Iranian speedboats threaten US ships.

  • News
  • Thread starter drankin
  • Start date
  • #51
seycyrus said:
The sub commander signaled his non-hostile intent by surfacing in a non-threatening manner.

The Iranians demonstrated hostile intent. Can you tell the difference?
I cannot. I could equally well say that the unidentified boats signalled their non-hostile intent by turning away, or that the Chinese submarine demonstrated its hostile intent by closing into firing range without announcement.

Merely closing into firing range -- which both the sub and the boats did -- cannot be taken as a hostile intent by itself, even if "under cloak" as in case of the sub.

seycyrus said:
Who do YOU think the Iranians were broadcasting to when they transmitted "prepare to explode"

Did the US mistranslate the phrase?
It is entirely irrelevant what I think they ment, and yes, at the spot the phrase may quite well have been misinterpreted. Let me remind of the article passages: "...close to three U.S. Navy ships and intercepted radio signals...", thus the transmission was intercepted and surely in Persian, and then "...that was threatening in nature to the effect that they were closing our ships and that ... the U.S. ships would explode.", i.e. an interpretation of the fragments, rather than a coherent transcript of the exchange. A worried US commander, probably. Legal basis for taking action due to hostile intent -- certainly not.

At any rate, after the fact it is obvious that interpreting the radio intercept as coordination of the attack would have been wrong, since nothing had happend, the boats turned away.

seycyrus said:
So, you want to quibble?
In a way. I was expecting a lot of thrashing of Iranian elements responsible for the childish pranks such as this, to have instead seen several posts claiming that the American commander should have committed, as I would judge it more probably than not, an act of war. Thus, I have to respond :)

My personal opinion of the matter is this: a stupid provoking, but otherwise probably not illegal action (minus the possible "pirate" qualification) on part of Iranian elements, where the American commander professionally and cold-bloodily did everything by the book, and certainly reported on the event in the same way. Everything after that are political games, of which I have no interest.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)
 
  • #52
kroni3us
It was stated as a fact that the Iranian speedboats acted illegally I am asking for the proof of this claim. A very straightforward request.

It was also stated as a fact that Iran is a rogue nation though seeing as how they were awarded this title by a man who subverted democracy in his own country, waged an illegal war resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and who authorised the illegal detention and torture of prisoners whilst simultaneously spying on his own countrymen I am sure it is a badge they wear with honour.

btw The Iranian account of the incident is that this was SOP, they asked the US ships to identify themselves and once they had done so they left them alone. They also deny any threats were made so it would be good if the US gov't were to clear up that point by making the tapes available of the radio interchange.
There he goes again with his anti -american anti bush antics. His use of the word "subverted" against my president lacks premise. Democracy is alive and well in America thank you. Im concluding that you are refering to the Iraq war that was voted for and by congress. I understand that no WMDs found nor will they probably ever be found. I do believe Saddam had alot of time to dispose of WMDS before the invasion. I as an american welcome my government to monitor phone calls /cell phone calls etc to protect me and my family from terrorist already in the country, If you have nothing to hide why worry, its a new world out there, times have changed we have to adapt to these changing times. I also say to Detain ANY and ALL terrorist and use all means neccesary to obtain information needed to protect the american people. Maybe ART you should complain about insurgents beheading innocent people and by the way filming it, bombint their own innocent people, Or Saddam using chemical warfare against women and children KURDS.
 
  • #53
2,985
15
I as an american welcome my government to monitor phone calls /cell phone calls etc to protect me and my family from terrorist already in the country, If you have nothing to hide why worry, its a new world out there, times have changed we have to adapt to these changing times.
Thats the most unpatriotic thing in your entire post. Go read the constitution, yikes.
 
  • #54
kroni3us
Thats the most unpatriotic thing in your entire post. Go read the constitution, yikes.
If they Have any clue that a terrorist cell is operating in my city, and they didnt stop them from killing a million people in Los Angeles, because they couldnt monitor or track a cell phone call is totally rediculous in my opinion, and by the way I have read the constitution and have fought for the right in this country and also have a son fighting for our democracy.
 
  • #55
2,985
15
Government is not here to spy on its citizens. Civil liberty is wroth more than even the city of LA.

I find it odd that someone would readily give up something they have fought for.
 
  • #56
kroni3us
Thats where we defer, I value human Life and the United States Of America, more than a SEGMENT of the constitution that should be amended to give our voted in government the tools to protect my children. And tracking phone calls of SUSPECTED TERRORIST CELLS should be ok. People look way to far into us loosing all rights as a democratic system, which would never happen.
 
  • #57
2,985
15
But our rights are being erroded away each time you allow these things you propose to happen. The problem is, there is no definite list of 'suspected terrorist cells'. Would Timothy Mcveigh be on your list? You're list will include every middle eastern person in the United States.

Life is not greater than liberty. I dont need America turned into a police state.
 
  • #58
kroni3us
And so I guess All the people in LA hypothetically lost all their rights because of someone like you, who would be the first to complain about our government or president no being able to stop it ... unreal
 
  • #59
2,985
15
What is so hard to understand? You have rights. The government can protect you without stealing your rights. I find your position to be unreal, specially being from the military. The purpose of the government is to protect your rights, first and foremost.
 
  • #60
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
I value human Life and the United States Of America, more than a SEGMENT of the constitution that should be amended to give our voted in government the tools to protect my children.
Take our liberty, but don't take our lives!
 
  • #61
kroni3us
I would and do suspect that we watch people that are on a terrorist list, already in circulation, suspected people coming into the country, or someone being turned in by someone in the public with knowlege of terrorism activities. trust me i doubt if they would be monitering your phone
 
  • #62
2,985
15
Your doubt is not good enough.
 
  • #63
kroni3us
The Patriot ACT was put in place to protect us from terrorist, now we have mostly liberals fighting every provision in the act, that being said I would be the first one to fight and dye to protect our liberties. I believe the act was put in place in good faith, not to spy on you or me. Hopefully they can fight terrorism without interupting what is put in place but if needed to protect a million people use it
 
  • #64
Come on folks, don't turn a nice techno-legal high-seas quibble into debate about human rights in the USA :)

I've found an online "guide" to the UN Law of the Sea, here: http://www.bernaerts-unclos.de/. Couldn't find anything about enter-and-perish exclusion zones around warships in international waters, but did find a bit about piracy, http://www.bernaerts-unclos.de/42-49.html [Broken] (look for "Article 110"). It states that on "reasonable grounds", any warship has the right to board a suspected pirate vessel, and there: verify the right flag, check documents and inspect the ship. Couldn't find anything about "reasonable grounds" though, e.g. if it depends on the caliber of the visible weaponry, etc. Regardless, I think this means a warship cannot just blow a suspected pirate out of the water.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #65
2,985
15
The Patriot ACT was put in place to protect us from terrorist, now we have mostly liberals fighting every provision in the act, that being said I would be the first one to fight and dye to protect our liberties. I believe the act was put in place in good faith, not to spy on you or me. Hopefully they can fight terrorism without interupting what is put in place but if needed to protect a million people use it
Oh, no controvery in that act. </sarcasm> Sure, blame 'liberals'...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #66
drankin
Come on folks, don't turn a nice techno-legal high-seas quibble into debate about human rights in the USA :)

I've found an online "guide" to the UN Law of the Sea, here: http://www.bernaerts-unclos.de/. Couldn't find anything about enter-and-perish exclusion zones around warships in international waters, but did find a bit about piracy, http://www.bernaerts-unclos.de/42-49.html [Broken] (look for "Article 110"). It states that on "reasonable grounds", any warship has the right to board a suspected pirate vessel, and there: verify the right flag, check documents and inspect the ship. Couldn't find anything about "reasonable grounds" though, e.g. if it depends on the caliber of the visible weaponry, etc. Regardless, I think this means a warship cannot just blow a suspected pirate out of the water.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

I'm sure any vessel on international waters has the right to defend itself against another vessel that shows itself to be hostile. Common sense really.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
drankin said:
I'm sure any vessel on international waters has the right to defend itself against another vessel that shows itself to be hostile. Common sense really.
I don't see how anything but weapons fire or boarding attempt could be clear indication of hostility.

In fact, back to the article, it states Pentagon's spokesman claimed the event to be "...careless, reckless and potentially hostile activity." (my emphasis). Thus, not even US military claims it hostile, and the State Department spokesman was "...not aware of any plans to lodge a formal protest," which would surely follow in wake of an illegal action.

Furthermore, the event occured in good visibility ("...The small Iranian boats also threw boxes into the water...") and there is no report of the boats even training their machineguns on American warships. Whereas the converse did take place.

Thus, I see no sources of hostile behavior, other than an intercepted communication possibly (and obviously after the fact) interpreted wrongly. Being careless, reckless and rude is certainly not nice, but also no legal ground for being fired upon.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)
 
  • #68
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
In the words of Vice Adm. Cosgriff (quote from article in OP):
"At one point during this encounter ... the ships received a radio call that was threatening in nature to the effect that they were closing our ships and that ... the U.S. ships would explode," Cosgriff said, speaking via video camera from Bahrain.
Does this say that the Iranian vessels were communicating with the US or among themselves? Is "received" = "intercepted" or not?
 
  • #69
kroni3us
Has anyone seen the video I guess its posted on MSNBC
 
  • #70
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #71
drankin
I wonder what the boxes were that they dropped. Explosives? Maybe, that alone could be percieved as a hostile action.

The laws we live by in America, we only need to be convinced that our lives or the lives of another is jeopardized in order to exercise lethal force to stop it. I don't see why international law would be any different. Those ships could have legally sunk those boats based on the information I've read so far. They simply chose not to. I wonder if the IRG will try that stunt again, a little closer next time. Whoever is commanding a ship at that time may not be so forgiving.
 
  • #72
Gokul43201 said:
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=34207[/quote]

Eh, when they said speedboats, they really ment speedboats. Not even visibly armed. Two men each, in bright red lifevests of the good-for-search-and-rescue variety. Messages like "...ships will explode" which mean exactly nothing and directed to the adversary at that -- "Coming to impact your ships, but we're fair and give you a sporting chance to react (even if we know that your Phalanx systems will intercept supersonic skimmers at point blank range)."

How incredibly hostile.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #73
drankin
Eh, when they said speedboats, they really ment speedboats. Not even visibly armed. Two mean each, in bright red lifevests of the good-for-search-and-rescue variety. Messages like "...ships will explode" which mean exactly nothing and directed to the adversary at that -- "Coming to impact your ships, but we're fair and give you a sporting chance to react (even if we know that your Phalanx systems will intercept supersonic skimmers at point blank range)."

How incredibly hostile.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)
All it takes is the perception of hostility to justify it. If they had sunk those boats, the story we would have gotten would be a lot different.
 
  • #74
russ_watters
Mentor
19,705
6,045
I'm confused by your post. Why would the US be legally entitled to sink Iranian vessels who are also exercising their right to sail in international waters or do you think only the US have this right?
This is very simple, Art. The Iranian boats were acting overtly hostile, and therefore the American ships would have been justified in acting in self-defense.
When a Chinese submarine surfaced in the middle of a US battle fleet recently I don't remember the same indignation and boasts of how kind the US were not to sink it.
That was an accident. This clearly was not.
Are there different international laws and standards depending on the countries involved.

From a neutral viewpoint...
Neutral? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Are you actually serious? C'mon, Art. You've been here long enough, you don't fool anyone. The facts of this incident are clear.
 
  • #75
russ_watters
Mentor
19,705
6,045
Eh, when they said speedboats, they really ment speedboats. Not even visibly armed.
Do you have a source for that? I don't think it is correct.
An ad-hoc armed speedboat could do no more damage than visibly unarmed speedboat for that matter, namely that of around 10-30 dead servicemen and one destroyer in need of tugging.
Just to make sure everyone is clear here, when the news says "speedboats", people think civilian pleasure/racing boats (aka cigarette boats) with deck-mounted machine guns like you sometimes see in the movies. That's not what we're dealing with here. The boats were gunboats - most news sources I saw did actually use the correct wording. They are specially-designed military boats with deck-mounted guns (up to 3") and anti-ship missiles, potentially capable of sinking a US Navy ship. Think USS Stark, not USS Cole.

Gunboats are "speedboats" in that they have planing hulls and big engines, which allow them to go much faster (up to 40mph) than ships with displacement hulls. It's probably a stock photo on this article:

http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iran/10180305.html [Broken]

...but here's a list of what Iran actually has: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Iranian_Navy_Vessels

If I had to guess, it was probably the small Chinese craft, not the larger French one which is pictured in that article. According to the Wik link, the French one had American supplied Harpoon ASMs, but they ran out. That gunboat boat does have a larger deck-mounted gun, though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on Iranian speedboats threaten US ships.

  • Last Post
3
Replies
55
Views
8K
  • Last Post
10
Replies
232
Views
20K
Replies
3
Views
861
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
2K
Top