British Sailors & Marines siezed by Iranians

[elohim]

[flamesong]

[John White]

[flamesong]

There is a nonsense report on this in today's Independant, they had an apparently semi-literate reporter on board HMS Cornwall - though the online version seems to have been made readable.

The paper's coverage purports to be objective as far as in which waters the incident takes place but the printed graphic clearly places the boats about two miles inside Iraqi water.

According to this report, the operation was being monitored by a helicopter from the ship the pilot of which seems to have witnessed the whole thing.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2387844.ece

[Eckyboy]

This whole story is really troubling. This has set-up written all over it. Trouble is the majority of people are ignorant and quite happily believe just about anything they are told. The next big 911 style attack is coming and I honestly believe this one will be 10 times worse.

[Newspeak International]

I thought there is no such thing as kidnapping in this case,capturing being a more appropriate description?

[mark_e]

I was sent this e-mail yesterday from Terry Boardman. Having read it I felt had to share it on here. He has given me permission to post it here.

Subject: UK-IRAN tensions on THIS day

[a month after the release of the film "The Number 23"..... (recall Pearl Harbor released in the year of 911) - just thought I'd mention it.......]


Today, the 23rd of the 3rd month, the month of Mars, 15 British naval personnel are arrested by the Iranians while supposedly carrying out anti-smuggling operations. 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 a live 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 word yet of any communication between the helicopter and the Navy boats. The commander has just (2:00) said that "the extent and definition of territorial waters is very complicated" in the area. In his interviews since the story broke, the commander has NOT said what nationality the boat was that was checked by his men, presumably Iraqi, since the Royal Navy are obviously claiming they were in Iraqi waters. Very possible that the British were actually sent into Iranian waters on purpose, in order to goad the Revolutionary Guard, but don't want to admit it......
On the other hand, the US are still holding 5 Iranian Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq in January; perhaps this latest incident is to get them returned.

On the same day, today, news comes of a British officer claiming the Iranians are supplying arms to 'insurgents' in Basra but **very little info** released about his sources.... I see the BBC (News 24) are already interpreting the seizure of the sailors as Iranian revenge for the British officer's claim. Could possibly be, but it's more likely that the two moves were planned in sync by the Brits, who are playing their usual fig leaf role for the Americans, provoking (on behalf of the USA) Iran into actions that the US would rather not be seen provoking them into. And as the number 23 is everywhere in Anglo-US culture, and as the Iraq war and the war against Serbia in 1999 both started in the week of the 20th March (20.3), it is at least possible that this is yet another black op designed to draw the Iranians into foolish moves that will result - at the very least – in further tough international action against Iran, and at worst in military action.

Nb most Iranian officials are on holiday because it's the traditional Persian New Year. Shades of July 1914....?

The British media swing into gear, insinuating not only that the British were doing nothing wrong but that the British operation is legitimised by UN resolution......guess which?......No.1723. An interesting number; it just happens to be the number of the year in which British Freemasonry received its constitution, which for Freemasons corresponded to the year 5723 of Freemasonry.

The main 'expert' the BBC has been calling on on News 24 since the story broke is veteran "Middle East expert" Adel Darwish. On him see http://www.fandy.us/experts/adel-darwish.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adel_Darwish Note the conservative media who Darwish has mostly written for. Darwish is pushing a propaganda message that this is all being orchestrated entirely by the Iranians at the expense of the innocent British. He has also just said that people expect that war with Iran is more likely to happen 'by accident' than by design. He is now (2:40) saying that US satellite pictures will "prove" where the boats were
(technology of course can NEVER be doctored, as we know...)

"Adel Darwish is a British reporter, author, journalist and broadcaster. He has worked for major UK papers like the Daily Telegraph, The Independent and The Times.

Additionally, Mr. Darwish's work appears in The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Scotsman, The Washington Post, The Economist and The Middle East Magazine.

Mr. Darwish is a frequent commentator on foreign affairs with the BBC, SKY News and ITN, as well as major American and Canadian Networks and occasionally with some Arabic language networks such as Egyptian Radio, Nile TV and Kuwait TV"

Finally, the day before this incident, 22nd March (223, or 322 if you prefer the American style, 322 being of course the signature number of Skull & Bones), after 2 years of investigations, the Metropolitan Police (a well-known bastion of Freemasonry in the British establishment) SUDDENLY (the media all note how "surprising" this is) report the first 3 arrests in the case of the 7.7.2005 bombings in London. I'm not claiming there's any direct connection between that event and today's events in the Gulf, but one should keep one's ears open as to the timing of things..... as the modern public are 'massaged' and psyched up constantly on all fronts by
Establishment media who now have nearly 100 years of experience of 'black propaganda' and manipulation of the public, especially in matters relating to foreign affairs.

[Mark Gobell]

Related: US Forces sieze Iranian Consulate in Irbil

Iraq was invaded on 20th March 2003 (= 20032003 or 2323) = 9 months and 11 days until the year's end.

This incident occurred on 23rd March 2007 = the 9th day and 9 months before the year's end. (99 = 9 x 11 or 3 x 33)

23rd March leaves precisely 9 months, 1 week and 1 day until the year's end.

[Mark Gobell]

Bliar: The decrepit stooge who committed UK troops and the entire British nation to illegal, unjustified wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, who has the blood of a million souls on his hands:

Bliar: Iran's detention of 15 Royal Navy personnel is "unjustified and wrong".

[Thermate]

Seizure unjustified, Iran warned is the latest headline, sigh why don't they just get on with it ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6493391.stm

[alfsevic]

I am just wondering what a Commodore and a bbc reporter are doing out on a stupid little frigate checking merchant ships for illegal duty frees. Has anyone a clue?

[gypsum]

[Mark Gobell]

Email from Webster Tarpley.

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Webster Tarpley <webstertarpley@ yahoo.com>

OPERATION BITE: APRIL 6 SNEAK ATTACK BY US FORCES AGAINST IRAN
PLANNED, RUSSIAN MILITARY SOURCES WARN

GENERAL IVASHOV CALLS FOR EMERGENCY SESSION OF UN SECURITY
COUNCIL TO WARD OFF LOOMING US AGGRESSION

By Webster G. Tarpley

Washington DC, March 25 --

The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track
for the first week of April, specifically for 4 AM on April
6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the
well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow
weekly "Argumenty Nedeli." Uglanov cites Russian military
experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account.

The attack is slated to last for twelve hours, according to
Uglanov, lasting from 4 AM until 4 PM local time. Friday is
a holiday in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named
Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the
list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers,
and laboratories.

The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where
Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from
destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian
air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships
to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and the for the most important
headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out.

The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including
the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia
is currently home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff
missiles. Also participating in the air strikes will be US naval
aviation from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as
from those of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional
cruise missiles will be fired from submarines in the Indian
Ocean and off the coast of the Arabian peninsula. The goal is
allegedly to set back Iran's nuclear program by several years,
writes Uglanov, whose article was re-issued by RIA-Novosti in
various languages, but apparently not English, several days
ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and German
blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.

Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level
orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning,
which draws on the formidable resources of the Russian
intelligence services, and which deserves to be taken with
the utmost seriousness by pro-peace forces around the world.

Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired
Colonel General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features
in a March 21 interview: "I have no doubt that there will
be an operation, or more precisely a violent action against
Iran." Ivashov, who has reportedly served at various times as
an informal advisor to Putin, is currently the Vice President
of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.

Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the
Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to
remove language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military
appropriations bill which would have demanded that Bush come
to Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed
out that the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC,
the lobbing group representing the Israeli extreme right,
and of Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni.

"We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation
will take place," said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning
does not include a land operation: " Most probably there will
be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the
goal of annihilating Iran's capacity for military resistance,
the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and
quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least
part of it," he continued.

Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon
would use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets
of the Iranian nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze
everyday life, create panic in the population, and generally
produce an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty all over Iran,
Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. "This will unleash a struggle for
power inside Iran, and then there will be a peace delegation
sent in to install a pro-American government in Teheran,"
Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his estimation,
to burnish the image of the current Republican administration,
who would now be able to boast that they had wiped out the
Iranian nuclear program.

Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition
of Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving
up of the Near and Middle East into smaller regions. "This
concept worked well for them in the Balkans and will now be
applied to the greater Middle East," he commented.

"Moscow must expert Russia's influence by demanding an emergency
session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with
the current preparations for an illegal use of force against
Iran and the destruction of the basis of the United Nations
Charter," said General Ivashov. "In this context Russia could
cooperate with China, France and the non-permanent members of
the Security Council. We need this kind of preventive action
to ward off the use of force," he concluded.

[karlos]

Ofcourse the price of oil will go up and down every day. It is the worlds most traded commodity.

But the attack on Iran has been on the cards since before bush and blair even came to power. The last time iran had a democratic government Mossadech the cia overthrough it and installed the shah.

Today iran is the ONLY demoocracy in the whole of the middle east. And america will not allow that. If the marines were in Iraqi waters then surely they would have defended themselves. The fact is abundantly clear. they were sent over to the Iranian side thus provoking Iran to take action. This could now become the trigger or exuse to start the carpet bombing that the americans have been itching to commence.

[StopThe9/11CoverUp]

I dont know if it helps but either the daily mail or independent (yesterday/Sunday) stated that it was all ok as one of the people captured was highly trained in interrogation!!!

Hmmm, now why would a highly trained interrogater be on a standard patrol?

[johndoe]

"Just in case johndoe doesn't know SAS/SBS means Special Air Service (army) and Special Boat Service (Royal Marines) special forces who might well be on a "fishing expedition" ie snooping where they don't belong."

oh don't you worry, i'm more than aware of who they are.

"knowing that the result would be the invasion of their country. Makes no sense to me."

i think iran would love to be invaded right now. it would spark a total middle eastern war.

"There is also no evidence that they were in Iraqi waters..... "

or on the moon.

"the benefit of the doubt (until we know the facts) should be with the Iranians."

the iranians? who don't have a record of kidnapping and hostage taking?

"No way were these guys "kidnapped" (or whatever) unless the commander of the Cornwall had orders to allow it to happen."

so why did it happen in 2004 as well?

"What is it that makes the Iranians 'a trust worthy lot' as you put it?"

a little bit of historical knowledge.

"Today iran is the ONLY demoocracy in the whole of the middle east."

oh dear, now that is a mistake.

[karlos]

John Doe you are probably right "Iran would like to get on with it"
because the mistake Iraq made was to wait until they were attacked and carpet bombed back into the stone age. Better to start on the front foot Iran is probably thinking.
Iran can do more damge and give the US and UK a bloody nose while it still has it's infrastructure intact.
But you know that wont happen.
America will mercilessly carpet bomb the civilian population of Iran until everything is flattened then walk in unopposed. They will use battlefield nuclear bombs, cruise missiles, drones, smart bombs, cluster bombs, everything they can. They are arfter all the worlds only superpower. China and Russia will probably be persuaded not to help Iran.

However john doe you were wrong
Today iran is the ONLY demoocracy in the whole of the middle east

name another and dont say the Apartheid state because as you know most of the people there do not have the vote so please name a middle east country as democratic as Iran

[karlos]

if the marines were not in Iranian waters you are saying they were in our occupied waters? so we let Iranians cross into our space and take our soldiers youre saying.
Why didnt we fight?
Why didnt we imprison them?

The reason is clear. We deliberately crossed over in order to provoke them. Next we will kidnap their ambassador.. And if that dosent get them shoot down another one of their airbuses full of people just to provoke them further. Old habits die hard dont they cowboy?

[karlos]

Americans do the funniest thing dont they?

[peloloco]

Bush kissing is not a real shot IMO. Have a good look at it. Cut out!

Pelo

[gypsum]

[karlos]

[blackcat]

[ZUCO]

Funny how they have drawn up a map that "proves" the british soldiers were in Iraqi waters. They have done this with GPS(alarm bells) which is controlled by the military. Conclusive proof? No chance.

[Justin]

This is a short article I'm currently writing:

What really happened to Cornwall's boarding party?

There is something very fishy going on. HMS Cornwall is a state of the art ship with a radar tracking system that would have seen the Iranian boats as they left port. Why did the captain of HMS Cornwall not go to cut off the Iranians?. Why did the gemini boats not fight or at least run away when they saw the six boats coming?. No RN captain would send its people out without protection!!!. Either the captain is an incompetent fool OR he was ordered to stand by and do nothing!!!!!?????

Beryl Hutchinson, Larnaca, Cyprus

Knowing the waters well and having been myself 'captured' by the IRG, something smells here. Cornwall had the eye in the sky (helicopter) watching overhead, the zodiac boats can do 30 knots and the interdict was approx 2 miles from Cornwall. How did they not see the Iranian fleet steam up and 'surround' the zodiacs? How do you surround a rubber dinghy capable of 30 knots. Or is this the issue the USA has been needing to justify an offensive move against Iran?

Phillip Carr, Sherborne

The above people made these comments in the BBC 'Have Your Say' section of the BBC News website. If you know anything about the military and how things are done, there is absolutely no way that these poor sailors and marines were accidently allowed to be captured - this was 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. We all know from our research into 9/11 that you have to believe in huge coincidences if you are to believe the official story. 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 not that concerned.....but a young mother with a three year old waiting back home for Mummy to come back, now 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 manouvreable. 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.

[johndoe]

"Iran can do more damge and give the US and UK a bloody nose while it still has it's infrastructure intact."

you're thinking too small stelios. war with iran will lead to an entire middle east conflict. if you think the muslims are pissed off over what we did to secular iraq how do you think they are going to react when we attack the islamic republic?

"Today iran is the ONLY demoocracy in the whole of the middle east "

first and foremost iran is not a democracy, it's not ranked as a democracy by anyone and for good reason. having the vote doesn't make you democratic. and yes israel is the only country in the middle east that is count as free and democratic.

but hey why don't you tell ahmad batebi that he lives in a democracy?

"if the marines were not in Iranian waters you are saying they were in our occupied waters? so we let Iranians cross into our space and take our soldiers youre saying."

like they didn't go onto american soil during the hostage crisis?

"Oh go on then, give us some examples, all knowing one. "

the iranian hostage crisis for one, crossing onto american territory. that was a little naughty.

[flamesong]

An interesting article, Justin, raising some valid points and as somebody with experience as a former Royal Navy helicopter mechanic, I endorse most of them.

However, as you know, I am also a former Greenpeace boat driver and feel that I need to point out that RIB's are only capable of 30 knots in an ideal sea state - to achieve this speed they need to be 'on the plane' where only the aft part of the hull is in contact with the water. The sea only needs to have a moderate swell to force the boat down into the water, speed would then be severely restricted - perhaps less than 10 knots.

I have not read anywhere what the sea state was at the time and would hesitate to claim that they would be capable of such speeds without such knowledge.

Incidentally, my first Greenpeace action was at La Madeleine in Sardinia. I was carrying two journalists into a US Navy base where nuclear warships were based. The US Navy and Caribinieri were initially slow to respond but soon outnumbered the four Greenpeace boats. The sea had been like a mirror prior to our arrival but was soon whipped up into a froth. In the chaos my boat was surrounded and as I attempted to steer away I was accidentally rammed by another larger Greenpeace boat carrying 15 Italian MEP's - but it could easily have been either a US Navy or Caribinieri boat. My point being that I can imagine that the Iranian boats might easily have surrounded the RIB's - it would have only taken two boats (fast-attack speedboats mounted with machine guns - according to The Independent) to outnumber and outmanoevre one RIB - no mattter how good the driver was. Just one boat could have outrun it.

How many Iranian boats were there? And what kind of boats were they?

[Chaos Warrior]

Seems the Iranians have decided to release Faye Turney.
See here...
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=62998#62998

[Justin]

Flamesong wrote:

[Wokeman]

Naturally, it's other countries who are caught with their diplomatic pants down at times like this. Us? Moi? Not me guv'. Nah!