Source BBC Television News: (17:18 BST Sep 2026)
The Prime Minister has stated that the UK now believe that Iran was behind to the attempted attack on RAF Fairford.
The Iranian Ambassador has strongly denied any connection with the incident.
See previous reporting: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=26/09/28/1259254 https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=26/09/27/115249
Source: BBC News: 07:18 BST 02 Oct 2026
The police have confirmed the arrest of a dual nationality (UK/Iran) man in the London area, linked to the incident at RAF Fairford on Sunday.
« Paleontologists Reconstruct Forests of 56 Million Years Ago With Chilling Parallels for Our Time | UK Government Vows to Reclaim Services From Outsourcing Giants »
Related Stories
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/27/uk/fairford-arrests-uk-raf-us-intl
UK counter-terrorism police are leading an investigation after several men were arrested on suspicion of explosives offenses near an air base used by US forces.
A number of properties were evacuated in the Whelford area in the county of Gloucestershire "following the declaration of a major incident," a police statement said.
"The Army's specialist explosive ordnance disposal team are currently examining a number of vehicles," the statement said
Whelford is close to the Royal Air Force base at Fairford which has been used by US B-1 bombers involved in targeting Iran and is a forward operating location for US Global Strike Command, which is tasked with managing long-distance strikes.
A US air force spokesperson at Fairford - where the 501st Combat Support Wing is based - told CNN: "For operational security reasons we will not discuss specific force protection measures."
The unit "remains vigilant and will take appropriate actions to ensure the safety and security of our US service members, civilians, contractors, and their families," the spokesperson said.
The threat level at RAF Fairford has been raised to Delta. The threat level at RAF Lakenheath, which is also used by the USAF, has been raised to Charlie.
Threat level Delta suggests that there was prior intelligence to the potential attack and there is a large police presence deployed around the base.
As yet there has been no statement attributing the disrupted attack to any specific nation or organisation.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqrm99mm9l84o
UK counter-terrorism police are leading an investigation in which several men were arrested on suspicion of explosives offences near an RAF station which hosts the United States Air Force (USAF).
An Army explosive ordnance disposal team has been examining vehicles near RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and homes in the nearby village of Whelford have been evacuated while investigations continue, police said.
The men were detained early on Sunday and a Hazardous Area Response Team has been deployed inside a security cordon at the base but officers believe the incident is contained.
The base has been recently used to deploy USAF bombers since the country's conflict in Iran began in February.
In March, four USAF bombers landed at RAF Fairford and the US started using British bases for "specific defensive operations" against Iranian missile sites after then prime minister Sir Keir Starmer granted permission for "defensive" US action from UK bases.
A government spokesperson said Prime Minister Andy Burnham was receiving regular updates on the evolving situation.
A police statement has just been made (13:56 BST):
Three suspicious white vans were reported by a telephone call to be heading towards the Fairford area at 12:45 am
Police stopped the vehicles and have detained 5 men, who remain in custody. They are held under suspicion of committing offences related to the Explosives Act.
The vehicles are being investigated by a military Explosive Ordnance Disposal team.
The police have just announced that the 5 detained men have been further charged with preparation of a terrorist act. [Corrected at 1427BST--JR]
[UPDATE Source: BBC] The police have announced that the 5 detained men are all UK nationals in their 20s.
Source: BBC Television.
The UK Police have announced that all 5 men arrested in connection with the suspected terrorist attack attempt at RAF Fairford are UK nationals in their 20s from the London area.
For previous reporting see: https://soylentnews.org/breakingnews/article.pl?sid=26/09/27/115249
The Head of Counter Terrorism Police (CTP) has given an public announcement at 15:45 BST:
The 5 individuals who have been arrested are being released on police bail with significant restrictions on who they may contact, on reporting regularly and movement. They remain under investigation.
They are currently being released while remaining under charges relating to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). No mention was made relating to earlier charges.
The CTP have numerous new leads that they are following. They are keeping an open mind about who might ultimately be behind the attempt. They stress that it must be remembered that individuals may be used as proxies without necessarily knowing who is directing the attempt, or even knowing that they were being manipulated.
The alert states at both Fairford and Lakenheath remain as previously announced.
The Head of CTP stated that the alert was raised by 2 phone calls made by civilians. Nothing was said about any prior intelligence.
The latest statement by the CTP (19:25BST 29 Sep 2026):
No explosives were found in the vehicles used by the 5 men arrested near RAF Fairford. A quantity of vehicle fuel was found. Searches of the homes of the 5 men have not revealed anything significant to the investigation.
Without any further evidence the individuals were released on bail. The decision was based on insufficient evidence to justify holding the 5 offenders longer although they could always be re-arrested if it is subsequently justified, and 'strategic' considerations. The investigation is continuing with close liaison between the relevant security agencies in the UK, and with the US.
Source: BBC (07:01BST 30 Sep 2026)
One of the 5 men arrested in connection with the incident near RAF Fairford had phoned the police (999) himself.
Source BBC Television News: (17:18 BST 30 Sep 2026)
The Prime Minister has stated that the UK now believe that Iran was linked to the attempted attack on RAF Fairford.
The Iranian Ambassador has strongly denied any connection with the incident.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Wednesday September 30, @04:37PM (32 children)
This is bullshit.
It's much more likely that they were just trying to steam some diesel fuel.
This is the UK government lying.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday September 30, @04:41PM
*steal, not steam.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 30, @04:43PM (26 children)
Yeah, and a hint to the submitter, war mongering propaganda is not breaking news.
(Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Wednesday September 30, @05:15PM (25 children)
It isn't propaganda. It is news that is being reported. The UK is not making any claims or statements until they have the evidence to back it up. It appears that they now have. You don't have to read it, but this has major implications for the UK. If they now have evidence of Iranian involvement should they simply ignore it? What action should they take? If you personally wish to believe the Iranian side then you are welcome to do so. Your support to them will probably not change the UK government's decisions in the future, nor will your own government take your views into account. They don't appear to have done so this far, have they?.
The people who were arrested may well have arrived there intending to steal fuel. Neither you nor I have any idea if they met anyone else before the police arrived. We do not know if anything was unloaded from the vans before the police arrived. They were released on bail because they may well have been unwittingly used and did not realise what was actually happening until they were at the site where they were arrested. One of the 5 arrested made the first phone call to the police at 12:45am. The female farmer's phone call was 45 minutes later. Why would he do that? Perhaps he realised that all was not what they had thought it was.
Your speculation remains just that - speculation. You have no evidence to support your beliefs at all. All you have is B*llsh*t!". I am reporting what is being reported by UK media. You do not have to read any of the updates.
(Score: 4, Touché) by epitaxial on Wednesday September 30, @05:25PM (3 children)
If these were actual terrorists then they wouldn't be out on bail.
(Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Wednesday September 30, @07:03PM (2 children)
If they are all Micky Muggins who have been conned into doing something that wasn't what they thought they were doing, and if there is no evidence to prove this fact without additional investigations, then there is nothing to justify holding them in UK law while those investigations are being carried out. It would also explain why one of them phoned the police himself at 12:45am. We may have only learned of this fact today, but the CTP may have known it since the arrests were made. One has to be careful not to force evidence or facts to comply with one's own preconceived beliefs.
The UK does not detain people indefinitely without evidence to justify it and a legal system that authorises it. The normal limit is 48 hours.
Perhaps there is just one member of the 5 who were detained that the police/CTP are interested in. His actions if he thinks he is free might be just what they want to see. The CTP said quite clearly, and I reported it, that there were "strategic" reasons for the 5 being released on bail.
(Score: 5, Informative) by epitaxial on Wednesday September 30, @07:33PM (1 child)
The UK can hold suspected terrorists for up to 14 days without charges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday October 01, @09:08AM
Only if they have sufficient evidence to present to a judge which would justify them being held for 14 days. They don't appear to have that evidence. That doesn't mean that they haven't committed an offence, but it might not be covered by a charge of terrorism.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 30, @05:56PM (16 children)
>It isn't propaganda. It is news that is being reported.
When does there stop being a difference.
Has the UK statement offered any evidence, or just their public position/opinion?
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Wednesday September 30, @06:48PM (7 children)
I wouldn't necessarily expect them to do so at this stage. That doesn't mean it does not exist. There is still an active investigation taking place involving numerous security agencies in the UK including MI5, MI6, GCHQ, DIA, CTP, and several different police forces. The absence of evidence being presented now might be in order to protect the source, but there are other possible reasons too. Perhaps you forget what I was doing for the last 20 years or so of my career in Bosnia, Iraq, Russia,Belarus, Gibraltar, and elsewhere. I do know how the system works though and I have faith in those who now work in the same and related professions. They are not employed to produce propaganda - they are there to uncover facts that are important for our security in some form or other.
Every story we publish on this site is taken from media of some kind. Why you believe some and not others is your personal view. However, a crisis that affects both of our countries and many others is it closure of the Straits of Hormuz and the failure to resolve the differences between the US and Iran. It affects many of our lives, all of the technology we depend upon which requires energy, employment, the cost of living, and so on. It is relevant to this site in my opinion. Iran taking action on UK soil will create another problem which will further hinder the resolution which must eventually occur if we are to move forward. You may disagree.
However, I accept that not every story will interest every member of our community. They are each clearly marked and people are free to skip over any story if they choose to do so.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 30, @07:05PM (2 children)
Well of course, nobody expects you to stab your colleagues in the back, but faith is the key word. I don't share that faith considering the history of corruption in all of human politics.
It's not that I find the story uninteresting, it's that there is good reason to believe it's not true. We have been lied into too many wars to take the "news" at face value. Today's propaganda is designed to manipulate financial markets and public opinion more than it is to accurately report events. I'm one of those people who believes that opinions belong in the editorial section of the newspapers, not on the front page.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday September 30, @07:24PM
I apologise, I didn't realise that someone was forcing you to read it. The Breaking News does not replace our usual stories. If you would prefer to see more stories of topics you agree with please submit them.
We report all sorts of stories with political implications that affect us all. Flock cameras, the hacking of sites which lose millions of Americans' personal data, the actions of politicians of all persuasions when it directly affects our lives, where the next data centres are being built, rare earth metals, etc
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 30, @07:27PM
>We have been lied into too many wars to take the "news" at face value.
I would say: especially in times of "war" (local, "world," hot, cold, tactical, strategic, overt, covert, cyber, super, class, race, any kind of war really) the expectation is that information given to the news media is given first for advantage in the conflict, only resembling truth in ways where stories from other sources will serve to further said advantage by confirming and/or denying the information given. In other words: trust your eyes and ears, and trust others to distort and outright lie where they think it is to their advantage. The first job of intelligence agencies is to conceal themselves, then expose others - their duty to the truth stops in their classified need-to-know reports - and even those can't be 100% implicitly trusted: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-cia-official-gold-bars-plea-deal-talks/ [cbsnews.com]
To the mods: I don't mind SN following the story at all, any news - even mouthpiece releases that say nothing of substance - is still news and as you say it's not a trivial story, at least on the surface. My personal opinion hasn't been swayed from the position that this story is almost certainly manufactured for effect, but that doesn't mean it won't have real consequences.
Also to the mods: if you want to follow recent "hot news" maybe there's an interesting story behind why this event https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/9/30/flydubai-flight-to-israel-diverted-to-saudi-arabia-after-emergency-alert [aljazeera.com] suddenly disappeared from https://old.reddit.com/r/all/ [reddit.com]
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Wednesday September 30, @07:37PM
I believe that the BBC's reporting is correct. I just don't believe the claim from the British government.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Whoever on Wednesday September 30, @10:33PM (2 children)
"Appeal to Authority" fallacy detected. Except we have no way to verify that you actually have some authority on this topic.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 01, @01:33AM
So you aren't qualified to have an opinion on argument from authority fallacies? Interesting.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Thursday October 01, @08:03AM
Not at all, I am merely reporting what I am getting from other sources. I retired 19 years ago. I no longer have access to current intelligence information other than occasional personal contact with friends who are still in the business, and after 19 years they are now few and far between. I do have experience of the 'system' and how to interpret what I read and what is said. I also know how to use OSInt which is available to everyone.
We all do the same. This site is based on people with different experiences and levels of expertise. They are able to inform others about what is happening and why in their own specialist fields or through their own life experiences. So if your claim is true then everyone on this site is doing precisely the same thing at some point or other. Here we quickly learn who has specific expertise in a subject and who is able to provide additional insight to the topic of discussion. If you have spent many years writing code then you probably have something to offer when the topic comes up for discussion. My career path was very different.
The difference in this case is that I am simply repeating what has been reported elsewhere in the form of updates to TFS. I can also suggest in comments why some things are not yet being revealed or why, for example, the 5 people are now currently released on bail. There is nothing to justify them being held any longer but they may still be involved with a very serious matter in which they were patsies. For example, we know that the 'police' searched each of their homes prior to them being released. We do not know what might have been done inside those houses during the 'searches'. They could be under physical, visual, video, and electronic 24hr surveillance. All of this would be entirely legal if it has been authorised by a judge as part of the investigation.
As far as I am aware, nobody on this site currently has access to the details of the investigation. Comments are only personal opinions on the subject. That doesn't mean the topic isn't worth discussing nor are comments any less important.
Nobody, on here or in official reporting, is going to reveal secrets to the public which might reveal sensitive sources and methods - well not without being charged under the Official Secrets Act (or the US equivalent) if they do so.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Snotnose on Wednesday September 30, @11:13PM (7 children)
Well, they let the "terrorists" out on bail. That speaks volumes.
Being the dumbest idiot in the land and president of the US should be 2 different people.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 30, @11:47PM (5 children)
The story they are promoting for that is that the guys on the ground were dumb patsies... I'm picking up a vibe of "mysterious actor who we say is Iran recruited these guys to go do something they thought was like stealing fuel or something and the guys went and got the vans and drove around the base a bit, got cold feet and bailed into the woods before actually doing anything illegal..."
Whether it's IRGC-IO, MOIS, CIA or MI6 behind the actual recruiting is going to be impossible to actually know. "Proof" may be shown, but it's more likely to be manufactured than independently verified.
Did the vans actually have something more nefarious than fuel containers in them? It's going to be hard to make anything really convincing stick. If it's C4 or other advanced explosives, how the fuck did bozos like these get that? You'd have to show that foreign operatives active inside the UK are playing with those kinds of toys. If it's meant to look like the bozos could have set it up themselves, there's not enough empty space in the vans (as I've heard the vague descriptions) for something like a fertilizer bomb that would do significant damage.
Then we've got the news helicopters showing live footage of the placement of US aircraft on the field - brilliant work guys...
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Thursday October 01, @03:04AM (1 child)
They had no explosives.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 01, @03:27AM
So you were there, you got a good look inside all the vans?
Reports, so far, say they had no explosives.
Three vehicles isn't enough to set a Satanic Pentagram, so what terrorist act is it that they were supposedly unwittingly committing?
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday October 01, @08:15AM (2 children)
Visit almost any military base in the UK. The public can walk up to the perimeter fence in most cases and there are often public roads around the bases. Airfields tend to be flat. In Fairford this is especially so - it is 2 miles of flat runway. The aircraft can be seen from almost anywhere on the perimeter. They taxi within 50 meters of the fence too in some places. You could probably throw stones at them.
If the US want to obstruct the view they could always build some kind of visual screens I suppose.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 01, @12:19PM (1 child)
>If the US want to obstruct the view they could always build some kind of visual screens I suppose.
Got any construction contractor friends of Trump enterprises over there? This whole thing could be pretense for building another wall...
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 01, @07:00PM
Only if he can put his name on it
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday October 02, @08:27AM
Perhaps they identified him by watching the 5 who had been released - but that is pure speculation on my part.
If the police had said earlier that they were looking for a dual nationality UK/Iranian person he wouldn't have stayed where he was. Best not to tell the public too much.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday September 30, @07:35PM (1 child)
LOL.
This is the UK's security services. They deal in lies. That's when they are not being infiltrated for decades by spies for Russia.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday October 02, @08:37AM
It is a two-way street. See for example, Col Oleg Gordievsky [wikipedia.org] (KGB) et al [wikipedia.org]. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Krotkov, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Lyalin, [wikipedia.org] " rel="url2html-15808">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Alekseyevich_Oshchenko)
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Thursday October 01, @07:48PM (1 child)
It is propaganda though. If they don't know they shouldn't be publicizing it as a terrorist plot. It went from them going to try to blow up a military institution, to there being no explosives located. That's kind of a big difference and completely avoidable.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday October 01, @09:46PM
If you are referring to the combined UK security services they never did say it was a terrorist plot. Their statements were always factual and often brief and lacking in detail. The arrests were for "Suspicion" of offences under the Explosives Act, and subsequently "Suspicion" of offences under the Terrorism Act. At no point did either of those alleged offences change to positive confirmation. However, the police and security services treat any similar event as a possible terrorist attack - i.e they presented an armed response, they ensured that none of the 5 arrested was wearing a suicide vest, and they requested the EOD specialists to check the vehicles and their contents etc.
Once they knew more about what was happening (and they will have known much more than we were ever going to be told) the 5 detained were released on police bail. They were undoubtedly committing an offence but it was not related to the Terrorism Act, otherwise they could have held them for 14 days. The first public statements that claimed that it was a 'confirmed' terrorist attack were made by Trump and Rubio. If they were correct it seems that it was information that had not been shared with the UK. We do not know if that information has now been shared with the UK, or whether the UK have found additional evidence to support that belief as the investigation has progressed - hence the UK PM saying what he has said . The delay could easily be explained by awaiting the analysis of the telephones that the 5 detained were carrying, and having the appropriate organisations check for evidence in recent communications. We still do not know - nor will we probably ever be told - what that analysis may have revealed. As I have pointed out: nobody is going to compromise sources and methods as such things are highly classified.
There were many pronouncements in the press and even in discussions here making similar claims but as I repeatedly stated there was nothing to support those claims that was being made public - it was entirely speculation. And we were repeatedly asked not to speculate which some here took as a bizarre confirmation that it was a terrorist attack or otherwise propaganda.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by epitaxial on Wednesday September 30, @05:02PM (1 child)
So many strange details and we're only getting bits and pieces. Now they say one of the men called 999 on himself an hour before the farmer did. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqn8m342rgk9o [bbc.com]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday October 02, @09:00AM
The police have recently arrested a dual national (UK/Iran) man from the London area. Perhaps he was their target when they considered the release of the 5.
As we do not know exactly when the arrest took place, it is possible that he was already in custody when Andy Burnham made his statement on Wednesday. The delay in announcing it could be to prevent others (handler? contacts?) from knowing that he was in custody. Or it might turn out to be another dead-end.
We will have to wait for another piece of the jigsaw puzzle to fall into place.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 01, @01:44AM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday October 01, @01:01PM
We should wait, before making accusations of terrorism. However, I think it's going to be a long wait for the evidence.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday September 30, @04:59PM (5 children)
From the wikipedia article about this non-story:
Wow, its pure propaganda. Wild. You should be scared and not discuss or think about it, just be scared as you believe everything we tell you, despite our being known liars. For pretty much no reason other than authoritarians say so.
In the USA there's a long proud tradition of false flags, people coerced by FBI agents into doing stuff, etc. In the UK apparently they don't even bother faking it, just here comes 100 dB of endless rounds of fear mongering. I guess it saves money over actually doing something, or encouraging others to do stuff, staging, or even planting evidence? Are UK people really that lazy that when they do a false flag they can't be bothered to put down the fish and chips and ... actually do it?
I think the situation is good because it dramatically reduces trust in the government and legacy media. You can see who's a bootlicker by how strongly they lick the apparently empty boot.
So lets see... Don't trust anything Burnham says. Don't trust The Wall Street Journal. Don't trust the BBC. Don't trust CNN. Don't trust the New York Times. Don't trust Farage. Don't trust the independent. Don't trust The Guardian. Don't trust Bloomberg but they're just a press release publishing service anyway. Don't trust AP news.
The Washington Post shockingly doesn't seem to have gotten it wrong, which is odd. The Spectator has a pretty good article making fun of the police for Fing up and trying to cover up their mistake by chanting "terrorism" over and over.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 30, @05:05PM (4 children)
So what news are we supposed to trust mister smooth brain?
(Score: 0, Touché) by VLM on Wednesday September 30, @05:53PM (1 child)
Thats a "you" problem not a "me" problem. If you're stressed about it, you should DEFINITELY 'believe' in the sites we know are pushing known falsehoods, as long as it calms and tranquilizes you, which is not necessarily the best philosophical strategy to determine "the truth", but, you do you.
That said, I think I covered it in my last paragraph, to my utter surprise given my extremely low expectations of the WashPo and The Spectator, they don't seem to get it completely wrong. They have plenty of time to mess it up. Once in a while a blind dog finds a bone, or maybe those two aren't as awful as I've come to expect. I'm actually kind of shocked the WashPo didn't screw this up, well, not yet.
At this point, in 2026, anyone who believes anything legacy media says, pretty much deserves what happens to them as a result, LOL.
I tried looking at the WashPo and I couldn't find anything but paywall and TDS clickbait so maybe its a "blind dog finds a bone once in a while" situation or an outright mistake if they accidentally posted something accurate. Time will tell.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 01, @03:40PM
Where do you get your news? Is it a secret?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday September 30, @09:16PM
Usually when someone claims "you can't trust anyone" they are trying to get you to not listen to anyone except them. And you can normally expect them to be lying through their teeth at you.
Everyone is not lying to you. However, they are going to be putting their own spin on the story.
VLM is partially correct: you shouldn't trust any of them at face value. If a story is written in a way that is causing an emotional reaction odds are good that it's propaganda. Stories that look to be conveying factual information are of value.
YMMV of course.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 30, @09:24PM
You may, of course, believe any news you read. Or whatever blurb comes across from mainstream media. Or you can believe your favorite podcaster. Maybe "Mr. Smoothbrain" doesn't believe any of them. If so, then "Mr. Smoothbrain" is somewhere close to my camp.
(Score: 2) by Frosty Piss on Wednesday September 30, @06:08PM (5 children)
And yet they released these inept clowns on bail? This alone shows the whole thing is bullshit
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bloodnok on Thursday October 01, @12:35AM (3 children)
Or it could be that they don't have enough evidence to hold them. Being inept, and/or gullible, and/or clownish is not a crime. In the UK it doesn't even qualify you for high office.
As for the rest: It makes sense for the police to go in hard in order to arrest these folks - a bunch of large vans parked outside a military base with men behaving oddly absolutely should elicit a response. That may have even been the point. It also makes sense that anti-terrorist squads would be leading the charge. If anyone finds any of that surprising please email me at /dev/null.
Since the men were released within 48 hours, it is very likely that no explosives or weapons were found so there would be no likelihood of making a terrorist charge stick. If there were weapons or explosives found, no cop who wants to keep their job would release these men. None of this is inconsistent with the evidence that we have seen, or the statements that have been released.
You don't have to believe the police statements but generally UK police forces avoid sensationalism and deliberate untruths. They are often wrong but they usually try to avoid subsequently looking stupid.
The only thing thing I am aware of being reported that may not be true is about Iranian involvement, and the reports I have seen do not say that there was but that there may have been.
So, I do not accept the "it's clearly bullshit" view. We do not know enough to know what is going on. It may eventually turn out to be bullshit but there is no "clearly" about it.
__
The major
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 01, @02:23AM (1 child)
But they somehow have enough evidence to say this?
With similar amount of evidence I can say it was the Mossad too.
After all, dragging the UK into the Iran war will be what the Mossad want.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday October 02, @09:03AM
See the update....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 01, @12:22PM
>They (UK police) are often wrong but they usually try to avoid subsequently looking stupid.
Unlike ICE who seem to display their "we're stoopid and proud of it" flags at every opportunity.
(Score: 2) by hopdevil on Thursday October 01, @12:57AM
My guess it is a similar situation to this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx21y204zz4o [bbc.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 01, @12:04AM
Yea.. they drove a hundred miles to steal some diesel from this one farm that happened to be next to a military base. Bets on these guys magically disappearing? Nobody will ever knooooow.