About those Iranian speedboats

[Lanya]

U.S.: Voices on Recording May Not Have Been From Iranian Speedboats
Chilling Threat Could Have Come From the Shore or Another Ship, Navy Says
By MARTHA RADDATZ and JONATHAN KARL

Jan. 10, 2008?

Just two days after the U.S. Navy released the eerie video of Iranian speedboats swarming around American warships, which featured a chilling threat in English, the Navy is saying that the voice on the tape could have come from the shore or from another ship.

The near-clash occurred over the weekend in the Strait of Hormuz. On the U.S.-released recording, a voice can be heard saying to the Americans, "I am coming to you. You will explode after a few minutes."

The Navy never said specifically where the voices came from, but many were left with the impression they had come from the speedboats because of the way the Navy footage was edited.

Today, the spokesperson for the U.S. admiral in charge of the Fifth Fleet clarified to ABC News that the threat may have come from the Iranian boats, or it may have come from somewhere else.

We're saying that we cannot make a direct connection to the boats there," said the spokesperson. "It could have come from the shore, from another ship passing by. However, it happened in the middle of all the very unusual activity, so as we assess the information and situation, we still put it in the total aggregate of what happened Sunday morning. I guess we're not saying that it absolutely came from the boats, but we're not saying it absolutely didn't."

The Iranians have denied using the threatening language and are saying U.S.-released video is fabricated. Today, the Iranian government aired its own video of the event on state-run TV there. On the audio, the voice that the Iranians say is the communication from their vessel can be heard identifying itself to the American ship, "Coalition warship No. 73 this is an Iranian navy patrol boat."

The incident ended without shots being fired, but senior defense officials told ABC News that the USS Hopper's gunners were within seconds of firing on the Iranians.

Copyright ? 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4115702

[Michael Tee]

There's been a lot of comment indicating the audiotape is a fake, and a pretty crude one at that, so now of course the Navy is backpedalling furiously.  "Didn't come from the boats.  Mighta come from the shore.  Nobody knows where it comes from."   Well that's not quite true.  Somebody in the U.S. Navy knows exactly where it came from and is catching a shitload of verbal abuse for producing such a lousy, amateurish fake.

[Lanya]

This is Bizarro World politics.
If Bush is on tv giving a real concerned speech about something (like, oh, Social Security or WMD) then it's a fake concern.

If he's on vacation and cutting cakes and playing guitar, a city is drowning and no one's helping. 

[BT]

The fact is a bunch of speedboats did come up to a naval vessel in hostile waters and dump boxes overboard right in their path. The fact is someone broadcast the threat to the vessels.

[Michael Tee]

<<The fact is a bunch of speedboats did come up to a naval vessel in hostile waters and dump boxes overboard right in their path. >>

Maybe yes, maybe no.  Even if it happened, which is in itself doubtful, given the reputation for lying and fakery that the Navy has built up for itself over the years, the probability is high that either (a) the Navy deliberately provoked the incident or (b) the procedure is routine "testing" that each side performs on the other, blown up out of all proportion by the Navy, in both cases for the purpose of stirring the pot to enhance McCain's candidacy and probably ensure that his Democratic opponent will be Hillary.

<<The fact is someone broadcast the threat to the vessels.>>

Yeah, and that someone was working for the U.S. Navy.

[BT]

Maybe yes, maybe no.

I believe the Iranians denied provoking, they did not deny being there.

<<The fact is someone broadcast the threat to the vessels.>>

Maybe yes, maybe no.

[Xavier_Onassis]

One should not discount the possibility that in some way the Israelis are behind the mysterious voices. It's the sort of thing that Mossad has done in the past...

[Plane]

I have been there.

This happened once to my ship , while we were in the southern part of the Persian Gulf.

Must have been 79.

A gun boat about 40' came out and circled us , it was flying the Iranian Flag and training .50 calibers on us.

After a minute we unlimbered our 5" guns and trained on them swiveling the turrents to keep them covered as they circled us .

No shooting occured , just that rude aiming at one another.

Dumping boxes overboard in the path of a ship is a potential problem , the Japaneese Navy won a sea battle by dropping floating mines in the path of the Russian Navy as they seemed to flee. When the Impearial Russians ran into the minefeild their battleships were severely damaged and the smaller Japaneese fleet circled back to sink them.

Perhaps it is wrong to second guess a captains decisions from way over here , but I feel somewhat as if the captains of those ships were remiss and incautious. They should have shot the boats when their behavior became threatining.

[Michael Tee]

<<They should have shot the boats when their behavior became threatining.>>

Even if they were in Iranian waters?  What kind of threat is there when the Iranians identified themselves to the U.S. ships and the audiotape of a threat produced by the U.S. Navy is in all probability a fake?

It's obvious that the Iranians did not wish to provoke a shooting war, but I believe they will hit back if attacked without reason by the U.S. Navy.  If war is what the U.S. wants, war is what they will get.  A very foolish move considering the shellacking they have already absorbed from just 23 million Iraqis and the likely effect on oil prices coming when their own war-weakened economy is staggering, but it looks like even Bush has learned something from the gob-smacking he has received and he is confining his aggression to his best format, that of inarticulate, senseless blathering.

[Plane]

<<They should have shot the boats when their behavior became threatining.>>

Even if they were in Iranian waters?  What kind of threat is there when the Iranians identified themselves to the U.S. ships and the audiotape of a threat produced by the U.S. Navy is in all probability a fake?

It's obvious that the Iranians did not wish to provoke a shooting war, but I believe they will hit back if attacked without reason by the U.S. Navy.  If war is what the U.S. wants, war is what they will get.  A very foolish move considering the shellacking they have already absorbed from just 23 million Iraqis and the likely effect on oil prices coming when their own war-weakened economy is staggering, but it looks like even Bush has learned something from the gob-smacking he has received and he is confining his aggression to his best format, that of inarticulate, senseless blathering.

Dumping a box in the path of a warship is asking for martyrdom.
It might be foolish , but it might also be what they want.

Last time the USNavy was attacked by a small boat with a bomb , the occupants didn't even try to get away from the explosion.

This did not occur in Iranian waters , our ships don't go into Iranian waters , but this becomes a matter of arguement when a nation asserts a 20 mile sovernty on a straight that is barely 15 miles wide.

[yellow_crane]

I saw Richardson "saving" Hillary in the first debate.  Pundits everywhere caught it.  That was the first time I heard discussed Richardson's playing for a top job.

I doubt he thought he had much of a chance.  I realize that many run for president, simply to get that degree.  Certainly it can recycle and build for the second or third time around.

My peeve with Richardson is that he was throwing his hat in Hillary's ring the first night, on stage.   That somehow seems counter to the spirit of the debate, but clearly it was permissable, for he did it without a word during the debate.    Seems calculating and opportunistic and disingenuous, and beyond the thread at hand.

I have no idea why Republicans like Richardson, except for the same reason many non-gendered citizens do--his settled, calming ambiance.  

In a field of candidates, he comes off as as centered and non-panicky.

I would not vote for him for the same reason I would not vote for Obama.

Being able to negotiate well and comport oneself well in ambassitorial situations
is all well and good, and I suppose that sounds almighty fine and good after what we have been through via the auspices of the Corporate Neocons.  But usually someone like that--wanting to weld the middle at all costs--tends to want to force that piece into the puzzle even if it does not fit.  Their mind tends to want to stay in that circuit, at all costs.  They tend to be doctors with a single panacea.  Someone who has these gifts have them sometimes as a compensatory coping mechanism.

Many times, that placid composure thins quick during stress when it does not seem to work.

[Michael Tee]

<<Dumping a box in the path of a warship is asking for martyrdom.>>

Any proof that they DID drop boxes in the path of the U.S. ships?  Funny how the Amerikkkans have videos of the speedboats but none of the boxes being dropped.  If the video shows the speedboats, it oughtta be able to pick up the white boxes too - - IF they ever existed.

<<It [seeking martyrdom] might be foolish , but it might also be what they want.>>

Yeah, well looking to start wars might be foolish, but apparently it's no longer what the Bush administration wants - - unless this is some kind of cover for the war they've already decided to start.  They can start it with a second phony provocation and then "prove" how "peace-loving" they are by showing how they didn't respond violently to the first incident.  Hell, they even filed a "diplomatic protest" to the speedboat incident.  One thing's for certain - - the U.S. government and its Navy are a bunch of lying, war-mongering bastards who pull one dirty trick after another in a vain attempt to fool the world and the Amerikkkan sheeple as to how, despite their "peace-loving" nature, they are always embroiled somewhere in the world in violent disputes with relatively powerless but resource-rich Third World nations who have somehow foolishly and inexplicably decided to attack the world's greatest superpower. 

Whatever is really signified by the speedboat incident, one thing you can count on, even when all else is in doubt - - the U.S. version is a lie.

<<Last time the US Navy was attacked by a small boat with a bomb , the occupants didn't even try to get away from the explosion.>>

LAST time?  Wasn't there only ONE time?  Besides which, there wasn't even an attack this time.  Things are definitely getting better for the U.S. Navy.

<<This did not occur in Iranian waters , our ships don't go into Iranian waters , but this becomes a matter of arguement when a nation asserts a 20 mile sovernty on a straight that is barely 15 miles wide.>>

What's the current U.S. territorial limit on coastal waters, 12 miles?

[Amianthus]

LAST time?  Wasn't there only ONE time?

No. There has been only one recent SUCCESSFUL attack on a Naval vessel by a small boat, but there have been several attempts.

[yellow_crane]

Been busy, and have not had a chance to respond to those on the Cole being asleep, claimeth thee.

I am sorry, but when you have a naval ship unable to cope with a outboard rowboat with a jerking Mercury, you are asleep, at least by military standards.

There is all the equiptment you need on a ship to focus on this kind of fly, enough so that it minimizes any happy-trigger-can't-bear-the-stress sailor from gumming up the works and starting an incident.

The captain of the Cole, if fact, should step down.

Wonder if that perception would strain the penchant of the military for those kinds of incidents?

[Amianthus]

The captain of the Cole, if fact, should step down.

Why? Because he didn't shoot up the PORT he was in?

Hate to tell you this, but there are lots of small ships in ports. If our Navy made it a habit of shooting every small ship in every port they docked in, how long would you support that policy?

Note the unsuccessful attempts were not in ports - they were at sea where the Navy could avoid / destroy the enemy.