It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: Iran Forces Seize US Cargo Ship With 34 People On Board

page: 16
61
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   
IT'S HAPPENING!




posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrPlow
IT'S HAPPENING!


The false flag? Yes, that's correct. It is happening.

Again.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Take it slowly without so much conjecture. Fired Upon, and Firing across the bow are two different things. Firing across the bow (at a safe distance) is marine etiquette that says to stop, you are going to be boarded, or leave the area immediately.
I would imagine that aboard that vessel there could be a load of ELINT, and if so, a problemo. But we will know that soon enough.
edit on 28-4-2015 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 12:07 AM
link   
"Israel must be wiped off the map." [¹]


¹Paraphrased, liberally, for dramatic effect.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
Take it slowly without so much conjecture. Fired Upon, and Firing across the bow are two different things. Firing across the bow (at a safe distance) is marine etiquette that says to stop, you are going to be boarded, or leave the area immediately.
I would imagine that aboard that vessel there could be a load of ELINT, and if so, a problemo. But we will know that soon enough.


Firing across the bow isn't being friendly it is firing on the craft. It is a warning to the captain the next soit is at you. Has nothing to do with etiquette and in fact exactly the opisit it us a hostile act and a threat.Firing across the bow is being fired on it is a hostile intent.
edit on 4/29/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 12:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: charlyv
Take it slowly without so much conjecture. Fired Upon, and Firing across the bow are two different things. Firing across the bow (at a safe distance) is marine etiquette that says to stop, you are going to be boarded, or leave the area immediately.
I would imagine that aboard that vessel there could be a load of ELINT, and if so, a problemo. But we will know that soon enough.


Firing across the bow isn't being friendly it is firing on the craft. It is a warning to the captain the next soit is at you. Has nothing to do with etiquette and in fact exactly the opisit it us a hostile act and a threat.


Not really friend. It is maritime etiquette. What ever that vessel demands is still conjecture. Read maritime international law. It is not necessarily a hostile act unless a round is actually fired broadside on the vessel.

While it is not likely in this scenario, there are cases of a vessel firing across the bow of a ship that could not be contacted by radio, that was headed into a reef. I am not making this up.
edit on 29-4-2015 by charlyv because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: charlyv
I'll add ... it is communication in absence of other means of communication, or the unwillingness of the vessel receiving such a warning to respond to other communication means.

We would have done the same if the vessel was in our waters on a bearing opposite of its declared port.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: charlyv
Take it slowly without so much conjecture. Fired Upon, and Firing across the bow are two different things. Firing across the bow (at a safe distance) is marine etiquette that says to stop, you are going to be boarded, or leave the area immediately.
I would imagine that aboard that vessel there could be a load of ELINT, and if so, a problemo. But we will know that soon enough.


Firing across the bow isn't being friendly it is firing on the craft. It is a warning to the captain the next soit is at you. Has nothing to do with etiquette and in fact exactly the opisit it us a hostile act and a threat.


Not really friend. It is maritime etiquette. What ever that vessel demands is still conjecture. Read maritime international law. It is not necessarily a hostile act unless a round is actually fired broadside on the vessel.


It is a warning shot it tells the captain 1 thing next shot is going to sink you. That is why the sos went out and the US went over to take a look. The captain messed up missed his turn however in the straight of hormuz he was there legally according to the UN.The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was done when territorial waters expanded from 3 NM to 12NM. Basically states that on the event of coerce through a straight a captain can indeed enter territorial waters unhindered. Apparently Iran wss unaware of this and the reason the captain didn't want to stop.

So the argument will be doesthe United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea cover the captain. IF so Iran violated international law.
edit on 4/29/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
It is a warning shot it tells the captain 1 thing next shot is going to sink you. That is why the sos went out and the US went over to take a look.

Warning shots can be used, as noted, when ships are not communicating and a Navy wishes to confirm its flag, or sees that vessel as a threat. Every Navy understands this and it is professional.
Wiki

During the 18th Century, a warning shot (in nautical terms, often called a shot across the bow) could be fired towards any ship whose "colours" (nationality) had to be ascertained. According to the law of the sea, a ship thus hailed had to fly her flag and confirm it with a gunshot. Warning shots may still be used in modern times to signal a vessel to stop or keep off and may be fired from other ships, boats, or aircraft.



The captain messed up missed his turn however in the straight of hormuz he was there legally according to the UN.The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was done when territorial waters expanded from 3 NM to 12NM. Basically states that on the event of coerce through a straight a captain can indeed enter territorial waters unhindered. Apparently Iran wss unaware of this and the reason the captain didn't want to stop.

So the argument will be doesthe United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea cover the captain. IF so Iran violated international law.

If we go by this, if this is her actual track: Iran had every right to do what they did, that ship would no longer be in the strait, and would in fact, be entirely within Iranian TTW, on a bearing completely opposite of its intended port, which would be viewed as suspected hostile.

originally posted by: voyger2
Route and site of detention for the vessel.

source

International waters (green) spot of interception (red)




edit on 4/29/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/29/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

No has nothing to do with being in territorial waters in a straight under international law a ships captain can indeed enter territorial waters. Ad I said thus was in acted by the UN when they expanded territorial waters. Prior to this that ship would have been in internatuonal waters up until they made it turn towards Iran.So did Iran violate international law can't say yet sure it will come up. But assuming the captain is nit a total bone head he obviously felt Iran had no right to board. And they are required to know the laws so I think this was Oran Just Flexing Their muscles. HONESTLY PROBABLY THOUGHT IT WAS US registry.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
If that vessel was intercepted off the coast of Larak Island (which has artillery and ASCM) it is no longer "in the strait" and is in Iranian TTW. The shipping lanes is where ships are permitted to traverse, not further into either Oman's or Iran's TTW unless prior permission is obtained. The vessel, was not in the transit lanes, hence Iran's reaction. At this point, it is not a matter of discussion of freedom of navigation. It is, did that vessel, in fact, go off course out of transit lanes (which is not safe) and enter Iranian TTW (also not safe)? That is the question that needs to be answered.

I am telling you all this as matter of factly, as in, I have done these things, have been through the strait dozens of times.

edit on 4/29/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/29/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/29/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: dragonridr
If that vessel was intercepted off the coast of Larak Island (which has artillery and ASCM) it is no longer "in the strait" and is in Iranian TTW. The shipping lanes is where ships are permitted to traverse, not further into either Oman's or Iran's TTW unless prior permission is obtained. The vessel, was not in the transit lanes, hence Iran's reaction. At this point, it is not a matter of discussion of freedom of navigation. It is, did that vessel, in fact, go off course out of transit lanes (which is not safe) and enter Iranian TTW (also not safe)? That is the question that needs to be answered.

I am telling you all this as matter of factly, as in, I have done these things, have been through the strait dozens of times.


Exactly what I said that will be determined if they had the right to be there under UN law. Than there is the fact if a Comercial ship strays into TTW you can board but you don't take them to port unless something wad found. They were supposed to escort him back to the shipping lane again see UN.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

You can show me?



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: charlyv




I would imagine that aboard that vessel there could be a load of ELINT, and if so, a problemo. But we will know that soon enough.

what makes you think that and why?



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Real Time Sat feed (non-civilian folks) - 2 hrs ago, vessel at anchor..........




posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft
In a sense, I kind of miss those waters.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: charlyv




I would imagine that aboard that vessel there could be a load of ELINT, and if so, a problemo. But we will know that soon enough.

what makes you think that and why?


-The disinformation campaign being pushed by Saudi Arabia.
-The US Navy's reaction to Iran exercising it's territorial rights.

Something is fishy here. And yes, this kind of cloak and dagger stuff is more common than people realize..



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: clay2 baraka
It would not be the first time we put ELINT on a commercial ship, but this would be rather provocative and I doubt we would do it. Besides, we can collect really good ELINT in the gulf, the atmospherics of the area allow the signals to be picked up easier. We also have a very good sense of island and coastal site activity in that area ... it is further inland that we don't get near 24/7 coverage, only by satellite ... and the occasional drone or two.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: dragonridr

You can show me?

www.un.org...



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: clay2 baraka
It would not be the first time we put ELINT on a commercial ship, but this would be rather provocative and I doubt we would do it. Besides, we can collect really good ELINT in the gulf, the atmospherics of the area allow the signals to be picked up easier. We also have a very good sense of island and coastal site activity in that area ... it is further inland that we don't get near 24/7 coverage, only by satellite ... and the occasional drone or two.


No don't think they were spying suspect the captain wasn't paying attention or thought he was going to avoid traffic by skirting Iran. If he chose this route he can't enter within 3 NM of coast.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join