Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 29th, 2007, 03:26 PM       


http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...raqiWaters.htm

MOD briefing shows Royal Navy personnel were in Iraqi waters

28 Mar 07

The Ministry of Defence has presented evidence which shows that the fifteen personnel detained by Iranian authorities on Friday 23 March 2007 were operating in Iraqi waters when they were seized.

[img]http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Te...pg&maxSize=210[/img]
Picture shows GPS location of the incident, as seen from a Royal Navy helicopter over the merchant vessel after the event
[Picture: MOD]




The briefing, at defence headquarters in London, was given by Vice Admiral Charles Style, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Commitments). Vice Admiral Style, who is responsible for providing strategic advice to operational commanders, explained in detail where the Royal Navy personnel were located when they were seized:
"The aim of this brief is to provide a factual account of the incident during which fifteen Royal Naval personnel were seized by the Iranians last Friday. By way of background, HMS CORNWALL was in charge of the coalition force, which - alongside the Iraqi Navy - is operating in the Northern Persian Gulf.
"This force maintains the sovereignty and integrity of Iraqi territorial waters under UN Security Council Resolution 1723, and with the approval of the Iraqi Government. The ship – and others in the coalition - maintain a presence patrolling there. They are also charged with protection of the Iraqi offshore oil infrastructure – economically very important - and the security of merchant vessels.
[img]http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Te...PG&maxSize=210[/img]
Picture shows position of HMS Cornwall on Friday 23 March 2007

[Picture: MOD]




See Slide – chart of Northern Persian Gulf >>>
"On 23 March a boarding team consisting of seven Royal Marines and eight sailors - who were embarked in two of HMS CORNWALL's boats - conducted a routine boarding of an Indian flagged Merchant Vessel which was cooperative throughout. They investigated this vessel after witnessing her unloading cars into two barges secured alongside. Since early March the force has conducted 66 routine boardings. So the one that I'm talking about was entirely routine business, and conducted in a particular area where four other boardings have been completed recently.
"As shown on the chart, the merchant vessel was 7.5 nautical miles south east of the Al Faw Peninsula and clearly in Iraqi territorial waters. Her master has confirmed that his vessel was anchored within Iraqi waters at the time of the arrest. The position was 29 degrees 50.36 minutes North 048 degrees 43.08 minutes East. This places her 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters. This fact has been confirmed by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Te...axSize=210</a> Picture shows first Iranian reported position [1] and corrected Iranian position [2]
[Picture: MOD]




See Slide – Iranian claimed positions >>>
"The Iranian government has provided us with two different positions for the incident. The first we received on Saturday and the second on Monday. As this map shows, the first of these points still lies within Iraqi territorial waters. We pointed this out to them on Sunday in diplomatic contacts.
"After we did this, they then provided a second set of coordinates that places the incident in Iranian waters over two nautical miles from the position given by HMS CORNWALL and confirmed by the merchant vessel. The two Iranian positions are just under a nautical mile apart – 1800 yards or so. It is hard to understand a reason for this change of coordinates. We unambiguously contest both the positions provided by the Iranians.
"I should just explain at this point that the boats remained connected at this point. One of the seaboats was connected via data link, which communicated its position continually to the ship where it was displayed, superimposed on an electronic chart, on a purpose built console. During the boarding this console was constantly monitored and indicated, throughout, that the boats had remained well within Iraqi territorial waters.
"Our boarding started at 0739 local time and was completed at 0910 with the merchant vessel having been cleared to continue with her business. Communications were lost with the boarding team as the boarding was finishing … at 0910. HMS CORNWALL's Lynx helicopter, which had been covering the initial stages of the boarding, immediately returned to the scene to locate the boarding team.
"The helicopter reported that the two seaboats were being escorted by Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Navy vessels towards the Shatt 'Al Arab Waterway and were now inside Iranian territorial waters. Debriefing of the helicopter crew and a conversation with the master of the merchant ship both indicate that the boarding team were ambushed while disembarking from the merchant vessel. Both boats were equipped with a GPS chart plotter.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Te...axSize=210</a> Vice Admiral Charles Style, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Commitments)
[Picture: CPO Colin Burden]
"On Sunday morning, 25 March, HMS CORNWALL's Lynx conducted an overflight of the merchant vessel, which was still at anchor, and once again confirmed her location on Global Positioning System equipment. Her Master confirmed that his vessel had remained at anchor since Friday, and was in Iraqi territorial waters.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, my primary message is clear. HMS CORNWALL with her boarding party was going about her legal business – in Iraqi Territorial waters, under a United Nations Security Council Resolution, with the explicit approval of the Iraqi government.
"The action by Iranian forces in arresting and detaining our people is unjustified and wrong. As such it is a matter of deep concern to us and the families of the people who have been taken. We continue not only to call for their safe, but for their safe and speedy, return, and we continue to seek immediate consular access to them as a prelude to their release."
Reply With Quote
  #2  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Mar 29th, 2007, 08:12 PM       
you might need to point out "chapter 5" for geggy ;o

cause it's so long and stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 29th, 2007, 08:17 PM       
Geggy, could you maybe post a 100 page dossier with no bearing on the conversation in order to challenge all of this info? Thanks.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1582544.ece

March 29, 2007


How Britons were conned by Iranian gunboat trick

The speed and cunning shown by the Revolutionary Guards suggests that their action was premeditated

Dominic Kennedy


The British sailors and marines being held by Iran were ambushed at their most vulnerable moment, while climbing down the ladder of a merchant ship and trying to get into their bobbing inflatables.
Out of sight of their warship and without any helicopter cover, their only link to their commanders was a communications device beaming their position by satellite.
That went dead as they were captured. One theory is that it was thrown overboard to prevent the Iranians getting hold of the equipment and the information it contained.
The Ministry of Defence released the coordinates of the searched vessel yesterday to prove that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards made an unprovoked and improper attack in Iraqi waters.
The Iranians also blundered in diplomatic talks by giving the British their own compass reference for the place where they said the 14 men and one woman had been seized. When Britain plotted these on a map and pointed out that the spot was in Iraq’s maritime area, the Iranians came up with a new set of coordinates, putting the seizure in their own waters.
The speed and cunning shown by the Revolutionary Guards has raised suspicions that their action was premeditated. A senior military officer described it as “deliberate”.
It took only three minutes for the Iranians, moving at 40 knots, to move from their legitimate positions monitoring shipping in their waters to come alongside the British last Friday morning.
The sailors and marines from HMS Cornwall were in the Gulf, working under a United Nations mandate to protect Iraq from smuggling and threats to the oil industry, when an Indian-flagged vessel came under suspicion.
It was in shallow waters and the Cornwall was unable to go alongside without grounding. A boarding party jumped into two ribbed inflatable boats, or RIBs, and set out to investigate.
A helicopter hovered to observe the boarding but, after confirming that the Indian vessel was peaceful and friendly, returned to the ship. The Cornwall stayed in contact with the two launch boats via a communications link providing a GPS satellite position.
After the successful boarding of the innocent Indian vessel, the Britons began returning to their RIBs. At that moment one Iranian patrol vessel came alongside, adopting a friendly posture. As a second Iranian vessel arrived, the Revolutionary Guards turned aggressive.
HMS Cornwalllost communications with the launch boats and sent up the helicopter to investigate. The air crew watched as the small British inflatables were forced towards Iran. By now, up to four Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessels were swarming round the Britons.
Although the seizure has been widely linked to the taking of five Iranians by US forces in Iraq, Iranian diplomats have ruled this out. They say that there is no relation between the Britons’ seizure and any other bilateral, regional or international issue.
From the start, the Iranian Ambassador to London gave British diplomats a set of coordinates for the location of the confrontation.
Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, told the Iranian Foreign Minister that these compass points actually indicated a spot clearly in Iraqi waters. She tried to give Iran an exit route by suggesting that it might all be a misunderstanding that could be resolved by an immediate release of the captives.
On Sunday, the helicopter from HMS Cornwall flew back over the Indian vessel, which was still anchored and had drifted only slightly. A photograph was taken of an airman holding a GPS device. The coordinates on this picture, the MoD insists, prove that the Britons were comfortably within Iraqi waters when captured.
On Monday, Iran surprised Britain by coming up with a “corrected” set of coordinates. “The two Iranian positions are just under a nautical mile apart, 1,800 yards or so,” Vice-Admiral Charles Style, a Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, said yesterday.
Mrs Beckett told the Iranian Foreign Minister that she could not accept the Iranians’ version of events. She told MPs in the House of Commons that it was “impossible to believe, given the seriousness of the incident, that the Iranians could have made such a mistake with the original coordinates, which after all they gave us over several days”.
Outgunned
— The two Iranian patrol ships that seized the Britons were equipped with rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine guns, enough for a small sea battle. By contrast, the Britons go lightly armed on vessels they search in the Gulf. Each man is issued with a rifle or a pistol
— The Iranians struck at a vulnerable moment when the Britons were climbing down a ladder to jump into their inflatables
— The Royal Navy does train its men in the techniques needed to fight at just such a dangerous stage. “They had all the rights available to act in self-defence under law,” a senior military officer said. But they were in an “almost impossible position”
— A similar decision to hold fire was taken by the six Royal Marines and two sailors captured by Iran in 2004 in similar circumstances. Scott Fallon, a former marine, said they did think about shooting their way free but knew it would be hopeless. He told BBC Radio 4: “They had antiaircraft guns. We would have stood no chance”
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2007, 10:24 AM       
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/new...p?storyid=2699
Quote:
Iran leader linked to 1979 hostage crisis
Thu. 30 Jun 2005
Reuter

WASHINGTON - At least four Americans held hostage in the 1979
takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran said on Thursday
they recognized Iran's president-elect as one of the
ringleaders from the crisis, a claim denied in Tehran.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2007, 10:40 AM       
I remember that being an issue when he got elected, but wasn't it disproven?

I know the CIA dismissed it, although I guess some of the hostages still say it was him.

Either way, he was a big proponent of the '79 embassy kidnappings. THese are the kind of methods he supports. The revolutionary guard showed up armed to the teeth in no time. THe whole thing was premeditated, which seems clear to anyone but Geggy and Rosie.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:46 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.