NationStates Jolt Archive

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6228342.stm)

The BBC has been told the Australians re-boarded the vessel they had just searched, aimed their machine guns at the approaching Iranians and warned them to back off, using what was said to be "highly colourful language".

The Iranians withdrew, and the Australians were reportedly lifted off the ship by one of their own helicopters.


The incident took place before Iran successfully seized 15 British sailors and Marines in March.

First I heard of this particular situation. Good for them.

So the Aussies seemed to actually of been prepared for trouble. A nice change to typical arrogance and/or incompetence.

Aussies know how insult anyone. :D

meh, we shouldn't be there anyway, hopefully if Labor gets elected in a few months we'll step back from being such a NATO play toy.

meh, we shouldn't be there anyway, hopefully if Labor gets elected in a few months we'll step back from being such a NATO play toy.

we not part of NATO look at a map of where Australia is


OP we would but put up a fight too

Aussies know how insult anyone. :D

back off or i'll *&&*&*^&$*$*^%^ shot you :p

we not part of NATO look at a map of where Australia is


OP we would but put up a fight too

Play toy.
I am talking about Australia not having a foreign policy other than US appeasement essentially.

I wonder as to how colorful their language truly was...

How profane can an Aussie be? ;)

Play toy.
I am talking about Australia not having a foreign policy other than US appeasement essentially.

then that make us US toy not NATO

I wonder as to how colorful their language truly was...

How profane can an Aussie be? ;)

i would say very :D

then that make us US toy not NATO

Same thing.

i would say very :D

I would ask you for a demo, but I don't wish to test the mods

Hah! Can't say I didn't get a chuckle or two out of this one. Well done. :p

Seems to me that this was a fairly unique situation. The Australians just happened to be near an armed vessel they had just searched, and jumped over there to use their machine guns. Had the Aussies not had that, had they just had their "colorful language", it probably would have resulted in getting captured. I doubt the Iranians are scared off by curse words.

Good for the Ausies. Do any of our former (or current) military types know what the (I'm sure I'm using the wrong term here) rules of engagement say that American soldiers should do if they are put in this position? It seems to me that, while the Ausies actions showed spine (and were the correct descision), they don't seem like something that fits in with the way we seem to run things these days.

Seems to me that this was a fairly unique situation. The Australians just happened to be near an armed vessel they had just searched, and jumped over there to use their machine guns. Had the Aussies not had that, had they just had their "colorful language", it probably would have resulted in getting captured. I doubt the Iranians are scared off by curse words.

you so read the link wrong

Good for the Ausies. Do any of our former (or current) military types know what the (I'm sure I'm using the wrong term here) rules of engagement say that American soldiers should do if they are put in this position? It seems to me that, while the Ausies actions showed spine (and were the correct descision), they don't seem like something that fits in with the way we seem to run things these days.

your top American soldiers never like the way we work and i would say our rules of engagement would not be the same as yours

I think the English need some lessons in Australia swearing. It's an artform in itself.

Damn, Potato Factory will love this. :p

you so read the link wrong

Might help if you explained where. The article says they re-boarded the ship they had just searched. It hen says they turned their machine guns on the Iranians.

What am I missing here? Do tell.

Might help if you explained where. The article says they re-boarded the ship they had just searched. It hen says they turned their machine guns on the Iranians.

What am I missing here? Do tell.

our boarding partys carry F88 rifles and don't carry machine guns and the ship they re-boarded had no weapons

our boarding partys carry F88 rifles and don't carry machine guns and the ship they re-boarded had no weapons

I realize that they don't carry machine guns, so when the article said "machine guns" after they re-boarded the ship, the logical conclusion is that they re-boarded it to use machine guns that were on that ship. Where in the article does it say the ship was unarmed? I can show you where it says "machine guns".

I realize that they don't carry machine guns, so when the article said "machine guns" after they re-boarded the ship, the logical conclusion is that they re-boarded it to use machine guns that were on that ship. Where in the article does it say the ship was unarmed? I can show you where it says "machine guns".

no it said "re-boarded the vessel they had just searched, aimed their machine guns at the approaching Iranians "

no it said "re-boarded the vessel they had just searched, aimed their machine guns at the approaching Iranians "

Congratulations, you just showed where it said "machine guns". Now remember where you said they didn't have their own machine guns, only F88s (which if I am not mistaken are a version of the Steyr Aug, and in the assault rifle family, not the machine gun family)

Congratulations, you just showed where it said "machine guns". Now remember where you said they didn't have their own machine guns, only F88s (which if I am not mistaken are a version of the Steyr Aug, and in the assault rifle family, not the machine gun family)

indeed the F88 is what we call the Steyr Aug

so where did the machine guns came from looks like someone stuffed up

Damn, Potato Factory will love this. :p

TPF will just say the generic stuff he usually says. Which is not good.

Congratulations, you just showed where it said "machine guns". Now remember where you said they didn't have their own machine guns, only F88s (which if I am not mistaken are a version of the Steyr Aug, and in the assault rifle family, not the machine gun family)

I think the Australian version of the Seyr Aug is also sometimes called the Austeyr.

indeed the F88 is what we call the Steyr Aug

so where did the machine guns came from looks like someone stuffed up

Or they were on the ship they searched, hence why they re-boarded it.

Or perhaps someone confused assault rifles with machineguns? I can imagine an uneducated deserver seeing an assault rifle and thinking "Oo machine gun!" or something like that.

I think the Australian version of the Seyr Aug is also sometimes called the Austeyr.
is but more known in the forces as the F88
Or they were on the ship they searched, hence why they re-boarded it.

don't think so they would have radio in that they found arms

indeed the F88 is what we call the Steyr Aug

so where did the machine guns came from looks like someone stuffed up

F88 Austeyrs are built here and have some slight modifications to make them function better in different climate (If I remember correctly). But I'm not sure what those changes are.

F88 Austeyrs are built here and have some slight modifications to make them function better in different climate (If I remember correctly). But I'm not sure what those changes are.

don't know myself but have fired one

don't think so they would have radio in that they found arms

Where does the article say they didn't do so?

Where does the article say they didn't do so?

no where which mean none was found as they would put it in the story

no where which mean none was found as they would put it in the story

Why would they? The word "their" in the sentence you quoted could mean the boat's machine guns, in which case it is doing just that. You'll find most stories don't say the exact process the military follows in an action, or it would be insanely long. It didn't say the paperwork form they filled out on this incident, does that mean none was filled out?

Why would they? The word "their" in the sentence you quoted could mean the boat's machine guns, in which case it is doing just that. You'll find most stories don't say the exact process the military follows in an action, or it would be insanely long. It didn't say the paperwork form they filled out on this incident, does that mean none was filled out?

no it don't and they using their as in usiing thier own weapons or as in their use thier weapons in self defence

a risky move, the Iranians could of had them sunk with a well placed "yo momma!"

and only the RM have the balls to be captured so they can destroy a nation from the inside out, that was the plan all along we just let the Iranians off :p

a risky move, the Iranians could of had them sunk with a well placed "yo momma!"

and only the RM have the balls to be captured so they can destroy a nation from the inside out, that was the plan all along we just let the Iranians off :p

we would have just sent in the SAS to do the job

no it don't and they using their as in usiing thier own weapons or as in their use thier weapons in self defence

You have chosen to interpret the sentence that way, but it can just as easily be read to mean "their" as in the owners of the ship they boarded.

You have chosen to interpret the sentence that way, but it can just as easily be read to mean "their" as in the owners of the ship they boarded.

as if the owners of the ship would let us use thier weapon in something that may start a war really

as if the owners of the ship would let us use thier weapon in something that may start a war really

I'm guessing Australian soldiers can handle themselves in making the owners of the ship do that. One would assume they are trained to handle boarding armed ships, no? If they aren't, what the hell are they doing in the Persian Gulf with that job?

As it is, the same point can be made for re-boarding their ship even if it was unarmed. Do you think the owners of the ship are just going to allow the soldiers to take action that may start a war, even if the soldiers use their own weapons?

Firstly, OuroborosCobra, it's fairly obvious the Australians would be using thier assault rifles. The writer of the article is probably not an expert on firearms, and has simply applied the ambiguous term "machine guns". For one thing, why would any ship the Australians be inspecting have weapons of its own unless it was a warship?

And if it's supposed to be a warship, it could only be Coalition, Iraqi, or Iranian. Coalition ships don't inspect each other. That's pointless. Iraqi? I don't personally know much about policy when it comes to the Iraqi Navy, but I know that inspecting your supposed allies naval vessels all the time, in thier own sovereign waters is a good way to piss off the Iraqi sailors. If it was Iranian, then that is a diplomatic crisis in itself.

It is then obvious that, just like all the other vessels the Coalition are mandated to inspect, it was an unarmed cargo ship. The silly writer just loosely used the term "machine-guns". K?


Anyway. Good show Australians. Bad luck Iranian Navy. Maybe next time eh?

I'm guessing Australian soldiers can handle themselves in making the owners of the ship do that. One would assume they are trained to handle boarding armed ships, no? If they aren't, what the hell are they doing in the Persian Gulf with that job?

As it is, the same point can be made for re-boarding their ship even if it was unarmed. Do you think the owners of the ship are just going to allow the soldiers to take action that may start a war, even if the soldiers use their own weapons?

the only armed ships in that area are those we working with and why would we board them and if we found weapons on a ship that should not have them a Navy ship would be sent to that ship

bet the Iranians would board it as we were still going over it

Firstly, OuroborosCobra, it's fairly obvious the Australians would be using thier assault rifles. The writer of the article is probably not an expert on firearms, and has simply applied the ambiguous term "machine guns". For one thing, why would any ship the Australians be inspecting have weapons of its own unless it was a warship?

Same reason the Australians are boarding ships to begin with, there is illegal activity going on in the Gulf. Illegal shipping of oil, of weapons, etc. Go ask the US Coast Guard if they ever have to deal with armed ships that are trafficking drugs. They do.

And if it's supposed to be a warship, it could only be Coalition, Iraqi, or Iranian. Coalition ships don't inspect each other. That's pointless. Iraqi? I don't personally know much about policy when it comes to the Iraqi Navy, but I know that inspected your supposed allies naval vessels all the time, in thier own sovereign waters is a good way to piss off the Iraqi sailors. If it was Iranian, then that is a diplomatic crisis in itself.

As I just said, part of the purpose of these searches is illegal (and not necessarily national) activities, therefore it does not have to be Coalition, Iraqi, or Iranian. I would also remind you that civilian ships travel and are searched in the Gulf, and may be flying flags of other countries, say Libya, or Greece. They are still not necessarily affiliated with those governments, and in fact can be smugglers. Armed smugglers.

It is then obvious that, just like all the other vessels the Coalition are mandated to inspect, it was an unarmed cargo ship. The silly writer just loosely used the term "machine-guns". K?

The article does not even define it as a cargo ship, and a smuggler vessel could easily be armed, therefore no, not "K".

the only armed ships in that area are those we working with and why would we board them and if we found weapons on a ship that should not have them a Navy ship would be sent to that ship

bet the Iranians would board it as we were still going over it

False, their are other armed vessels in the area. There are ships carrying out smuggling operations illegally, and they have been known to be armed.

You also ignored the last part of the post:

"As it is, the same point can be made for re-boarding their ship even if it was unarmed. Do you think the owners of the ship are just going to allow the soldiers to take action that may start a war, even if the soldiers use their own weapons?"

"As it is, the same point can be made for re-boarding their ship even if it was unarmed. Do you think the owners of the ship are just going to allow the soldiers to take action that may start a war, even if the soldiers use their own weapons?"

i'am as i think they fucked up on that fact too as they say "lifted off the ship by one of their own helicopters"
so
1: how we get there in the frist place
2: if it was by small boat what happen to it when they got air lifed

i'am as i think they fucked up on that fact too as they say "lifted off the ship by one of their own helicopters"
so
1: how we get there in the frist place
2: if it was by small boat what happen to it when they got air lifed

Why is that evidence of any contradiction? They could have been lifted off of the ship they boarded by Australian helicopters.

1: That is an odd point which is nagging at me. Why did they re-board the ship when the Iranians came in the first place? The only reason I can come up with is it had some heavier weapons (like machine guns) on board, and they felt it would be a better tactical position if they used them instead of their rifles.

2: Does it matter?

Why is that evidence of any contradiction? They could have been lifted off of the ship they boarded by Australian helicopters.

then why reboard when they can just fly off

1: That is an odd point which is nagging at me. Why did they re-board the ship when the Iranians came in the first place? The only reason I can come up with is it had some heavier weapons (like machine guns) on board, and they felt it would be a better tactical position if they used them instead of their rifles.

2: Does it matter?

1. They obviously reboarded it because it would be better to have the high ground that a larger ship affords, than be stuck in a small dinghy, such as what happened to the British sailors.

2. Not really, but you decided to make an issue out of it.

they why reboard when they can just fly off

It doesn't say they came from the helicopter. Most likely, the chopper was called in from whatever parent vessel (destroyer, for instance) the Aussies were operating from. They tend to send these guys out in a smaller boat. As for why re-board, I gave a suggestion that fits the article:

"The only reason I can come up with is it had some heavier weapons (like machine guns) on board, and they felt it would be a better tactical position if they used them instead of their rifles."

2: Does it matter?

dose they not cheap and with all the other things going back here to do with the forces someone be up in arms about

1. They obviously reboarded it because it would be better to have the high ground that a larger ship affords, than be stuck in a small dinghy, such as what happened to the British sailors.

2. Not really, but you decided to make an issue out of it.

1: The article does not say the size of either the ship they came on, or the ship they boarded.

2: I have not made any issue out of what happened to the ship they boarded after airlifting. Don't know what you are talking about.

dose they not cheap and with all the other things going back here to do with the forces someone be up in arms about

Sorry, in English please?

dose they not cheap and with all the other things going back here to do with the forces someone be up in arms about

Can you re-word that in a way that makes grammatical sense?

they could've reboarded the ship, so that they can fight, considering firing at a higher part of a ship makes it difficult to hit due to cover. (ie. a dignhy vs any ship, or a small ship versus a medium one, etc)
that or they decided that the iranians wouldn't shoot at a ship with other iranians on board.

they could've reboarded the ship, so that they can fight, considering firing at a higher part of a ship makes it difficult to hit due to cover.
that or they decided that the iranians wouldn't shoot at a ship with other iranians on board.

The first part I have countered earlier, as for the second part, where does it say that it was an Iranian ship the Aussies boarded, or that there were Iranians on board?

1: The article does not say the size of either the ship they came on, or the ship they boarded.

2: I have not made any issue out of what happened to the ship they boarded after airlifting. Don't know what you are talking about.


1. Like you said earlier, they'd probably be operating with a Destroyer, sent out in a dinghy. They're hardly going to be boarding anything not bigger than a dinghy.

2. Oh. I was talking about this silly niggling about minor details such as "machine-guns" etc.

Can you re-word that in a way that makes grammatical sense?

someone be up in arms about leaving it as it not cheap to make

someone be up in arms about leaving it as it not cheap to make

The article says nothing about the original crew of that ship being removed, so they could have taken it back to port themselves. In addition, since it is not a coalition ship (presumedly) it isn't costing the coalition money.

they could've reboarded the ship, so that they can fight, considering firing at a higher part of a ship makes it difficult to hit due to cover.
that or they decided that the iranians wouldn't shoot at a ship with other iranians on board.

an how do you know it had other iranians on it

an how do you know it had other iranians on it
ok, fine. do you think the military will fire at any ship with civilians on it, iranian or not?

was taking about the dinghy and how they were air lifed off

The article says nothing about returning to the dinghy, so presumedly they were airlifted off the ship they had re-boarded. I also doubt in the scheme of military spending a dinghy is anywhere near the top of concerns on wasted money in Iraq compared to, say, helicopters, trucks, etc.

The article says nothing about the original crew of that ship being removed, so they could have taken it back to port themselves. In addition, since it is not a coalition ship (presumedly) it isn't costing the coalition money.

was taking about the dinghy and how they were air lifed off

try Tankers

Was the boat the British inspected a tanker?

ok, fine. do you think the military will fire at any ship with civilians on it, iranian or not?

Iranian military? Sure, I definitely do.

1. Like you said earlier, they'd probably be operating with a Destroyer, sent out in a dinghy. They're hardly going to be boarding anything not bigger than a dinghy.

2. Oh. I was talking about this silly niggling about minor details such as "machine-guns" etc.

try Tankers

Iranian military? Sure, I definitely do.
do you think they'd be stupid enough to risk an international incident if, like you said, it contained non-iranian civilians?

is but more known in the forces as the F88

Yeah, well.... yeah.

I thought the scope was replaced with a rail and added a rail somewhere else so you could put on various standardised systems (like a grenade launcher).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F88

The article says nothing about returning to the dinghy, so presumedly they were airlifted off the ship they had re-boarded. I also doubt in the scheme of military spending a dinghy is anywhere near the top of concerns on wasted money in Iraq compared to, say, helicopters, trucks, etc.

which means they were drop off helicopter and still going over the ship when the Iranian showed up if they did not use a dinghy to get there

as for last part you don't know our news so you would not know whats going here

F88 Austeyrs are built here and have some slight modifications to make them function better in different climate (If I remember correctly). But I'm not sure what those changes are.

I thought the scope was replaced with a rail and added a rail somewhere else so you could put on various standardised systems (like a grenade launcher).

Was the boat the British inspected a tanker?

Apparently it was a Dhow similiar to this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Dhow_in_Indian_Ocean.jpg/800px-Dhow_in_Indian_Ocean.jpg

But like Imperial says, it was probably something akin to a tanker, if we're talking about the Gulf.

Was the boat the British inspected a tanker?

don't recall but they are all so in inspecting larger ship too

Yeah, well.... yeah.

and they call the FN Minimi the F89

Ahhh, I was thinking of the F88A4...

Ahhh, I was thinking of the F88A4...

under standing looking up what you were thinking i found this
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as72-e.htm

ADI’s Austeyr F88 A4 will incorporate multiple picattinny rails for the fitting of legacy systems such as the M203 P1 40mm grenade launcher assembly (GLA) as well as both commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) and military off-the-shelf (MOTS) sighting and numerous additional battle enhancement accessories.

I didn't realise that only 10 were actually procured by the army.

I didn't realise that only 10 were actually procured by the army.

it most not be cheap and i just find what it looks like
http://www.thalesgroup.com.au/pdfs/steyr_a4.pdf

I didn't realise that only 10 were actually procured by the army.

The Australian military is incredibly small, I don't mean to say it's underfunded, on the contrary the SAS is given way too much money just because Nelson it seems plays too much Rainbow Six Lan. But we just have too much stuff we don't need, as recently we spent 10 billion on troop carrier destroyers which can carry 23 Abrams tanks, yet we only have like 10 in the whole country, which lay round rusting in some army garage. I think we need to focus our military on air power, much like Israel, and but like 300 f35s when they are are complete in a few years, b2s as well. I think a strategic defense would serve us best, instead of mimicking the US military on a small scale.

The Australian military is incredibly small, I don't mean to say it's underfunded, on the contrary the SAS is given way too much money just because Nelson it seems plays too much Rainbow Six Lan. But we just have too much stuff we don't need, as recently we spent 10 billion on troop carrier destroyers which can carry 23 Abrams tanks, yet we only have like 10 in the whole country, which lay round rusting in some army garage. I think we need to focus our military on air power, much like Israel, and but like 300 f35s when they are are complete in a few years, b2s as well. I think a strategic defense would serve us best, instead of mimicking the US military on a small scale.

B2 bombers don't think we'll ever get those as the US wont let nobody but them have them

under standing looking up what you were thinking i found this
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as72-e.htm
nice stuff, which isn't surprising, considering it was designed by DSTO.
damnit, now you're really making me hope i can get work experience there...

B2 bombers don't think we'll ever get those as the US wont let nobody but them have them

They better, it would be downright cynical considering we support them in Iraq etc.

nice stuff, which isn't surprising, considering it was designed by DSTO.
damnit, now you're really making me hope i can get work experience there...

i like the top pic but the other two just to odd for my liking

So the Aussies seemed to actually of been prepared for trouble. A nice change to typical arrogance and/or incompetence.

hey your an american asshole i wouldnt be calling anyone arrogant with that goddamn president of yours. stupid americans think theyre top. well heres some news...

THE REST OF THE WORLD HATES YOU!

Up Yours

The Australian military is incredibly small, I don't mean to say it's underfunded, on the contrary the SAS

Australia's key element in it's military is extensive training. It would make sense to have a well funded elite group as you would be trying to have a larger country to provide base support.

is given way too much money just because Nelson it seems plays too much Rainbow Six Lan. But we just have too much stuff we don't need, as recently we spent 10 billion on troop carrier destroyers which can carry 23 Abrams tanks, yet we only have like 10

I'd agree that the g'ment seems to have a strange fascination with heavily upping the military.

We bought about 59 a couple of years ago. Are you sure those weren't general destroyer class vessels?

in the whole country, which lay round rusting in some army garage. I think we need to focus our military on air power, much like Israel, and but like 300 f35s when they are are complete in a few years, b2s as well. I think a strategic defense would serve us best, instead of mimicking the US military on a small scale.

Errr.... only the U.S has B2 bombers.... They are expensive as well...

We are replacing all of our jet fighter and jet fighter/bombers with the F35, that comes to only 110 or so. We wouldn't receive the first batch until 2013 even if we do decide to get it.

Anyway, the F35 isn't the greatest for Australia's needs.

We also need to focus on a good navy as well.

EDIT: Forgot to say the 10 weapons were obtained for test purposes only.

Wow, 6 pages on and I have only just now realized how much of a good opportunity this is to bag out the Brits for getting captured and we didn't, lol - sport jokes to come...

I think the Iranians prefer to kidnap polite tame Brits than foul-mouthed feisty Australians. :D

I think the Iranians prefer to kidnap polite tame Brits than foul-mouthed feisty Australians. :D

You obviously haven't visited Glasgow recently then :p

I think the Iranians prefer to kidnap polite tame Brits than foul-mouthed feisty Australians. :D

yeah, for some reason i don't think they could handle me and some of me friends...

The UK is frankly to much of a pussy to put decent spending into the military. They should have air cover whilst doing these searches, and not some shitty lynx. An Apache.

And we should be allowed to open fire on iranian forces. They are frankly idiots lining up to be shot.

And we should be allowed to open fire on iranian forces. They are frankly idiots lining up to be shot.

Yeah because getting dragged into a war with Iran is just a perfect plan

back off or i'll *&&*&*^&$*$*^%^ shot you :p

I imagine it was at the very least, a fond "fuck off mate".

I imagine it was at the very least, a fond "fuck off mate".

that may have been said too

You obviously haven't visited Glasgow recently then :p

That's Scotland! Crazy people the Scots are. :D

That's Scotland! Crazy people the Scots are. :D

and Scotland is in Britain

and Scotland is in Britain

Maybe I should have said "English", the place with best non-functioning cricket team.

I imagine it was at the very least, a fond "fuck off mate".

well of course. i'm sure they were trying to be reasonably polite :p

Up the Aussies.

I'm still ashamed of the RN's hideous fuckup. There was a time when they'd've resisted; and they certainly shouldn't've SAID anything...

Arrgh!

*cries*

Bah, how did this thread get so fat? There wasn't much in the story yet there is 7 pages now. Amazing.

well of course. i'm sure they were trying to be reasonably polite :p

Invective is never impolite, even if you're pointing weapons at people.

It's only impolite if you actually shoot, and kill people.

7 pages in. I'm gonna take a guess and assume a "Crocadile Dundee" joke was made already.

7 pages in. I'm gonna take a guess and assume a "Crocadile Dundee" joke was made already.

I could post a stingray picture if you want.

7 pages in. I'm gonna take a guess and assume a "Crocadile Dundee" joke was made already.

Nope.

7 pages in. I'm gonna take a guess and assume a "Crocadile Dundee" joke was made already.

no but don't waste you it only works it we talking of Yanks and not Poms

Nope.

Damn, The best I could think was-

"Oi, That's no artillery, THIS is a artillery."

*ugh*

Nah, thats Steve Irwin.

Pfft, those nature guys are all the same. Besides I am itching for a reason to use it.

I could post a stingray picture if you want.

Nah, thats Steve Irwin.

Pfft, those nature guys are all the same. Besides I am itching for a reason to use it.

Then do it already, there both annoying australian archetypes anyhow.

Then do it already, there both annoying australian archetypes anyhow.

Bah, you are sucking the fun from it. Besides I'd probably get warned for spamming or something. I suppose I should respond to the OP but I really can't see any detail to get into. How this thread has gotten so long mystifies me.

Crikey! :eek:

My hat is off to you.... Mate.

Bah, you are sucking the fun from it. Besides I'd probably get warned for spamming or something. I suppose I should respond to the OP but I really can't see any detail to get into. How this thread has gotten so long mystifies me.

Crikey! :eek:

Crikey! :eek:

Well this explains a lot. :D

Australians are great. Why do most of them have to be on the opposite side of the world?

Australians are great. Why do most of them have to be on the opposite side of the world?

Someone has to prevent the Penguin horde and hold back the New Zealand's formidable military :rolleyes: .

Someone has to prevent the Penguin horde and hold back the New Zealand formiddable military :rolleyes: .

don't tell me about the Penguin War i lost my best mate to them last week :p

Sorry to hear that. At least the suicide bombing Kangaroos took out most of their current invasion force.

Sorry to hear that. At least the suicide bombing Kangaroos took out most of their current invasion force.

now that was a fun day

Australians are great. Why do most of them have to be on the opposite side of the world?

They aren't. Have you been in a bar in London recently?

Aussies have always been scrappy! Go Australia!

The Sydney Morning Herald article (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/06/22/1182019309654.html?from=top5) is obviously based on the BBC report, but has a bit of extra material.

"The Australians escaped capture by climbing back on board the ship they'd just searched. I'm told that they set up their weapons.

"No shots were exchanged but the Iranians backed off and the Australians were able to get helicoptered off that ship and they didn't get captured.''

That helicopter could have been pretty instrumental in the Iranians' decision to back off. They were afraid the bloody thing would fall on them! :p

Perhaps they were also distracted by the difficulty of translating "jug-eared wop" into Persian. :D

More details in today's SMH. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/06/22/1182019366510.html)

Different details in the Age. (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/06/22/1182019311499.html)

Note the Age and SMH are sister broadsheets for the two biggest cities, Melbourne and Sydney. The articles seem to be independently researched even so, so bravo for Fairfax and I think this story will get bigger in Aus.

Apparently the Seaking was in the air as they were searching the ship. The ship was rather comically called the "MV Sham." The search operation was off the Adelaide.

According to the SMH story, the Sham was run aground, perhaps explaining why the Iranian coast guards didn't pull the "photo of a GPS" stunt in that case. Would have been quite a laugh, though...

I'm sure that we'd be more than happy to tell the poms what they should do if future. :p

Colourfull language, I like that! :)

More details in today's SMH. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/06/22/1182019366510.html)

Different details in the Age. (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/06/22/1182019311499.html)

Note the Age and SMH are sister broadsheets for the two biggest cities, Melbourne and Sydney. The articles seem to be independently researched even so, so bravo for Fairfax and I think this story will get bigger in Aus.

Apparently the Seaking was in the air as they were searching the ship. The ship was rather comically called the "MV Sham." The search operation was off the Adelaide.

According to the SMH story, the Sham was run aground, perhaps explaining why the Iranian coast guards didn't pull the "photo of a GPS" stunt in that case. Would have been quite a laugh, though...

We're lucky the Seaking stayed in ther air. It could have very easily turned into a search & rescue mission.

Well we train them in the first place so ha! :p

Well we train them in the first place so ha! :p

Is that what you truly think?