I'd be interested to know what you based this on?
The evidence I have sen suggests they were not in Iranian waters, were kidnapped, held hostage, paraded on television and letters were published espousing views unlikley to be held by them, and then we got a ticking off from their President for allowing mothers in our armed forces.

I can't see the British Govt acting in the same way if we happened to find 15 Iranians in a dirigible off the Isle of Wight.

The evidence I've seen points that it was in Iranian waters. I don't think the sailors apologies are definite proof but if we don't hear anything else in the next few days about it, it was probably was in Iranian waters. Also, I saw on a different article that the British sent a letter that said "it won't happen again".

Not to be condescending or anything but there is a chance your sources are going to bias since you live in the United Kingdom.

The Iranians gave one set of co-ordinates to start with, then being informed that this meant they were not in Iranian waters promptly changed the co-ordinates.

Also, at the British briefing the GPS information was made freely available - the Iranians relied on a man with a map and a pointer, with a GPS waved vaguely at the room.

And I certainly appreciate the sentiment that it won't happen again. Now the Iranians have shown that they are willing to undertake illegal acts on sailors close to the border, it's not worth getting close enough for it to be disputed. Na-ah, we're not letting you use our military personnel in your political in-fighting again.

I certainly appreciate that sources can be biased, but I don't rely completely on British media - hence why I'm here. I don't fully trust my Government either. But I can compare and contrast the rent-a-mob behaviour and think they had more to gain out of a stage managed hostage incident than we did.

Are you for real?

Is PH45 is referring to the Craig Murray's Mail report that there is no agreed upon border in the gulf?

There is no agreed boundary in the Northern Gulf, either between Iran and Iraq or between Iraq and Kuwait. The Iran-Iraq border has been agreed inside the Shatt al-Arab waterway, because there it is also the land border. But that agreement does not extend beyond the low tide line of the coast.

It is really difficult to tell who is right and telling the truth but from all I have seen it seems like the British sailors just made a mistake. I think there is more to the release then what they are showing now but I don't know how much significance it.

If the British sailors go against what they said earlier about being in Iranian territory then I will believe that Iran did go in Iraqi waters but if they are staying with that decision then they probably did stray into Iranian waters. The apology isn't definite proof but from what I have seen, no foul play seemed to have occurred with the apology.

About the missed coordinates, if Iran was going to perform an illegal capture then I would think that they would be extra careful to make sure they gave coordinates in Iranian waters. I don't find this argument very convincing. Also, I haven't heard anything about getting their officers back so I don't see why they would give them up this quickly.

As I said before, I think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is bullshitting us on the reasons for the release but that doesn't mean that they were wrong in the capture.

If it was you wouldn't you tell them whatever they wanted to hear to get home and avoid spending the rest of your life in an Iranian prison? I'm not saying that they definetly weren't in Iranian waters, I don't know, but their confessions aren't just not "definite proof", they're no proof at all.

Let's not forget that GPS receivers are only as good as the way they are set up. I use a Garmin etrek when cycling (similar to the one displayed in the newspapers showing the claimed coordinates for this fiasco), and had to reset the reference co-ordinates as I would otherwise be directed about 10 metres left of the road I was on - which could be quite critical if it ran alongside a railway line.

So, just maybe (and I do mean maybe), the Iranians hadn't set up their GPS properly - result being that the co-ordinates might say 'this is Iran', but the reality could easily be 'this is Iraq'.

Could this actually happen...?

An anecdote that you may find interesting from the days of the Iraq/Iran war of the 80's. I was working at a shipbrokers even then, and it so happened that one of the tankers we had contracted out for a client loaded a cargo of jet fuel and then ended up discharging in Bandar Abbas, Iran at a time when the Iranians were well short of fuel to fly their military aircraft.

Next voyage the vessel loaded out of the Saudi Gulf port of Ras Tanura to carry a cargo east to Singapore.

As she moved through international waters towards Quoin Island and then out to the Indian Ocean she would have passed very close to Iranian waters and, as it happened she was attacked by an over-enthusiastic Iranian air force pilot clearly out to have a go at something now he had the means to fly his plane! An exocet or some such air dispatched missile shot straight through the bows and out the other side of the vessel - the vessel that had just delivered the jet fuel now in the attacking aircraft! Not the most sensible courses of action seeing how few vessels would entertain such business in the first place.

Luckily the missile failed to explode (not properly primed) and there was no loss of life, just an over-utilised toilet aboard the tanker!

So, given the error-strewn course of events I've related above in respect of Iranian competence, could they possibly have messed the set-up of their GPS...? - hmm, a tough one, eh?

So you buy the Iranian version! :worried:

You have to be kidding me...:eek:

If the sailors go back on their word then I will admit I am wrong (even though that isn't "definite proof" either).

So only Iran could have faulty GPS systems? And, yes, it is a good possiblity that either or both of them had faulty or tampered GPS systems.

I don't trust either country when it comes to this.

Wasn't the British with Bush on the "Iraq has WMDs, have ties to Al-Qaeda, and all of that other bull.

Neither of them are trustworthy and you can't blindly believe any side.

Trust the Iranians, or trust the Brits???? Hmmmmm.... not really difficult.

Oh yeah, cause the British are so trustworthy...

Stop being a drone and realize that neither side is "rightous".

What about the captain of the Indian merchant vessel that the British had just boarded? He confirmed the co-ordinates that the British gave. Do you trust him?

I don't trust any side.

I see where you are coming from, but my point was more about competence than trust - i.e. a country that can try to sink an oil tanker without checking that the owner (usually identified by a great big symbol on the funnel) isn't one which is a supplier, and when it does come to attacking cannot prime its weapons properly, then that country doesn't look too much like it knows what it's doing or how to do it in the common-sense thinking department - setting a GPS properly might be a tad outside the successfully achievable zone.