Len Colby Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Writing in today's Daily Mail, Craig Murray explains: How I know Blair faked Iran mapIf the Daily Mail carries on like this, it will confirm my dear grandmother's view that the Mail is the best newspaper in Britain - although it took 50 years to see her vindicated It sounds like Mail readers are on the up as well. Here's a selection of comments posted to Murray's article: Ha ha yet another dodgy dossier?- Garry Laine, Maryport Craig Murray you should be in charge of this fiassco, not half wits like Bliar. - Richard Partridge, South Ruislip UK The next job for Blair and his spin team is to go out in a row boat with a pot of paint and paint the boundaries on the ocean. He should make a better job of it, than he is running the country. - John, Clacton One thing's for sure - the master of bodge and spin has lost his credibility in middle Britain. Not enough torque to start a war, Tony? Back to the Israelis... The Iranians and Iraqi don’t seem to differ that much on the sea boarder as this map from Iranian TV demonstrates both sides agree that it extendens southeast from the Shatt al Arab thus the fact that the position was closer to Iran than Iraqi is irelevant. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6502805.stm The Iranian claim is undermined by the fact it seems to have given two accounts of where the British boat was the 2nd set of coordinates being closer to it shores while the first was in Iraqi waters On 24 March the Iranian government told the UK - according to the UK's Ministry of Defence - that the merchant vessel was at a different location, but still within Iraqi waters. When the UK pointed out to the Iranians that the location they had given was within Iraqi waters, the Iranians provided a "corrected" location, nearly 1 nautical mile away (1.9km) from its first position but within Iranian waters. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6502805.stm I find this excerpt of the Wikipedia entry about the incident more convincing than Murry’s editorial, there are links to references in the original (unlike Murry who doesn’t source his claims): According to analysis by the International Boundary Research Unit (IBRU) at Durham University in the United Kingdom, the location provided by the UK Ministry of Defence for the location of the seizure is 3.1 km southwest of this Point "R" boundary terminus and 2.9 km south of this international boundary line. Thus the university says: "The point lies on the Iraqi side of....the agreed land boundary. This has been challenged by Iran, whose second set of released co-ordinates were inside its territorial waters. But the location provided by the UK Ministry is not in disputed territory according to IBRU, which says the boundary is disputed only beyond Point "R" (to the east and southeast). Confirming this, Richard Schofield, an expert in international boundaries at King's College London, stated "Iran and Iraq have never agreed to a boundary of their territorial waters. There is no legal definition of the boundary beyond the Shatt al-Arab." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_...n_force_at_site Funny that Sid would cite Murry to bolster his case the incident was an intentional provocation by the British when Murry’s position seems to be that it was a misunderstanding (which Blair is exploiting). Also funny that he seems to think that a couple of people’s comments to an online editorial are at all indicative of how people in “middle Britain” feel about Blair. It could well be the case that he has indeed “lost his credibility” amongst them (I don’t trust him) but the cited evidence is woefully insuficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now