A Fake British Map??

[babylonsister]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/6405

A Fake British Map??
by Barry Lando | Mar 28 2007

Brits in the Gulf and a doctored British Map ?

Former British Ambassador Craig Murray is now challenging the legitimacy of the map just published by the British government in the current dispute with Iran over those 15 captured British sailors and marines.

"Fake Maritime Boundaries

"I have been unpopular before, but the level of threats since I started blogging on the captured marines has got a bit scary. It is therefore with some trepidation that I feel obliged to point this out.

"The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.

"But there are two colossal problems.

"A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

"B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

"None of which changes the fact that the Iranians, having made their point, should have handed back the captives immediately. I pray they do so before this thing spirals out of control. But by producing a fake map of the Iran/Iraq boundary, notably unfavourable to Iran, we can only harden the Iranian position."

When I spoke with the former Ambassador he told me how dumbfounded he is by the way in which the mainstream media continues to treat this dispute.

The BBC for instance has already interviewed a supposed expert regarding the map, who vouched for its authenticity. But the point is, as Craig Murray, points out, how can such a map exist if the subject of boundaries has never been settled between Iraq and Iran? Turns out the expert had been referred to the BBC by the British Ministry of Defense--who also turned out the plan.

Sounds like the rerun of a bad movie we've already seen.

[ShortnFiery]

1. I'm Shocked!

There's PsyOps Propaganda within both the USA and UK M$Ms.

Shocked I tell you! :eyes:

Believe NOTHING that the M$M claims without independent verification.

[xultar]

2. I don't think anyone with a brain...which excludes republics believes the UK Bullshit.

[frylock]

7. take a look around..

there are plenty of rubes on this very board who believe this krap.

[ThomCat]

3. OMG! You mean the British/US governments can't

just make up evidence to justify themselves?
:wow:

:sarcasm: of course.

[CJCRANE]

4. It's all so transparent

but the gullible 33% are lapping it up - there are quite a few posts on the BBC news website talkback about nuking Iran or bombing them back to the Stone Age.

[redqueen]

5. Those 33% sure are vocal.

I wonder why they're so yappy. It's very irritating that they don't realize how gullible/stupid they are.

Because seriously... at this point isn't it WAY beyond gullible? Tonkin, Maine, Iraq parts I and II... how long before that 'fool me once' thing kicks in even with the DUMBEST people, anyway?

[CJCRANE]

6. Besides which

nuking Tehran would most likely kill the British sailors they're trying to rescue!

[endarkenment]

9. And that would deter us in what way?

If this is being used as an excuse for war then it is an excuse, not a real cause.

[Iwasthere]

8. You're giving them too much credit

The IQ level is close to * approval rating I think.

[redqueen]

10. I wish they didn't know how to work phones or e-mail...

or write.

[sutz12]

11. I was wondering about this...

What are the international boundaries? Apparently, we don't know.

I remember one comment (pro-war) that said that the Iraqi's had verified the incident because some fishermen witnessed it, as if there was a line painted on the ocean.

This has a "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" smell to it.

[Laughing Mirror]

12. Not surprised at all

Britain was supposed to have given up the empire, but it seems imperialist slobs will stop at nothing to take over the world ... again.

[KittyWampus]

13. changing the rules as they go.

[AnOhioan]

14. Blair and the chimp....no difference

[leveymg]

15. Why am I not surprised.

Anyone heard anything about the nation of registry of the cargo ship that was boarded?

[Igel]

16. Indian n/t

[leveymg]

18. Source?

[Igel]

17. I think I have to disagree with his point (B).

It's hard to be sure--my ME map isn't fine grained enough, and the close-up map obviously doesn't include enough territory--but if the "equidistant" rule that he seems to assume were used, Iraq would be de facto landlocked. The line that would extend from the Shatt would quickly hit the line demarcating Kuwait waters. Now, I can see that Iran would like this very much, but I prefer not to award Iran free points.

Iran's free to dispute the waters, but then everybody else can; Britain should pick up some boats a few feet from Iranian soil. It is a clever trick trying to get the Brits to go on record saying that those were Iranian waters, though. It would strengthen their negotiating position a bit, I think, while showing the Iranian voters that the mullahs have big balls and the British are weak, and therefore not worth dealing with in an honorable way.

[leveymg]

19. This whole thing was a set-up by Blair. What's "honorable" about it?

It was like sending out a crew in 16-foot boat knowing that a Class-5 hurricane was coming. See,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=521753&mesg_id=521753

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. You're the one disputing the waters because tyou don't want to give Iran "free points"

Don't forget that the first Persian Gulf War (fought between Iran and Iraq, contrary to what your history textbook may have said) was fought over Iraq's access to the sea. Iran had them effectively landlocked. And we were backing Iran's claim, because the Shah was our ally, so we gave him the green light to fire on Iraqi shipping. So Saddam invaded (with US support) the minute the Shah fell, and we supported Saddam's aggression as he attempted to annex "Awazi Arabia" (Khuzestan) and all its oil.

[pampango]

20. It makes sense to me.

The British navy intentionally violated Iranian territorial waters by sending two rubber rafts with 15 sailors to board an Indian vessel which both sides agree was totally innocent and had no idea what was going on.

The British commander should be politely asked to seek alternative employment, if he thought it was a good idea to send 15 unsupported sailors into Iranian waters, not to launch some sneak attack, but to board and inspect a third nation's commercial vessel. (If you are going to intentionally violate another country's territorial waters, it is probably a wise command decision to do it with enough force to keep yourself from getting killed or captured. Or, if it a small, stealthy operation, make sure the operational goal is worth the risk.)

Of course, on the other hand, perhaps the commander was not such a dunce if the whole operation took place in Iraqi waters and was a routine operation that they do every day.

Is it possible the the British commander was an idiot? Sure, but that doesn't make it so. Is it possible that some Iranian faction thought that capturing some British sailors would serve a useful political purpose, while the actual location of the operation would be difficult to prove? Sure, but that doesn't make it so, either.

[Hosnon]

21. If Iran and Iraq have never decided the line, then how can Iran say the

British were in its waters?

The British line is not determinative but neither is a line drawn by Iran.

[Hosnon]

22. Found a possible answer:

Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith.

(U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, Art. 15)

Iraq has both signed and ratified this treaty; Iran has only signed it. However, most nations have signed the treaty and it has probably reached the critical mass necessary to be considered binding international law.

Article 15 uses the equidistant rule unless either (1) the two countries have agreed otherwise or (2) there is some special reason to not use the equidistant rule.

1: There does not appear to be an agreement on the matter.
2: No indication either way.

Thus, if the British were in waters that are on the Iranian side of the equidistant line, they were probably in Iranian waters unless they can show some special reason to use a different rule.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Is the Iranian map of the Gulf incident online anywhere?

They showed something on Iranian TV, but it goes too quickly to be able to tell what their version of events is - where they say the ship was, where they say the boundary is.

Has anyone found it anywhere online? Or, even better, a comparison between it and the British one?