Britannia Served
Britain’s handling of this incident will provide key insight into the current mettle of Western Nations. Let’s just see.
I would also suggest to everyone to not even engage in any discussion about territorial waters. Such chatter is just a smokescreen. The only way Iran could not be perceived as an unjustified aggressor was to claim a violation of their territory. Hence, lo and behold, the “confessions”.
And this incident is a perfect revelation of the truth about the nature of the Iranian regime, and it’s semi-autonomous Revolutionary Guard: Aggressive, imperialistic….in short….dangerous. On a global level.
And by the way, the Revolutionary Guard is a self-sustaining, commercial criminal enterprise. Yes, they run drugs, oil, arms, jewels, liquor….more on that later.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Whatever they decide to do, I hope the U S supports them, as they’ve been a good ally to us.
March 24th, 2007 at 12:24 pmBS! They’ve taken the cake roles in Iraq. About time for the Brit’s to MAN UP and pull their F’n weight.
I’m sick of hearing how great the British troops are doing in Basra. They pulled the same shit in Normandy, Taking the easy beaches while we got our ass’s kicked on Utah and Omaha. The bastards screwed us during OP Market Garden and it was up to the Yanks to get the job done!
Give me a break on the Brit forces and what great allies the are. With all due respect, they are not.
March 24th, 2007 at 2:30 pmEngland, unlike our European friends at least showed up. Where is France, Germany etc?
March 24th, 2007 at 3:46 pmFrance’s Navy is helping in the Gulf; Germany’s mountaineers and KSK are in Afghanistan. But our friends from the former-soviet republics are I think our most loyal allies in the WOT (I don’t know much about the Brits, but I didn’t exactly relish my limited experience). Poland has made great contributions to both Enduring and Iaqi freedom.
I also heard that Foreign Legionaires were on the ground in Iraq last year, but I am not sure.
March 24th, 2007 at 5:02 pmPerhaps what I found is only boots on the ground, but I don’t see France or Germany in either of the lists.
Troop deployment in Iraq 2003-present
Active Troops Multi-National Corps-Iraq Units
United States: 250,000 invasion–173,000 expected as of 7/07
United Kingdom: 45,000 invasion–7,100 current (2/07)
South Korea: 3,300 invasion–2,300 current (2/07)
Poland: 194 invasion–2,500 peak–900 current (2/07)
Australia: 2,000 invasion–550 current (2/07)
Romania: 600 current (2/07)
Denmark: 460 current (2/07)(deployed 7/03)
Georgia: 500 invasion–900 current (2/07)
El Salvador: 380 troops (2/07)
Czech Republic: 300 peak–99 current (2/07)
Azerbaijan: 150 troops (2/07)
Latvia: 136 peak–125 current (2/07)(deployed 4/04)
Mongolia: 131 troops–160 current (2/07)
Albania: 120 troops (2/07)
Lithuania: 53 troops (2/07)
Armenia: 46 current (2/07)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 36 troops (2/07)
Estonia: 35 current (2/07)
Macedonia: 40 troops (2/07)
Kazakhstan: 27 troops (2/07)
Moldova: 24 invasion–11 current (2/07)
Netherlands : 1,345 troops 15 current (2/07)
Bulgaria : 462 troops 155 current (2/07)
Slovakia: 103 troops 103 current (2/07)
Slovenia: 4 current (2/07)
Withdrawn troops
Italy: 1,800 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 11/06)
March 24th, 2007 at 5:48 pmUkraine: 1,650 troops (deployed 8/03 - withdrawn 12/05)
Spain : 1,300 troops (withdrawn 4/04)
Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04 - withdrawn 7/06)
Thailand: 423 troops (withdrawn 8/04)
Honduras: 368 troops (withdrawn 5/04)
Dominican Republic: 302 troops (withdrawn 5/04)
Hungary: 300 troops (withdrawn 3/05)
Nicaragua: 230 troops (withdrawn 2/04)
Singapore: 192 troops (withdrawn 3/05)
Norway: 150 troops (withdrawn 8/06)
Portugal: 128 troops (withdrawn 2/05)
New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03 - withdrawn 9/04)
Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 7/04)
Tonga: 45 troops (deployed 7/04 - withdrawn 12/04)
Iceland: 2 troops (withdrawal date unknown)
Starks,
Check this site out. It looks like France doesn’t have much of a military left.
http://www.warfarehq.com/articles/toaw_articles/2003FrenchOOB.shtml
March 24th, 2007 at 6:00 pmI’m sorry. That should be Starkc.
March 24th, 2007 at 6:01 pmTesting the mettle indeed.
I’m 24, so forgive me if I seem up my ass when I say things like I’m about to say…
It used to be when a little bitch country attacked a more powerful country, it was considered an ACT OF WAR and was responded to in kind.
I’m tired of Iranian bullshit; they need to be put in their place immediately. Every hour Britain doesn’t respond militarily is a sign that they’re just another sloppy vagina of a country, with no desire to defend themselves against anyone, ever. Just like Spain.
Pat, if you haven’t read Mark Steyn’s brilliant book America Alone, you’ll plow through it in two days max, and you’ll be glad you did. Lots of insight into Europes “fuck it” approach to the war on terror.
Pray for those captured soldiers of theirs. They are in the hands of monsters.
March 24th, 2007 at 8:31 pmThis picture is saying so much more than any words can. What will the Brits do, as the storm gathers and the dark clouds move in? They are closer than ever to losing their national identity and in their hopeless efforts to maintain law and oder they continue to put a camera on every street corner and in every alley way. Further eroding the rights of private citizens and erasing any pride or willingness for the common person to stand up for themselves. What Would Churchill Do?
March 24th, 2007 at 10:47 pmI like how the socialist MSM JUMPED on the “confession” and then in little tiny print, noted that this information was given by an Iranian. When the “Confession” comes by way of the British government I might give it just a bit of validity.
The Iranians wouldn’t lie to protect their false claims would they? It is amazing how the MSM takes all kinds of information from “anonymous” and suspected combatants and never seems to mention that little fact.
Plastik
March 25th, 2007 at 7:56 am“I would also suggest to everyone to not even engage in any discussion about territorial waters.” What? Why would leave out the main point of the entire story? Are your minds so narrow that the only way you can get your myopic view of “evil Iran” and “valiant west” is to ignore facts?
Even the UK admitted that they may have had personell on the wrong side of the demarcation line.Do you really think they want war? THINK fools THINK! Have they ever invaded ther neighbors before?
Whatever happened to critical thinking? Whats the matter with you people?
March 25th, 2007 at 9:30 amGramps,
The places I said France and Germany were assisting us were in the Gulf, specifically the gulf itself, and in Afghanistan.
The carrier “Charles e Gaulle” and it’s supporting group of I believe five ships are currently on Joint exercises with us to counter those of the Iranian Navy.
March 25th, 2007 at 10:14 amStarkc,
March 25th, 2007 at 11:15 amThanks, I guess I misread what you said.
Starkc,
You are absolutely correct.
From Debka file http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3961
High alert at US and UK bases, Middle East armies on the ready lest Iran’s seizure of 15 British seamen Friday is only first Iranian reprisal action
The Iranians were bowled over by the appearance of the Charles de Gaulle opposite their southern coast, having assumed that Paris took issue with Washington’s tough stand on their nuclear activities and was seeking improved relations with Tehran.
However, Western military circles explain that the French president Jacques Chirac decided before he leaves office in May to repair the bad impression he left in early February when he urged the world - and Israel in particular - to learn to live with “an Iranian nuclear bomb or two.”
Rafale fighter-bombers on the French carrier’s decks will fly missions over Afghanistan alongside US warplanes.
Its arrival raises to four the number of Western aircraft carriers cruising within striking distance of Iran, including the USS Eisenhower and USS Boxer.
The Charles de Gaulle is accompanied by French Task Force 473, which consists of five warships: the FNS Cassard guided missile destroyer, the FNS Tourville anti-submarine frigate, the FNS Dupleix destroyer adapted for escorting oil tankers and the FNS Marne, a command and supply vessel. Captain of the French task force is Rear Adm. Xavier Magne. Commander of the American flotilla is Rear Adm. Kevin Quinn.
March 25th, 2007 at 11:37 amIn common with a lot of other UK military personnel I have been following this site with great interest as we have a similar problem with our medias reporting of events in Iraq. When I saw this thread I fully expected most of the comments to be along the lines of Gramps initial comment, something supportive from our closest allies.
I must admit I am shocked at the attitude of some of the comments and how factually incorrect some of them are.
For example: Starkc is correct that the French do have ships in the Gulf. They are there to protect their share of the flow of oil out of the Gulf and are part of a commitment that they have had since long before the invasion of Iraq. At no stage have the French or Germans had ground troops in Iraq, FFL or otherwise. They do have some in Afghanistan but have both consistently refused to allow their troops to be deployed into the South where they are needed most.
As for your loyalist allies being from Eastern Europe, if you add all of the Eastern European troops in Iraq together they their commitment is still less than half the size of British commitment. The same is true of Afghanistan. This is despite the fact that Polands Army is nearly 8 times the size of ours.
CK from NJ - I’ll pass on your comments about British forces in Iraq having only cake roles to my friends in the Black Watch who lost 8 men from their battle group supporting USMC operations in Fallujah from Camp Dogwood. I’ll also pass them onto the 2 soldiers from my company who have recently returned from working in Baghdad. And finally I’ll pass them onto the people I know from the UKSF who have deployed into every corner of Iraq.
I won’t bother addressing your comments about WW2 as it is obviously something you know fuck all about. Send me your postal address and I will send you a couple of books about Overlord and Market Garden, it might broaden your mind.
Keep up the good work Pat and don’t let the fact that your site has started to attract arseholes like CK from NY and Starkc put you off. Hopefully in the next few days you’ll have a post up about the release of 15 very brave men and women.
March 25th, 2007 at 12:47 pmI forgot to address the comment from WTF.
The UK have not admitted those personnel crossed the demarcation line. In fact the ship they deployed from and the heli that was in overwatch both say the opposite, as do the US Navy who had a ship in the area and followed it all on radar.
These individuals were taken from Iraqi territorial waters as were the Marines and Navy personnel they seized the last time.
Before you accuse people of ignoring facts try not making the facts up.
March 25th, 2007 at 12:54 pmNo prob, it led to you posting the troop commitment numbers and a neat article about what the French call an Army. Also the little gem of a quote from Chirac,
“he urged the world - and Israel in particular - to learn to live with ‘an Iranian nuclear bomb or two.’”
March 25th, 2007 at 2:03 pmAdam,
I think most here in the U S of A do support our friends the Brits.
Some may have a different perspective then I do, but I always figured the guy in the fighting hole next to mine that pulled the trigger when needed was a FRIEND and ALLY, regardless of RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEXUAL PREFERENCE, or NATION OF BIRTH.
March 25th, 2007 at 2:29 pmAdam, I don’t think anyone was trying to minimize the sacrifices or question the bravery of British soldiers. It’s the fact that Margeret Thatcher had bigger marbles than Tony Blair.
The soldiers are not cowards, but just like in America, many of your politicians are. And given the rising Muslim populations in Europe, it won’t surprise me if Britian tucks its balls behind its arse and talks their way out of this one.
This kidnapping is a very legitimate reason for the coalition to stop the circle-jerk and clean Iran’s clock. Only a willingly ignorant fuck can’t see the connection.
The Iranian people should be glad my finger isn’t on the button. Here’s what I’d say: Give us our men back in good condition within 48 hours, and we won’t drop a nuke on Tehran. If they want a nuclear weapon, let’s give it to them (right up their ass)!
I hope Special Ops are in Iran now.
March 25th, 2007 at 8:17 pmAnyone who believes the Brits were in Iranian waters needs a history lesson. Furthermore, even if an incursion into territorial waters took place, international precedence is an “escort” from the terrioty. The Brits were clearly abducted. This isn’t the first time Iran has pulled this number off before. Everyone seems to forget the embassy abductions back in the 80s. What gets me is the weak response made by Britain and the world. Blair’s statement about this being a “fundamental” issue is a bunch of crap. Iran’s military maneuvers last week coupled with these abductions are nothing short of acts of war.
The funny thing is, Britain was on its way out of Iraq and the ME. I’m interested to see how this plays out. Hopefully they’ll go Falkland Islands on their ass.
As for the Brits taking cake rolls and WWII comments. Ignorance in America is a sad affair.
March 26th, 2007 at 4:12 amAdam,
If you wouldn’t mind linking something to support your claims, It’d be appreciated. Example:
“The Royal Navy insists they were operating in Iraqi waters, not Iranian territory”
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1257281,00.html
An independant witness and the US Navy agree,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070323/ap_on_re_eu/british_seized_iran
The British foreign affairs office, (about halfway down)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1565688.ece
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17782123/
Finally, why exactly am I an “arsehole”? Because you disagree with my opinion? I never ignored the British’s committment, and I never said anything more negative than that I didn’t enjoy working with them. But then, as I said, that’s MY limited experience.
March 26th, 2007 at 4:21 amI figure if I’m an “arsehole” I may as well finish up making and “arse” of myself.
“Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, [Lt. Cdr. Erik Horner] said: “Agreed. Yes. I don’t want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team’s training is a little bit more towards self-preservation.”
The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: “The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, ‘Why didn’t your guys defend themselves?’”…
Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were “very much de-escalatory, because we don’t want wars starting … Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away.””
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2393337.ece#2007-03-26T00:00:04-00:00
I’ll bet I can find a similar instance from 2004 with minimal digging.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563877.ece
This mentions the 2004 abductions, but doesn’t center on it, sorry.
And for giggles,
March 26th, 2007 at 4:39 amhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/21/nspying21.xml
starkc, do you think there are any coalition special ops in Iran at the moment, working on this issue?
March 26th, 2007 at 8:21 amStarkc, There was no need for me to call you an arsehole but when I posted last night I was very angry about your comments and particularly CK from NJs, so I apologize.
In terms of providing evidence to back up what I said, the troop numbers have already been posted here by Gramps and as you can see for yourself the current UK commitment is double that of all the eastern european countries added together. I don’t have exact figures for afghanistan but the picture is similar.
In terms of the French and German reluctance to engage in combat operations I have attempted to post a link below (I haven’t done this before so if it doesn’t work it is from the Times Online 26 Nov 06)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article653930.ece
It actually paints quite a rosy picture with the French and Germans promising to assist in the South if there is an emergency. The reality is that they have yet to do so and the 1500 troops we are withdrawing from Iraq next year (after which we will still have the second largest contingent in Iraq) are being re-deployed to Afghanistan to provide the much needed theatre reserve.
As for your comment about the Marines not opening fire I am not qualified to comment because I was not there, on that boat, at that time. The individuals who were are the only people in the world who can answer that question. From what I know so far I would imagine that the answer will probably centre on the fact that they were massively outnumbered and outgunned (everything so far points to this being a pre-planned op by the Iranians).
Your final link to the investigation into Cpl James was a cheap shot and I was going to answer it by linking it to the story of the US muslim soldier who attacked his colleagues with grenades prior to the invasion and marking it “for giggles”. I didn’t because neither story is funny and all they demonstrate is that every Army has its weak links.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:31 amDo you mean the rescue of the Brits? No, I don’t. I can tell you that it is a certainty that rescue plans have been drawn up, and I can also tell you that the odds of any attempt to rescue them in a military operation are about nil.
The British have already decided that they’ll be taking the political road on this one, which means appeasement for Iran.
If you mean actually inside Iran fixing the “Iran Problem”, no. Absolutly not. We are working against Iran from inside Iraq by capturing Al Quds, Revolutionary Gurad, and Mahdi Army personell. Which is possibly the cause (as Pat pointed out) of Iran’s increased brazeness. You can note first (as has been mentioned) that Iran, specifically “Mymood Iminajihad”, stated plainly that they would retailiate to our capture of criminals and terrorists in a war zone by capturing European civilians. However, coalition forces are more accessible, and in the case of the British, compliant.
But no, we are not in Iran, and won’t be until they finally go too far. I just wonder how far that will be.
March 26th, 2007 at 12:15 pmUs British are still the best fighting machine you will ever come across…its not our fault we have got a spineless c*nt for a leader..if i had my way the middle east would dissapear!!
March 26th, 2007 at 12:30 pmAdam, (the above post was meant for Rumsfeld)
Well, I did not specifically say that French and German troops were on the ground in Iraq. In fact, I specifically said Afghanistan and the Gulf, clarifying that the Gulf meant the Gulf itself, and not the Gulf region (land).
I never meant to downplay the Brits, they have indeed made the largest committment behind the US. However, my criticism is for the decision of the British military, which judging from what UK military and government officals have stated publicly, looks like sheer appeasement.
The notion that a hostile, once rogue and only recently recognized by anyone, nation can kidnapp the military personell of a foreign power, or any state, on the high seas/in territorial waters not of the agressor state and not be held accountable for what is IN FACT and Act of War; AFTER of all things making public statements threatening such criminality, is so utterly rediculous that it blows my mind. I wan’t there either, but the Marines and sailors who were there were, as British officials have said, following proper procedure. The Iranians used only six “Gunboats” which were speedboats with machine guns mounted on them. So, those must have been some BITCHIN’ machine guns for the HMS Cornwall, a Royal Navy Destroyer, to decide that fighting was out of the question.
The British government has called this a misunderstanding; I would like to know what part of Iran’s threat and act of terrorism (piracy is considered terrorism by the US and I believe UK) was not made clear enough. Maybe the President himself and the Ayatollah would have needed to board the Cornwall themselves and take the whole ship?
Finally I will note that my “for giggles” comment was made in sarcasm. Of course that isn’t funny.
March 26th, 2007 at 12:51 pmAnd apology accepted. Thank you.
But don’t speak so soon, I may still be an asshole
March 26th, 2007 at 12:52 pmStarkc speaks:
If you mean actually inside Iran fixing the “Iran Problem”, no. Absolutly not.
I don’t know man. I keep thinking about the dissidents in Iran that have recently attacked the Quds or whatever they’re called. I’m not so sure that we don’t have some CIA or some type of SF in there in small numbers training and providing weapons. If not we should have.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:16 pmThere are actually several very old resistance movements in Iran, but they are poor, underequipped, and lack the backing of the populace. I can tell you for certain that we have ZERO military personell in Iran. The CIA idea is far fetched, but if our intelligence services have anything, it’s moles. (Like our recent defector(s))
The dangers, both physical and political dangers, of an American being caught in Iran working against the “Government” are far too great and the returns far to small.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:05 pmI think politicians in general, from bush to blair are starting to get on everyones nerves. brits have experience like americans with all kinds of warfare. they are an elite force, well trained, brave and motivated. I wouldnt flinch to serve alongside them. Unfortunately, as in the US, the military is used at the behest of national policy and the rules of engagement are made to be consistent with national sentiment mostly. so when a politician has no cojones, the soldiers and marines must stand down when by instinct they would fight.
i suggest we tone down the rhetoric about british forces, until we hear from them specifically. pray that we do, soon. No doubt their experiecne will be similar to 2004 when soldiers said they were well treated except for the all too frequent “mental” torture they received. Being led “blindfolded”, in direct contravention of the geneva conventions, to a huge ditch afterwhich gunshots were heard and laughter ensured.
Bottom line: those soldiers get hurt and those Iranian “diplomats” in US custody just might have to have their balls cut off and mailed to the mullahs.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:12 pmEarlier I brought up Iran’s threats to kidnapp westerners, well, here’s the article where the “cocks” come out.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1530527.ece
March 27th, 2007 at 4:47 amPerhaps you’re correct Starkc.
This is what I was referring to. From your link above.
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.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:35 amThey blame us and the Jews for everything. Hop on youtube or MEMRI and check out all the videos of public officals and educators blaming the bad economy, sanctions, violence, negative image, 1979 hostage taking, and generally the faliure of the “Islamic Revolution” on the US and Jews. When they finally get their nuke and blow themselves into radioactive dust in a glass desert, they’ll blame it on a combonation of our meddling and refusal to help them make their weapons “safe”.
All they really want to do is wipe out a minority race and install radical Islamist dictator/mullocracies across the earth leaving women and all races but Persian in a position of slavery and dhimminitude.
Is that so unreasonable?
March 27th, 2007 at 12:05 pmI realize the the U S and Israel get blamed for everything from the Islamic states. But, can you think of a better place to launch a CIA backed operation on Iran from then Iraq?
I just find it difficult to believe that we’re just sitting there doing nothing if Iran is supplying and training the terrorists as has been reported.
I hope to hell that someone is doing something besides sitting on their backsides.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:51 pmGramps, I’d be surprised if the CIA was up for any fun nowadays; perhaps they’re all planning to out themselves by going to democrap fundraisers attended by journalists, get a makeover, movie deal, and a book deal, and then blame it all on the biggest Dick in the world, Cheney.
(Cheney could take out Iranian nuclear sites with his ‘unit’ alone, but Lynn would consider it cheating.)
March 27th, 2007 at 1:53 pmNow that’s what I call a “special operation”!
March 27th, 2007 at 1:53 pm“Now that’s what I call a “special operation”!
March 27th, 2007 at 2:02 pmWe are fighting Iran. And we’re really putting the hurt on too, over 300 Al-Quds personell captured. Including one of the number one guys in Iraq, plus two defectors. One of them the guy who literally started Hezbollah.
That’s what probobly pushed them over, it almost certainly is. It wasn’t any big secret that the head of teh Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRG) was absolutly pissed that we dared not only to put the crunch on, but to do it so effectively as we have.
And since they can’t pay their bills, Russia (the Russian companies selling and installing) has stopped supplying them with components for their reactors. Which means no fuel,no waste, and too bad so sad for the Mullahs, no nukes. So busting up their reactors isn’t necessary.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:28 pm“And since they can’t pay their bills, Russia (the Russian companies selling and installing) has stopped supplying them with components for their reactors.”
I read someplace in the last week that Iran had started paying the Russians again. Maybe not all owed, but at least part of it.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:50 pmIt’s easy to criticize the British government, and their Neville Chaimberlainlike attitudes but we may have a dhimmitude supporting, appeasement-minded government here shortly too, just look at what the senate is voting on.
I think the following link should be required reading for everybody in the media-government complex.
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/723
March 27th, 2007 at 9:43 pmDetails from the MOD press briefing this afternoon. This is the confirmation that the incident took place in Iraqi waters.
The truly amazing bit is that the Iranians were asked where they believed it happened and gave a location that was still inside Iraqi waters. When this was pointed out to them they changed their mind and gave a second location just inside Iranian waters. My children can lie better that!
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ModBriefingShowsRoyalNavyPersonnelWereInIraqiWaters.htm
BBC are now reporting that Iranian TV channels will release pictures of the Sailors and Marines tonight and that the Iranian Foriegn Minister has stated that the female sailor will be released soon.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:08 amYep. And according to the Iranians, she has already released a statement apologizing for tresspassing in Iranian waters. Most likely fake or coerced.
“” At a news conference the MoD said that the British boarding vessel was 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territory when it was seized - and revealed the exact co-ordinates of the event “”
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1257880,00.html
FOX news also has a video showing the woman. Big suprise, they put a head scarf on her.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:19 amSorry, forgot something.
“” 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. “” (From Adam’s link)
Question:
If so, why were IRG gunboats allowed to illegally enter Iraqi waters and abduct British Naval/Marine personell? Or any foreign Nationals?
Where’s the teeth?
March 28th, 2007 at 9:26 am