British Sailors & Marines siezed by Iranians

[Linda]

http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/6342/48/

What really happened to British Navy boarding party?

By Justin Walker

'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 servicemen 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 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 two kilometres then that boarding party was deliberately sent out to be captured ... and if Cornwall was within two 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 Guard's 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 (lights, 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 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 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 Ministry of Defence 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 speak out.

http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/6342/48/

[karlos]

absolutely correct linda. This is a set up. Bush and Blair have an excuse now to attack over Easter weekend. Remember this week is Iranian new year as well. The festivity continues for 12 days usually.

[Mark Gobell]

The British sailors and marines were seized on 23.3.2007

The Iranian hostage crisis began on 4.11.1979

An interval of 10,000 days.

[johndoe]

looks like turney isn't going to be released, who would have guessed the iranians would not be true to their word, they can't even make their minds up where the ship was.

[GazeboflossUK]

I'm lost...

The very fact that there is no straight talk from the Iranian side just makes this whole situation worse.

Do you notice that Ahmadinejad never seems to offer normal answers in interviews?
Everything is always so cryptic and therefore allows for many damning interpretations - usually by our governments.

And this current situation that we are in at the moment....
If indeed the Iranians did think that Sailors were in their waters, what's stopping them simply saying...(even in the exact wording that I am going to use) "Ok, look - we thought there was something strange about the position of these sailors & marines, so we thought it best to find out exactly why they were in the area. This must be expected, considering the awkward situation we find ourselves in and the possible threat to our country's security. We aren't going to harm them, they will be in the best of care while we question them"

And well, that's what should be said...simple....But I feel there's something very, very fishy going on - from both sides - could Ahmadinejad and other high-ranking members really be in on this?

All we ever get is diplomatic speak from both the Iranians and our own government.

I don't know exactly what to make of it...I really don't. There's far too much ambiguity and weird happenings for most people to make sense of this and maybe that's the intent. Most of the population here just gets headlines that read "Marines Paraded on TV" and "Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Ahmadinejad" - as well as tough talking statements from Tony Blair and pretty much every MP on both sides of the house.

I'm lost.

[scubadiver]

I said to a friend of mine a few weeks ago that he should beware of a "Gulf of Tonkin" style incident to escalate a crisis with Iran.

[Craig W]

[Craig W]

[johndoe]

"could you explain your comments regarding the Middle East's and/or Iran's wish for a conflict?"

a conflict with iran would lead to a full middle eastern war, that is inevitable.

why would anyone want this? it would unify muslims not just in the middle east but throughout the world, this would obviously lead to an increase in terrorism and civil unrest by the muslim population.

it would be a cause even greater than they have at present.

[Craig W]

[Bongo]

johndoe wrote:

[wepmob2000]

Why did the Iranians rise to such an 'obvious provocation', not that it was much of a provocation, that is fifteen sailors and marines in motorised dinghy's are hardly a threat to Iran's sovereignty.

One would think that if Iran was concerned about possible Western military action, it wouldn't allow any chance of an incident that might justify such aggression?

[StopThe9/11CoverUp]

To say iran wants to be invaded is like saying america doesnt have hegemonic tendencies.

Its absurd, the only reason you dont get straight answers is because he is standing up to the USA and UK and fair play to him.

What gives us the right to invade countries illegally? Why do we want to remove regime with WMD or the potential to have WMD when in fact our own country has plenty of said WMD?

Its a hypocritical and morally decrepid way of thinking.

And all this rubbish about parading OUR boys and girls being infuriating to us? What about when we show live pictures of the arrest of supposed terrorists here? there pictures and footage analysed on all news channels?

There's no difference at all except for one: It is never proven they are in fact terrorists, whereas I think you will find the truth that theywere in fact in iranian waters.

The new footage even shows the chopper in the air for gods sake.

Our "boys" knew what they were doing, Fox news said that military action would only come with the help of america.

April 6th or 1st week in April is when it will kick off.

And the worst feeling of all?...................


I can't believe i'm the same nationality as the "baddies" (UK)

When ppl look back in 50 years it will be like all british ppl will be apologising for what happened in a weeks time just like many germans have been doing since ww2.

[paul wright]

Ahmadinejad wants Iran invaded, as far as I can see. Every unnecessary action of the Iran state as personified by him says screw my nukes, bomb them to smithereens, create a vast fall out cloud.
That's encapsulated in all his words and deeds
He's asking for it daily, in full consciousness
In connivance with these western powers who deliberately put the service men and woman in harm's way

[wepmob2000]

[fish5133]

Another take on it is that Iran got wind of possible US attack and thought of buying a bit of collateral insurance to perhaps slow any attack down. They will of course release them and say look how fair we have been thus trying to get some world support when US do attack.
Who knows whats next in this game of chess?

[EmptyBee]

I think there's a number of ways you can interpret the Iranian actions here.

1) Iran opportunistically captured these people in an attempt to gain diplomatic leverage over the US and UK. They don't actually want to escalate things. If this is true they're extremely poor judges of the situation in my opinion, and I think it's entirely possible that these troops were deliberately dangled in front of the Iranians as bait with the intention of creating a catalyst for escalation.

2) Conservative elements within Iran - Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are unquestionably part of these - actually want to precipitate a military crisis because they believe they will come out of any confrontation victorious and consequently substantially strengthened as a force within Iranian society. Think Hezbollah after the recent Israeli invasion. They think the Americans are a paper tiger militarily and want to call their bluff.

Despite the horrendous consequences of a bombing campaign for the Iranian people (particularly if tactical nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities are involved) the Iranian martyr complex (at least amongst the religious conservatives in the Revolutionary Guard) may be sufficient to allow this to happen.

Make no mistake, this is an incendiary situation and the only conclusion I can draw from this is that the leaders on both sides are insane hawkish religious maniacs liable to get a lot of innocent people killed. But we knew that already; the US and UK engineered terrorist atrocities on their own people and the Iranians used to use children to clear minefields.

"In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."
Friedrich Nietzsche (philosopher who died insane).

It's a freaking madhouse.

[GazeboflossUK]

[Banish]

Agree with fish. An insurance policy. Thats how I see it!

[karlos]

[Craig W]

An interesting article about US covert ops to destabilize Iran from within.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=200703 23&articleId=5165

[gypsum]

One of the things that annoys me the most about this whole thing is when you hear things like -

[Thermate]

So we're "disgusted" and we're "appalled" so now we're just waiting to be "outraged" ... only a matter of time, whether it'll be these 15 or Harry Hewitt or both we just gotta wait and see.

I think it would be quite naive to believe we in the UK actually hear what the Iranians have to say about this incident and not some spun, distorted & cherry picked version. As with Ahmadinejad's famously misquoted and distorted "wipe Israel off the map" bs.

[Craig W]

"Downing Street" was apparently appalled at the "cruel and callous" way Faye Turney has been treated.

What a complete load of BS. Cruel and callous??!! FFS

What do these fvckwits take us for?

I expect many of us are appalled at the cruel and callous way our Government, Military Industrial Complex and armed forces cause death and suffering to millions. And the pathetic lack of coverage of this in our so-called free press.

That is real cruelty and callousness. Oh but I'd forgotten we have to fight wars for peace and kill people to save them.

Give us a break.

[Ravenmoon]

[Linda]

Iran War Underway: US and Britain Funding Right Wing Terrorists For Regime Change

http://infowars.net/articles/march2007/300307Iran_provocation.htm

Iran War Underway: US and Britain Funding Right Wing Terrorists For Regime Change
The Long history of British and American covert provocation and action in Iran



Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, March 30, 2007


The US and Britain are already at war with Iran, have been at war with Iran for a number of years now and are funding anti-Iranian terrorist groups inside Iran in preparation for the fallout that will occur after overt military action is commenced.

Not my words, the words of high ranking CIA officials, Defense department officials, former UN officials and retired US air force Colonels.

Iran's state news agency, IRNA today listed five previous violations of Iranian territory by British armed forces:

June 2004: An unmanned reconnaissance plane violated Iranian airspace in northeastern Abadan and was hit by Iranian anti-aircraft guns.
June 22, 2004: Eight navy personnel in three speed boats entered Iranian territorial waters and were arrested by Iranian coast guards; the arrested were released after three days.
November 1, 2006: Two helicopters, hovering at a height of 150 meters (492 feet), violated Iranian airspace for a total of 10 minutes.
January 27, 2007: A helicopter violated Iranian airspace over the mouth of the Arvand river and left the area after a warning from Iranian coast guards.
February 28, 2007: Three navy boats entered Iranian territorial waters in the mouth of Khor Mousa.
Can we believe Iranian state news? Is Britain and/or the US engaging in covert intelligence gathering in Iran? The answer is we don't have to believe Iranian state news because it is a well established fact that a covert intelligence war is already being waged with Iran and has been ongoing for many years now.

In an article entitled The US war with Iran has already begun, written back in June 2005, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, addressed this very issue and described how intelligence gathering, direct action and the mobilizing of indigenous opposition is all being carried out already by CIA backed US special forces.

Ritter stated:

As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the Mullah's to an "axis of evil" (together with the newly "liberated" Iraq and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread of "democracy" to the Iranian people.

But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran.

As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But this is a fool's dream.
The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.
President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.
Ritter goes on to describe how Iranian opposition groups, including the well known right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations, are carrying out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

He also describes how to the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.

Ritter is not alone in his assertions.

During an interview on CNN a year ago, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner claimed that U.S. military operations were already 'underway' inside Iran.

"I would say -- and this may shock some -- I think the decision has been made and military operations are under way," Col. Gardiner told CNN International anchor Jim Clancy.

"The secretary point is, the Iranians have been saying American military troops are in there, have been saying it for almost a year," Gardiner said. "I was in Berlin two weeks ago, sat next to the ambassador, the Iranian ambassador to the IAEA. And I said, 'Hey, I hear you're accusing Americans of being in there operating with some of the units that have shot up revolution guard units.' He said, quite frankly, 'Yes, we know they are. We've captured some of the units, and they've confessed to working with the Americans,'" said the retired Air Force colonel.

The full seven minute CNN segment can be viewed below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmce6KmFh6o&eurl=

Around the same time that Gardiner revealed this, RAW story ran an exclusive, which also revealed that, according to counterintelligence officials, covert operations were underway that included CIA co-option and use of right wing terror groups:

“We disarmed [the MEK] of major weapons but not small arms. [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld was pushing to use them as a military special ops team, but policy infighting between their camp and Condi, but she was able to fight them off for a while,” said the intelligence official. According to still another intelligence source, the policy infighting ended last year when Donald Rumsfeld, under pressure from Vice President Cheney, came up with a plan to “convert” the MEK by having them simply quit their organization.

“These guys are nuts,” this intelligence source said. “Cambone and those guys made MEK members swear an oath to Democracy and resign from the MEK and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them.”

The MEK were notorious in Iraq, indeed, Saddam Hussein himself had used the MEK for acts of terror against non-Sunni Muslims and had assigned domestic security detail to the MEK as a way of policing dissent among his own people. It was under the guidance of MEK ‘policing’ that Iraqi citizens who were not Sunni were routinely tortured, attacked and arrested.

The Just last month after a bombing inside Iran, the London Telegraph also reported on how a high ranking CIA official has blown the whistle on the fact that America is secretly funding terrorist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.

The claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: "The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity."

If this all sounds a little familiar, it's because it is. The fact is that the US has a long history of provocation and covert action inside Iran.

The In 1953 the CIA and MI6 carried out Operation Ajax (officially TP-AJAX), a covert operation by the United Kingdom and the United States to remove the democratically elected nationalist cabinet of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh from power, to support the Pahlavi dynasty and consolidate the power of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in order to preserve the Western control of Iran's hugely lucrative oil infrastructure.

In planning the operation, the CIA organized a guerrilla force incase the communist Tudeh Party seized power as a result of the chaos created by Operation Ajax. According to formerly “Top Secret” documents released by the National Security Archive, Undersecretary of State Walter Bedell Smith reported that the CIA had reached an agreement with Qashqai tribal leaders in southern Iran to establish a clandestine safe haven from which U.S.-funded guerrillas and intelligence agents could operate.

The conspiracy centered around having the increasingly impotent Shah dismiss the powerful Prime Minister Mossadegh and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans after careful examination for his likeliness to be pro-British.

Zahedi was installed to succeed Prime Minister Mossadegh. The deposed Mossadegh was arrested, given a show trial, and condemned to death. The Shah commuted this sentence to solitary confinement for three years in a military prison, followed by house arrest for life.

“If there had not been a military coup, there would not have been 25 years of the Shah’s brutal regime, there would not have been a revolution in 1979 and a government of clerics,” Ibrahim Yazdi, a former foreign minister and leading member of a political party that traces its origins to Mossadegh’s National Front, told the Christian Science Monitor on the 50th anniversary of the coup and installation of the Shah. “Now it seems that the Americans are pushing towards the same direction again. That shows they have not learned anything from history.”

“For many Iranians, the coup was a tragedy from which their country has never recovered. Perhaps because Mossadegh represents a future denied, his memory has approached myth,” Dan De Luce writes for the Guardian. “Beyond Iran, America remains deeply resented for siding with authoritarian rule in the region.”

Alex Jones's latest film Terrorstorm covers the ousting of Mossadegh in depth.

After the Iranian revolution in 1979, the US again found itself sparring with Iran. Again we find a history of provocation and aggression. In particular, a fierce assault known as Operation Praying Mantis, is renowned. The operation began after a US warship had entered mined Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf.

From Wikipedia:

On April 14 1988, the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine while sailing in the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Earnest Will, the 1987-88 convoy missions in which U.S. warships escorted reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to protect them from Iranian attacks. The explosion put a 25-foot hole in the Roberts' hull and nearly sank it. But the crew saved their ship with no loss of life, and Roberts was towed to Dubai on April 16.

After the mining, U.S. Navy divers recovered other mines in the area. When the serial numbers were found to match those of mines seized along with the Iran Ajr the previous September, U.S. military officials planned a retaliatory operation against Iranian targets in the Gulf.

The battle, the largest for American surface forces since World War II,[1] sank two Iranian warships and as many as six armed speedboats. It also marked the first surface-to-surface missile engagement in U.S. Navy history.
The US also attacked and destroyed several Iranian oil platforms in a full out military assault. At the time the Chicago Sun Times reported:

U.S. naval forces on Monday attacked Iranian targets in the Persian Gulf to show the Iranians that "if they threaten us, they'll pay a price," President Reagan said.

In fighting conducted over nine hours, the U.S. forces knocked out two Iranian oil platforms, and then sank or disabled a fast-attack missile patrol boat, two frigates, and three speedboats when Iran attempted to fight back.

Note Reagan's comments. Hence the name 'Operation Praying Mantis' was a reference to the fanning of the wings used to make the mantis seem larger and to scare the opponent.

On November 6, 2003 the International Court of Justice dismissed Iran's claim for reparation against the United States for breach of the 1955 Treaty of Amity between the two countries. The court also dismissed a counter-claim by the United States, also for reparation for breach of the same treaty. As part of its finding the court did note that "the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on 19 October 1987 (Operation Nimble Archer) and 18 April 1988 (Operation Praying Mantis) cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America."

The fallout of Praying Mantis also resulted in the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shooting down an Iranian civilian commercial airliner, Iran air flight 665, between Bandar Abbas and Dubai, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children. The Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the shoot-down.

The On the morning of July 3, the Vincennes crossed into Iranian territorial waters during clashes with Iranian gunboats. Earlier in the day, the Vincennes - along with Iranian gunboats - had similarly violated Omani waters until challenged by an Omani warship.

According to the U.S. government, the Iranian aircraft was mistakenly identified as an attacking military fighter. The Iranian government, however, maintains that the Vincennes knowingly shot down a civilian aircraft.

According to the Iranian government, the shooting down of IR 655 by the Vincennes was an intentionally performed and unlawful act. Even if there was a mistaken identification, which Iran has not accepted, it argues that this constituted gross negligence and recklessness amounting to an international crime, not an accident.

Newsweek reporters John Barry and Roger Charles wrote that Rogers acted recklessly and without due care. Their report accused the U.S. government of a cover-up. An analysis of the events by the International Strategic Studies Association described the deployment of an Aegis cruiser in the zone as irresponsible and felt that the expense of the ship had played a major part in the setting of a low threshold for opening fire.

George H.W. Bush, at the time Vice President said "I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don't care what the facts are" in reference to the incident.

The BBC later reported:

It took four years for the US administration to admit officially that the USS Vincennes was in Iranian waters when the skirmish took place with the Iranian gunboats. Subsequent investigations have accused the US military of waging a covert war against Iran in support of Iraq. In February 1996 the US agreed to pay Iran $61.8 million in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed, plus the cost of the aircraft and legal expenses.
So we see that Britain and the US have a long history of covert action against and provocation of Iran in their bid to aggressively control the region. Nothing has changed. These facts and past precedents are exactly the reason why we should be questioning our own governments on the authenticity of the current seizure of the British marines by Iran.

Our governments have continually violated Iranian territory covertly for decades and then covered up the fact.

In January Republican Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul stated that he feared a staged Gulf of Tonkin style incident may be used to provoke air strikes on Iran as numerous factors collide to heighten expectations that America may soon be embroiled in its third war in six years.

Just last month former National Security Advisor and founding member of the Trilateral Commission Zbigniew Brzezinski also tacitly warned that an attack on Iran could be launched following a staged provocation.

During a BBC Newsnight feature story this week, it was demonstrated that the Iranian footage of the capture of the British sailors was in large part likely faked and the commentators all but suggested the entire incident was staged or at least constituted "gross negligence" on behalf of the British.

Former British Ambassador Craig Murray and others are highlighting the fact that the maritime border between Iraq and Iran is contested, and the British have essentially manufactured a border to make it appear as if HMS Cornwall was within Iraqi territorial waters. The mainstream media has uniformly failed to address this issue.

It seems that we are once again witnessing the unfolding of ongoing covert military action by our governments against (whether you agree with it or not) a democratically elected foreign government in Iran.

[Linda]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/300307carrier.htm

US carrier deploys amid Iran tensions

AFP
Friday, March 30, 2007

Nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz will sail Monday to support US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US Navy said, amid a spike in tensions over Iran's seizure of 15 British marines and sailors.

The Nimitz, and its battle group of destroyers and guided missile cruisers, will relieve the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, which this week took part in war games exercises in the Gulf with another carrier, USS John S Stennis.

The new battle group will be in position by late-to-mid April, but there will be no overlap with the Eisenhower, and the number of US carriers in the area would stay at two, a navy official said on condition of anonymity.

"If anything, there would be a point where there is only one in the region," the official said, on condition of anonymity.

The Stennis and the Eisenhower wound down their show of force involving 15 warships in the Gulf on Thursday.

The two carrier deployment in the Gulf was the highest level US naval presence in the key strategic channel since the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

The Nimitz will support operations in Iraq, the Horn of Africa and Afghanistan, the navy said in a press release.

The Stennis had been operating in the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea but entered Gulf waters on Tuesday, escorted by the guided-missile carrier USS Antietam, the Fifth Fleet said.

[paul wright]

The Ahmadinejad regime is in on this. He's a NWO puppet, plays everything to get his country smashed up and divided. Welcomes the irradiation of the nation through bunker busters or nukes on his own nuclear sites. This game is being played out, and the sailors are animals, pawns, in the geopolitical strategy as Kissinger once said

[GazeboflossUK]

Whether leaders in the middle-east have already been lobbied, paid off and are part of their countries own downfall is also up for some sort of debate. I mean this sailor crisis has seen some very silly behaviour from the Iranian government....the sort of behaviour which seems to purposely to make themselves appear as foolish as possible.

I mean, if these letters and video admissions of guilt by the British captives are all fake and have been orchestrated by the Iranians (which they do actually look staged to me) then surely after their eventual release the sailors would then just say "well, we were told to say and write those things". (although they would most certainly also be ordered to say this even if the admissions were real)

So the whole point of the 'admissions' seems really pointless (from an Iranian point of view) - as it only would further demonise then Iranians at a later date, when the sailors are released.

This then also begs the question....will the Iranian government want to let the sailors go?
If surely all the fake admissions of British guilt would be put to rest when they are released, thus rendering all this pointless. It only can make Iran more of an easy target for our media/governments.

This is a very odd situation we have here......it seems like their might be a lot more going one than we think.

[Craig W]