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.

 

U.S. military reports "significant confrontation" between 5 Iranian vessels...

page: 13
26
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
This whole incident seems childish to me. The Iranians run up like they're gonna attack, and make immature empty threats and throw empty boxes(?) in the water, then run off with their tails between their legs when the warships start to get serious. Yeah, that's scary. What a joke.




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
It just goes to show the tremendous restraint the US Navy Used against the Iranian Navy.


I hope that is the case and not the captain being scared because it might cause an incident and he would get into trouble or the captain having his hands tied because of the rules of engagment being set by lawyers and politicians. IMO, this shows weakness to our enemies. We should have immediately destroyed their little boat, just in case. Look, if the Iranians cannot take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Here is a news clip with actual video of the event. This might help people draw some conclusions as to how hostile of an event this truly was.

Enjoy
VIDEO LINK



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Vinadetta
 


It's not that the final actions ended up being so hostile, is that they came at them, apparently not answering radio that was going on constantly, and dropped box's in the water, could have been a very hostile act. How did the Americans know they did not have 2000 pounds of explosives and going for a raming mission.

These could easily have been bombs and or mines.

It took remarkable restraint on the Americans side to not sink them when they saw them charging into them-the formation- in open international waters, much less when they dropped the box's in their path.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I was in the U.S. Navy for 10 years.
I escorted Kuwait Oil Tankers through the straight of Hormuz.
My ship was the U.S.S. Vandegrift FFG-48.
We can handle the Iranian navy no problem.
Just relax everyone.
The U.S. Navy knows what to do.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Pure Speculation:
those boxes contained detailed information on and locations of sensitive Iranian "targets"
End Speculation



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 


I agree, Bravo to the Americans.
They restrained, and it was the right move here.
Any other action is STUPID, and GunHo!

I think Cheney will be annoyed at his Navy, seems its the second time they've gone against his maniac ways '' the nukes across america, and now holding fire ''

these boats were on a ramming mission..
they wernt full of explosives.. thats the point.
Iran believed America would shoot these boats, if they appeared threatening.
And saying '' we're coing at you, you will explode '' is VERY threatening, being jetboat bombs are known about, and suicide missions are too.

the whiteboxes in the water is very very provocative.

This isnt good..... and it shows Iran are prepared for losses, and are prepared to take the next step.. they honestly believe western civilisation will be over once this war starts.

They must be confident for some reaosn.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Seems to me that this was either the Iranians checking out how the USA Navy would react, or a complete falsehood made to make the West think that Iran is being provocative, and so deserves to be attacked. Surely the USA Navy should have little to fear from a few cigarette boats that announce themselves and are in plain view.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:36 AM
link   

IRGC: US Navy audio, video fake
Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:51:52


IRGC says the US video of Sunday's incident in Hormuz Strait involving Iran patrol boats and US ships is archive footage and the audio is fake.

A member of the Navy Forces of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) told Press TV on Wednesday that the footage released by the US Navy had been compiled using file pictures and the audio had been fabricated.

Earlier Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said the incident was a normal identification request by the Iranian side.

Hosseini explained that exchanging messages to identify ships in the Persian Gulf is routine.

Washington earlier claimed that IRGC speedboats harassed three US Navy warships in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday.

The US Navy later released footage purportedly showing Iranian boats menacing US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf.

www.presstv.com...


------------------------------------
Added 'ex' tags and a link



[edit on 9/1/08 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   
"Hostile" Iranian Ships Hyped By War-Hungry Neo-Cons On Eve Of Bush Trip


PrisonPlanet

Numerous respected public figures, from Ron Paul to Zbigniew Brzezinski have warned that a Gulf of Tonkin style stunt could be pulled as a pretext for air strikes on Iran.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time the Bush administration has considered staging incidents as a justification for war. During Bush's January 31 2003 meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a scenario whereby Saddam Hussein would be goaded into shooting down a U2 spy plane painted in UN colors was discussed.

Who is provoking?

When playing "Cat and Mouse" it is good to know who the Cat is...

[edit on 9/1/08 by Souljah]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


in the 6 times around the world that anti ship missiles have been used against CIWS armed vessels the score is 5-1 to missiles - and 5 excuses as to why the system failed.


now thats against sub sonic weapons against super sonic its a totally different ball game and why gun based CIWS fails:


the maximum range of CIWS is 2000 yards and missile traveling at mach 3 or 2280 mph is *roughly* travelling at 1000 yards per second

so from maximum range you have 2 seconds

now the ciws rate of fire at max is 4500 rounds per minute (latest block 1a) which is 75 rounds per second.

so thats 150 rounds fired about a moving target trying to hit from 2/3rds of a mile away.

so the result? missile hits.

off topic
Agreed, common sense tells you that shooting a gun vs a mach 2.5 missle won't give you much room for error. Just look at how long it takes c-ram to take out an incoming mortar. Now imagine that mortar going twice the speed of sound. Would i htave the same effectiveness now. Now I do have questions for you about the phalanx and its failures. Did it fail because the incoming missiles were failed to be detected? Did they fire any shots at the missiles? How does the Sea-Ram compare?


on topic

Saying that America staged that is just insanity. I'm not an advocate of trusting everything the government says, but there has to be some limits. I believe people in this forum give the government far to much credit, in being able to do things that more then likely they can't are aren't doing. If all of this is staged there would be logistics involved. Someone somewhere would have seen the speed boat in question on the news and blew the whistle. How hard would it be to keep that secret if not everyone is not on board.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
In 1988 while serving in the US Navy I was personally involved in an almost identical incident with Iranian naval forces. The differences were:

a. It was night
b. My ship was on its own, escorting a single tanker
c. The Iranians didn't realize we were there with the tanker, until it was too late
d. We lit them up and drove them off

In case you didn't know, there are two parts of the Iranian Navy. The "regular" navy, which was originally trained and equipped by the west, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Forces (IRGC), who wer/are the radicals who took over after the Shah fell. Much like the Iranian Air Force, the Navy was/is well-trained and decently equipped. They understand things like right-to-navitation, rules of the road, and international maritime law. They were/are also not stupid, and never directly confronted US warships. When they did come near us, they went out of their way to be polite and friendly, as did we.

The IRGC, on the other hand, was/is a completely different ball of wax. Radical, fearless, and inventive, they terrorized the Gulf area for years until we started shooting at them. At first they used simple small arms like DShK machine guns and small rocket launchers to attack commercial vessels. They later invented a white phosphorus with armor piercing warhead for RPG-7 and RPG-16s, which they used to ignite raw crude oil in the large mega-tankers they would attack. They would also lay mines from converted fishing vessels, which were sometimes used as command vessels.

One thing to remember is that the IRGC was/is highly independent of most of the Iraninan military forces, kinda like a para-military political force. It could be very likely that this operation was conducted without the prior knowledge of the Iranian higher ups, and that it was meant to incite us into a response, to justify their position of hostility to the US. I would be willing to bet a steak dinner on the fact that the crew of those speedboats were only told to go out and pass close by to the US warships, and that the radio transmission originated from another point, maybe a close-by fishing vessel acting as a spotter/command ship, and that the whole incident (if shots were fired) would be played up as the US being overly aggressive. The crew of the speedboats could plead innocence, not knowing what their superiors had set them up to do.

All things considered, things like this probably happen all the time over there. They certainly did while I served in the Gulf, and 95% of those incidents went unreported in the press, mostly because the Iranians didn't like to advertise the fact that they got their butts kicked, and we didn't want to advertise the fact that we were playing cowboys and indians without congressional oversight. The IRGC probably got really lucky, however, this time.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Pyros
 




There you all have it.

A very rational explanation from someone that has been there, and one that doesn't automatically paint the U.S. as having made up the story or provoked the iranians.




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
d. We lit them up and drove them off

Thanks for the explanation of how it is over there, but when you say "lit them up", are you saying that you fired on them sometimes?

This does sound like it was a setup, and probably has only made the news because of the current tensions.

Have any idea what the deal was with the white boxes?



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


I believe "lit them up" could also mean painting them with your radar to let them know that you know they are there. Assuming they had a radar warning receiver to tell them you'd done that, of course.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 

He also said it happened at night so I thought maybe they used flares, but you and I both know this phrase is also used when shooting at someone. Just asking for clarification.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by greysave
 


system switched off (in a war zone - israel excuse) - system not working (uss stark) , system locked up and needed reset (hms broadsword)

Sea-RAM is an 11 cell launcher direct replacement for the gun system of phalanx and is a CIWS - and gives more reaction time to `reach out and touch` any incoming although again actual range is the limiting factor but at at least 5 miles is better than 2000 yards


www.navybuddies.com...



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000

Originally posted by Pyros
d. We lit them up and drove them off

Thanks for the explanation of how it is over there, but when you say "lit them up", are you saying that you fired on them sometimes?

This does sound like it was a setup, and probably has only made the news because of the current tensions.

Have any idea what the deal was with the white boxes?



In that particular example, we were engaged with three "Boghammer" class fast patrol boats, and "lit up" means hostile fire. After ignoring repeated warnings via commercial ship-to-ship radio, flashing light signal, and flares, the Iranians continued to approach our tanker at high speed. When we pulled out in front of the tanker (bear in mind this is at night and out to sea - pretty dark and noisy) to position ourselves in between the tanker and the Boghammers, they finally noticed us....and proceeded to fire an RPG at us (exploded about 50 yards short). 10 seconds after that, the word was passd: "Batteries released - commence fire".

Fortunately for the Boghammers (now about 200 yards away and approaching) we only had one M-60 and two .50 cals mounted on that side of the ship. Once they started to suck up concentrated machine gun fire (the tankers they were used to attacking had never done that before!), they sped off in the opposite direction. If they had approached us from the other side (starboard) they would have faced one M-60, two .50 cals, one Mk 19 grenade launcher, and one 25mm Bushmaster chain gun. As it was they were only under direct fire for about 20-30 seconds.

Interestingly, instead of returning to Iranian waters, they sped off to a UAE port and tried to pass themselves off as innocent fishermen who we brutalized without provocation during the night. They suffered two casualties (close up photography in the UAE newspapers - ick) which they laid out on the dock like dead fish. Amazingly the newspapers never showed or mentioned the boats they were using, as any pictures of the Boghammers would obviously ruin their fisherman story.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Also, concerning this subject, I cannot recommend enough the following paper on the subject:

Joint Special Operations in support of EARNEST WILL

There is some facinating reading here, especially the parts regarding the two converted barges. I spent 6 months in this OPAREA in the middle of all this. It was quite an experience.....



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

In that particular example, we were engaged with three "Boghammer" class fast patrol boats, and "lit up" means hostile fire. After ignoring repeated warnings via commercial ship-to-ship radio, flashing light signal, and flares, the Iranians continued to approach our tanker at high speed. When we pulled out in front of the tanker (bear in mind this is at night and out to sea - pretty dark and noisy) to position ourselves in between the tanker and the Boghammers, they finally noticed us....and proceeded to fire an RPG at us (exploded about 50 yards short). 10 seconds after that, the word was passd: "Batteries released - commence fire".

Fortunately for the Boghammers (now about 200 yards away and approaching) we only had one M-60 and two .50 cals mounted on that side of the ship. Once they started to suck up concentrated machine gun fire (the tankers they were used to attacking had never done that before!), they sped off in the opposite direction. If they had approached us from the other side (starboard) they would have faced one M-60, two .50 cals, one Mk 19 grenade launcher, and one 25mm Bushmaster chain gun. As it was they were only under direct fire for about 20-30 seconds.

Interestingly, instead of returning to Iranian waters, they sped off to a UAE port and tried to pass themselves off as innocent fishermen who we brutalized without provocation during the night. They suffered two casualties (close up photography in the UAE newspapers - ick) which they laid out on the dock like dead fish. Amazingly the newspapers never showed or mentioned the boats they were using, as any pictures of the Boghammers would obviously ruin their fisherman story.


Umm... Sorry dude but i must have missed something here.
Can you clarify what the designation of 'Boghammer' actually means within the context?

Sorry again, its just that that one doesnt seem locical given its random nature.

Cheers.
Absent.




top topics



 
26
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join