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: 8
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Do you think Iran is the only country that plays the "propaganda game?"

Of course not and I made no such assumption that they did. Every country in the world does it.




posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
I think the posters point was to remind everyone that iran could also be playing the "propaganda game", so don't just take their statements at face value either.


So at what value should I take it at?

Note the BOLD, your words btw. Are you saying that the US is engaged in propaganda? Or should I look for another "value"?


IMO, the liberal print and TV media that calls Bush a liar no matter what he does is cancelled out by conservative radio that still (wrongly) thinks Bush is some kind of saint.


And THAT is the problem in the States. Some people get whatever spin they want to justify their preconceptions rather than think for themselves.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Why ask me when it seems pretty obvious that you've already made up your mind?

However, it is pretty obvious to me that propaganda from any source is just that, and should be taken with a major grain of salt.

My issue - quite clearly - is with those that automatically assume that the U.S. is always wrong or at fault while the iranians (or whomever) are pristine children of God and thus not capable of doing any wrong.


JSR

posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
And THAT is the problem in the States. Some people get whatever spin they want to justify their preconceptions rather than think for themselves.


I think the problem is, people have already made up their minds with respect to how the world works. and created a whole modality of thought to support it.

then a story like this comes along and its " false flag...US up to no good again " or" Iran trying to provoke first strike, should have bomb them ".

people do think for them selves. the problem is, they become to ridged in their though, and unable to see anything else. "states" or otherwise.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
The only outcome of this incident is a further increase in fuel prices no doubt.


By shear coincidence the incident happened on a major oil shipping route, the Strait of Hormuz. (www.wikipedia.org)



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211


My issue - quite clearly - is with those that automatically assume that the U.S. is always wrong or at fault while the iranians (or whomever) are pristine children of God and thus not capable of doing any wrong.



And my issue the same, but it goes both ways. The U.S. is not always right, or not at fault, while the other country is wrong and at fault. Alot of people are quick to point the finger, but even quicker to say that their country is always right. Those are the people who worry me. If the outcome of this story had to be based on this thread, we'd have already bombed Iran. Yet we have no idea if they actually did anything wrong, except that we've been told they threatened our ships.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by freeradical
 


If Bush wakes up and is constipated, oil prices will go up. There's only one thing you can bet on these days and have a good chance of winning, and that's the rise in oil prices.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Hi There,

I think it is important that we don't latch on to what seems intuitively correct in our own minds, because we (the general public) are not fully aware of the facts of this little incident of schoolyard clownship.

The US military have played up the incident over and above what it actually entailed. Meanwhile the press has reported the incident with scepticism, knowing only too well that the US military and government will inflate any incident with the Iranians in order to spin them up as being the bad guys that need sorting. Quite simply, they are playing the general populace for gullible fools, but this is why and from where the false flag event will emerge. The more the general populace do not accept the calls for action against Iran, the more such rejection brings closer a false flag event. I think we will see more of these little confrontations occur in rapid succession, as the date chosen to attack Iran comes closer (and yes, such a date will have been earmarked a long time ago).

It is said that the US ships were in 'international' waters, but their heading is not given. For all we know they could have been a mere foot away from Iranian waters, and that the US ships were goading the Iranian patrol boats into some kind of action? It could also be that the Iranians were out to goad the US ships? The point is, we simply don't know, only what the two antagonists deign to report to us.

Mrmonsoon:

Clearly Iran was hoping to start a war with the US.

I disagree. There is nothing in the reported Iranian actions that declare any intent of starting a war...that is entirely in your own mind, it is the way you wish to perceive things. If such was actually their intent, I am sure the report would be completely different. It would be reporting an actual attack, and not a alleged threat. We do know, however, that the US government is seeking to attack Iran, they have already threatened them, and is busy spinning up whatever it can to make Iran look like a worthy target for destruction, and it is all geared to get you thinking in the way that you are...to gain your agreement to an attack.

We have already been primed to expect an upturn in terrorist activity during Bush's visit to the Middle-East, his going there is very provocative in the least, for he symbolises all the worse machinations of America, and by that extension, the West. Bush's visit is ripe for a series of false flag events. Are we to suddenly accept that the Iranians have taken total leave of their senses, and decided to attack American interests? I don't think so...but your government will expect you to believe so...and if you are dumb...you will.

I have no particular like or dislike personally towards the Iranian people, but I would not like to see them attacked and end up in the same situation as Iraq, simply because a few greedy and rapacious individuals have decided to steal resources and profits out of another country, and is going to use the lives of your sons and daughters to do so whilst all the while, never sacrificing anything of their own. Who the hell do they think they are! I suggest reports such as these are treated with a grain of salt until there is a global news consensus that clearly defines the report as being exactly what it purports to be.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Vietnam - Gulf of Tonkin = fake

Iraq – WMDs = fake

2+2 = casus belli

How can people be so “short” minded? How does a bully pick a fight? Anybody remembers?

School hall, a bully knocked the books from other guys hands, or shoves him, and then asks “what are going to do about it?”

Let’s compare, bring out your maps, where’s Iran? Is it anywhere close to America? Is it somewhere by New Your, Miami, or maybe Washington state?

Who’s the bully? I’m not sure but the last war Iran fought was against the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein, whom we ARMED AND SUPPORTED.

And who is currently waging wars in two countries at the same time?

Put down your i-pods, look at the map, locate i-RAN, and then THINK who is in whose neighborhood.

Iranian ships are not zipping around at California coast, they are the ones who are in their own domain, not us.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
When the Iranian gunboats drop off white box's into the water (in the path of US Naval ships), they are trying to start an incident.


I've read a few MSM versions of events and all seem to say the same thing...The Iranian boats dropped white boxes in the water.

What I'm wondering is what was in those boxes? My guess is some form of sonar-detection or other form of naval electronic eavesdropping equipment



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Iranian ships are not zipping around at California coast, they are the ones who are in their own domain, not us.

Umm....its INTERNATIONAL waters so your entire point is moot.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


When I saw that you had posted on this thread, I said to myself, this will be "good". What's missing is your usual russian 'er soviet angle on this issue. Still you didn't disappoint me with your anti-America angle - even though all that you said had already been posted (and refuted) by others before.

Now, how about something from you on those supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles (silkburn, or is it sunworm?) the russians 'er soviets have given iran ...













[edit on 1/7/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
The Big picture

What's really at stake here if hostilities increase and there is an attack upon Iran by American and Isreali forces? We're watching a game of chicken being played out that will have far reaching implications. The Revolutionary Guards would like nothing better than to start something, especially since they've now been branded a terrorist organization. It can be likened to a VERY angry individual taunting someone they dislike, but who has a BIG BUDDY waiting just around the corner "sort of out of sight".



Tension between the U.S. and China due to growing Chinese intervention in the Middle East to ensure its own access to oil and Chinese arming of Middle Eastern countries hostile to the U.S. and its allies.
www.iags.org...


So, China needs that oil bad enough to cause problems? Oh, oh... sounds like there might be a 'conflict of interest here. So, how MUCH do they want that oil?


With 1.3 billion people, the People's Republic of China is the world's most populous country and the second largest oil consumer, behind the U.S. In recent years, China has been undergoing a process of industrialization and is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. With real gross domestic product growing at a rate of 8-10% a year, China's need for energy is projected to increase by 150 percent by 2020.

-snip-

China's expectation of growing future dependence on oil imports has brought it to acquire interests in exploration and production in places like Kazakhstan, Russia, Venezuela, Sudan, West Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Canada. But despite its efforts to diversify its sources, China has become increasingly dependent on Middle East oil. Today, 58% of China's oil imports come from the region. By 2015, the share of Middle East oil will stand on 70%. Though historically China has had no long-standing strategic interests in the Middle East, its relationship with the region from where most of its oil comes is becoming increasingly important.

-snip-

China would like to maintain good relations with the U.S. and enjoy the economic benefits derived from such cooperation. But this inclination is balanced by the feeling among many Chinese leaders that the U.S. seeks to dominate the Persian Gulf in order to exercise control over its energy resources and that it tries to contain China's aspirations in the region.

-snip-

While the U.S. and EU were forging a diplomatic strategy to halt Iran’s nuclear program, China signed in October 2004 its largest energy deal with Iran ever and promised to block any American attempt to refer Iran’s nuclear program to the UN Security Council. This may indicate not only that China is interested in a militarily strong, even nuclear Iran that dominates the Gulf but also that for China, energy security considerations trump international cooperation on critical global security issues.



www.iags.org...



Hmmm. Sounds like they want it pretty badly. Bad enough to take action? Yeah... I think so.

Bottom line, imo... when America goes to war with iran, it goes to war with China.

WWIII



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by citizen smith
What I'm wondering is what was in those boxes? My guess is some form of sonar-detection or other form of naval electronic eavesdropping equipment

You might be correct but most likely the boxes were empty. They probably wanted the U.S. ships to think it was some sort of hidden mine or something however we don't know the size of the boxes. This was a lame attempt by the Iranians to provoke some sort of an incident.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by zman
The ships in that area a sitting duck. I would not have started a firefight as the ships do not have air support nor do they have everything in place to attack.



The Arleigh Burke class of guided missile destroyers, which the USS Hopper is, is fully capable of defending itself without air support at any time.

This is just their surface to surface weapons.
USS Hopper- Wikipedia


1 x 5/54 in (127/54 mm),
2 x 25 mm,
4 x 12.7 mm guns,
2 x Phalanx CIWS
2 x Mk 46 triple torpedo tubes



As for the USS Port Royal:
USS Port Royal - Wikipedia


2 × Mark 45 5 in / 54 cal lightweight gun
2 × 25 mm
2–4 × .50 cal (12.7 mm) gun
2 × Phalanx CIWS
2 × Mk 32 12.75 in (324 mm) triple torpedo tubes



And as for the USS Ingraham:
USS Ingraham - Wikipedia


One OTO Melara Mk 75 76 mm/62 caliber naval gun;
two Mk 32 triple-tube (324 mm) launchers for Mark 46 torpedoes;
one Vulcan Phalanx CIWS;
four .50-cal (12.7 mm) machine guns.



These are war ships, they are always ready to do battle, most of these systems are computerized, all they had to do was push the "GO" button.

Go to the links above and check out those weapons that these ships have for dealing with other "hostile" ships, pretty impressive.

The only way I believe these ships would get into trouble would be with an attack from an overwhelming force, but, I don't think that an attack by five "speedboats" would "overwhelm" their systems.

[edit on 7/1/08 by Keyhole]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I am not happy about this at all. The fact that the skipper of the USS Hopper was just minutes, perhaps seconds, away from unleashing World War III is very unsettling.

Lets keep our sailors and Marines in our thoughts. If a shooting war does go off, then they will be stuck inside that dreadful Persian Gulf with nowhere to go. I'm sure anyone who remembers the U.S. naval presence in the Gulf in the 1980s knows how volatile the situation there is.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
The BBC is now taking a measured response to this incident:


The speedboats, believed to belong to Iran's Revolutionary Guards, came within about 200m of the US vessels, Pentagon officials said.

"I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes," the Iranians said in a radio transmission, according to US officials.
Source | BBCNews | Middle East | Iran boats 'threatened US ships'

And:


At one point the speedboats dropped floating "box-like objects", the US navy commander in the region, Vice Adm Kevin Cosgriff said.
Source | BBCNews | Middle East | Iran boats 'threatened US ships'

All emphasis mine.

It's telling that you have to go outside the American MSM to receive even close to balanced, breaking news...



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by goosdawg
It's telling that you have to go outside the American MSM to receive even close to balanced, breaking news...

Umm.....I don't see any difference with the articles you posted as compared to the others.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I am not happy about this at all. The fact that the skipper of the USS Hopper was just minutes, perhaps seconds, away from unleashing World War III is very unsettling.


Again, the angle that it's always the U.S. that "was just minutes, perhaps seconds, away from unleashing World War III", when they would have rightfully defending themselves in international waters.

You could have just as easily posted "I am not happy about this at all. The fact that the commander of the iranian attack boats was just minutes, perhaps seconds, away from unleashing World War III is very unsettling.", but you didn't. And it would have been likely closer to the truth.




posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
The Iranians already confirmed the incident so would you Gulf of Tonkin people get a clue. They did this all the time in the 80s and one time when they were in the act of provoking a U.S. ship the Vincennes in the same way, Iran sent a passenger jet over the area with an F-14 transponder in it at the same time. The ship downed the jet and Iran cried foul, The Iranian government is evil and should be dealt with.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join