>>>>>>>>>>And yes, he did pardoned them, because if they were catched in Iran territorial waters as it is claimed by Iran, then proceedings leading to release could hv been lot lot longer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Claimed by Iran" being the key word. Do you really believe that they were in Iran territorial waters?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Mike, doesn't this question come down to who you want to believe? I certainly don't know because I simply do not have access to that information. Does anyone outside of the top military brass really have this information? For the man in the street this becomes a choice of what/who to believe. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. One thing for sure though - the British navy weren't too smart putting their (unprotected) people that close to wherever the exact line is. Unless they wanted the reaction they got...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well I know who I want to believe, and it's got nothing to do with Gitmo, or the US at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If we realize that its a choice what we believe then we can avoid presenting that choice as proof of something (not you, generally speaking).
>>>>>
>>>>>Not sure I understand that but I mean, on one hand we have a generally peaceful nation (forget riding on GW's coattails into Iraq for a moment), respectable and just getting on with its own business. OTOH we have a den of avaricious mullahs, bent on keeping their people in fear and servitude to a medieval, evil regime, bent on gaining the bomb so it can push its weight around, even so it can destroy Israel if Dinner-Jacket is to be believed, and on fostering terror. It's like saying "Who do you believe - the cop or the street mugger, rapist, killer, known to lie through his teeth?". And, yes, we were acting in the role of cop at the time.
>>>>
>>>>This rationalizes why you believe what you do. It does not prove whether they were or were not in Iranian territorial waters however.
>>>
>>>You know, I don't really care. They were doing no harm to the Iranian regime, going about their business (what? was the RIB suddenly going to swerve off and do an attack run on Iran?). What if they were, or may have drifted there, or the ship they were checking was a ploy, or IT drifted. It doesn't really matter; Iran was being bloody-minded and a pain in the @ss.
>>
>>They played the same political, one-upmanship game that most any country would play if the roles were reversed. What the British navy were doing there in the first place is another matter of speculation...
>
>Bollix.

Presumably a variation of unix but not applicable to this thread.


>Who's speculating? AFAIK they were there to board and inspect merchant vessels in the Gulf, with a view to stopping contraband, arms smuggling, usw. If thetre has been further speculation about that I have not heard it mentioned on TV news, radio new, or read it online, not that I've spent much time researching it, as I didn't think there was any spec'n.

Bottom line - they may or may not have trespassed into Iranian territorial waters but you and I don't know one way or the other. One's opinion of the Iranian government does not prove or disprove the location of the British navy vessel. The Iranians did what the Brits would have done if the roles were reversed, namely taken into custody the Iranian navy personnel if the Brits believed they had entered into or even strayed too close to British territory. And once in custody the British government would have used the situation to whatever political advantage they could, whether national or international. Let's just be happy that they are (or will be) released.