• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Reply to: Up the Russians!

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Up the Russians!"

Collapse

  • Churchill
    replied
    Also taken from the Independant article...

    * FOWZI NEJAD

    The only hostage taker to survive the SAS assault by hiding himself among the captives, Nejad was seen being led back into the building to face possible execution. He was jailed for life but is now eligible for parole. He has applied for asylum in Britain, claiming he would face torture if forced to return to Iran. Trevor Lock has said he believes Nejad's life sentence should mean he is never released.

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    Wrong.

    After the assault ended, the last surviving gunman, Fowzi Nejad, posed as a hostage and was escorted outside the embassy with the others. There, a real hostage quickly identified him as one of the attackers.
    Dunno... seems pretty conclusive

    Large sections of the report have been blanked out, including the entire account of the SAS raid itself. Also missing are annexes detailing the equipment used by the SAS and the rules of engagement for the soldiers, who were later the subject of an inquiry into whether they had unlawfully killed two of the hostage takers.

    The document nonetheless reveals how ministers and police were concerned that some of the hostages had developed Stockholm Syndrome, the process where abducted prisoners identify with and ultimately defend their captors.<snip>
    At the end of the siege some of the women hostages tried to protect the surviving kidnapper, Fowzi Nejad

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Originally posted by Gibbon View Post
    Yes and he was been led to a quieter part of the garden for disposal when the SAS chaps spotted some journilists on the roof of an adjacant building. Lucky chap, he's out now living on your taxes.
    It happens. Just like Harry Maguire, a pillar of the community now...

    Leave a comment:


  • Gibbon
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    Wrong.

    After the assault ended, the last surviving gunman, Fowzi Nejad, posed as a hostage and was escorted outside the embassy with the others. There, a real hostage quickly identified him as one of the attackers.
    Yes and he was been led to a quieter part of the garden for disposal when the SAS chaps spotted some journilists on the roof of an adjacant building. Lucky chap, he's out now living on your taxes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll View Post
    Only cos the bed-wetting hostages realised what was happening & hid him amongst themselves.
    Wrong.

    After the assault ended, the last surviving gunman, Fowzi Nejad, posed as a hostage and was escorted outside the embassy with the others. There, a real hostage quickly identified him as one of the attackers.
    Last edited by Churchill; 6 May 2010, 11:54.

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    There was one survivor.
    Only cos the bed-wetting hostages realised what was happening & hid him amongst themselves.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll View Post
    Really suprised there were pirate survivors though - certain they would have adopted the Iranian Embassy Siege method of dealing with hostage taking
    Russian way of dealing with hostage taking situations is to indeed to kill attackers whilst disregarding safety of hostages.

    Russian crew knew that so they locked themselves into a safe room.

    More here: Beslan school hostage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll View Post
    They will be ejected from a helicopter at a great height mid-ocean would be better


    Really suprised there were pirate survivors though - certain they would have adopted the Iranian Embassy Siege method of dealing with hostage taking
    There was one survivor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    Originally posted by Paddy View Post
    BBC News - Russian forces storm tanker seized by Somali pirates

    "Russian forces have freed the crew of a Russian oil tanker seized by Somali pirates off the coast of Yemen, in a dramatic rescue operation.

    Forces on the Russian warship Marshal Shaposhnikov approached the tanker with 23 Russian crew on board by helicopter.

    As they did so, the pirates opened fire, sparking a shoot-out.

    The Russian forces then abseiled onto the Moscow University tanker, freeing the crew who had locked themselves in a safe room after disabling their ship"
    Ten pirates have been arrested, says the BBC's Richard Galpin in Moscow. They are currently being held aboard the tanker, Russian defence ministry spokesman Col Alexei Kuznetsov said.

    They will be transferred to Moscow to face charges, reports say.
    They will be ejected from a helicopter at a great height mid-ocean would be better


    Really suprised there were pirate survivors though - certain they would have adopted the Iranian Embassy Siege method of dealing with hostage taking

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy
    replied
    BBC News - Russian forces storm tanker seized by Somali pirates

    "Russian forces have freed the crew of a Russian oil tanker seized by Somali pirates off the coast of Yemen, in a dramatic rescue operation.

    Forces on the Russian warship Marshal Shaposhnikov approached the tanker with 23 Russian crew on board by helicopter.

    As they did so, the pirates opened fire, sparking a shoot-out.

    The Russian forces then abseiled onto the Moscow University tanker, freeing the crew who had locked themselves in a safe room after disabling their ship"

    Leave a comment:


  • shaunbhoy
    replied
    Originally posted by Moscow Mule View Post

    Chasing after pirates with RPGs in a fuel tanker is not a good idea.
    Quite so. What one has to remember is that the Navy of the 21st Century is a lot different to that of previous ages. By way of comparison, I googled a bit and found the following :-

    After a spot check of the lockers of the crew of HMS Hood, carried out in February 1940, the following inventory of items that could reasonably be described as "contraband" was found :-

    378 Tobacco Pipes
    322 Tobacco Pouches (14 made of real skin!!)
    299 Hip Flasks
    281 Bottles of Rum
    212 (non-issue) Knives
    171 copies of Beardwaxers Monthly
    143 Shaving Razors
    126 Teddy Bears
    98 Golliwogs
    77 Telescopes
    61 Piggy Banks
    55 Tubs of Vaseline
    40 Lucky Rabbits Feet
    29 Clockwork Mermaids
    24 pairs of silk stockings
    17 gerbils
    14 ferrets
    9 parrots
    7 wooden legs
    6 chickens
    4 party frocks
    3 pearl-handled revolvers
    2 stowaways
    and a nubbin!!!

    On a similar exercise, performed on HMS Kent in March 2010, we got an altogether different list :-

    446 Nintendo DS
    431 Sets of curling tongs
    411 jars of hairgel
    403 Pairs of high heeled shoes
    389 Ipods
    377 earrings
    346 digital photoframes
    322 baseball caps
    309 "Village People" duvet sets
    286 Yoyos
    271 Hair extensions
    254 Simon Cowell posters
    230 Boxed sets of Strictly Come Dancing DVDs
    211 boxes of fabric conditioner
    202 jars of hair colouring dye (mostly honey blonde!)
    183 bottles of WKD blue
    152 assorted lovebeads
    136 guitars
    119 hamsters
    108 syringes
    101 tubes of flavoured KY Jelly
    94 Ecstasy tablets
    81 stuffed animals
    73 copies of BullBuggerer Monthly
    62 inflatable sheep
    50 Man Bags
    41 rampant rabbits
    36 electric toothbrushes
    28 false breasts (chicken fillets)
    17 harmonicas
    11 budgies
    8 musical goblins
    5 calling birds
    3 tarantulas
    2 sprigs of lucky heather
    and a "Kiss-Me-Quick" hat from Skegness 1977

    So it is easy to see just how the Navy has evolved. Of course, since they abolished the Royal Marine presence aboard ships and replaced them with plenty of homosexuals and Wrens, the whole experience of being at sea has changed and adapted. There is now much less of a war footing, and more of a touchy-feely, booze-cruisey, Love Boat kind of a feel to it.
    So it is a bit harsh to point the finger at the lack of cutting edge when one considers this backdrop. So just lay off!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • dang65
    replied
    Originally posted by swamp View Post
    You won't find the Royal (G)Navy doing this:
    Watch it! My eldest son is in the Royal Navy... and we're fairly sure he's not gay.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moscow Mule
    replied
    The primary goal of any RFA ship is to protect the ship.

    Lose a tender, and you ruin the operational capability of any number (well, up to 10 or so) of warships.

    Chasing after pirates with RPGs in a fuel tanker is not a good idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Originally posted by Paddy View Post
    Just had a look up about this. How confusing, RN flag, armed and uniformed by RN, using RN ships but not RN...
    What's confusing about it?

    The RFA is a civilian-manned flotilla that is owned by the Ministry of Defence and answerable to Commander in Chief Fleet.

    The clue is in the names "Royal Fleet Auxiliary" and not "Royal Navy".

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    Wrong vessel(and crew) for the job. The RFA are not Royal Navy personnel.

    Hth.



    There may have been a small complement of marines on-board for self defence of the vessel.
    Just had a look up about this. How confusing, RN flag, armed and uniformed by RN, using RN ships but not RN...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X