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.

 

Iran shows video of navy standoff

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR

Originally posted by Hal9000

but the fact is our ships have been over there escorting merchant ships for decades now. ...



Spot ON!!!

Nothing much more you can add to that, i 100% agree,


The US Navy is providing a service which does what exactly? Defending OPEC shipments from OPEC members, or Al Qaeda's navy? Spot on my arse.




posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by scrapple
 



Supposedly they protect from the Iranian Navy. The arab league are just that, arabs, while the Iranians are persians. They have a different form of Islam as you probably already know, and don't like each other too much. If the Arab league didn't want us to protect their assets, why do you suppose Bahrain host it?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by greysave
 


so countries like Saudi and frineds which still operate weapons and still get
top range weapons from uncle SAM and Europe cant defend their own assets



[edit on 11-1-2008 by bodrul]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by greysave
 


so countries like Saudi and frineds which still operate weapons and still get
top range weapons from uncle SAM and Europe cant defend their own assets



[edit on 11-1-2008 by bodrul]






I mean we have Backwater for this kind of stuff presumably,
They protect ambassadorial convoys in Iraq right. If an under contract oil convoy ‘WAS EVER’ attacked it’s not immediately WWIII because an American ship with American military is threatened.

Uggh, I cant believe I am using expanded merc. arguments to sustain my point!



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by greysave
 


so countries like Saudi and frineds which still operate weapons and still get
top range weapons from uncle SAM and Europe cant defend their own assets



[edit on 11-1-2008 by bodrul]


They don't have much of a Navy at the present. At the present Iran could effectively negate their navies. In the future hopefully they can defend themselves. In the future I hope we switch to ethanol too. Right now neither is a reality.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by greysave

Right now neither is a reality.



So you are saying that the Iranians have in the past attacked international Oil shipments.

And while they have implied they could make things tricky oil-wise for us, that's a given.

Have they ever attacked an oil shipment in the region outside of an open (war) hostility period. If they have I will reevaluate my position.

Seems more like our 'protection' at the tax payers expense is causing the potential for conflict. But I do agree, lets get off the Fossil fuels and foreign policy quickly.


[edit on 11-1-2008 by scrapple]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by scrapple

Originally posted by greysave

Right now neither is a reality.



So you are saying that the Iranians have in the past attacked international Oil shipments.

And while they have implied they could make things tricky oil-wise for us, that's a given.

Have they ever attacked an oil shipment in the region outside of an open (war) hostility period. If they have I will reevaluate my position.

Seems more like our 'protection' at the tax payers expense is causing the potential for conflict. But I do agree, lets get off the Fossil fuels and foreign policy quickly.


[edit on 11-1-2008 by scrapple]


yes



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Oooh so much misinformation now.

The reflagging and escorting took place during the Iran Iraq War, which, as you may or may not have noticed, ended a while back.

Naval vessels patrol the Gulf (and not just US naval vessels, but practically everyone with a blue-water navy) because it's a trade route on which much of the world's economy depends, not because Iran is attacking merchant shipping. It's not, it hasn't, it isn't. Stop spreading disinfo.

It was doing so 15 years ago, then again so was Iraq - in warfare disrupting the enemy's shipping is the job of any Navy.

But Iran is not going around attacking merchant ships in 2008


Another correction, while I'm at it: The Gulf Arab states all have significant naval forces. They are generally smaller vessels (corvettes & frigates), however they tend to be extremely modern and well armed.

Iran has an advantage in subs, and in their numerous small craft, however their surface forces are generally significantly outclassed by the Gulf Arabs' navies.

[edit on 1/11/08 by xmotex]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bodrul
 


Non Arab Persians that say death to Israel are still Arabs to Bush
and America, don't forget that.

You just have to make believe there were more towers to hit
and the Persians did it.

Alternatively the hijackers with middle eastern voices were in fact
suicidal Israelis, well under mind control if thats an excuse.

In which case we have nothing to worry about except to follow
more mind controlling Israelis.

But who likes alternatives.
Not the paid for in advance media.

Welcome back Bush y'all, more zombie than ever.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I tried counting the horn blows on each video and then comparing them. I don't know if these occurred at the same time. In the U.S. video the horn blew 10 times, while in the Iran version i heard the horn 9 times. The only problem, which is very odd, is how the beginning of the horn in the Iran version is cut off, so it can't be determined if there were actually 10 horn blows. It appears to me that the Iranians cut this part so the videos would match more evenly.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by xRedlinex
 


Good point, I'm very curious as to what is being said in the beginning of the video, i mean I'm sure its nothing that important, but interesting nonetheless. Anyone here speak Persian?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
News Update -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 11-1-2008 by II HAL II]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by greysave

Originally posted by scrapple

Have they ever attacked an oil shipment in the region "outside of an open (war) hostility period." If they have I will reevaluate my position.
[edit on 11-1-2008 by scrapple]


yes


Yes, when?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Yeah those Iranians look mighty threatening (waves fist). No wonder those US Warships were scared for their lives (hands on hips). Why the heck should Iranians even be allowed in those waters (more fist waving)? What do they live near there or something (scratch cranium)? Sheesh. Iranians are going to take over the wold in those (reality kicks in)... oh hang on.... I just saw the footage for the 1st time..... um ...... can someone explain to me..... I seem to be watching Miami Vice .... or ... no ... .couldn't have been ... wait.... no ..are you SERIOUS?.... *runs away with tail between legs*

On a serious tone, they were nowhere near those massive warships, and if anything were one could say, infinately outgunned? So to all the warmongers out there, either I see it in your eyes as that was a "serious threat to the US Navy" or is it more "Those silly Iranians and their silly antics?" USS Cole is NO comparison in this case, dont you even try to play that card in this instance you goofs!

watchZEITGEISTnow

[edit on 11-1-2008 by watchZEITGEISTnow]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
This whole situation really makes me laugh. C'mon US Navy, if that's threatening to you, then your Navy isn't the best in the world! I haven't seen any reports as to the exact position of the US ships. They claim they are in International waters but I have a sneaky suspicion they were probably right on the line between Iranian coastal waters and International waters. It's all a game of symantics. Of course Iran is going to send out boats to shadow aggressor Naval units much like the US would do if say Russia had naval ships patrolling off the US coast in international waters. It's called defensive posture.

This whole thing stinks of political manipulation once again to justify war with Iran. I mean, it's no secret Bush & Co. want the war and the NIE derailled that for them. Soo, they need another excuse to give them the reason to start letting bombs and missiles fly.

I too thought they might be there trying to recover a SEAL Team when I first read these reports. It makes perfect sense in that they cover up one thing(invasion of a country with special ops) with another by blaming the Iranians for provocation.

I'm not supporting Iran here but just playing Devil's advocate. Can you really blame Iran for sending boats out to identify the ships of a country that is openly hostile towards them?

"What's good for the goose, is good for the Gander"

Both sides in my opinion would be smart to back down, the US can't afford another war(and Iran isn't Iraq). Iran could make this very difficult for the US and my fears is that if a war does break out and things aren't going well for the US(because your military is stretched so thin) that tactical nukes might be used which would make Russia and China very twichty.

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. It's time for Bush and his "End of the World" prophecy to get the hell outa dodge.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by goosdawg

Originally posted by on_yur_6
Like I said they have done this many times before. It's just making news now with the increased tensions between the USA and Iran.


This is like gnats harassing a water buffalo.

There's no way these buzzing, pesky insects are going to be allowed close enough in to do any significant damage.

The rules of engagement make that clear.

This is "news" simply due to political machinations, IMHO.

In the many incidents before, why wasn't it "news" then?

Simple.

It's being thrust into the "news" now to bolster the case for war.

"Look, LOOK, they're buzzing our warships, can we bomb them NOW?!?"

Never mind that it's been going on for years.





If the USA really wanted to bomb them or start WW3 then don't you think we would have opened fire and let it begin?

Like I said before these captains know what will happen if they fire. Most likely their ships will be on the bottom in no time due to missle batteries just a few seconds away. They also know what will happen afterwards.

The captains also know what happenned to their brothers and sisters on the USS Cole. Who cares if it's a sport boat, it could be loaded with explosives. I respect them for waiting until the very last moment but its a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. If the lives of a 100+ sailors were your responsibility would you allow a foreign vessel close enough to harm your crew? Given the current dialogue between the USA and Iran these captains showed much more restraint than most.

I'm really glad this didn't set off WW3.

Back to my original point, if the USA was trying to start a war don't you think they had their chance? They could have covered themselves easily claiming self defense. Oh and was it USA warships harrassing Iranian troops or the other way around?

The news latched on to this one because of the current situation with Iran. People need to stop thinking the President and his lackeys control the media. 99% of television and print media hates the President and it is quite evident everytime you turn on the TV or read the paper.

Again the USA didn't need the media to hype this to drum up support to attack Iran. The vast majority of this country would be behind our troops if they used self defense in this situation.

[edit on 13-1-2008 by on_yur_6]



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by on_yur_6
 



Originally posted by on_yur_6
If the USA really wanted to bomb them or start WW3 then don't you think we would have opened fire and let it begin?


They fired warning shots during another incident back in December.

IMHO, they're timing the onset of the nuking of Iran to obscure and lend credence to their heavy-handed manipulation of the "election," at home.

Stay tuned, it's all scripted and ready to begin on cue.


Originally posted by on_yur_6
Back to my original point, if the USA was trying to start a war don't you think they had their chance? They could have covered themselves easily claiming self defense. Oh and was it USA warships harrassing Iranian troops or the other way around?


The USA "warheads' won't begin bombing until their ships are out of harm's way.

The Iranian missile batteries are truly fearsome, and not to be dismissed lightly.

Insofar as the harassing goes, the truth is that both sides are probably guilty.


Originally posted by on_yur_6
The news latched on to this one because of the current situation with Iran.


This "current situation," IMHO, is a contrived status to beat the drums for action against a country that refuses to cave to the demands of the international banking cartel.

Iran refuses to go into debt to the bankers who own nearly every other country on earth.

You realize, of course, that this cry of not allowing them the "acquiring" of nukes as a justification for the "preemptive" nuking of Iran, is a smokescreen, right?


Originally posted by on_yur_6
People need to stop thinking the President and his lackeys control the media.


Who thinks that?

The MSM is owned by five corporations who receive their marching orders from the same elites who pull the strings attached to Uncle Dick, who in turn, tells Junior what to do.



Originally posted by on_yur_6
99% of television and print media hates the President and it is quite evident everytime you turn on the TV or read the paper.


Did you know that 99% of quotes about percentages are made up on the spot?


I don't watch tv or read the paper, see above for the reason.

I get my information almost exclusively from the myriad of independent sources online, where you can examine and do the research to vet their sources.



Originally posted by on_yur_6
The vast majority of this country would be behind our troops if they used self defense in this situation.


You're right, myself included.

But it won't come to that, because both sides know what's at stake.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join