From: Ad 

George Sherwood wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:16:13 +0100, Phil Payne wrote:
>
>>>> They boarded a moving ship and then got off.  Wanna bet they were in
>>>> Iraqi/international waters when they got on, and in Iranian waters
>>>> when they got off, which was when they were taken.
>>> Now that would figure.  The UK says they were in Iraqi waters, the US
>>> says they were in Iraqi waters, Iraq says they were in Iraqi waters,
>>> but you go with the Iranians on this one.
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/24/
> wiran524.xml
>>  - hardly a left-wing paper:
>>
>> "The border between Iran and Iraq runs along the waterway and the
>> Iranians say that British had crossed onto their side, a claim supported
>> by Brigadier General Hakim Jassim, the Iraqi military commander of the
>> country's territorial waters.
>>
>> "We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea
>> that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi
>> control," he said."
>
> And I will match your fishermen with my fisherman and he says the ship
> was anchored so that blows your moved to Iranian waters theory.
> Everything that I have read convinces me they were in Iraqi waters.  Time
> will tell, but I would bet a few pints.
>

By most accounts the ship was anchored.

What was the time & what was the state of the tide?

However given I feel sure that the event was pre-planned (esp given the
rapid arrival of & even the number of IRG boats) & thus one wonders
whether the ship was itself anchored in a specific "disputed"
place.

i.e. anchoring a suspected smuggling ship within a "lgal grey
area" would not surprise me.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5