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.

 

Pentagon: 2 U.S. Navy Boats Held by Iran Military

page: 7
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

They weren't necessarily near the island. They were just inside Iranian waters and the closest base must be on that island. If you look at where it sits on a map it looks like it smack dab in the middle of the Gulf




posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

According to the Pentagon they were training at the same time. The French battle group was supposedly near the area, so they may have been practicing interception and boarding with one of those ships. That would have moved them around the area instead of going in a straight line.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I get that, and I accept it. However...

Dropping a nuclear weapon on Spain is a mistake.

Crossing into hostile territorial waters with a US flagged armed riverine patrol boat, which shouldn't have been anywhere near Iranian waters, is a lot more than a mistake.

Just saying.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The information available does seem rather sketchy, and I doubt the Pentagon is going to want to be too detailed in public about what happened.

Still, I would really like to know just happened out there. Maybe the Navy Times or USNI will scoop it at some point.

Lettuce prey.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Except when you're in an area where you throw a rock and it lands on their territory. Crossing into their waters can still be an accident.
edit on 1/13/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Just saw a video of the sailors passports being examined by the Iranians. Why would they have them on that small boat? An ID sure, but passports?



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
This is a question for the Navy types on ATS. If a vessel becomes disabled, in international waters or anywhere for that matter, then the "general prudential rule" applies, yes? This means that all vessels must respond to aid the distressed vessel and give aid. If the second US boat was giving aid to the boat that had broken down, then the Iranian boats were interfering with the general prudential rule. By detaining these boats, it further violated international maritime law.

I'm an old army type, so my understanding of these things are very limited. Please, don't beat me up too badly.
edit on 13-1-2016 by buddah6 because: OLD AGE



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Loadstain

They were moving between two countries. They still have to go through customs when they arrive.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: moresco

Here is a definition of Iran's Maritime claims as recognized by international law


Iran's Maritime Claims



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: buddah6

There are all sorts of exceptions to this, particularly relating to military vessels. I posted a link above which lists some of these exceptions. The issue becomes much more complicated when the vessel is not in international water which appears to be the case here.

edit...Besides, to the best of my knowledge there has been no contention by the US that either craft was rendering aid, nor that they were in International waters. Had this been the case we'd have a far different matter on our hands.




edit on 1/13/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: ReadLeader

Training mission... drifted into Iranian waters.

Yup, sounds like a bad movie plot.


Who writes this stuff?

No, I'm not doubting that Iran has two US Navy boats, I'm talking about the cover story as to why they were there in the first place.



First - They have been released..

Second - Between countries that are not at war, high seas protocol is to assist vessels in distress, not arrest. This was the IRG (Iranian Revolutionary Guard) who is at odds with the moderates in government in Iran who pushed for the recent deal with the USA etc. This was gross overreach to take the vessel at gunpoint and detain them, even for a day..But this was more about Iranian in-fighting between the IRG and Gov, then it was the USA.

Third - Yes...looking at CNN video, this vessel was small, fast and armed to the teeth. US Military Vessels don't just drift that long and far and into Iranian waters without assistance from other US vessels etc. 100% Agree on this being a cover story. Given the details and what I see I would hypothesize this was an attempted extraction of an Iranian intelligence asset. It's open secret that the CIA has a good number of significant assets within the Iranian gov and military. They were there to meet and extract an Iranian asset whose cover has likely been blown or is about to be, but the guy never showed up. Just my opinion.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Pretty cool. Not sure what your point is? From the maps in the PDF it looks like it's reasonable that if they lost power they could have drifted in to Iranian waters...even close to Farsi Island

Thanks for the doc though. It's pretty interesting




posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Agreed, but to your second point, it wouldn't appear they were under High Seas rule (i.e. in International Waters) at the time the incident occurred.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Indigo5

Agreed, but to your second point, it wouldn't appear they were under High Seas rule (i.e. in International Waters) at the time the incident occurred.



Yes I misspoke. Not High Seas, but territorial waters. If not at war and a vessel suffers mechanical failure and drifts into your waters, protocol is to assist, not arrest.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I was unaware of the additional coastal waters claimed by Iran. Normally, the limit is 12 miles and Iran wants 24 miles which makes the gulf smaller than it is already.

I was under the impression that one boat had gone DIW. I should not have listened to the news media.


edit on 13-1-2016 by buddah6 because: OLD AGE



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Who knows?
This could have gone as planned by the US.
Some Second Class Petty Officer may actually be a civilian employee of a three letter outfit.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Iran knew better than to hold those sailors or that deal would be dead.That deal Obama did has to be one of the worst ever.Basically Iran will re-arm their terrorism and military and just lie about the uranium for nukes.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   



They didn't get their war on. The MIC is bummed.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

Iran Releases Footage Of US Sailors Being Detained

They were treated with great hospitality:



Dressed in camouflage uniforms, the sailors can be seen kneeling on the deck of the patrol boat, with hands on their heads.

They are then shown seated in a room, being given tea, bottled water and food by their Iranian hosts.


yournewswire.com...

twitter.com...
edit on 13-1-2016 by mekhanics because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: mekhanics

Seems its was all a misunderstanding and everyone did things by the book.

Well done both USA and Iran



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join