UK: 15 Marines seized by Iran

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Hardrock69
    DIAMOND STATUS
    • Feb 2005
    • 21834

    UK: 15 Marines seized by Iran

    Strike that...their release is NOT set for Thursday....the CNN story linked to an old story under the title "Full Story"...yeah a story from 2004.

    Here is the current Sscenario


    LONDON, England (CNN) -- An Iranian naval patrol seized 15 British sailors who had boarded a vessel suspected of smuggling cars of the coast of Iraq, military officials said.

    The Royal Marines and ordinary naval officers were believed to have been apprehended by up to six ships from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy who claimed they had entered Iranian waters.

    British naval officials said the sailors, using small boarding craft, had completed an inspection of a merchant vessel in Iraqi waters when the Iranians arrived.

    Nick Lambert, commander of the HMS Cornwall -- the frigate from which the British patrol had been deployed -- said a Royal Navy backup helicopter witnessed the incident.

    The British defense ministry said that it was pursuing the incident "at the highest level" and Tehran's ambassador to London had been summoned to the Foreign Office.

    There was no immediate comment from Iranian officials.

    Lambert said the British sailors had been on a "normal, routine boarding" of a vessel that had aroused suspicions as it navigated the Shatt al-Arab waterway that marks the border between Iraq and Iran on the shores of the Persian Gulf.

    British military patrols have been given authority to board vessels in Iraqi waters under United Nations mandate and with the permission of the government in Baghdad.

    He said the captain of the merchant vessel had been cleared to proceed and the two British inflatable patrol boats were readying for departure when they were surrounded by the Iranian navy and taken into Iranian waters.

    A U.S. military official who monitors the region told CNN that the seizure was made after a dispute over whether the British patrol was in Iraqi, international, or Iranian territorial waters.

    An Iraqi fisherman told Reuters the incident took place in the Shatt al-Arab waterway that marks the southern stretch of Iraq's border with Iran. His account could not be immediately confirmed.

    The British defense ministry said: "We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office.

    "The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."

    CNN's Aneesh Raman in Tehran said there had been no mention of the incident on Iranian TV and calls to officials had not been answered.

    The U.S. military official said the British Royal Marines are believed to be unharmed. It was not immediately clear where in Iran they were taken. The U.S Navy in the Gulf said none of its military personnel was involved.

    In 2004 eight British sailors and Marines were seized -- and later released -- by Iran after they crossed into Iranian territorial waters aboard three patrol boats by mistake.


    Last edited by Hardrock69; 03-23-2007, 09:53 AM.
  • Roy Munson
    Veteran
    • Feb 2004
    • 1522

    #2
    This could bring a whole new dynamic to the current situation.
    Originally posted by ELVIS
    I guess you're right...

    Comment

    • VanHalener
      ROCKSTAR

      • Nov 2006
      • 5451

      #3
      Fuck Iran!

      <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YEhxHxMa36Q"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YEhxHxMa36Q" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
      ~Only you can prevent low volume~

      Comment

      • Hardrock69
        DIAMOND STATUS
        • Feb 2005
        • 21834

        #4
        Just the excuse themonkey needs to attack now...

        Comment

        • Seshmeister
          ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

          • Oct 2003
          • 35158

          #5
          It's kidnapping.

          Comment

          • Roy Munson
            Veteran
            • Feb 2004
            • 1522

            #6
            Originally posted by Hardrock69
            Just the excuse themonkey needs to attack now...

            You're such a dumbfuck.


            We will lose all and any future wars because of gigantic pussy-cunt, dripping-wet, worn-out gashes like your silly self. I got a news bulletin for ya...we're going to be fighting for many years to come and if we don't keep trying to winthis thing we will be obliterated down the road. Regardless of what you think about the war in Iraq, or how or why it was started, this war has only just begun and if we retreat now we are fuct.

            Yeah, we probably should attack Iran...but of course only if we have a timetable and an exit strategy....we can punch 'em once in the chops and then run. Isn't that the Libs' wish?

            Originally posted by ELVIS
            I guess you're right...

            Comment

            • Satan
              ROTH ARMY ELITE
              • Jan 2004
              • 6663

              #7
              It's been speculated for sometime that the BCE would have to start the Iran war by the end of March or wait until 2008 to do it.

              This is the type of thing they would love to use as an excuse.

              Stay the FUCK out of Iran, you fucking Nazi idiots!!
              Eternally Under the Authority of Satan

              Originally posted by Sockfucker
              I've been in several mental institutions but not in Bakersfield.

              Comment

              • Nickdfresh
                SUPER MODERATOR

                • Oct 2004
                • 49125

                #8
                Originally posted by Roy Munson
                You're such a dumbfuck.


                We will lose all and any future wars because of gigantic pussy-cunt, dripping-wet, worn-out gashes like your silly self. I got a news bulletin for ya...we're going to be fighting for many years to come and if we don't keep trying to winthis thing we will be obliterated down the road. Regardless of what you think about the war in Iraq, or how or why it was started, this war has only just begun and if we retreat now we are fuct.

                Yeah, we probably should attack Iran...but of course only if we have a timetable and an exit strategy....we can punch 'em once in the chops and then run. Isn't that the Libs' wish?

                Who's "we?" When did you join up, pussybitch?

                Comment

                • sadaist
                  TOASTMASTER GENERAL
                  • Jul 2004
                  • 11625

                  #9
                  This is going to get ugly quick. My guess is Iran doesn't think we will do anything with the current political situation here in the states.
                  “Great losses often bring only a numb shock. To truly plunge a victim into misery, you must overwhelm him with many small sufferings.”

                  Comment

                  • Nickdfresh
                    SUPER MODERATOR

                    • Oct 2004
                    • 49125

                    #10
                    Why would "WE" do anything? They're not OUR marines...

                    And they'll be released soon enough...

                    Comment

                    • ODShowtime
                      ROCKSTAR

                      • Jun 2004
                      • 5812

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Satan
                      It's been speculated for sometime that the BCE would have to start the Iran war by the end of March or wait until 2008 to do it.

                      This is the type of thing they would love to use as an excuse.

                      Stay the FUCK out of Iran, you fucking Nazi idiots!!
                      gee satan, I thought you'd be a little more jazzed about the situation
                      gnaw on it

                      Comment

                      • ODShowtime
                        ROCKSTAR

                        • Jun 2004
                        • 5812

                        #12
                        this is what worries me:

                        Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile

                        Tony CapaccioFri Mar 23, 12:18 AM ET

                        March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

                        The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.

                        The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.

                        ``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''

                        ``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said. China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage.

                        A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.

                        Fast and Low-Flying

                        ``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to handle this sort of missile.''

                        The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and intercepting the Sizzler.

                        ``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.

                        `A Major Issue'

                        ``The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''

                        The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a threat very near on the horizon,'' Christie said.

                        The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler ``but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a developmental effort,'' Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon said in an e-mail.

                        Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of the Sizzler's capabilities and is ``researching suitable alternatives'' to defend against it. ``U.S. naval warships have a layered defense capability that can defend against various missile threats,'' Mann said.

                        Raising Concerns

                        McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8, 2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.

                        In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the $36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6 billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.

                        Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B, starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level.

                        Final Approach

                        On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.

                        The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them easier to track and target.

                        McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that ``to the best of our knowledge,'' the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded to the board's recommendations. ``The Navy may be reluctant to invest in development of a new target, given their other bills,'' he said.

                        `Aggressively Marketing'

                        The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he said.

                        Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the missile.

                        Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to comment.

                        McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler ``right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in the case of a Taiwan conflict.'' Jane's, the London-based defense information group, reported in 2005 in its publication ``Missiles and Rockets'' that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.

                        That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines ``with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.''

                        The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler that could be used for testing.

                        ``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.
                        gnaw on it

                        Comment

                        • Satan
                          ROTH ARMY ELITE
                          • Jan 2004
                          • 6663

                          #13
                          Originally posted by ODShowtime
                          gee satan, I thought you'd be a little more jazzed about the situation
                          You gotta be kidding me??

                          If the BCE, the Brits, and Israel attack Iran, this is gonna blow up into World War III, possibly Armegeddon itself.

                          Which means a lot of people dying. And a lot of them coming to Hell. You know what it costs to keep union construction crews working 24 hrs a day down here??

                          I'm running out of finances. The Chinese already own your country. You want them to own Hell too?
                          Eternally Under the Authority of Satan

                          Originally posted by Sockfucker
                          I've been in several mental institutions but not in Bakersfield.

                          Comment

                          • sadaist
                            TOASTMASTER GENERAL
                            • Jul 2004
                            • 11625

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Nickdfresh
                            Why would "WE" do anything? They're not OUR marines...

                            No, but they are our strongest allies in the world today. Besides, "WE" do a lot of things when we are otherwise uninvolved.

                            Originally posted by Nickdfresh

                            And they'll be released soon enough...

                            I hope so. Iran has a great reputation for releasing hostages in a timely manner.
                            “Great losses often bring only a numb shock. To truly plunge a victim into misery, you must overwhelm him with many small sufferings.”

                            Comment

                            • Nickdfresh
                              SUPER MODERATOR

                              • Oct 2004
                              • 49125

                              #15
                              Originally posted by sadaist
                              No, but they are our strongest allies in the world today. Besides, "WE" do a lot of things when we are otherwise uninvolved.


                              So what do you want to do? Storm the castle and rescue them?

                              I hope so. Iran has a great reputation for releasing hostages in a timely manner.
                              Ohohohoh! You got me there...

                              Comment

                              Working...