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.

 

Official: US ship fires on boat off Dubai, 1 dead

page: 6
27
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
There have been good points made in this thread on both sides.

There are two very big ones that have not been made and I would remind everyone of the event where a US cruiser destroyed a passenger jet that was climbing away and heading away from the cruiser.

Imagine you are out in that up market fishing boat. You don't speak English. Your radio spews forth a lot of excited gibberish as you approach what you probably believe is some sort of freighter. It is not a warship! Then you get your friend cut in half by a .50 cal stream.

I will tell you this much, it is not your fault. It was close to a port where you would feel safe.

It is extremely arrogant to transmit warnings in English and expect the foreigners to understand.

This was just wrong!

P

edit on 16-7-2012 by pheonix358 because: yea, it was like, necessary man!




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
There have been good points made in this thread on both sides.

There are two very big ones that have not been made and I would remind everyone of the event where a US cruiser destroyed a passenger jet that was climbing away and heading away from the cruiser.

Imagine you are out in that up market fishing boat. You don't speak English. Your radio spews forth a lot of excited gibberish as you approach what you probably believe is some sort of freighter. It is not a warship! Then you get your friend cut in half by a .50 cal stream.

I will tell you this much, it is not your fault. It was close to a port where you would feel safe.

It is extremely arrogant to transmit warnings in English and expect the foreigners to understand.

This was just wrong!

P

edit on 16-7-2012 by pheonix358 because: yea, it was like, necessary man!


1. you dont kow what language was transmitted (probably english), but we dont know. i do know that we take interpreters with us corralating with the local language.

2. it is said they hailed on radio, hailed over loud speaker, AND fired warning shots... thats their bad.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


They don't just radio. It said in the article, and there are other sources that show all the measures taken to warn off vessels and aircraft.

As for the Airbus shoot down, you can't fly into any area in the world without speaking English. The ICAO has mandated that if you are on an international flight you must speak and understand English. These rules apply to all air traffic controllers and pilots. There were other issues with that whole incident, but that's another thread.

This particular incident, there were warning shots, lights flashed across their bow, radio signals all given as warnings before the shots were fired at the boat.


The Navy told Al Jazeera that the crew of the USNS Rappahannock tried to hail the boat on radio and loudspeaker, and also used flashing lights and warning shots before firing a .50-caliber machine gun at the vessel.

Source

I'm pretty sure that even if you don't speak English, a flashing light and warning shots are understandable in any language.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Yes I agree if those measures were taken. The reason I mentioned the destroyed air liner was because the Navy made every excuse in the damn book, gave the Captain a medal and a while later quietly retired him.

If I had ever seen the US stand up and say, "hey, we are very sorry, we stuffed up, how can we make amends," I would have a different, completely different attitude. Show me once where this has happened without a media blitz on the wrongdoing and I may change my attitude.

The information from the navy says it happened really fast. Just how many warnings did they give out. We are not talking about sailing in the middle of the Pacific here, we are talking about waters near to a port. Providing all these warnings is not compatible with the incident happening really fast.

P



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


"Really fast" doesn't mean that they didn't take those measures. It takes a minute or two to radio two or three times, another minute to flash a light, less than that to fire warning shots. That's maybe five minutes. What may have seemed really fast to the crew could have been 7-8 minutes or longer.

But one of the big mysteries about the airliner shot down was that it was reported right after it happened that the bodies were bloated, smelled of decomp, and were naked. This was a couple of hours after the plane was shot down, and well before it should have been to that point. And why would they be naked?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by murch
 


They wouldn't have fired if they didn't think it was a threat, Captains are not stupid.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

I agree. There is no way that the people operating this vessel that was speeding toward a U.S. Navy Warship had no idea what they were doing. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE...who has ever been on the Ocean...has any excuse or any way to feign ignorance that they did not know they were putting their boat or their lives in DANGER by speeding toward a U.S. Navy or any other Countries Naval Ship...all the while ignoring verbal warnings...Radio Warnings...Visual Warnings...Close Weapons Fire Warnings....until they were SO CLOSE...the U.S. Warship HAD TO OPEN FIRE DIRECTLY AT THE OTHER VESSEL!

To say the U.S. Naval Warship just fired for no reason is a joke and I am sure this was staged on purpose for propaganda means. Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

I agree. There is no way that the people operating this vessel that was speeding toward a U.S. Navy Warship had no idea what they were doing. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE...who has ever been on the Ocean...has any excuse or any way to feign ignorance that they did not know they were putting their boat or their lives in DANGER by speeding toward a U.S. Navy or any other Countries Naval Ship...all the while ignoring verbal warnings...Radio Warnings...Visual Warnings...Close Weapons Fire Warnings....until they were SO CLOSE...the U.S. Warship HAD TO OPEN FIRE DIRECTLY AT THE OTHER VESSEL!

To say the U.S. Naval Warship just fired for no reason is a joke and I am sure this was staged on purpose for propaganda means. Split Infinity



Whilst I agree with you the pics Zaphod58(thanks for that mate) posted don't look like a war ship and there would be many different sorts of vessels in the area, navy/transport/supply/oil tankers/ pleasure boats, a previous statement was that the speed boat was 7km away.
I would like to know at what distance it was tracked/warned with gun fire/engaged.
How far from port were they? The first thing I do when I go fishing and exit the 5knts no wash area is open it up and go for gold, if there was a navy ship 7km away would they think I was speeding towards them even though I probably couldn't see them.
They could radio me all they like it's usualy off until I get way out, flashing signals wouldn't help either how would I know it was meant for me and not them talking to their mates?
Now hunks of lead flying at me would make me think something isn't right, but did they give them time to react no point giving a warning shot if by the time you realise whats happening the second volley hits you.

Something just doesn't seem right about this, How does a US naval vessel open up on an attick fiberglass boat at close range with a 50 cal and not only not blow it out of the water but have it intact enough to make it back to port. I want to hear what the survivors have to say.


edit on 17-7-2012 by WorkingClassMan because: To add a thanks



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by murch
 


They wouldn't have fired if they didn't think it was a threat, Captains are not stupid.


This brought the luls. Maybe your captains should train your pilots then they could stop killing their own or blowing up aid stations. Whoops that red cross was a target wasn't it, yeah of course everybody knows X marks the spot.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by WorkingClassMan
 

Think about this. What is the effective range of a 50 Cal? It sure isn't 7 KM! A U.S. Warship of ANY KIND has weapons that are effective at Enormously Long Ranges. This Boat had to be right on top of the U.S. Naval Ship for the use of a 50 Cal!

The Question should be....Why was this boat even allowed to get that close before it was fired upon? If I was the Captain of that Warship...a Fast Boat that had closed to within even 2 KM....would be fair game to SINK! If it was being fired at with a 50 Cal...it was a HELL of a lot closer than 2KM!

As Captain...this U.S. Officer DID THE RIGHT THING! Split Infinity

p.s....A Captains FIRST DUTY IS TO THE SHIP!



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by murch
If a guy walks down the street looking a bit dodgy he could be perceived to be a threat. You wouldn't get away with shooting him though.


Sure, but this is more like charging at a cop and refusing to stop after being told to several times in several ways (including firing a .50 cal into the ground[water] in front of you)....



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reporter from New Delhi spoke to an indian friend of the boat victim
and contradict the US official version on all front
exactly like i suspected

What happened they say is that the US vessel tried to intercept the indian boat
and without any warnings they opened fire and kill on the spot the victim

Once again the US protects its navy on a murder

if they can lie on this .. they certainly can lie on everything



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
So this ship:




making all 20 knots over took a fishing boat with three outboards to gun it down with a .50 cal for no reason.



That's how it really happened?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ben81
a reporter from New Delhi spoke to an indian friend of the boat victim
and contradict the US official version on all front
exactly like i suspected

What happened they say is that the US vessel tried to intercept the indian boat
and without any warnings they opened fire and kill on the spot the victim

Once again the US protects its navy on a murder

if they can lie on this .. they certainly can lie on everything



ROFL, it is this sort of reply that muddies the waters. It is just crap. The US ships top speed would be insufficient let alone it's turning circle and maneuverability restrictions. It is a supply ship not a cruiser.

But this sort of reply is just what the US Navy would like out there. Something ridiculous to muddy the waters. By the time the real truth gets out no-ones listening. It was the same in the Vincenze incident. It was Months later that the truth emerged and nothing happened.

P



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by WorkingClassMan
 


There's no way they were 7km away if they were hit by 50 cal fire. As for the warning lights, and radio, there are no reports of any other vessels in the area that I have seen yet. So who else would they have been talking to? They generally flash the searchlight directly across your vessel when they flash it at you. They do everything possible to make sure that you know they are talking to you, and you are doing something stupid.

But I guess since it's the US Navy involved, then they must be in the wrong huh.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 




Ya, they attempted to intercept a high powered "fishing" boat, with a refueler ship that is only lightly armed, slow, and laden with volatile fuels?
Which one makes more sense, the official version, or this version?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
To me this doesn't seem like US aggression. This reeks of a bait attack on iran's behalf. You know, a sacrificial lamb to be leaned on as a propaganda crutch.

Bullets are a universal language. If warning shots from a Navy warship don't deter a skipper from approaching chances are they didn't have good intentions in mind.

Still something seems off. I doubt we are aware of the whole picture, and tensions are running high.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I am prety sure that the "official version" given by the US Navy is FULL OF LIES.

They probably didn't give any warnings at all. The "fast trigger boys" probably just opened fire against the small boat, for "daring" to approach a US Navy vessel.

This is how the arrogant US military use to act.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I hope the government of India does a full independent investigation of this incident, to find the truth.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by GLontra
 


You ever been in the military? Pulling the trigger is a big no no without this little thing called fire protocol. The president even has to follow it.




top topics



 
27
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join