It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 01:38 PM

originally posted by: Jobeycool
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.
This post is a great testament to the fact that kids should stay in school . no offence .

"just lie about their uranium" as if uranium is a kellog's pop-tart and can be hidden from children's reach .

re-arm our terrorism ? lets just forward that to your allies in the region eg. saudi arabia , "moderate" syrian rebels .

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 02:20 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks Zaph, I had figured they would return to the base that they left from and wouldn't have needed them.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 02:22 PM
This shouldn't even belong in the WW3 forum... Everyone seems to be taking this event out of context, these actions by Iran are not a show of force or a lack of it on the US side. This is exactly how the LAW works, other countries are required by law to detain another states military vessels if they're in their waters, otherwise there's literally no point of having borders. Literally ANY country would have done this exact same thing, wish people would stop blowing it out of proportion.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 02:35 PM
a reply to: Schmuck

Not true. Military vessels have the right to pass through territorial waters as do non-military vessels, provided that they do nothing but transit through in a rapid manner, in a way that is not harmful to the security of the nation involved.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 03:02 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

I believe you are referring to "innocent passage," part of the UN's convention of territorial seas. I do not believe that would apply in this case, especially for the type of military craft detained.

Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

That Navy ship detained in this case is clearly "prejudicial to the peace," in spite of whatever excuses the Pentagon can come up with.

When I was active in the Navy we used to use right of innocent passage in the Black Sea near their sensitive bases, leading up to one incident (the 1988 Black Sea 'bumping') - and the Russians would do the same to us in the Florida Keys, claiming rights of innocent passage within our territorial waters. In either case we knew tacitly we were playing games of brinkmanship.

This latest incident with Iran however looks like something else.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 03:08 PM
For the record here:

(B) Innocent Passage Defined. A vessel’s passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of [State]. Passage of a foreign ship is prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of [State] if it engages in any of the following activities:

(1) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of [State];

(2) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

(3) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defense or security of [State];

(4) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defense or security of [State];

(5) launching, landing, or taking on board aircraft or any military device;

(6) loading or unloading any commodity, currency, or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary laws and directives of [State];

(7) any act of willful and serious pollution;

(8) any fishing activities;

(9) carrying out research or survey activities;

(10) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communications or any other facilities or installations of [State]; or,

(11) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 03:16 PM
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

I was replying to the comment that all military ships are stopped. Not this specific situation.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 04:35 PM
a reply to: crazyewok

There was no misunderstanding...our boats drifted into their waters. This should not have been allowed to happen under any circumstances. Why it happened is open for debate, but that it happened is not.

The boats in question are Swedish in origin. They are a model CB90. They are powered by twin 625hp diesel engines driving dual water jet propulsion units. They are 52 feel long and 12.5 feet wide with a displacement of 33-45,000 pounds. There is no way a mechanical problem should have allowed them to drift into Iran's waters. These boats are equipped with sophisticated satellite and VHF communications equipment. There is no way they should have lost radio contact with the 5th fleet.

By the book? No way!

I agree with your assessment that the Iranians behaved rather politely given the circumstances, but our boys shouldn't have allowed their boat(s) to get anywhere near their waters (unless they were ordered there by higher ups). Further, the "mechanical" problem is pretty dubious considering at least one craft was allegedly DIW (meaning both engines / propulsion units failed...and all communications gear was supposedly down)...yet they were able to motor away just fine on their own after being released. A mechanical problem that serious wouldn't resolve itself that quickly.

Not buying it.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 04:41 PM
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I'm not buying it either. Maybe I've watched too much Homeland, but this seems to be more than just a couple riverine crews had a mechanical issue and drifted.

Is it just me, or in the newly released videos of the sailors sitting on the rugs eating, does it look like some of them are drained (i.e. bags under eyes, quite skinny) given that they would generally be stationed on a larger ship or port?

Also - why the one female crew mate? How common would that be to see aboard a boat like this?

Finally - how come the one guy had white socks, totally out of regs?

I'm asking for expert opinion, because these things seemed peculiar to me.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 04:45 PM
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

So we are to believe 2(two) BRAND NEW boat in the US Navy just completely malfunctioned at the same time.
Geeze I guess the squids better tighten up on their acquisions...instead of buying lousy Swedish equipmentI(Sarcasm)
THERE is what I don't buy at all.
edit on 13-1-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 04:47 PM
a reply to: cavtrooper7

No. One did, the other stayed with it. Why is it so hard to believe? A brand new LCS made 20 hours before both engines failed and it had to be towed to port. The USS New York didn't last a lot longer before both shaft bearings failed.

I'd expect a new boat to break more than an older boat.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 04:55 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

That make s better sense, I can believe that.

I also think considering the given situation the Iranians play a few middle eastern "games" with the interview but it was all pretty straight forward.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 04:58 PM
What is really interesting here is that this was the Revolutionary Guards. These are the muscle for the hardliners in Iran. Why is that of interest? Just like in the USA, in Iran you have small group of hardliners who think that Iran can not trust the US, that they are giving away their only means of defense and that war is inevitable. Of course in the US it is that the US can not trust Iran, that Iran will some how get super powerful and that war is inevitable. In both nations of course the moderates have most of the power. And in both nations the hardliners would like to disrupt the nuke deal. Of course in both cases because they think they are making it easier for the other side. Kind of ironic. So the RG and its hard line backers could have made a big incident with this to such a point the Nuke Deal could be in doubt. They however did not. That is telling. Clearly the hard liners in Iran do not feel they are in a position of strength. It is no secret that the general population of Iran wants Western ties and because of that the Iranian military is considered not trust worthy and thus most of the funding goes to the RG. With this incident being allowed to pass it is a good sign that the moderates not only have popular support but, that the RG loyalties are suspect by the hardliners. It is interesting.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:00 PM
a reply to: cavtrooper7

I don't have an opinion on where the boats came from really. And I haven't read anywhere that both boats malfunctioned (only one). This leaves the other boat. Now, as unlikely as it is, let's just say the comm gear aboard the troubled boat did stop working (which is highly doubtful). The comm gear aboard the working boat would not have, so why didn't they radio the fleet and advise of their situation. Instead, there was 'loss of contact' prompting the Truman to send out aircraft on a search. C'mon, really? I've probably got a better chance at the lottery than that!

So let's take a hypothetical situation (giving the benefit of the doubt in numerous areas). Two CB90's with crew and weapons are transiting from Kuwait to Bahrain. Just for discussion let's say their commanders gave them a route which would pass very near Iranian waters (which would be very foolish for boats just transiting from point A to B, but anyway). In a stroke of misfortune both boats run into a huge sea kelp bed and completely foul the propulsion units (which can't really happen, but anyway). One boat manages to clear the obstructions and the other remains DIW. Why would neither boat radio their situation to command? Radio silence? If so, why...what could they be doing which would require radio silence? Hmmmmm....sure sounds fishy to me.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:03 PM
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I would have to more effectively understand the particulars of the operational doctrine, myself.
It still feels like a show somehow to me as well.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:13 PM
a reply to: MrSpad

I actually agree with you on this.

It does send a very interesting message doesn't it. Understanding who is actually in charge in Iran at any given time is difficult under even ordinary circumstances. This incident was far from ordinary, and their actual physical response seems very contrary to their usual saber rattling and antics.

Maybe, just maybe, this was the whole see what the IRG reaction would be. Seems damn risky though. Those sailors could just as easily been injured or killed (say had the Iranian troops fired on them from a distance and feigned ignorance afterwards.)

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

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:43 PM

There we go. The captain himself admits that it was a mistake and it was their own fault. Now I expect some people to watch the video and pull out a conspiracy theory saying that the sailors look like they've been interrogated and fear for their lives and everything they say has been premeditated.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:57 PM
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I still think failed extraction of an Iranian intelligence asset.

If they identify the 10 sailors fully I will retract, but looking at the pics I would peg the shaved head, well built sailor and the woman as alphabet agency "contractors".

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:02 PM
a reply to: Schmuck

Well, there we go...negligence. (although, of course he's going to say this...what else could he say??)

Like I first said...heads should roll. The Captain is responsible for his ship.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:29 PM

originally posted by: Azureblue

originally posted by: ReadLeader
This is concerning to me, more to follow - what in the world were they thinking, and what will our military make of this...

Iranian military forces seized two U.S. Navy boats and are holding them on the Irans Farsi Island in the middle of the Persian Gulf in custody, U.S. officials told NBC News.

Officials said it's unclear whether the 10 American sailors who were aboard one of the small riverine boat had strayed into Iranian territorial waters before they were captured. But

The officials said the Americans were on a training mission when their boat experienced mechanical difficulty and drifted into Iranian-claimed waters and were seized by Iranian Coast guard.

edit on 12-1-2016 by ReadLeader because:

Training mission? yea right, not a spying mission a ? Seems to me the Americans got sprung for spying.

My thought, too.

I would call it a training mission in spying.

Other thoughts I have about the event:

I would never underestimate how advanced Iranian offensive and defensive capabilities are. Plus, they are friends with Russia and Russia has the best military technology, from what I have surmised, and is willing to share some of their resources with friends. Iran and/or Russia must have been "surveilling" (not an official word) the Navy boats and may have zapped one to disable it. Now the U.S. Navy knows what Iran can do in such a situation. The two Navy boats found out they were not invisible after all.

In my perspective, Iran did the right thing and handled the situation in a gentlemanly fashion.


new topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in