

Sure, why not?

Overzealous much?

Anyhow.. then enjoy going to prison for kidnapping if you made a mistake

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
In the video broadcast Wednesday on Iran's Arab-language satellite channel, Turney said her group had "trespassed" in Iranian waters. The segment showed her wearing a black head scarf, sitting in a room before floral curtains and smoking a cigarette.

"Obviously we trespassed into their waters," Turney said. "They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested. There was no harm, no aggression."

The person closest to the conflict, one of the British sailors actually in the water, said they trespassed. Case CLOSED.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: spacejamz
CASE REALLY CLOSED!!!!!

Where is Iran's evidence??? how many times are they gonna change the coordinates of where the abduction took place!!!!

Get a clue!!!!

The video showed a coast guard officer identified only as Col. Setareh, who displayed a GPS device purported to belong to the British crew. He said it proved the British had "violated Iranian waters" several times before they were detained.

They might have been caught in "disputed waters", but the British violated Iranian waters several times before Iran captured them.

The British intelligence community has lied before (to make a case for the war in Iraq). The British sailor who was actually on the offending boat said they trespassed. I'll take their word over the word of some forum jockey or military "intelligence" (read: propaganda) official.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
In the video broadcast Wednesday on Iran's Arab-language satellite channel, Turney said her group had "trespassed" in Iranian waters. The segment showed her wearing a black head scarf, sitting in a room before floral curtains and smoking a cigarette.

"Obviously we trespassed into their waters," Turney said. "They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested. There was no harm, no aggression."

The person closest to the conflict, one of the British sailors actually in the water, said they trespassed. Case CLOSED.

I am sure she was not scared even one little bit and not forced whatsoever into saying anything at all against her will.. I mean with spicy and delicious Islamic Beheading Videos all over the net.. she had nothing to be concerned about :D
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: jpeyton
In the video broadcast Wednesday on Iran's Arab-language satellite channel, Turney said her group had "trespassed" in Iranian waters. The segment showed her wearing a black head scarf, sitting in a room before floral curtains and smoking a cigarette.

"Obviously we trespassed into their waters," Turney said. "They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested. There was no harm, no aggression."

The person closest to the conflict, one of the British sailors actually in the water, said they trespassed. Case CLOSED.

I am sure she was not scared even one little bit and not forced whatsoever into saying anything at all against her will.. I mean with spicy and delicious Islamic Beheading Videos all over the net.. she had nothing to be concerned about :D

Speculation or proof? Because so far, we have video proof of her confession, and only speculation of your explanation for it.

Besides, the UK's biggest allies (the USA) can attest to the rock solid nature of confessions made under duress.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,866
1,515
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: spacejamz
CASE REALLY CLOSED!!!!!

Where is Iran's evidence??? how many times are they gonna change the coordinates of where the abduction took place!!!!

Get a clue!!!!

The video showed a coast guard officer identified only as Col. Setareh, who displayed a GPS device purported to belong to the British crew. He said it proved the British had "violated Iranian waters" several times before they were detained.

They might have been caught in "disputed waters", but the British violated Iranian waters several times before Iran captured them.

The British intelligence community has lied before (to make a case for the war in Iraq). The British sailor who was actually on the offending boat said they trespassed. I'll take their word over the word of some forum jockey or military "intelligence" (read: propaganda) official.


I eagerly anticipate this video of the transgressions to be plastered all over the Al Jeezera network then...when is that gonna happen anyway???


 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: spacejamz
CASE REALLY CLOSED!!!!!

Where is Iran's evidence??? how many times are they gonna change the coordinates of where the abduction took place!!!!

Get a clue!!!!

The video showed a coast guard officer identified only as Col. Setareh, who displayed a GPS device purported to belong to the British crew. He said it proved the British had "violated Iranian waters" several times before they were detained.

They might have been caught in "disputed waters", but the British violated Iranian waters several times before Iran captured them.

The British intelligence community has lied before (to make a case for the war in Iraq). The British sailor who was actually on the offending boat said they trespassed. I'll take their word over the word of some forum jockey or military "intelligence" (read: propaganda) official.


You cannot be serious.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: jpeyton
In the video broadcast Wednesday on Iran's Arab-language satellite channel, Turney said her group had "trespassed" in Iranian waters. The segment showed her wearing a black head scarf, sitting in a room before floral curtains and smoking a cigarette.

"Obviously we trespassed into their waters," Turney said. "They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested. There was no harm, no aggression."

The person closest to the conflict, one of the British sailors actually in the water, said they trespassed. Case CLOSED.

I am sure she was not scared even one little bit and not forced whatsoever into saying anything at all against her will.. I mean with spicy and delicious Islamic Beheading Videos all over the net.. she had nothing to be concerned about :D

Speculation or proof? Because so far, we have video proof of her confession, and only speculation of your explanation for it.

Besides, the UK's biggest allies (the USA) can attest to the rock solid nature of confessions made under duress.

I hate torture.. and don't know who to believe in this incident.. but it sure is odd that the Iranians DID correct their original story.. why would that be?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: spacejamz
CASE REALLY CLOSED!!!!!

Where is Iran's evidence??? how many times are they gonna change the coordinates of where the abduction took place!!!!

Get a clue!!!!

The video showed a coast guard officer identified only as Col. Setareh, who displayed a GPS device purported to belong to the British crew. He said it proved the British had "violated Iranian waters" several times before they were detained.

They might have been caught in "disputed waters", but the British violated Iranian waters several times before Iran captured them.

The British intelligence community has lied before (to make a case for the war in Iraq). The British sailor who was actually on the offending boat said they trespassed. I'll take their word over the word of some forum jockey or military "intelligence" (read: propaganda) official.


You cannot be serious.

You have proof she's lying?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: spacejamz
CASE REALLY CLOSED!!!!!

Where is Iran's evidence??? how many times are they gonna change the coordinates of where the abduction took place!!!!

Get a clue!!!!

The video showed a coast guard officer identified only as Col. Setareh, who displayed a GPS device purported to belong to the British crew. He said it proved the British had "violated Iranian waters" several times before they were detained.

They might have been caught in "disputed waters", but the British violated Iranian waters several times before Iran captured them.

The British intelligence community has lied before (to make a case for the war in Iraq). The British sailor who was actually on the offending boat said they trespassed. I'll take their word over the word of some forum jockey or military "intelligence" (read: propaganda) official.


You cannot be serious.

You have proof she's lying?

Maybe you should read all of the links that have been posted showing the Iranians all of the sudden changing their coordinates when the ones that they provided were shown to be in Iraqi waters.

Since it seems that you would prefer to go the dumb question route.....You have proof she's telling the truth?

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: JD50
Since it seems that you would prefer to go the dumb question route.....You have proof she's telling the truth?

They released audio/video footage of her confession on Iranian TV, the contents of which were corroborated by quite a few international news sources (BBC, Reuters, AP).

I guess you only accept confessions that fit your agenda?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: JD50
Since it seems that you would prefer to go the dumb question route.....You have proof she's telling the truth?

They released audio/video footage of her confession on Iranian TV, the contents of which were corroborated by quite a few international news sources (BBC, Reuters, AP).

I guess you only accept confessions that fit your agenda?

No I am skeptical of any confession that is made when in captivity, especially when that person was kidnapped. Apparently you believe anything that is said by someone that is being held captive. Audio and video footage of someone saying something does not mean that they are telling the truth. I see that you have conveniently ignored the proof offered up in this thread of the Brits being in Iraqi territory, would you care to comment on that?

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: JD50
Since it seems that you would prefer to go the dumb question route.....You have proof she's telling the truth?

They released audio/video footage of her confession on Iranian TV, the contents of which were corroborated by quite a few international news sources (BBC, Reuters, AP).

I guess you only accept confessions that fit your agenda?

No I am skeptical of any confession that is made when in captivity, especially when that person was kidnapped. Apparently you believe anything that is said by someone that is being held captive. Audio and video footage of someone saying something does not mean that they are telling the truth. I see that you have conveniently ignored the proof offered up in this thread of the Brits being in Iraqi territory, would you care to comment on that?

You say kidnapped, the Iranians say detained. When police officers in your city get confessions from criminals, those criminals are under police detention as well. According to you, the only confessions that should be allowed are those made willingly from the comfort of one's own home.