Legit CT? Gulf War I airliner / SAS theory

[Big Les]

This (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/27/213528/uk-politician-calls-for-enquiry-on-gulf-war-british-airways.html)is potentially interesting. I remember the British Airways jet sitting at the airport in the news footage, and something of the civilian captives also.

Is this a CT? More info here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/12.htm#spkr_1).

[PhantomWolf]

I think you mean Gulf War 2.

[defaultdotxbe]

I think you mean Gulf War 2.
was there one bfore 1990?

[Comsat Angel]

Well, there was the Iran-Iraq War in the '80's, most of which was fought in the Gulf. And Big Les does indeed mean GW1, just prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

[Big Les]

Well, there was the Iran-Iraq War in the '80's, most of which was fought in the Gulf. And Big Les does indeed mean GW1, just prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Yeah, as in:

A UK politician is adding his voice to calls for an independent public enquiry into why a British Airways flight was allowed to land in Kuwait a few hours after the start of the Gulf War.

Passengers and crew were held hostage for several weeks by former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's troops when the airport was attacked shortly after British Airways flight BA149 landed in Kuwait on 1 August 1990. The aircraft was destroyed in the attack.

Iran-Iraq War
Gulf War I (1990)
Gulf War II (2003)

Anyway, this seems to me to be another case of incompetence vs conspiracy - passengers and this MP can't believe that the aircraft was allowed to get to that airport and land, when most of the world knew a conflict was in the offing. Argument from incredulity. The MP says he has "signed affidavits from special forces members “to the effect that they were on that plane and were put there to carry out a mission at the request of the British government.”

Well, I'm pretty incredulous too (but I'm not the one who needs to provide evidence for this!);

a) Any SAS members signing such documents would be setting themselves up for prosecution by their own government and would (I imagine) be subject to dishonourable discharge by their own regiment, as well as being persona non grata to same.

b) If these documents exist and can be verified, then what's the problem? Release them to the press if the authorities are ignoring them.

c) Covert insertion via civilian airliner into an airport which as the MP points out, was surrounded by enemy forces, is unprecedented and extremely risky. I cannot think of an intelligence or other advantage to be gained by attempting it.

This reminds me of the Deepcut nonsense I posted about recently. Those delivered into danger refuse to accept the "rule 8 happens" theory, and look to the all-powerful faceless authorities for answers.

[Big Les]

I've been investigoogling some of the "sources" to this MP.

Nathaniel "Nate" Howell was indeed US Ambassador to Kuwait at the time. I can't find any online reference to his belief in this theory beyond Norman Baker MPs claims.

"Ed Ciriello", supposed CIA operative, is Ed Ciriello. He's all over (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22ed+ciriello%22+cia&btnG=Search&meta=) the web; in fact, as he's a private dick (http://www.pvteye.com/Ed_Ciriello.html) of sorts, apparently employed by one family of some kidnapped kids in Saudi, to disastrous effect (http://www.victimsofsaudikidnapping.org/kidnappings/pat-roush-story.html). Whether or not his claims to be ex-CIA (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31619) are accurate, every link I can find shows that he was a merc at the time of this incident, and not working for the US Gov/CIA. He is therefore, I would argue, not privy to the relevant information allowing him to pronounce on whether or not UK special forces were on that flight. Based on his own website (http://www.pvteye.com/real-life-story.html) where he hawks his memoirs, I would go further and suggest that he's a prize Walt (http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Walts) (as in Walter Mitty, a fantasist in whole or in part).

I can find nothing on Captain Lawrence Eddingfield (save that he was indeed the ship's CO (http://www.cg54.navy.mil/CO/Eddingfield.htm) at the time), nor on the alleged involvement of the USS Antietam in the SAS operation mentioned. The ship's official 1990 history (http://www.history.navy.mil/shiphist/a/cg-54/1990.pdf) makes no mention of it, but I guess that's black ops for you.. :rolleyes:

As for Richard Tomlinson, if Ed Ciriello is a suspected Walt, this guy is the Waltmeister General. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tomlinson) He claims "MI6" had Lady Di killed! I suppose it guarantees a steady paycheck from the Daily Express. His paranoid blog (http://mi6vtomlinson.blogspot.com/) is interesting to read. Even Baker himself, in the Parliament transcript (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/12.htm#spkr_1), expresses doubt over his reliability.

Richard Tomlinson, the former MI6 agent—the Minister might want to give less credence to this—e-mailed me to confirm that he was aware of the operation and that it did take place.

Personally, I'd take whatever that guy comes out with and assume the opposite!

So based on his "sources" at least, I am extremely sceptical of Baker's claims, and suspect that he's been taken in by the same brand of BS that we're used to reading about here. There's an interesting thread (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=48968/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=0.html) on the British Army Rumour Service forums about this - they call it as raging CT also.

[Wat Tyler]

Anyway, this seems to me to be another case of incompetence vs conspiracy - passengers and this MP can't believe that the aircraft was allowed to get to that airport and land, when most of the world knew a conflict was in the offing. Argument from incredulity. The MP says he has "signed affidavits from special forces members “to the effect that they were on that plane and were put there to carry out a mission at the request of the British government.”


There was recently a programme on UK TV (IIRC Channel 4) about this.

They interviewed the crew of the airliner, some of the passengers who were taken hostage, and one of the 'Special Forces' guys involved.

It's true.


Well, I'm pretty incredulous too (but I'm not the one who needs to provide evidence for this!);

a) Any SAS members signing such documents would be setting themselves up for prosecution by their own government and would (I imagine) be subject to dishonourable discharge by their own regiment, as well as being persona non grata to same.


They were not SAS - they were freelancers working for MI6.
They were quite probably ex-SAS (or ex-SBS), but they were NOT uniformed serving personnel.


b) If these documents exist and can be verified, then what's the problem? Release them to the press if the authorities are ignoring them.


Ever tried getting sensitive documents out of HMG?
They even ignore the provisions of their own, laughably misnomered, 'Freedom of Information' Act.

Also, if it is true, what would the Government stand to gain by making a fuss about it?
Nothing.

They have made no fuss about it, e.g. they have not demanded that the TV channel retract the show, or apologise for inaccuracies.


c) Covert insertion via civilian airliner into an airport which as the MP points out, was surrounded by enemy forces, is unprecedented and extremely risky. I cannot think of an intelligence or other advantage to be gained by attempting it.


The airport was not held by a large force of elite Iraqi troops at the time - the invasion was only 6 hours old when the airliner landed at Kuwait City.

The whole point of Special Forces is that they can undertake extremely risky difficult operations.

The idea of the mission was that these small teams of SF personnel were to act as Forward Observation Teams to provide intelligence about the strength, nature, armaments, and numbers of Iraqi troops deployed in Kuwait City.

Spy-Satellites in low orbit are no substitute for the Mark 1 human eyeball in possession of guys on the ground, in situ.

(Also, who is making an argument from incredulity now?)


This reminds me of the Deepcut nonsense I posted about recently. Those delivered into danger refuse to accept the "rule 8 happens" theory, and look to the all-powerful faceless authorities for answers.

The aircrew interviewed pointed out that they had actually specifically requested (and obtained) a continuously-open line to BA's HQ in London, in case any invasion occurred, so that they could be warned of it and divert if necessary.

Despite the invasion happening, and being reported on news outlets here, no warning message was ever sent to the airliner.

No other aircraft landed at Kuwait City that day, because all other airliners got warned off.

The testament of people who were on the plane (passengers and crew) tally with the 'CT'.

[Big Les]

There was recently a programme on UK TV (IIRC Channel 4) about this. They interviewed the crew of the airliner, some of the passengers who were taken hostage, and one of the 'Special Forces' guys involved.

It's true.

Really? You say that confidently, based upon one TV show? I'd like to see it.

They were not SAS - they were freelancers working for MI6.
They were quite probably ex-SAS (or ex-SBS), but they were NOT uniformed serving personnel.

Funny, because the people making the accusations I'm posting about state that they were SAS, specifically members of "the Increment". Now, information about this supposed super-secret sub-set of the SAS, SBS and (apparently) Security Service members, comes (AFAICT) exclusively from Tomlinson and subsequently from Niall Arden (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5111284.stm) - both of whom are of dubious reliability, to say the least (Princess Diana?!). Whatever the composition of this team, the whole plan is a bit Tom Clancy, don't you think? Desperately risky schemes have certainly been tried in the past, but nothing of this sort post-WW2.

Ever tried getting sensitive documents out of HMG?

You clearly haven't read the Parliament transcript. This Baker chap claims to have the documents already - signed affidavits by members of UKSF who were on board the plane. He refuses to submit them, or the names involved, for authentication. In other words, just as with Frank Swann and the Deepcut "conspiracy", he claims to have the earth-shattering evidence in-hand, but won't submit it. Why not?

They even ignore the provisions of their own, laughably misnomered, 'Freedom of Information' Act.

Examples?

Also, if it is true, what would the Government stand to gain by making a fuss about it? Nothing. They have made no fuss about it, e.g. they have not demanded that the TV channel retract the show, or apologise for inaccuracies.

What? Since when does the government pay attention to TV shows about what they do? Let alone demand retractions. Conspiracists have accused both UK and US governments of complicity in all sorts of things (Princess Diana, Forrest Gate, you name it), to thunderous silence from HM Gov. If they ever give credence to this BS rather than just ignoring it, they do it in enquiries, not on bloody Points of View (http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and_radio/points_of_view/).

The airport was not held by a large force of elite Iraqi troops at the time - the invasion was only 6 hours old when the airliner landed at Kuwait City.

I was paraphrasing Baker himself, who implies that the aircraft was allowed to land with full knowledge of an invasion. This direct threat to the plane, however faraway the Iraqi troops actually were, is the whole point of the claims being made here!

It is worth pointing out that the crew and passengers said that when the plane touched down, they heard the sound of tanks and gunfire. That is evidence that the invasion was well under way by that point, and did not take place some hours later, as Mrs. Thatcher, as Prime Minister, had suggested.

The whole point of Special Forces is that they can undertake extremely risky difficult operations.

Yeah, I'm aware of that, thanks. My point was that no teams of SAS, or indeed any other UKSF operatives, have been inserted in this manner and in these circumstances. Using a civilian airliner, still full of civilians! This doesn't preclude that they might try it this time, of course, but where's the necessity? Such intelligence-gathering teams could have been inserted via conventional means without being detected or captured, most obviously via helicopter (as with the later SCUD-busting missions). If the UK gov was that aware that the airliner passengers were going to get captured, why put your SF guys in at such obvious disadvantage from the get-go when you can just do insertion via chopper and let them infiltrate on their own terms? This isn't "24".

The idea of the mission was that these small teams of SF personnel were to act as Forward Observation Teams to provide intelligence about the strength, nature, armaments, and numbers of Iraqi troops deployed in Kuwait City. Spy-Satellites in low orbit are no substitute for the Mark 1 human eyeball in possession of guys on the ground, in situ.

SIS and the SAS already had boots on the ground in Kuwait. Why drop more in in those vulnerable circumstances, and for what extra intelligence advantage?

(Also, who is making an argument from incredulity now?)

Sigh. As I said above; "I'm pretty incredulous too (but I'm not the one who needs to provide evidence for this!)". And that's true. I'm not the one making the claims, the claims are extraordinary (both in terms of the details of the "operation" and in the implication that HM Gov, plus British Airways staff, plus Air Traffic Control at Kuwait, are all complicit in putting 400 civilians in grave danger. So I can ask for the corresponding evidence for these claims, and I can express my incredulity as much as I like, thanks very much.

The aircrew interviewed pointed out that they had actually specifically requested (and obtained) a continuously-open line to BA's HQ in London, in case any invasion occurred, so that they could be warned of it and divert if necessary.

I assume your implication is that the authorities, and various ATCO staff, withheld the information? OK, two explanations for this;

A) Evil UK government types made sure the info was kept back, to ensure that Ace Rimmer and co made it to their destination and that these 400 people were likely to be captured and mistreated.
B) Confusion, failure of communications, or some other combination of unfortunate circumstances conspired (arf) to deprive the crew of this information. [rule 8] happens.

Despite the invasion happening, and being reported on news outlets here, no warning message was ever sent to the airliner. No other aircraft landed at Kuwait City that day, because all other airliners got warned off.

Sez you. Evidence for these claims? You also seem to think that it would be someone in the UK doing any last-minute warning off. Air Traffic Control would surely be the ones to appraise the jet of any direct threat, wouldn't they?

The testament of people who were on the plane (passengers and crew) tally with the 'CT'.

What testament? What do they claim they saw/heard? I haven't seen the documentary I'm afraid. Is there corroborating evidence for their claims (if any)? Or are they simply expressing understandable frustration at the awful situation they were placed in and the limited feedback they've received from authority? It's natural to look for some reason for being delivered into the hands of the Iraqi army beyond sheer bad luck and (arguably) incompetence on the part of those entrusted with their safety. Now, I hate to be Judge Judy and executioner here, but unless Baker provides these affidavits or some other evidence, this is just another bit of tinfoil hattery.

[Wat Tyler]

Funny, because the people making the accusations I'm posting about state that they were SAS, specifically members of "the Increment". Now, information about this supposed super-secret sub-set of the SAS, SBS and (apparently) Security Service members, comes (AFAICT) exclusively from Tomlinson and subsequently from Niall Arden (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5111284.stm) - both of whom are of dubious reliability, to say the least (Princess Diana?!). Whatever the composition of this team, the whole plan is a bit Tom Clancy, don't you think? Desperately risky schemes have certainly been tried in the past, but nothing of this sort post-WW2.

You clearly haven't read the Parliament transcript. This Baker chap claims to have the documents already - signed affidavits by members of UKSF who were on board the plane. He refuses to submit them, or the names involved, for authentication. In other words, just as with Frank Swann and the Deepcut "conspiracy", he claims to have the earth-shattering evidence in-hand, but won't submit it. Why not?


I'm posting from knowledge of the TV doc, not your sources.

I have to say that I certainly agree with your opinion of the validity of anyone who claims to have cast-iron evidence but refuses to release it.

As for desperately-risky exercises, Govts. do it all the time

E.g. our 'Secret War' in Oman in the 1970's.

Examples of the non-effectiveness of the FOIA can be found in the press all the time.
As can the new Private Member's Bill to exempt Parliament from its provisions - after all, why should we be able to know what goes on in there?
:mad:


I was paraphrasing Baker himself, who implies that the aircraft was allowed to land with full knowledge of an invasion. This direct threat to the plane, however faraway the Iraqi troops actually were, is the whole point of the claims being made here!


The TV doc said - not implied - that the plane was allowed to land in unsafe territory to insert troops.

The claim is that the danger to the plane and passengers was utterly disregarded by HMG in order to achieve a mission target- which seems a reasonable assertion to me, given the nature of the concerns of the time.


Yeah, I'm aware of that, thanks. My point was that no teams of SAS, or indeed any other UKSF operatives, have been inserted in this manner and in these circumstances. Using a civilian airliner, still full of civilians! This doesn't preclude that they might try it this time, of course, but where's the necessity?


Lack of any other rapidly-insertable troops?

What UK forces WERE in Kuwait at the time?

What UK Special Forces assets were NEAR Kuwait at the time?


Such intelligence-gathering teams could have been inserted via conventional means without being detected or captured, most obviously via helicopter (as with the later SCUD-busting missions).


And what would the delay in executing this have been?
Where was the nearest UK forces heli?


If the UK gov was that aware that the airliner passengers were going to get captured, why put your SF guys in at such obvious disadvantage from the get-go when you can just do insertion via chopper and let them infiltrate on their own terms? This isn't "24".


The passengers and crew said on the TV doc that these guys all disappeared straight away after getting off the plane, and took their heavy luggage with them.

Everyone else got captured immediately by the Iraqi forces on leaving the Arrivals Hall.


SIS and the SAS already had boots on the ground in Kuwait. Why drop more in in those vulnerable circumstances, and for what extra intelligence advantage?


How many, and where?

How do you know how many is 'enough'?


Sigh. As I said above; "I'm pretty incredulous too (but I'm not the one who needs to provide evidence for this!)". And that's true. I'm not the one making the claims, the claims are extraordinary


And you chose to attack the claims by saying that you do not understand why it would be a useful exercise - which is an argument from incredulity, for which you'd already criticised the claims, which is why I mentioned it.


(both in terms of the details of the "operation" and in the implication that HM Gov, plus British Airways staff, plus Air Traffic Control at Kuwait, are all complicit in putting 400 civilians in grave danger.


Do you really find it hard to believe that HMG would expose 400 civilians (not all of them British citizens) to a minor danger in order to protect strategic oilfields, the ownership of which affects all 60 million UK citizens?


So I can ask for the corresponding evidence for these claims, and I can express my incredulity as much as I like, thanks very much.


Yes, you can, but to do so does NOT constitute a valid argument.


I assume your implication is that the authorities, and various ATCO staff, withheld the information? OK, two explanations for this;

A) Evil UK government types made sure the info was kept back, to ensure that Ace Rimmer and co made it to their destination and that these 400 people were likely to be captured and mistreated.


See my earlier point about HMG's likely strength of concern over <400 UK civilians being exposed to minor risk, as opposed to all the oil in Kuwait (and, just possibly, a threat to the Saudi oilfields.


B) Confusion, failure of communications, or some other combination of unfortunate circumstances conspired (arf) to deprive the crew of this information. [rule 8] happens.


No - that is your assertion.


Sez you. Evidence for these claims? You also seem to think that it would be someone in the UK doing any last-minute warning off. Air Traffic Control would surely be the ones to appraise the jet of any direct threat, wouldn't they?


Well, according to the pilot (yeah, what would he know about it, eh?), he had a specific line open to BA control in London, and they had specifically told them that Kuwait was safe and had NOT been invaded.

That is NOT a snafu.


What testament? What do they claim they saw/heard? I haven't seen the documentary I'm afraid. Is there corroborating evidence for their claims (if any)?
Or are they simply expressing understandable frustration at the awful situation they were placed in and the limited feedback they've received from authority?
It's natural to look for some reason for being delivered into the hands of the Iraqi army beyond sheer bad luck and (arguably) incompetence on the part of those entrusted with their safety. Now, I hate to be Judge Judy and executioner here, but unless Baker provides these affidavits or some other evidence, this is just another bit of tinfoil hattery.

I think that I need to read your sources, and you need to see this documentary.
:D

Right, it's bedtime for this bozo now - ¡hasta lluega!

[Big Les]

I think that I need to read your sources, and you need to see this documentary.

Agreed! It's usual to actually read what opening posters provide before arguing the toss - saves aggro. ;) With respect, I think you're still not quite getting some of what I'm saying; specifically when you say "no, this is your assertion" - I know! I'm playing advocate, looking for other, simpler, explanations that don't require government, BA and ATCO complicity in the handing over of 400 innocents to enemy hands. I don't need sources for such counter-hypotheses, as I'm not suggesting anything out of the ordinary by them. Although it's better if I can, clearly. The SIS/SAS in Kuwait thing was just hearsay really (albeit from a reliable source), from ARRSE (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=48968/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=15.html). His thoughts on this are worth reading in general. I'm unsure as to the numbers there, or what their purpose was, but assuming there were personnel there, why risk something as hairy as this (for both passengers and operatives)? Why not simply a chopper insertion (oo-er)?

In general terms, you must realise that the burden of proof is upon the claimant here. With only Baker and the other's burblings to go on, there just isn't any. Pilot/passenger testimony may change that, but as you'll learn if you browse the archives here, eyewitness testimony is worthless without corroborating evidence.

But the info from the pilot sounds pretty kosher as far as it goes, I have to say. I'd like to see the doco - I can't find it in the listings or online aside from a super-slow torrent- I assume the usual multi-repeats must have run their course?

[gumboot]

Just a couple of things to point out...

1) The mission as described is illegal. The use of a civilian-filled airliner in this way is a violation of the Laws of War. As such I find it hard to believe that such a mission would be ordered, and further more it would be the duty of each of the soldiers in question to refuse the order.

2) The type of mission described involves significant level of unnecessary risk. Most notably, the method of insertion is not directly in British Government control, and does not have effective equipment for detecting threats and covert communication. The mission could far more effectively be achieved using more traditional insertion methods, of which the SAS has many.

3) I find it interesting that Andy McNab makes no mention of this incident in either Bravo Two Zero or Immediate Action. This incident occurred on August 2, 1990, however in his book McNab indicates that as late as November 1990 the Regiment had not deployed - they only started prepping for Desert Warfare "Within hours of Iraqi troops and armour rolling across the border with Kuwait at 0200 local time on 2 August 1990".

The original theories relating to Flight 149 were that the people on board were SAS. The evidence suggests otherwise. Perhaps they were MI6? Possibly, but the notion of risking the capture of a spy seems ridiculous. For what benefit? Are we supposed to believe the UK had no field agents in Kuwait or Iraq already?

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Lack of any other rapidly-insertable troops?

What UK forces WERE in Kuwait at the time?

What UK Special Forces assets were NEAR Kuwait at the time?



This is an illogical argument. Obviously any forces on the aircraft did not just happen to be on the aircraft (which, incidentally, did not even come from the UK).

The UK government could have as easily and more quickly deployed forces from the UK using Air Force aircraft.




And what would the delay in executing this have been?
Where was the nearest UK forces heli?


I would propose the most effective insertion method in this scenario would be a nighttime HAHO parachute drop.




The passengers and crew said on the TV doc that these guys all disappeared straight away after getting off the plane, and took their heavy luggage with them.


This is something I find interesting. Obviously none of the passengers and crew would know these people were soldiers/agents otherwise the operation would fail from the get-go. None of the passengers have sued the British Government relating to this, despite the fact that they have sued British Airways and some have won settlements of millions of dollars.




Do you really find it hard to believe that HMG would expose 400 civilians (not all of them British citizens) to a minor danger in order to protect strategic oilfields, the ownership of which affects all 60 million UK citizens?

...

See my earlier point about HMG's likely strength of concern over <400 UK civilians being exposed to minor risk, as opposed to all the oil in Kuwait (and, just possibly, a threat to the Saudi oilfields.


Now herein lies the gaping flaw in your argument, as far as I am concerned.

You are proposing here that the mission objective is to protect Kuwaiti and potentially Saudi oil fields.

I have a few issues with this. The most obviously glaring one is that, if this was the plan, it was a total failure. Iraqi forces, retreating from Kuwait in late February 1991, set fire to Kuwait's oil fields, causing severe ecological and economic devastation.

In addition the operation has glaring errors. Even had the entire 747 been filled with Special Forces soldiers, there would not have been enough troops to seize and hold the Kuwaiti oil fields.

In addition, Kuwait's oil fields are not right next to their International Airport. The notion of inserting SF troops miles and miles from their destination seems ridiculous, considering their destination would have been in the middle of the desert, miles from any enemy forces, whereas the chosen LZ was quite the opposite.

-Gumboot

[Big Les]

Gumboot - thanks for your thoughts; you've articulated my main problems with this theory better than I was apparently able to. As things stand the only evidence for this is the after-the-fact testimony of crew and passengers. I'd like to know exactly what it is they claim in the documentary - as we know, eyewitness testimony is shaky at best even at the time, let alone 17 years later on after years of suspicion, resentment and government recalcitrance have poisoned the well, as it were.

I'll check out the doco ASAP, but I'm still just not buying this.

[Wat Tyler]

This is an illogical argument. Obviously any forces on the aircraft did not just happen to be on the aircraft (which, incidentally, did not even come from the UK).


TV doc had it at Heathrow (or Gatwick).


The UK government could have as easily and more quickly deployed forces from the UK using Air Force aircraft.


Which would have been very obvious indeed to enemy radar, and undeniably a military insertion.

A scheduled airliner, otoh - nothing unexpected to alert any hostiles on the ground.


I would propose the most effective insertion method in this scenario would be a nighttime HAHO parachute drop.


I agree that a HALO drop would probably be most effective - depending on how much kit the insertees had to carry with them.

The problem with it is that it requires the insertion of HALO-trained troops from a HALO-equipped long-range transport aircraft, after flying over lots of other nations' territories.

Such an insertion would also mark the troops out non-deniably as coming from a military source if any are killed in the insertion or captured.

In other words, an obvious and provocative hostile act.


This is something I find interesting. Obviously none of the passengers and crew would know these people were soldiers/agents otherwise the operation would fail from the get-go. None of the passengers have sued the British Government relating to this, despite the fact that they have sued British Airways and some have won settlements of millions of dollars.


So, you're saying that they've already won millions of dollars - why would they then need to risk suing HMG, when they would clearly have no access to classified documentation pertaining to the event?


Now herein lies the gaping flaw in your argument, as far as I am concerned.

You are proposing here that the mission objective is to protect Kuwaiti and potentially Saudi oil fields.


NO - I am saying that the documentary said that the mission was to insert forward observers who could report back the strength, deployments and weaponry of Iraqi forces in Kuwait.


I have a few issues with this. The most obviously glaring one is that, if this was the plan, it was a total failure. Iraqi forces, retreating from Kuwait in late February 1991, set fire to Kuwait's oil fields, causing severe ecological and economic devastation.

In addition the operation has glaring errors. Even had the entire 747 been filled with Special Forces soldiers, there would not have been enough troops to seize and hold the Kuwaiti oil fields.


See above - they were OBSERVERS, reporting back on the make-up of Iraqi forces so that London/Washington could put together a counter-invasion force.

NOT there to directly defend anything at all.


In addition, Kuwait's oil fields are not right next to their International Airport. The notion of inserting SF troops miles and miles from their destination seems ridiculous, considering their destination would have been in the middle of the desert, miles from any enemy forces, whereas the chosen LZ was quite the opposite.


Did I say that the airport is near the oilfields?
No.

Did I say that the troops were to go to the oilfields?
No.

I said that London would have been worried about the threat to the oil supply posed by a Stalinist dictator in possession of the Iraqi and Kuwaiti oilfields, and now right next door to the Saudi oilfields.

And therefore that I can well believe that the British Government might expose less than 400 British citizens and just one British-owned airliner to a fairly insignificant risk in order to covertly insert highly-trained (and deniable) troops to conduct a monitoring mission that would clearly be helpful in gathering information about a military threat to the oilfields on which the entire British economy depends.

I hope that this post clarifies my position.

[Wat Tyler]

Just a couple of things to point out...

1) The mission as described is illegal. The use of a civilian-filled airliner in this way is a violation of the Laws of War. As such I find it hard to believe that such a mission would be ordered, and further more it would be the duty of each of the soldiers in question to refuse the order.


So, you cannot conceive of the British Government behaving in a 'shady' (or 'perfidious'?) manner?

I would ask you to read up on your History.

Also, they were NOT soldiers.


2) The type of mission described involves significant level of unnecessary risk. Most notably, the method of insertion is not directly in British Government control, and does not have effective equipment for detecting threats and covert communication. The mission could far more effectively be achieved using more traditional insertion methods, of which the SAS has many.


What threats?
Do you think the Iraqis would have shot down a scheduled airliner?
Don't you think that that might conceivably provoke a British/American retaliation?
Saddam Hussein gambled that his invasion of Kuwait would go unopposed by the US and her allies (allegedly after misinterpreting an ambiguous statement from the US Ambassador of the day).
Do you really think that he would have jeopardised his entire strategy by letting troops shoot at scheduled airliners?

The insertion method is addressed in my previous post.


3) I find it interesting that Andy McNab makes no mention of this incident in either Bravo Two Zero or Immediate Action. This incident occurred on August 2, 1990, however in his book McNab indicates that as late as November 1990 the Regiment had not deployed - they only started prepping for Desert Warfare "Within hours of Iraqi troops and armour rolling across the border with Kuwait at 0200 local time on 2 August 1990".


OK, firstly, do you believe that one Sergeant has knowledge of every covert op in the theatre, going back for months?

Might pose a danger of a breach of secrecy, no?

Does that idea conform with the military/Intelligence principle of 'Need To Know'?

Secondly, as I posted earlier, the documentary did NOT say that the insertees were SAS/SBS, it said that they were freelancers working for/reporting to MI6/SIS.


The original theories relating to Flight 149 were that the people on board were SAS. The evidence suggests otherwise. Perhaps they were MI6? Possibly, but the notion of risking the capture of a spy seems ridiculous. For what benefit? Are we supposed to believe the UK had no field agents in Kuwait or Iraq already?


As I said before, the TV doc said that they were freelancers working for MI6.

I personally presume that this means they were ex-SAS/SBS troops.

Again, they are NOT directly employed by HMG, so the mission has Plausible Deniability.

Also, as I said to Big Les - how many troops on the ground is 'enough'?

Unless you know exactly how many UK assets were on the ground at the time, exactly what they were tasked to do, and which agencies they were sent there by, how can you decide whether or not such a mission was 'necessary', and whether or not its (IMO low) riskiness outweighed its utility?

[gumboot]

TV doc had it at Heathrow (or Gatwick).


Sorry for some reason when I was reading about BA149 I mixed up the departure and arrival locations...:o




Which would have been very obvious indeed to enemy radar, and undeniably a military insertion.

A scheduled airliner, otoh - nothing unexpected to alert any hostiles on the ground.


Except it did alert hostiles on the ground. They seized every single passenger and blew up the plane.

You're assuming Iraq has the capability in Kuwait of identify RAF military aircraft. Iraq had a sophisticated SAM network, but I gather their radar system was pretty poor, and primarily fixed, which means it was in Iraq, not Kuwait.




I agree that a HALO drop would probably be most effective - depending on how much kit the insertees had to carry with them.

The problem with it is that it requires the insertion of HALO-trained troops from a HALO-equipped long-range transport aircraft, after flying over lots of other nations' territories.

Such an insertion would also mark the troops out non-deniably as coming from a military source if any are killed in the insertion or captured.

In other words, an obvious and provocative hostile act.


Er... Iraq just invaded Kuwait... I would call that "an obvious and provocative hostile act".

I said HAHO, not HALO. Quite different. For starters a HAHO drop allows the troops to glide for hundreds of miles once dropped, meaning they can be deployed without the aircraft ever entering hostile airspace.

HAHO (or HALO, for that matter) does not require a specially equipped aircraft. It is traditionally done from a C-130 Hercules, which happens to be one of the most common military transport aircraft in the world.

We'll get to the "HAHO-trained troops" bit later as it relates to the SAS.




So, you're saying that they've already won millions of dollars - why would they then need to risk suing HMG, when they would clearly have no access to classified documentation pertaining to the event?


The stories of the flight being an intentional ploy to deploy military forces arose not long after the event, and according to this documentary some passengers appear to believe it. Were this the case, they would sue the government, not British Airways. Obviously as defense against the suit, BA could simply state that the military had commandeered the aircraft for wartime duties - an entirely legal act.




NO - I am saying that the documentary said that the mission was to insert forward observers who could report back the strength, deployments and weaponry of Iraqi forces in Kuwait.


Then why did you say they were there to protect Kuwaiti oil fields? Make up your mind.




And therefore that I can well believe that the British Government might expose less than 400 British citizens and just one British-owned airliner to a fairly insignificant risk in order to covertly insert highly-trained (and deniable) troops to conduct a monitoring mission that would clearly be helpful in gathering information about a military threat to the oilfields on which the entire British economy depends.

I hope that this post clarifies my position.



It does, thank you.

The problem, I see, with this scenario, is that US spy assets (satellites and U2 spy planes) can provide the same information much more rapidly. This sort of mission would require the forces to remain in territory for a substantial period of time, making the chance of capture almost certain. In contrast other methods are totally without risk, cannot be detected by Iraq, and can be done rapidly.



So, you cannot conceive of the British Government behaving in a 'shady' (or 'perfidious'?) manner?

I would ask you to read up on your History.

Also, they were NOT soldiers.


I'll get to the SAS/MI6 thing soon...

I can conceive of the British Government behaving in a "shady" manner. I cannot conceive of British military forces willingly exposing the citizens they are dedicated to protect to very high risk of death or capture by enemy forces.




What threats?
Do you think the Iraqis would have shot down a scheduled airliner?
Don't you think that that might conceivably provoke a British/American retaliation?
Saddam Hussein gambled that his invasion of Kuwait would go unopposed by the US and her allies (allegedly after misinterpreting an ambiguous statement from the US Ambassador of the day).
Do you really think that he would have jeopardised his entire strategy by letting troops shoot at scheduled airliners?



Um... Saddam kidnapped all of the passengers, used them as human shields, and blew up the aircraft. Explain how that would not provoke a reaction?





OK, firstly, do you believe that one Sergeant has knowledge of every covert op in the theatre, going back for months?

Might pose a danger of a breach of secrecy, no?

Does that idea conform with the military/Intelligence principle of 'Need To Know'?

Secondly, as I posted earlier, the documentary did NOT say that the insertees were SAS/SBS, it said that they were freelancers working for/reporting to MI6/SIS.


The McNab observation is based on the assumption that the operation was carried out by the SAS. We'll get to that in a moment. If this op was carried out by SAS, everyone in the SAS would know.





As I said before, the TV doc said that they were freelancers working for MI6.

I personally presume that this means they were ex-SAS/SBS troops.

Again, they are NOT directly employed by HMG, so the mission has Plausible Deniability.



And herein lies the crux that I have a problem with. This seems like an example of "theory creep" to me.

What is the programme's source that they are MI6 freelancers, if I may ask?

I ask, because this is not a new Conspiracy Theory. Indeed, it's now nearly two decades old. The stories arose at the time. I remember them. In all of these original version, it was the SAS. Every single one.

This new scenario sounds like me to be an attempt to address the weakest gap in the theory.

Here's why.

What you're talking about (location of military units) is a Long Range Reconnaissance mission, not a Field Intelligence mission. It is precisely the mission that the SAS was created to carry out.

The SAS are often and repeatedly used in theatres where an official British presence would cause problems. This is the nature of the SAS. They are specially trained in covert operations, and in particular tactical recon of enemy positions.

In contrast, the MI6 are an intelligence agency. This is not at all the sort of mission they are designed for. Intelligence agents only do this sort of thing in James Bond films.

Soldiers who are captured have rights and protections under the laws of armed conflict. Spies who are captured do not. They can be summarily executed.

It simply makes no sense for a mission of this type to be undertaken by a ragtag collection of volunteers somehow assembled by MI6.

What makes this even less likely is MI6 no doubt has field agents all over the place. Are we to believe MI6 had no agents in the area of Kuwait? Why did MI6 wait until the day of the invasion to get spies in country?

-Gumboot

[Big Les]

You're being rather selective in your scepticism Wat, if I may say so, and your standards of evidence (in this case at least) appear somewhat low.

What more evidence for this theory is there than for any of the 9/11 theories, for example? The only difference here is the involvement of "eyewitnesses", who are a) psychologically and emotionally invested in there being a higher meaning to what happened and b) practically worthless as sources of evidence without some form of corroboration. The supposed "special forces" sources that the MP has are worthless if he won't submit them for authentication. Anyone can make claims, be they victims of a tragedy or bandwagon jumping third-parties with an agenda like Tomlinson.

How do you see this as different to the 9/11, the 7/7, or even the Deepcut or Diana deaths? For me, all have the requisite hallmarks of conspiracy theory.

And have you read the sources I linked to above? I'm still downloading the documentary...

[Wat Tyler]

Sorry for some reason when I was reading about BA149 I mixed up the departure and arrival locations...:o


OK, cool.


Except it did alert hostiles on the ground. They seized every single passenger and blew up the plane.


Yes - they seized all the civilians who remained in the airport terminal.
But, according to the TV doc, they seized NONE of the 'military' insertees.

Which is rather the point.


You're assuming Iraq has the capability in Kuwait of identify RAF military aircraft. Iraq had a sophisticated SAM network, but I gather their radar system was pretty poor, and primarily fixed, which means it was in Iraq, not Kuwait.


Whether or not the Iraqi forces in Kuwait could identify a non-scheduled aircraft as specifically RAF is immaterial - I expect that the civilian ATC radar network in Kuwait would be able to detect air traffic - and anything that was NOT a scheduled flight would stick out like a sore thumb, no?

Transport planes are NOT 'stealthy' beasts.

Also, the point about capture of military personnel still stands, as does the difficulty of persuading other nations to allow a military overflight of their territory on the way to the drop.


Er... Iraq just invaded Kuwait... I would call that "an obvious and provocative hostile act".


Against Britain or America?

How?


I said HAHO, not HALO. Quite different. For starters a HAHO drop allows the troops to glide for hundreds of miles once dropped, meaning they can be deployed without the aircraft ever entering hostile airspace.

HAHO (or HALO, for that matter) does not require a specially equipped aircraft. It is traditionally done from a C-130 Hercules, which happens to be one of the most common military transport aircraft in the world.

We'll get to the "HAHO-trained troops" bit later as it relates to the SAS.


OK, we're back to two points:

1) these men were NOT SAS/SBS - how many times do I need to say this?

2) A Herc also has one of the largest radar signatures in the sky - so HOW do you 'covertly' get it to overfly all the non-British territory between Brize Norton & Kuwait City?
Once again, we need permission for military overflight of all the third-party territory in between.

I put it to you that, on the day of the invasion, this might have been 'diplomatically tricky' to obtain.


The stories of the flight being an intentional ploy to deploy military forces arose not long after the event, and according to this documentary some passengers appear to believe it.


And the Captain and crew of the airliner.

In fact, everyone who saw the guys on the plane or on the ground.


Were this the case, they would sue the government, not British Airways.


Unless the Govt prevented the case from reaching Court.
Without Govt permission to release the relevant documents, the Courts themselves may well have taken the view that any action was unlikely to be successful, and thus refused to allow it to proceed, because to do so would be to waste valuable Court time.


Obviously as defense against the suit, BA could simply state that the military had commandeered the aircraft for wartime duties - an entirely legal act.


And would then they have to prove it in open court, which would require documents that are no doubt covered by the OSA and held very securely by HMG.


Then why did you say they were there to protect Kuwaiti oil fields? Make up your mind.


I NEVER said that - show me where I said that.


The problem, I see, with this scenario, is that US spy assets (satellites and U2 spy planes) can provide the same information much more rapidly. This sort of mission would require the forces to remain in territory for a substantial period of time, making the chance of capture almost certain.


US assets are not necessarily all available to UK agencies.

Spy satellites are NOT geostationary - they are in low-Earth orbit, and can only be tasked to overfly an area every 90 minutes or so (iirc).

U2's also have a limited time on-station.

Eyes and ears on the ground are a far superior reconnaissance method.

I'd add that the TV show said that the men were in-country for a long time, and that most had to leave early to avoid capture -with the guy they interviewed saying that he had to be evacuated because his team-mate got severe food poisoning.

It said that only ONE of the two-man teams inserted managed to remain in Kuwait throughout the Gulf War.

The show questioned the usefulness of the mission.


In contrast other methods are totally without risk, cannot be detected by Iraq, and can be done rapidly.


Except that IF they are detected, they pose a huge risk - uniformed soldiers are inherently non-deniable.

Non-military freelancers, inserted on a civilian airliner otoh...


Ill get to the SAS/MI6 thing soon...

I can conceive of the British Government behaving in a "shady" manner. I cannot conceive of British military forces willingly exposing the citizens they are dedicated to protect to very high risk of death or capture by enemy forces.


As I keep saying, the flight contained less than 400 Brits.

In contrast, the economy on which all 60 million Brits rely was (and still is) totally dependant upon (mostly) Saudi oil.

The fear at the time was that Saddam would go on to invade Saudi Arabia.

In this light, I can very well entertain the idea that HMG would expose less than 400 of its subjects to temporary captivity to protect the interests of all 60 million.


Um... Saddam kidnapped all of the passengers, used them as human shields, and blew up the aircraft.
Explain how that would not provoke a reaction?


He did this after the West condemned his invasion, which was contrary to what he expected would happen.

Iraq killed NONE of the hostages from this flight (they did kill the head of the Kuwaiti Secret Service who was a passenger on board).


The McNab observation is based on the assumption that the operation was carried out by the SAS. We'll get to that in a moment. If this op was carried out by SAS, everyone in the SAS would know.


I strongly doubt that details of all missions would be known to all personnel - this breaks the 'need to know' principle.

Besides which, it was NOT carried out by SAS, so the point is moot.


And herein lies the crux that I have a problem with. This seems like an example of "theory creep" to me.
What is the programme's source that they are MI6 freelancers, if I may ask?


The guy interviewed on camera who claims to be one of the insertees.

I'm just repeating what I saw on the TV show.


I ask, because this is not a new Conspiracy Theory. Indeed, it's now nearly two decades old. The stories arose at the time. I remember them. In all of these original version, it was the SAS. Every single one.


Perhaps because the SAS is the obvious 'suspect'?

After all, everyone has heard of them since the Iranian Embassy siege (and the publication of Bravo Two Zero).


This new scenario sounds like me to be an attempt to address the weakest gap in the theory.


As I say, I'm merely repeating what the TV documentary alleged - and it interviewed the Pilot & other aircrew, and some of the passengers.


Here's why.
What you're talking about (location of military units) is a Long Range Reconnaissance mission, not a Field Intelligence mission. It is precisely the mission that the SAS was created to carry out.


And we're back once again to the issues of Plausible Deniability and Agency overlap/bureaucratic rivalry.


The SAS are often and repeatedly used in theatres where an official British presence would cause problems. This is the nature of the SAS. They are specially trained in covert operations, and in particular tactical recon of enemy positions.


I know they are.
E.g. Oman in the 1970's - a clandestine co-in war conducted by SAS troopers who were officially 'on leave of absence'.


In contrast, the MI6 are an intelligence agency. This is not at all the sort of mission they are designed for. Intelligence agents only do this sort of thing in James Bond films.


Have I alleged that these guys were paid-up MI6 agents?

NO.

I have repeated the claim that MI6 employed freelance (probably ex-SF) men to perform the mission.


Soldiers who are captured have rights and protections under the laws of armed conflict. Spies who are captured do not. They can be summarily executed.


And once again I reiterate that the capture of uniformed British forces personnel before any Declaration of War had been made not only proves that HMG has performed an act of unprovoked aggression, but also removes the protections afforded by troops engaged in a legal war.


It simply makes no sense for a mission of this type to be undertaken by a ragtag collection of volunteers somehow assembled by MI6.


Who says these men were a 'ragtag of volunteers'?
You do.

No-one else does.

I can (obviously) accept you criticising the claims made by the people who believe that this occurred, but to criticise it for claims that no-one has made is erroneous.


What makes this even less likely is MI6 no doubt has field agents all over the place. Are we to believe MI6 had no agents in the area of Kuwait? Why did MI6 wait until the day of the invasion to get spies in country?


First, you say that MI6 agents are NOT 'James Bond' - in which case the mission makes sense.

For this last point to be valid, then the MI6 Agents already in-country would have to be 'James Bond'.

Given that we both know that they are NOT 'James Bond', then the insertion of highly-trained ex-SF troops in a forward-observer role actually makes sense, does it not?

[Wat Tyler]

You're being rather selective in your scepticism Wat, if I may say so, and your standards of evidence (in this case at least) appear somewhat low.


Given that the claims being made refer to events that HMG would not wish to see bandied about, and that the only 'incontrovertible evidence' would lie in the hands of that same HMG, and given that the TV documentary I saw made what was to me a compelling and coherent argument, with evidence that supported its claims, I have no problem believing it.

Now, if someone can identify the men in question, or come up with plausible evidence for why the plane was NOT warned-off using the line of communication which had specifically arranged for this purpose, then I'll happily change my opinion.


What more evidence for this theory is there than for any of the 9/11 theories, for example? The only difference here is the involvement of "eyewitnesses", who are a) psychologically and emotionally invested in there being a higher meaning to what happened and b) practically worthless as sources of evidence without some form of corroboration.


I go back to what I said above.


The supposed "special forces" sources that the MP has are worthless if he won't submit them for authentication. Anyone can make claims, be they victims of a tragedy or bandwagon jumping third-parties with an agenda like Tomlinson.


I totally agree with you about this, I'm merely repeating what the TV show said.


How do you see this as different to the 9/11, the 7/7, or even the Deepcut or Diana deaths? For me, all have the requisite hallmarks of conspiracy theory.


Because I can see 'means', 'motive' and 'opportunity' in this one - whereas in the other examples you cite, one (or more) of those is missing.


And have you read the sources I linked to above? I'm still downloading the documentary...

Not yet, no - I'm merely repeating the claims made by the TV show.

One I've read your links, if they are the same sources used by the TV doc, then I'll no doubt be joining your side of the debate.

[Big Les]

Thanks for your thoughts Wat - you're obviously no conspiracy theorist, but I do think you're giving the contents of the documentary a little too much credence. I suppose we'll find out - if the SF guy on the doco and the ones the MP has statements from are legit, then this will be blown wide open. If they are simply fantasists like the other "sources" I pointed out, it will go nowhere.

The problem with this argument is that I opened the thread setting out the theory as defined by the MP who is trying to make headway on behalf of family members (but for some reason who won't provide the only evidence he has) - so far you've decided not to argue those points, but have instead argued a new version of the same theory presented in a TV doco that only you (on this thread) have seen! As such neither "side" is in a position to make much sense, IMO.

Rest assured as soon as this bugger downloads, I'll do what passes for an analysis. But I'll be doing it in light of the MPs version of events - I suggest you check out the parliament debate linked in the OP, and my criticisms of his sources.

Given that the claims being made refer to events that HMG would not wish to see bandied about, and that the only 'incontrovertible evidence' would lie in the hands of that same HMG, and given that the TV documentary I saw made what was to me a compelling and coherent argument, with evidence that supported its claims, I have no problem believing it.

Now, if someone can identify the men in question, or come up with plausible evidence for why the plane was NOT warned-off using the line of communication which had specifically arranged for this purpose, then I'll happily change my opinion.

I can understand that a convincing documentary might have that effect on you. But you need to objectively assess the evidence here - the pilot and passengers are "just" eyewitnesses - their testimony is worth nothing without corroboration due to the problems inherent in witness memory, conscious and unconscious bias, and so on. Corroboration could come in the form of the SF bloke's testimony, but as things stand we have no way of knowing he's kosher.

It sounds plausible to you, and it may to me once I see the documentary. But regardless of our personal plausibility-meter calibration, extraordinary claims like this still require hard evidence before you can say "it's true" - which you have already done, categorically.

Bottom line; both versions of the theory accuse HMG of using a civilian airliner to infiltrate operatives into a sovereign state, and (even if they thought they'd be fine) putting 400 innocents at risk. That is not only a serious accusation, but is absolutely unprecedented in UK history.

Do you see why "it's true because I saw it on TV" is not an acceptable conclusion?

[gumboot]

Yes - they seized all the civilians who remained in the airport terminal.
But, according to the TV doc, they seized NONE of the 'military' insertees.

Which is rather the point.



You claimed the mission was low risk. You claimed the Iraqis would leave civilian passengers and an airliner alone. It wasn't. And they didn't.





Whether or not the Iraqi forces in Kuwait could identify a non-scheduled aircraft as specifically RAF is immaterial - I expect that the civilian ATC radar network in Kuwait would be able to detect air traffic - and anything that was NOT a scheduled flight would stick out like a sore thumb, no?

Transport planes are NOT 'stealthy' beasts.



With a HAHO deployment they don't need to enter Kuwaiti airspace. Why would Kuwaiti ATC controllers tell Iraqi soldiers (who have just invaded their country) about an incoming unknown flight?




Also, the point about capture of military personnel still stands, as does the difficulty of persuading other nations to allow a military overflight of their territory on the way to the drop.


Military aircraft fly through the airspace of other countries routinely. As do civilian aircraft.

The point of capturing military personnel stands, but the fallout from capturing spies is always more serious.





Against Britain or America?

How?


Ever heard of a thing called the "United Nations"?





OK, we're back to two points:

1) these men were NOT SAS/SBS - how many times do I need to say this?


According to the very latest version of events.



2) A Herc also has one of the largest radar signatures in the sky - so HOW do you 'covertly' get it to overfly all the non-British territory between Brize Norton & Kuwait City?
Once again, we need permission for military overflight of all the third-party territory in between.


The C-130 does not have "one of the largest radar signatures in the sky".

Secondly, the only countries necessary for an overflight are France (friendly), Egypt (friendly), and Saudi Arabia (friendly).

Thirdly, military transport aircraft routinely fly all over the world, crossing airspace of many countries.




And the Captain and crew of the airliner.

In fact, everyone who saw the guys on the plane or on the ground.



Everyone? You've seen an interview with every single person who had any contact with these "spies" from departure at Heathrow to their escape from the airport in Kuwait?

There were 350 passengers alone! If each of them had only one minute to recount their experience the documentary would be nearly 6 hours long.





Unless the Govt prevented the case from reaching Court.
Without Govt permission to release the relevant documents, the Courts themselves may well have taken the view that any action was unlikely to be successful, and thus refused to allow it to proceed, because to do so would be to waste valuable Court time.



Since when did courts dismiss civil suits simply because the plaintiff will probably lose?





I NEVER said that - show me where I said that.

[QUOTE=you]Do you really find it hard to believe that HMG would expose 400 civilians (not all of them British citizens) to a minor danger in order to protect strategic oilfields, the ownership of which affects all 60 million UK citizens?

See my earlier point about HMG's likely strength of concern over <400 UK civilians being exposed to minor risk, as opposed to all the oil in Kuwait (and, just possibly, a threat to the Saudi oilfields.

How can one take that any other way than proclaiming the objective of the mission was to protect strategic oilfields?




US assets are not necessarily all available to UK agencies.


They are when they're about to go to war together.



Spy satellites are NOT geostationary - they are in low-Earth orbit, and can only be tasked to overfly an area every 90 minutes or so (iirc).

U2's also have a limited time on-station.

Eyes and ears on the ground are a far superior reconnaissance method.


Not for the sort of mission you're suggesting. Field recon is useful as a TACTICAL tool. What you're talking about is STRATEGIC. Field recon is very ineffective for strategic recon.




Except that IF they are detected, they pose a huge risk - uniformed soldiers are inherently non-deniable.

Non-military freelancers, inserted on a civilian airliner otoh...


Tend to cause MAJOR problems when captured because they're illegal.





As I keep saying, the flight contained less than 400 Brits.

In contrast, the economy on which all 60 million Brits rely was (and still is) totally dependant upon (mostly) Saudi oil.

The fear at the time was that Saddam would go on to invade Saudi Arabia.

In this light, I can very well entertain the idea that HMG would expose less than 400 of its subjects to temporary captivity to protect the interests of all 60 million.



This mission does not even remotely provide protection of the Saudi oil fields.






Iraq killed NONE of the hostages from this flight (they did kill the head of the Kuwaiti Secret Service who was a passenger on board).


No, they just used them as human shields.




The guy interviewed on camera who claims to be one of the insertees.


This is a pretty significant detail to leave out of the discussion until now, isn't it?

Can you tell us more about what he said?




I'm just repeating what I saw on the TV show.

...

As I say, I'm merely repeating what the TV documentary alleged - and it interviewed the Pilot & other aircrew, and some of the passengers.


The problem is you have to take that information and cross-reference it with other information about the event. Otherwise you're just blindly swallowing whatever you are presented with.




Have I alleged that these guys were paid-up MI6 agents?

NO.



Others have.




And once again I reiterate that the capture of uniformed British forces personnel before any Declaration of War had been made not only proves that HMG has performed an act of unprovoked aggression, but also removes the protections afforded by troops engaged in a legal war.


Er... no, no, and no.




Who says these men were a 'ragtag of volunteers'?
You do.

No-one else does.


By rag-tag I mean they are not a single cohesive unit used to working together. I am assuming they are volunteers, unless you propose that MI6 forced ex-military staff to undertake a mission?





First, you say that MI6 agents are NOT 'James Bond' - in which case the mission makes sense.

For this last point to be valid, then the MI6 Agents already in-country would have to be 'James Bond'.

Given that we both know that they are NOT 'James Bond', then the insertion of highly-trained ex-SF troops in a forward-observer role actually makes sense, does it not?


Well if they're "ex" they're nolonger highly trained. If they're "ex" they're not part of a single cohesive and efficient unit.

Simply put, this sort of thing works in movies. It doesn't work in reality.

SF units are effective because of the significant resources provided to them, the constant training (ensuring high levels of readiness and constant evolution) and the very tight bonds between unit members.

They're also highly effective because they're not misused for mission they're not intended to undertake. When they are, disasters happen (look at Operation Eagle Claw, the Battle of Mogadishu, and Bravo Two Zero for excellent examples of the differences).

You're proposing a scenario that is exceedingly risky, for no significant benefit, that does not include any of the above features (it lacks resource support, the soldiers do not have a high level of readiness, high level of evolving training, they do not have the tight bonds of a cohesive unit, and they're being misused for a mission they're not intended for).

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Just to clarify, Wat, I keep directing this specifically at you, but my comments are directing at the "theory".

I am merely presenting the things that immediately leap out at me as flaws in the scenario. In particular, the theory seems to go against the reality of what special forces units are capable of, what they are used for, how they function, and what makes them effective.

The thing here is people like the airline crew and passengers, like most people, don't know any of this stuff. Primarily thanks to fictional films and books, most people credit special forces with abilities and functions that simply are not true.

In addition many films distort and blend the very distinct roles of intelligence agents, special forces, and law enforcement. As such people often think they are somewhat interchangeable.

(An example that I picked up just today was a number of articles referring to the FBI as an "intelligence agency" which obviously it isn't.)

The biggest issue I have is this is NOT the sort of mission you would task to a single section of SAS or SBS. Yes, I know you're claiming they're not SAS or SBS, but by claiming they're ex-SAS or SBS you're crediting the same function. This is not an SAS or SBS mission, thus using ex-SAS or SBS soldiers makes no more sense than using serving SAS and SBS.

-Gumboot

[Big Les]

OK, I've now seen the documentary in question, and I am singularly unimpressed. It's exactly the same theory presented by the Liberal Democrat MP in my OP, to whit:

The UK Government, having placed special operations and/or intelligence operatives on board what was likely to be the last flight into Kuwait, then contrived to have it land there despite knowing that the invasion had taken place. What evidence is there for this beyond the arguments from incredulity and post hoc reasoning that we've already dealt with? Well, not a whole lot. Here is every single documentary quote that pertains to this theory, from crew, passengers, and the single alleged "mercenary" ("Soldier X"):

"It's suspicion, that would a government, could a government, knowingly do that to civilians, and people?"
"My crew were very concerned, however I assured them that BA management had checked with the Foreign Office in London, and BA operations in Kuwait, and all was quite normal".
"I did have to do one duty before landing, and that was to take around landing cards for the passengers who were scheduled to disembark in Kuwait. And I said, I can assure you that you will need landing cards, because all disembarkers in Kuwait do need landing cards." "I was a little suspicious at the time".
"I seem to remember something in the order of about 15 passengers disembarking, plus our group of young men.


"I have never had any explanation or apology, and I'm angry about that. 15 years later and I'm angry about that."
"That August of 1990, I was pretty much unaware of the way things were building up in the Middle East. so I went naively onto Flight 149 totally unaware of the fact that it might stop in Kuwait and totally unaware of the fact that might be a bad idea".
I was completely wrapped up in my work obsessions at the time. I hadn't prepared my lectures for the trip out there, I was blissfully unaware of anybody else or any other anxieties.
"What goes through your mind when you see a fighter aircraft bombing the runway you're supposed to be taking off from in an hour's time? I don't know- just bewilderment I think."
"If I was to be told as part of this TV programme that that's what it was, that would help a bit, but it would help a lot more if someone from the Government or BA sat me down and said look, we're really sorry about this, this is how it was, this is the paperwork, this is how it happened, and we've come to apologise. I'd like that to happen."



"I asked BA if we were likely to be delayed or dirveted because of the Kuwaiti situation, and the answer back to me was.."What Kuwaiti situation?"
The flight was normal - we went to sleep - just a normal flight, very comfortable.
"John, our son, said look at the guards, they've been disarmed.
"When we looked on the board in fact you could see flights all cancelled, so-and-so cancelled, BA149...every other flight was cancelled, it was just BA149, [wife-] there was no-one in the airport, just us".



"I was really astonished to see we had a stop over in Kuwait...and I remembered that there was a little row between Saddam and the Kuwaiti rulers...I must say that I felt a bit uncomfortable".



"There is an Iraqi army about 80k away from my proposed destination so I suggest you'd better get some sort of security briefing".
"The APU, the Auxiliary Power Unit which is responsible for maintaining the aircraft on the ground was unserviceable. They were trying to dispatch us with it US, and I said no, let's get it fixed, which gave me a bit more breathing space to actually pick up some more info about security in Kuwait".
"The message I got was perfectly OK, things were normal, don't worry.".
"The extra precautions that I took were to establish an HF cell call link, a long range radio link whereby we maintain two-way communication with the airline throughout the flight. They had chimes on the flight deck so they could have actually ding-donged us to tell us that things weren't OK".
There were several groups of young men on the aircraft, and Clive Earthy told me about them, but this wasn't unusual because in that part of the world, one often expected young oily bots as we called them, going out to the oil rigs, geophysical survey teams, they all employed fairly fit young men, so I wasn't surprised when Clive told me there were some young men on the aircraft, they could have been a rugby team, they could have been anybody."
"We did have an open link; we could have been contacted by any organisation with an interest in our flight at any time up to the point of final landing".
All three of us on the flight deck on the flight into Kuwait were nervous, for obvious reasons; we still hadn't heard from London, we contacted them on HF and they said the situation is normal in Kuwait, don't worry about it". "We had a good look, we could see the city in the background, there was nothing untoward at all."
"I now know that there were Iraqi troops and armour in Kuwait city as we made our approach and landing. Why we weren't told about this by the company, by the embassy via our HF cell call link with BA, why the Kuwait Air Traffic Control didn't tell us, I have no idea at all. Somebody for some reason wanted us to land, and we did."
"Other flights had stopped operating, we hadn't".
"At that particular time I hadn't thought about the fact that I had delayed the flight. In retrospect I thought about it a lot. In fact I thought about it a great deal. The delay caused the passengers to be stuck in Kuwait, and that I regret a great deal".
"I got my crew into my room, and I spelt it out to them in no uncertain terms that this was the end of the road as far as BA was concerned, there was no more BA protection."


"Every year you have a talk by BA security staff and they always assure you that they monitor world events, and they would never endanger you, never fly you into a situation that was dangerous. So I..trusted BA".
"I to this day have never been told why, which is something which is very hard to come to terms with, but I don't think you can ever get over something when you don't know the answers to it."



"I knew Kuwait was in the Middle East, but I wasn't sure exactly where we were flying. It wasn't a great feeling, but I wasn't particularly worried about it at that point."



"Because we are smokers we were put at the back of the plane. What surprised me was in the back were a group of single men, no women, no children.
"The specific thing is the men were white, others were Kuwaiti or Indian. 'They' were European".



"We had a very jovial handover, so again there was no information from the incoming crew that things were not as they should be". "But what I did notice; it was extremely quiet, deathly quiet".
"I think if the aircraft was landed wilfully, if they thought it was worth putting the lives of 400 people at risk, I think that would be a criminal act."



"We had to wait a few minutes for the baggage, and I saw several young men, short haircut, blondeish brown hair, very lean, they didn't make eye contact. It was obvious to me that they were aware that I was watching them but they were not going to acknowledge that. The type of baggage they had looked unusual to me because it didn't look like overnight baggage or regular luggage, it seemed to be some sort of equipment type baggage. No-one stopped them and they picked up their bags and went their way".



"The cleaners - these guys did not want to be on the plane, they weren't doing their job properly, and they couldn't get off it fast enough. And I thought, this is all a bit odd, there's quite a lot of tension around here. And then, as they were making their way off the plane, that's when Jenny nudged me to look out the window. (to see the attack on the airport by the Iraqi Air Force. A stewardess orders evacuation of the plane) "shouting screaming, get off the plane, get off the plane, leave everything behind, get off the plane - and standing in the aisle - finally someone shoved her to one side and says we will do if you'll get out the way - it was me father -."
"The Kuwaitis weren't armed any more, their pistols had been taken, so at that point I realised Iraq was in control of the airport."


There is very little of substance related by the narrator. This is about it;
"The BA manager in Kuwait who assures BA Heathrow that all is well is Laurence O'Toole. This is O'Toole's sworn deposition made as part of a later legal action in the US. It shows that on the evening of the flight O'Toole was met by a Brit Embassy official with responsibility for airline security called Tony Paice. "Paice advised O'Toole that an Iraqi invasion would not happen. The advice given by Paice was crucial to BAs decision to proceed with the flight" "But what we can now reveal is that Paice was also the Kuwait station chief for MI6, Britain's external secret service. Did Paice need the aircraft to land in Kuwait. If so, this conflict of interest holds the key to the mystery".
"According to our sources, and to legal affidavits sworn for this programme, we can reveal the group of young men on the plane are in fact a team on a secret MI6 intelligence mission. Posing as oil industry engineers, they are due to disembark in Kuwait."
"But the documents and testimony given to this programme assert a very different story. These men are a covert and deniable team of former special forces soldiers and intelligence officers, they are placed on civilian flight BA149 by the British government. The mission is to insert an intelligence team into Kuwait, prior to any Iraqi invasion. For the first time one of them has come forward to speak out. For legal reasons he cannot be identified."

"the entire operation was codenamed Trojan Horse, it consisted of four two-man teams that would be in-theatre on the ground. Our mission remit was to get into the country, and report back all troop movements, their morale, standard of equipment and what their intentions were. And if indeed Saddam had made intentions to go into Saudi Arabia, then that's when we were to call the shots, so to speak".
"We knew instantly that something had changed and it was only when we landed that we were told that he's actually been rolling on his forces for the last five hours. So, we knew there was not a lot of time for us to get out of the airport, and the passengers actually were getting wise to the fact that there was a little more to us than met the eye."
"We didn't now that he'd invaded until we landed, so more or less as soon as we landed at the airport, we knew that the ballpark had changed into a far more severe level for the people on Flight 149".
"Though our position was brilliant for concealment, it was crap for observation. There was absolutely no intelligence that we could give other than that small situation where those people were dragged out of the warehouse. We could see nothing of value at that stage."
"Though our position was brilliant for concealment, it was crap for observation. There was absolutely no intel that we could give other than that small situation where those people were dragged out of the warehouse. We could see nothing of value at that stage."
"Brilliant success, it saved many lives of Kuwaitis, massive numbers of allied soldiers, no way it can be viewed as anything but a brilliant success."

Much of his story is told with reconstruction, showing them with SAS type M-16/203 assault rifles. It's all very Andy MacNab but irrelevant here.

Meanwhile, two other intrepid Soldiers (let's call them P and Q) are in an Observation Post in a high-rise apartment building. They send back "valuable reports on Iraqi deployments and personnel" and are later compromised and moved on, and continue to supply useful info.

"Not long after that I heard the rotors of the chopper they could see us 2 miles away, because they were using infra-red. So basically I said to 'im look, we're OK mate, we're going to be fine and I said the rescue will be here very soon."


Larry Eddingfield (former CO, USS Antietam)]"We were a thin red line that was basically there to prevent Saddam from rolling all the way to Rihad and to the Saudi airfields and everything else. And we had basically 30 missiles on board capable of doing some considerable damage, and 98 aircraft in an air wing able to fly into Iraq and get his attention if we needed to."
"We were ordered to proceed at best speed to the rendezvous point with a combat Search and Rescue helicopter to pick up two British special forces that had been injured and the men could get medical care ASAP".
"When they landed they were basically taken down to sickbay...very tired, one of them was very delirious and could hardly walk, one had food poisoning very badly, and basically almost died from that."


"At 2am, my contact in the Kuwaiti government who told me that the Iraqis were coming across the border, and rolling up border posts. I don't think he knew at the time, nor did he tell me that they were planning to come all the way to Kuwait city. I immediately reported that to Washington.
"I had heard that there was an intelligence team on that BA flight; I didn't have any contact with them and really had no way of knowing what the disposition of that was".


"The absence of the passenger list was some indication that something quite unusual had happened that they did not want anybody to know about. They did not want people to know exactly who was on that flight, who the passengers were".


"The BA flight landed, its passengers disembarked, and the crew handed over to a successive crew, and the crew then went to their hotels. This all took place before the invasion. The invasion was later."
<The narrator accuses this of being misleading at best, a lie at worst. That is misleading; her statement is factually accurate.>

This all amounts to rather less than either the other conspiracy theories, or the documentary itself, make out. British agents are put on a routine scheduled flight to gather intelligence in Kuwait re any move by Saddam against Saudi Arabia. Unfortunate timing and circumstances resulting in an unpleasant experience for all concerned. This does NOT amount to the deliberate placing of passengers, crew, and operatives into harm's way. It was not a specially contrived insertion.

The immediacy of the threat is unclear to anyone until after the aircraft had landed; there is certainly no evidence to suggest that the authorities knowingly allowed the plane to risk capture. Authorities were aware of a border incursion (NOT full scale invasion) by Iraqi forces at 3am (what timezone?); the flight landed at 04:13 (local time). Whether this wasn't thought to be a worry, or whether MI6 wanted their mission to proceed regardless, BA weren't told and so were in no position to warn the flight, making the open link to the cockpit useless. Responsibility for warning the aircraft off therefore lies with Kuwaiti ATC. To my mind, the claims about lack of information and de facto hijacking of the aircraft by the authorities for their own military ends, are a total red herring.

Moreover, the operatives themselves aren't warned, either before boarding, or during the flight. Does that not suggest simple cock-up? In fact, the only reason that the plane was put in direct risk was because the flight had been delayed for two hours by the aircraft captain himself!

Of course, that there were operatives of any kind on board we are expected to accept based upon passenger and crew speculation coloured by 15 years of resentment and silence from the authorities (not unusual in such circumstances, and not evidence in itself). As one points out, they could have been anyone. The ONLY potentially useful information comes from Soldier X and the former Captain of the USS Antietam. But until "Soldier X" (and the other individuals the MP pressing for an inquiry refers to) submits himself to verification, his Bravo Two Zero style story of working class commando triumphing over command ineptitude, is worthless. But it will surely sell books...

In other words, this whole palava amounts to a question of belief and speculation over evidence and critical thought; just like every other conspiracy theory.

[gumboot]

Thanks for the effort.

Just a question... I get the impression from those quotes that interviewees were asked pretty pointed questions about these alleged passengers? Does this sound right?

Two gaping things leap out at me from that account...

The first is the code name "Trojan Horse". It is a fundamental rule of Operation Nicknames that they are ambiguous and meaningless. No military operation involving sneaking intelligence agents into a country on a commercial flight would ever be called "Trojan Horse". It simply would not happen. Operation Nicknames are strictly guided by government directives.

The second was the mention of the US ship.

USS Antietam (CG-54) is a Ticonderoga-class missile cruiser that entered the Persian Gulf on 6 August 1990 to take up station as Anti-Air Warfare Commander.

The quote from the CO mentions the air wing, which obviously a Missile Cruiser doesn't have, so I'm hoping I can get some clarification on that.

Also he refers to "30 missiles" which I am assuming means Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, as these Missile Cruisers carried a total of 114 SAM and ASW missiles + Tomahawks.

The ship's official website cites Lawerence E. Eddingfield as (CO) from 26 May 1989 until 29 June 1991.

Does he say anything else? When were these soldiers picked up? Where?

The passenger remarks seem flimsy at best, amounting to "Oh look, a group of white guys sitting together, how suspicious". Which, frankly, is ridiculous.

-Gumboot

[Big Les]

Thanks for the effort.

Trust me, I'd like those several hours of my life back :( - this is every single remotely relevant quote, word for word. I'm not sure how the dedicated 911 guys on here manage this sort of thing!

Just a question... I get the impression from those quotes that interviewees were asked pretty pointed questions about these alleged passengers? Does this sound right?

The documentary style here was to edit out all the questions to leave just the interviewee's responses. This is obviously done to allow the producer and editor to set their own agenda and mine quotes to fit it. Having sat in on several interviews like this, I would tend to agree with you. At the very least, important context is lost. Certainly Nate Howell's comment:

I had heard that there was an intelligence team on that BA flight; I didn't have any contact with them and really had no way of knowing what the disposition of that was.

...is the most obvious (in terms of tone also) responses to a leading, loaded question, and strikes me as an attempt to legitimise or corroborate what the mysterious Soldier X and the Antietam's captain have to say. Of course, his answer amounts to "I've heard the conspiracy theories, but know have no special knowledge that might confirm or debunk them".

Two gaping things leap out at me from that account...

The first is the code name "Trojan Horse". It is a fundamental rule of Operation Nicknames that they are ambiguous and meaningless. No military operation involving sneaking intelligence agents into a country on a commercial flight would ever be called "Trojan Horse". It simply would not happen. Operation Nicknames are strictly guided by government directives.

Absolutely right - especially in the case of British operations. Operation Granby or Op Telic in the recent middle east conflicts for example. They are chosen from a list of emotionally and informationally neutral names, and then deleted from that list so they aren't re-used. Some useful info here re Operation Corporate (Richard, "Well it depends who you are. If you are American you might very well go for an operation which has a resonant sound but if you are British you may well not. Our equivalent of Desert Storm was Operation Granby. We called the recovery of the Falklands Operation Corporate.") (the Falklands War). US names like Desert Shield are rather more descriptive, but even they wouldn't choose something as Boy's Own as "Operation Trojan Horse"! You might as well go with "Operation Certain Death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_Punishment_(Blackadder))".

The second was the mention of the US ship. USS Antietam (CG-54) is a Ticonderoga-class missile cruiser that entered the Persian Gulf on 6 August 1990 to take up station as Anti-Air Warfare Commander. The quote from the CO mentions the air wing, which obviously a Missile Cruiser doesn't have, so I'm hoping I can get some clarification on that.

Pages 7 and 10 of this document (http://www.history.navy.mil/shiphist/a/cg-54/1990.pdf) detail the ship's assignment to the COMIDEASTFOR Maritime Interception Force. It wasn't part of a carrier battle group as such, but it was directing aircraft launching from the USS Independence, further out, in the Gulf of Oman. The 30 missiles must as you say be Antietam's Tomohawks, but when he says "we" and mentions the air wing, I think he's referring to the US Navy presence in the Gulf in general, not to the ship itself.

Does he say anything else? When were these soldiers picked up? Where?

Nope, nothing else. The timeframe and RV point aren't made at all clear. The two British special forces men he picked up could have been from one of the later missions (e.g. SCUD-busting like B20), known to have been taking place on a considerable scale throughout 1991 after the arrival of the Regiment in December 1990. We know that Eddington was there until 29 June 1991. Knowing "when" would help, but we'd also need dates from Soldier X for comparison. That aside, the only real bit of correlation here with "Soldier X"'s account is that both men mention one survivor being stricken with food poisoning. Plenty of room for co-incidence and post-hoc correlation here, I would argue.

It's also interesting that Eddington specifically states that the two men had been "injured", as well as mentioning exhaustion and food poisoning. There's no mention of physical injury in Soldier X's account.

The passenger remarks seem flimsy at best, amounting to "Oh look, a group of white guys sitting together, how suspicious". Which, frankly, is ridiculous.

Yep. None of the passengers claim to have seen anything specific, and are (post hoc) clearly trying to think, if there were any agents on board, who they might have been.

[gumboot]

Thanks again for your efforts...

That clears up a couple of things. The operation name really did it for me - "Trojan Horse" is the sort of thing you'd expect in a bad Tom Clancy film (even he wouldn't make that mistake). As you say, they tend to be neutral, except for US Strategic Operations names, which are usually emotionally charged for PR purposes "Desert Storm", "Enduring Freedom", and so forth. US tactical operations follow the guidelines of other nations. "Operation Gothic Serpent" (Battle of Mogadishu), "Operation Phantom Fury" (Second Battle of Fallujah), "Operation Anaconda" (March 2002 Offensive in Afghanistan), and so forth.

As you say, these more literal operation names are usually reserved for parodies "Operation Certain Death", "Operation Get Behind The Darkies", etc.

I figured the Antietam comments referred to the carrier air wings. Thanks for clarifying. As you say, there was plenty of opportunity for rescuing SF troops once they were on the ground, and we're not given a timeline.

One might feel inclined to ask if the guy was positive they were British. There were SAS and Commandos from other Commonwealth Nations there as well. He may have just assumed so.

It hardly sounds conclusive, and from the comments you've posted it sounds likely the filmmakers had a clear agenda. If they were asking questions like "Did you see anyone suspicious on the plane who was a British intelligence operative?" that pretty much makes the testimonies worthless.

-Gumboot

[Comsat Angel]

If I may pontificate a bit here: IIRC, HM Govt keeps a troop or two of SAS stationed on Cyprus for just this sort of thing - an emergency in the Middle East. Using RAF transport based on the island would enable them to get to Kuwait a lot quicker than having to send people from the UK on a civilian flight.
Then there's equipment. For an observer team as Soldier X claims they were, they would need shedloads of kit: binoculars, night vision equipment, possibly rangefinders, GPS (if it was around then?), possibly laptops to store data, radio systems capable of encrypted communication, batteries and spare parts. That's before considering rations and water - they may have assumed they could scavenge or scrounge but would surely need some for emergencies. Then there's weapons - would they take any? If so that's even more kit to carry around, quite besides managing to get them through Customs at either end. Did any passengers or crew spot any of this kit being carried around? If it was in the cargo hold then I assume it remained there and the observers would have been a bit stiffed in terms of being able to do much. And why hasn't this "mission" turned up in any potboiler True Stories of How I Won the War When I Was In The SAS by Soldier N?

[Big Les]

If I may pontificate a bit here: IIRC, HM Govt keeps a troop or two of SAS stationed on Cyprus for just this sort of thing - an emergency in the Middle East. Using RAF transport based on the island would enable them to get to Kuwait a lot quicker than having to send people from the UK on a civilian flight.

Quite. I don't know if Wat Tyler has buggered off for good or not, but he addresses this by claiming that a Hercules had "one of the largest radar signatures in the sky" and that overflight permission would be needed, ergo covert flight into Kuwait would not have been possible, and they simpy hopped on a scheduled flight. Gumboot did a good job of countering that, and your scenario is even more feasible - from Cyprus (http://www.maplandia.com/cyprus/) you'd only need permission (or to wing it) to overfly either Syria or Turkey.

Then there's equipment. For an observer team as Soldier X claims they were, they would need shedloads of kit: binoculars, night vision equipment, possibly rangefinders, GPS (if it was around then?), possibly laptops to store data, radio systems capable of encrypted communication, batteries and spare parts. That's before considering rations and water - they may have assumed they could scavenge or scrounge but would surely need some for emergencies. Then there's weapons - would they take any?

That rather depends upon the nature of the group. Were they indeed the hard-as-nails ex-special forces mercenaries, armed to the teeth, that were depicted in the documentary? Or were they unarmed mild-mannered rubber-desk-johnny spooks, out of their depth? Or something in between? Or non-existent?!

If so that's even more kit to carry around, quite besides managing to get them through Customs at either end. Did any passengers or crew spot any of this kit being carried around? If it was in the cargo hold then I assume it remained there and the observers would have been a bit stiffed in terms of being able to do much.

As you can see from the quotes I posted, one of the passengers now claims that she saw these suspiciously young and white men collecting suspicious "equipment type" luggage after landing. :cool: As for customs, I assume they would show their Secret Airborne Squirrel veterans club cards and get their glaringly obvious spy kit and firearms straight through, no dramas. :rolleyes:

And why hasn't this "mission" turned up in any potboiler True Stories of How I Won the War When I Was In The SAS by Soldier N?

It kind of has (http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:Gogd7j8CayQJ:www.andrewlownie.co.uk/books/davis.stephen/hell.shtml+book+%22flight+149%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk). Expect something more along those lines to emerge from "Soldier X" once he's sure he won't drop himself in the klartz with the authorities or the actual SAS (either by revealing secrets or by being revealed as a fraud).

Oh, and Gumboot; no need to thank me for bashing out the contents of the documentary. It was easier than working out how to Youtube it. Although...
Anyone interested in me trying to do that?

[gumboot]

If you did put it up I'd certainly be interested to have a look at it, but don't stretch any muscles doing it... ;)

-Gumboot

[Big Les]

Found a press release from BA regarding the French lawsuits, dated 1996. It's on their press archive (http://www.britishairways.com/travel/bapress/public/en_gb)(search on BA149).

Background Briefing

The French Appeal Court will on Monday, September 23, hear an appeal by British Airways against a ruling by the French Court of First Instance on November 8, 1995, that the airline should pay damages to French passengers who had been aboard its flight BA149 caught in Kuwait by the Iraqi invasion of August 2, 1990.

While British Airways has every sympathy with those taken hostage, what happened to them was the result of an act of war by Iraq. British Airways had no prior notice that Iraq would invade Kuwait. Indeed, Saddam Hussein's order to send in his troops and air forces took the entire world by complete surprise. British Airways cannot be held responsible for this act of war - as courts in England, Scotland and the United States have agreed.

It is preposterous to suggest that British Airways would deliberately endanger its passengers, employees or its aircraft in any way. We will vigourously defend ourselves against any such suggestion.

Many claims by passengers and employees have already been settled in line with the airline's humanitarian policy on an ex gratia basis.

In addition, French passengers have already claimed damages for the time they were held hostage from the French “Guarantee Fund of Victims of Acts of Terrorism and Other Offences”, signing documents stating that this payment was full compensation for all of the losses bourne by them. A number of passengers are also making compensation claims from the United Nations fund.

Background

British Airways' scheduled flight BA149, operated by Boeing 747 G-AWND, left London's Heathrow Airport on the evening of August 1, 1990, bound for Kuwait, Madras and Kuala Lumpur. It landed normally in Kuwait at 04.13 local time.

At around 05.00 local time, after the passengers who had been booked to end their journeys in Kuwait had left the aircraft and the crew who were to take the flight on to Madras had boarded, the airport was closed.

During the next hour, the runway was attacked by Iraqi forces and the BA aircraft evacuated. After waiting in the terminal building, the passengers and crew were transferred to a local hotel.

A timetable for the flight is given below.

Some 69 French nationals were among the 310 passengers and 82 British Airways employees who were then kept hostage by the Iraqis, some as “human shields” in Iraq.

Crews from a number of other airlines, including Air France, were also caught by the invasion.

The last of the French passengers from BA149 were released by the Iraqis on October 29, 1990. The last of the remaining passengers from other countries and BA employees were released on December 9. The airline's Boeing 747 was destroyed on the ground during the liberation of Kuwait.

A group of French passengers and their family members filed a complaint againt British Airways in Paris on July 21, 1992.

In the Court of First Instance, Judge Pierre Renard-Peyen ruled that the airline should pay each of the 61 French passengers serving the writ between Ffr 400,000 (£52,000) and Ffr 600,000 (£78,000), depending on how long they were held captive by the Iraqis, and Ffr 60,000 (£7,800) to each of 48 close relatives also involved in the court action. These damages totalled Ffr 26 million (£3 million). The claimants had sought almost double this amount.

Myths and facts

A number of myths have grown up around the BA149 flight stopped in Kuwait.

MYTH: The flight was originally never supposed to land in Kuwait.
FACT: BA149 was ALWAYS scheduled to land in Kuwait, as British Airways' timetable for the period shows. The flight's regular routing was from Heathrow, to Kuwait, Madras and on to Kuala Lumpur. Signs at check-in made this clear, as did announcements before boarding at London Heathrow. A total of 56 passengers had booked to end their journey in Kuwait, and another 67 passengers were booked to join the flight in Kuwait, to travel on to Madras or Kuala Lumpur. The French judge found that the aircraft's routing had always been Heathrow-Kuwait-Madras-Kuala Lumpur.

MYTH: A group of undercover SAS commandos were on board.
FACT: British Airways has never been aware that any military personnel were on board the flight. UK Prime Minister John Major has confirmed that there were no British military personnel on board. The French judge said there was no evidence that SAS soldiers were on board. Of the 56 passengers on board who were ticketed to Kuwait, the largest group booking made was for six members of an Arab family. No bookings for the flight were made on the day of departure. The captain and senior cabin crew member on this flight have stated that no passengers joined the flight during its delay at Heathrow.

MYTH: The departure of the aircraft was delayed deliberately to enable the SAS soldiers or Kuwaiti VIPs to get on board or because of concern about an imminent invasion.
FACT: The aircraft was scheduled to take off from London at 5.15 pm on August 1. It was delayed until 7.04 pm because or a technical fault (its auxilliary power unit needed to be repaired) and because of a temporary closure to Heathrow's runways. As given above, no passengers joined the flight during its delay at Heathrow.

The judge said that British Airways should have predicted the invasion and was wholly responsible for endangering the lives of its passengers.
Iraq's invasion took the world by surprise. It had positioned troops close to its border with Kuwait for several weeks, which was seen by most Western countries as an act of intimidation, leading up to talks between the two countries in Saudi Arabia, starting on July 31. Iraq broke off these talks on August 1.

The captain of BA149 noticed no abnormal signs suggesting military activity as the flight approached Kuwait.

British Airways would never knowingly endanger the lives of its passengers or employees.

If British Airways had known that Iraqi troops were moving towards the Kuwait border, it would not have allowed its aircraft to land.

TIMETABLE FOR BA149, AUGUST 1, 1990

16.15 BA149 scheduled for departure from Heathrow
16.20 British Embassy in Kuwait confirms to BA by telephone that situation is calm and no reason for flight not to proceed.
18.04 BA149 departs from Heathrow
22.13 Captain of BA149 in radio contact with pilot of BA148 which had just left Kuwait, bound for London, and was told situation at Kuwait was normal.
01.13 BA149 lands at Kuwait. Everything at the airport is normal.
Passengers booked to Kuwait disembark. Some transit passengers disembark to stretch their legs in the airport terminal.
Transit passengers and joining passengers embark
02.00 The new flight crew which had taken over to fly the aircraft to Madras told, while making pre-flight checks, by airport authorities that airport had been closed.
02.25 Airport attacked by Iraqi aircraft. Captain orders evacuation of aircraft.
03.59 First news announcement of the invasion made by BBC World Service radio.
04.00 Passengers and crew go to Airport Transit Hotel, adjacent to Terminal 1, where they stayed for two days. On August 5/6, about half the passengers and crew were moved to another hotel. The remainder stayed at the Airport Transit Hotel for a further two weeks.


Legal action in other countries

England: A case brought against the airline in Brentford Crown Court in 1993 was dismissed by the judge. An appeal to the English Court of Appeal in January 1995 was also dismissed. A further appeal is now being made to the House of Lords, which will consider the matter next month (October 1996).

Proceedings were also commenced by a number of English plaintiffs against the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the UK Department of Transport, the British Embassy in Kuwait, the UK Civil Aviation Authority and the Aeronautical Information Service.

Scotland: Thirteen plaintiffs filed a specimen case in December 1993, in the Court of Sessions, in Edinburgh. This was dismissed. It was taken to the Scottish Court of Appeal, which also found in favour of the airline. The House of Lords is scheduled to hear an appeal against that decision next month (October 1996), alongside the English appeal.

USA: One case brought by one of the American passengers on board was dismissed in summary judgement by the US District Court of San Diego, California. In two other cases, settlements were made out of court to avoid the high cost of litigation in the US.

Note the loophole for CTists in "no British military personnel" being on board. Naturally I see this the other way around; as theory-creep; BA say no mil personnel, the CTists say "aah, but they were "freelancers", so not technically military/SAS!".

[gumboot]

Found a press release from BA regarding the French lawsuits, dated 1996. It's on their press archive (http://www.britishairways.com/travel/bapress/public/en_gb)(search on BA149).

Note the loophole for CTists in "no British military personnel" being on board. Naturally I see this the other way around; as theory-creep; BA say no mil personnel, the CTists say "aah, but they were "freelancers", so not technically military/SAS!".



Thanks for that.

I agree with your observation. Theory-creep is a common feature of CT claims. As previously pointed out, the early allegations were all that those on board were SAS.

-Gumboot

[Big Les]

Just to clear up the timeframe here (and no, it's not another Payne Stewart gaffe), the documentary says the plane landed at 04:13 local time, which adjusting for timezone (+3) tallies with the (GMT?) time given by BA above. Both the former US ambassador to Kuwait (in the documentary) and Mags Thatcher (quoted from her memoirs) both say that Downing St and Washington were made aware of an invasion at around 3am Kuwaiti time - http://www.margaretthatcher.org/commentary/displaydocument.asp?docid=110709 - Contrary to what I said earlier, it appears that Thatcher did indeed (either unwittingly or knowingly) mislead Parliament when she said the plane was on the ground before the invasion, and knew that that it was a full scale invasion, not just sabre-rattling hokey-cokey antics. Perhaps she got her timezones mixed up, or she meant before the assault on the airfield. Or she was lying. Who knows?

Anyway, this gives us;

2:00 - Kuwaiti government aware of invasion
3:00 - UK Government (Prime Minister) aware of invasion
4:13 - Plane lands
5:25 - Airport attacked
6:59 - Media report invasion

Giving one hour for Thatcher to tell the Foreign Office, and them to tell British Airways. Clearly that's enough time, but getting messages to any British aircraft heading into Kuwait was presumably not the first thing to occur to them! Was there even a procedure in place for this? BA were taking cues from their man in Kuwait, not from the Foreign Office. Did they even consult the Foreign Office, or were they waiting for updates via BA in Kuwait to then relay to the flight? Was it the Government's responsibility to actively warn airlines? Possibly, but I'm not sure that you can blame the UK government for this any more than the Kuwaiti air traffic controllers for failing to divert, British Airways for the initial decision to fly, and the aircraft's captain for delaying the flight by two hours (though he had good reason).

NB It's interesting that the book I linked to seems to have been pulled, and only Google caches and forum mentions remain of any hint of it. Here's a (cached) report (http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:QETn_gjEELAJ:www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20061016/ai_n16780725+%22The+Secret+of+Flight+149%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=uk) (that no longer appears in the Evening Standard's database) noting the dropping of the book by Stephen Davis, which was to have been titled "The Secret of Flight 149". So either the MoD are insisting on checking it for sensitive info, or Davis/the publishing company were pulling a publicity stunt for the documentary.

[gumboot]

Of course you've also got to consider this requires these people to know that the aircraft was late.

Obviously there's no reason to think anyone in government was aware of it. Likewise, there's no reason to think the government would be responsible for notifying aircrews or airlines.

If we take the example of 9/11, it was the airline companies that contacted their other flights regarding threats to cockpits, not the FAA. Likewise, it was the airline pilots that first notified the FAA something had happened in Manhattan, not the other way around.

I imagine it would be the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport to notify BA about events.

Another thing to consider is, when did regular Kuwaitis or the ATC know about the invasion?

Iraqi forces didn't reach Kuwait city until 7am.

-Gumboot