# Talk:Persian Gulf campaign of 1809

The article excluded the rule of the Saudis, which directly lead to the British withdrawal as they have approached with large forces, also all the piracy documents included the whabees found in the British IOR/F/4/497/11931 ((Joasmee and Wahabee Pirate))  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:D08:1406:CC4A:346C:D50A:5F3B:D079 (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC) 

It is strongly disputed in the UAE today that the local tribes, pearl fleets and seafarers, disputing maritime dominance with the British, should be characterised as 'pirates' - a label that makes them faceless and strips their identity as neatly as 'terrorists'. They were the fleets of independent emirates operating under the rule of local law, with rulers and tribal structures of governance. Because they disputed British rule, they have been labelled pirates rather than, for instance, being called Al Qasimi - which is the confederation of leaders and emirates that stretched at the time from Sharjah to Ras Al Khaimah, across to Lingah and other Iranian ports under Al Qasimi control.
So I have replaced 'pirates' with 'Al Qasimi', for it is precisely Al Qasimi they were. I have also added a link to Sultan Al Qasimi's fascinating book on the subject which does not dispute Al Qasimi ACTION but postulates that refusing to bow to British will or force was in itself not an act of piracy but one of resistance. I have, to be fair, noted that the British charge was one of piracy... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one seeing Mount Sinai right in the middle of the Iranian desert?Rafy talk