UK Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Iran's dissedents claim kidnapping was planned

No kidding..I think is was planned in order to gain the release of the 5 Rev.Guard that are held by the US. If so why not caputre some USN sailors??

Iran dissidents: British capture ordered By DAVID STRINGER, Associated Press Writer
33 minutes ago

LONDON - An Iranian opposition group claimed Saturday that Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines was planned in advance and carried out in retaliation for the U.N. sanctions imposed against the country, as an Iranian diplomat said the case had entered a legal phase.

Gholam-Reza Ansari, the Iranian ambassador to Russia, made his comments to Russian television Vesti-24 on Friday and was quoted by IRNA on its Web site as saying, "the case of the detention of British sailors has taken on a judicial form."

IRNA originally quoted the ambassador Saturday morning as saying the sailors could be "tried if there is enough evidence of guilt." But the agency published a correction later claiming Ansari's comments were incorrectly translated by Russian television. The Russian TV station could not immediately be reached for comment.

Asked about Ansari's remarks earlier Saturday before IRNA reported that he was misquoted, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett urged Iran to resolve the crisis peacefully.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran — the political wing of the Iranian MEK opposition group which is listed as a terrorist group by Britain, the U.S. and the European Union — said the British crew's capture was planned in advance, but offered no evidence to support the claims.

The British sailors were detained by Iranian naval units March 23 while patrolling for smugglers near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway that has long been a disputed dividing line between Iraq and Iran. Iran claims the Britons were in its territory; Britain and the Iraqi government say they were taken captive in Iraqi waters.

Iran appears intent on sending a message of strength as it faces mounting U.N. Nations sanctions over its uranium enrichment program, which the U.S. and other nations suspect the Islamic Republic is using to develop nuclear weapons.

Hossein Abedini, a member of the opposition group's foreign affairs committee, claimed the group had obtained information from sources within Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard and had passed details to the British government. He did not provide any evidence or give further details.

Britain's Foreign Office said it could not comment on Abedini's allegation, or say if it had evidence the operation was pre-planned. A spokeswoman said the MEK was a banned organization under British anti-terrorism laws — meaning the government had no dealings with the group.

Abedini told a London press conference that an Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval garrison had been on alert from the night before the kidnapping, to prepare for the operation.

Mohammad Mohaddessin, who handles foreign affairs for the council, said in a statement that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had ordered the detention of the Britons in the hope of pressuring the British government over a threat to toughen U.N. sanctions.

"You can see that the clerical regime had in a premeditated act arrested British sailors in order to win concessions from the international community and divert attention from its nuclear project," Abedini said. "Claims that the sailors were arrested in Iranian territorial waters are baseless."

Britain's Foreign Office reiterated that the personnel "were in Iraqi waters and we continue to request immediate consular access to them and their immediate release."

Britain has frozen most contacts with Iran and referred the issue to the U.N. Security Council, which expressed "grave concern" on Thursday over Iran's seizure last week of the Britons.

Former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami told reporters on Saturday that he hopes the current standoff will be resolved peacefully "instead of facing a new disaster not only for Iranian-British relations, but for Iran internationally."
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
no I just did not believe they were telling the truth

So then why ask whether the Iranians could have falsified the data if you believe them?

Or maybe he knows far more than you do, or maybe there has to be an agreed International boundary for it to apply

UNCLOS has no such caveats - maybe if you'd bothered to read it yourself you would know that.

If the Iranians can screw Blairs legacy or even hasten his departure, in the hope of effecting a more favourable shift in UK policy, then I think they would jump at it.

His legacy is already "screwed". If anything the Iranians trying to hold the UK to ransom could only improve his reputation if he refuses to back down.

No!! you can primarily take my silence as compliance with a Moderation instruction from BD Popeye

Where did Popeye say we cannot discuss UNCLOS? He was talking about discussing the rights and wrongs of being in Iraq, etc. Popeye, can we talk about UNCLOS or not?

there is a big difference in simply crossing a border line and crossing a border line and undertaking operations with a view to board and detain goods and personnel of citizens from the country whose border has been violated.

Yeah, except that the Iranians originally said the merchantman was in Iraqi waters and only changed their story after the RN GPS data had been published.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Gents..this is what I posted
Reminder >> This thread is about the UK military. Not about the UN, NATO or any other international enity, policies or the political ideolgy of any country. Although it may be difficult to refrain from all political discussion I'm sure our intelligent forum members will abide by the rules and spirit of this forum.

Fu wants to know:

Where did Popeye say we cannot discuss UNCLOS? He was talking about discussing the rights and wrongs of being in Iraq, etc. Popeye, can we talk about UNCLOS or not?

I prefere you would just discuss the UK military. The UN law of the seas is NOT something I want you fellows to get into. OK??!

Try to be more civil in your discussion..

Go have a "pint" or two...calm down please.
 

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
Sharp words from UK have hardened Tehran's resolve
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


By Angus McDowall in Tehran
Published: 30 March 2007
When Iran's top security official, Ali Larijani, revoked an offer to release Faye Turney while accusing Britain of escalating the crisis, he was living up to his reputation as his country's tough-as-nails nuclear negotiator.

His comments also showed how sharp words uttered in Britain have upped the ante in this crisis while allowing a unity of purpose to grow among Iranian leaders.

"They have created a lot of noise over diplomatic ties and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
," Mr Larijani said. "This will not help solve the issue. British leaders are miscalculating the case."

Analysts in Tehran believe the vocal
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
- including fierce criticism in the press - has made it harder for Iranian leaders to back down without appearing to give in to the West. Some reports from insiders suggest the Iranians were preparing to ease tensions on Wednesday, but changed their minds after the tough comments from Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett and the British threat to raise the matter at the UN Security Council.

"The Iranians are saying: 'If you want to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, let's do that'," said an analyst who did not want to be named. "They're saying 'we have your guys and you know how to free them - admit you trespassed and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
'."

Diplomats in Tehran are aware that heightened tensions can complicate matters, but say Iran's leaders have to understand the political pressure that the British Government is under to free their people quickly. Policy watchers suggest the Foreign Office would prefer to take a softer position than that being pushed by Downing Street.

There have been fears that the crisis could be prolonged by infighting between pragmatic figures and hardliners such as the Revolutionary Guards who were responsible for capturing the 15 British sailors and marines. But the comments from Mr Larijani, the most senior official yet to speak about the crisis, suggest the regime is coming together behind a common position.

Although the footage of the captive Britons has provoked outrage in the UK, many Iranians saw it as proof they were being well looked after. Azadeh, 20, a student, said: "The British woman said they were in Iranian waters and they were all eating food and talking together. Why shouldn't I believe they were well treated?"

After previously running low in Iranian news schedules, the story is gaining prominence. That suggests a decision has been made on how to pursue the case. Mr Larijani's comments on the news channel yesterday were followed by a rendition of a popular nationalist song, which analysts say could be bad news for the forces personnel.
The hyperlinks are only to give better understanding of the evolving crisis.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Well no matter where you stand on this matter, there seems a broad consensus today, that the early situation deterorated dramatically as soon as the Prime Minister and his office took hold of the issue and started making loud denunciations and producing dodgy sea charts.

Cooler heads are apparently talking behind the scenes and what sounds like a proposal to agree a working line of demarcation, appears likely.

The question here though is why did No 10 handle this matter so clumsily? Blair has a reputation for smoothness and so such ineptitude is eye raising. Some are speculating if he and others were deliberatly trying to deepen the incident to real crisis in order to precipiate military action. If so, it seems to have backfired dramatically.
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
Well no matter where you stand on this matter, there seems a broad consensus today, that the early situation deterorated dramatically as soon as the Prime Minister and his office took hold of the issue and started making loud denunciations and producing dodgy sea charts.

I disagree that there is such a consensus - I would say the situation began to deteriorate when the Iranians started parading the personnel on TV, coerced them into making "apologies", forced them to write obviously drafted "letters home" and the threats about putting them on trial appeared.

The demonstration of their location at the time the incident took place was a reaction to the disgraceful behaviour of the Iranians. As to the denunciations, I am surprised you see something like that as provocation. It is natural comments like that would be made after a country's military personnnel, out on UN-sanctioned operations, are illegally snatched by another country. To not do so would be unquestionably a sign of weakness that would make it much more difficult to get them home, whilst also encouraging others to do the same thing.

Cooler heads are apparently talking behind the scenes and what sounds like a proposal to agree a working line of demarcation, appears likely.

We're miles away from the release of the 15, let alone any such agreement.

The question here though is why did No 10 handle this matter so clumsily?

I would say it's Tehran that has handled the matter clumsily - or don't you think the outrageous behaviour of the Iranians as I have outlined was pouring petrol onto the fire?

Some are speculating if he and others were deliberatly trying to deepen the incident to real crisis in order to precipiate military action.

Some people also believe Elvis is still alive - that doesn't mean they should be taken seriously.

Those with actual understanding of politics would know this is not what Blair wants. He was rather looking forward, by all accounts, to announcing the CVF contract in order to boost the Party's chances in Scotland. This crisis means any such announcement would be overshadowed or seen as a cynical ploy to go after votes when British personnel are being held captive overseas. There is nothing more Blair, the government and the Labour Party wants than for this situation to be resolved as fast as possible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I disagree that there is such a consensus

Well I have heard this from Channel 4 News, BBC News and Newsnight, the Daily Mail, The Indi, The Guardian and I am told the Telegraph, so that leaves the Mirror, the Sun, the News of the World and the Express, so if you are happy in that company, I respect your decision.

All the things you mentioned happened after Mr Blair made his early statements, which blew a hole right through the quiet diplomacy that had already started. Then we had all the theatrics on both sides.

We're miles away from the release of the 15, let alone any such agreement.

All the more reason to start heading in the right direction and to abandon grandstanding.

Some people also believe Elvis is still alive
I think most people would sooner bet on Elvis being alive than Blair telling the truth:roll:

Those with actual understanding of politics would know this is not what Blair wants. He was rather looking forward, by all accounts, to announcing the CVF contract in order to boost the Party's chances in Scotland. This crisis means any such announcement would be overshadowed or seen as a cynical ploy to go after votes when British personnel are being held captive overseas. There is nothing more Blair, the government and the Labour Party wants than for this situation to be resolved as fast as possible.

Well, we are getting precious these days!:p

I must offer my apologies, I had no idea you spoke for the Labour Party or the Prime Minister;)
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
Well I have heard this from Channel 4 News, BBC News and Newsnight, the Daily Mail, The Indi, The Guardian and I am told the Telegraph

Are they saying he should have shut up and let the seizure pass without much comment? Because from what I've read a lot of Blair's criticism is that he has not been doing enough, rather than saying too much.

so that leaves the Mirror, the Sun, the News of the World and the Express, so if you are happy in that company, I respect your decision

I didn't realise you chose your views based on what was supported by certain media groups. I suppose one could call it the 21st century version of peer pressure.....

All the things you mentioned happened after Mr Blair made his early statements, which blew a hole right through the quiet diplomacy that had already started.

Right, so if he'd stayed quiet it would have all gone away? The TV propaganda happened in 2004 and that was resolved in days - there's no reason to believe the Iranians would not have done what they did this time if Blair had stayed quiet. The entire reason they snatched these people was for propaganda and leverage.

All the more reason to start heading in the right direction and to abandon grandstanding.

I don't see why we should do anything whilst the Iranians continue using our people like puppets to whip up a bit of xenophobia.

I think most people would sooner bet on Elvis being alive than Blair telling the truth

Some very sad, jaded people quite possibly.

Well, we are getting precious these days!

I didn't realise making logical points was "precious".

I must offer my apologies, I had no idea you spoke for the Labour Party or the Prime Minister

So you believe that the Labour Party and Prime Minister would pass up the opportunity to make an announcement that could safeguard numerous seats in an election in which the polls say they are going to face a drubbing, to start an unpopular conflict (in comparison to the Iraq war which had a lot of support at the start)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


BAE Systems has unveiled plans to produce parts for one of the world's elite fighter jets at a rate of one-a-day at its Lancashire base. The defence giant handed over the first aft fuselage for the F-35 Lightning II plane to its US-based partner contractor Lockheed Martin at a special ceremony at BAE's base in Samlesbury, near Preston on Tuesday.

Managing director Tom Fillingham, of the F-35 programme for BAE, said that its plans to expand the base in Samlesbury were vital to meet its targets of producing the aft fuselages, the back end of the jet and other parts for the US-UK programme at such a rate within the next few years.

The F-35 programme could be worth up to £12.1 billion to BAE. The company has more than 1,400 people working directly on the programme, including hundreds at its sites in Lancashire. There is also around 60 external supply companies, including many in Lancashire, involved on the programme.

Mr Fillingham said: "If we are looking to go to a one-a-day rate on the aft fuselage we would need extra capacity on site and that is mainly on the F-35 programme. That includes a variety of manufacturing processes and we would have to expand our assembly site to allow to cope with one of these aft fuselages being rolled out every day of the working week. That is quite a considerable requirement and one never seen before in the military aircraft industry."

The initial System Development and Demonstration (SDD) stage of the programme, which will see BAE make seven aft fuselages and other parts, is worth £1.3 billion to BAE and future production contracts could be worth a total of £12.1 billion. Its workforce at Samlesbury is due to make its first delivery of the vertical tail fins to Lockheed Martin next month and the horizontal tail fins in June.

Vice-president Bobby Williams, of Lockheed Martin's F-35 programme, told an audience of 350 workers from BAE, including many from Samlesbury and Warton, near Preston, they were an "integral part" of the world's largest defence contract. He was joined at the ceremony by Bob Fiorentini, vice-president F-35 production programme at Lockheed, after the pair jetted in from the company's base in Fort Worth, Texas, home to hundreds of BAE workers.

Mr Fiorentini said: "Your facilities may stand seven time zones and two continents apart, but we act every day to produce affordable and sustainable aircraft which is going to shape aviation history over the next 50 years."

The fuselage handed over today will now be shipped to Texas where Lockheed, the lead manufacturer, will join it to the front and centre fuselage parts it produces in the States.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
So you believe that the Labour Party and Prime Minister would pass up the opportunity to make an announcement that could safeguard numerous seats in an election in which the polls say they are going to face a drubbing, to start an unpopular conflict (in comparison to the Iraq war which had a lot of support at the start)?

Well the Labour Party might agree with you, but I doubt if the Prime Minister gives a proverbial Tinkers Cuss!. He is leaving office very shortly, he has a huge mortgage and an acquired taste for the high life which a Prime Ministers pension is not going to come close to satisfying.

On the other hand, he knows a group of powerful US Oil Billionaires, who currently run that country and who in conjuction with certain "friends" would love an excuse to take a crack at a country that they accuse of being a "state sponsor of terrorism", a member of an "Axis of Evil" and of running a clandestine Nuclear Weapons Program, with which it intends to threaten its neighbours in the region (all of which are their words not mine).

Some people might then be forgiven for speculating that Mr Blairs ungainly repsonse to the Hostage crisis, the drawing of non-existent border lines etc and the general whipping up of feelings on all sides (including today where his "next 48 hours" remark has been taken as an ultimatum by some Iranians) might actually be in response to a very generous cash enducement from the aforementioned very rich people, to precipitate a convenient crisis in which the very rich people could launch ,military action against a country that they do not like very much. I am sure that there a plenty of American members here, who believe that the events which have already happened are sufficient for such action to be taken.

Other members I am sure will dismiss this as just more conspiracy theorising.

Take your pick.:D
 
Top