UK: 15 Marines seized by Iran

[Hardrock69]

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.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/23/iran.uk/index.html

[Roy Munson]

This could bring a whole new dynamic to the current situation.

[VanHalener]

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>

[Hardrock69]

Just the excuse themonkey needs to attack now...
:rolleyes:

[Seshmeister]

It's kidnapping.

[Roy Munson]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Just the excuse themonkey needs to attack now...
:rolleyes:


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?

:rolleyes:

[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!!

[Nickdfresh]

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?

:rolleyes:

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

[sadaist]

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.

[Nickdfresh]

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

And they'll be released soon enough...

[ODShowtime]

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 ;)

[ODShowtime]

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.

[Satan]

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? :(

[sadaist]

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.

[Nickdfresh]

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...

[Nitro Express]

We can just send Sammy Hagar and Mike Sobowleski to Iran to perform musical numbers, pimp tequila, and sell hot sauce. The Iranians will be begging us they will do anything if we get rid of the clown and the dude with the mullet.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
We can just send Sammy Hagar and Mike Sobowleski to Iran to perform musical numbers, pimp tequila, and sell hot sauce. The Iranians will be begging us they will do anything if we get rid of the clown and the dude with the mullet.

Hell, they might actually like the hot sauce. Probably not the Cobble Wobble though.

At least not while the mullahs are watching.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
We can just send Sammy Hagar and Mike Sobowleski to Iran to perform musical numbers, pimp tequila, and sell hot sauce. The Iranians will be begging us they will do anything if we get rid of the clown and the dude with the mullet.

Should be outlawed by the Geneva Convention!

Oh the humanity!

[sadaist]

Originally posted by FORD
Hell, they might actually like the hot sauce. Probably not the Cobble Wobble though.

At least not while the mullahs are watching.

Just rename it Kabul Wabul.

[studly hungwell]

Originally posted by Satan
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? :(

Dude...I love you on South Park.

[BigBadBrian]

It seems as if the British are going weak in the knees...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
It seems as if the British are going weak in the knees...

Kind of like you, on the internet...

[BigBadBrian]

FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying.

A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.

Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

The warning followed claims by Iranian officials that the British navy personnel had been taken to Tehran, the capital, to explain their “aggressive action” in entering Iranian waters. British officials insist the servicemen were in Iraqi waters when they were held.


The penalty for espionage in Iran is death. However, similar accusations of spying were made when eight British servicemen were detained in the same area in 2004. They were paraded blindfolded on television but did not appear in court and were freed after three nights in detention.

Iranian student groups called yesterday for the 15 detainees to be held until US forces released five Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq earlier this year.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat, a Saudi-owned newspaper based in London, quoted an Iranian military source as saying that the aim was to trade the Royal Marines and sailors for these Guards.

The claim was backed by other sources in Tehran. “As soon as the corps’s five members are released, the Britons can go home,” said one source close to the Guards.

He said the tactic had been approved by Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, who warned last week that Tehran would take “illegal actions” if necessary to maintain its right to develop a nuclear programme.

Iran denounced a tightening of sanctions which the United Nations security council was expected to agree last night in protest at Tehran’s insistence on enriching uranium that could be used for nuclear weapons.

Lord Triesman, the Foreign Office minister, met the Iranian ambassador in London yesterday to demand that consular staff be allowed access to the Britons, one of whom is a woman. His intervention came as a senior Iranian general alleged that the Britons had confessed under interrogation to “aggression into Iran’s waters”.

Intelligence sources said any advance order for the arrests was likely to have come from Major-General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards.

Subhi Sadek, the Guards’ weekly newspaper, warned last weekend that the force had “the ability to capture a bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks”.

Safavi is known to be furious about the recent defections to the West of three senior Guards officers, including a general, and the effect of UN sanctions on his own finances.

A senior Iraqi officer appeared to back Tehran’s claim that the British had entered Iranian 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,” said Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim, who is in charge of Iraq’s territorial waters. “We don’t know why they were there.”

Admiral Sir Alan West, the former head of the Royal Navy, dismissed suggestions that the British boats might have been in Iranian waters. West, who was first sea lord when the previous arrests took place in June 2004, said satellite tracking systems had shown then that the Iranians were lying and the same was certain to be true now.

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563877.ece)

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying.



Iran is playing a very dangerous, deadly game here.

[Nickdfresh]

Brian's just waiting for that War he can enjoy so much.

I guess the Iraq one isn't so entertaining anymore...

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
It seems as if the British are going weak in the knees...

kinda like we were when the chinese grabbed our intelligence airplaine?...

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Iran is playing a very dangerous, deadly game here.

5 Iranian ships suddenly appear?

It was planned.

[Nickdfresh]

The theory is that it was retaliation for the US grabbing of Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen in Iraq...

[FORD]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The theory is that it was retaliation for the US grabbing of Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen in Iraq...

.....which itself was an act of provocation by the BCE.

They tried to claim "Iran was meddling in Iraq".

Uh, right..... and what the FUCK are THEY doing??

This shit has "create excuse to attack Iran" written all over it.

[Seshmeister]

Iran kidnaps British sailors so that the BCE can attack Iran?

WTF are you talking about now...?:)

[FORD]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Iran kidnaps British sailors so that the BCE can attack Iran?

WTF are you talking about now...?:)

Wasn't Poodle about to pull all the Brits out of Iraq?

Maybe Chimpy "decider'd" he couldn't move into the next phase of the PNAC plan without Blair on board?

[binnie]

I think the Iranian's might want to remeber the Embassy seige in 1980....

Not only did the Birtish governement act quickly to sort that out: it's well before my time, but I don't think any Iranian civilians were killed, right? And the UK acted quickly to bring their embassy to safety...

Someone who remembers please correct me if I'm wrong here...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2000/iranian_embassy_siege/intro.stm

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by FORD
Wasn't Poodle about to pull all the Brits out of Iraq?

Maybe Chimpy "decider'd" he couldn't move into the next phase of the PNAC plan without Blair on board?

Bush runs the Iranian government?

WTF are you talking about?

[Roy Munson]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
5 Iranian ships suddenly appear?

It was planned.



Damn, you never cease to amaze me. Is everything a lie to you?


It must be a tough life not being able to trust anybody. I feel sorry for you, duder.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
Wasn't Poodle about to pull all the Brits out of Iraq?



All?

No.

Pay attention, FORD!!!

Only part of the Brits were to be pulled out.

[BigBadBrian]

PM warns of 'different phase' in Iran crisis
Iran must obey international law and release 15 British military personnel or face the consequences, says Tony Blair

Britain's relations with Iran will move into "a different phase" unless Tehran quickly releases 15 British sailors and Marines taken hostage last week, Tony Blair said today.

The Prime Minister gave the warning while insisting that diplomatic channels remained the preferred route to secure the release of the personnel, who were seized in the disputed Shatt al Arab waterway which divides Iran and Iraq on Friday.

Asked whether there was any news on the eight sailors and seven Marines this morning, Mr Blair told GMTV: “No, there isn’t, but let me just say our first concern is for their welfare and to get them released as quickly as possible."

“What we are trying to do at the moment is to pursue this through the diplomatic channels and make the Iranian government understand these people have to be released and that there is absolutely no justification whatever for holding them. I hope we manage to get them to realise they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase."


The Iranian Ambassador to London, Rasoul Movahedian, was summoned to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the second time since the abductions yesterday, where Lord Treisman demanded consular access to the 15, who were captured at gunpoint by members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. A similar request was made by Geoffrey Adams, the British Ambassador to Tehran.

But so far Tehran has refused, alleging that the service personnel were in Iranian waters as they boarded a dhow carrying suspicious cargo off the coast of Iraq, a charge the Royal Navy and the US military deny. Today Iran's Foreign Ministry repeated its assertion that the sailors and Marines from HMS Cornwall were safe and well but refused to confirm reports that they had been brought to the capital.

"They are in completely good health. Rest assured that they have been treated with humanitarian and moral behavior," Mohammad Ali Hosseini, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, told the Associated Press.

Mr Hosseini said that only woman sailor among the group, Leading Seaman Faye Turney, was being held apart from the others, to give her privacy. "Definitely all ethics have been observed," he said.

He added that the personnel were being interrogated as to whether they entered Iranian waters deliberately or not, suggesting a possible way out of the impasse. The Iranian version of the story is that sailors were arrested in the Armand River, at the northern tip of the Shatt al Arab waterway.

Last night relatives of Ms Turney, who is 26, spoke of their distress at her capture. In a statement released by the Ministry of Defence, the family said: “While we understand the media interest in the ongoing incident involving Faye, this remains a very distressing time for us and our family. We are grateful for the support shown to us by all personnel involved and appreciate it, but would request that our privacy is respected.”

This morning the Prime Minister said that there should be no connection between the seizing of the British personnel and the capture of five Iranian officials in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil earlier this year.

The US military has accused the Iranian men of being part of Tehran's efforts to supply Shia militias with weapons and training and deepen the country's sectarian war.

“It should have absolutely no bearing at all, because any Iranian forces who are inside Iraq are breaching the UN mandate and undermining the democratically-elected government of Iraq, so they have got no cause to be there at all," said Mr Blair.

“The two situations are completely distinct. In the end, it is a question really for the Iranian Government as to whether they want to abide by international law or not. I hope that they do and we are working hard to try to persuade them that that is a sensible thing to do."

The diplomatic barrage will continue today when Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, will use a discussion with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul, to put pressure on Tehran. Mrs Beckett, who is in Ankara, said she would ask Turkey to facilitate discussions between London and Tehran while discussing the country's faltering bid for EU membership.

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1574513.ece)

[BigBadBrian]

Blair convenes Cobra team as crisis in Iran escalates
BRIAN BRADY
WESTMINSTER EDITOR
THE official notification, delivered in secure calls yesterday morning to senior Whitehall figures, was the latest dramatic behind-the-scenes move to get to grips with a crisis that is now engulfing the government.

After a day of shadow-boxing with a notoriously slippery regime, Tony Blair is set to up the ante: the plight of the Shatt al-Arab 15 is officially a crisis and he will need the Cobra team to handle it.

The clutch of VIPs will gather in an operations room several floors below Downing Street as early as this afternoon to plot an escape from a military spat that now threatens to become an international incident.

The decision came just 24 hours after the crew of HMS Cornwall had been caught in the confusion of direct confrontation with Iranian vessels in the searing heat of the Gulf.

As the crew members were surrounded in their two rubber dinghies, the Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, frantically radioed back to his own top brass for instructions.

The response to the inquiry, which had been immediately patched through to Ministry of Defence headquarters in Whitehall, was to hold fire.

The order to show restraint has been observed throughout the forces and the British government in the 48 hours since, but it is unclear how long both sides will be able to maintain control.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett's first response to the gathering crisis on Friday was to keep to diplomatic conventions. After a hurried phone call to Blair, she immediately summoned Iran's ambassador, Rasoul Movahedian, to her office to explain their behaviour.

After a meeting described by officials as "brisk but polite", Beckett emerged to stress that she was "extremely disturbed" by events.

It was an understated description of the deep concern now gripping the government. Not only was Blair's administration alarmed at the risk to the 15 military personnel, which included at least one woman, but it was in no doubt over Tehran's ability to use their plight to make a wider point.

During a flurry of diplomatic activity in the hours after the snatch, the Iranians' rhetoric repeatedly elevated their action, and the alleged motives of the British, to a multinational affair. It was the eve of a second UN Security Council resolution imposing sanctions over Iran's refusal to halt its programme to enrich uranium. The Shatt al-Arab 15 were, from the start, pawns in a perilous international game.

"It looks like too much of a coincidence," a senior Foreign Office insider confirmed.

The response was a no- nonsense demand for Iran to relent - and Britain freely used the international community to back up its case. Beckett dispatched the UK chargé d'affaires, Kate Smith, to confront the government in Tehran, armed with the insistence that the British sailors had been in Iraqi waters.

In the meantime, Blair made a personal call to European allies, including EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, to secure a public denunciation of the Iranians' actions.

"It was impressed on everyone how important it was to raise the diplomatic temperature, rather than keep a low profile and let them make a song and dance of the situation," one defence official said.

"There is nothing to be gained in provoking a confrontation, because that would be playing into their hands. But neither should we let them have it all their way. We tried that before and we're still trying to get our kit back."

The smaller-scale precedent, the taking of six British marines and two sailors on the same waterway in June 2004, was a painful lesson. The personnel were only returned after they had been paraded blindfold on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally. Three years on, the government is still pressing Iran for the return of its boats and kit, including valuable radar equipment.

The degree of concern felt across Whitehall was demonstrated yesterday, when Movahedian was called back to the Foreign Office, this time to see Beckett's minister, Lord Triesman. The British were clearly attempting to warn off Tehran before it could begin to use the servicemen and women as a significant propaganda tool.

It was, however, a race against time - and through it all, the diplomats and the politicians were acutely aware that Tehran has built a foreign policy on disregarding diplomatic niceties.

Top level
COBRA is an acronym for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A, where its meetings are held.

Tony Blair, senior ministers, police and security chiefs all take part. It is called after events such as 9/11, 7/7

and can evoke emergency powers such as suspending Parliament or restricting movement.


Linki (http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=462812007)

[spitfire ace]

Hi, i'm new around here but have viewed this site for years. As I like to read this particular thread and with a new war around the corner, I thought i'd join up and chat with allies.

[spitfire ace]

Lets deal with the obvious, shall we?

This was allowed to happen. The boarding party were using short ranged boats and its standard procedure for them to be under the watchfull eye of the support frigate all the time.They interviewed the Captain of HMS Cornwall and he said that the whole thing was being watched by their helicopter while it was happening,yet HMS Cornwall, the British warship (there to protect "Iraqi" oil rigs [owned by......?]) from which the British sailors came made no move to protect its sailors. I've just watched an interview with the Commodore of HMS Cornwall say the ship lost communication with the boats BEFORE the Iranians turned up. Yet there was a helicopter above the incident.

No way were these guys "kidnapped" (or whatever) unless the commander of the Cornwall had orders to allow it to happen. Did the Iranian boats teleport into position? Or more official deception?
I am just wondering what a Commodore and a bbc reporter are doing out on a little frigate checking merchant ships for illegal duty frees?
If the marines were not in Iranian waters and they were in our occupied waters, as our government claim?? why let the Iranians cross into our space under the watchfull eye of our frigate and take our soldiers?
Why didnt we fight?
Why didnt we imprison them?
The reason is clear. We deliberately crossed over in order to provoke them.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Roy Munson
Damn, you never cease to amaze me. Is everything a lie to you?


It must be a tough life not being able to trust anybody. I feel sorry for you, duder.

You blindly trust the Iranian revolutionary guard?

I feel sorry for you.

[Seshmeister]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1563919.ece

The Sunday Times last week quoted Reza Falker, a writer for the Revolutionary Guards’ weekly newspaper, as saying: “We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks.”

The Sunday Times article also quoted a Jordanian intelligence officer as saying: “In Iraq, the Quds force can easily get hold of American and British officers.”

The Shatt al-Arab waterway was an obvious target for a premeditated kidnap. Its waters have been disputed for centuries and were a prime cause of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. It is still littered with the wrecks of bombed-out ships.

“The problem is that nobody knows where the border is,” said Lawrence Potter, a professor of international affairs at Columbia University, New York. “The British might have thought they were on their side, the Iranians might have thought they were on their side.”

British officials have long been aware of the area’s potential navigational hazards. In June 2004 eight sailors and marine commandos were seized in a similar incident when Tehran accused them of straying into Iranian waters. On that occasion the men were blindfolded and paraded on Iranian television, then released three days later. Tehran never returned their boats.

The British personnel seized on Friday were in Iraqi waters, according to their commanding officer, Commodore Nick Lambert of the frigate HMS Cornwall, who said he had “absolutely no doubt” about their position.

After their uneventful inspection of the dhow, the Britons were on their way out of the area when they were surrounded by six larger vessels armed with heavy machineguns. The crews of the RIBs had rifles and pistols.

A Royal Navy helicopter spotted the Iranian vessels towing the inflatables towards a military base on the Iranian shore. The helicopter made radio contact with the Iranians, and was told there had been no fighting and that nobody was hurt.

US military officials publicly supported Britain’s claim that the seized sailors and marines were inside Iraqi waters, but sources in Washington privately acknowledged it was a difficult case to prove. The Iraqi military commander in nominal charge of territorial waters cast further doubt on the British claim.

“We were informed by Iraqi fishermen . . . that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control,” said Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim in Basra. “We don’t know why they were there.” Yet the main concern in both London and Washington was that legal niceties would rapidly become irrelevant if the incident spirals into a stage-managed confrontation over Iran’s nuclear weapons programme and its alleged subversion in Iraq.

Yesterday’s UN resolution presents Tehran with a tougher sanctions regime, and several US analysts speculated that the Iranians may feel they have nothing to lose by precipitating a diplomatic crisis that has conveniently distracted popular attention from recent setbacks to the country’s nuclear programme, a source of intense national pride.

A Russian decision to suspend supplies of nuclear fuel to the Bushehr reactor in southern Iran had shaken confidence in the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But the Shatt al-Arab incident has “helpfully changed the subject”, said one Iranian opposition source.

The Tehran foreign ministry’s spokesman, Mohammad Ali-Hosseini, yesterday accused Britain of “illegal and interventionist” entry into Iranian waters. Kate Smith, the British chargé d’affaires in Tehran, was summoned to the Iranian foreign ministry on Friday to receive a formal protest. Geoffrey Adams, Britain’s ambassador to Iran, had been out of the country and was returning this weekend.

Most worrying for London were recent belligerent remarks by Khamenei, who was said by an Iranian source yesterday to have personally approved the order to abduct the Britons.

The fact that the IRGC has custody of the captives will further complicate efforts to find a diplomatic solution. The force, considered the elite of Iran, operates independently of Ahmadinejad’s government.

Sources in Tehran said the British prisoners were almost certain to be suffering similar conditions to those endured by the eight captives held in 2004. They were subjected to mock executions and told they would be put on trial as spies. If Tehran concludes this time that its status in the Middle East will be enhanced by a show trial of British “aggressors”, this crisis could last for months

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by spitfire ace
Lets deal with the obvious, shall we?

This was allowed to happen. The boarding party were using short ranged boats and its standard procedure for them to be under the watchfull eye of the support frigate all the time.They interviewed the Captain of HMS Cornwall and he said that the whole thing was being watched by their helicopter while it was happening,yet HMS Cornwall, the British warship (there to protect "Iraqi" oil rigs [owned by......?]) from which the British sailors came made no move to protect its sailors. I've just watched an interview with the Commodore of HMS Cornwall say the ship lost communication with the boats BEFORE the Iranians turned up. Yet there was a helicopter above the incident.

No way were these guys "kidnapped" (or whatever) unless the commander of the Cornwall had orders to allow it to happen. Did the Iranian boats teleport into position? Or more official deception?
I am just wondering what a Commodore and a bbc reporter are doing out on a little frigate checking merchant ships for illegal duty frees?
If the marines were not in Iranian waters and they were in our occupied waters, as our government claim?? why let the Iranians cross into our space under the watchfull eye of our frigate and take our soldiers?
Why didnt we fight?
Why didnt we imprison them?
The reason is clear. We deliberately crossed over in order to provoke them.

Interesting view, and WELCOME!

Anyway, I agree with you that if your people (on HMS Cornwall) thought the men in the small boats were not in Iranian waters, why didn't they fight?

The Rules of Engagement must be pretty fouled up.

:mad:

[Roy Munson]

Originally posted by spitfire ace
Lets deal with the obvious, shall we?

This was allowed to happen. The boarding party were using short ranged boats and its standard procedure for them to be under the watchfull eye of the support frigate all the time.They interviewed the Captain of HMS Cornwall and he said that the whole thing was being watched by their helicopter while it was happening,yet HMS Cornwall, the British warship (there to protect "Iraqi" oil rigs [owned by......?]) from which the British sailors came made no move to protect its sailors. I've just watched an interview with the Commodore of HMS Cornwall say the ship lost communication with the boats BEFORE the Iranians turned up. Yet there was a helicopter above the incident.

No way were these guys "kidnapped" (or whatever) unless the commander of the Cornwall had orders to allow it to happen. Did the Iranian boats teleport into position? Or more official deception?
I am just wondering what a Commodore and a bbc reporter are doing out on a little frigate checking merchant ships for illegal duty frees?
If the marines were not in Iranian waters and they were in our occupied waters, as our government claim?? why let the Iranians cross into our space under the watchfull eye of our frigate and take our soldiers?
Why didnt we fight?
Why didnt we imprison them?
The reason is clear. We deliberately crossed over in order to provoke them.



Nice take. Makes sense, moreso than these other idiots on this board. I hope you stay around.

[Roy Munson]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Interesting view, and WELCOME!

Anyway, I agree with you that if your people (on HMS Cornwall) thought the men in the small boats were not in Iranian waters, why didn't they fight?

The Rules of Engagement must be pretty fouled up.

:mad:


Yes. They must be. Too many pussies involved in the process these days.

[BigBadBrian]

I know I sometimes poke fun at our UK friends here...but only (usually) in a good-natured way.

Anyhow, I hope it turns out well for these sailors and Royal Marines without violence.

:)

[Ellyllions]

Iran wants control of Iraq. They have for centuries, and they've been trying to get in on this war since it started.

[spitfire ace]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
Iran wants control of Iraq. They have for centuries, and they've been trying to get in on this war since it started.
Is this a theory of yours or from the media in the states?
Theres no talk of this in the uk and the first I've heard of it.

[Ellyllions]

Iran and Iraq were at war for 10 years.
When we went into Iraq, shortly thereafter, Iran began this nuclear crap. Pushing a little here, pushing a little there. But trying to keep attention turned towards it all the time.

Iran wants control of Iraq. They were and have been bitter enemies and its all over territorial control. We could never understand that because we're quite comfortable in our divided states and provinces. Well, that's just not the case in the Middle East. There's still a "conquer" mentality.

I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to the facts that give Blair or Bush more power than they actually hold. In my mind, each person should be held responsible for their own actions and a lot of the rhetoric really sounds like the people in the whole of the Middle East can do no wrong because it's all someone else's doing.

Iran has done what it's done and should be held accountable. Do I think military action is the way? No. I think ignoring and cutting their stupid asses off would do more good. BUT, I do think their ultimate goal is to test out one of their new nuclear toys on Israel. And I DO think they will do it.

Although it'll all be some conspiracy from Blair or Bush who's actually at fault if Iran does push the red button.....no way the Iranian administration could think of something so sinister....

[Nickdfresh]

What an incredibly stupid and provocative act by Iran...

After about four or five US troops were captured and summarily executed in Iraq in what was obviously an inside job many feel was carried out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards special operations detachment, bombs started going off, and firefights erupted, in southern Iran, killing 11 Revolutionary Guards...

Iran is actually volatile country with many feuding ethnicities that have their own resistance groups.

Obviously, we are arming them now, and will be arming more shortly I believe...

[Seshmeister]

The place seems to be pretty anarchic.

There are all sorts of factions with their own power bases.

[WACF]

The British have said that their rules of engagment prevented them from attacking the Iranian boats.

I take it too that there must of been a high risk of friendly fire incidents or loss of life among the civiallian ship's crew.

[Ellyllions]

It's getting to the point where neither the Brits or the US can fire against anyone. So many Watchdog organizations just waiting to crucify them for using any amount of force.

How many days did Iran hold those US citizens back in the '80's?....

[WACF]

On another note about where this happened.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6501555.stm

UK reveals Iran dispute evidence

Satellite data proves 15 navy personnel being held in Iran were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they were seized, UK defence officials say.
Vice Admiral Charles Style said the sailors had been "ambushed" in the Gulf after searching a vessel and their detention was "unjustified and wrong".

Tony Blair said it was time to "ratchet up" pressure on Iran, with whom the UK has now suspended bilateral contacts.

Reports suggest the only woman among the group will be freed shortly.

An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman is quoted as saying Faye Turney, 26, would be released either later on Wednesday or on Thursday.

Iran has insisted the group were in its waters when they were taken last Friday.

The eight sailors and seven marines, based on HMS Cornwall, which has its home port in Plymouth, were taken at gunpoint by Iranian Revolutionary Guards after they had searched a merchant vessel.

Its foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told Turkey's CNN-Turk television the 15 were in "completely good health".

Iran's embassy in London also issued a statement in response to the UK data, in which it said the sailors and marines had been 0.5 km inside Iranian waters at the time they were seized.

The statement, quoted by the official IRNA news agency, said "the governments of Iran and Britain have the ability to solve the incident through contacts and close co-operation".

At a briefing in London, the Ministry of Defence said it "unambiguously contested" Iran's claims that the Royal Navy personnel had strayed into Iranian waters.

Speaking later, Mr Blair told MPs it was time to increase pressure on Iran "in order to make sure the Iranian government understands their total isolation on this issue".

The seizure of the personnel was "unacceptable, wrong and illegal" and the UK was now in talks with all its key allies and partners, he said.

Mr Blair added: "Our thoughts are with the servicemen and the servicewoman and their families, and their safe return is our paramount concern."


The prime minister said: "These personnel were patrolling in Iraqi waters under a United Nations mandate. Their boarding and checking of the Indian merchant vessel was routine - there was no justification therefore for their detention."

Mr Blair said the personnel had been "doing their job" and the government would be talking to international partners in Nato and the UN to reach a "sensible" solution.

The UK government said the Iranians initially said the merchant vessel searched by the navy personnel had been at a point within Iraqi waters, before later providing a second, alternative position, within Iranian waters.

In a statement to the Commons, Mrs Beckett said: "We find it impossible to believe, given the seriousness of the incident, that the Iranians could have made such a mistake with the original coordinates."

She told MPs that Britain were suspending bilateral contacts with Iran until the navy personnel were released.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said: "The seizure of our personnel was clearly unjustified and the evidence the foreign secretary and the MoD has presented shatters the credibility of any claim they were operating in Iranian waters."

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said the freeze on ties between the two countries meant that until the Britons were returned there would be "no inward or outward visits to Iran" and no UK visas would be granted to Iranian officials.

Earlier, Turkey's prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was quoted as saying his diplomats may be allowed to meet the group, taken in the Gulf.

The BBC has been told the group are being held at an Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps base in Tehran, where they are said to be being treated "humanely".

[spitfire ace]

If you know anything about the military and how things are done, there is absolutely no way that these poor sailors and marines were accidentally allowed to be captured - this could be a carefully planned 'psych op' to escalate British and overseas public opinion into accepting military action against Iran.

Poor Faye Turney - interviewed by the BBC just moments before she went out on this 'routine' search of a 'smuggling' ship. . Well how about this......there are currently thousands of British service men and women operating in Iraq and the Gulf and, guess what, not only does the BBC embed itself with the actual ship that was going to be involved with this major news story (along with selected newspaper journalists), but they also just happen to interview the young woman a couple of hours before she goes out on patrol. The 'hidden hand' needs a human face to get the most from this sort of operation - if it were just fifteen hunky males in trouble, we would be concerned but now a young mother with a three year old waiting back home for Mummy to come back, that's something to really get people animated about.

Now to the actual capture itself. The military always, when they put their people into harms way, ensure that close support is available in the form of immediate firepower and reinforcements. The only exception to this are Special Forces who are trained to operate independently of other friendly units and to be able to operate behind enemy lines without immediate backup. A boarding party from a Royal Navy ship are not Special Forces, even though half of them in this particular case were Royal Marine commandos. The normal procedure for a Royal Navy boarding party is for their ship to place itself in a position were it can give covering or warning fire from its most appropriate weaponry, which in this case would have been shipboard mounted GPMGs (General Purpose Machine Guns) and the ship's helicopter. In other words, the boarding party's ship would be no more than a 1800 metres (effective range of a mounted GPMG) away from the designated ship to be searched. So what happened in this particular case - how far away was HMS Cornwall from this freighter. If it was further than 2 kilometres then that boarding party was deliberately sent out to be captured.....and if Cornwall was within 2 kilometres then why no support given with warning shots.

HMS Cornwall is bristling with radar and high tech surveillance devices - how come they did not pick up the Iranian Revolutionary Guards patrol boats as they were approaching the RN boarding party? And what about the helicopter - one report says it was sent away when it was seen that the boarding party had received a friendly welcome from the suspected freighter. If that's true, then this is a break with normal SOPs (standing operational procedures).

It is also reported that the Cornwall had communication problems with the boarding party - now problems with radios do occur but the ship should have been close enough for other forms of communications to be used (light, rockets and signal flags) in order to alert the boarding party as to the Iranian patrol boats movements. We also learn from other sources that Commodore Nick Lambert, senior naval officer in the area, was desperately trying to sort out Rules of Engagement with the Ministry of Defence in London and that hesitation here prevented any action from being taken to save the boarding party from capture. Excuse me! Rules of Engagement are decided on before deployment and are constantly reviewed and at no time would you put your people into harms way without knowing your latest Rules of Engagement.

One final thing - the Rigid Inflatable Boats (RIBs) used by the boarding party are capable of over 30 knots and, as we have seen from when Greenpeace use them effectively, are extremely manoeuvrable. I just find it very strange that skilful avoiding tactics using excellent boatmanship (which you would expect from the Royal Navy), but not firing any shots to exacerbate the situation, were not used by the boarding party to get back to the Cornwall - assuming of course the Cornwall was at a distance offering 'close support'.

The MOD should give us an accurate, minute by minute, account of what happened but my belief is that we will never know the full truth. Let's hope that some of the navy personnel involved will start to speak out.

Sorry for such a long post, but you know, when you look further than the end of your nose sort of thing!

[FORD]

Excellent points, Spitfire. I heard many of the same things being discussed on the radio yesterday, and it seems the more we know about the incident, the more obvious it is that it was a setup, most likely intended as an excuse for war with Iran.

[Ellyllions]

Oy, vey....

[WACF]

Originally posted by spitfire ace
If you know anything about the military and how things are done, there is absolutely no way that these poor sailors and marines were accidentally allowed to be captured - this could be a carefully planned 'psych op' to escalate British and overseas public opinion into accepting military action against Iran.



You make some interesting points...right or wrong time may tell.

BUT....the statement I quoted....I think if you know anything about the military and how things are done you would know this could very well happen.

The Brits are not as quick to fire as the US is...The Brits are known for that...they give you many chances to pull back before pulling the trigger.
I would think that following the UN mandate as they are that the rules of engagement are much strickter. Civillian casualties would be avoided...and I do not care how fast your boat is you are not faster than a bullet.
For Iran they may consider this a freebie...if it was the USN they tried this with they would be more unsure of the results.

[hideyoursheep]

Brian, you ignorant slut! Why would Usama Bin-Laden want me to vote Democratic?

It's not as if the Republi-Cons give a shit about terrists, especialy Bin-Laden...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Brian, you ignorant slut! Why would Usama Bin-Laden want me to vote Democratic?

It's not as if the Republi-Cons give a shit about terrists, especialy Bin-Laden...

Shaddap, boy.

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Yeah, I mean, his 'best' attacks happened during a Republican administration...

[BigBadBrian]

Iran: Britain Must Admit Navy Trespassed

Mar 28 07:37 PM US/Eastern
By NASSER KARIMI
Associated Press Writer


TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's foreign minister said Wednesday that Britain must admit that its 15 sailors and marines entered Iranian waters in order to resolve a standoff over their capture by Iranian authorities.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki's announcement came on a day of escalating tensions, highlighted by an Iranian video of the detained Britons that showed the only woman captive saying her group had "trespassed" in Iranian waters. Britain angrily denounced the video as unacceptable and froze most dealings with the mideast nation.

"First they have to admit that they have made a mistake. Admitting the mistake will facilitate a solution to the problem," Mottaki told The Associated Press in an interview in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. "But unfortunately the British have not admitted their mistake."

Mottaki also backed off a prediction that the female sailor, Faye Turney, could be freed Wednesday or Thursday, but said Tehran agreed to allow British officials to meet with service personnel.

His comments were the first confirmation that Iran agreed to a British request for a consular visit with the crew, though he did not specify when. Iran has not said where the 15 are being held.

"We have accepted that (the British request), there is no problem. Measures are underway (to arrange meeting.) They can meet them," he said.

[Nickdfresh]

Maybe they can send Reagan's corpse to do an arms for hostages deal for them?

[BigBadBrian]

Three minutes in which routine boarding turned into armed ambush


· Iranian craft swarmed around naval boats
· Personnel were put in an 'impossible position'

Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday March 29, 2007
The Guardian


The Royal Navy for the first time yesterday gave a detailed account of the circumstances surrounding the capture of 15 navy personnel by heavily armed Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
They described in graphic detail how what they called an "entirely routine" boarding of an Indian-flagged vessel took place 7.5 nautical miles south-east of the al-Faw peninsula, the southern tip of Iraq, on Friday morning last week.

A boarding party of eight sailors and seven marines left the frigate HMS Cornwall in fast rigid inflatable boats - Ribs, as the navy calls them. The vessel they raced towards had been spotted unloading cars into two barges secured alongside.


As the search took place, four naval personnel were left to look after their boats and monitor the data link which kept it in contact with the frigate.
The remaining 11 boarded the merchant vessel at 7.39 local time. They carried SA80 rifles or pistols, and the Cornwall's Lynx helicopter hovered overhead.

Vice Admiral Charles Style, deputy chief of the defence staff, described the operation as "entirely routine business", conducted in an area where four other boardings had recently been completed without fuss. The boarding party finished inspecting the vessel, which was cleared to carry on its business, at 9.10am.

The 11 sailors and marines were leaving the vessel when "very heavily armed Iranian vessels" arrived. Adm Style said the Iranian crew initially appeared friendly.

However, with their two boats equipped with rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine guns a few feet away, the Iranians suddenly became aggressive. Four other Iranian craft quickly came on the scene. "They came out to swarm around our boats and shepherded them in," said a senior naval officer. He added: "The navy personnel were put in an almost impossible position."

The Iranian ambush, carried out with six boats capable of 40 knots, took place in three minutes.

British military sources insisted yesterday that commanders engaged in patrolling the northern Gulf were "entirely satisfied" with their rules of engagement. "They had all the freedom they needed, all rights to engage in self-defence," said one senior military officer. The naval personnel had acted "in a professional way".

HMS Cornwall could not come to their aid since the boarding took place in very shallow water. The frigate was more than four miles away at the time of the ambush, according to naval sources.

Communications between the naval boarding party and the Cornwall were lost at 9.10. The Lynx helicopter, which had left the scene, returned to locate the boarding team. The helicopter crew reported that the boarding party and their boats were being "escorted by Iranian Islamic Republican Guard Navy vessels towards the Shatt al-Arab waterway and were now inside Iranian territorial waters."

The government's apparent confidence that its case was solid was reflected in Ministry of Defence briefings yesterday. Adm Style pointed out that the British boarding party's two boats were equipped with GPS (global positioning system) chart plotters. Satellite data on the boats and on the Cornwall's Lynx helicopter proved the 15 naval personnel and the merchant ship they boarded had been inside Iraqi waters, British military officers said. Adm Style gave the position of the merchant vessel, and hence the boarding party, as 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north 048 degrees 43.08 minutes east. He said: "This places her 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters. This fact has been confirmed by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry."

He said the Iranian government had provided Britain with two different positions for the incident, the first on Saturday and the second on Monday. The first of these was within Iraqi territorial waters, he said, and that was pointed out to the Iranians on Sunday in diplomatic contacts. The Iranians then provided a second set of coordinates that placed the incident in Iranian waters more than two nautical miles from the position given by HMS Cornwall.

Adm Style added: "On Sunday morning, March 25, HMS Cornwall's Lynx conducted an overflight of the merchant vessel, which was still at anchor, and once agian confirmed her location on global positioning system equipment. Her master confirmed that his vessel had remained at anchor since Friday, and was in Iraqi territorial waters."

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Shaddap, boy.

:gulp:


FAG.....:p

[pflo]

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?

:rolleyes: Youre right - YOU ARE "FUCT". get used to it.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by spitfire ace
If you know anything about the military and how things are done, there is absolutely no way that these poor sailors and marines were accidentally allowed to be captured - this could be a carefully planned 'psych op' to escalate British and overseas public opinion into accepting military action against Iran.

Poor Faye Turney - interviewed by the BBC just moments before she went out on this 'routine' search of a 'smuggling' ship. . Well how about this......there are currently thousands of British service men and women operating in Iraq and the Gulf and, guess what, not only does the BBC embed itself with the actual ship that was going to be involved with this major news story (along with selected newspaper journalists), but they also just happen to interview the young woman a couple of hours before she goes out on patrol. The 'hidden hand' needs a human face to get the most from this sort of operation - if it were just fifteen hunky males in trouble, we would be concerned but now a young mother with a three year old waiting back home for Mummy to come back, that's something to really get people animated about.

Now to the actual capture itself. The military always, when they put their people into harms way, ensure that close support is available in the form of immediate firepower and reinforcements. The only exception to this are Special Forces who are trained to operate independently of other friendly units and to be able to operate behind enemy lines without immediate backup. A boarding party from a Royal Navy ship are not Special Forces, even though half of them in this particular case were Royal Marine commandos. The normal procedure for a Royal Navy boarding party is for their ship to place itself in a position were it can give covering or warning fire from its most appropriate weaponry, which in this case would have been shipboard mounted GPMGs (General Purpose Machine Guns) and the ship's helicopter. In other words, the boarding party's ship would be no more than a 1800 metres (effective range of a mounted GPMG) away from the designated ship to be searched. So what happened in this particular case - how far away was HMS Cornwall from this freighter. If it was further than 2 kilometres then that boarding party was deliberately sent out to be captured.....and if Cornwall was within 2 kilometres then why no support given with warning shots.

HMS Cornwall is bristling with radar and high tech surveillance devices - how come they did not pick up the Iranian Revolutionary Guards patrol boats as they were approaching the RN boarding party? And what about the helicopter - one report says it was sent away when it was seen that the boarding party had received a friendly welcome from the suspected freighter. If that's true, then this is a break with normal SOPs (standing operational procedures).

It is also reported that the Cornwall had communication problems with the boarding party - now problems with radios do occur but the ship should have been close enough for other forms of communications to be used (light, rockets and signal flags) in order to alert the boarding party as to the Iranian patrol boats movements. We also learn from other sources that Commodore Nick Lambert, senior naval officer in the area, was desperately trying to sort out Rules of Engagement with the Ministry of Defence in London and that hesitation here prevented any action from being taken to save the boarding party from capture. Excuse me! Rules of Engagement are decided on before deployment and are constantly reviewed and at no time would you put your people into harms way without knowing your latest Rules of Engagement.

One final thing - the Rigid Inflatable Boats (RIBs) used by the boarding party are capable of over 30 knots and, as we have seen from when Greenpeace use them effectively, are extremely manoeuvrable. I just find it very strange that skilful avoiding tactics using excellent boatmanship (which you would expect from the Royal Navy), but not firing any shots to exacerbate the situation, were not used by the boarding party to get back to the Cornwall - assuming of course the Cornwall was at a distance offering 'close support'.

The MOD should give us an accurate, minute by minute, account of what happened but my belief is that we will never know the full truth. Let's hope that some of the navy personnel involved will start to speak out.

Sorry for such a long post, but you know, when you look further than the end of your nose sort of thing!

Just what this forum needs, another conspiracy nut.:)

[Nitro Express]

I always thought the Japanese Bushido Code of war made sense. The British marines are outnumbered but the Bushido Code refushes surrender as an option. If your people fight to the death, it eliminates a hostage situation and makes your enemy think twice of what they may be unleashing on themselves.

What scares me more than anything is the passive attitudes we have towards war. A few people go and fight our modern wars while the majority stay home and their lifes go on as usual. Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and the current war on terror were all such wars. Some lawmakers have suggested having a draft again to make the president think twice before getting into another war.

When a few pay a high price and the majority don't, war becomes scary. Those British sailors are probably being treated like shit like how our hostages were treated like shit. Meanwhile in jolly ol' England life goes on as usual just like here in the US.

What's next? Robot wars?

The old samuri warrior code was brutal and the Imperial Japanese were brutal but war meant war and the price expected to pay was high. Victory or death! Death over dishonor! With a code like that you didn't go into war half assed. It took two nuclear bombs to crush that will. Now that is some seriouse shit!

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
It's getting to the point where neither the Brits or the US can fire against anyone. So many Watchdog organizations just waiting to crucify them for using any amount of force.

How many days did Iran hold those US citizens back in the '80's?....

They were embassy workers and lucky not to be killed.

The US had propped up the Shah for years who was a murdering bastard. If your family had 'disappeared' in the middle of the night never to be seen again like 1000s of Iranians maybe you would feel entitled to imprison the people that helped facilitate it.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
...
Iran wants control of Iraq. They were and have been bitter enemies and its all over territorial control. We could never understand that because we're quite comfortable in our divided states and provinces. Well, that's just not the case in the Middle East. There's still a "conquer" mentality.


This is just nonsense. It's worrying that people are so ignorant.

Iran has never invaded another country in it's history. Not one!

The US has invaded how many....?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
This is just nonsense. It's worrying that people are so ignorant.

Iran has never invaded another country in it's history. Not one!

The US has invaded how many....?

Not enough.

Anyhow, it's really worrying that all these British sailors and Marines "confessed" so readily. Initial reports seem to indicate that they weren't under much duress at all. A report I saw on the liberal-slanted CNN said that their superiors in the UK were "appalled" at these confessions, particularly from a Royal Marine officer.

The British people should be ashamed of these people. :mad:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
They were embassy workers and lucky not to be killed.

The US had propped up the Shah for years who was a murdering bastard. If your family had 'disappeared' in the middle of the night never to be seen again like 1000s of Iranians maybe you would feel entitled to imprison the people that helped facilitate it.

Hmmm?


I wonder what Persian Gulf area recent regime this reminds us all of?

:rolleyes:

[Ellyllions]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
They were embassy workers and lucky not to be killed.

The US had propped up the Shah for years who was a murdering bastard. If your family had 'disappeared' in the middle of the night never to be seen again like 1000s of Iranians maybe you would feel entitled to imprison the people that helped facilitate it.

So, is it safe to assume that every country the US has gone into some sort of "deal" with, throughout history. has come back to haunt us in one way or another?

Well, that would be the perfect argument to stay out of Darfur. And Pelosi's visit to Syria is also a bad idea because of this mentality? (*disclaimer: I'm not so sure it's a bad idea, btw)

But this ideaology also leads to the prospect that Bush is right in NOT engaging in talks with what he considers to be rogue nations!

Whoa!
Hold on?
We can't go that far can we?

At some point, negotiations and deals are in our favor...without regard to how it might be used against us later on.....right?

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
liberal-slanted CNN

Tell me how a network that employs Chimp Cheeleader Candy COWley, Mossad Agent Leslie Blitzer, and racist Klansman Glenn Beck is "liberal-slanted".

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Hmmm?


I wonder what Persian Gulf area recent regime this reminds us all of?

:rolleyes:

The Bush Criminal Empire?

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
So, is it safe to assume that every country the US has gone into some sort of "deal" with, throughout history. has come back to haunt us in one way or another?

Well, that would be the perfect argument to stay out of Darfur. And Pelosi's visit to Syria is also a bad idea because of this mentality? (*disclaimer: I'm not so sure it's a bad idea, btw)

But this ideaology also leads to the prospect that Bush is right in NOT engaging in talks with what he considers to be rogue nations!

Whoa!
Hold on?
We can't go that far can we?

At some point, negotiations and deals are in our favor...without regard to how it might be used against us later on.....right?

Not sure what you are trying to say.

Its quite simple to me.

If the US government continually gets into bed with sick cunt regimes then its a bit fucking pathetic when you try and shout foul when it all goes wrong. I'm not a fan of the revolutionary fanatics in Iran but just like most of these things like Al Queda a hell of a lot of the problem is due to the greed and immoral self interest policies of the US.

You don't have the high ground so stop acting like you do.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Hmmm?


I wonder what Persian Gulf area recent regime this reminds us all of?

:rolleyes:

I dunno Saudi?

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Not enough.

Anyhow, it's really worrying that all these British sailors and Marines "confessed" so readily. Initial reports seem to indicate that they weren't under much duress at all. A report I saw on the liberal-slanted CNN said that their superiors in the UK were "appalled" at these confessions, particularly from a Royal Marine officer.

The British people should be ashamed of these people. :mad:

Who cares?

I don't see any point in getting the shit kicked out of you and spending years in an Iranian prison over a GPS co-ordinate.

Who gives a fuck?

Cheers!

:gulp:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Who cares?

I don't see any point in getting the shit kicked out of you and spending years in an Iranian prison over a GPS co-ordinate.

Who gives a fuck?

Cheers!

:gulp:

Maybe...

...but I'm happy nonetheless that they got home safe!

:killer: